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)

Just a thought

I wonder if we should start an Antimexicanism article for Unitedstatesian racism against Mexicans, or an Antidominicanism article for Puerto Ricans and nationals of other countries' racism against Dominicans. The Wikipedia would then be full of articles addressing every single kind of racism based on nationality, and that is not the purpose of this place. Thus, I believe that this article is, not only biased, but unnecessary. The issue could be easily covered in a sub-section under the article "Ratial segregation." Jgrullon88 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an answer

It appears from what I read that racism against or amongst people of different Latin American countries usually fits rather tame standards and perhaps not even qualifies as racism proper (or at least has racism as one of its least determining factors), whereas Dominican aversion towards Haitians has a strong, if not predominant, racist tinge. I therefore think it is pertinent to keep this article in place, even much to chagrin of people like you.

According to your philosophy, other forms of bigotry, whether or not specifically racist (such as antisemitism, Islamophobia, Francophobia, anti-Italianism or anti-Asian racism in the US) shouldn't deserve a page of their own in the wikipedia -- and I believe they do. If you consider antihaitianism is as irrelevant as (you probably deem) Haiti itself, that's your problem. But please respect the choice of others to think and act otherwise. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some questions (and some answers in-between)

I have a few questions for mr. Faugn: If the Dominican Republic is such a hellhole for haitians,

a) Why do they keep coming?

b) If they're suffering slavery here, how come there are THOUSANDS of them studying on our universities (UNIBE, INTEC, APEC, PUCMM, UCSD, etc.)?

c) Why are you making such a fuss about the names they're called over here, when last time I checked, you're doing the same thing with hispanics on the US, calling them derogatory and offensive epithets such as "beaners", "wetbacks", "darkies", "spics", "brownies", etc.?

d) Are you dumb enough to believe that your idiotic and downright simplistic "One-Drop Rule" is practiced on Europe and the rest of the world? LOL. Please, while I don't deny that racism exist on the DR (heck, on the whole world), it pales in comparison with the one that is practiced on your country, where the state-sponsored terrorism practiced by your government and "white" communities against the "black" population during the Jim Crow era (1900-1960's) and the native americans before them on the expansion to the West in the 1800's, makes anything that Trujillo and the other latin-american dictators did against the regions' minorities to appear milder in comparison. Or are you forgetting that it would be YOUR marines which would train Trujillo and the other dictators on their terrorist tactics? YOUR marines which would dispossess the haitian peasantry of their lands and make them work on the sugar plantations on the DR, substituting the puerto rican and west indian workers that until then worked on them? If something, you're the one who needs to examine himself (and your country's beliefs) before coming here to point fingers and "one-drop" us. Here's a page to educate yourself about the ideological "one-drop" crap that have permeated your country since the 1830's:

http://backintyme.com/essays/?p=15

and

http://thestudyofracialism.org/

I find it amusing of you to be pointing fingers at us, when in your own country the marriage between people of different ethnicities (specifically marriage between "blacks" and "whites") was criminalized not so long ago, the proof being that your president's mother had to raise him outside the US mainland, cuz' if she would have done so in Kansas, she would have ended up in jail for sure. One last thing, I challenge you to ask any haitian living on the DR right now if they would be willing to go back to Haiti on the short run, I assure you that the answers that you will receive will be most enlightening. Why don't you ask your government to stop the deportation of haitian inmigrants and demand for them the application of the same amnesty policy that they do with cubans every time one of their boatpeople so much as step on US soil(the so called "dry-foot, wet-foot" policy)? Can you spell "double standard" with me? (Bishamonten1138 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Some answers

"a) Why do they keep coming? "

Well, what other options do they have? Swimming their way into Puerto Rico (and BTW saying hi to the sharks)? Do you think they enjoy coming over to a country where they'll basically be looked down upon at best?

I could also ask this to the Mexicans and other Hispanics (whom you seem to defend unapologetically later on in your text): why do they keep coming to the US? The answer is the same as that for Haitians: because they look for a better future for them and their families, and the closest country with slightly better conditions is the one they migrate to. If you acknowledge that as a honest goal for other Hispanics, why not for Haitians?

"b) If they're suffering slavery here, how come there are THOUSANDS of them studying on our universities (UNIBE, INTEC, APEC, PUCMM, UCSD, etc.)? "

Oh yeah? What are they, pariahs or college students? I thought you agreed that theirs were the lowest echelons in society... You're telling me that most of them actually end up in universities?

"c) Why are you making such a fuss about the names they're called over here, when last time I checked, you're doing the same thing with hispanics on the US, calling them derogatory and offensive epithets such as "beaners", "wetbacks", "darkies", "spics", "brownies", etc.? "

I've never used such names, so don't look at me. If the argument were on how racist my country is, I would be agreeing with you that there is still a lot of racism around. But then, this is not the country we are speaking about now is it?

"d) Are you dumb enough to believe that your idiotic and downright simplistic "One-Drop Rule" "

The only reason why the one-drop rule wasn't applied in countries such as yours, is that when slavery was abolished in these places the degree of mixing was such, that said rule would have applied to 80% of their population at least. It's not that my country was more racist than yours; it's simply that in yours landlords and slaveowners engaged in far more female slave rapes than in mine and the population became darker at a faster pace.

But listen, one-drop rule is racism (we agree on that, at least we have some common ground) but a caste system based on race is also racist, and creates an 'anti-one-drop-rule' which is basically based on concealing one's ancestry, even when it is obvious and apparent, in order to climb positions in society. And that is what is implemented in your country, with ID cards denoting citizens of pitch-black complexion as "indio claro". It is racist because mulattoes of lighter skin will inevitably look down upon those of darker skin, and we know who stands at the bottom of the ladder... those with French surnames. Capito?

Don't you see that feeling ashamed of one's own African ancestry is racism, and induces people into racist attitudes?

"One last thing, I challenge you to ask any haitian living on the DR right now if they would be willing to go back to Haiti on the short run, I assure you that the answers that you will receive will be most enlightening. Why don't you ask your government to stop the deportation of haitian inmigrants and demand for them the application of the same amnesty policy that they do with cubans every time one of their boatpeople so much as step on US soil(the so called "dry-foot, wet-foot" policy)? "

Same as before, Haitians just have two options: crossing a border and being cheap (or slave) labor, or becoming shark food. What would YOU choose? Chaugnar Faugn (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)