Talk:Anti-Haitian sentiment in the Dominican Republic

Bias

---Are you kidding me, are you serious, I can't beleive this it's ridiculous this is the most bias article I've ever seen in wikipedia. this sh** should be deleted. this is so publicly racist towards dominicans.

Using words such as "Proud" to characterize a whole nation of citizens is "unfairness of tone"

from wikipedia, this article needs:

Fairness of tone

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.Adreamtonight 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this A Racist Movement against dominicans???Ya should make a new article named Anti-Dominicanism too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.127.181 (talk • contribs). sockpuppet of banned user EdwinCasadoBaez

Just look at the sources were they get things from:HAITIFOREVER.COM [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.127.181 (talk • contribs).

The link seems to just be a mirror of this article which is already cited elsewhere in the text. Why they used two different links to cite the same article is beyond me.--Rosicrucian 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I tried eliminating anything that wasn't backed up by the sources listed. Just because the article is cited, doesn't mean the articles cited in "antihaitianismo" have that information!! Take for example the BBC article, thrown in there for no apparent reason. This whole article stinks of bias and POV, and yet my attempt to edit this was ruled out. The idea is not to say that anti-haitianismo doesn't exist, but to present even-handedly. The Ernesto Sagas articles DON'T DO THAT, and neither does this article, with its unnacountable SWEEPING generalizations of the Dominican people and their thinking. No article can claim to know how an entire nation thinks without **backing it up with sources**. By sources I mean either polls or election results reflectant of this "deep seeded prejudice". For one, in 1994 around 45% of the Dominican voting populace voted for Jose Francisco Pena Gomez, a very dark Dominican of Haitian descent. You have to go a LONG way to reconcile this fact with "full fledged prejudice" against Haitians by "a whole generation." | | I'm sorry, but this article is really not only guilty of broad generalization and malicious bias... It is a gross simplification of Dominican-Haitian relations.EYDrevista 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to rearrange the article so it at least flows logically. EYDrevista 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Hope this is better, any feedback?EYDrevista 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ArmyGuy's corrections were good but who the hell pluralizes with apostrophes???? Cleaned it up again EYDrevista 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of good progress was made in this article but has now been reverted back to biased content by user CubanoDios! EYDrevista (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to say a user is biased. He simply made an edit. In fact....you removed the edit [2] that I placed in [3] right after saying that they were good [4] Armyguy11 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully, armyguy. I said the content he is inserting introduces more biased languages. Still no apostrophes in the pluralization, though. EYDrevista (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

It was actually below Parsley Massacre initially. Then it was placed on top. It was relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antihaitianismo&diff=176651083&oldid=176650590 . The holocaust has a similiar box.

Armyguy11 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not belong in this article. Period. Do not make disruptive edits to prove a point, and continue the discussion on the proper article's talkpage.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow

as a jamaican i feel you dominicans and this page is just as stupid as the arab haitian page. utterly rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.56.197 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View in DISPUTE

Neutral Point of View in DISPUTE and until neutral sources are quoted and verified.

1. The only sources used in this anti-Dominican racist article are obtained from organizations bases in historically black slave waging nations (United States).

2. Sonia Pierre, quoted as this article reference, is currently challenging Dominican Sovereignty laws in order to accommodate illegal Haitian immigration in Dominican Republic.

3. Not a single reference from a government institution from either Haiti or the Dominican Republic is cited. It's an absurd talking about a supposed "conflict" without quoting the conflicted nations in question!

4. The only "hate crime" perceived here is from the anonymous coward who posted such acts without a single verifiable reference. Circular references are NOT recognized as valid references! ("according to HRW, HRW says...")

5. Human Rights Watch resides AND depends on United States funding, a former slavist and currently racist nation. (see Criticism of Human Rights Watch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flurry (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are much easier to explain (if probably much more difficult to stomach)

I've been to the Dominican Republic for two months, I've interacted with basically every segment of the population, and I may assert that it is arguably the most racist country in Latin America. And the one which best epitomizes the stupidity and the neurosis underlying racism. And the one whose racist trappings are most evidently a burden to its immediate future.

Here's what I've recollected by direct observation:

- Haitians not only are destined to occupy the lowest echelons of society; in fact, they are not even considered a part of society. They are used as slave labor and humiliated in every single manner possible, and their subservient character is not only continuously enforced; it is actually assumed as an axiom, even by Dominicans less educated and affluent than them.

- Blacker-than-average citizens are routinely called "Haitian", and in the best of cases this is meant as a form of verbal teasing.

- people whose phenotype immediately signals a very profuse, if not dominant, African heritage consider and classify themselves white and engage in a ludicrous caste system designed to maintain, in some or other way, such self-definition.

- in "petit comité", racist comments such as "haitiano/negro/prieto de mierda" (yes, that approximately stands for the N word) are used very often by many Dominicans, some of them of above average education and purported leftist leanings. Which means: racism is the only transversal trait in Dominican society: every citizen, regardless of ideology or social level, is prone to engage in it sometime. Not even in Spain with the gypsies, or in Italy with the Albanians, will you find this transversality.

- In connection with the previous point, we are speaking of a country where the historical leader of the (hard) Right and the historical leader of the Left have united in a "Patriotic Front" in order to prevent a Dominican of Haitian ancestry from becoming president.

All of these attitudes come, in most cases, from people who would be immediately classified as "black" in any immigration bureau of North America or Europe. That alone adds further to the incongruence. It's not that a blond blue-eyed racist should be less stupid; it is the incongruence, the utter lack of objective need for such feelings, that make the self-hatred all the more obvious. Denying those things is delving further into utter idiocy.

This country stands in a hole and won't come out of it. For instance, this page has only an English version, and yet a highly documented one -- this is no one-man crusade we're speaking about; it is the result of an amalgamation of reliable sources. Which means:

1. Dominicans still do not acknowledge their major flaw, and remember: admitting you have a disease is the first step to getting cured.

2. In Spain and in the rest of Spanish-speaking countries, no one cares about what pitiful self-identity crises the average Dominican feels. Why? Because no one cares about the average Dominican to begin with. Save for your neighbors, you folks are alone.

Well, not completely alone. You'll always have the tourists. They always come and go, albeit not always looking for the same type of interaction with the natives. If only Dominicans had a chance to look into their minds and see what "racial classification" they are given by these tourists as soon as they get their eyes laid upon... Chaugnar Faugn (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing you talking like that someone would think that haitians and dominicans are the same people, when in fact WE ARE NOT (haven't you realized yet that we speak different languages, have different cultures (ours westernized, theirs african in its majority), and way of life?). So get your facts straight mister (or miss). For your info, the Dominican Republic isn't the only country to have applied a "whitening" policy, in fact, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile all imported thousands upon thousands of european inmigrants in order to "purify" their populations from the ascendancy exerted by their then majority indian and/or black/mixed populations, all meeting success in various degrees. Why is it that you don't talk about those policies? Is it because they were successful? From my POV, you're being unjust and hyppocrite. Also, the fact that the majority of our population is of mixed extraction speaks VOLUMES about the racial democracy of our country. In fact, I'd wager that we're the most racially democratic country on the entire hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklord1982 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you:

Are you telling me that ANY of the things I just said is false? Instead of reminding me of obvious things everybody knows about the Caribbean and Latin America (things which by the way don't prevent me from qualifying DR as a racist country, get YOUR facts straight mr, creating a caste system based on skin color in this predominantly mixed population of yours is also a symptom of racism) you might just as well tell me which one of the things I just said is false. Maybe you don't know. Maybe you do know they're right, and you're just trying to distract everyone's attention. To no avail, of course.

Yours is a racist country. Racism is stupid, but yours is a doubly stupid racism because it has nowhere to cling to other than a misconstrued, blatantly false interpretation of its colonial history. I don't need you to act as a tourists' guide to your country for me, I've gone there (once, but for a long period of time), and I know what I've seen and heard. Leave that whitewashed speech of yours for the thousands of clones of Homer Simpson who come to your country every year in search of beer and stiff buttocks. Maybe it'll work with them, but it sure as hell won't work with anyone of at least average intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaugnar Faugn (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I´m telling you that things are not as bleak as you´re painting them, are you really that daft? For starters, you should be thanking us dominicans for shouldering a responsibility which is not ours to begin with, because if the DR didn't exist, you'll be having all that disease ridden people invading your sacred floridan soil or your islands in the Caribbean (I presume that you're either an american or a stiff, upper lipped european). We're not to blame for the ineptitude, incompetence and supreme uselessness of the haitian elites, which are the first culprits of the mess in which Haiti finds itself in, why don't you go and express them your sensitivities? that way you'll see how much they care for your dear "esclavitos" by putting a bullet in your chest or giving you the middle finger.

Secondly, antihaitianismo is not something exclusive of the DR, or are you that dumb to believe that their "CARICOM brothers" (an oxymoron, if there ever was one) treat them any better? if you think so, then you must be dumber than I give you credit for. Just see any news about the treatment that they receive on French Guyana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Barthelemy, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos (were a coast guard boat actually rammed the boat in which the inmigrants were) and the Bahamas and you'll come to realize that, if any, they're actually treated better on the DR than in any of those places, which should be ashamed of treating them the way they do, because (excepting St. Barths the inhabitants of those islands are as black as the haitians, and what is worse, in the case of St. Barts, Guyana, Martinique and Guadeloupe, they even share a common french father, though in Haiti this heritage is less prevalent, because of the slaughter that your dear hero, Dessalines, did against the french colonists that had until then survived the successive wave of massacres that the brigand ex-slaves did against them, massacres which didn't have anything to envy the ones that Trujillo would make against the very same haitians a century and half later. Talk about karma, what goes around, comes around.

Again, I ask you, false deity, why are you trying to single the DR out? when the rest of LA/C practices the same (and sometimes worse) racist customs that you accuse my country for, with the aggravating factor that you're accusing a country where the blacks and other coloured people have advanced the most on the aspects of enjoying personal wealth and political power in all Latin America. I could name you thousands of politicos, businessmen and military men black or coloured that enjoy such a power, wealth and political prestige on this country that people of colour in the US, Europe and LA/C would only dream about. Es más, I will go as far as naming two BLACK presidents that the DR has had when the US and the rest of Latin America were still dealing with slavery and its aftermath: The inmortal Gregorio Luperón, the hero of our Restoration War against Spain, and his lieutenant turned tyrant, Ulisses Heureaux (of haitian descent, no less). Your assertion of the DR being the most racist country in LA/C is the most idiotic remark that I have ever had the misfortune of reading on the WWW, and that, knowing the amount of BS that is being written on it as we speak, is saying something. I repeat (in order for it to get into your thick skull), we dominicans don't have the duty or responsibility of dealing with Haiti's problems (that's why they're indepedent in the first place, or is it that they're only independent to steal foreign help (??)), and that includes exercising the sovereign right (and one that costed too much blood, at that) that we have as an independent country of NOT admitting their poor as part of our nation. God only knows that we have enough problems with dealing with our own poor population, which is big enough without shouldering other people's problems.

And lastly, seeing the poor excuse of a country that Haiti is right now is reason enough for us not wanting to have any intercourse whatsoever with that poverty ladden, famine stricken, and disease ridden people, so you'll excuse us if we don't want to have people of haitian descent transform our country into the carbon replica of the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, a title which the country of their forefathers is shamefully known for worldwide. Your hipocrisy is rich, seeing as how your country (assuming that you're either from the US or Western Europe), don't want to see itself being politically dominated by the children of inmigrant minorities, so you'll excuse me if I don't share your liberal, lefty-whiner ways. In fact, I'll make you a favour and give you the site where you can find why the heck the country of your love is so bleeding dirt poor:

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/leftover/whypoor.htm

Enjoy, mon ami the false deity.

Darklord1982 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may

Your "parrafada" doesn't impress me because it is nothing but a list of clichés I heard myself when I was in your island. The problem with your country, as I said in my first comment, is that its internal makeup and daily life matter to nearly no-one outside of the area and thus things like the ones I denounced go unchecked.

Reading parts of your text I almost forgot what country you were speaking about, since it almost seemed as if you were speaking of Argentina or Uruguay. You spend most of your text trying to remind me of how different your country is from Haiti, when in fact it is the country in "LA/C" closest to yours in many aspects. The only other country it could compare to as well, would be Cuba before Castro. Sorry.

You know, your country is a haven for nearly all kinds of tourism, save for the culture-driven one. And that, along with its own history of racially (self)predatory behavior, makes your country miserable, besides stagnantly poor. The difference between poverty and misery is that poverty involves (as you might guess) being poor, and misery involves being poor whilst someone next door is reveling in surpluses. See, misery includes a comparison factor which you're obviously too dumb to understand, and which is a detrimental factor to your own nation. Misery makes you devoid of ethical and even moral values. Misery, coupled with the legacy of the practices of slavery (a legacy which, mind you, is also profoundly inherent to your own country), creates self-deprecation and, notably, family disestructuration. Misery implies that the life of a human being is worth less than a pig's under the "right" circumstances.

All of these qualities are a fundamental part of your country's contemporary history and a significant part of its present as well, no matter how much you try to hide them under the rug. THAT's what makes you so close to Haiti. Your whole task of trying to establish qualitative gaps (other than language and part of the culture) and abysmal distances between these two countries is preposterous and pathetic in and of itself. Someone in France made a documentary about a completely different topic called "Darwin's nightmare"; I guess it is time to make a documentary about your country named "Freud's nightmare" as well.

For one thing, your text oozes utter contempt from head to toe. Here are some highlights:

• "if the DR didn't exist, you'll be having all that disease ridden people invading your sacred floridan soil or your islands in the Caribbean" I understand that the man who invented crack wasn't precisely Haitian, and that Balaguer denied extradition no matter how much the DEA asked for it. Talk about disease-ridden invasions on sacred soils. On the other hand, I'd rather watch it before engaging in intercourse with any locals at your country, considering the amounts of STD's and AIDS brought in by sexual tourism, to say the least.

• "We're not to blame for the ineptitude, incompetence and supreme uselessness of the haitian elites, which are the first culprits of the mess in which Haiti finds itself in, why don't you go and express them your sensitivities?" Well then: neither do the countries in North America and Europe, where Dominicans flee by the thousands, have to cope with the rampant academic and job failure of the "visitors", who come from a country arguably in the lowest echelons in health, education and infrastructures at any level in "LA/C", and has a political elite almost as corrupt as that in Colombia, for instance (without any redeeming quality the latter might have, though).

• "we dominicans don't have the duty or responsibility of dealing with Haiti's problems (that's why they're indepedent in the first place, or is it that they're only independent to steal foreign help (??))" Same thing could be said about your country by any Miami or New York native fed up with ... whatever he or she is fed up with; could be crime, drugs or prostitution, or could be having people around who don't even speak English to begin with. No-one asks them to pronounce "parsley", though, at the US; at least there is a difference in treatment.

• "And lastly, seeing the poor excuse of a country that Haiti is right now is reason enough for us not wanting to have any intercourse whatsoever with that poverty ladden, famine stricken, and disease ridden people, so you'll excuse us if we don't want to have people of haitian descent transform our country into the carbon replica of the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, a title which the country of their forefathers is shamefully known for worldwide. Your hipocrisy is rich, seeing as how your country (assuming that you're either from the US or Western Europe), don't want to see itself being politically dominated by the children of inmigrant minorities, so you'll excuse me if I don't share your liberal, lefty-whiner ways. " This, I'm sorry, is the cream of the crop. You want to brush off accusations of racism and the best that you come up with is this paranoid rant? If Haiti is a poor excuse of a country, what is the DR? The Switzerland of the Antilles? Is that how Dominicans are received when they arrive to the coasts of the US half-eaten by the sharks? As the prosperous promise of Latin America? And by the way: my country has just elected a new president: the son of an inmigrant from Kenya and a Kansas native, and I'm proud of it. An inmigrant who was allowed to be something else besides an inmigrant, as opposed to the DR where he or she would have been put to work in the cane fields as soon as he or she crossed the border.

• The whole paragraph about "they treat them worse in other islands": that's the regular BS of the sorts of "I wronged, but the other ones wronged, too". And as far as I know no other island conducted government-sanctioned mass killings aimed at wiping out an entire set of the population, nor tried to used them as a starting point for an eventual war with Haiti.

Adieu, mon ami the real dwarf. Unfortunately for you, when I travel I use my eyes and I use my head. I say it again: use that rhetoric of yours for the other tourists, the ones who use their eyes and every other organ except for the head.

Chaugnar Faugn (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)