"DR is far from being Argentina,Uruguay,Chile,Bolivia, Mexico,Peru,Ecuador, Paraguay, Colombia."

Jabao, I didn't understand your point. What is DR from from being with respect to the countries you listed?

I'm going to dissect this point by point. Simply because it has been my experience that these sort of things tend to escalate to a very emotional level and the points end up getting lost in translation and totally disregarded. Suffice it to say that people who debate online would have never lasted a round on my college debate team.

First point:



Again, I have to caution you, too, about taking a liberal view of history. Co-existed is probably the wrong choice of words. No countries can "co-exist" when one invades and tries to initially eliminate the other from existence. That's not co-existence...that's genocide. Secondly, no countries can co-exist when the laws of one are routinely violated by the citizens of the other. That's not co-existence...that's a diplomatic insult at best or a blatant denial of its sovereignty (and therefore, its existence), at worst. Thirdly, influence...if by that you mean "cultural influence", is borrowed freely, not imposed or encumbered on a free people. Never mind that those being "influenced" should never view such influence as undesirable or unwanted.

Second point:



I never said anything of the kind. That's just what YOU chose to read. Please review this sentence again:





No where do you see any mention of anyone speaking Arawakan in the Dominican Republic today. Although I have excellent links on on-going genetic research and historical documents that concretely prove the Arawakan provenance of a majority of living Dominicans and the existence well into late 18th and early 19th centuries of populations of Tainos in those towns in the interior that the Spaniards called "indianeras"...i.e. "the areas where the Indians were still to be found."

Point 3:

Quote:

Ok, so what is the big difference.

I'm reposting this so that maybe if you re-read it you may be able to see the big difference.




After all...what is the big difference between the Northern Irish and their brothers in the Republic of Ireland?. As matter of historical fact, what is the big difference between the Irish and Scottish? After all, they both speak Gaelic and English, the Scottish arrived in Scotland from Ireland, and the term "Scott" was originally used for the Irish. Do you get the drift of this subtle cultural self-definition theory?

You have no right to define another group of people. That right belongs solely and exclusively to THEM!

Point 4:



That's just...it is your opinion. What you refuse to accept is this: Your opinion should never dictate what an entire nations' view of itself should be. You are just one man trying to impose your definiton on a whole nation with over 500 years and 25 generations of continuous ethnic and cultural evolution and identity.

Point 4:



So who would you want them to idolize? Some group of people that will assuage your comfort zone? Would you also have them turn their backs on their Spanish and Arawakan ancestors simply because you desire to say that you are "the same" people when they obviously don't see you as such? This almost reminds me of the dichotomy between the Reform, Hassidim, and Orthodox branches of Judaism. The Reform branch sees everyone as Jews, the Orthodox only see themselves and the Hassidim as Jews, and the Hassidim don't see anybody else as Jews but themselves...they even exclude certain Hassidic subgroups for the mere reason that they were born "in the wrong country"...yet they are all Jews to the average outsider.

Cultural definitions are best left to the owners of that culture. Racial definitions are best left to the families who have the gene pool. And one glance will not reveal 25 generations of genetic material. It won't even reveal the very last generations' genetic material.

Well, mr. jabao, if you're talking about the origin of the name Dominican Republic, the most common version that is given is that Duarte and the Trinitarios came with it in order to honour the Dominican Order of the Catholic Church, which defined themselves by their militant opposition to aboriginal slavery, even if to this day father Bartolomé Las Casas name is abhorred by African Americans because they blame him for suggesting african slavery as an alternative to the aboriginal one, even though the African Americans are ignoring the fact that african slavery didn't have its origin with Las Casas "suggestion", because even before the spaniards landed on Hispaniola there were reports of African slavery being practiced on the Portuguese mainland and by some nations of the Turkish (or Ottoman) empire.

The other source is that, seeing as the island, from the XVII century onwards, would be named by the french, spanish and english alike "Santo Domingo" or "San Domingo" (in the english chronicles). The people of the easter side, seeing themselves with a right of inheritance to the island, took the name "dominicanos" to lay themselves strong to the claim.

As for the article, I agree with you on the fact that the dominican black suffers from the denial, but, he claims, truthfully, that this denial is not for their having once shared a common culture with the haitian blacks (in fact they didn't participate at all in the formation of the identity of the haitian people), but in the fact that, unlike his haitian counterpart, the dominican black didn't the suffer the hardships and exclusions that his western counterparts would suffer on the hands of the french plantation, so that's why you'll find that hatred for the europeans was a nonexistent thing with them. So, having not shared on the pains and hardships of their haitian brothers, the dominican black do not feel him/herself bound to pay homage to their culture or any kind of other tie that they may have, what's worse, he/she feel more affinity to the european overlords for the fact that the spaniards, like they did on the rest of Latin America, made their mission to indoctrinate the indian/negro on their ways, so their subjection would be all the more easier. In short, I think that the main thing that mr. Gautreareaux is trying to say is that, unlike Jean Price Mars and the other haitian intelellectuals of the "noirism" trend, he and other dominican intellectuals do not see race and culture as necessarily synonymous words. And this, on the case of the dominican black is all the more apparent by the fact that, when the slaves of colonial Haiti were busy beign exploited by the french overlord and forming their cultural and national backbone, the dominican black was just a montero or cattle rancher like the white spaniard criollo beside him, because the poverty of the eastern part was so absolute, that the name "master" and "slave" lost all their meaning. Because, for the sake of survival, black and whites had to rely on each other in order to survive.

Point 5:



This would be a very far-fetched argument when you consider that the Spanish-Taino mix that is part of nearly every Dominican's bloodline was already in place before the French or the African got there. Again...a closer logical look at history will quickly answer this for you.

The French take possesion of the western third of the island of Hispaniola in 1697...correct? Do you expect that that section was totally uninhabited for more than 205 years? Assuming that Columbus did in deed land in Hispaniola in 1492 and that there were already Arawaks there. Right there you have two races coming together. A a small group of Spaniard males and a whole lot of Tainos. I don't know about you...but after a long voyage across the Atlantic and not having seen any pootang for months...what would you say was the first thing on those Spaniards minds when they saw all that tata and yaya? You got it. And what do you think eventually started coming out of those Arawak yayas? Right again.

Anyway...if there were people on western third by 1647...who would these people be? Would they be pure-blooded Arawaks? Not very likely. The Siboney lived in small numbers on the western third of Hispaniola. The Siboney territory was mainly concentrated in Cuba. What eventually became Haiti had small pockets of Siboneyes in the southern area of Haiti (around Jacmel and on the island of La Gonave) and then there were the Bimini's (the Arawaks of the Bahamas) in the north around the areas of Mole St. Nicolas, Port-de-Paix, and La Borgne. The center of what is now Haiti...was nominally under Taino control when the Spanish got there, although the Tainos were basically heavily concentrated in the Cibao and Macorix cacicazgos in the center and east of the island...from where they ruled not just Kiskeya...but Boriken as well.

Point #6:



Not at all. The article that has been refered to several times on this forum makes it evidently clear that Dominicans have no feelings on way or the other about their "Negro aspect". The situation with Haitians is not a race one...it's a political, ethnic, and cultural one. I would suggest to you that the Haitian attempt to play the race card is aimed at deflecting attention away from the historic transgressions committed by Haitians on Dominican soil and the continued political and economic havoc that continue to be commited to day through unchecked illegal migration through what is one of the smallest political borders in the world. It just can't be that difficult to patrol that border on the Haitian side....can it?

Cibaeno75,


The point I was trying to make is that all the countries mentioned above are hispanic culturally but are very different frm dominican republic and many of these countries are different from each other. There are different cultures with the hispanic group.

I will continue on the other part of this article. This is where I think he made some good points. After Haiti gain its independence, the former soldiers and form slaves wanted compensation. There wasn't enough to go around to make everyone happy. As the article mentioned this was the beginning of haiti's poverty issues. The land partition was a disastrous way of compensating soldiers and also former slaves because everyone wanted more than the other. It was obvious that the soldiers felt they were entitled to first and more than the former slaves. Mistake numero one by the Boyer administration besides no former business partner with france wanted to do business with former slaves nor mulattos(blacks) thus the sugar industry collapsed and the first embargo impacted the whole country. This time around we had the resources but were sitting on it with no one to trade with. This also caused internal conflict and envy with those who received land and those that didn't.

Haiti initially didn't invade DR rather it was a peaceful transition. As the article stated haiti feared that the spanish re-instating slavery on santo domingo which would eventually effect Haiti. Thus, this was the main reason why Haiti occupied Santo Domingo. Haitian soldiers with no money nor land saw DR as paradise and took advantage of the unification of the island which took possession of spanish property and the elite criollos(native dominicans). This, imo, was the first confrontation and along with the massacres commited by haitian soldiers is where the anti-haitianismo derive from. Also another error was Boyer adminstration paid France for its independence which haiti also went broke paying it off and used resources in the DR to pay off this debt. This was the move that made the spanish elite & criollo elites formed the new republic. Although I have to say it isn't the haitian people rather ex-soldiers with little education motivated by greed and selfish reasons. Unfortunately, dominicans don't distinguish since they were actually haitians. This was the fear which later turn to the poor defenseless haitian that is in DR now trying to make a living just to survive. I personally think it is a mixture of past events and antihaitianismo.

The article portrays haitians as campesinos while dominicans too are from campesino backgrounds although the latter have moved to the capitol. He didn't deny the african influence in the DR and confirms the hispanicised DR. Now this is the same for haiti although the influence of african culture is obvious there is an element of french culture that is the norm. P-au-Prince is very french influenced and the provinces were seen as campesino africans. Even the creole spoken in the capitol of haiti is more french influenced than that of the province. I can speak a creole where a french speaking would understand alot more rather than the REAL creole that is spoken in the provinces. What we see here is both countries romanticising ex-colonisers and rejecting the essence and identity of both countries respectively "campo". Indeed that this epidemic of denying or surpressing the core of the culture is not practice solely on the poor dominican society that is living in denial rather haitians, peruvians,colombians, ecudorians denying there obvious indigenous backbone of their culture. Santo Domingo is indeed a very unique country where the majority is indeed mulatto and there wasn't a race war or a strong discrimination imbedded based on colour like Haiti and Cuba where it was cut and dry. Over all I would like to give this article a B and say that indeed those are the problems that Haitians & Dominicans are facing today.

I would like to also say that any black with money in the DR is white..dominicans will understand this what my sound racist but is just the dominican society way of doing things. Whether we may agree or disagree is our perogative. I as a Haitian national understand why the rant and diatribes but we must realise today is a new day where Dominicans & Haitians need to overcome these barriers not by surpressing them rather monuments parks and intercultural programs so these misunderstanding and miscommunication won't occur again. Say yes to a better island where haitians & dominicans live by our own rule with no one in the middle telling us how to be good neighbours. There isnt slavery in the DR and many haitians are willing to say it loud. There is a problem and it needs to be dealt with we all know that.

And to the dominicans abroad take a look at your position. Why aren't you in the DR? Many left the same reasons why haitians live. Now for someone to migrate to the DR looking to make a living is heartbreak since we all know the economic situation in the DR. That's why many dominican in the diaspora should empathsize with haitians in the DR. Your stories are so much alike. Just imagine if you stayed in the DR where would many be. Let's help each other rather laugh at our weaknesses. I better Haiti & DR make a better island and better people..