Ads


David Bentley Hart

view all featured authors »

Haiti’s Devils

The ever slightly oafish Pat Robertson (you remember him: that fine Christian gentleman who just a few years ago defended China’s infanticidal one-child policy, lest he imperil his own lucrative business relations with the PRC by publically criticizing the regime) has opined that the earthquake in Haiti is only the most recent result of a curse that the nation contracted back in the days of Toussaint Louverture, when “they” (that is, apparently, all the Haitians and their posterity) conducted a ceremony in which “they” made a deal with the devil, promising him their allegiance in exchange for liberation from the French. (And here I had been thinking the problem was all those damned zombies.) I suppose, speaking anthropologically, it is interesting to know that, in the damaged imaginations of some Christians, God might really operate in that way: handing over an entire nation of souls, from the kindliest old crone to the smallest babe in arms, to relentless misery, generation after generation, as a result of a magical pact made at the end of the eighteenth century; O quam inscrutabilia sunt iudicia Dei, as the Augustinians of old were fond of saying. Not that I would be so bold as to suggest that our adversary the Devil does not go about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, and so on, but one does expect Christians to take seriously Paul’s claim that all the malign or incompetent cosmic powers have been made subject to Christ, which would seem to imply that Old Scratch simply has no independent discretion in such matters. Failing that, one would hope at least that Christians are on the whole disposed to believe that God is just and merciful and—you know—good.


Setting his Manichean theology aside, however, the Rev. Robertson is a bit confused on the historical details. I imagine that the episode he has in mind is a fabled—which may be precisely the right word—Vodoun ritual of August 1791, in which a large gathering of slaves, under the leadership of a Jamaican houngan named Dutty Boukman, sacrificed a pig to the female loa Ezili Danto and pledged themselves to the overthrow of their masters. It was not a diabolist ritual as far as anyone knows, and it seems unlikely any deals were explicitly struck with the infernal polity. At least, there is no record of Satan being present at the event, either in person or by embassy, and one would think that so prominent a figure would have been noted. But, whatever the case, even though the first slave rebellion is said to have begun the day after the ceremony, it was not ultimately that band of choiroctonous animists that led the actual Haitian revolution. Toussaint Louverture—a cautious man, who took considerable time arriving at his revolutionary principles—was inspired principally by the French Revolution and the new doctrine of the “Rights of Man,” and the forces he led against the French, the British, and the Spaniards were a mixed lot, comprising not a few rationalist idealists.


But even if I find it highly doubtful that the Prince of Darkness can legitimately claim Haiti as his bonded fief, I think it fair to say that, in many other ways, the nation has been bedeviled throughout its history—by colonial masters who relinquished their possessions with only the most brutal reluctance, by all the other colonial and regional powers with interests in the Caribbean (which include, I regret to say, the strategic and corporate interests of the United States), by a succession of corrupt indigenous governments, by profligate abuse of the native ecology, and by one of the most spitefully destructive and unjust foreign debts ever imposed upon a poor people by a wealthy power. It is the last of these that principally concerns me here.


Any good satellite image of the island of Hispaniola is a fairly sobering picture of stark chromatic asymmetry. The eastern side of the island and the low western slopes of the central highland range, which fall within the borders of the Dominican Republic, are still green, arborescent, fertile; the western, Haitian side of the island, by contrast, is hemmed with a few emerald patches, but is otherwise dun and gray. This is not the work of nature; at one time, all of Hispaniola was verdant and fructiferous. And the difference in physical environment between the two nations reflects an equally dramatic difference in political and social fortunes.


The Dominican Republic is by no means a rich country, but it is a fairly stable one, which provides as best it can for its people, and which manages such resources as it has fairly prudently. Haiti, however, has never known a day as an independent nation when it was not sunk in abysmal poverty and beleaguered by enemies foreign and domestic. Why is this? The two peoples share much the same history: They are Catholics, descended from slaves of West African extraction, whose nations’ economies are largely agrarian. They speak different languages, admittedly, but that is not a great barrier between them; culturally, they are in most respects indistinguishable.


There is, however, one enormous feature of Haiti’s postcolonial history that sets it apart from its contiguous neighbor, and that in very large measure predetermined the nation’s economic fortunes from the beginning: that is, its debt to France, acquired in the early nineteenth century, which France—empire, monarchy, and republic alike—was absolutely punctilious in seeing discharged down to the last sou.


It is, of course, an extraordinarily difficult thing for any small nation—or for most large nations, for that matter—to rise out of an indurated culture of poverty. Haiti, I think, was never given a fighting chance. As soon as the small republic had won its independence, in 1804, France began to blockade its ports and embargo its goods, and continued doing so for more than twenty years. It relented at last only in 1825, when Haiti had no choice but to consent to indemnify the French government for France’s lost possessions—plantations, slaves, and so forth—on Hispaniola. The sum agreed upon was 150 gold francs, which in modern terms would be more than 21 billion dollars. This was so far in excess of Haiti’s actual wealth, however, that the small republic had to borrow the money; and the only creditor willing to advance the money was France itself, at an obscene rate of interest. The last payment on the debt was not made until 1947, by which time Haiti had been confirmed in its position in the world as a perpetual debtor state, never able to produce in any year more than a pitiable fraction of what it owes.


There are obviously a host of reasons why Haiti is so very poor. Many nations are at least partially culpable for its sufferings (the story, for instance, of American sugar and fruit interests on the island, and of the 1916 occupation, and of our covert support for the Duvalier dictatorship, and so forth is quite tragic and embarrassing). And the Haitians have been betrayed by their ruling class so often and so monstrously that it is difficult to isolate many historical intervals of just governance. And an earthquake as massive as the one that just struck Haiti would have done immense damage to any nation.


But, in assessing why it is that Haiti remains year after year the poorest nation in an impoverished region of the world, and why its infrastructure is built to no standard safety code whatsoever—let alone one capable of withstanding the effects of an earthquake of 7.0 on the Richter scale—one must conclude that France bears a singularly large portion of the responsibility. Of all of Haiti’s oppressors, France was for most of the nation’s history the most pitiless, the most truly diabolical. And I certainly hope—bearing as I do a great affection towards the French—that France will take this opportunity to restore to Haiti the wealth it exacted from her over the course of 143 years.


It will require some care, obviously, to make sure that such money goes to the people of Haiti and actually does something to improve their lot; and it will be years yet before anything like a habitable order will be raised out of a ruin so general. But, apart from such restitution, it is hard to imagine how France can ever properly exorcise the devils of its past dealings with Haiti.


David B. Hart’s most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.

Comments:

1.21.2010 | 8:00am
Doyin says:
Thank you for the essay. I pray that God alleviates the suffering of the Haitians.
1.21.2010 | 9:09am
James says:
Dear Mr Hart,
I should probably know how to answer my question below, but am badly catchized, like most folk, and can’t.

Unless one regards the doctrine of original sin as a metaphor for the human condition rather than a real event, isn’t the punishment of the whole race for Adam and Eve’s pact with the Tempter very similar to Pat Robertson’s concept of God handing over the people of Haiti to the devil as a result of a much more recent pact? Thank you.
1.21.2010 | 10:51am
Thank you for the wonderfully thoughful essay. But I too share James's concern. Is it not possible that the "diabolical" conduct of France that you describe is not - at least in some significant way - a result of the country's rejection of the Savior? Not just Haiti, of course; there are certainly many equally valid examples. But don't Christians believe that if we seek His face and turn from our wicked ways that He will forgive our sins and heal our land? (2 Chronicles 7:14)
1.21.2010 | 11:19am
Glenn says:
Professor Hart,

I've been enjoying your books and essays over the past year. Thanks for this badly
needed corrective to Pat Robertson's thoughtless remarks.

In addition to the historical elements you mention, and France in particular, is not
Haiti also impoverished by its fetish for the dead? In setting people free from bad
religion (i.e. idolatry), doesn't the Gospel, among other social benefits, set people
free economically as well? Contrast Wilberforce's England with Revolutionary France.

So, there may be a grain of truth in the "spiritual" dimension that Robertson
obfuscates in his usual manner.
1.21.2010 | 1:20pm
Joan says:
Posted by Jeremy D. Boreing Jan 20th 2010 at 4:51 am
This week, thousands of Haitians will be the beneficiaries of Pat Robertson. In fact, long before the horrific earthquake struck on Tuesday, when many of the more fashionable humanitarians who always flock to every tragedy probably would have been hard-pressed to find the island of Hispaniola on a map, Robertson’s Operation Blessing was already hard at work, helping to address the centuries-old tragedy that is Haitian poverty. Many Haitian bellies have been filled in the past, and undoubtedly many more Haitians will live and be fed in the coming days, because of Robertson and his organization, which has given more than $500 million in aid to suffering people since it began in 1978.
[what did you do for Haiti before the earthquake?]
1.21.2010 | 2:14pm
Pete says:
I think the difference between Original Sin and the Haiti "curse" is that in some mysterious way original sin, through Adam and Eve, altered human nature. Once Adam and Eve had their eyes opened they could never be the same--nor could their progeny, since we all share the same human nature. On the other hand, it seems that the Hatian curse, according to Robertson, is transmitted by a shared political or geographical identity (i.e., being a citizen of Haiti and/or living in Haiti). As important as political and geographical identities may be, they do not constitute one's nature.
1.21.2010 | 2:42pm
Michael Dodd says:
Dear Professor Hart,
I appreciate your brief history of Haiti. Also, your disapprobation of Pat Robertson is more nuanced and accurate and helpful than most of the seemingly knee-jerk reactions of those who don't hold with Roberton's quite common "Manichean" theology. I have read 'Doors of the Sea'; it has been a major help to me in trying to see anew and with more clarity the perennial problem of theodicy.
1.21.2010 | 2:45pm
Erin says:
In the next to last paragraph, if we replace the words "Haiti" with "Cuba" and "France" with "United States", would the commentary about the nation surviving/recovering from a 7.0 magnitude earthquake still be valid?
1.21.2010 | 3:39pm
John says:
very nice essay!

as I said, Bentley Hart Style!!!!!!!!!!!
1.21.2010 | 8:39pm
HVObserver says:
" ... that band of choiroctonous animists ..."

What a great name for a band!
1.21.2010 | 11:50pm
FREDERICK says:
of most of the socialist world, everything went to pot. The infrastructure fell into ruin, the urban area deteriorated into a decayed slum. Was this due to poverty, or to the absence of culture?
Our country could benefit in a huge way if we could be truthful instead of all the political correctness bull. FREDERICK
1.22.2010 | 12:00am
Hrudu says:
Amos 3:6 shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD has not done it?
1.22.2010 | 11:10am
Paul says:
Hrudu,

I think if you press Amos 3:6 into this sort of strict literalism (by the way, the word for "evil" employed here has in the Hebrew a range of meanings, some of which would not lead to your implied conclusion), then you will end up contradicting other passages of Scripture. I think Luke 13, in particular, will pose a problem. I believe the context here suggests that the better translation is "calamity". The context suggested by the passage is that as a result of Israel's rebellion, the LORD is withdrawing His special protection and as result the city will be overrun by an enemy. And so the destruction that results, is calamity brought about by this enemy. And is not plausibly the case that the there is a non-arbitrary, intrinsic link between the LORD withdrawing his protection and Israel turning from the LORD their God. Isn't their rebellion in fact a placing of themselves outside his protective care. And so isn't the resulting calamity something brought about as part of the nature of things--including the nature of the relation of an elect people to the High King. To put all this another way, you seem to suggest (as many who use this verse, out of context I think) that the LORD is causally responsible for intrinsic evil. I think this misconstrues the Hebrew for "evil" and quite probably the meaning for "done". At any rate, I don't think I would extrapolate from the prophet speaking to the people of Israel to a universal principle here. That seems a bit much.
1.22.2010 | 11:49am
FREDERICK says:
My comment was cut short,with just the last few lines showing. I felt that the whole message was important and helpful-thats why I sent it. Can the entire comment be presented? This would be a good thing,to me and perhaps,to the readers. Thank you for your consideration. FREDERICK
1.22.2010 | 11:56am
FREDERICK says:
I wonder how any validity can be given to the supposition that poverty causes lack of culture, as in and Haiti? My heritage is that of VERY poor German immigrants living in very old houses in a very old neighborhood in the heart of Cincinnati. They kept their homes and their neighborhoods clean and in good repair for generations. At the very same that the German population was being replaced with a population of African Americans, the urban area began to rapidly decay. The homes that previously had been maintained fell into neglect and disrepair. The neighborhoods became filthy and strewn with trash. Crime flourished, and the area became unfit for cultured people. The same urban area that had been maintained by people of culture decayed into a hopeless slum ghetto. Is this the result of poverty? Of course not! This is the result of lack of culture.
Fast forward to Haiti and the shape it was in prior to this horrible earthquake. Due to voodoo and other primitive practices, they did not have the opportunity to develop a viable culture-which leads to not being able to maintain themselves, their homes, or their government. Poverty was the result – not the cause of their woeful existence.
Of course this is a highly politically incorrect stance, but since when did political correctness correlate with the truth?
If you need another example, take Rhodesia. When it was inhabited and maintained by cultured people, it was a thriving well maintained place to live. After being overthrown by a communist African mob that had the support of most of the socialist world, everything went to pot. The infrastructure fell into ruin, the urban area deteriorated into a decayed slum. Was this due to poverty, or to the absence of culture?
Our country could benefit in a huge way if we could be truthful instead of all the political correctness bull. FREDERICK
1.22.2010 | 12:02pm
Thomas says:
I wonder of those saying that the deaths in Haiti were in some way deserved due to original sin would apply the same logic to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. If original sin is a real event -- and since this country has increasingly rejected the Savior -- perhaps those that were incinerated by jet fuel, or those who fell to their deaths from hundreds of feet in the air, or those who were crushed under tons of concrete just had it coming because of some primordial mistake or on account of the sins of our nation. Maybe we have misunderstood the perpetrators of 9/11, not realizing that they were truly on a mission from God. And if God truly is the kind of God who would be behind every evil that befalls a people, I wouldn't put it past him to award suicide bombers (his loyal emissaries) with their virgins.

But of course that view is not only erroneous, but simply evil to hold. To say that the God revealed in Scripture is the sort of God who desires the death of children is to read the Bible with no more subtlety than Richard Dawkins' reading.

The real irony here is that the motive (at least as expressed by some commenters) to bring up original sin lies in an attempt to look past the sins of the first world countries against a third world that has suffered greatly. That is, the doctrine of original sin comes up in order to conceal sin, or at least waive it away by saying "everybody does it" (original sin is a universal condition) or "they deserved punishment anyway".

Why don't we see this sort of explanation come up as much when it's the United States or another European country suffering? The only plausible differences I see are racial and socio-economic differences. Maybe the idea is that we all are guilty under the doctrine of original sin, but the poor and the black moreso than the wealthy and the white.
1.22.2010 | 4:20pm
Buck says:
Erin: Yes.
1.22.2010 | 7:06pm
Michael says:
First off thank you David for a wonderfully well thought out essay.

Why is it that blame is so important to so many Christians. Why is it that there must be a theological cause for every event? If god is omnipotent and loving, surely he wouldn't lash out at a group of people for a poorly documented event some 200 years back? Children slaughtered due to the anger of the one true god? Perhaps god is much larger than earthquakes and plan crashes.

This world is imperfect. Only God, and heaven are perfect. Yet we feel some sort of dogmatic punishment must be occurring when a calamity strikes here on earth. It is not gods order that I question, but the quest to find some reason why someone deserves a horrible fate, no matter how random or earthly, and thus excuses us from reaching out to help.

Why not debate the ways to bring God to those people so they can be forgiven of their transgressions and find their way to paradise from this imperfect place? Because it is much easier to say that their plight is deserved, and that god has made it so. We blame it on actions of their ancestors, socioeconomic class patterns, race, gender, or any number of other completely unrelated classifications that tend to be nothing more than racist bigotry.

And what man is capable of knowing the cause and effect of something as gargantuan as an earthquake, or a demise of a race of people, or whatever? There are too many facets to contemplate in such an endeavor. And surely God doesn’t seem likely to hold a grudge if Jesus’ teachings are any example. We are all fallen from grace and no one has fallen farther than another. Our sins are held equal, and forgiven equally the same.

Our pain it seems to me is not as much deserved but endured here on earth, but admission to paradise is earned by the color of one’s heart and not the color of their skin. Stop trying to feel you are better than someone who tragedy befalls, just go help and be the same love that God extended to you.
1.23.2010 | 6:28am
Gregory says:
As Christians, as much as we reject the type of pagan culture which emanates from Haiti, we need not here be the judge and the jury; claiming that this terrible earthquake/destruction is Divine Punishment or Retribution for the specific sins of these people.

Earthquakes can occur anywhere, at anytime in any manner or form.

We've seen them in Africa, in Europe, in the Middle East, China, Japan, Inonesia; in the sea and on the land.

Some years ago, Assisi - the home of St Francis - was struck badly. Surely, we are not now going to judge the holy Fransciscans for dedicating their lives to God?
1.23.2010 | 12:09pm
I think putting the blame on France is pretty much a stretch. It have been over 200 years since Haiti claimed its independence, and there should be a statute of limitations on these things. All of Latin America suffered from the lack of strong political institutions at the time of independence, and to some extent still do. Haiti suffered more, yes, but look at most of central America, which is also pretty pitiful (even without voodoo). The fact is that the country that can do the most for Haiti is the United States. How that should be done is a question we have been trying to answer for decades.
1.23.2010 | 2:19pm
Alan Wright says:
Mr Collins,
1947 was not, as far as my shaky grasp of mathematics goes, 200 years ago; that is the date at issue here. And no one, as far as I can tell, is putting the blame on France as such.
This column does not deny US responsibility for many of Haiti's woes, or suggest that the US not be at the forefront of aiding the nation to recover. It merely makes a perfectly legitimate case that France has a special responsibility in regard to the country's condition as a perpetual debtor, and that this is an ideal moment for France to return the money it unjustly exacted from Haiti over nearly a century and a half.
It is good to read a column before commenting on it, I have found.
A. Wright
1.23.2010 | 6:44pm
Sally Morem says:
This is one reason I am not religious. Christians apparently don't take the natural world very seriously. And not just Pat Robertson either. Haiti suffered a 7.0 earthquake because it lies directly on top of a fault between the North American continental plate and the Caribbean plate. The Caribbean has been moving east while the North American moves west. At some point, as Californians know well, something's gotta give.

Haiti did.

Now please knock off the silly talk about Satan having it in for the Haitians. Thank you.
1.25.2010 | 2:27am
rob says:
It helps to know who the enemy is, and who the friend is ... John 10:10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

Erin... um, no.

Sally, you have knowledge with no depth. We are not SO concerned that CA may experience a 7.0 (the wealth of the US has provided some cushion against the probability of catastrophic loss of life in the circumstance) as we are concerned that the Rockies will become our west coast someday. Christian generosity, by FAR, has been the foremost life saving instrument in Haiti for many years.

Come on. I don't know if Pat Robertson is going to heaven or hell, but this isn't about sinners bringing on their own destruction (Robertson didn't imply that - the reports of what Robertson said implied it) any more than a convenience store night clerk getting shot during a hold up is his own fault. Satan is a thief, killer and destroyer. He thrives in this kind of condemnation and fear! It is ALWAYS Satan when catastrophic pain occurs.

Thank you, Mr Hart. I've been looking for some reasonable explanation for Haiti's continual distress. Inter-generational anger and "cultural DNA" just didn't make sense. Unfortunately, overwhelming debt I can fathom!
1.25.2010 | 7:08am
Donald says:
The French in positions of political influence have a curse which they imparted to their colonies in Africa and elsewhere - Francophone Africa has no qualms in killing a fellow African

I hear the same applies elsewhere in the world - Killing Fields in Cambodia!!!!
1.28.2010 | 9:12pm
Ha! The French have to pay and the Americans...no! This is a common meme in conservative circles. A way to deny the responsibility owed these people.

Often the sermon comes "we will never know when God will come...better be prepared." Well, he came and we are unprepared. We have indulged in war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have borrowed and spent in a frenzy since Reagan. So...Christ has come...never as we expect...never as we understand. he came as a poor ravaged nation. And we are unprepared.
2.1.2010 | 11:55pm
twf says:
Of historical interest -- You can see a clip of Toussaint's last moments in prison from the award-winning new short film "The Last Days of Toussaint L'Ouverture" at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2468184/
2.2.2010 | 1:40pm
Mara says:
Thomas,

Thank you. I was wondering when someone would make that comparison to 9/11. I completely agree that for first world countries, original/corporate sin seems to be an elusive concept, whereas for third world countries, it's supposed to be self-evident. People (like Robertson) who attribute calamities of this magnitude to a country's sin should really take a step back and look at what exactly they're implying. I sometimes think first world countries have more resources to be sinful, so I don't understand why we shift the blame to countries that can barely feed themselves, much less indulge in sins dripping with extravagance.

Sally, no one denies that there are natural causes to earthquakes. Even college students in a basic geology class can tell you the effects of faults on surface land masses. The point is, just because something has natural causes, does not mean that our supernatural God and his equally supernatural enemy are not involved. Obviously, you don't attribute evil to Satan with your comment, so maybe if articles like this bother you so much, you might want to avoid them.

And finally, Joan, no one is condemning Robertson for his aid to Haiti, are they? On the contrary, it's inspiring and refreshing when people who have the influence and resources to help do so. The question here is not his aid, but his inconsiderate, misinformed, and insensitive remarks against the nation of Haiti. God Bless him for his efforts to aid the country, but his comments were just unacceptable.
11.9.2010 | 4:15am
Maria V. says:
Just came across this article ; Dr.Hart's prophetic voice to help both France and Haiti and indirectly many others is commendable .

Attributing culpability for the debt could be more problematical - this could even include all who were part ofreasons for the French Revolution ...and counting the contributions of the good and holy native sons and daughters of France that cancel out the debt also not in our realm ...

Haiti , if not in some mysterious divine plan is not set apart as a sort of symbol ( like the dead sea ..the salt pillar ..just to remind us how evil esp. when mixed with what is most holy - of a sacramental people , when they hand over powers to the enemy by continuing in pagan ways that are not of The Church ! ) could serve as a symbol of the new spring time if powers of The Church and wealth from who ever could collaborate ...

People in the know have mentioned how Eucharistic Adorations on ships around hurricane prone areas could be the surprising fact that make predictions prove false !

Israel shows how rejuvenation of barren hill tops is a beautiful sign of hope and human goodness ..

Meanwhile , Haiti , like the beggar at the gate of the rich man , also affords a merciful sign that can move even the hardened hearts ...that too could be in His merciful and mysterious plans ...so that the rich man too get the blessing for mercy ..
Fr.Ho Long and his Missionaries of the Poor can reach in where we may not be able to directly ...
11.23.2012 | 6:00pm
John Rownby says:
Well, if you position really is that all apparently 'natural' evil is in fact really moral evil, flowing from the evil decisions of a bunch of invisible demons, you really should just say so - not to mention then also give a coherent explanation as to why Satan and his minions were given the free will to torture literally billions of animals (both over the course of evolution and today) and now humans... whilst many children only receive a smidgen of such free will and yet apparently will get along fine at the eschaton. i.e. if the kids don't need the excessive amounts of free will demons (and some humans) receive in order to have 'enough free will' to make a decision for or against God at the eschaton, then you still have a major and unsolved theological problem as to why these demons are given so much more freedom to ruin God's creation. Just because you attribute evil to person wills doesn't mean you've let God off the hook. If you think something other than this, you should say what this is. Please be up front in your beliefs here, Dr Hart.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact