A Haitian journalist lashes out at CARICOM

Post Reply
Michel Nau_

Post by Michel Nau_ » Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:01 am

Nancy Roc wrote:[quote] “They (CARICOM) never have done anything for Haiti anyway. Some CARICOM leaders and I am not going to call names, have received a lot of money to lobby for Aristide.[/quote]
I applaud Ms. Roc's guts for showing a lot of balls during her presentation. Standing amongst a bunch of macho guys and made such accusation.
I bet as a former Aristide entourage, she may have proof to back up her statement.
They have to come forward and resent her accusation.

Serge, what have they done for us lately?? Answer the question!!

You can't, because those former British slaves, English patois, sugarcane eaters, tea drinkers, white women hunters, commonwealth passport holders haven't done nothing for Haiti and for themselves.
They haven't fought for nothing!
Even tough the British Crowns unleashed them to be free and be on their o
wn feet; they still want to have tide to their masters.
I have seen them in action in London, Washington, DC, in Montreal and other places. They enjoy being British! Believe me they do!
I am sorry for expressing so strongly my emotion against those people.
We Haitians are proud of being Haitians and the whole world knows that.

Serge wrote: [quote]But sadly enough, as a journalist, she mirrors too closely too many journalists in Haiti whose job has become to misinform, disinform, manipulate and falsify the facts, without fear of being sued for libel.[/quote]
Serge, Ms. Roc spoke for herself, therefore don't you generalize and attack those Haitian journalists. Those guys are working under extreme conditions, being shot at from the Left as well as from the Right.
It's very hypocritical in your part seating in the comfort of your home in Washington, DC and without fear of being kidnap or having your ass booted, accusing those Haitian journalists of misinform, manip
ulate and falsify the facts.

You still can redeem yourself Serge, and send your sincere apology to Ms. Roc and those Haitian journalists.

Kenbe la fre'm

Michel

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:17 am

[quote]because those former British slaves, English patois, sugarcane eaters, tea drinkers, white women hunters[/quote]
Without getting into the substance of the arguments, I wish to condemn Michel's bigoted remarks, quoted above, without equivocation. Those remarks can be made in a forum of free expression, such as this one (barring some forms of indecent speech), but they obviously do not belong, because that is not the spirit which guides Windows on Haiti and its related activities. It is particularly painful to me to observe that political differences would prompt Michel, a Haitian and long-time Ann Pale forum member, to adopt the viciousness of language that has been used by "KKK" type racists against African descendants, in the U.S. and the Caribbean in particular.

While Michel Nau is free to express and defend his political opinions,
we believe that he could do so in a collegial way, without launching into a derogatory and highly offensive tirade against Haiti's Caribbean brethren. Plainly, in our view, this was a senseless exercise of free speech.

The management of this web site, on behalf of what we expect to be the majority members of this forum, disassociates itself from those remarks, and invites Michel Nau to apologize to those he has unnecessarily offended.

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:44 pm

Serge wrote,
[quote]Michel, besides your badly written English, you are showing a side of you that we did not know before: bigoted racism, unacceptable and dumb arrogance[/quote]
Are you serious?

Come on Serge, go back a little bit. Read some old posts from Michel. You would think differently.

I have been responding to Michel posts, not because I hate the guy. Far from it. But, Michel would write anything without any fact or data.

It is unfortunate that I do not master the posting of old quotes. I would have shown you, how wrong you are.
Please go back on the world news. I underlined one of his quotes...

Serge, and all of you at Ann pale, am I the only one who knows him better. I doubt it!

His ways of generalizing people, in Haiti, at Ann pale etc. Anyway, I have to stop. Just to show you that I can disagree with you, Serge.

Alatraka papa, maybe I am wrong? Well, in that
instance, very unlikely!

< One who stands on nothing, falls for anything > ( M. X)
leonel

T-dodo

Post by T-dodo » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:29 am

[quote]You can't, because those former British slaves, English patois, sugarcane eaters, tea drinkers, white women hunters, commonwealth passport holders haven't done nothing for Haiti and for themselves.
They haven't fought for nothing! [/quote]

Michel,

This is uncalled for and unworthy of you. Since when being former slaves was an insult? How about your ancestors and mine? I would not go into commenting on all you said. Guy, Serge and Leonel had gone a pretty good job at it already. Your comments insulted everyone on this forum, including you, whose ancestors are former slaves.

Michel, this is what is wrong with politics in Haiti. We cannot disagree on how to proceed on the future of this country in a civil manner. Nancy Roc's intervention goes to show you how much, historically, Haitians have not cared about their country when their political objectives are threatened. They would d
o and say anything. Of course, I am generalizing, there are some exceptions. But, it is difficult to understand Ms. Roc's intervention. As far as our fellow Ann Paleer, Michel, the only explanation for his outburst is temporary insanity. Otherwise, Michel, it is hard to explain this.

Political disagreement is just a fight for power. We should not, in the process, destroy everything on our path to achieve it. We also have brothers and sisters who live in this country! We should be smarter than that.

Hyppolite
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:39 pm

Post by Hyppolite » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:00 pm

Michel hasn't said anything here that is different in substance from what he already thought deep down. Don't know how to put it better. Maybe I should say this: it's the same Michel. You get the same, classic anti-Aristide and anti-Lavalas rant. It's totally irrational.

The character of that post lies something more substantial which permeates in the camp of the so-called "old opposition": they don't like CARICOM, and despise Lavalas because those guys feel comfortable with who they are culturally, much more than Haiti's traditional elite. In other words, they hated Aristide and Lavalas (putting aside the validity of their argument against Aristide) not because Aristide was so bad, but because Lavalas changed the political equation.

Whether or not one is pro-Lavalas, it becomes obvious that those guys have been shaken for good, as they feel that their grip on power is dangerously loosening.

r
Now if you were to go to the heart of Nancy Roc's rant, you would just laugh. I'm not even going to bother going too deeply into it but let's check quickly just one claim, from the substance of her rant:

CARICOM had never done anything for Haiti (a flat lie) and this is why:

The Bahamas alone hosts as part of its population, more than 1/4 of Haitians; they don't treat us that well but still, they do treat Haitians better than our next door neighbor the Dominican Republic;

Now, those guys would have never asked CARICOM to print electoral materials because CARICOM is not composed of Latin. They will and do beg the Dominican Republic to do that kind of work, even when the Dominicans once more, clacked the door behind our back saying "thank-you-but-no-thank-you". This is
after they've been killing our citizens, raping them, throwing them back over our borders after having used and misused them and all. Yet, you will never, never hear Nancy Roc so angry at the Dominican Republic. That's a fact!!

I repeat this: the issue of Aristide and Lavalas is far more complex than just an issue of hate for one man. We all know and agree at different levels, that Aristide II was a debacle in terms of administraive achievement and others. But the truth is, those guys hate anyone, anyone who tell them that democracy means one man, one vote. That's the true issue here.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:51 pm

[quote]...But the truth is, those guys hate anyone, anyone who tell them that democracy means one man, one vote. That's the true issue here.[/quote]
But isn't that supposed to be the real reason people vote?

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:54 pm

[quote]But isn't that supposed to be the real reason people vote? [/quote]
Maybe, Gelin, but from the United States Government's viewpoint, that is not the reason for the process to take place. Elections are important only in that they provide a democratic cover even in occupied territories, as in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti. In essence, they appear to legitimize U.S. imperialist adventures, as military operations (oops!) to implement peace, freedom and democratic values where, one would easily imagine, none existed before. Whether "one man one vote" actually occurs is a different story (in fact, if that happened in the United States, Bush would not be the U.S. President today!)

Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 are just two examples that opened the eyes of the world that democracy "U.S. style" does not necessarily mean "one man one vote".

r
When Salvador Allende was voted President of Chile, Henri Kissinger and the State Department made sure that "one man one vote" did not really count.

When Jean-Bertrand Aristide was voted President of Haiti in 1990 and in 2000, President Bush (senior) and President Bush (junior) made sure that "one man one vote" did not really count.

But what democratic commitment can you expect from a man who did not acceed to power himself on the basis of "one man one vote" ?

Elections can always be thwarted and become selections. Neverhteless they retain their democratic cover. [And if they do not go your way, you can always enforce REGIME CHANGE, as Michel likes to brandish as a goddamned (sorry), god-given U.S. RIGHT, followed by military occupation, then selections (sorry), elections all over again]. UNTIL WE GET IT RIGHT! [Michel had clearly given us that lesson in a different post.]

ELECTIONS - SELECTIONS - REGIME CHANGE - U.S. MARINES - U.N. OCCUPATION, it's all part of the imperial
mandate.

But the Emperor does not always have his way. And that is exactly what we should keep in mind. If only Haitians could learn to set aside their differences (at least for a while) in order to focus on advancing two steps forward! But in our fatalistic and absolutist desire to be right all the time, we end up perishing together.

There is a lot more to "one man one vote" than meets the eye. It is a tool for the "superpower" to enforce its will, but we can learn to play the game too. We can embarrass the big guys at their own games again and again and again... UNTIL THEY GET IT RIGHT!

That is, if we get our heads together.

T-dodo

Post by T-dodo » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:31 pm

[quote]Michel hasn't said anything here that is different in substance from what he already thought deep down. Don't know how to put it better. Maybe I should say this: it's the same Michel. You get the same, classic anti-Aristide and anti-Lavalas rant. It's totally irrational.....

I repeat this: the issue of Aristide and Lavalas is far more complex than just an issue of hate for one man. We all know and agree at different levels, that Aristide II was a debacle in terms of administraive achievement and others. But the truth is, those guys hate anyone, anyone who tell them that democracy means one man, one vote. That's the true issue here.
[/quote]

In Michel's and N. Roc's extreme statements, Hyppolite took issue with the social, economic and political antagonisms pervasive in Haiti. In fact, he understood their reaction as a reflection of the polarization of Haitian society. While he is
right as to the existence of that polarization in Haiti, I doubt the part of it that is "totally irrational." I would also add that polarization does not explain the sorry state the country is in today.

While comparison, at times, is not easy to do with people because of all the variables involved, I would risk to say that there is some level of polarization existing in the US society that is very close to that in Haiti pointed out by Hyppolite. If you compare the feelings displayed by the extrme right wing of the Republican party to the Clintons during the last part of his term that culminated with his impeachment hearing, you can see a lot of similarities there with the Anti-Lavalas stance that Hyppolite saw in Roc's and Michel's statements. In other words, you still could have had that kind of antagonism in Haiti without the country landing where we are now. The US has it, yet the nation continually prospered. True, there are other reasons for the US prosperity, the same way that there are other r
easons for Haiti's sorry state of affairs. But to me what makes Michel's and Roc's satements stand apart, in terms of their outrageous inaccuracies, is a certain lack of standard and decency in Haitian discourse that is tolerated.

There is a big danger in allowing people to be mediocre and not penalizing them for that. We all suffer as it lowers the standards. When standards are lowered, excellence takes a back seat. Efforts need no longer be made, as performance dropped to meet new standards. When people like Roc and Michel can make those kinds of statements with impunity, we all suffer. If a society does not punish crime perpetrators, as an example, crime will prolifer since you reward unfairness and punish hard work.

Our society needs to do a better job in maintaining the standards that should define us. When a journalist with the notoriety of Nacy Roc can make those statements, our society should request journalistic integrity. Just think about the plagiarism scandals of the past few year
s in the US, including Jason Blair's (though Blair's exposure may also have been racially motivated as we don't know how many other cases of people unlike Blair they covered up). My point is that the outrageous statements of Roc should have rocked the intellectual and journalistic community in Haiti. This has nothing to do with politics. It is community standards and unfairness in treatment. In not so doing, we are allowing ourselves to be mediocre. The more it happens the more mediocre we become. Just imagine the pervasiveness of this kind of behavior in the other areas of Haitian society and you understand why we are where we are today. It is not about class and economic struggle only. We could have survived like many other Caribbean nations did in keeping their heads higher than ours.

Hyppolite
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:39 pm

Post by Hyppolite » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:51 pm

While obviously, Michel committed a boo-boo (revealing this side of his self he's been trying to hide), we also have to look at the larger picture in this struggle. In the final analysis, those guys in Haiti despise, absolutely despise the cultural roots of our and the Caribbean nations.

I can guarantee you that none of those guys would have been so arrogant as to present themselves at a SELA (Systema Economico Latino Americano) conference/meeting and do the same thing. Those Caribbean nations are nations of largely blacks, with strong African cultural affinity with us. The traditional Haitian elite do not like that and prefer the more European/white version of their Haiti. Therefore, it is okay to disrespect all those black leaders of the Caribbean and of course, with impunity.

By the en
d of the day, it's very clear now that it is not, nor was it ever about Aristide. It's the traditional elite and the elite-wanna-be not wanting to be associated with blackness. Let's face the facts:

-I don't see Michel Nau complaining about the treatment of Haitians at the border (Dominican Republic) even though the Dominicans state clearly that they reject us because we're lower-caste people;

-I don't see Nancy Roc, or read on HDP's website any comment by Nancy Roc about the issue of Haitian mistreatment in the DR. (In fact, this issue is not even mentioned on their webite; go figure!!)

-I do know that CARICOM has been very conciliatory since after Aristide's demise, suggesting clearly that they will resume normal relations with Haiti once a legitimately elected government is in power.

Why then, does Nancy Roc feel it to be her duty to go at a Caribbean lea
ders' meeting and vent her hatred towards those leaders?

Meanwhile, the irony is that the Bahamaians for instance (CARICOM) have given more opportunity to Haitians.

True, Haitians are discriminated against in the Bahamas. Nonetheless, in the whole scheme of things, the Bahamaians treat Haitians better than the Dominicans. Why can't she (and her acolytes) try to go to the DR and vent her pain towards them, if truly she cares about the masses?

Somebody's gotta tell those guys the truth about their hidden yet truer face.

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:25 am

Kote Michel? Ou anba pay, tifrE!

Pa chanje non w, vinn bannou sak fE ou lage kokenn chenn koze rasis sa sou frE w yo. Paske, fOw sonje, istwa nou mangonmen ak Jamayik, Brezil, bahamas, etazini, e kontinan lafrik la.

Paske, lE yo te pran zansEt nou yo. Yo te separe mari ak madanm, frE ak sE, pitit ak papa, kouzen ak kouzin. Kidonk, nou reyelman konekte. Pa panse poutEt on moun gen mwens melanin nan po L, sa fE yo diferan.

Si on moun li post ou a, la panse ke se yon grand knight kkk ki ekri bagay sa. MonchE mwen pa konn ki liv wap li, men ou better vin sou tE a. Sot nan la lin.

Bagay sa fEm sonje on ti istwa ke yo te konn ban mwen sou Paul E. Magloire. Kote yo te di m, misye te telman renmen blan ak milat. LE gen yon manifestasyon. Li pase men nan tEt li, li di
< Sa pEp la gen kont nou, milat yo >.

Mwen pa konn si se vre. Men, mwen rankontre telman moun ki pa konnen ni ki gwoup sosyal e etnik yo apateni
. KifE, yo gen tandans rayi vrE gwoup yo a.

Kidonk, tipapa, ou pa bezwen kache. Mwen panse gen anpil moun nan inivEsite WOH ki kapab ede w nan moman difisil sa. LE w panse ke se Blan ki bondye. Se blan ki envante tout bagay sou tE a. Se yo ki fE rechEch nan syans ak teknoloji.
Mwen konseye li on liv sou Black inventors. You will be surprised!

Mesye, nou konn pou kiyEs mwen gen lapenn? Se pitit moun ki gen on mantalite parey.

This is how we end up with Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas (my uncle T) etc...

Sorry Guys, I wanted to stay more on that Fleau. Because, most of us have been brainwashed with Western civilisation which is required for any degree in College. But, African Studies are not. You have to include them in your electives.

I will leave you with these words by Bob Marley:
Don't let them fool you
Or even try to school you
You've got a mind of your own...
ONCE UPON A TIME, THE WORLD WAS ONE. EVERYTHING STARTED IN AFRICA (MOTHER OF THE WORLD)...

le
onel

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:26 am

Mesye, bay Michel on chans pou l tounen sou sa l te di yo.
Paske, map swiv misye lontan. Depi l lage on koze ke moun challenge. La l kache pou on mwa. Apre sa, li tounen sou on variasyon de non.
Map tann ou vye frE. Ou gen lE met kostim mawon sou ou?
Your beloved ti loulou

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:53 am

Mon chE Sergo, li just prouve ke nEg yo ap enprovize chak jou. Yo se on paket enkapab kap tann sa mEt yo ap di.
Simeus menm prouve ke gen on pakEt moun ki renmen pouvwa. Yap eseye akapare l by any means necessary!
Se swiv poun swiv.
Ala de tray papa,
leonel

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:06 am

[quote]However, I would not generalize about the "help" Haitians are said to receive from Bahamians as opposed to Dominicans. I think, in both these instances, it is important to differentiate the very human and positive relationships existing between some Haitians, Bahamians, Dominicans....from the negative behaviour displayed too often by the Bahamian and Dominican governments against Haitians. [/quote]
I think, Jaf, that this is an ideological oversimplification that masks the the complexities of the Dominican-Haitian conflict. Yes, anti-african racism is at the core of it... absolutely! Undisputably! But throw into the mix: distinct cultural influences, different languages; the Haitian military conquests of the entire island of Hispaniola followed by periods of occupation, mismanagement and corruption (are there examples of rightly managed occupations in world history???); the systematic and comprehe
nsive development of the antihatianismo doctrine by the undying Trujillo-Balaguer dictatorial regimes; the 1937 massacre of over 20,000 Haitian peasants; the fluidity of our borders; the history of Haitian migrant workers going to the Dominican Republic and the shameful history of their sordid exploitation in that territory; the periodic and massive deportation of such workers and poor Dominicans across same borders; the cultural definition of the Dominican as being primarily "not Haitian" as passed on through generation by their education at home and in school; and we could go on... seriously! Talk to Dominicans, and you will discover that while they were children growing up, they would often be reprimanded or insulted as: "haitiano/haitiana". Haitian-Dominican relations are a microcosm of everything that is wrong in this modern world. It is enduring and complex, and no party can be held blameless.

So, when you speak of "the negative behaviour displayed too often by the
Bahamian and Dominican governments against Haitians," this is too broad a stroke, as far as I am concerned. Yes, anti-african racism is part of it all. However, I find it hard to assimilate the Haitian experience in the Bahamas to the Haitian experience in the Dominican Republic. Too many differences. While I agree that it is important to highlight the very human and positive relationships existing between some Haitians, Bahamians, Dominicans, I would not go on to hold the Bahamian and Dominican governments equally and not even similarly accountable for "the negative behaviour displayed too often by the Bahamian and Dominican governments against Haitians". It is extremely important that we address our own part of national responsibility in those deteriorating relations. Part of that is to develop a strong and consistent national response to anti-hatianismo above and beyond denouncing it as mere racism, bigotry, and
bad government. In other words, there are many problems that we need to address and solve locally before we can have the competence to defeat racism at the global or even regional level.

Post Reply