Talk:United States occupation of Haiti

Can someone that actually knows about Haitian History write this article?
I find this article very one-sided as a whole. I am sorry to say it but it's clear that it was written by Americans. I suggest some of you guys do a Jstor search and find more recent articles on the Marine Occupation. I mean, there is barely a mention of Prince-Mars (not very well explained) and how he took part in the creation of the haitian indigenous movement that in part, led to the noirisme movement. The noirisme movement is a direct consequence of the anger blacks felt towards Americans and more wealthy mulattoes. The victory of Estimé in 1946, and the advent of Duvalier in 1957 are direct consequences of that. I don't have time at the moment to correct the article, but please, if you are going to write about a subject, research it, and by that I mean, not just repeating what your world history professor said to you. It's not about painting the US as the evil party here (although, in all historical accuracy, it's simply unacceptable to pretend that because the US brought some new infrastructure to Haiti, the occupation as a whole was beneficial, and the psychological legacies it had on Haitian imagination and society should be dismissed), it's about trying to recall a history with some some sense of honesty.
 * As an American myself, I agree that Haitian sources and Haitian POVs are absolutely crucial. I'm certain you yourself can help a great deal with it. That being said, there is one major problem I notice, specially "'s simply unacceptable to pretend that because the US brought some new infrastructure to Haiti, the occupation as a whole was beneficial,". Simply put, while the latter can at least be argued (but I hardly find that it is outside the realm of reason, given the wonders of Haitian politics up to- and let's face it, after= that period), but how can you even argue the former? The US occupation did indeed see major infrastructural overhauls, even if using them to help the Haitians wasn't the first thing on the mind of the planners. So at best, that strikes me as unsupported bias. Regards. 75.36.167.89 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The US improvements to Haitian infrastructure came at the cost of economic development (due to 'squaring' it's debts), and allowing foreigners to own land has probably lead to wealth being slowly leached out of the country as well. Essentially, the US helped freeze Haiti as a third world country and stole the populations ability for self-determination. Similar actions had been carried out in the Philippines and Hawai'ia. More research is necessary the article is currently biased, which may or may not be explained by editor bias. 66.45.157.213 (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘Probably’? Not much research, there.
 * And the idea that Haiti was poor because of US taking money-look at the balance sheet. How much taken out, how much put in? It did help the banks, but it was the us taxpayer doing that, not poverty-stricken Haiti. Comparing the situation to Hawaii is even more silly, but not for here. 2601:647:6680:4450:F013:B7AB:7944:59BD (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What I was going to say was, that this article was written in a far-left POV and needs to be substantially rewritten. ‘Robbery of the gold’, really? Even some of the citations here will tell you what actually happened.
 * If Wikipedia is going to allow this idea that the chronic poverty of Haiti is all the fault of the U.S., maybe a Haitian should write it. It would be a look into one of the the local mindsets, anyway. And give more info on how the local perceptions of the occupation were used by later demagogues. 2601:647:6680:4450:F013:B7AB:7944:59BD (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Untitled
As there hasn't been anything listed here, and the article seems NPOV to me, I am removing the disputed tag that was added on Nov. 20 M i c 06:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the line about the "Occupation of Haiti" and "though these may have partially been under the UN banner the US was the prime mover" are as clearly POV as anything I've read. First, the assistance the united nations gave to the Haitian Government was not "partial", the United states was the largest force by far, but that changes nothing, the US made up the bulk of international forces in the Korean War, the Gulf War, The peacekeeping action in Bosnia, The Air war wirh Kosovo and the current NATO lead Afghan War, but that does not mean that these are not being lead by the UN and NATO, its a reasonable opinion that the country who sent over half of the force themselves is the nation that is in charge, but that's what it is, an opinion. Besides, the assistance we gave the Haitian Government in 94 and 2004 hardly meet common definitions of an Occupation considering the tiny size of the force we sent, the fact that we never had control over any facets of the government and didn't stay to actually you know, occupy the country. Also, its confusing to read such comparisons when the main article is on actual, lengthy occupations designed to protect US national interests in the country and region. If there is a real argument with me removing this portion refering to 94 and 2004 then please speak up, I will remove it tommorow.Colin 8 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to rewrite this, here are some things to consider:
 * When the Marines first landed in Haiti in 1915, they found race-based and religious caste systems. The wealthiest 10 percent of Haiti’s population oppressed the remaining people. The ruling elite minority was comprised of mixed-race Haitians who spoke French, professed Catholicism, lived in urban areas, and found work in the government or with banks or corporations. Many of them owed their status directly or indirectly to American commercial activities. This elite class tended to ignore or antagonize their fellow Haitians who believed in Voodoo. Among the 90 percent, the impoverished and illiterate Haitian peasant majority, known as noirs, were of purer African ancestry. They spoke Creole, practiced Voodoo, and survived as subsistence farmers.
 * As Marines spent more time in Haiti, they came to dislike the Haitian elite. Some Marines sympathized with the poor Haitian peasants in rural areas, Voodoo practices and racial prejudice notwithstanding. In a report from the early 1930s, one Marine remarked
 * No matter what crimes [Marines] might count against the better class of Haitian (I refer to the peasants, those without benefit of education) such crimes could not conceivably equal in effect and in their atrocious nature the crimes that have been committed against [the peasants] by the lower class—the professional Haitian politician.
 * You see, coups and repression existed in Haiti a long time before. There is a case that the occupation was an attempt to improve, however misguided ( or misrepresented). 2601:647:6680:4450:F013:B7AB:7944:59BD (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Causes
"The instability in Haiti provided a potential opening for German influence during the ongoing World War I."
 * LMAO* Now if this not the most absurd nonsense I ever read. Germany fighting a costly ground war thousands of miles away, it´s Navy locked up in the North Sea and Germany is to do what? Increase it´s influence in the oh so important island of Haiti. You got to be kidding! Markus Becker02 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing laughable and absurd about this is yourself, Marcus. Just because you haven't studied "the WWI Caribbean 101" doesn't change a damn whit. The fact that Germany was fighting a costly ground war thousands of miles away didn't stop them from courting every Mexican leader from Pancho Villa to "El Chacal", or trying and failing to play bushfire war in South Africa or Latin America. The German military (and navy in particular) had very considerable interests in the Caribbean and Haiti in particular, probably dating well back to before the joint blockade of Venezuela they had with the British and Italians. It certainly didn't stop them from sailing up and down showing the flag and occasionally shooting up the Haitian Navy, and it didn't stop them from fielding an enviable intelligence network throughout Hispaniola. None of this is exactly new news, and it wasn't when you wrote this. So please do some research or STFU. 75.36.167.89 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Mexico
Why? This has nothing to do with Mexico. Coemgenus 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Former country?
Why WikiProject Former Countries? Haiti still exists, last time I checked. Coemgenus 16:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But the occupation does noty and the project also covers former regimes and their subdivisions. Dimadick (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

US had no choice?!
"It is alleged that a popular uprising against Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam threatened American business interests in the country (such as HASCO). Due to these competing interests and the possibility of the cacos -supported, anti-American Rosalvo Bobo emerging as the next President of Haiti, the American government had no choice but to act quickly if they desired to preserve their economic dominance over Haiti.[2]" This reads like a tabloid news report or a lame novel. No choice.. BOGUS. yaay world police come in and stop the germans from exploiting all the black people LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.181.32 (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Partiality?
I'm not sure how to challenge the partiality of this page, but there are several things said in it and a general tone which seems to me to be very judgmental. The US may indeed deserve to be chastised for its actions in Haiti, but this article is not the place to do it. I was especially irritated by this section:  "In the U.S., Haiti is portrayed as a world apart: the "poorest country in the western hemisphere"-a place of inexplicable violence and instability, horrible poverty, and scant resources. Seldom are we reminded that this was the first nation in America after the U.S. to achieve independence, and was the first Black republic-that this is a country with a history not only of repression and violence but also of heroism, resistance, immense human and cultural vitality. Far from being "a world apart," Haiti has from its inception been all too firmly locked into a world system that has exploited, battered, and abused its natural and human resources. Perhaps the starkest omission is that the U.S. has played a long and devastating role in Haiti, including a brutal nineteen-year military occupation, from 1915 to 1934." The rest of the paragraph goes on in a similar manner. Since when do reference encyclopedias have articles written in the first person-"we"-and issue stern moral judgments in the midst of recounting historical facts? This needs to be either completely re-written or deleted altogether. 09:17, 16 March, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.110.78 (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is pretty glaringly stupid. 75.36.167.89 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I presume this moralistic material was removed ..? If so, it would be good to say so. Feroshki (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Caco War
Caco War seems to do nothing but talk about a minor portion of this article. There's no real point to it; it's the same topic with less substance. I suggest merging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt Agent (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Caco War was a major series of incidents during the course of the Haitian occupation by the U.S., during which most of the fighting between Haitians (in this case, the Haitian Caco Mercenary organization) and United States Marines occurred. As such, it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and thus, should be kept as an independent. Not only that, but it deserves at least some mention in the main article about the occupation. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

US actions in Haiti
A paragraph describing US actions in Haiti was recently removed for not being NPOV. Is it more appropriate to edit the information rather than delete it wholesale?

The removed paragraph quoted Mary A. Renda. She has written "Taking Haiti: Military Occupation and the Culture of U.S. Imperialism, 1915-1940". I am not sure if this was the intended source of the deleted material.

Other sources in which one can find details of oppressive US actions are:

Paul Farmer, "The Uses of Haiti".

"A Country Study: Haiti" Library of Congress Call Number F1934 .D64 2001

On the other hand, a citation is needed for the positive impacts of the US occupation, namely the building of infrastructure. One source is the library of congress study mentioned above, however it does not mention the specific numbers that are quoted in the WP article. --Heysan (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Support The Merge
Support I support the merge. B-Machine (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a contribution to this Wiki page. I feel that it lacks in giving the Haitian perspective of the occupation. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions before I make the contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JN 7 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States occupation of Haiti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228085317/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/88275.htm to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/88275.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Tortuga ??
the articles states " ... Germany's defeat meant its end as a menace to the U.S. in the Caribbean, as it lost control of Tortuga..". This is the single reference to Tortuga, and is not mentioned at the Tortuga page. It's a very strange reference, given that Imperial Germany's capacity to influence the Caribbean must have been vanishingly small, and for sure Germany never controlled Tortuga. Feroshki (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonsensical claims
For example "the nation was using eighty percent of its wealth to pay debt to foreign nations by the late-1800s". First, this looks like it's confusing wealth with income. Second, there's just no way this is true. Debt payments were about a quarter of government revenue at peak not 80%. And since wealth is a multiple of income the statement is just absurd. I'm guessing that what this is referring to is Debt-to-GDP ratio. Or possibly the ratio of external debt to GDP. Either way that is a completely different concept. This is why we don't use trashy sources like The Jacobin for factual claims.  Volunteer Marek  08:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The text further down in article suggests that the above description is correct: "Haiti's large debt – which was 80 percent of its annual revenue– was held by three nations". So this "80% of its wealth" is really just debt to revenue ratio. There are a lot of countries which have similar or higher today and are doing just fine economically (Japan for example).  Volunteer Marek  08:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking about coups with no prior introduction
"Various revolutionary armies carried out the coups. " This sentence is in the first paragraph of the section titled "Instability…"

What coups? That has not been established yet. A2fnr (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)