Talk:United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–1924)

Changes
I removed the wiki projects Mexico, the Dominican Republic is a separate and Sovereign country as is Mexico.

Nice POV
Kudos to those who inserted the subtle POV! 71.200.35.243 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Which one (of the various) are you referring to? Historian (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Restoring Order?
I wonder what was the purpose of including this phrase to explain the forced entrance and conquest of a country with a fraction of the resources of the invader? This phrase continues the same idea that provoked the invasion in the first place: "they can't governed themselves; we need to bring order." Any thoughts? Historian (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Background/Causes?
This article makes no reference to the background, causes, motivation, etc. of the occupation--only the military action of the occupation itself. Any thoughts? Patchoulidrop (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is a much-needed section. Please, help out. Historian (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

American vs. United States in articles about other American nations
Dear Amerijuanican, just to let you know the reason I reverted your change in the article United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–24). A group of editors are trying to maintain a sense of appropriateness and cultural reality with articles and the regions they represent. Not until 9/11 was the term "American" so generalized in the US media and print culture. Prior to the catastrophic act of terrorism, "of United States" was interchangeable with "an American" at an almost equal rate. Yet, there was still a debate over the imperial air it exuded, particularly because of protests from other countries in the Americas (opinions were never in unisons, of course). People from Canada to Tierra del Fuego think of themselves as Americans too. In every single official language on this hemisphere, there is a demonym for people living in the United States (in Spanish is estadounidense), which tells you how things are viewed differently from other countries. The history of this contradiction is more complicated that what it seems, and we are quick to admit that there is no simple solution, but in order to keep a sense of global understanding, we prefer to keep U.S. over American wherever is appropriate and viable. Thanks for understanding. Historian (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This simply isn't correct. This encylopaedia uses the English language, and in all dialects of the English language, "American" unambiguously refers to the United States of America. The people of that country are Americans. I understand that the situation in other languages is different, but we don't force English usage on the Spanish Wikipedia, and likewise that cannot be done here. An adjective is appropriate in this instance, and so "American" should be used, in line with standard English usage. "American" has been the standard usage since Colonial period, and does not have anything to do with the 11th of September attacks. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment about the need for an adjective is correct. I should have written the possessive United States' instead. However, your comment here is at odds with a long tradition of writing United States' in place of American. Reading a bit more broadly you will notice what I mean. When you read history books about American History, you will always get the same way of writing: American. But when you begin reading history books in English and even written by American scholars but about other parts of the world and meant to be read outside of the US you will see a more common use of United States' as a term instead of American. If you do a word search in Advance Book, Google you will notice that even US Government documents (like I just did) used the US in place of simply and always American. For just a single recent example: Michael Gough, Aviation and Speed Supremacy, 1920-1925, pages: 112 and 201. The number of examples is countless. Besides, the debate is long and still heated. Just do a google search on it. Our suggestion is not to generalize the use of United States' in place of American. No. It is simply to follow the same practice that American writers have had whenever they write for a more general audience: to use the term United States' more often than American, simply because from different geographical and cultural perspectives it just looks wrong.Historian (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't "wrong" for any native English speaker. It is the standard usage. I'm British, and "Americans" are always "American", the "United States" is always "America", &c. The same applies in all other English-speaking countries. I don't know who you are referring to when you say "our suggestion", but such "suggestions" have no relevance in this matter. In accordance with our policies and guidelines, we follow common usage, which is "American". To counter your claims, The Economist, a British publication read the world over, and written for a world audience, always uses "American" and "America". When "America and South Africa" is written in this article, there is no ambiguity as to what is meant. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, how would you know if you are not in the Dominican Republic nor are you Dominican, and have no idea of how it looks. For what I am reading you, we are not communicating effectively. Simply put, there is more than one way to write "American Victory." By eliminating my own writing (I was the one who wrote it originally) you are imposing what is in fact an alternative writing. You mentioned the Economist, just look at this headline, one of the thousand's of examples within this same British journal: Undefended no more; The United States-Canadian border," (The Economist, 11/2014). Why is that the subtitle does not read "The American-Canadian border"? If I follow your own source of good English, my suggestions for this article are totally fine, then. Perhaps there is something we are not having clear. Again, there is more than one way of writing "American Victory." When I said it "looks wrong," I did not mean it grammatically. Moreover, you say that there is only one definition to the word "American." If so, why is that in every single English dictionary I find there is more than one, and one of them refers exactly to my concern here. Look for example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/american So it is not "unambiguously" as you wrote before. Historian (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Invasion versus occupation: a split in the article
Herbinator95 just changed the word "occupation" for "invasion" claiming that invasion better represents the idea of occupying a country by force. I am all for making things clear, particularly if the intent is to highlight a wrong doing long hidden from view. The problem is that the word occupation is the best word for what happened. An invasion refers not to the act of occupying a foreign territory without permission, but only to the act of entering. The word occupation, however, refers to both actions, to enter and keep it. For example, in dictionary.com (as well with other dictionaries) the 7th definition states: "the seizure and control of an area by military forces, especially foreign territory." The act of seizing is about grabbing while controlling implies the keeping of the territory just seized. In other words, the term "occupation" holds both meanings together: entering and keeping control, which is what happened in the US invasion of the DR in 1916 (as it happened the year before with Haiti, and four years back with Nicaragua). The occupation officially lasted from 1916 to 1924, but it actually began earlier with the takeover of the customhouses. None of the definitions for the term "invasion," however, refers to the act of occupying. Take for example the US involvement in Iraq. There is an article for the most recent invasion named, "2003 invasion of Iraq" that refers only to the act of entering by force. There is another one, however, for the act of occupying it: US occupation of Iraq (which has been redirected to History of Iraq (2003–11) for many complex reasons). The article about the US invasion of Haiti is not the one when the US occupied Haiti in 1915, but the article about the US entering Haiti between 19 September 1994 – 31 March 1995, which was not meant to occupy, but to quickly change governments (among other things). The ghosts of the 1915 occupation were hovering above the US administration at the time and purposely proclaimed they did not intend to occupy.

While I do not think the word invasion is a better word than occupation to describe what the US did in the DR from 1916 to 1924, I admit that the box to the right in the article refers not to the occupation, but to the war/battles that led the invasion, which might be the reason, why Herbinator95 thought the word invasion was a better fit. So, I propose a split: one article for the invasion, which will focus on the military invasion of the DR (which, btw, was not between a the US vs. a Dominican army as it is portrayed in the box, but more between US marines supported by Dominican personnel versus a faction or branch of the Dominican army). And another article that will focus on the US occupation of the country, which would consider the takeover of the custom houses and other key official posts even before taking complete control of the government, would deal with the occupation program the US Navy had for the country, and would cover the long diplomatic process that led to the US withdrawing from the country. Having two articles, one to describe the invasion and the other the occupation, is not an exception, but rather the norm. Again, look at the example of the US invasion and then occupation of Iraq. They are two articles, not one.

As I wait for input from other editors, I will change the wording, but not to revert Herbinator95's contribution. Rather, I will add "occupation" and keep it together with "invasion" to reflect the double nature of this article and to prod others to help with writing an article for each term. As it is right now, this article is about both, an invasion and occupation. The ultimate purpose is to use just one term for this article, namely, occupation, but not until we have an article that will describe the invasion, in which the box to the right would fit well. Hope to hear other views. Historian (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Numbers of soldiers and casualties
and it seems useless to continue changing each other's contributions without a discussion. The moment that changed 's input and explained in the comments section that the source was unreliable, I emailed the page managers but received a dismissive response. They gave me a list of other forums to post my question. So, I searched for the site's reputation and found mixed reviews. It is even cited in an academic book, but it is also reported in a rip-off page. I then presented the case in WP's noticeboard for issues related to sources reliability and after reading another editor's response arrived at the conclusion that it may serve well for the article's external section, but not as a source in a footnote. The website could still be used in a note as a place that claims to have the numbers, but not, for example, in the box section where we claim reliable numbers. The point is simple: as alluded in his comment, the page does not provide the source of their numbers. Until they or somebody else explain the origin of their figures, it is the same as an intelligent guess. For this reason, I side with the previous change and will roll it back accordingly. Per my views expressed above, I will add the site to the external links section. If you have a different opinion, please, let us know here. Don't make contributing to this article any harder by rolling back other people's additions without a clear explanation and a proper conversation on this Talk Page. Thanks Historiador (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've really been through the wringer trying to find legitimacy in this reference, I've done somewhat of the same myself (although without attempts to gain official Wiki assistance) and share your frustration. It's annoying but necessary so well done. There's now a consensus, however small, on this article that enables the revision of all casualty section edits back to the current version, unless a more reliable source is provided of course. Cheers. Amerijuanican (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Consequences
This note is about writing in this article of consequences of the first US invasion to the DR. A listmus question for deciding over what was a consequence or a correlation is often, "could it have happened without the event?" For it to be a "very likely" outcome the answer should be the opposite: "not very likely." If we put this question to the test in regards to Trujillo's rise to power, however, the answer does not render a hard consequence: could have Trujillo climbed to power without the U.S. invasion? Of course. There would have been roadblocks, like breaking through an entrenched oligarchy to which he did not belong, the bringing of a fragmented nation under a centralized control, but in truth, no unpassable obstacle. The creation of a professional national army (guard), the establishment of paved roads, the setting of an advanced system of communication, the breaking down of local caudillos, and the balancing of the national budget all facilitated Trujillo's rise to power, but it did not make it happen. The nation was already moving toward that direction already during the regimes prior to the US invasion (all of them bent in "reforming" the system). The US just made Trujillo's elevation easier by accelerating "modernization" and handing him a ladder to step over other leaders faster. But it did not make it happen. Trujillo's ascension is actually more related to movements and issues that were common to Latin American nations, which helped catapult people like Betancourt and Perón to power--though Trujillo's elevation is closer to Somoza's and to  Duvalier's in that the US invasions of their countries helped define their type of autocratic leadership (by facilitating the issues mentioned above). In other words, Trujillo could have very likely rose to power and ruled somewhat less autocratically (as Betancourt and Perón) without the US invasion. There is a better case, however, to argue that the US invasions in LA countries have tended to result in totalitarian (different from authoritarian) governments, which is not the same as saying that the US invasion of the DR led to Trujillo's rise to power.

In addition to the arguments above, the latest changes brought by Gpandiella to the article lack reliable sources and require a more encyclopedic language, the one needed for topics that are highly debatable. I would appreciate if you could follow up with comments here. Thanks. Caballero / Historiador ⎌  20:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Background?
I think this needs a section for the background of the occupation. Just something I saw when I was doing some research on the history of the island of Hispania for the heck of it -aman0226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman0226 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Source 15 reliable?
The 15th listed source (https://nacla.org/news/2016/05/25/one-hundred-years-after-occupation), makes claims about how Americans spread racism based on Jim Crow, and creating stigma about Afro-religious groups. The author is a PhD in ethnic studies and the source is nacla.org (Which I'm unsure about it's quality), but the biggest issue is some of the claims aren't verified. Particularly the claim about Jim Crow is unverified and Dominican racism about Haitians is better explained by their shared history and the same can be said about the stigma on Afro-religious groups. Not sure if the source is ok or not. Xenonalchemist (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)