Hey, Pat Robertson: History Matters More, and You Don't Know Any

Because this is a blog dedicated to history mattering more than many other ways of knowing, it is impossible to let Pat Robertson's idiotic analysis of Haiti pass. As you all know by now, Robertson claimed that Haitians had long ago made a pact with the devil, and were incurring, I guess, "God's" wrath.

It must be said on the face of things that not only is Robertson's logic non-existent, his distortion of his own theological beliefs is problematic as well. Does he mean to say that Haitians made a collective pact with the devil? Does he mean to say that such a pact would automatically be handed down from earlier Haitians to their progeny? Is this some new theological idea about the sin's of the fathers being bestowed on the sons? If he believes in the autonomy of the individual believer (or non-believer), as he purportedly does, how can he talk of collective pacts with the devil? If he believes in the capacity of individual redemption, how can he believe in an historical curse handed down. In fact, Robertson is denying God's redemptive power, which is a heresy in any Christian religious theology that I know.

But that is not the point here. Robertson's history is absolutely crazy. For a full reprise of what he is vaguely and erroneously talking about (please see the Christian Science Monitor article on Haiti for Jan. 14, 2010). First, he suggests that Haitians (meaning Black Haitians) signed a pact with the devil to get out from under the control of "Napoleon III". Oops, Pat, old boy, you are wrongly confusing historical eras and talking about the mid-19th c., not the late 18th and early 19th c. The fact is that the Haitians first took the principles of the French Revolution -- liberté, fraternité, and equalité -- seriously in 1791. By 1794, the radical French Revolution (which, if Robertson knew any history, he would also condemn as the work of those in league with the devil) resulted in the freeing of Haiti's massive slave population. Napoleon attempted to re-enslave them in 1802, which led to the famous revolution under Toussaint L'Ouverture against France. Napoleon -- unlike certain American "leaders" from LBJ through "W" through Obama in regard to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- knew when and where to fight and knew that victory in Haiti against this Black uprising would be too costly and too difficult (if even possible). Instead, he cut his loses, turned instead toward Europe, and sold Louisiana (the most substantial chunk of the U. S. ever acquired by treaty) to the fledgling and vulnerable U. S. for $15 million. As the Haitian ambassador to the U. S. has pointed out recently, much of U. S. territory and much of the U. S. opportunity to thrive as an "Empire of Liberty" was because of the Haitian revolution. And, what about "freedom loving" Haitians, who had destroyed the bonds of slavery more than 50 years before the Americans were able to so? Well, naturally, being Black and poor, the rest of the world turned their back on allowing Haiti to become a functioning society. Haiti had always depended on trade, and after their successful revolution they were shut out. If finger pointing is to take place, the so-called developed world of the U.S. and Europe can point their fingers back at themselves.

In short, the Americans are, in an indirect way at least, profoundly beholden to Haiti. Haiti's profound poverty, now made unimaginably worse, is the responsibility of all of us. Unfortunately, more people will hear Pat Robertson's cruel and moronic comments and say -- uh, huh, that most be true -- than will hear the real historical story. I have seen few attempts by the media to review Haiti's real history, and as I watch the devastation on television, no one contextualizes Haiti's plight in historical terms -- the only terms that can possibly inform us about why things are as they are, and why we are all responsible in terms of building Haiti to a society and state.