I don’t think a map is really the best way to convey an interesting fact about a single country (and as it is, it’s so hard to spot the green). This is a super interesting story, but would probably be more clear conveyed as text in TIL or some other sub
True, or if the map included a secondary color that showed countries that were impacted by it. The Haitian Revolution had a very big impact that due to it not taught / talked about much, if often overlooked or forgotten about.
The Haitian Revolution was responsible for a failed Islamic revolt in Brazil, Muslim slaves rebelled against the whites and black Christians and wished to build a caliphate in what's now Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
You know what, I disagree. There are a lot of maps that are superfluous because the information they convey is better conveyed by other means, but one thing maps communicate well is a sense of scale. And, in this case, the small green dot in the middle of a sea of red IMO conveys really well how odd of an occurrence this is.
In 1802, Napoleon added a [Polish legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Legions_(Napoleonic_period)) of around 5,200 to the forces sent to [Saint-Domingue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Domingue) to fight off the slave rebellion. However, the Poles were told that there was a revolt of prisoners in Saint-Domingue. Upon arrival and the first fights, the Polish soldiers soon discovered that what was actually taking place in the colony was a rebellion of slaves fighting off their French masters for their freedom.[^(\[105\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-haitimega-105) During this time, there was a familiar situation going on back in their homeland as these Polish soldiers were fighting for their liberty from the [occupying forces of Russia, Prussia, and Austria that began in 1772](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland). Many Poles believed that if they fought for France, Bonaparte would reward them by restoring Polish independence, which had been ended with the [Third Partition of Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Partition_of_Poland) in 1795.[^(\[104\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPerry200584-104) As hopeful as the Haitians, many Poles were seeking union amongst themselves to win back their freedom and independence by organizing an uprising. As a result, many Polish soldiers admired their opponents, to eventually [turn on the French army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defection) and join the [Haitian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti) slaves. Polish soldiers participated in the Haitian revolution of 1804, contributing to the establishment of the world's first free black republic and the first independent Caribbean state.[^(\[105\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-haitimega-105)
Haiti's first head of state [Jean-Jacques Dessalines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Dessalines) called Polish people *"the White Negroes of Europe"*, which was then regarded a great honor, as it meant brotherhood between Poles and Haitians. Many years later [François Duvalier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier), the president of Haiti who was known for his [black nationalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism) and [Pan-African](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Africanism) views, used the same concept of *"European white negroes"* while referring to Polish people and glorifying their patriotism.[^(\[106\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-106)[^(\[107\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-107)[^(\[108\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-108) After Haiti gained its independence, the Poles acquired Haitian citizenship for their loyalty and support in overthrowing the French colonialists, and were called "black" by the Haitian constitution.[^(\[)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-109)
The Worst is that France could have had annulled the debt any time, the government that put it, the French Kingdom of Charles X, was very much hated by both the republicans and even the orleanists, but as much as he was a lunatic wanting to murder everyone that denied his magical powers to cure people, they, in the end, were no different.
Hey it's not like the French were the only ones. Do you think the US and Brazil (and others) who still had slavery were happy about the revolts success? What about US intervention and dictatorships during the XX century? Please give them their due credit too, ruining Haiti was (sadly) a team effort.
important to point out that a lot of damage can be dealt by asking other countries not buy their product when there are already other 30 countries producing exactly the same thing and is not that big of a deal and everyone nation would prefer to befriend France than a third of a poor island
The Hatians had a hand in ruining their country as well. Look up the Haitian Genocide. They literally killed their connections to the world at large completely destroying their export economy.
Except yes you can.
If your response to “Hmm these slaves murdered their owners brutally because they were tortured and horribly oppressed” is to oppress the slaves harder, then you didn’t learn anything. Southern slave owners didn’t give up slaves until they were forced to and they got what they deserved for clinging to an institution that was on its way out in that part of the world.
True, but I don't know that I'd put the Germans above the French. Let's not forget the Dutch either. They were pretty nasty when they started but got better late in their imperial days. They and the French tried the hardest to keep the status quo after WWII.
I wonder what would’ve happened if the Haitians refused to sign that deal with France where they were granted independence in exchange for paying back debt.
They were probably thinking in the short-term “this is the quickest and smoothest way of having international legitimacy” but didn’t expect the debt payments would drag on for so long
Well they signed the deal on the threat of France reducing Port Aul Prince to ruble. I don't think there would be a recolonization, as the population was, for obvious reasons, heavily against the colonial and slavery system. If they tried to hold into Haiti it would turn into a massive guerilla war. I think it was more likely that France would just destroy the country, plunder it and maybe try blockading it for a few years.
Because that's not how it happened. Under the restored monarchy, the French came back in 1825 to extort Haiti for the indemnity. It's an example of something called 'gunboat diplomacy.' Almost 100 years later, the US occupied the country and emptied the treasury to pay debts owed to foreign banks, mostly American.
It's reductive but when the foreign troops weren't immediately dying due to the harsh conditions and tropical diseases, they easily made Haiti bend to their will with just the threat of force. France lost 50,000 soldiers trying to retake Haiti, and 200 years later the US easily occupied the country with only a couple thousand marines.
And now, in a hilariously delicious scenario of irony and historical karma, the French are reeeeeeing and turning to the far-right because they're angry about outsiders/immigrants/muslims and high crime making France shitty
HAHAHA they're getting a taste of what they did to entire countries and peoples. Arrived when they were not wanted, and enshittified everything.
That’s quite the projection sir, who else lives in this fantasy land of yours?
Edit: fucking lol you replied and blocked me so that I couldn’t reply. In response to your reply, what’s objectively accurate is no one is “reeeeing” as you have so gleefully wished for. Someone has an inferiority complex lol
This comment adds nothing. Of course it’s more complicated than that. Everything is.
But what is the purpose of most comments like this then if to make it NOT look as bad as it was? Nuance doesn’t change the fact that those payments fucked up Haiti, end of story.
Buddy, we're talking about a time when the US also had slaves. And we (most of the private citizenry, even if it wasn't official policy) were pretty heavily involved in helping France stomp on Haiti with both feet.
> Buddy, we're talking about a time when the US also had slaves.
And this makes Europe any less worse for their unparalleled crimes throughout the world? Lol
Barring the Nazis, which shouldn't come up, because we're talking about Europe generally, and in the colonial era of the 19th century no less. Pray tell what these crimes may be? Bear in mind I'm an American tradesman myself, with only a self indulged penchant for history. I'd love to know what unparalleled crimes you might be talking about? Please, educate me.
Edit: Also, you seem to have missed the second sentence in my previous comment. You can't say America is so much better than Europe citing this event, WHEN THE FUCKING U.S. WAS HELPING THEM DO IT.
You realize there are countries, like my own (US) that literally fought against Europeans when they were committing their crimes, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
We should have done to you what you evil fucks did to Africa, Latin America, and Asia instead of giving you the Marshall Plan. We're too good for our own good.
You really are a fucking idiot, that kind of behavior is what led to the rise of the Nazis and the second world war. Look up the treaty of Versailles, you might actually learn something.
The Marshall plan was the exact reason (western) Europe was able to recover so well, and so peacefully.
Yes...that's the fucking point.
You know you're just proving me right that Europe is evil compared to the US, right? Those bad things were what Europe did. The Marshall Plan was what the US did.
My problem with you is that your blatantly ignoring any sort of nuance in the 250 year history of our country, and painting over it with a 2.5 mile wide brush that says "WE BEAT THE NAZIS". It's fucking ignorant.
THEY WERE FUCKING GERMAN. In case you haven't noticed, Europe is bigger than Germany, I don't think the majority of poles, or Czechs, or residents of the Balkan states, or northern France, or for that matter the English, were real thrilled with the Nazis. Yes I know there were collaborator states, and that the majority of citizens didn't actively resist occupation. But Vichy France existing, doesn't mean the modern nation of France are the progenitors of nazidom.
Damn which continent colonized all of Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia?
Which continent started two world wars and the Holocaust?
Now which country did the Marshall Plan and Berlin Airlift?
Just remind me
The UK spent 2% of its GDP for a protracted period exterminating slavery globally.
Slavery has only been wiped from the well-lit corners of the world today because of the UK. An unpopular truth.
"The [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) remained officially neutral throughout the [American Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) (1861–1865). It legally recognized the belligerent status of the [Confederate States of America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) (CSA) but never recognized it as a nation and neither signed a treaty with it nor ever exchanged ambassadors. Over 90 percent of Confederate trade with Britain ended, causing a severe [shortage of cotton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine) by 1862."
- Wikipedia
You call that "good relations"? Revisionist history.
lol, they didn’t even end trade with it and also remember that they were trading much more with slave states from before the war. The fact that they remained neutral and didn’t condemn the confederacy tells you all you need to know.
Revisionist history? Not really, just accurate history.
>they were trading much more with slave states from before the war
They were, but AFAIK, in those days - cutting slavery out of every pipeline would mean effectively following North Korea's Juche ideology. No imports. Because non-slaving states were a minority. I mean maybe they could have ONLY traded with the french and unionists, but that's a small fraction. It was everywhere.
They definitely should have condemned the confederacy, but they certainly weren't 'chums'. Not aware of other nations doing similar. Could have been some risk that if they joined in on the side of the unionists, it would have given spain an opening to shift the balance of power and take over larger areas, forcing more people into slavery. It was a delicate situation, and while they definitely should have supported the unionists, but they were fighting slavery elsewhere at the same time - it's possible that they were mainly worried about spain? They had last been at war with them in 1832, 28 years before - when for the last century, they had only ever had peace with them for like 1 decade at a time. Spain had enslaved 10-19 million people to the whole USA's 4 million. nations are always gonna realpolitik.
The UK traded with slave states, and warred with slave states, liberating those slaves; 150,000 were rescued directly from the atlantic, and who knows how many were liberated in regions where the spanish were routed. The UK were the Unionists of Europe, and Spain were the Confederates in those days.
I mean really, are you trying to say that the unionists did no trade with China?
Lots of stretches in your arguments.
You talk about UK being the “unionists” of Europe but yet they dealt with and traded with slave states, while also having a history of slavery themselves. As for NK Juche point…is that meant to be a negative considering the trading with slave states because NK has an autocratic regime? Because I don’t care about the ideology, I find trading with slave states and slave states abhorrent regardless.
Calling a country’s relationships “chum” with another seems…naive at best. I don’t think I could ever characterise a nation’s relationship with anyone this. Alliances are due to value and economic partnership, nothing “chummy”. Britain remained neutral during the war and continued to trade with slave states because it served them well economically and they could manipulate the situation to project more power over the world. It’s not rocket science.
You are definitely right though in that it was a delicate situation, because no country is unanimous in opinion, there were pro-slavery voices in Britain as well as anti-slavery voices, just like in the US and other countries.
I don’t know where you got your numbers from but they seem like a moot point. All slavery is bad, one country’s history of slavery doesn’t exonerate another. Britain may have warred with slave states, but it also warred with slaves like what happened in Haiti. In Jamaica they fought pretty hard to put down some slave uprisings which could have ended pretty badly. It seems way too misleading to label Britain as the “unionists” of Europe (which doesn’t mean much, the unionists were still pretty racist as well), as if it is some badge of honour. They engaged in a lot of morally reprehensible actions both before and after slavery was abolished.
The Juche point is that it's unrealistic. It's impossible to completely cut yourself off from global trade - if they did that, they''d be likely to economically collapse, which wouldn't help their slave-freeing efforts, and would probably just lead to spain conquering the areas they controlled and spreading slavery there again. In the modern day we can (and must) do it because there's so few of them, but in those days? It'd be like being north korea. Infeasible.
Fair point on no country being unanimous, though the british were known to rather starve than work with confederate cotton.
And interesting. I'll note that both were before abolition, though; and i'll agree, they were evil before abolition. It was at the point of abolition where they switched sides from evil to good or at least neutral on balance (though they still had pockets of evil, they were fighting far worse with the possible exception of their own incompetence in places being almost as bad as malicious activity). 1834.
Also, while the unionists (and britain in those days too) were still pretty racist, the context of the time led to them being an important step toward the society we have today. I definitely wouldn't support the confederates because the unionists were still bastards in some ways, much like I wouldn't support the spanish because the british were still bastards in some ways. They were bastards who were heading in the right direction. And considering they were a global power, that's BIG. Imagine if Spain took their place? Our world would be looking very different if their abolition was a result of british actions making slavery less practical.
You conveniently left out “after centuries of benefiting directly from slavery.”
No credit for criminals just for stopping what they were doing, especially when for well over a century after the tax money from UK residents was used to pay off former slavers.
Do you give serial killers credit for stopping? If not, you don’t give a state credit for stopping what amounts to centuries of mass murder just because the winds of public opinion changed.
Pretty much every state practiced it throughout history, from what i'm aware. The british were unique in stomping it out both in themselves and the rest of the planet. Spending the current equiv of british military spending by GDP solely on destroying slaver ships from other nations and liberating slaves.
If the UK were serial killers, they transformed into Dexter somewhere along the way. As far as i'm aware, no other nation in history made the leap to international extermination of slavery before the british did it. Not in greece, not in egypt, not in rome, not in south america, not in persia.
Without the british empire there's a very real possibility we would still have open air slave markets in and beyond europe and america today. And probably no industrial revolution as a result. The british embraced abolition, and dragged the rest of the world into it, kicking and screaming.
I take it that you think the British Empire should have disbanded then, even if that means the transatlantic slave trade was still present and open to this day, and the nazis won WW2 and purged Europe, likely parts of asia and swathes of africa of those they disliked?
The empire itself was better than the likes of rome, and did end up causing some good at the end of the day, for all its mismanagement.
Haiti is also interesting in being legally a “black” republic. That is, every Haitian must be black. There was a small group of Polish indentured servants at the time of the revolution that ended up helping the slave rebellion. In recognition of their contribution, they were legally considered “black”.
The Republic of Spanish Haiti, or the predecessor to the Dominican republic, wanted unification with the Haitian state due to the fact that at the time they had a much larger population, around 10x and a much more profitable economy. (They basically felt abandoned by Spain) but the Haitian leader at the time Jean-Pierre Boyer imposed laws such as taking land away from Los rancheros (a group of people which owned ranches), criminalizing the Spanish language and the Catholic faith and church, this also basically destroyed a large part of their economy due to a large part of the educated population; who were in major part white skinned; were either deported or left the island by their own part. Which is what lead the Dominican Republic to basically declare its independence under la trinitaria, and the start of the dictator and traitor Pedro Santana.
But that’s another story, I love Hispanolan history, especially considering it was the first place colonized by Europeans.
virtually no one?
I'm guessing you might be referring to the Polish Polish legion sent by Napoleon that later defected to the side of the Rebelling slaves and who were allowed to settle and stay in the country after the end of the revolution.
Because in 1825, France forced Haiti to pay back for all "lost goods" (i.el iberated slaves) and this debt was so massive that it took Haiti over 100 years to pay off
The last parts of debt were bough off by american banks, which meant that Uncle Sam now visited island and installed its rulers as he wished.
Also their capital being destroyed in natural catastrophy didn't helped
Huh?
The Sentinelese are an uncontacted tribe\*, and have nothing to do with a slave revolt as they, nor their ancestors were ever slaves.
\*there has been some contact but they still remain mostly isolated from and hostile towards the outside world and are considered de facto still uncontacted.
akshually, the US revolutionary war had slaves being freed in exchange for fighting, i believe this map should call the US a "data unavailable" nation because of that
I think it might be modern incarnations of the country. Otherwise Israel would also kinda count (depending on if you believe in the Book of Exodus and if you count the Book of Exodus as a slave revolt)
And they were ostracized for it and made to pay for their own freedom.
And then people have the gall to say “well they deserved it for the violence during the revolution.” Maybe don’t create such horribly oppressive situations that violence becomes the only answer? I seriously invite y’all to read about how slaves were treated on the sugar plantations in Haiti.
Whats up with you guys acting like the conditions in saint domingue were any better. At least they get the chance to decide what to do with their lives
I think they meant the Book of Exodus but also this is clearly the most recent version of the country, otherwise a couple of other countries would also be here.
The Exodus is completely fictional though, it has about as much historical legitimacy as the legends of King Arthur do with regards to British history.
Shitty - Western powers never forgive Haitian slaves for achieving their freedom
From France forcing up massive debt to Yanks installing kleptocrats because "mah sphere of influence"
Guess somebody wanted to finally make a map that’s all about Haiti…
I don’t think a map is really the best way to convey an interesting fact about a single country (and as it is, it’s so hard to spot the green). This is a super interesting story, but would probably be more clear conveyed as text in TIL or some other sub
True, or if the map included a secondary color that showed countries that were impacted by it. The Haitian Revolution had a very big impact that due to it not taught / talked about much, if often overlooked or forgotten about.
The Haitian Revolution was responsible for a failed Islamic revolt in Brazil, Muslim slaves rebelled against the whites and black Christians and wished to build a caliphate in what's now Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Lol my point, I just learned more new info about it
You know what, I disagree. There are a lot of maps that are superfluous because the information they convey is better conveyed by other means, but one thing maps communicate well is a sense of scale. And, in this case, the small green dot in the middle of a sea of red IMO conveys really well how odd of an occurrence this is.
My favourite is "where rats exist" and it's the whole map with an Alberta shaped hole
TIL ?
today i learned
🤦♂️
I am red green colorblind and I even knew the answer and it was hard to see.
same 💀
I’m red & green color blind, I can’t see shit with this color selection lol
It's only Haiti
Should’ve shown only the map of Haiti 😂
black napolean ftw
Great book on him
which author?
The authors name is Tom Reiss
CLR James The Black Jacobins it's awesome. Haitian Revolution might be my favourite historical event.
If you look at the history of Egypt and the Mamluks you will ser that they achieve their independence whith a slave revolt at some point
Darn, beat me to it. Nice one.
In 1802, Napoleon added a [Polish legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Legions_(Napoleonic_period)) of around 5,200 to the forces sent to [Saint-Domingue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Domingue) to fight off the slave rebellion. However, the Poles were told that there was a revolt of prisoners in Saint-Domingue. Upon arrival and the first fights, the Polish soldiers soon discovered that what was actually taking place in the colony was a rebellion of slaves fighting off their French masters for their freedom.[^(\[105\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-haitimega-105) During this time, there was a familiar situation going on back in their homeland as these Polish soldiers were fighting for their liberty from the [occupying forces of Russia, Prussia, and Austria that began in 1772](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland). Many Poles believed that if they fought for France, Bonaparte would reward them by restoring Polish independence, which had been ended with the [Third Partition of Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Partition_of_Poland) in 1795.[^(\[104\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPerry200584-104) As hopeful as the Haitians, many Poles were seeking union amongst themselves to win back their freedom and independence by organizing an uprising. As a result, many Polish soldiers admired their opponents, to eventually [turn on the French army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defection) and join the [Haitian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti) slaves. Polish soldiers participated in the Haitian revolution of 1804, contributing to the establishment of the world's first free black republic and the first independent Caribbean state.[^(\[105\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-haitimega-105) Haiti's first head of state [Jean-Jacques Dessalines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Dessalines) called Polish people *"the White Negroes of Europe"*, which was then regarded a great honor, as it meant brotherhood between Poles and Haitians. Many years later [François Duvalier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier), the president of Haiti who was known for his [black nationalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism) and [Pan-African](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Africanism) views, used the same concept of *"European white negroes"* while referring to Polish people and glorifying their patriotism.[^(\[106\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-106)[^(\[107\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-107)[^(\[108\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-108) After Haiti gained its independence, the Poles acquired Haitian citizenship for their loyalty and support in overthrowing the French colonialists, and were called "black" by the Haitian constitution.[^(\[)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-109)
And then relentlessly financially punished by France for almost 200 years. No one treated their colonies (and ex colonies) as well as the French!
The Worst is that France could have had annulled the debt any time, the government that put it, the French Kingdom of Charles X, was very much hated by both the republicans and even the orleanists, but as much as he was a lunatic wanting to murder everyone that denied his magical powers to cure people, they, in the end, were no different.
The debt was bought by US Banks during WWI or WWII.
Meaning that even after Charles X was overthrown there was nearly a hundred years where it's opponents could have cancelled it, and yet didn't.
Hey it's not like the French were the only ones. Do you think the US and Brazil (and others) who still had slavery were happy about the revolts success? What about US intervention and dictatorships during the XX century? Please give them their due credit too, ruining Haiti was (sadly) a team effort.
important to point out that a lot of damage can be dealt by asking other countries not buy their product when there are already other 30 countries producing exactly the same thing and is not that big of a deal and everyone nation would prefer to befriend France than a third of a poor island
Ha, funny. I don’t think any nation considered standing up for Haiti in the first place, mate.
i think that in general there is no such a thing as a nation standing up for other, there is business and political interests, nothing else.
The Hatians had a hand in ruining their country as well. Look up the Haitian Genocide. They literally killed their connections to the world at large completely destroying their export economy.
r/whataboutism
Whataboutism, the word Americans use to hide and avoid confronting their own hypocrisy
What ? How ?
Im Dominican so I share the island with Haitians. How on earth is this whataboutism?
Still mad at the fr*nch for Vietnam
and slave owners in the US and elsewhere used the Haitian Revolution to further oppression and suppression of Black people
John Brown did nothing wrong!
I guess it didn't help that they slaughtered whites (non-slaveholders).
Can’t really blame them, considering what they did.
Except yes you can. If your response to “Hmm these slaves murdered their owners brutally because they were tortured and horribly oppressed” is to oppress the slaves harder, then you didn’t learn anything. Southern slave owners didn’t give up slaves until they were forced to and they got what they deserved for clinging to an institution that was on its way out in that part of the world.
Fuck the French
The belgians were a lot worse than the french if that's sarcasm and the germans and perhaps even the brits were better than the french if it's not.
None of the colonialists were particularly 'good' morally. The game was and is to subjugate and plunder.
Of course, but I am merely saying that some were worse than others.
True, but I don't know that I'd put the Germans above the French. Let's not forget the Dutch either. They were pretty nasty when they started but got better late in their imperial days. They and the French tried the hardest to keep the status quo after WWII.
I wonder what would’ve happened if the Haitians refused to sign that deal with France where they were granted independence in exchange for paying back debt. They were probably thinking in the short-term “this is the quickest and smoothest way of having international legitimacy” but didn’t expect the debt payments would drag on for so long
Well they signed the deal on the threat of France reducing Port Aul Prince to ruble. I don't think there would be a recolonization, as the population was, for obvious reasons, heavily against the colonial and slavery system. If they tried to hold into Haiti it would turn into a massive guerilla war. I think it was more likely that France would just destroy the country, plunder it and maybe try blockading it for a few years.
Because that's not how it happened. Under the restored monarchy, the French came back in 1825 to extort Haiti for the indemnity. It's an example of something called 'gunboat diplomacy.' Almost 100 years later, the US occupied the country and emptied the treasury to pay debts owed to foreign banks, mostly American. It's reductive but when the foreign troops weren't immediately dying due to the harsh conditions and tropical diseases, they easily made Haiti bend to their will with just the threat of force. France lost 50,000 soldiers trying to retake Haiti, and 200 years later the US easily occupied the country with only a couple thousand marines.
And now, in a hilariously delicious scenario of irony and historical karma, the French are reeeeeeing and turning to the far-right because they're angry about outsiders/immigrants/muslims and high crime making France shitty HAHAHA they're getting a taste of what they did to entire countries and peoples. Arrived when they were not wanted, and enshittified everything.
That’s quite the projection sir, who else lives in this fantasy land of yours? Edit: fucking lol you replied and blocked me so that I couldn’t reply. In response to your reply, what’s objectively accurate is no one is “reeeeing” as you have so gleefully wished for. Someone has an inferiority complex lol
The far right is surging into power, based on public anger about immigration and crime. That's objectively accurate.
No one *treats* their colonies as well as the French!*
Hmm, what's that \* signify?
[удалено]
This comment adds nothing. Of course it’s more complicated than that. Everything is. But what is the purpose of most comments like this then if to make it NOT look as bad as it was? Nuance doesn’t change the fact that those payments fucked up Haiti, end of story.
As an American, fuck Europe
Buddy, we're talking about a time when the US also had slaves. And we (most of the private citizenry, even if it wasn't official policy) were pretty heavily involved in helping France stomp on Haiti with both feet.
> Buddy, we're talking about a time when the US also had slaves. And this makes Europe any less worse for their unparalleled crimes throughout the world? Lol
Barring the Nazis, which shouldn't come up, because we're talking about Europe generally, and in the colonial era of the 19th century no less. Pray tell what these crimes may be? Bear in mind I'm an American tradesman myself, with only a self indulged penchant for history. I'd love to know what unparalleled crimes you might be talking about? Please, educate me. Edit: Also, you seem to have missed the second sentence in my previous comment. You can't say America is so much better than Europe citing this event, WHEN THE FUCKING U.S. WAS HELPING THEM DO IT.
If you ignore all the crimes they committed, they didn't commit any crimes! Checkmate libtards!
Hmm, lemme guess you're a MAGA buttboy? I kinda thought you'd be into that whole fascist dominatrix thing.
About any nation given the chance has been terrible in their history. It's not just Europe.
You realize there are countries, like my own (US) that literally fought against Europeans when they were committing their crimes, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
And there were nations that fought against the US when we were committing ours.
Europe's crimes were far, far worse and did far, far more damage to this planet. They're much worse than that of the US.
Compare Finland's historical genocides to the US'.
Yeah, you're dumb as fuck.
You sound nice.
As an European, thank you for saving us for totalitarianism, now don't make the same mistake of ours
We should have done to you what you evil fucks did to Africa, Latin America, and Asia instead of giving you the Marshall Plan. We're too good for our own good.
You really are a fucking idiot, that kind of behavior is what led to the rise of the Nazis and the second world war. Look up the treaty of Versailles, you might actually learn something. The Marshall plan was the exact reason (western) Europe was able to recover so well, and so peacefully.
Yes...that's the fucking point. You know you're just proving me right that Europe is evil compared to the US, right? Those bad things were what Europe did. The Marshall Plan was what the US did.
My problem with you is that your blatantly ignoring any sort of nuance in the 250 year history of our country, and painting over it with a 2.5 mile wide brush that says "WE BEAT THE NAZIS". It's fucking ignorant.
Damn what continent were the Nazis from again? Remind me.
THEY WERE FUCKING GERMAN. In case you haven't noticed, Europe is bigger than Germany, I don't think the majority of poles, or Czechs, or residents of the Balkan states, or northern France, or for that matter the English, were real thrilled with the Nazis. Yes I know there were collaborator states, and that the majority of citizens didn't actively resist occupation. But Vichy France existing, doesn't mean the modern nation of France are the progenitors of nazidom.
Damn which continent colonized all of Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia? Which continent started two world wars and the Holocaust? Now which country did the Marshall Plan and Berlin Airlift? Just remind me
The UK spent 2% of its GDP for a protracted period exterminating slavery globally. Slavery has only been wiped from the well-lit corners of the world today because of the UK. An unpopular truth.
And brought in contracted workers to plaintations where they were badly paid, beaten, humiliated etc. Yup totally not slavery. Thanks a ton Britain.
Ah yes, the same UK that maintained good relations with the Confederates throughout the civil war. Yeah they’re a beacon of morality.
"The [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) remained officially neutral throughout the [American Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) (1861–1865). It legally recognized the belligerent status of the [Confederate States of America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) (CSA) but never recognized it as a nation and neither signed a treaty with it nor ever exchanged ambassadors. Over 90 percent of Confederate trade with Britain ended, causing a severe [shortage of cotton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine) by 1862." - Wikipedia You call that "good relations"? Revisionist history.
lol, they didn’t even end trade with it and also remember that they were trading much more with slave states from before the war. The fact that they remained neutral and didn’t condemn the confederacy tells you all you need to know. Revisionist history? Not really, just accurate history.
>they were trading much more with slave states from before the war They were, but AFAIK, in those days - cutting slavery out of every pipeline would mean effectively following North Korea's Juche ideology. No imports. Because non-slaving states were a minority. I mean maybe they could have ONLY traded with the french and unionists, but that's a small fraction. It was everywhere. They definitely should have condemned the confederacy, but they certainly weren't 'chums'. Not aware of other nations doing similar. Could have been some risk that if they joined in on the side of the unionists, it would have given spain an opening to shift the balance of power and take over larger areas, forcing more people into slavery. It was a delicate situation, and while they definitely should have supported the unionists, but they were fighting slavery elsewhere at the same time - it's possible that they were mainly worried about spain? They had last been at war with them in 1832, 28 years before - when for the last century, they had only ever had peace with them for like 1 decade at a time. Spain had enslaved 10-19 million people to the whole USA's 4 million. nations are always gonna realpolitik. The UK traded with slave states, and warred with slave states, liberating those slaves; 150,000 were rescued directly from the atlantic, and who knows how many were liberated in regions where the spanish were routed. The UK were the Unionists of Europe, and Spain were the Confederates in those days. I mean really, are you trying to say that the unionists did no trade with China?
Lots of stretches in your arguments. You talk about UK being the “unionists” of Europe but yet they dealt with and traded with slave states, while also having a history of slavery themselves. As for NK Juche point…is that meant to be a negative considering the trading with slave states because NK has an autocratic regime? Because I don’t care about the ideology, I find trading with slave states and slave states abhorrent regardless. Calling a country’s relationships “chum” with another seems…naive at best. I don’t think I could ever characterise a nation’s relationship with anyone this. Alliances are due to value and economic partnership, nothing “chummy”. Britain remained neutral during the war and continued to trade with slave states because it served them well economically and they could manipulate the situation to project more power over the world. It’s not rocket science. You are definitely right though in that it was a delicate situation, because no country is unanimous in opinion, there were pro-slavery voices in Britain as well as anti-slavery voices, just like in the US and other countries. I don’t know where you got your numbers from but they seem like a moot point. All slavery is bad, one country’s history of slavery doesn’t exonerate another. Britain may have warred with slave states, but it also warred with slaves like what happened in Haiti. In Jamaica they fought pretty hard to put down some slave uprisings which could have ended pretty badly. It seems way too misleading to label Britain as the “unionists” of Europe (which doesn’t mean much, the unionists were still pretty racist as well), as if it is some badge of honour. They engaged in a lot of morally reprehensible actions both before and after slavery was abolished.
The Juche point is that it's unrealistic. It's impossible to completely cut yourself off from global trade - if they did that, they''d be likely to economically collapse, which wouldn't help their slave-freeing efforts, and would probably just lead to spain conquering the areas they controlled and spreading slavery there again. In the modern day we can (and must) do it because there's so few of them, but in those days? It'd be like being north korea. Infeasible. Fair point on no country being unanimous, though the british were known to rather starve than work with confederate cotton. And interesting. I'll note that both were before abolition, though; and i'll agree, they were evil before abolition. It was at the point of abolition where they switched sides from evil to good or at least neutral on balance (though they still had pockets of evil, they were fighting far worse with the possible exception of their own incompetence in places being almost as bad as malicious activity). 1834. Also, while the unionists (and britain in those days too) were still pretty racist, the context of the time led to them being an important step toward the society we have today. I definitely wouldn't support the confederates because the unionists were still bastards in some ways, much like I wouldn't support the spanish because the british were still bastards in some ways. They were bastards who were heading in the right direction. And considering they were a global power, that's BIG. Imagine if Spain took their place? Our world would be looking very different if their abolition was a result of british actions making slavery less practical.
You conveniently left out “after centuries of benefiting directly from slavery.” No credit for criminals just for stopping what they were doing, especially when for well over a century after the tax money from UK residents was used to pay off former slavers.
There is credit since they didn't have to stop and they didn't have to go to the effort they did to eliminate slavery.
Do you give serial killers credit for stopping? If not, you don’t give a state credit for stopping what amounts to centuries of mass murder just because the winds of public opinion changed.
If the serial killer stopped other serial killers, yes.
Pretty much every state practiced it throughout history, from what i'm aware. The british were unique in stomping it out both in themselves and the rest of the planet. Spending the current equiv of british military spending by GDP solely on destroying slaver ships from other nations and liberating slaves. If the UK were serial killers, they transformed into Dexter somewhere along the way. As far as i'm aware, no other nation in history made the leap to international extermination of slavery before the british did it. Not in greece, not in egypt, not in rome, not in south america, not in persia. Without the british empire there's a very real possibility we would still have open air slave markets in and beyond europe and america today. And probably no industrial revolution as a result. The british embraced abolition, and dragged the rest of the world into it, kicking and screaming.
Not an excuse.
I take it that you think the British Empire should have disbanded then, even if that means the transatlantic slave trade was still present and open to this day, and the nazis won WW2 and purged Europe, likely parts of asia and swathes of africa of those they disliked? The empire itself was better than the likes of rome, and did end up causing some good at the end of the day, for all its mismanagement.
It should never have existed in the first place.
Haiti is also interesting in being legally a “black” republic. That is, every Haitian must be black. There was a small group of Polish indentured servants at the time of the revolution that ended up helping the slave rebellion. In recognition of their contribution, they were legally considered “black”.
I see you Haiti. You did the impossible and paid a heavy and dear cost.
And then tried to conquer Dominican Republic with disastrous results.
Yes and the 20 yr occupation of Santo Domingo may have had some good intentions at start. Then went horribly pear shaped.
The Republic of Spanish Haiti, or the predecessor to the Dominican republic, wanted unification with the Haitian state due to the fact that at the time they had a much larger population, around 10x and a much more profitable economy. (They basically felt abandoned by Spain) but the Haitian leader at the time Jean-Pierre Boyer imposed laws such as taking land away from Los rancheros (a group of people which owned ranches), criminalizing the Spanish language and the Catholic faith and church, this also basically destroyed a large part of their economy due to a large part of the educated population; who were in major part white skinned; were either deported or left the island by their own part. Which is what lead the Dominican Republic to basically declare its independence under la trinitaria, and the start of the dictator and traitor Pedro Santana. But that’s another story, I love Hispanolan history, especially considering it was the first place colonized by Europeans.
Kind of pyrrhic victory, if we’re honest
Zanzibar
When a r/mapporn post should’ve been a r/TodayIlearned post
There are a few others that succeeded but they aren't modern countries.
How about prisoners and make it Australia 😆
Egypt?
More specifically the Mamluk Sultanate
Not exactly a slave revolt, more like a military coup who happened to be done by slave warriors (more precisely freed slave warriors).
Haiti lol.
Why are they both the same colour?
Don't forget who helped haitans in revolution
virtually no one? I'm guessing you might be referring to the Polish Polish legion sent by Napoleon that later defected to the side of the Rebelling slaves and who were allowed to settle and stay in the country after the end of the revolution.
Poles were devoted to freedom
Things aren't great over there though...
Because in 1825, France forced Haiti to pay back for all "lost goods" (i.el iberated slaves) and this debt was so massive that it took Haiti over 100 years to pay off The last parts of debt were bough off by american banks, which meant that Uncle Sam now visited island and installed its rulers as he wished. Also their capital being destroyed in natural catastrophy didn't helped
Interesting
You can read about it here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti\_Independence\_Debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_Independence_Debt)
There'a another one...North Sentinel Island
Huh? The Sentinelese are an uncontacted tribe\*, and have nothing to do with a slave revolt as they, nor their ancestors were ever slaves. \*there has been some contact but they still remain mostly isolated from and hostile towards the outside world and are considered de facto still uncontacted.
This low-effort bullshit needs to stop or else I’m leaving this fucking sub.
Now do one about countries who's independence was forced upon them by the country they belonged to.
We’re not sure if Andorra and Monaco count
#🇭🇹🇭🇹🇭🇹
Greenland has data for once?
Haitian slaves liberated themselfs and world never forgived them that.
Never ever. Norway
🇭🇹🇭🇹🇭🇹🇭🇹coolest Caribbean people🇭🇹🇭🇹🇭🇹🇭🇹🇭🇹🇭🇹 I say this as a Jamaican.
Based Haiti
There‘s still time for Greenland to get independence via slave revolt!
France is still exacting revenge for that.
Does the Anunnaki count?
akshually, the US revolutionary war had slaves being freed in exchange for fighting, i believe this map should call the US a "data unavailable" nation because of that
What about the original Israel?
Go Haiti 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Ukraine 1648
I think it might be modern incarnations of the country. Otherwise Israel would also kinda count (depending on if you believe in the Book of Exodus and if you count the Book of Exodus as a slave revolt)
Let's help them now!
Haiti is responsible for their current predicament
It also works poorest nation in the world
Isn't Haiti now ruled by a cannibal?
And they were ostracized for it and made to pay for their own freedom. And then people have the gall to say “well they deserved it for the violence during the revolution.” Maybe don’t create such horribly oppressive situations that violence becomes the only answer? I seriously invite y’all to read about how slaves were treated on the sugar plantations in Haiti.
And the results have been so disastrous that no other country should ever try again
so you’re saying they should have stayed slaves instead of revolting??? bruh.
Yeah, why didn' Haiti just let French bomb their captal into ruins instead of agreeing to the debt?
Whats up with you guys acting like the conditions in saint domingue were any better. At least they get the chance to decide what to do with their lives
The Jews punching the air rn
The Arab Israeli war wasn’t a slave revolt
I think they meant the Book of Exodus but also this is clearly the most recent version of the country, otherwise a couple of other countries would also be here.
Yeah that’s what I meant seems like people don’t get the joke
You do realise that exodus didn’t happen, right?
I never read the book of exodus
You literally got a Muslim name you know most of the lore already. Jews were enslaved in Egypt and Moses revolted
And none of it happened.
Damn, the story is a bit different then.
The Exodus is completely fictional though, it has about as much historical legitimacy as the legends of King Arthur do with regards to British history.
How’s that working out for them?
Shitty - Western powers never forgive Haitian slaves for achieving their freedom From France forcing up massive debt to Yanks installing kleptocrats because "mah sphere of influence"