RealGM

Qwigglez wrote:Lol. To make it clear I am talking about his point of repeating history by rebuilding on a terrain that is more than likely going to suffer the same thing in the future.
I already donated ten dollars by texting

Qwigglez wrote:You're getting the wrong impression Traxxe.

RHODEY wrote:

TKF wrote:

richardhutnik wrote:There are only a few points one can possible get out of this that are meaningful:
1. Giving is meant to actually HELP the people receiving the money. To give to placate your guilt that you are doing better is for your own interest, and not the other people. You throw in $10 and feel good about it? I guess that is fine, but not sure how much that would actually help. Doing this is like giving the homeless man a dollar. You aren't doing it to help him, but to placate your guilt over him being helpless.
2. Haiti has a LOT of problems. Are we merely going to just throw a band-aid on the situation, or can we actually get meaningful change down there that would result in the nation not being in the state it was before the earthquake? I am in a situation where I am trying to make it myself, and in need, and I see how pointless both tiny handouts and welfare are to make a lasting difference.

Again, if the focus is NOT on helping people in a more permanent manner, it really isn't true compassion, no matter what people want to think. Apparently, those like the writer, Rush Limbaugh, and the like, apparently don't grasp the basics of what compassion is about, so they are incapable of saying this correctly, even if they may be somewhat valid in how ineffective it is.

- Rich

yea, good points rich, but a lot of people don't understand the History of Haiti... I did some research and had a discussion with a friend of mine who was a world history major... Haiti has been screwed for years. It seems that gaining their independence finally has done them little good... now shirley came off as a prick and instead of being contructive, he came off as heartless, and he could have gotten some of his points across with a level of diplomacy that may have been palatable.. but honestly, why even go there after the tragedy that country suffered? really? what an idiot..

Anyway, it sad how Haiti shares the same island with the Dominican Republic and they are doing so much better than Haiti. More than money, they need change, a change in just about everything they do, their infrastructure, economy, education, just a complete change. AS you said, giving a few bucks because you feel sorry doesn't do much. They need more of a Human investment at this time.. almost more than capital..

True. Everyone mentions how Haiti is screwed up, but how did it get that way? Haiti is actually the first (and only) successful slave revolt. They defeated the french army much to the alarm and embarrassment of a western world that supported slavery. The big fear was that slaves in other parts of the western hemisphere (US) included would be emboldened by this and have their own slave revolts.

This caused the leading slave holding nations (leaders of "Britain", "France", "Spain", etc.) who were fighting each other to unify and focus their efforts on leveling sanctions against it.

France refused to recognize Haiti as an independent country until 1825, in exchange for a payment of 90 million francs. That payment was for “lost property”, by the way, property which included the former slaves themselves.

That's right they had to pay back the French for freeing themselves from slavery! So why did Haiti pay? To end a crippling embargo against Haiti by England, France and the United States. The U.S. certainly had a vested interest in punishing Haiti for it’s independence, lest its own slaves get ideas. In fact, the United States did not recognize Haiti as an independent republic until 1862. As I said, Haiti did make the payment to France, but it was forced to take out high-interest loans in order to do so. It took Haiti another 122 years to pay off those debts.

Remember the high number of slaves in Haiti before the revolution? Essentially, France was continually overpopulating Haiti because of the death rate among the slaves. After the revolution the Haitian population finally began to grow as would normally be expected, but in an area about the size of Vermont. This is critical to understanding how densely populated and environmentally depleted Haiti is today.

I’ll skip over the American occupation of Haiti between 1915 and 1934, except to say that it was done for the economic and military interests of the U.S., not to stablize the Haitian government, which was admittedly chaotic at the time. There were certainly benefits for Haiti, particularly in terms of infrastructure, but they have to be weighed against the violence, forced labor, and racism that came with the occupation.


Thirty years ago, Haiti imported no rice, one of the staples of the Haitian diet. Today, almost all of the rice consumed in Haiti is imported. Why? Because when Haiti borrowed money from through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, it was forced to open its markets to the world. The U.S. then destroyed the Haitian agricultural system by sending heavily subsidized rice and sugar into Haiti. When food riots broke out in Haiti in 2008, after a spike in worldwide rice prices, an article in the New York Times scolded that Haiti, “it’s agricultural industry in shambles, needs to better feed itself.” No mention was made of the global market forces that helped to destroy that industry. It’s a pattern that has been repeated in many countries. To understand it even better, watch the documentary Life and Debt and see what the IMF and the World Bank did to the economy in Jamaica. The “help” that is offered to struggling economies is ultimately a tool for the benefit of economic powers - particularly the United States.

rsavaj wrote:If Shirley is trying to say, "Money isn't going to solve the real problems. We need to completely revamp their education, their government, and their infrastructure", then he is correct.