The Haitian earthquake has been a disaster that any small country would have a difficult time dealing with. However, Haiti is almost unique in its disastrous social collapse. What happened ? Jared Diamond studied Haiti in his book, Collapse.
Here is a discussion of Diamond’s theory.
It’s very interesting: The Spaniards came to the island of Hispaniola first, settling mostly on the greener (rainier) side. Before long, the home country got too preoccupied with growing difficulties elsewhere in its empire to pay much attention to Hispaniola anymore. The French showed up later, took the dry end of the island, and then—because they were rich and their empire was on the rise—were able to convert it to intensive sugar cane cultivation, importing and brutally exploiting lots and lots of African slaves who eventually got fed up and revolted. Once independent, the Haitians understandably wanted to stop hacking at sugar cane. They also wanted to keep the Europeans out. So Haiti settled into an existence of isolation and subsistence farming. The Spanish side of the island, which eventually became the Dominican Republic, experienced no such sugar-cane boom, and was conquered by the Haitians a couple of times along the way, but welcomed immigrants from Europe and developed multiple cash crops.
OK, so climate had a role and slavery had a role.
Then, in the 20th century, both Haiti and Dominican Republic were ruled for decades by murderous tyrants, but the Dominican murderous tyrant (Rafael Trujillo) was at least interested in industrial development. He was also eventually succeeded by a former minion (Joaquín Balaguer) who, while not at all a nice guy, did turn out to be a patriot and a total tree hugger. Meanwhile, Haiti’s despicable “Papa Doc” Duvalier was succeeded by his only slightly less despicable son. The result: The Dominican Republic, while still poor, is much richer than Haiti—and it still has trees.
Neither of them made out well in the governance department. Typically, commenters on blogs that deal with these issues make a big deal of the fact that US Marines occupied Haiti from 1918 to 1934. I suspect that was a golden age for Haiti but that sort of thing doesn’t go over well in leftist academic circles.
Tyler Cowen has more ideas including a list of Haitian curses.
Voodoo religion ?
The comparison with Barbados is pretty interesting. Barbados exported manual laborers to the Panama Canal project. This resulted in an exodus of young men who might otherwise be unemployed or depress wages. They also sent home remittances that funded many social improvements.
Governor Carter refused to limit emigration because the remittances sent back to Barbados from the Panama workers had markedly improved the economy, especially for poorer tenant farmers. In a country that had recently been on the brink of collapse, he was not going to tinker with that.
Agents went out into the crowd to interview and select potential workers. A doctor then checked the potential workers, selecting those who would receive a contract. In 1907, Arthur Bullard described the scene as follows:
“Several policemen kept the crowd in order and sent them up into the recruiting station in batches of 100 at a time. As the men came up, they were formed in a line around the wall. First, all those who looked too old, or too young, or too weakly, were picked out and sent away. Then they were told that no man who had previously worked on the canal would be taken again. Then the doctor told them all to roll up their left sleeves and began a mysterious examination of their forearms. He saw that a few men had been vaccinated by him already, and these were sent away. One protested that a dog had bitten him there. Then, he went over the whole line gain for trachoma, rolling back their eyelids and looking for inflammation. Seven or eight fell at this test. Then he made them strip, and went over them round after round for tuberculosis, heart trouble, and rupture. About 20 of 100 were left at the end.”
The whole situation stirred up some resentment and anger.
The selected migrants reported back to the docks a few days later. After a second medical examination and a check to insure that every emigrant had a number that matched the one on their contract, they boarded the steamers, where they had to find deck space and food for themselves during the 12 day voyage to Colón. According to a report presented to the Barbados Legislative Council, the atmosphere on the docks was fairly hostile towards the ruling class. The crowds would “abuse whites and aggressively denounce them” before boarding.
The result, however, was interesting at home.
Ironically, the departure of so many angry young men gave plenty of leverage to those who stayed behind. One prospective emigrant was heard telling his co-workers, “Why you don’t hit the manager in the head and come along with we?” His co-workers refrained from assaulting the manager, but there was a wave of plantation labor disputes, and the following song became fairly common:
We want more wages, we want it now
And if we don’t get it, we’re going to Panama
Yankees say they want we down there
We want more wages, we want it now
And what do you know? Wages went up. By 1910, the American consul in Bridgetown reported that agricultural workers received 30¢ per day, a 25% rise in nominal wages over the 1900 level. More importantly, unpaid labor — remember the located labor laws? — basically disappeared. Planters reacted to the new environment. First, they started to employ tenant women in the fields. Second, they modernized production. In 1910 there were no modern sugar centrals on the island — intead, windmill-powered presses wasted upwards of 30% of the raw material. By 1921, in contrast, 19 modern sugar centrals had entered operation. Third, they mobilized politically to halt emigration.
Haiti was not so lucky. Today, The Dominican Republic, while quite poor, has five times the average annual income of Haiti and Barbados, with a similar post-slavery background, is prosperous and has a booming tourist economy.
Over time remittances grew, peaking at $2.39 per person in 1913 — a bit more than a week’s labor for a male worker at 1910 wage rates. Not nothing, but not the millenium, either.
But the indirect impact was huge. First, it bolstered the growth of smallholders. In 1897, an estimated 8,500 small proprietors held a bit less than 10,000 acres. By 1912, 13,152 smallholders owned plots. Assuming that the average size of holding remained constant, this represented an increase in smallholder ownership of 5500 acres, or over 22 square kilometers, five percent of the land area of Barbados. By 1929, the number of smallholding households had further increased to 17,731. Land ownership on the island remained astoundingly concentrated, but the percentage of Barbadians who owned property rose from 18% in 1897 to 40% by 1929.*
Second, it supercharged the Barbadian banking system. Barbadians opened 16,094 new accounts in government savings banks between 1906 and 1913, and deposits increased 88%. In 1920, deposits per person surpassed $11. That was a level of financial penetration about half of contemporary Spain and two-thirds of Italy; very high for a country as poor as Barbados. It prefigured the island’s emergence as a regional banking center a half-century later.
Very interesting comparisons. There seems to be little mention of the fact that what we are talking about here are property rights and capitalism.
I wonder if we could see another US occupation ? Not with this president.
Hey doc,
Good stuff. Nah, Obama won’t occupy Haiti, but he might open the immigration floodgates to Haitians, and give those already in the U.S., including Haitians with outstanding deportation orders, Temporary Protected Status, which is in reality permanent.
I fear you’re right, Norcal.
In the spirit of black humor (DOUBLE POINTS FOR THE DOUBLE ENTENDRE!) allow me to add to the “occupation” scenario —
(AP) WASHINGTON DC — Today, President Obama has appointed former Washington DC mayor Marion Shepilov Berry Jr. (yeah… no shit… that’s his full name!) as “Protector” of Haiti…
Can’t you just see it, guys! Real estate would soon be booming – Ranglevilles and Doddlands emerging (via U.S. aid) popping up all over the the former Haiti – renamed “Clintonia” in honor Bill and Hillary.
BILL
On a serious note…
What a shame.
I mean… most of the world deserves the reaction “what a shame,” but since Haiti is in our backyard their problems are more front and center.
There’s no helping Haiti. There’s no reforming Haiti. It’s a lost cause.
Oh, sure, our “first responders” and those who follow WILL save lives and WILL improve lives… for awhile… for a few.
It is what it is though; there’s no solution. Things are too far gone there.
And you know what… things are going to get worse – FAR WORSE.
It’ll be interesting to see how the media covers (or downplays) the violence and horrors soon to unfold.
One thing for certain… Obama won’t be blamed. He’ll have “tried his best” regardless of what the coming weeks and months hold in store for the people of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Hey… I’m not saying that Obama SHOULD be blamed for what will be the inevitable shortfalls of what even U.S. aid can accomplish, but I am thinking of New Orleans and Katrina, when Bush got the blame for the incompetence and errors of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco and for decades of neglect and corruption both in Louisiana and Washinton DC.
BILL
Clinton bears some responsibility for all this since he forced the Haitians to take back that freak Aristide. The Haiti army tried to boot him out and they were forced to back down. Honduras had more guts but they are a far more competent society.
More here by the best reporter on central and south America.
Speaking of Aristide… I wonder how seriously the Obama crew is weighing the “Aristide Solution.”
BTW, your “here” link up above (in your 1:48 pm post) doesn’t work.
BILL
I fixed the link. Thanks
Thanks for fixing that link – excellent link!
“At least part of the resentment about the Clinton appearance in the Haitian capital centered on allegations of corruption. There are unflattering but unavoidable suspicions of the relationship between the Haitian president and Clinton Democrats who went into the long distance telephone business with him after his return to power in 1994.”
Yep. Know all about it. I’ve been reading the Journal since high school, Doc; God bless the Wall Street Journal!
Anyway… my prayers are with the average Haitian… but I doubt they’ll do much good. Nor will any amount of aid or money. Nothing can “fix” Haiti.
BILL
Here’s one of my key fears, Doc:
We have armed troops (soon to be reinforced) in Haiti trying serving the mission of humanitarian relief.
What happens when our forces are attacked?
What happens when our forces simply stumble upon some domestic savagery?
What are the rules of engagement?
Are our “armed” troops even truly armed – weapons locked and loaded, our soldiers equipped with spare ammo?
(Don’t laugh… you know those troops – mainly national guard – you’ll sometimes see patrolling airports or a major city’s subway system? It’s not unknown for their weapons to be empty – no bullets – just for show.)
Anyway… what happens if (when?) one of our troops gets caught up in the Haitian violence? Hmm…? Will he or she be arrested and court marshaled – perhaps convicted of assault or even murder?
(Think of those four SEALS… and there are plenty of other examples.)
God help our troops in Haiti.
BILL
And here’s another thing, Doc:
Do you suppose our people are ALLOWED to be SMART and effective, to be proactive, to “hire” able bodied Haitians for say $10/day (the average wage is/was $2/day as memory serves) to accompany our people and deal with the physical work of gathering and burying the bodies, clearing debris, etc.?
Do you think our people are equipped with and allowed to distribute hammers, nails, shovels, screwdrivers, tools to begin the clean-up and perhaps even rebuilding – and not just tools, but building materials themselves, tents, whatever it takes to start the REBUILDING process as opposed to allowing the homeliness to become a long term refugee problem?
I DOUBT IT. How’bout you…???
AND… ASSUMING MY FEARS ARE REALIZED… would you share my guess that Obama will remain blameless in a historical record sense?
(*SNORT*)
I mean, “buy a man a fish” vs. “teach a man to fish” – which tack would you guess Obama and HRC will take?
(*SIGH*)
Those poor frigg’n people. God help ’em.
BILL
I got you out of the spam filter again. Bill, you must have some magnetism for that spam catcher.
There was an amusing piece by the late David Hackworth, who I used to have an e-mail relationship with, who went to Haiti and set himself up at that time. He was there as a reporter but was one of the most experienced combat vets alive. He rented a villa and hired a bunch of locals as a security force. He had no trouble at all. It was an interesting account of life in Haiti.
Spectacular work! Those people at your competition (you know who) don’t even have a clue! Keep up the good work! I have a Political News Blog site of my own at White Rabbit Cult… I will place a link back to your post. Peace!
Re: Michael Kennedy’s Jan. 15, 2:33 post —
I tell ya, Doc… it’s a small world indeed.
I too used to “chat” with Hack on occasion. I used to run a “newspaper” (I put “newspaper” in quotes because it was actually a marketing tool utilizing a “newspaper” format) where Hack would allow me to post his columns upon request.
Yep. He was a great guy. I didn’t always agree with him, but I always respected him. (Impossible not to – a record like his!)
Hey… if you have a citation (or better yet a link) for that Hackworth account of life in Haiti piece… I would certainly appreciate your posting it and I’m guessing so would your other readers.
BILL
I think it was in this book. He did a column on it but the story of his time there was probably in the book. I have all his books, by the way.
Thanks, Doc; I’ll put it “on the list” for future reading.
I read “About Face” a few years out of college and was immediately hooked on Hack.
He passed way too soon.
I’m guessing he would have been “with me” regarding our Afghanistan policy – would you concur?
BILL
P.S. – Hey… Doc… btw… Happy MLK Jr. Day!
Hack was opposed to the Iraq invasion and I respect that but almost no one talks about what Bush’s alternatives were.
Yes, yes, Hack was opposed to the Iraq invasion… but I was talking about what Hack would think of our present “Afghanistan strategy.”
(That’s why I wrote “Afghanistan policy” as opposed to mentioning Iraq, Doc.)
(*WINK*)
BILL
As to what “Bush’s alternatives were…”
Hmm. Not invade?
Doc. Perhaps you’ve noticed:
Bush didn’t invade North Korea.
Bush didn’t invade Iran.
Bush didn’t invade China.
Doc. The “alternative” to invading Iraq was… umm… NOT invading Iraq.
Pretty simple.
Hey… truth in advertising… as I’ve always been up front on, I myself supported the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam.
Doc. I was wrong.
Doc. You were wrong.
Back to Afghanistan… you and I have discussed this ad nauseum. You’re willing to spend additional billions of (borrowed) dollars and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American lives to “stay the course” in Afghanistan. I’m not.
Doc. I’m right.
Doc. You’re wrong.
Hey… don’t beat yourself up – it happens!
BILL
Bill, first, you might try reading my blog.
Second, you also dismiss the situation in Iraq in 2003. Why did Osama attack us ?
Because we were occupying Saudi Arabia with troops. Why ?
To enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq. Why ?
Because Saddam was violating the cease fire terms.
What were our choices ? We could stay the same course as the sanctions collapsed and the French and Russians made billions from oil-for-food.
We could leave and give the jihadis a propaganda victory for running us out of Saudi.
Or we could invade and support the UN cease fire.
I think we should have turned the place over to Chalabi and the exile group and left once Saddam was flattened. Instead Bremer and the State Dept wanted to play occupier. There are a couple of good books about this. One is Feith’s book, which I reviewed.
Oh… DAMN!
Mike – SORRY – my mistake entirely. Yep. You’re right. Mea culpa. We’ve been on the same page since December.
Actually… we’ve been on the same page since November.
QUOTING YOU: “I don’t think they will be allowed to win. It will be a stalemate and I prefer they are pulled out so that lives are not lost in futile struggle.” Nov. 12, 2009 7:20 pm.
Total mea culpa, Mike… I had you confused with someone else and I sincerely apologize for MY screw-up.
As to Iraq… what do you mean “I ignore the 2003 situation?” How so?
Mike. As I hope I’ve demonstrated up above, I’m the first to slap myself in the forehead when I pull a boneheaded move, but with your refocusing back on Iraq (from Afghanistan) you’ve lost me.
Our choice was to NOT invade Iraq.
Hell… if you wanna further create “choices,” yes… we could have chosen to be as hypocritical and self-serving as the Europeans, particularly the French and Germans as well as the Russians.
Mike. There were PLENTY of choices.
I too believe we should have turned the place over to a puppet regime fronted by Chalabi (assuming the same choice had been made to toppled Saddam) so again we’re on the same page there, but sticking with the actual scenario that played out… with hindsight I believe it’s fairly clear we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Bottom line, what FOLLOWED the invasion did indeed follow. Each of us could come up with likely scenarios where the screw-ups were avoided, but the fact is that the real history is set in stone and so given a theoretical choice only of either replaying that history or canceling it out by saying “if we had it to over again we shouldn’t have done it,” yeah, I think that’s right – we shouldn’t have done it assuming “doing it” meant doing it the way Bush did.
Anyway… again… about Afghanistan I totally mischaracterized your view. It wasn’t on purpose. My mistake! Again… I must have been thinking of someone else who I’ve discussed the matter with.
BILL
My point about Iraq was that we had to make some sort of change. The status quo was not an option.
Uhmm… ok… but what about the basic question: If you could go back in time, knowing how things turned out (so far at least – the cost/benefit as of today) would you still support the invasion or would you say, “Nah… the financial, human, and political costs are too high” and take your chances that had we not invaded Iraq in ’03 the U.S. would be in a stronger position today, January 19, 2009?
BILL