this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
187 points (99.5% liked)
History Memes
786 readers
1502 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It wouldn't have mattered if all the other colonizer nations hadn't backed up France. That's why the parent comment was accurate.
Which colonizer nations 'backed up' France? Short of declaring that Haiti had no right to make deals with another sovereign state, itself a violation of Haiti's sovereignty, what were other countries supposed to do at the time, exactly? Threaten war with France?
Britain refused to recognize Haiti's sovereignty until 1833, and the US refused until 1862. French, US, and German banks lent Haiti the money to repay the debt at usurious rates (which means those countries enforced the validity of the unjust debt). The US invaded and occupied the country between 1915-1934. Do I need to go on?
How is that 'backing up' France?
"Allowing another country to take out loans is enforcement"
You're absolutely right, in order to respect Haiti's sovereignty, the US and Germany should have forbidden Haiti to make deals with financial institutions in the country. /s
How is taking France's side and agreeing with it that it deserved reparations for its slaves having freed themselves 'backing up' France? Really? You're actually confused on that point??
Do you just not understand what 'backing up' means?
They were supposed to normalize relations without recognizing the validity of France's bullshit punitive debt, so that Haiti could be allowed to economically develop and trade (with countries other than France, at least) without that yoke around its neck. Obviously.
Why are you playing dumb? Are you trying to troll me? You're usually not like this.
How is it agreeing that France deserved reparations for its slaves? After the 'reparations' agreement was made, neither the UK nor the US immediately recognized Haiti.
Typically it means to support a side or initiative, not 'do nothing'.
... okay, first, the US had trade relations with Haiti since 1799, what was lacking was formal diplomatic recognition.
Second, the normalization of relations from both the US and the UK did not address the validity or invalidity of France's debt. It was irrelevant to the issue of recognition.
Third, you don't seem to understand that an agreement between two sovereign states is not affected by the stance of any other countries on it. The US and the UK saying "We don't recognize Haiti's right to make agreements with France >:(" would not have invalidated that agreement with France; only Haiti or France had the ability to modify that agreement.
I'm not playing dumb, I'm astounded that you're regarding an unjust agreement between two sovereign nations as something that other countries have some sort of say in. Even today, with the UN, incredibly interlinked economies, and strong conceptions of international law, this argument would be difficult.