The New York Times recently published a series of articles about the history of Haiti. Unfortunately, I'm writing this essay to call them out. They made two errors. And since this is not an isolated incident, I feel the need to write about it.
As a fellow economist interested in the history of Haiti, I think this is spot on. A few areas I would add are that, even if Haiti had a 2.15% rate of GDP growth during this period, the marginal capital would (likely) have a lower return that the average, thus we would not expect this money to have had the same return if it were retained by Haiti (all else equal). And even supposing these calculations were correct, according to the IMF Haiti's 2015 total capital stock was $61.11 billion, vs. $220.80 for the DR. So while I agree that the indemnity was certainly bad for Haiti (and morally repugnant for France) it can explain only a small part of Haiti's modern economic problems. Of course your advisors would probably not recommend believing IMF capital stock data...
However, I don't think it's clear that Haiti's turn to small farms under Petion was the foundation of its future economic problems (although it may have prevented the country from benefiting from the sugar boom). I would argue that the extremely large gap between Haitian elites and population (racial, cultural, linguistic, urban/rural, etc.) is the driving force, and was even before the revolution. Haiti's development resembles cases in which a small ethnic elite struggles for domination with the rest of the country-- Liberia, Rwanda, etc. Even when the majority group manages to get control (Duvalier, Dessalines) they are so focused on extracting resources from the wealthier minority group that investment suffers radically.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that the NYTimes carefully calculated conservative estimate was *exactly the same* (to the nearest billion dollars) as Aristide's calculation.
The Haitian Revolution was but an occurrence full of interesting episodes in what historians have called the "color question" ("la quesiton de couleur") in Haitian history/historiography. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest reading From Dessalines to Duvalier (1979) by David Nicholls, Haiti, state against nation (1995) by Michel-Rolph Trouillot, — if you read French — Idéologie de couleur et classes sociales en Haïti (1987) by Micheline Labelle and Red & Black in Haiti (2009) by Matthew J. Smith!
It did not. Any history of Haiti sheds much light on the conflict between Haiti’s light-skinned “mulattre” caste, descended from colonial “gens de couleur” and Black Haitians. In America, everyone involved would be considered Black, which is why it is confusing to explain it to Americans, but Haitians historically paid attention to skin tone and felt the distinction.
As a history student very much interested in Haiti (my dissertation does deal in great detail with the color question), I've always been uncomfortable with the usage of the word "caste" to speak about this rivalry (not exclusive to but mostly expressed) between the "light-skinned elite" and the black upper-middle class/ elite. (It may also be because I am not a native English speaker and "caste" seems to speak to a different reality or at least does not really capture the essence of how complex the color question is in Haiti.) A "minor" detail in the context of this conversation but still an observation I felt was worthy of note.
I was thinking of the whites who had actually brought Africans over as slaves. In other parts of Latin America (I know Haiti isn't Latin, but the neighboring Dominican Republic is) the European elite stuck around and remained the elite.
One quibble with this piece. It is reasonable to say that Haitian militarization prior to 1825 was because the leaders knew as soon as the revolution was over that France could attack at any time. Yes, the ultimatum may not have *caused* the over-militarization but it certainly validated it.
"But these projects are trying assign greater moral weight by claiming exaggerated economic consequences."
I think instead it is an attempt to attribute underdevelopment to anything else but endogenous factors. You see this throughout explanations for global under-development. The attribution must always lie with the outsider, the Western/global north colonizers and later the Western/global north multi-laterals and their structural adjustment programs. No attribution for under-development is ever permitted for endogenous factors, other than the environmental (e.g. Guns, Germs and Steel). This restricted explanatory framework is also deployed for explanations for minority underachievement in the West. The reasons must always be exogenous - now mostly structural racism - and never endogenous.
This is a very insightful comment. It is necessary to have a balanced look at the exogenous and endogenous factors. Because, understandably, the colonizers would like to push all the blame onto the endogenous factors, as for minority underachievement or the backward caste groups in India for example.
this post is garbage. This author clearly has some bias in his articles. Haiti and DR were one country at one point, the French debt forced Haitians to tax Dominicans to help pay off the money. Dominicans ended up fighting a war to separate which resulted in even more money lost. Secondly, the West completely shunned Haiti which is why France was even able to get away with the debt. US didn't want to trade with a country that eliminated slavery and other western countries felt the same. Lastly in regards to America's involvement. Who tf do you think was bankrolling dictator, Duvalier? Oh, that's right, the US. Take a look at Haiti early to mid 1900s to now. There is a stark contrast. The country itself may have not been extremely wealthy, but the image of being the poorest country in the Americas, complete collapse infrastructure destroyed what should have been a thriving tourist industry like other parts of the Caribbean. Instead the primary tourist destination of Haiti is leased by an American corporation. Please post your twitter and stop writing articles of nonsense because you clearly have not much true knowledge of Haiti despite your PHD
I do think events since 1960 do play a larger role in Haiti’s poverty than the article suggests, and I am a second-generation Haitian-American who is well steeped in the sordid history of the country. For instance, I was astonished to learn recently that Haiti was richer per capita than its neighbor the Dominican Republic in 1960, and now the D.R. is 12 times richer. In fact, Haiti has had zero real economic per capita growth since 1960. How? Why? What could have been if the country had had better leaders and more stability, starting just 60 years ago? There are many reasons likely at the root of Haiti’s poverty but to argue just one thing is sufficient seems like a certain fallacy.
"Many journalists and even some historians claim that American economic prosperity would have been unattainable without slavery. If you truly believe that, and you look at the billions of lives that have been lifted out of poverty thanks to this prosperity, then a callous calculus could conclude that the abuses of slavery were a cost we had to pay."
No, that conclusion does *not* follow. For it to follow you would need to to add a premise: "The counterfactual world without slavery perpetrated by America would lack *American* economic prosperity *and* it would also contain no *other* source of economic prosperity *elsewhere* (for example prosperity through the economic work and cooperation by all the people not enslaved and thus never in America) that could *instead* do the job of lifting billions out of poverty equally well or better."
Who are the "many journalists" who make *that* claim?
He says that "a callous calculus could conclude," which is not a claim that it necessarily follows; it's a claim that it could follow given a particular set of priors.
But as for the counterfactual, Ed Baptist and the many journalists who have taken his work (and supporting NHC work) as gospel actually *do* make that claim -- he claims that slavery brought uniquely-outsized returns, and that this was the primary reason for American success (partially based on major accounting errors he makes). If there had been other uniquely-outsized returns available, it's not clear why they would not have been pursued in tandem with (or have displaced) the Southern cotton industry, and Baptist et al seem to push the idea that those returns were not on offer elsewhere... which, if his estimates of the economic impact weren't so ludicrously overdone, would seem obvious. The 1619 Project has run with that claim, to point out one set of journalists.
"He says that "a callous calculus could conclude," which is not a claim that it necessarily follows"
That does not help him. If he does not show that it follows then his argument fails. If he can show that it follows only by adding a claim that the people he tries to target do not hold then he fails.
"But as for the counterfactual ..."
Clarify if you from there on refer to (A) the claim in OP or (B) the expanded claim needed for the argument to bite that I provided ("The counterfactual world ...").
If only (A) then it has no bite on my objection.
If (B) then it could have bite, if you really proved that those you refer to make the claim (B). By providing exact citations to representative texts by Baptist and by journalists where it is clear that they are indeed making claim (B) (all parts of it).
"If there had been other uniquely-outsized returns available, it's not clear why they would not have been pursued"
I pointed out one such possibility: returns from the work and cooperation by all the people who in the counterfactual would *not* have been enslaved. But, again, that source of prosperity needn't occur in America. And needn't occur in any single concentrated location either, it could be spread out but in accumulation sufficient for the lifting billions out of poverty effect.
As a fellow economist interested in the history of Haiti, I think this is spot on. A few areas I would add are that, even if Haiti had a 2.15% rate of GDP growth during this period, the marginal capital would (likely) have a lower return that the average, thus we would not expect this money to have had the same return if it were retained by Haiti (all else equal). And even supposing these calculations were correct, according to the IMF Haiti's 2015 total capital stock was $61.11 billion, vs. $220.80 for the DR. So while I agree that the indemnity was certainly bad for Haiti (and morally repugnant for France) it can explain only a small part of Haiti's modern economic problems. Of course your advisors would probably not recommend believing IMF capital stock data...
However, I don't think it's clear that Haiti's turn to small farms under Petion was the foundation of its future economic problems (although it may have prevented the country from benefiting from the sugar boom). I would argue that the extremely large gap between Haitian elites and population (racial, cultural, linguistic, urban/rural, etc.) is the driving force, and was even before the revolution. Haiti's development resembles cases in which a small ethnic elite struggles for domination with the rest of the country-- Liberia, Rwanda, etc. Even when the majority group manages to get control (Duvalier, Dessalines) they are so focused on extracting resources from the wealthier minority group that investment suffers radically.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that the NYTimes carefully calculated conservative estimate was *exactly the same* (to the nearest billion dollars) as Aristide's calculation.
I thought the Haitian Revolution got rid of the racial elite caste.
The Haitian Revolution was but an occurrence full of interesting episodes in what historians have called the "color question" ("la quesiton de couleur") in Haitian history/historiography. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest reading From Dessalines to Duvalier (1979) by David Nicholls, Haiti, state against nation (1995) by Michel-Rolph Trouillot, — if you read French — Idéologie de couleur et classes sociales en Haïti (1987) by Micheline Labelle and Red & Black in Haiti (2009) by Matthew J. Smith!
It did not. Any history of Haiti sheds much light on the conflict between Haiti’s light-skinned “mulattre” caste, descended from colonial “gens de couleur” and Black Haitians. In America, everyone involved would be considered Black, which is why it is confusing to explain it to Americans, but Haitians historically paid attention to skin tone and felt the distinction.
As a history student very much interested in Haiti (my dissertation does deal in great detail with the color question), I've always been uncomfortable with the usage of the word "caste" to speak about this rivalry (not exclusive to but mostly expressed) between the "light-skinned elite" and the black upper-middle class/ elite. (It may also be because I am not a native English speaker and "caste" seems to speak to a different reality or at least does not really capture the essence of how complex the color question is in Haiti.) A "minor" detail in the context of this conversation but still an observation I felt was worthy of note.
I was thinking of the whites who had actually brought Africans over as slaves. In other parts of Latin America (I know Haiti isn't Latin, but the neighboring Dominican Republic is) the European elite stuck around and remained the elite.
One quibble with this piece. It is reasonable to say that Haitian militarization prior to 1825 was because the leaders knew as soon as the revolution was over that France could attack at any time. Yes, the ultimatum may not have *caused* the over-militarization but it certainly validated it.
"But these projects are trying assign greater moral weight by claiming exaggerated economic consequences."
I think instead it is an attempt to attribute underdevelopment to anything else but endogenous factors. You see this throughout explanations for global under-development. The attribution must always lie with the outsider, the Western/global north colonizers and later the Western/global north multi-laterals and their structural adjustment programs. No attribution for under-development is ever permitted for endogenous factors, other than the environmental (e.g. Guns, Germs and Steel). This restricted explanatory framework is also deployed for explanations for minority underachievement in the West. The reasons must always be exogenous - now mostly structural racism - and never endogenous.
This is a very insightful comment. It is necessary to have a balanced look at the exogenous and endogenous factors. Because, understandably, the colonizers would like to push all the blame onto the endogenous factors, as for minority underachievement or the backward caste groups in India for example.
this post is garbage. This author clearly has some bias in his articles. Haiti and DR were one country at one point, the French debt forced Haitians to tax Dominicans to help pay off the money. Dominicans ended up fighting a war to separate which resulted in even more money lost. Secondly, the West completely shunned Haiti which is why France was even able to get away with the debt. US didn't want to trade with a country that eliminated slavery and other western countries felt the same. Lastly in regards to America's involvement. Who tf do you think was bankrolling dictator, Duvalier? Oh, that's right, the US. Take a look at Haiti early to mid 1900s to now. There is a stark contrast. The country itself may have not been extremely wealthy, but the image of being the poorest country in the Americas, complete collapse infrastructure destroyed what should have been a thriving tourist industry like other parts of the Caribbean. Instead the primary tourist destination of Haiti is leased by an American corporation. Please post your twitter and stop writing articles of nonsense because you clearly have not much true knowledge of Haiti despite your PHD
I do think events since 1960 do play a larger role in Haiti’s poverty than the article suggests, and I am a second-generation Haitian-American who is well steeped in the sordid history of the country. For instance, I was astonished to learn recently that Haiti was richer per capita than its neighbor the Dominican Republic in 1960, and now the D.R. is 12 times richer. In fact, Haiti has had zero real economic per capita growth since 1960. How? Why? What could have been if the country had had better leaders and more stability, starting just 60 years ago? There are many reasons likely at the root of Haiti’s poverty but to argue just one thing is sufficient seems like a certain fallacy.
I retract! I just saw the excellent post about the false historical series that I learned this from.
"Many journalists and even some historians claim that American economic prosperity would have been unattainable without slavery. If you truly believe that, and you look at the billions of lives that have been lifted out of poverty thanks to this prosperity, then a callous calculus could conclude that the abuses of slavery were a cost we had to pay."
No, that conclusion does *not* follow. For it to follow you would need to to add a premise: "The counterfactual world without slavery perpetrated by America would lack *American* economic prosperity *and* it would also contain no *other* source of economic prosperity *elsewhere* (for example prosperity through the economic work and cooperation by all the people not enslaved and thus never in America) that could *instead* do the job of lifting billions out of poverty equally well or better."
Who are the "many journalists" who make *that* claim?
He says that "a callous calculus could conclude," which is not a claim that it necessarily follows; it's a claim that it could follow given a particular set of priors.
But as for the counterfactual, Ed Baptist and the many journalists who have taken his work (and supporting NHC work) as gospel actually *do* make that claim -- he claims that slavery brought uniquely-outsized returns, and that this was the primary reason for American success (partially based on major accounting errors he makes). If there had been other uniquely-outsized returns available, it's not clear why they would not have been pursued in tandem with (or have displaced) the Southern cotton industry, and Baptist et al seem to push the idea that those returns were not on offer elsewhere... which, if his estimates of the economic impact weren't so ludicrously overdone, would seem obvious. The 1619 Project has run with that claim, to point out one set of journalists.
"He says that "a callous calculus could conclude," which is not a claim that it necessarily follows"
That does not help him. If he does not show that it follows then his argument fails. If he can show that it follows only by adding a claim that the people he tries to target do not hold then he fails.
"But as for the counterfactual ..."
Clarify if you from there on refer to (A) the claim in OP or (B) the expanded claim needed for the argument to bite that I provided ("The counterfactual world ...").
If only (A) then it has no bite on my objection.
If (B) then it could have bite, if you really proved that those you refer to make the claim (B). By providing exact citations to representative texts by Baptist and by journalists where it is clear that they are indeed making claim (B) (all parts of it).
"If there had been other uniquely-outsized returns available, it's not clear why they would not have been pursued"
I pointed out one such possibility: returns from the work and cooperation by all the people who in the counterfactual would *not* have been enslaved. But, again, that source of prosperity needn't occur in America. And needn't occur in any single concentrated location either, it could be spread out but in accumulation sufficient for the lifting billions out of poverty effect.
Excellent write-up, Craig. One typo: "trying assign" should be "trying to assign". Best, David