Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) | '{{WikiProject Caribbean|class=Start|importance=Low}}
=== 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.[[User:Adreamtonight|Adreamtonight]] 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this A Racist Movement against dominicans???Ya should make a new article named Anti-Dominicanism too! <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:69.119.127.181|69.119.127.181]] ([[User talk:69.119.127.181|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.119.127.181|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> sockpuppet of banned user EdwinCasadoBaez
Just look at the sources were they get things from:HAITI'''FOREVER'''.COM
[http://haitiforever.com/windowsonhaiti/esagas2.shtml]<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:69.119.127.181 |69.119.127.181 ]] ([[User talk:69.119.127.181 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.119.127.181 |contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:The link seems to just be a mirror of [http://www.websterfl.edu/~corbetre/haiti//misctopic/dominican/conception.htm this article] which is already cited elsewhere in the text. Why they used two different links to cite the same article is beyond me.--[[User:Rosicrucian|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.[[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to rearrange the article so it at least flows logically. [[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hope this is better, any feedback?[[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
ArmyGuy's corrections were good but who the hell pluralizes with apostrophes???? Cleaned it up again [[User:EYDrevista|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! [[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antihaitianismo&diff=172806036&oldid=172742172] that I placed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antihaitianismo&diff=prev&oldid=171366639] right after saying that they were good [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antihaitianismo&diff=next&oldid=169553023] [[User:Armyguy11|Armyguy11]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] ([[User talk: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.
[[User:Armyguy11|Armyguy11]] ([[User talk:Armyguy11|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 01:49, 12 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 [[Slavery in the United States|United States]] funding, a former slavist and currently racist nation. (see [[Criticism of Human Rights Watch]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Flurry|Flurry]] ([[User talk:Flurry|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Flurry|contribs]]) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==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." [[User:Jgrullon88|Jgrullon88]] ([[User talk: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 [[Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States|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.
[[User:Walter Sobchak0|Walter Sobchak0]] ([[User talk:Walter Sobchak0|talk]]) 12:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)' |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | '{{WikiProject Caribbean|class=Start|importance=Low}}
=== 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.[[User:Adreamtonight|Adreamtonight]] 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this A Racist Movement against dominicans???Ya should make a new article named Anti-Dominicanism too! <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:69.119.127.181|69.119.127.181]] ([[User talk:69.119.127.181|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.119.127.181|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> sockpuppet of banned user EdwinCasadoBaez
Just look at the sources were they get things from:HAITI'''FOREVER'''.COM
[http://haitiforever.com/windowsonhaiti/esagas2.shtml]<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:69.119.127.181 |69.119.127.181 ]] ([[User talk:69.119.127.181 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.119.127.181 |contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:The link seems to just be a mirror of [http://www.websterfl.edu/~corbetre/haiti//misctopic/dominican/conception.htm this article] which is already cited elsewhere in the text. Why they used two different links to cite the same article is beyond me.--[[User:Rosicrucian|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.[[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to rearrange the article so it at least flows logically. [[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hope this is better, any feedback?[[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
ArmyGuy's corrections were good but who the hell pluralizes with apostrophes???? Cleaned it up again [[User:EYDrevista|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! [[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antihaitianismo&diff=172806036&oldid=172742172] that I placed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antihaitianismo&diff=prev&oldid=171366639] right after saying that they were good [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antihaitianismo&diff=next&oldid=169553023] [[User:Armyguy11|Armyguy11]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EYDrevista|EYDrevista]] ([[User talk: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.
[[User:Armyguy11|Armyguy11]] ([[User talk:Armyguy11|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.62.56.197|24.62.56.197]] ([[User talk:24.62.56.197|talk]]) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== 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 [[Slavery in the United States|United States]] funding, a former slavist and currently racist nation. (see [[Criticism of Human Rights Watch]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Flurry|Flurry]] ([[User talk:Flurry|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Flurry|contribs]]) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== 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...
[[User:Chaugnar Faugn|Chaugnar Faugn]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Jgrullon88|Jgrullon88]] ([[User talk: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 [[Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States|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.
[[User:Walter Sobchak0|Walter Sobchak0]] ([[User talk: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? ([[User:Bishamonten1138|Bishamonten1138]] ([[User talk: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?
[[User:Chaugnar Faugn|Chaugnar Faugn]] ([[User talk:Chaugnar Faugn|talk]]) 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
'''
== Continuation ==
'''
Chaugnar Faugn asked: 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?
No, what I'm trying to tell you is that a good chunk of them actually climb through the socioeconomic ladder, so it's an absolute falsehood to say that their lot in life in the DR will only be limited to cutting cane or picking blocks in the constructions. If you don't believe me, why don't you come to the DR and check out the campuses of those universities? you'll be quite astonished about their numbers there. Another falsehood is the one that say that they don't receive medical attention over here, when it's a know fact that, were it not for the medical facilities that we have on the border provinces, the mortality rates of haitian pregnant women would actually be higher, cuz' Haiti is a country that only have 2,240 medics to attend an entire country (and 700 of those doctors are actually cubans), and with an abysmal lack of medical facilities to boot. In fact,we have gone as far as making an entire wing of the Santiago Metropolitan Hospital to be devoted to attend to the health of the haitian inmigrants, and in kreyol ayisien, no less.
You absolutely need to take what your NGO's say with a grain of salt, the same thing that I do with everything that the government of my country says. Granted, there's racism on the DR (which human society have gotten rid of this evil, may I ask?), but its attitude with inmigrants is certainly not much worse than the one of other societies on earth, like for example, Japan, which discriminates its own people born on foreign lands, because of such simple things like carrying a non-Yamato name. Isn't that attitude also sick to you?
Chaugnar Faugn asked: Don't you see that feeling ashamed of one's own African ancestry is racism, and induces people into racist attitudes?
Yes, but it's also racism to induce black/coloured people to confrontation against light skinned/white people as it happened on Haiti and the other islands of the Caribbean (Jamaica, the Virgin Islands, etc.), which is the very thing that the NGO's funded by your government are trying to accomplish over here. Can we at least agree on this point? [[User:Bishamonten1138|Bishamonten1138]] ([[User talk:Bishamonten1138|talk]]) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
=== Answer ===
"No, what I'm trying to tell you is that a good chunk of them actually climb through the socioeconomic ladder, so it's an absolute falsehood to say that their lot in life in the DR will only be limited to cutting cane or picking blocks in the constructions. If you don't believe me, why don't you come to the DR and check out the campuses of those universities? you'll be quite astonished about their numbers there. "
I don't know the exact situation nowadays, but this is the same argument used by so many people in countries such as France: "You should see how many blacks and Algerians fill our universities". Does this prevent France from being, arguably, the most racist country in Europe? No. Actually, it enforces racism and margination even more, since the glass ceiling will be even more difficult to assess from the outside, and thus casual and institutional racism will be even more rampant because it will be more difficult to detect by outside observers (including the NGO's that seem to bother you so much).
"Another falsehood is the one that say that they don't receive medical attention over here, when it's a know fact that, were it not for the medical facilities that we have on the border provinces, the mortality rates of haitian pregnant women would actually be higher, cuz' Haiti is a country that only have 2,240 medics to attend an entire country (and 700 of those doctors are actually cubans), and with an abysmal lack of medical facilities to boot. In fact,we have gone as far as making an entire wing of the Santiago Metropolitan Hospital to be devoted to attend to the health of the haitian inmigrants, and in kreyol ayisien, no less. "
That doesn't impress me. Hospitals such as these could also be found in the outskirts of Cape Town or in any peanut plantation in Lesotho during apartheid. It's the least that could be done, albeit from a patronizing and condescendent attitude, for these people. And you should look at your whole argument. If I substituted in "Dominicans" for "Haitians" and "Venice Beach, LA" or "Ellis Island, NY" for the DR/border, this whole paragraph would seem extremely offensive to you. You'd feel compared to cattle being taken to the vet or something.
"You absolutely need to take what your NGO's say with a grain of salt, the same thing that I do with everything that the government of my country says. Granted, there's racism on the DR (which human society have gotten rid of this evil, may I ask?), but its attitude with inmigrants is certainly not much worse than the one of other societies on earth, like for example, Japan, which discriminates its own people born on foreign lands, because of such simple things like carrying a non-Yamato name. Isn't that attitude also sick to you? "
Of course it is! Japanese society is among the most racist and ethnocentric societies on Earth.
And by the way, I like NGO's as much as you do but if it not were for them we wouldn't know, for instance, that there is racism in DR -- which is a useful thing to know, even if you find it irrelevant.
"Chaugnar Faugn asked: Don't you see that feeling ashamed of one's own African ancestry is racism, and induces people into racist attitudes?
Yes, but it's also racism to induce black/coloured people to confrontation against light skinned/white people as it happened on Haiti and the other islands of the Caribbean (Jamaica, the Virgin Islands, etc.), which is the very thing that the NGO's funded by your government are trying to accomplish over here. Can we at least agree on this point?"
Yes we do, but the racism of these black people is a reaction induced by decades and centuries of abuse (same as the racism of some Scottish and Irish people towards the English for instance), and I challenge you to find any serious instance of mass violence, or (even more) any protracted situation of social unequalty, motivated by this black-or-brown-on-white racism you speak about. And please don't come to me with the Oran Massacre in Algeria or the Haitian independence process, we're speaking seriously here.
[[User:Chaugnar Faugn|Chaugnar Faugn]] ([[User talk:Chaugnar Faugn|talk]]) 12:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
== '''Continuation 2''' ==
Chaugnar Faugn said: "That doesn't impress me. Hospitals such as these could also be found in the outskirts of Cape Town or in any peanut plantation in Lesotho during apartheid. It's the least that could be done, albeit from a patronizing and condescendent attitude, for these people."
Well, it should impress you, cuz' my intention in bringing this instance to your attention is to show you the abysmal irresponsibility of the haitian government and elites towards their people. Given all the things that we're doing for the haitian people (things that people like you choose to olimpically ignore, by the way), we might as well demand the UN to recognize the DR as the only legitimate political entity on the entire island. And no, before you answer, I'm not one of those "let's keep all the haitians away while mercilessly exploiting them" kind of people that you seem so keen in attacking. My whole point is that haitians can't have the gall to demand participation in the politics of the DR when they have left their elites to ruin things on their own country. If they are to participate on our government, then they have to allow us to participate on their affairs. Given the huge ineptitude that have characterized their running things on their part of the island, allowing us to participate on affairs over there would be the sensible thing to do, don't you think?
And please, don't come with the cheap "you-can-present-the-same-situation-between-the-US-and-the-DR" excuse, cuz', if you haven't been looking around you, the USA is a first world country, and currently the world's sole empire to boot, while the DR is just a struggling third world country, shouldering the responsabilities that it shouldn't have to in the first place, cuz' last I heard, Haiti was also an independent country, so it should have the will and responsibility to tackle its own issues without having to call for help at every single instance, or is it that they're only independent for flag waving instances only? Your comparing the DR to the US is the same as comparing an ant to an elephant, and I think that you're old enough to realize the utter outlandishness of the comparison, specially when the economic performance of both countries is put into the equation.
Chaugnar Faugn said: "And please don't come to me with the Haitian independence process, we're speaking seriously here."
What? Don't you consider the criminalization and eventual complete anihilation of a sector of the population (the former white colonists), and the attempt to reenact the same thing on our soil to be a serious matter? What's wrong with you, guy? For me racism is racism no matter who's the one being the agressor or the victim. Please, don't tell me that you're one of those people in the american liberal left that have fallen in the african american tall tale that says that "blacks" can't be racist because they "have no power", when the experience on Haiti (and Zimbabwe, which you have olimpically ignored too, although the algerian experience is not a bad example in itself) have proven that blacks with political power are capable of being as racist, vile and corrupt as the worst of the american rednecks or white south africans, and your minimization of those incidents won't be able to change this fact, no matter how much you try to rationalize those massacres as "acts of justice" when they're far from being so, cuz' you should know by now that two wrongs don't make a right. Granted, the DR has as much issues with racism as any other country of the continent, there's no use in denying this, but it's in no way the single greatest offender out there, no matter what you or other foreigners might say on this matter, when reality itself (and the misdemeanors of other countries on this account) are witness to the contrary. ([[User:Bishamonten1138|Bishamonten1138]] ([[User talk:Bishamonten1138|talk]]) 14:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
== '''Continuation 3''' ==
"Well, it should impress you, cuz' my intention in bringing this instance to your attention is to show you the abysmal irresponsibility of the haitian government and elites towards their people. Given all the things that we're doing for the haitian people (things that people like you choose to olimpically ignore, by the way), we might as well demand the UN to recognize the DR as the only legitimate political entity on the entire island. And no, before you answer, I'm not one of those "let's keep all the haitians away while mercilessly exploiting them" kind of people that you seem so keen in attacking. My whole point is that haitians can't have the gall to demand participation in the politics of the DR when they have left their elites to ruin things on their own country. If they are to participate on our government, then they have to allow us to participate on their affairs. Given the huge ineptitude that have characterized their running things on their part of the island, allowing us to participate on affairs over there would be the sensible thing to do, don't you think? "
You see Haitians as a monolithic entity when in fact they are a segment of population which is scattered, chaotic and hardly modeled by your simplistic population dynamics. They haven't "left their elites to ruin things on their own country", among other things because they didn't choose their elites in the first place. I could also say that Dominicans have allowed their own elites to ruin their country and leave as it is, as even you reckon: an "ant", a "struggling thord world country". Are Dominicans guilty for allowing 30 years of dictatorial rule by a man whose favorite activity was deflowering the daughters of his own ministers and deputies?
___________________________
"And please, don't come with the cheap "you-can-present-the-same-situation-between-the-US-and-the-DR" excuse, cuz', if you haven't been looking around you, the USA is a first world country, and currently the world's sole empire to boot, while the DR is just a struggling third world country, shouldering the responsabilities that it shouldn't have to in the first place, cuz' last I heard, Haiti was also an independent country, so it should have the will and responsibility to tackle its own issues without having to call for help at every single instance, or is it that they're only independent for flag waving instances only? Your comparing the DR to the US is the same as comparing an ant to an elephant, and I think that you're old enough to realize the utter outlandishness of the comparison, specially when the economic performance of both countries is put into the equation. "
I'm not comparing economical prowess, I'm comparing attitudes. And the attitudes in DR are as viciously racist as any border town redneck police trooper in Corpus Christi, TX can be. You said racism doesn't go along color lines and that blacks can be racist, too. I'm saying poor countries can be racist as well.
_____________
"Chaugnar Faugn said: "And please don't come to me with the Haitian independence process, we're speaking seriously here."
What? Don't you consider the criminalization and eventual complete anihilation of a sector of the population (the former white colonists), and the attempt to reenact the same thing on our soil to be a serious matter? What's wrong with you, guy? For me racism is racism no matter who's the one being the agressor or the victim. Please, don't tell me that you're one of those people in the american liberal left that have fallen in the african american tall tale that says that "blacks" can't be racist because they "have no power", when the experience on Haiti (and Zimbabwe, which you have olimpically ignored too, although the algerian experience is not a bad example in itself) have proven that blacks with political power are capable of being as racist, vile and corrupt as the worst of the american rednecks or white south africans, and your minimization of those incidents won't be able to change this fact, no matter how much you try to rationalize those massacres as "acts of justice" when they're far from being so, cuz' you should know by now that two wrongs don't make a right. Granted, the DR has as much issues with racism as any other country of the continent, there's no use in denying this, but it's in no way the single greatest offender out there, no matter what you or other foreigners might say on this matter, when reality itself (and the misdemeanors of other countries on this account) are witness to the contrary. "
I'm not going to defend Mugabe if that's where you're going, but now that you mention it let me tell you that the best cropping land available in Zimbabwe is for white farmers, and that they are the richest people by far -- thanks to the TRUE racism in former Rhodesia. Mugabe's policy, however hysterically corrupt, brutal and (yes) racist, is a response to this fact.
Black racism has consequences as minimal and localized as the example you just gave me. Racism on blacks, browns (and Arabs and Asians), on the contrary, is universal and its consequences are or can be dramatic for millions of people. The sole comparison of both types of racism is an offense to intelligence in and of itself.
And listen, Mr. Haiti was run by French colonists as their own plantation/whorehouse. Personally, the independence movement in Haiti shed the right amount of blood and in the right direction. I'm not going to show any sympathy for colonists, simply because they don't deserve it. Colonists don't deserve sympathy -- not in Haiti, nor in colonial New England, nor in Algeria nor in Israel. And you, as a citizen of a former colony which by the way still suffers the sequels of its colonial past (racism among them) ought to agree with me.
[[User:Chaugnar Faugn|Chaugnar Faugn]] ([[User talk:Chaugnar Faugn|talk]])
'''
== '''Continuation 4''' ==
My whole points are:
a) What is the reason for your lack of appreciation for the limited things that the DR have done in behalf of the haitian inmigrants, such as showing a laxity in inmigrational controls as to let that inmigrant population grow to such a point that some organizations estimate this inmigrant population to represent a 20% of the total population of the country, a number that not even their other caribbean neighbours (Jamaica, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Cuba, Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, Curazao, British and Dutch VI), even less the US, would allow in their own territories, the US going as far as blockading the haitian coastline in order to prevent the haitian boatpeople not to step on floridan soil, while planning to deport 30,000 of them and giving cubans a free pass on the process (wet-foot, dry-foot, remember)?
b) Why are you and other foreigners trying to single the DR out as the most racist country in the world, specially when there are members of the so called "international community" (and members of the NATO, no less) that are indulging in the same racist practices in the inmigration arena, and openly, no less? a glaring example of this is the case of Spain, which is trying to lure back the descendants of spaniards that fled the country during franquismo, in order to put a buffer to the africanizing tide represented by the thousands of sub-saharan (black) africans arriving to their shores every month, specially to the outposts of Ceuta and Melilla. Tell me, mr. Faugn, why are you singling us out, specially in the light of acts like this:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/features/article_1458090.php/Cubans_get_Spanish_passports_to_their_dreams__Feature__
And before you point fingers at me with the known "dominican-inmigrant-in-the-US case" card, let me tell you (again) that I am against immigrants entering a country illegally no matter what type of immigrant and what country (even the ones from my own). There is a reason it is called '''Illegal''' in the first place. They should know better and try to fight for their rights IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, as many of us do on a daily basis (and like many of us in the past have died for in the place). About intl. double standards with dominican attitudes, my point of view is represented by the following saying of the late Juan Bosch: "O jugamos todos con las mismas reglas, o se rompen las barajas" (Do we all play by the same rules, or do we break the cards?) or in good dominican: "Mira al burro llamándole al conejo orejudo". ([[User:Bishamonten1138|Bishamonten1138]] ([[User talk:Bishamonten1138|talk]]) 11:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
== '''Continuation 5''' ==
My whole points are:
1. Mr. Thomas MacMillan, please do me a favor and stop being such an obnoxious pain in the ass. This discussion is between me and Bishamonten1138 and you´re no one to come and just disrupt the conversation, especially when you actually weren't a part of it in the first place. Go do something else and stop bothering. This is a talk page, not an article, and talk pages are implictly allowed to be off-the-cuff, informal, and even acerbic if the subject demands it.
2. Mr. Bishamonten1138:
"''a) What is the reason for your lack of appreciation for the limited things that the DR have done in behalf of the haitian inmigrants, such as showing a laxity in inmigrational controls as to let that inmigrant population grow to such a point that some organizations estimate this inmigrant population to represent a 20% of the total population of the country, a number that not even their other caribbean neighbours (Jamaica, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Cuba, Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, Curazao, British and Dutch VI), even less the US, would allow in their own territories, the US going as far as blockading the haitian coastline in order to prevent the haitian boatpeople not to step on floridan soil, while planning to deport 30,000 of them and giving cubans a free pass on the process (wet-foot, dry-foot, remember)? ''"
My lack of appreciation is due to the fact that these things, as you said, are limited. The only country where they can emigrate without swimming is yours, that's why it's the country with the largest amount of immigrants from Haiti, and that's the country which in time (albeit reluctantly) has adopted milder immigration policies and implemented slightly less third-worldly healthcare conditions in its border. This is no merit, you see, it's the least (and I'd even say perhaps less than the least) you could do.
"''b) Why are you and other foreigners trying to single the DR out as the most racist country in the world, specially when there are members of the so called "international community" (and members of the NATO, no less) that are indulging in the same racist practices in the inmigration arena, and openly, no less? a glaring example of this is the case of Spain, which is trying to lure back the descendants of spaniards that fled the country during franquismo, in order to put a buffer to the africanizing tide represented by the thousands of sub-saharan (black) africans arriving to their shores every month, specially to the outposts of Ceuta and Melilla. Tell me, mr. Faugn, why are you singling us out, specially in the light of acts like this:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/features/article_1458090.php/Cubans_get_Spanish_passports_to_their_dreams__Feature__
''"
This is not a page on racism or xenophobia in Spain or in the rest of Western countries, this is a page on racism in your country. If that has to be of some comfort to you, yes: there are countries in Europe (Spain, France or Belgium among them) infinitely more viciously racist (at least on an everyday level) than yours. When the immigration waves stabilize and the new generations of immigrants settle and integrate we'll see what comes out of Europe. But at the moment things are like you say. Does that make DR a less racist country?
"''
And before you point fingers at me with the known "dominican-inmigrant-in-the-US case" card, let me tell you (again) that I am against immigrants entering a country illegally no matter what type of immigrant and what country (even the ones from my own). There is a reason it is called '''Illegal''' in the first place. They should know better and try to fight for their rights IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, as many of us do on a daily basis (and like many of us in the past have died for in the place). About intl. double standards with dominican attitudes, my point of view is represented by the following saying of the late Juan Bosch: "O jugamos todos con las mismas reglas, o se rompen las barajas" (Do we all play by the same rules, or do we break the cards?) or in good dominican: "Mira al burro llamándole al conejo orejudo". ''"
Yes, that's right. At least we found a common ground (at last!).
[[User:Chaugnar Faugn|Chaugnar Faugn]] ([[User talk:Chaugnar Faugn|talk]]) 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)' |
