What were the causes of the British American War for Independence? What happened to lead many subjects to rebel against their government?

1. What were the causes of the British American War for Independence? What happened to lead many subjects to rebel against their government? How did the rebels gain their independence despite being outmatched militarily on land and on the sea?
2. Who gained and who lost as a result of British-American independence?

3. What were the key sites of conflict in the new republic?

Discuss three things that connect Lincoln and King through these writings.

Readings:
Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address.
Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Instructions:
Almost one hundred years separate Lincoln’s second inaugural address delivered on March 4, 1865 from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s open letter from Birmingham Jail written April, 16 1963. One hundred years is not a long time historically, but it is an eternity for a people oppressed and mistreated for several centuries, including most of the history of our young nation.
In a minimum of 750 words, analyze Lincoln’s address and King’s letter:
Discuss three things that connect Lincoln and King through these writings.
Discuss at least one thing that separates them.
What stands out most in your mind in Lincoln’s address and King’s letter?
Select one other reading and or a video clip for this week and explain how it adds to your perspective of Lincoln’s address and King’s letter.

The Academic Style of Writing.
All academic writing uses language that is formal, objective and cautious. Even when an assignment is written in a more subjective style (personal reflection) you should still provide supporting evidence, use language that is somewhat formal, and objective (without emotional bias) and somewhat cautious. AVOID, whenever possible, PERSONAL PRONOUNS. Limit the use of I, we, in my opinion, I believe, etc.

Conduct a close reading of the article, keep detailed notes on the author’s thesis, and sources of evidence.

This essay assignment (2-3 pages) is intended to foster your information and data literacy by asking you to compare and contrast an author’s argument about an historical figure or trend that differs from prior interpretations and assumptions discuss in Spring, J. (2018). The American school, a global context: From the Puritans to the Trump Era. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. It is important to also reflect on whether the author’s argument might challenge your own conceptions of the past.

Conduct a close reading of the article, keep detailed notes on the author’s thesis, and sources of evidence. For example, you should note what types of evidence is provided and from what types of sources (primary sources).

You also must compare and contrast the author’s claims with others found in the textbook. How does the author’s argument challenge other scholarly views? How does the authors’ argument challenge your own perceptions of the past?

Evaluate the creditability of the sources used by the author. Do these sources directly or indirectly support the author’s claim? Is the evidence factual or speculative? Does the evidence support other interpretations?

Take a position on the author’s claim based on your evaluation of evidence and your interpretation of the evidence.

What is the central thesis of the source?What methodology does the source use to argue its central thesis?

This should be a proposal for a research paper , the teacher wants in this paper a theses statement and a bibliography ( it doesn’t matter on which character u will talk about , but he should relevant to the topic),
also he want e cite all our work using the Chicago method of referencing using either footnotes or endnotes.Primary Sources•These are documents from the time of the event eg, newspapers, photographs, paintings, autobiographies, official or government documents, diaries, church records, speeches, oral histories, interviews etc.•You are still expected to identify what the source is, when it was prepared, who prepared it and why it will be important for your research.•Footnotes or Endnotes in Chicago Format https://www.trentu.ca/academicskills/documentation-guide/chicago-style-footnotes-and-endnotes•Be wary of internet sources. Do not cite anything from Wikipedia but you can certainly use it to map your research.Secondary Sources•These are historians’ interpretations of primary sources that are peer reviewed.•In the library•JStor / Ebsco / Academic Source Premiere•You are expected to use a wide range of sources, not just books.
Do this only for the proposal.•A bibliography is a list of references for all the sources you have cited in your research.•In this case you use the normal Chicago Format for your bibliography but under each source give a brief description of each one.•For your 5 sources, consider these questions:•What is the central thesis of the source?•What methodology does the source use to argue its central thesis?•Why is this source important to your research i.e. What does it have that other sources do not? And how is this therefore critical to your research•Do not number it. Do not use bullet points

Is your thinking and thus writing clear? For example, does the essay have a unity and logical progression of thought?

Instructions: For this revision, in which you expand your first paper, be sure to cite at least two sources from the first five weeks of the course. (I define one source as one chapter from Boyer, the C.S. Lewis article, a lecture other than mine.) as You might also need to enhance your work with additional study on the Internet or in the library. I do not have a specific concept of the organization of the paper, but you will need at least a next set of paragraphs on the material from Novak and Prothero.

If you’re citing from our course materials you can use parenthesis in the text as references–e.g., (Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, Harvard University Press, 1994, p. 105). If it’s not one the assigned texts, parenthesis are still fine (Harold Kushner, To Life! Warner Books, 1993, p. 45). You can also use a reference system like MLA, APA, or Turabian.

I’ll be grading on the following rubrics (each approximately 1/3 of the grade)

  1. How well did you integrate additional course material from the first five weeks? How well do you understand this material? Do you make references and quotations to demonstrate your knowledge?
  2. Is your thinking and thus writing clear? For example, does the essay have a unity and logical progression of thought?
  3. Did you integrate the comments on your first essay and improve it in this revision? How effectively did you answer the main question, “What is your experience with end times thinking and what are others’ views?”

Teacher corrections:  This is a good paper in which you clearly state your perspectives. It’ll be instructive to engage these convictions and experiences with the course material, and it’s probably worth assessing that the entirety of the theological and biblical points you mention about the end of the world is certainly well-represented in our country, but the majority of Christians does not hold to the dispensational, premillennial views that Boyer presents.

As you move into the revision of this essay and to strengthen this paper further, I’d like you to review how well the paper holds together, that is, its coherence. Take another look at whether all the elements hold together around one idea. It’s always good to ask, “Does this paragraph possess a unifying theme?” One tip I use is to read a paper out loud to myself or others.

Another key way to improve this paper is to work at achieving a more rigorous analysis and clarifying further your meaning through revising sentence structure and logical progression. Take another look and see how well the elements connect to each other. You can keep asking, “How does the idea in this sentence follow what was in the previous sentence?” And “Is there something I’m assuming that my reader needs to know?” One tip is to read a paper out loud to yourself or a friend–somehow that helps me hear the gaps. The writer C.S. Lewis once commented, ““The way for a person to develop a style is to know exactly what he wants to say, and to be sure he is saying exactly that. The reader, we must remember, does not start by knowing what we mean. If our words are ambiguous, our meaning will escape him. I sometimes think that writing is like driving sheep down a road. If there is any gate open to the left or the right the reader will most certainly go into it.” We must remember, as authors, we know where you’re headed, but the reader does not, and so we have to work hard at a clear progression of ideas. I hope these comments make sense, but please talk with me if you have questions. In the revision, you’ll set this paper and put it in conversation with the material through week 5. It’s due February 23. More on that in Blackboard… Greg

Material from week 5:

http://archive.ttbook.org/book/revelations-elaine-pagels

https://learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-xythos.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/5de9a46e09e4a/4328792?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27CS%2520Lewis%2520Worlds%2520Last%2520Night%2520%25281952%2529.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200208T210751Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21600&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAZH6WM4PLTYPZRQMY%2F20200208%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=7d7d30fcaeaf71b87d9e6932f7d06c19838c92d01486c3ff3290019e6b2cea52

First draft: The thoughts and beliefs that I have about the end of the world are connected to a Christian point of view. I was raised in a Christian household and went to a Christian school my entire life until I went to college. My understanding of the end of the world is described in the bible as Judgment day and the rapture. My knowledge about the end of the world is described in the Scripture and comes in two stages. First, God will destroy all false gods and all organized false religions; this is illustrated as a symbol of a prostitute called “Babylon the Great.” Babylon the Great is a symbol describing anything that leads you away from the true God. Next, God will focus on all of the “kings of the entire inhabited earth” and all of the wicked, which will be destroyed in the “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” This war is known as Armageddon in the book of Revelation. Armageddon is the final war between the human ruling and God. All who are associated with the human government and all who support it are seen as refusing to submit to God and His rulership. Jesus Christ will lead the heavenly army in the victory of this battle and will destroy all of God’s enemies. God’s enemies are all those who oppose God’s authority and reject Him with contempt. During this battle, God will have; lightning, flooding, fire, earthquake, disease, and all-natural disasters at His disposal. After this battle, not all will die, and it will not be the end of the earth. The battle of Armageddon does not destroy humanity but saves it because all those who serve God will survive. So, what I believe to be the end of the world is more like starting a clean slate with all those who believe and serve God and has wholly whipped out all things wicked.

What did ordinary Germans in the Third Reich know about the Holocaust, and why does it matter to historians?

The course is assessed by an essay of 5,000 – 5,500 words, including all footnotes, but excluding your bibliography.
Please refer to the MHRA system for the use of references (as footnotes at the bottom of the page or pooled at the end of the essay as endnotes), which should be numbered continuously throughout.
I’ve attached the marking criteria and I aim to achieve between merit and distinction

Some book suggestions: Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews and Ordinary Germans, by Eric A. Johnson
Concentration camps in Nazi Germany, by Nikolaus Wachsmann
What We Knew: Terror, Mass Murder, and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany, by Eric A. Johnson
Backing Hitler: Consent And Coercion In Nazi Germany, by Robert Gellately

“Weren’t we women first out on the streets? Why now . . . does the freedom won by the heroic proletariat of both sexes, by the soldiers and soldiers’ wives, ignore half the population of liberated Russia?”

Slavic Review 76, no. 3 (Fall 2017)
© 2017 Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
doi: 10.1017/slr.2017.177
Women and Gender in 1917
Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild
Let ourselves be beaten anymore? Nobody has the right now.1
Ariadna Tyrkova, 1917
1917 is the most minutely studied of any year in Russian and Soviet history.
Yet despite the many books and articles devoted to the revolutions, the battlefront,
and the home front, an important part of the history remains obscured.
The voices of women arguing for citizenship, equality, respect, and civil
rights are the often silenced or ignored sopranos and altos of Russia; without
them Russian history is all bass and baritone.2 While strides have been
made in making women more visible, too often they are still portrayed as
having little agency. This is true both in post-Soviet and western scholarship.
Consciousness about women and gender is not a matter of political correctness.
It is a matter of accuracy. A full picture of 1917 must include the role of
members of the majority of Russia’s population as well as gender assumptions,
in critical events of the year. Much progress has been made in researching and
writing about women and gender in the early twentieth century, 1917, and the
early Soviet period. But integrating this scholarship into the dominant narratives
and classroom teaching is still problematic. This is particularly true
of such key issues as the spontaneity/consciousness paradigm, class, and
women’s suffrage.
On both sides of the Cold War divide, the events of 1917 are still too often
viewed through an androcentric and Marxist lens. Women’s and gender history
exists on the margins. Inspired by the resurgence of feminism in the
west, historians have produced a number of works challenging this marginalization.
Operating in the hyper-masculine post-Soviet space, Russian historians
of women pointedly critique the new status quo. Pioneering women’s
historian Natalia Pushkareva hails the “revived interest in the history of the
women’s movement and in women’s suffrage.”3 Social historian Irina Yukina
notes that: “We are transitioning to a new official narrative that has shed some
of its Marxist and state-centric legacies.” But, she notes, that narrative “tends
to occlude and obfuscate the activities of women. We are squandering an
important opportunity to represent women as important participants in the
1. Ariadna Tyrkova, Osvobozhdenie zhenshchiny (Petrograd, 1917), 15, cited in Richard
Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism,
1860–1930 (Princeton, 1978), 293–94. The arguments in this essay are partially based on
research for my book: Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild, Equality and Revolution: Women’s
Rights in the Russian Empire, 1905–1917 (Pittsburgh, 2010).
2. See Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild, “Misbehaving Women and the Russian Revolutions
of 1917,” ASEEES NewsNet (March 2017): 2–7.
3. Natalia Pushkareva, “Gendering Russian Historiography (Women’s History in
Russia: Status and” Perspectives)” in Marianna Muravyeva and Natalia Novikova, eds.,
Women’s History in Russia: (Re) Establishing the Field (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2014), 10.
Women and Gender in 1917 695
history of civic activism and progressive movements in Russia, and in essence
to rewrite political history from a gendered perspective.”4
I do not seek to minimize the remarkable flowering of work about women
and gender in Russian and Soviet history before, during, and after 1917. When
I compiled a bibliography on works in English about women in Russia and the
Soviet Union, the list totaled 875 books and articles. And that was in 1993. The
subsequent Association for Women in Slavic Studies bibliography, containing
works in all the European languages about the former Soviet bloc, and published
just a few years later, totaled in the thousands.5
Books and articles by scholars such as Barbara Evans Clements, Linda
Edmondson, Barbara Alpern Engel, Beatrice Brodsky Farnsworth, Rose
Glickman, Adele Lindenmeyr, Natalia Pushkareva, Irina Yukina, Choi
Chatterjee, Chris Ruane, Christine Worobec, Melissa Stockdale, and Elizabeth
Wood, among others, have greatly enriched understanding of issues concerning
women and gender in the early twentieth century.6 Pioneering male scholars
such as Grigorii Tishkin and Richard Stites braved derision from some
of their colleagues to make important contributions to the field.7 A new generation,
including Sarah Badcock, Betsy Jones Hemenway, Sharon Kowalsky,
Karen Petrone, and Laurie Stoff have furthered understanding of women in
1917, and its effects in the center and periphery.8
4. Irina Yukina, “Overcoming Soviet Academic Discourse in the Regions: The History
of Russian Women’s Movements,” in Muravyeva and Novikova, eds., Women’s History in
Russia, 23.
5. Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild, Women in Russia and the Soviet Union: An Annotated
Bibliography (New York, 1993); Irina Livezeanu and June Pachuta Farris, eds., Women and
Gender in Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia: A Comprehensive Bibliography,
vol. 1. Southeastern and East Central Europe (Armonk, 2007); Mary Zirin and Christine
Worobec, eds., Women and Gender in Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia: A
Comprehensive Bibliography, vol. 2. Russia, the Non-Russian Peoples of the Russian Federation,
and the Successor States of the Soviet Union (Armonk, 2007).
6. Including everything written by these scholars would be an article in itself, but
here are their representative or recent works: Barbara Evans Clements, A History of Women
in Russia From Earliest Times to the Present (Bloomington, 2012); Barbara Evans Clements,
Bolshevik Feminist: The Life of Aleksandra Kollontai (Bloomington, 1979); Barbara Alpern
Engel, Women in Russia, 1700–2000 (Cambridge, UK., 2004), plus many other books;
Linda Edmondson, Feminism in Russia, 1900–17 (Stanford, 1984); Beatrice Brodsky Farnsworth,
Aleksandra Kollontai: Socialism, Feminism and the Bolshevik Revolution (Stanford,
1980); Rose Glickman, Russian Factory Women: Workplace and Society, 1880–1914 (Berkeley,
1984); Adele Lindenmeyr, Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial
Russia (Princeton, 1996); Natalia Pushkareva, Women in Russian History: From the
Tenth to the Twentieth Century (Gloucestershire, 1999); Irina Yukina, Russkii feminizm kak
vyzov sovremennosti (St. Petersburg, 2007); Choi Chatterjee, Celebrating Women: Gender,
Festival Culture, and Bolshevik Ideology, 1910–1939 (Pittsburgh, 2002); Christine Ruane,
The Empire’s New Clothes: A History of the Russian Fashion Industry, 1700–1917 (New Haven,
2009); Christine Worobec, Possessed: Women, Witches, and Demons in Imperial Russia
(DeKalb, 2001); Melissa Kirschke Stockdale, Mobilizing the Russian Nation: Patriotism
and Citizenship in the First World War (Cambridge, UK., 2016); and Elizabeth A. Wood, The
Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia (Bloomington, 1997).
7. See Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia; and Grigorii Tishkin,
Zhenskii vopros v Rossii, 50–60-e gody XIX v (Leningrad, 1984).
8. See Sarah Badcock, Politics and the People in Revolutionary Russia: A Provincial
History (Cambridge, Eng., 2007); Betsy Jones Hemenway and Elizabeth Jones Hemenway,
696 Slavic Review
Yet despite the by now extensive body of literature in Russian/Soviet
women’s and gender studies, women remain marginal in recent historical
surveys of the revolution. More attention has been paid to the issues of citizenship,
civil rights, and civil society, but the role of women as conscious political
actors remains invisible in many accounts.9 Nevertheless, women’s rights was
one of the most divisive issues of the time, a source of conflict within all social
classes, and a wedge issue for erstwhile allies in the struggle for democracy
in Russia.10 In this essay I will look at themes interwoven with the history of
1917. Two, spontaneity/consciousness and class, are key elements in historical
surveys of the year. One, suffrage, is not. Discussions of all three, viewed
through the lens of gender, shift our understanding of the revolutionary year
and Russia’s place in the global context.
Spontaneity/Consciousness
Challenging the limited role assigned to women in most histories of 1917,
women’s history scholars have significantly contributed to understanding the
gendered aspects of the revolutionary events of February. While the role of
food shortages and workplace dissatisfaction in provoking and fueling the
February disorders should not be minimized, this does not fully explain women’s
activism on International Women’s Day, or subsequent days.
Were the February 23 women’s demonstrations solely spontaneous bread
riots? If so, what is the significance of their taking place on International
Women’s Day? Evidence for planning and organization complicates the usual
narrative. Official accounts and revolutionary memoirs both provide clues.
The Petrograd governor, A.P. Balk, received reports about several lively
gatherings of “many ladies, and even more poor women (mnogo dam, esche
“Mothers of Communists: Women Revolutionaries and the Construction of a Soviet Identity,”
in Andrea Lanoux and Helena Goscilo, eds., Gender and National Identity in Twentieth-
Century Russian Culture (DeKalb, 2006), 75–92; Sharon Kowalsky, Deviant Women:
Female Crime and Criminology in Revolutionary Russia, 1880–1930 (DeKalb, 2009); Karen
Petrone, The Great War in Russian Memory (Bloomington, 2011); and Laurie Stoff, Russia’s
Sisters of Mercy and the Great War: More than Binding Men’s Wounds (Lawrence, 2015); and
Laurie Stoff, They Fought for the Motherland: Russia’s Women Soldiers in World War I and
the Revolution (Lawrence, 2006).
9. See for example, Mark R. Baker, Peasants, Power, and Place: Revolution in the
Villages of Kharkiv Province, 1914–1921 (Cambridge, Mass., 2016). A theme of this book is
addressing the invisibility of the rural populations and the regions in the years of war,
revolution, and civil war. But the remedy does not extend to women and gender. Peasants
are presumed to be male. In the rare instance in which women are mentioned (they are
not in the index), it is in passing. For example, “during the war women led almost all
large-scale actions in which peasants participated, though they rarely acted alone.” The
implications of women’s leadership in these actions is not examined (19). In contrast,
Mark Steinberg, in his The Russian Revolution, 1905–1921 (Oxford, 2017) incorporates
scholarship about women and gender into his narrative rather than ignoring them or
separating them from the main story.
10. For one example of the way in which the debate over women’s rights contributed
to the “conflict and fragmentation” of Russian educated society, see William G. Wagner,
“Ideology, Identity, and the Emergence of a Middle Class,” in Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D.
Kassow, and James L. West, eds., Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest
for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia (Princeton, 1991), 149–63.
Women and Gender in 1917 697
bol΄she bab), students, and fewer workers compared to previous demonstrations.”
These were not spontaneous gatherings; they were planned. Crowds
formed in the center of the city, on Znamenskaia Square, Nevskii Prospekt,
and at the City Duma, as well as in the workers’ districts. Znamenskaia Square
was near the offices of the Russian League for Women’s Equal Rights. Initially,
the participants were well-behaved, laughing, talking to each other, but also
chanting in a restrained, plaintive way, “Bread, Bread.” Balk had no idea why
the groups had gathered on that day, and why there were so many women in
the crowds.11
These were not the only demonstrations. A number of commemorations of
International Women’s Day took place on February 23. The organized protests
which surprised Balk and other tsarist officials, involved women from different
classes. But there was also coordination between radical students and
workers. Bolshevik worker Anna Kostina, for example, remembered that a list
of speakers for International Women’s Day events had already been prepared
before the holiday. Requests to have them address workers’ meetings were
funneled through the apartment of the Bestuzhev student Tolmacheva.12
Understanding the background of International Women’s Day helps
explain the different February 23 demonstrations in Petrograd. The first
and only socialist women’s holiday was new; it had just been proclaimed on
August 26, 1910. From its inception, the holiday was connected to the suffrage
struggle. Searching for ways to attract more women to the cause of socialism
worldwide, leading socialist women’s activist Clara Zetkin called for the
establishment of “a special Women’s Day,” whose primary purpose would
be “to promote Women Suffrage propaganda,” at the Second International
Conference of Socialist Women, held in Copenhagen. Clara Zetkin came to
view suffrage as a democratic reform advantageous to the proletariat. In
naming the holiday, Zetkin used the word women, and not women workers,
acknowledging that women were a separate organizing category.
Many socialist women leaders’ views evolved on suffrage. Initially they
were hostile, considering voting rights a “bourgeois” demand. In 1908,
Aleksandra Kollontai claimed that the feminist focus on “rights and justice”
was incompatible with women workers’ focus on “a crust of bread.” In time,
noting the appeal to women workers of the suffrage movement, key activists,
including Kollontai, recast the female vote as an important proletarian goal.
Russian celebrations of International Women’s Day started in 1913. From
the beginning, the commemoration of International Women’s Day in Russia
sparked conflict as activists across the feminist-socialist spectrum claimed
the holiday. Feminists emphasized the cross-class organizing of women, and
socialists viewed the day as a way to mobilize working-class women to join
with their brothers in the revolutionary struggle. Thus, in 1917, International
Women’s Day already had resonance among disparate sectors of Petrograd’s
11. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York, 1990), 274; “Gibel΄ tsarskogo
Petrograda: Fevral΄skaia revoliutsiia glazami gradonachalnika A.P. Balk: Vospominaniia
A.P. Balka iz arkhiva Guverskogo institute voiny, revoliutsii i mira (Stenford, SShA),
1929 g.,” Russkoe proshloe 1 (1991): 7–72, 26.
12. E.N. Burdzhalov, Vtoraia Russkaia Revoliutsiia: Vosstanie v Petrograde (Moscow,
1967), 119.
698 Slavic Review
female population. Nevertheless, none of the largely male Petrograd socialist
leaders expected the celebration of International Women’s Day to be a catalyst
for revolution.
We will never have conclusive evidence about all the factors which motivated
women to take to the streets on February 23, but an exclusive emphasis
on spontaneity denies the possibility that women were acting as a conscious
political force. As Sarah Badcock has observed in her study of soldatki (soldiers’
wives): “Sympathy offered in the democratic press to these ‘poor, illiterate
women’ implied or stated directly that the soldatki were a wholly unconscious
group, who operated only on basic instinct. . . . This reflects the way in which
the (exclusively male) local government leaders and journalists refused to recognize
soldatki as a political force in their own right.”13 Badcock’s analysis
applies to more than the soldatki. New histories of the year must move beyond
simply including a section on women and strive to integrate the majority sex
as conscious political actors in 1917.
Class and Gender
A class analysis is not sufficient to explain the oppression of women, as women
are in all classes, both inside the family and in the workplace. In the words of
historian Hilda Smith, women “have always been close to the centers of power
but prevented from exercising this power themselves.”14 Is it accurate even
to use the term “bourgeois feminists,” as Soviet and many western scholars
were wont to do in their histories of this period? Questions of the intersection
of class and gender complicate the matter for women. Can a woman automatically
be assigned the same class as her husband, brother, or father? The
early 20th century conflict over extending equal rights and especially voting
rights to women clearly made gender a defining issue for many women, causing
them to create a different set of political priorities than many of their male
kin and comrades.15
Before and certainly after the February Revolution, a growing number of
women began to see the connections between their economic situation and
the need for political rights. Activist Olga Zakuta, from the largest feminist
organization, the League for Women’s Equal Rights (hereafter the Women’s
League), noted that at early meetings after the February Revolution orators
primarily emphasized raising women’s economic status but with time, more
13. Badcock, Politics and the People in Revolutionary Russia, 67.
14. Hilda Smith, “Feminism and the Methodology of Women’s History,” in Berenice
Carroll, ed., Liberating Women’s History: Theoretical and Critical Essays (Urbana, 1976),
369–84, 374.
15. On “bourgeois feminism,” see Marilyn J. Boxer, “Rethinking the Socialist
Construction
and International Career of the Concept ‘Bourgeois Feminism,’” American
Historical Review 112, no. 1 (February 2007): 131–58; Françoise Picq, “’Bourgeois Feminism’
in France: A Theory Developed by Socialist Women before World War I,” translated by
Irene Ilton, in Judith Friedlander, Blanche Wiesen Cook, Alice Kessler-Harris, and Carroll
Smith-Roseberg, eds., Women in Culture and Politics: A Century of Change (Bloomington,
1986), 330–343; and Ruthchild, Equality and Revolution, 55–61.
Women and Gender in 1917 699
of those at the rallies “became staunch supporters of women’s participation
in the Constituent Assembly.”16
As I have noted in my own work, dissatisfaction over the failure of the
Provisional Government to act quickly and decisively on the issue of suffrage
led to the second major foray of women into the public arena. On March 19,
three weeks after the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, Poliksena Shishkina-
Iavein, President of the Women’s League, organized the largest women’s
demonstration in Russian history, demanding suffrage. An estimated thirtyfive
to forty thousand women took part. The march, led by Shishkina-Iavein
and revolutionary heroine Vera Figner, began at the City Duma on Nevskii
Prospekt, in the heart of the city, and headed toward the State Duma, at the
Tauride Palace. Ninety organizations joined in sponsoring the demonstration.
By the end of the day, Soviet and Provisional Government leaders agreed to
extend suffrage to women.17
Pictures and a newsreel of the March 19 demonstration show clearly that
this was a cross-class crowd. Those wearing hats and those wearing kerchiefs
mingled freely among the demonstrators. The march was not, as some historians
have argued, merely a momentary diversion from working women’s
class-driven politics. As I will discuss more in the next section, suffrage was
an issue of importance throughout most of 1917.18
Historians of 1917 have also failed to understand the significance, range,
and impact of feminist leaders’ politics. It is simply not true (as Rex Wade
argues in his otherwise important history of the Russian Revolution) that
most leaders were “closely identified with the Kadet Party, and were either
suppressed or forced to flee the country after 1917.”19 In fact, the feminists
were not monolithic; many identified as socialists. A majority of the leaders
stayed in Russia, often working as physicians or teachers. Some were later
honored by the Soviet government.
The leaders of the feminist movement were largely part of a new, emerging
group, the female intelligentsia. Given the relatively recent availability of
higher education opportunities for women, they were likely the first females
16. Olga Zakuta, Kak v revoliutsionnoe vremia vserossiiskaia liga ravnopraviia zhenshchin
dobilas΄ izbiratel΄nykh prav dlia russkikh zhenshchin (Petrograd, 1917). For a complete
English translation of this pamphlet, see “Kak v revoliutsionnoe vremia vserossiiskaia liga
ravnopraviia zhenshchin dobilas΄ izbiratel΄nykh prav dlia russkikh zhenshchin (How in the
revolutionary time the All-Russian League for Women’s Equal Rights won suffrage for Russian
women),” Intro. and Trans. by Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild, Aspasia 6 (2012): 117–24.
17. Liubov Gurevich, Pochemu nuzhno dat’ zhenshchinam takiia zhe prava, kak muzhchinam
(Petrograd, 1917), 2; Irina Yukina and E. Guseva, Zhenskii Peterburg: Opyt istorikokraevedcheskogo
putevoditelia (St. Petersburg, 2004) 13, 261.
18. Stephen A. Smith, in his recently published history of 1917, argues that the March
19 demonstration was “a rare moment when gender rather than class was the axis of organization.”
See: Stephen A. Smith, Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928
(Oxford, 2017), 140. Other scholars have made similar arguments. Barbara Alpern Engel in
her survey Women in Russia argues that: “When in the aftermath of the February Revolution
lower-class women grew more assertive, they rarely pursued women’s political rights
as such. . . .” (Engel, Women in Russia, 1700–2000, 134). For more coverage of the suffrage
struggle, see Clements, A History of Women in Russia from Earliest Times to the Present,
182–84.
19. Rex Wade, The Russian Revolution, 1917, 3rd ed., (Cambridge, Mass, 2017), 123.
700 Slavic Review
in their families to attend or complete medical or university courses. Seeking
higher education, or any education, challenged traditional notions of women’s
roles in family and society. For many, enrolling in a higher education
course was their initial act of rebellion. Often their families were opposed “to
girls running through the streets to some kind of unthinkable knowledge,” as
one feminist reminisced.20
Still, the intelligentsia were a small part of the population, no more than
about ten thousand in an overall female population of sixty-three million at the
turn of the twentieth century. Judging by the size of demonstrations, and the
Constituent Assembly popular vote, the appeal of political rights for women
extended across the country, to workers and to peasants far from the metropolitan
centers. This was not an issue which died after one demonstration.21
Women’s Suffrage
Women’s suffrage appealed to a broad range of activists throughout 1917. As
mentioned above, the newsreel of the March 19 women’s suffrage demonstration
shows the intersectionality of the feminist appeal, with women from the
working and middle classes marching. Socialists reframed suffrage as support
for the revolutionary female proletariat.22 In her first article for Pravda,
Aleksandra Kollontai, recently returned from exile on March 18, argued for
the female vote as a reward for women’s activism: “Weren’t we women first out
on the streets? Why now . . . does the freedom won by the heroic proletariat of
both sexes, by the soldiers and soldiers’ wives, ignore half the population of
liberated Russia?” Among the masses, suffrage as an issue resonated among
both women and men, and all over revolutionary Russia. Meetings demanding
women’s suffrage were so popular that at some places the halls had to be emptied
three times to accommodate all those who wished to hear the speakers.
Women workers in Kostroma and Iaroslavl, in the Russian heartland, joined
equal rights organizations. In Siberia, an Irkutsk meeting of three thousand
women and men sent a telegram to the Provisional Government demanding
full electoral rights for women in the Constituent Assembly. Typical was a call
to women in Khabarovsk to “take part in the creation of a free Russia,” unite,
and form a women’s union. At one of the many meetings, a union of soldiers’
wives emerged. Slogans supporting women’s suffrage appeared at a number
of large demonstrations. 23
20. Ekaterina Shchepkina, cited in Ruth Arlene Fluck Dudgeon, “Women and Higher
Education in Russia, 1855–1905” (Ph.D. Dissertation, George Washington University,
1975), 109.
21. Ruthchild, Equality and Revolution, 58.
22. The Merriam-Webster definition of intersectionality applies here: “It’s been
around since the late 1980’s but intersectionality is a word that’s new to many of us. It’s
used to refer to the complex and cumulative way that the effects of different forms of
discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, and yes, intersect—
especially in the experiences of marginalized people or groups.” See: “Word We’re
Watching: Intersectionality,” Merriam Webster, at www.merriam-webster.com/words-atplay/
intersectionality-meaning (last accessed July 6, 2017)
23. For the film of the suffrage march, see: “1917 Petrograd March for Women’s Suffrage,”
YouTube video, 4:13, from the Russian Archives of Films and Photographs, posted
Women and Gender in 1917 701
Compared to the leaders of the major western democracies, the Provisional
Government and Soviet leaders acceded quickly to demands to extend the
franchise to women. In the US and Britain, countless suffrage demonstrations,
petitions, referenda, as well as militant actions achieved little. Several factors
explain the more progressive Russian response. Unlike politicians in many
of the older democracies, neither the Provisional Government nor the Soviet
leaders were anti-women’s suffrage. Even those who, like the Kadet leader
Paul Miliukov, initially opposed the female vote, had long since changed their
positions. Support for women’s rights had become standard in the platforms
of socialist and other parties on the left. More conservative members of the
government, like Rodzianko, now recognized that women’s suffrage was part
of what defined the modern state.24
Revolutionary Russia was more advanced in extending suffrage than any
of its wartime allies. British women over thirty won limited, property-based
suffrage in 1918 and didn’t win universal suffrage for females aged twentyone
and over until 1928. French women won the vote only in 1944. In the US,
President Woodrow Wilson was quick to restrict rights, approving the segregation
of government offices beginning in 1913, but slow to endorse the female
vote. As Russian women were gaining the vote, suffragists picketing outside
the White House with signs comparing “Free Russia” with the US, were being
arrested and jailed under the Espionage Act of 1917. Wilson did not declare
his support for the women’s suffrage amendment until January 9, 1918, and
American women formally won suffrage only in 1920.25
In 1917, Russian women took to using their new rights in great numbers.
Their voting rates in the first election in which they had the franchise compare
quite favorably with the US. The Constituent Assembly elections, starting
on November 12 and extending in some places into 1918, were the first elections
in which Russian women over the age of twenty could vote and run for
by “Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies,” March 27, 2013, at www.youtube.
com/watch?v=LLOQASmngrE (last accessed July 6, 2017). For the Kollontai quote, see:
Ruthchild, Equality and Revolution, 225. See also Ann Bobroff, “The Bolsheviks and Working
Women, 1905–1920,” Soviet Studies 26, no. 4 (1974): 540–67, 558, 560, and Ann Bobroff-
Hajal, Working Women in Russia under the Hunger Tsars: Political Activism and Daily
Life (Brooklyn, 1994), 91. On the Khabarovsk meetings and demonstrations, see Pavel
Shcherbinin, Voennyi faktor v povsednevnoi zhizni russkoi zhenshchiny v XVIII-nachale
XX v. (Tambov, 2004), 475.
24. Rodzianko had experienced the wrath of the Tsar on the issue of universal suffrage.
The autocrat remained opposed to full suffrage and further democratic reforms
even at a time of utmost peril to his rule. Immediately after the start of the February Revolution,
Rodzianko met with the Tsar on March 3, 1917, presenting him with a proposal for
elections to a Constituent Assembly based on the four tail formula. The Tsar rejected it out
of hand, writing in his diary: “God knows who thought up such nonsense!” See: Nikolai
Alexandrovich Romanov, Dnevniki Imperatora Nikolaia II, ed. K. F. Shchhatsillo, B. P. Kozlov,
T.F. Pavlova, and Z. I. Peregudova, (Moscow, 1991), 625.
25. Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United
States (Cambridge, 1959), 1975, 294–95 on women picketing and getting arrested; 301
on Wilson’s declaration of support. On Wilson and government segregation, see Dick
Lehr, “The Racist Legacy of Woodrow Wilson,” The Atlantic, November 27, 2015, at www.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/wilson-legacy-racism/417549/ (last accessed July
6, 2017).
702 Slavic Review
office, the freest elections ever held in Russia until after the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991. Over forty million votes were cast.26 The voter participation
rate was estimated by Oliver Radkey to be about fifty-five percent. This is
remarkable given the chaos and uncertainty of the period, immediately after
the Bolshevik seizure of power in October.27 Nevertheless, Russian women in
the wartime conditions of 1917 went to the polls at higher rates than their US
counterparts. The US held its first national election in which (mostly white)
women voted, in peacetime. Jim Crow restrictions for both African-American
women and men limited their overall vote until 1965. Native American women
and men did not win voting rights in all states until 1962. Scholars of the US
Presidential election of 1920 estimate that the female turnout averaged about
37%, while men’s participation averaged about 55%.28
Women’s suffrage is one of the great democratic reforms of the twentieth
century. It is the logical extension to women of the rights of citizenship
articulated by the French and American Revolutions and over the nineteenth
century given to all men in most western countries. Revolutionary Russia
pioneered in extending suffrage to women. And even though elections in the
Soviet one-party state were largely a sham, voting was retained as a hallmark
of a modern state. Given the increased scholarly attention to the question of
citizenship and civil society in early twentieth-century Russia, an analysis of
the role of women’s suffrage and women’s rights as motivating issues, their
intersectionality, their place in the 1917 revolutions, and their domestic and
international impact, is important in complicating and filling in the full history
of this revolutionary year. Suffrage as a motivating factor for women’s
entry into the public sphere can be seen from the outbreak of revolution, on
International Women’s Day, through the demonstrations which culminated
in Russian women winning the vote, to the actualization of this right in local
and then national political participation through the Constituent Assembly.
In sum, issues such as political consciousness, class, citizenship, and suffrage,
all of which became especially significant in the revolutionary outbreak
and the unfurling of events in 1917, cannot be understood without reference to
the role of women and gender. It behooves us as historians, especially as the
current Kremlin ruler seeks to downplay the 1917 revolutions and encourage a
return to “traditional values” in all areas, to provide the most accurate information
we can about the events of that year and the progressive democratic
movements which emerged then, even if they were eventually vanquished.29
26. Mark Vishniak, Vserossiiskoe uchreditel΄noe sobranie (Paris, 1932), 83.
27. For the Constituent Assembly election participation figures, see Oliver Radkey,
Russia Goes to the Polls: The Elections to the All-Russian Constituent Assembly, 1917
(Ithaca, 1989), 44–45.
28. J. Kevin Corder and Christina Wolbrecht, Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters
from Suffrage through the New Deal (New York, 2016), 137.
29. Neil MacFarquhar, “’Revolution? What Revolution?’ Russia Asks 100 Years Later,”
New York Times March 11, 2017, A1, A8.

What is the meaning and significance of these proposals?

4/7/13 Black Thought and Culture
solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/bltc/getvolume.pl?S8027 1/6
Home Browse Find Search Help
Johnson, James Weldon, 1871-­1938, Self-­Determining Haiti. (Nation Associates, New York, NY, 1920).in Nation . [Author Information] [Bibliographic Details]
Table of Contents
Self-­Determining Haiti: I. The American Occupation Page 236
Self-­Determining Haiti: II. What the United States Has Accomplished Page 265
Self-­Determining Haiti: III. Government of, by, and for the National City Bank Page 295
Self-­Determining Haiti IV. The Haitian People Page 345
-­-­ 236 -­-­
Self-­Determining Haiti: I. The American Occupation
By JAMES WELDON JOHNSON
TO know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some
three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank
of New York is very much interested in Haiti. It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national
funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-­president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in
matters relating to the island republic. Most Americans have the opinion -­-­ if they have any opinion at all on the subject -­-­ that the United States was forced, on purely humane grounds,
to intervene in the black republic because of the tragic coup d’etat which resulted in the overthrow and death of President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam and the execution of the political
prisoners confined at Port-­au-­Prince, July 27-­28, 1915;; and that this government has been compelled to keep a military force in Haiti since that time to pacify the country and maintain
order.
The fact is that for nearly a year before forcible intervention on the part of the United States this government was seeking to compel Haiti to submit to “peaceable” intervention. Toward
the close of 1914 the United States notified the government of Haiti that it was disposed to recognize the newly-­elected president, Theodore Davilmar, as soon as a Haitian
commission would sign at Washington “satisfactory protocols” relative to a convention with the United States on the model of the Dominican-­American Convention. On December 15,
1914, the Haitian government, through its Secretary of Foreign Affairs, replied: “The Government of the Republic of Haiti would consider itself lax in its duty to the United States and to
itself if it allowed the least doubt to exist of its irrevocable intention not to accept any control of the administration of Haitian affairs by a foreign Power.” On December 19, the United
States, through its legation at Port-­au-­Prince, replied, that in expressing its willingness to do in Haiti what had been done in Santo Domingo it “was actuated entirely by a disinterested
desire to give assistance.”
Two months later, the Theodore government was overthrown by a revolution and Vilbrun Guillaume was elected president. Immediately afterwards there arrived at Port-­au-­Prince an
American commission from Washington -­-­ the Ford mission. The commissioners were received at the National Palace and attempted to take up the discussion of the convention that
had been broken off in December, 1914. However, they lacked full powers and no negotiations were entered into. After several days, the Ford mission sailed for the United States. But
soon after, in May, the United States sent to Haiti Mr. Paul Fuller, Jr., with the title Envoy Extraordinary, on a special mission to apprise the Haitian government that the Guillaume
administration would not be recognized by the American government unless Haiti accepted and signed the project of a convention which he was authorized to present. After examining
the project the Haitian government submitted to the American commission a counter-­project, formulating the conditions under which it would be possible to accept the assistance of the
United States. To this counter-­project Mr. Fuller proposed certain modifications, some of which were accepted by the Haitian government. On June 5, 1915, Mr. Fuller acknowledged
the receipt of the Haitian communication regarding these modifications, and sailed from Port-­au-­Prince.
Before any further discussion of the Fuller project between the two governments, political incidents in Haiti led rapidly to the events of July 27 and 28. On July 27 President Guillaume
fled to the French Legation, and on the same day took place a massacre of the political prisoners in the prison at Port-­au-­Prince. On the morning of July 28 President Guillaume was
forcibly taken from French Legation and killed. On the afternoon of July 28 an American man-­of-­war dropped anchor in the harbor of Port-­au-­Prince and landed American forces. It
should be borne in mind that through all of this the life of not a single American citizen had been taken or jeopardized.
The overthrow of Guillaume and its attending consequences did not constitute the cause of American intervention in Haiti, but merely furnished the awaited opportunity. Since July 28,
1915, American military forces have been in control of Haiti. These forces have been increased until there are now somewhere near three thousand Americans under arms in the
republic. From the very first, the attitude of the Occupation has been that it was dealing with a conquered territory. Haitian forces were disarmed, military posts and barracks were
occupied, and the National Palace was taken as headquarters for the Occupation. After selecting a new and acceptable president for the country, steps were at once taken to compel
the Haitian government to sign a convention in which it virtually foreswore its independence. This was accomplished by September 16, 1915;; and although the terms of this convention
provided for the administration of the Haitian customs by American civilian officials, all the principal custom houses of the country had been seized by military force and placed in
charge of American Marine officers before the end of August. The disposition of the funds collected in duties from the time of the military seizure of the custom houses to the time of their
administration by civilian officials is still a question concerning which the established censorship in Haiti allows no discussion.
It is interesting to note the wide difference between the convention which Haiti was forced to sign and the convention which was in course of diplomatic negotiation at the moment of
intervention. The Fuller convention asked little of Haiti and gave something, the Occupation convention demands everything of Haiti and gives nothing. The Occupation convention is
really the same convention which the Haitian government peremptorily refused to discuss in
-­-­ [237] -­-­
December, 1914, except that in addition to American control of Haitian finances it also provides for American control of the Haitian military forces. The Fuller convention contained
neither of these provisions. When the United States found itself in a position to take what it had not even dared to ask, it used brute force and took it. But even a convention which
practically deprived Haiti of its independence was found not wholly adequate for the accomplishment of all that was contemplated. The Haitian constitution still offered some
embarrassments, so it was decided that Haiti must have a new constitution. It was drafted and presented to the Haitian assembly for adoption. The assembly balked -­-­ chiefly at the
article in the proposed document removing the constitutional disability which prevented aliens from owning land in Haiti. Haiti had long considered the denial of this right to aliens as
her main bulwark against overwhelming economic exploitation;; and it must be admitted that she had better reasons than the several states of the United States that have similar
provisions.
The balking of the assembly resulted in its being dissolved by actual military force and the locking of doors of the Chamber. There has been no Haitian legislative body since. The
desired constitution was submitted to a plebiscite by a decree of the President, although such a method of constitutional revision was clearly unconstitutional. Under the circumstances
of the Occupation the plebiscite was, of course, almost unanimous for the desired change, and the new constitution was promulgated on June 18, 1918. Thus Haiti was given a new
constitution by a flagrantly unconstitutional method. The new document contains several fundamental changes and includes a “Special Article” which declares:
All the acts of the Government of the United States during its military Occupation in Haiti are ratified and confirmed.
No Haitian shall be liable to civil or criminal prosecution for any act done by order of the Occupation or under its authority.
The acts of the courts martial of the Occupation, without, however, infringing on the right to pardon, shall not be subject to revision.
The acts of the Executive Power (the President) up to the promulgation of the present constitution are likewise ratified and confirmed.
The above is the chronological order of the principal steps by which the independence of a neighboring republic has been taken away, the people placed under foreign military
domination from which they have no appeal, and exposed to foreign economic exploitation against which they are defenseless. All of this has been done in the name of the
Government of the United States;; however, without any act by Congress and without any knowledge of the American people.
4/7/13 Black Thought and Culture
solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/bltc/getvolume.pl?S8027 2/6
The law by which Haiti is ruled today is martial law dispensed by Americans. There is a form of Haitian civil government, but it is entirely dominated by the military Occupation.
President Dartiguenave, bitterly rebellious at heart as is every good Haitian, confessed to me the powerlessness of himself and his cabinet. He told me that the American authorities
give no heed to recommendations made by him or his officers;; that they would not even discuss matters about which the Haitian officials have superior knowledge. The provisions of
both the old and the new constitutions are ignored in that there is no Haitian legislative body, and there has been none since the dissolution of the assembly in April, 1916. In its stead
there is a Council of State composed of twenty-­one members appointed by the president, which functions effectively only when carrying out the will of the Occupation. Indeed the
Occupation often overrides the civil courts. A prisoner brought before the proper court, exonerated, and discharged, is, nevertheless, frequently held by the military. All government
funds are collected by the Occupation and are dispensed at its will and pleasure. The greater part of these funds is expended for the maintenance of the military forces. There is the
strictest censorship of the press. No Haitian newspaper is allowed to publish anything in criticism of the Occupation or the Haitian government. Each newspaper in Haiti received an
order to that effect from the Occupation, and the same order carried the injunction not to print the order. Nothing that might reflect upon the Occupation administration in Haiti is allowed
to reach the newspapers of the United States.
The Haitian people justly complain that not only is the convention inimical to the best interests of their country, but that the convention, such as it is, is not being carried out in
accordance with the letter, nor in accordance with the spirit in which they were led to believe it would be carried out. Except one, all of the obligations in the convention which the
United States undertakes in favor of Haiti are contained in the first article of that document, the other fourteen articles being made up substantially of obligations to the United States
assumed by Haiti. But nowhere in those fourteen articles is there anything to indicate that Haiti would be subjected to military domination. In Article I the United States promises to “aid
the Haitian government in the proper and efficient development of its agricultural, mineral, and commercial resources and in the establishment of the finances of Haiti on a firm and
solid basis.” And the whole convention and, especially, the protestations of the United States before the signing of the instrument can be construed only to mean that that aid would be
extended through the supervision of civilian officials.
The one promise of the United States to Haiti not contained in the first article of the convention is that clause of Article XIV which says, “and, should the necessity occur, the United
States will lend an efficient aid for the preservation of Haitian independence and the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty.” It
is the extreme of irony that this clause which the Haitians had a right to interpret as a guarantee to them against foreign invasion should first of all be invoked against the Haitian people
themselves, and offer the only peg on which any pretense to a right of military domination can be hung.
There are several distinct forces -­-­ financial, military, bureaucratic -­-­ at work in Haiti which, tending to aggravate the conditions they themselves have created, are largely self-­
perpetuating. The most sinister of these, the financial engulfment of Haiti by the National City Bank of New York, already alluded to, will be discussed in detail in a subsequent article.
The military Occupation has made and continues to make military Occupation necessary. The justification given is that it is necessary for the pacification of the country. Pacification
would never have been necessary had not American policies been filled with so many stupid and brutal blunders;; and it will never be effective so long as “pacification” means merely
the hunting of ragged Haitians in the hills with machine guns.
Then there is the force which the several hundred American
-­-­ [238] -­-­
civilian place-­holders constitute. They have found in Haiti the veriable promised land of “jobs for deserving democrats” and naturally do not wish to see the present status discontinued.
Most of these deserving democrats are Southerners. The head of the customs service of Haiti was a clerk of one of the parishes of Louisiana. Second in charge of the customs service
of Haiti is a man who was Deputy Collector of Customs at Pascagoula, Mississippi [population, 3,379, 1910 Census]. The Superintendent of Public Instruction was a school teacher in
Louisiana -­-­ a State which has not good schools even for white children;; the financial advisor, Mr. McIlhenny, is also from Louisiana.
Many of the Occupation officers are in the same category with the civiliai place-­holders. These men have taken their wives and families to Haiti. Those at Port-­au-­Prince live in beautiful
villas. Families that could not keep a hired girl in the United States have a half-­dozen servants. They ride in automobiles -­-­ not their own. Every American head of a department in Haiti
has an automobile furnished at the … of the Haitian Government, whereas members of the Haitian cabinet, who are theoretically above them, have no such convenience or luxury.
While I was there, the President himself was obliged to borrow an automobile from the Occupation for a trip through the interior. The Louisiana school-­teacher Superintendent of
Instruction has an automobile furnished at government expense, whereas the Haitian Minister of Public Instruction, his supposed superior officer, has none. These automobiles seem
to be chiefly employed in giving the women and children an airing each afternoon. It must be amusing, when it is not maddening to the Haitians, to see with that disdainful air these
people look upon them as they ride by.
The platform adopted by the Democratic party at San Francisco said of the Wilson policy in Mexico:
The Administration, remembering always that Mexico is an independent nation and that permanent stability in her government and her institutions could come only from the consent of
her own people to a government of her own making, has been unwilling either to profit by the misfortunes of the people of Mexico or to enfeeble their future by imposing from the
outside a rule upon their temporarily distracted councils.
Haiti has never been so distracted in its councils as Mexico. And even in its moments of greatest distraction it never slaughtered an American citizen, it never molested an American
woman, it never injured a dollar’s worth of American property. And yet, the Administration whose lofty purpose was proclaimed as above -­-­ with less justification than Austria’s invasion
of Serbia, or Germany’s rape of Belgium, without warrant other than the doctrine that “might makes right,” has conquered Haiti. It has done this through the very period when, in the
words of its chief spokesman, our sons were laying down their lives overseas “for democracy, for the rights of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for
the rights and liberties of small nations.” By command of the author of “pitiless publicity” and originator of “open covenants openly arrived at,” it has enforced by the bayonet a covenant
whose secret has been well guarded by a rigid censorship from the American nation, and kept a people enslaved by the military tyranny which it was his avowed purpose to destroy
throughout the world.
The second article of the series by James Weldon Johnson, What the United States Has Accomplished in Haiti, will appear in the next issue, dated September 4.
-­-­ 265 -­-­
Self-­Determining Haiti: II. What the United States Has Accomplished
By JAMES WELDON JOHNSON
WHEN the truth about the conquest of Haiti -­-­ the slaughter of three thousand and practically unarmed Haitians, with the incidentally needless death of a score of American boys -­-­
begins to filter through the rigid Administration censorship to the American people, the apologists will become active. Their justification of what has been done will be grouped under
two heads: one, the necessity, and two, the results. Under the first, much stress will be laid upon the “anarchy” which existed in Haiti, upon the backwardness of the Haitians and their
absolute unfitness to govern themselves. The pretext which caused the intervention was taken up in the first article of this series. The characteristics, alleged and real, of the Haitian
people will be taken up in a subsequent article. Now as to results: The apologists will attempt to show that material improvements in Haiti justify American intervention. Let us see what
they are.
Diligent inquiry reveals just three: The building of the road from Port-­au-­Prince to Cape Haitien;; the enforcement of certain sanitary regulations in the larger cities;; and the improvement
of the public hospital at Port-­au-­Prince. The enforcement of certain sanitary regulations is not so important as it may sound, for even under exclusive native rule, Haiti has been a
remarkably healthy country and had never suffered from such epidemics as used to sweep Cuba and the Panama Canal region. The regulations, moreover, were of a purely minor
character -­-­ the sort that might be issued by a board of health in any American city or town -­-­ and were in no wise fundamental, because there was no need. The same applies to the
improvement of the hospital, long before the American Occupation, an effectively conducted institution but which, it is only fair to say, benefited considerably by the regulations and
more up-­to-­date methods of American army surgeons -­-­ the best in the world. Neither of these accomplishments, however, creditable as they are, can well be put forward as a
justification for military domination. The building of the great highway from Port-­au-­Prince to Cape Haitien is a monumental piece of work, but it is doubtful whether the object in
building it was to supply the Haitians with a great highway or to construct a military road which would facilitate the transportation of troops and supplies from one end of the island to the
other. And this represents the sum total of the constructive accomplishment after five years of American Occupation.
Now, the highway, while doubtless the most important achievement of the three, involved the most brutal of all the blunders of the Occupation. The work was in charge of an officer of
Marines who stands out even in that organization for his “treat ’em rough” methods. He discovered the obsolete Haitian corvée and decided to enforce it with the most modern Marine
efficiency. The corvée, or road law, in Haiti provided that each citizen should work a certain number of days on the public roads to keep them in condition, or pay a certain sum of
money. In the days when this law was in force the Haitian government never required the men to work the roads except in their respective communities, and the number of days was
usually limited to three a year. But the Occupation seized men wherever it could find them, and no able-­bodied Haitian was safe from such raids, which most closely resembled the
African slave raids of past centuries. And slavery it was -­-­ though temporary. By day or by night, from the bosom of their families, from their little farms or while trudging peacefully on the
country roads, Haitians were seized and forcibly taken to toil for months in far sections of the country. Those who protested or resisted were beaten into submission. At night, after long
hours of unremitting labor under armed taskmasters, who swiftly discouraged any slackening of effort with boot or rifle butt, the victims were herded in compounds. Those attempting to
escape were shot. Their terror-­stricken families meanwhile were often in total ignorance of the fate of their husbands, fathers, brothers.
4/7/13 Black Thought and Culture
solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/bltc/getvolume.pl?S8027 3/6
It is chiefly out of these methods that arose the need for “pacification.” Many men of the rural districts became panic-­stricken and fled to the hills and mountains. Others rebelled and did
likewise, preferring death to slavery. These refugees largely make up the “caco” forces, to hunt down which has become the duty and the sport of American Marines, who were
privileged to shoot a “caco” on sight. If anyone doubts that “caco” hunting is the sport of American Marines in Haiti, let him learn the facts about the death of Charlemagne.
Charlemagne Peralte was a Haitian of education and culture and of great influence in his district. He was tried by an American courtmartial on the charge of aiding “cacos.” He was
sentenced, not to prison, however, but to five years of hard labor on the roads, and was forced to work in convict garb on the streets of Cape Haitien. He made his escape and put
himself at the head of several hundred followers in a valiant though hopeless attempt to free Haiti. The America of the Revolution, indeed the America of the Civil War, would have
regarded Charlemagne not as a criminal but a patriot. He met his death not in open fight, not in an attempt at his capture, but through a dastard deed. While standing over his camp fire,
he was shot in cold blood by an American Marine officer who stood concealed by the darkness, and who had reached the camp through bribery and trickery. This deed, which was
nothing short of assassination, has been heralded as an example of American heroism. Of this deed, Harry Franck, writing in the June Century of “The Death of Charlemagne,” says:
“Indeed it is fit to rank with any of the stirring warrior tales with which history is seasoned from the days of the Greeks down to the recent world war.” America should read “The Death of
Charlemagne” which attempts to glorify a black smirch on American arms and tradition.
There is a reason why the methods employed in road building affected the Haitian country folk in a way in which it might not have affected the people of any other Latin-­American
country. Not since the independence of the country has there been any such thing as a peon in Haiti. The revolution by which Haiti gained her independence was not merely a political
revolution, it was also a social revolution. Among the many radical changes wrought was that of cutting
-­-­ [266] -­-­
up the large slave estates into small parcels and allotting them among former slaves. And so it was that every Haitian in the rural districts lived on his own plot of land a plot on which
his family has lived for perhaps more than a hundred years. No matter how small or how large that plot is, and whether he raises much or little on it, it is his and he is an independent
farmer.
The completed highway, moreover, continued to be a barb in the Haitian wound. Automobiles on this road, running without any speed limit, are a constant inconvenience or danger to
the natives carrying their market produce to town on their heads or loaded on the backs of animals. I have seen these people scramble in terror often up the side or down the declivity
of the mountain for places of safety for themselves and their animals as the machines snorted by. I have seen a market woman’s horse take flight and scatter the produce loaded on his
back all over the road for several hundred yards. I have heard an American commercial traveler laughingly tell how on the trip from Cape Haitien to Port-­au-­Prince the automobile he
was in killed a donkey and two pigs. It had not occurred to him that the donkey might be the chief capital of the small Haitian farmer and that the loss of it might entirely bankrupt him. It
is all very humorous, of course, unless you happen to be the Haitian pedestrian.
The majority of visitors on arriving at Port-­au-­Prince and noticing the well-­paved, well-­kept streets, will at once jump to the conclusion that this work was done by the American
Occupation. The Occupation goes to no trouble to refute this conclusion, and in fact it will by implication corroborate it. If one should exclaim, “Why, I am surprised to see what a well-­
paved city Port-­au-­Prince is!” he would be almost certain to receive the answer, “Yes, but you should have seen it before the Occupation.” The implication here is that Port-­au-­Prince
was a mudhole and that the Occupation is responsible for its clean and well-­paved streets. It is true that at the time of the intervention, five years ago, there were only one or two paved
streets in the Haitian capital, but the contracts for paving the entire city had been let by the Haitian Government, and the work had already been begun. This work was completed
during the Occupation, but the Occupation did not pave, and had nothing to do with the paving of a single street in Port-­au-­Prince.
One accomplishment I did expect to find -­-­ that the American Occupation, in its five years of absolute rule, had developed and improved the Haitian system of public education. The
United States has made some efforts in this direction in other countries where it has taken control. In Porto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines, the attempt, at least, was made to establish
modern school systems. Selected youths from these countries were taken and sent to the United States for training in order that they might return and be better teachers, and American
teachers were sent to those islands in exchange. The American Occupation in Haiti has not advanced public education a single step. No new buildings have been erected. Not a
single Haitian youth has been sent to the United States for training as a teacher, nor has a single American teacher, white or colored, been sent to Haiti. According to the general
budget of Haiti, 1919-­1920, there are teachers in the rural schools receiving as little as six dollars a month. Some of these teachers may not be worth more than six dollars a month. But
after five years of American rule, there ought not to be a single teacher in the country who is not worth more than that paltry sum.
Another source of discontent is the Gendarmerie. When the Occupation took possession of the island, it disarmed all Haitians, including the various local police forces. To remedy this
situation the Convention (Article X), provided that there should be created, -­-­
without delay, an efficient constabulary, urban and rural, composed of native Haitians. This constabulary shall be organized and officered by Americans, appointed by
the President of Haiti upon nomination by the President of the United States…. These officers shall be replaced by Haitians as they, by examination conducted under
direction of a board to be selected by the Senior American Officer of this constabulary in the presence of a representative of the Haitian Government, are found to be
qualified to assume such duties.
During the first months of the Occupation officers of the Haitian Gendarmerie were commissioned officers of the marines, but the war took all these officers to Europe. Five years have
passed and the constabulary is still officered entirely by marines, but almost without exception they are ex-­privates or non-­commissioned officers of the United States Marine Corps
commissioned in the gendarmerie. Many of these men are rough, uncouth, and uneducated, and a great number from the South, are violently steeped in color prejudice. They direct all
policing of city and town. It falls to them, ignorant of Haitian ways and language, to enforce every minor police regulation. Needless to say, this is a grave source of continued irritation.
Where the genial American “cop” could, with a wave of his hand or club, convey the full majesty of the law to the small boy transgressor or to some equally innocuous offender, the
strong-­arm tactics for which the marines are famous, are apt to the promptly evoked. The pledge in the Convention that “these officers be replaced by Haitians” who could qualify, has,
like other pledges, become a mere scrap of paper. Graduates of the famous French military academy of St. Cyr, men who have actually qualified for commissions in the French army,
are denied the opportunity to fill even a lesser commission in the Haitian Gendarmerie, although such men, in addition to their pre-­eminent qualifications of training, would, because of
their understanding of local conditions and their complete familiarity with the ways of their own country, make ideal guardians of the peace.
The American Occupation of Haiti is not only guilty of sins of omission, it is guilty of sins of commission in addition to those committed in the building of the great road across the island.
Brutalities and atrocities on the part of American marines have occurred with sufficient frequency to be the cause of deep resentment and terror. Marines talk freely of what they “did” to
some Haitians in the outlying districts. Familiar methods of tortue to make captives reveal what they often do not know are nonchalantly discussed. Just before I left Port-­au-­Prince an
American Marine had caught a Haitian boy stealing sugar off the wharf and instead of arresting him he battered his brains out with the butt of his rifle. I learned from the lips of
American Marines themselves of a number of cases of rape of Haitian women by marines. I often sat at tables in the hotels and cafes in company with marine officers and they talked
before me without restraint. I remember the description of a “caco” hunt by one of them;; he told how they finally came upon a crowd of natives engaged in the popular pastime of cock-­
fighting and how they “let them have it”
-­-­ 267 -­-­
with machine guns and rifle fire. I heard another, a captain of marines, relate how he at a fire in Port-­au-­Prince ordered a “rather dressed up Haitian,” standing on the sidewalk, to “get
in there” and take a hand at the pumps. It appeared that the Haitian merely shrugged his shoulders. The captain of marines then laughingly said: “I had on a pretty heavy pair of boots
and I let him have a kick that landed him in the middle of the street. Someone ran up and told me that the man was an ex-­member of the Haitian Assembly.” The fact that the man had
been a member of the Haitian Assembly made the whole incident more laughable to the captain of marines.
Perhaps the most serious aspect of American brutality in Haiti is not to be found in individual cases of cruelty, numerous and inexcusable though they are, but rather in the American
attitude, well illustrated by the diagnosis of an American officer discussing the situation and its difficulty: “The trouble with this whole business is that some of these people with a little
money and education think they are as good as we are,” and this is the keynote of the attitude of every American to every Haitian. Americans have carried American hatred to Haiti.
They have planted the feeling of caste and color prejudice where it never before existed.
And such are the “accomplishments” of the United States in Haiti. The Occupation has not only failed to achieve anything worth while, but has made it impossible to do so because of
the distrust and bitterness that it has engendered in the Haitian people. Through the present instrumentalities no matter how earnestly the United States may desire to be fair to Haiti
and make intervention a success, it will not succeed. An entirely new deal is necessary. This Government forced the Haitian leaders to accept the promise of American aid and
American supervision. With that American aid the Haitian Government defaulted its external and internal debt, an obligation, which under self-­government the Haitians had
scrupulously observed. And American supervision turned out to be a military tyranny supporting a program of economic exploitation. The United States had an opportunity to gain the
confidence of the Haitian people. That opportunity has been destroyed. When American troops first landed, although the Haitian people were outraged, there was a feeling
nevertheless which might well have developed into cooperation. There were those who had hopes that the United States, guided by its traditional policy of nearly a century and a half,
pursuing its fine stand in Cuba, under McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft, would extend aid that would be mutually beneficial to both countries. Those Haitians who indulged this hope are
disappointed and bitter. Those members of the Haitian Assembly who, while acting under coercion were nevertheless hopeful of American promises, incurred unpopularity by voting
for the Convention, are today bitterly disappointed and utterly disillusioned.
If the United States should leave Haiti today, it would leave more than a thousand widows and orphans of its own making, more banditry than has existed for a century, resentment,
hatred and despair in the heart of a whole people, to say nothing of the irreparable injury to its own tradition as the defender of the rights of man.
The real reasons for the Occupation and the continued presence of American troops in Haiti, will be told in the issue of September 11, in an article entitled Government Of, By, and For
4/7/13 Black Thought and Culture
solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/bltc/getvolume.pl?S8027 4/6
the National City Bank.
-­-­ 295 -­-­
Self-­Determining Haiti: III. Government of, by, and for the National City Bank
By JAMES WELDON JOHNSON
FORMER articles of this series described the Military Occupation of Haiti and the crowd of civilian place holders as among the forces at work in Haiti to maintain the present status in
that country. But more powerful though less obvious, and more sinister, because of its deep and varied radications, is the force exercised by the National City Bank of New York. It
seeks more than the mere maintenance of the present status in Haiti, it is constantly working to bring about a condition more suitable and profitable to itself. Behind the Occupation,
working conjointly with the Department of State, stands this great banking institution of New York and elsewhere. The financial potentates allied with it are the ones who will profit by
the control of Haiti. The United States Marine Corps and the various office-­holding “deserving Democrats,” who help maintain the status quo there, are in reality working for great
financial interests in this country, although Uncle Sam and Haiti pay their salaries.
Mr. Roger L. Farnham, vice-­president of the National City Bank, was effectively instrumental in bringing about American intervention in Haiti. With the administration at Washington, the
word of Mr. Farnham supersedes that of anybody else on the island. While Mr. Bailly-­Blanchard, with the title of minister, is its representative in name, Mr. Farnham is its representative
in fact. His goings and comings are aboard vessels of the United States Navy. His bank, the National City, has been in charge of the Banque Nationale d’Haiti throughout the
Occupation. 1 Only a few weeks ago he was appointed receiver of the National Railroad of Haiti, controlling practically the entire railway system in the island with valuable territorial
concessions in all parts. 2 The $5,000,000 sugar plant at Port-­au-­Prince, it is commonly reported, is about to fall into his hands.
Now, of all the various responsibilities, expressed, implied, or assumed by the United States in Haiti, it would naturally be supposed that the financial obligation would be foremost.
Indeed, the sister republic of Santo Domingo was taken over by the United States Navy for no other reason than failure to pay its internal debt. But Haiti for over one hundred years
scrupulously paid its external and internal debt -­-­ a fact worth remembering when one hears of “anarchy and disorder” in that land -­-­ until five years ago when under the financial
guardianship of the United States interest on both the internal and, with one exception, external debt was defaulted;; and this in spite of the fact that specified revenues were pledged
for the payment of this interest. Apart from the distinct injury to the honor and reputation of the country, the hardship on individuals has been great. For while the foreign debt is held
particularly in France which, being under great financial obligations to the United States since the beginning of the war, has not been able to protest effectively, the interior debt is held
almost entirely by Haitian citizens. Haitian Government bonds have long been the recognized substantial investment for the well-­to-­do and middle class people, considered as are in
this country, United States, state, and municipal bonds. Non-­payment on these securities has placed many families in absolute want.
What has happened to these bonds? They are being sold for a song, for the little cash they will bring. Individuals closely connected with the National Bank of Haiti are ready
purchasers. When the new Haitian loan is floated it will of course, contain ample provisions for redeeming these old bonds at par. The profits will be more than handsome. Not that the
National Bank has not already made hay in the sunshine of American Occupation. From the beginning it has been sole depositary of all revenues collected in the name of the Haitian
Government by the American Occupation, receiving in addition to the interest rate a commission on all funds deposited. The bank is the sole agent in the transmission of these funds. It
has also the exclusive note-­issuing privilege in the republic. At the same time complaint is widespread among the Haitian business men that the Bank no longer as of old
accommodates them with credit and that its interests are now entirely in developments of its own.
Now, one of the promises that was made to the Haitian Government, partly to allay its doubts and fears as to the purpose and character of the American intervention, was that the
United States would put the country’s finances on a solid and substantial basis. A loan $30,000,000 or more was one of the features of this promised assistance. Pursuant, supposedly,
to this plan, a Financial Adviser for Haiti was appointed in the person of Mr. John Avery McIlhenny. Who is Mr. McIlhenny? That he has the cordial backing and direction of so able a
financier as Mr. Farnham is comforting when one reviews the past record and experience in finance of Haiti’s Financial Adviser as given by him in “Who’s Who in America,” for 1918-­
1919. He was born-­in Avery Island, Iberia Parish, La.;; went to Tulane University for one year;; was a private in the Louisiana State militia for five years;; trooper in the U. S. Cavalry in
1898;; promoted to second lieutenancy for gallantry in action at San Juan;; has been member of the Louisiana House of Representatives and Senate;; was a member of the U. S. Civil
Service Commission in 1906 and president of the same in 1913;; Democrat. It is under his Financial Advisership that the Haitian interest has been continued in default with the one
exception above noted, when several months ago $3,000,000 was converted into francs to meet the accumulated interest payments on the foreign debt. Dissatisfaction on the
-­-­ 296 -­-­
part of the Haitians developed over the lack of financial perspicacity in this transaction of Mr. McIlhenny because the sum was conveted into francs at the rate of nine to a dollar while
shortly after the rate of exchange on French francs dropped to fourteen to a dollar. Indeed, Mr. McIlhenny’s unfitness by training and experience for the delicate and important position
which he is filling was one of the most generally admitted facts which I gathered in Haiti.
At the present writing, however, Mr. McIlhenny has become a conspicuous figure in the history of the Occupation of Haiti as the instrument by which the National City Bank is striving to
complete the riveting, double-­locking and bolting of its financial control of the island. For although it would appear that the absolute military domination under which Haiti is held would
enable the financial powers to accomplish almost anything they desire, they are wise enough to realise that a day of reckoning, such as, for instance, a change in the Administration in
the United States, may be coming. So they are eager and anxious to have everything they want signed, sealed, and delivered. Anything, of course, that the Haitians have fully
“consented to” no one else can reasonably object to.
A little recent history: in February of the present year, the ministers of the different departments, in order to conform to the letter of the law (Article 116 of the Constitution of Haiti, which
was saddled upon her in 1918 by the Occupation’ 3 and Article 2 of the Haitian-­American Convention 4) began work on the preparation of the accounts for 1918-­1919 and the budget
for 1920-­1921. On March 22 a draft of the budget was sent to Mr. A. J. Maumus, Acting Financial Adviser, in the absence of Mr. McIlhenny who had at that time been in the United
States for seven months. Mr. Maumus replied on March 29, suggesting postponement of all discussion of the budget until Mr. McIlhenny’s return. Nevertheless, the Legislative body, in
pursuance of the law, opened on its constitutional date, Monday, April 5. Despite the great urgency of the matter in hand, the Haitian administration was obliged to mark time until June
1, when Mr. McIlhenny returned to Haiti. Several conferences with the various ministers were then undertaken. On June 12, at one of these conferences, there arrived in the place of
the Financial Adviser a note stating that he would be obliged to stop all study of the budget “until the time when certain affairs of considerable importance to the well-­being of the
country shall be finally settled according to recommendations made by me to the Haitian Government.” As he did not give in his note the slightest idea what these important affairs
were, the Haitian Secretary wrote asking for information, at the same time calling attention to the already great and embarrassing delay, and reminding Mr. McIlhenny that the
preparation of the accounts and budget was one of his legal duties as an official attached to the Haitian Government, of which he could not divest himself.
On July 19 Mr. McIlhenny supplied his previous omission in a memorandum which he transmitted to the Haitian Department of Finance, in which he said: “I had instructions from the
Department of State of the United States just before my departure for Haiti, in a part of a letter of May 20, to declare to the Haitian Government that it was necessary to give its
immediate and formal approval to:
1. A modification of the Bank Contract agreed upon by the Department of State and the National City Bank of New York.
2. Transfer of the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti to a new bank registered under the laws of Haiti, to be known as the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti.
3. The execution of Article 15 of the Contract of Withdrawal prohibiting the importation and exportation of non-­Haitian money except that which might be necessary for the needs of
commerce in the opinion of the Financial Adviser.”
Now, what is the meaning and significance of these proposals? The full details have not been given out, but it is known that they are part of a new monetary law for Haiti involving the
complete transfer of the Banque Nationale d’Haiti to the National City Bank of New York. The document embodying the agreements, with the exception of the clause prohibiting the
importation of foreign money, was signed at Washington, February 6, 1920, by Mr. McIlhenny, the Haitian Minister at Washington and the Haitian Secretary of Finance. The Haitian
Government has officially declared that the clause prohibiting the importation and exportation of foreign money, except as it may be deemed necessary in the opinion of the Financial
Adviser, was added to the original agreement by some unknown party. It is for the purpose of compelling the Haitian Government to approve the agreements, including the “prohibition
clause,” that pressure is now being applied. Efforts on the part of business interests in Haiti to learn the character and scope of what was done at Washington have been thwarted by
close secrecy. However, sufficient of its import has become known to understand the reasons for the unqualified and definite refusal of President Dartiguenave and the Government to
give their approval. Those reasons are that the agreements would give to the National Bank of Haiti, and thereby to the National City Bank of New York, exclusive monopoly upon the
right of importing and exporting American and other foreign money to and from Haiti, a monopoly which would carry unprecedented and extraordinarily lucrative privileges.
The proposal involved in this agreement has called forth a vigorous protest on the part of every important banking and business concern in Haiti with the exception, of course, of the
National Bank of Haiti. This protest was transmitted to the Haitian Minister of Finance on July 30 past. The protest is signed not only by Haitians and Europeans doing business in that
country but also by the leading American business concerns, among which are The American Foreign Banking Corporation, The Haitian-­American Sugar Company, The Panama
Railroad Steamship Line, The Clyde Steamship Line, and The West Indies Trading Company. Among the foreign signers are the Royal Bank of Canada, Le Comptoir Français, Le
Comptoir Commercial, and besides a number of business firms.
4/7/13 Black Thought and Culture
solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/bltc/getvolume.pl?S8027 5/6
We have now in Haiti a triangular situation with the National City Bank and our Department of State in two corners and the Haitian government in the third. Pressure is being brought
on the Haitian government to compel it to grant a monopoly which on its face appears designed to give the National City Bank a strangle hold on the financial life of that country. With
the Haitian government refusing to yield, we have the Financial Adviser who is, according to the Haitian-­American Convention, a Haitian official charged with certain duties (in this
case the
-­-­ 297 -­-­
approval of the budget and accounts), refusing to carry out those duties until the government yields to the pressure which is being brought.
Haiti is now experiencing the “third degree.” Ever since the Bank Contract was drawn and signed at Washington increasing pressure has been applied to make the Haitian government
accept the clause prohibiting the importation of foreign money. Mr. McIlhenny is now holding up the salaries of the President, ministers of departments, members of the Council of
State, and the official interpreter. [These salaries have not been paid since July 1.]* And there the matter now stands.
Several things may happen. The Administration, finding present methods insufficient, may decide to act as in Santo Domingo, to abolish the President, cabinet, and all civil government
-­-­ as they have already abolished the Haitian Assembly -­-­ and put into effect, by purely military force, what, in the face of the unflinching Haitian refusal to sign away their birthright, the
combined military, civil, and financial pressure has been unable to accomplish. Or, with an election and a probable change of Administration in this country pending, with a
Congressional investigation foreshadowed, it may be decided that matters are “too difficult” and the National City Bank may find that it can be more profitably engaged elsewhere.
Indications of such a course are not lacking. From the point of view of the National City Bank, of course, the institution has not only done nothing which is not wholly legitimate, proper,
and according to the canons of big business throughout the world, but has actually performed constructive and generous service to a backward and uncivilized people in attempting to
promote their railways, to develop their country, and to shape soundly their finance. That Mr. Farnham and those associated with him hold these views sincerely, there is no doubt. But
that the Haitians, after over one hundred years of self-­government and liberty, contemplating the slaughter of three thousand of their sons, the loss of their political and economic
freedom, without compensating advantages which they can appreciate, feel very differently, is equally true.
The next article of the series will be entitled “The Haitian People.”
-­-­ [345] -­-­
Self-­Determining Haiti IV. The Haitian People
By JAMES WELDON JOHNSON
THE first sight of Port-­au-­Prince is perhaps most startling to the experienced Latin-­American traveler. Caribbean cities are of the Spanish-­American type -­-­ buildings square and squat,
built generally around a court, with residences and business houses scarcely interdistinguishable. Port-­au-­Prince is rather a city of the French or Italian Riviera. Across the bay of
deepest blue the purple mountains of Gonave loom against the Western sky, rivaling the bay’s azure depths. Back of the business section, spreading around the bay’s great sweep and
well into the plain beyond, rise the green hills with their white residences. The residential section spreads over the slopes and into the mountain tiers. High up are the homes of the
well-­to-­do, beautiful villas set in green gardens relieved by the flaming crimson of the poinsettia. Despite the imposing mountains a man-­made edifice dominates the scene. From the
center of the city the great Gothic cathedral lifts its spires above the tranquil city. Well-­paved and clean, the city prolongs the thrill of its first unfolding. Cosmopolitan yet quaint, with an
old-­world atmosphere yet a charm of its own, one gets throughout the feeling of continental European life. In the hotels and cafes the affairs of the world are heard discussed in several
languages. The cuisine and service are not only excellent but inexpensive. At the Café Dereix, cool and scrupulously clean, dinner from hors d’oeuvres to glaces, with wine, of course,
recalling the famous antebellum hostelries of New York and Paris, may be had for six gourdes [$1.25].
A drive of two hours around Port-­au-­Prince, through the newer section of brick and concrete buildings, past the cathedral erected from 1903 to 1912, along the Champ de Mars where
the new presidential palace stands, up into the Peu de Choses section where the hundreds of beautiful villas and grounds of the well-­to-­do are situated, permanently dispels any
lingering question that the Haitians have been retrograding during the 116 years of their independence.
In the lower city, along the water’s edge, around the market and in the Rue Républicaine, is the “local color.” The long rows of wooden shanties, the curious little booths around the
market, filled with jabbering venders and with scantily clad children, magnificent in body, running in and out, are no less picturesque and no more primitive, no humbler, yet cleaner,
than similar quarters in Naples, in Lisbon, in Marseilles, and more justifiable than the great slums of civilization’s centers -­-­ London and New York,
-­-­ 346 -­-­
which are totally without aesthetic redemption. But it is only the modernists in history who are willing to look at the masses as factors in the life and development of the country, and in
its history. For Haitian history, like history the world over, has for the last century been that of cultured and educated groups. To know Haitian life one must have the privilege of being
received as a guest in the houses of these latter, and they live in beautiful houses. The majority have been educated in France;; they are cultured, brilliant conversationally, and
thoroughly enjoy their social life. The women dress well. Many are beautiful and all vivacious and chic. Cultivated people from any part of the world would feel at home in the best
Haitian society. If our guest were to enter to the Cercle Bellevue, the leading club of Port-­au-­Prince, he would find the courteous, friendly atmosphere of a men’s club;; he would hear
varying shades of opinion on public questions, and could scarcely fail to be impressed by the thorough knowledge of world affairs possessed by the intelligent Haitian. Nor would his
encounters be only with people who have culture and savoir vivre;; he would meet the Haitian intellectuals -­-­ poets, essayists, novelists, historians, critics. Take for example such a
writer as Fernand Hibbert. An English authority says of him, “His essays are worthy of the pen of Anatole France or Pierre Loti.” And there is Georges Sylvaine, poet and essayist,
conférencier at the Sorbonne, where his address was received with acclaim, author of books crowned by the French Academy, and an Officer of the Légion d’Honneur. Hibbert and
Sylvaine are only two among a dozen or more contemporary Haitian men of letters whose work may be measured by world standards. Two names that stand out preeminently in
Haitian literature are Oswald Durand, the national poet, who died a few years ago, and Damocles Vieux. These people, educated, cultured, and intellectual, are not accidental and
sporadic offshoots of the Haitian people, they are the Haitian people and they are a demonstration of its inherent potentialities.
However, Port-­au-­Prince is not all of Haiti. Other cities are smaller replicas, and fully as interesting are the people of the country districts. Perhaps the deepest impression on the
observant visitor is made by the country women. Magnificent as they file along the country roads by scores and by hundreds on their way to the town markets, with white or colored
turbaned heads, gold-­looped-­ringed ears, they stride along straight and lithe, almost haughtily, carrying themselves like so many Queens of Sheba. The Haitian country people are
kind-­hearted, hospitable, and polite, seldom stupid but rather, quick-­witted and imaginative. Fond of music, with a profound sense of beauty and harmony, they live simply but
wholesomely. Their cabins rarely consist of only one room, the humblest having two or three, with a little shed front and back, a front and rear entrance, and plenty of windows. An
aesthetic touch is never lacking -­-­ a flowering hedge or an arbor with trained vines bearing gorgeous colored blossoms. There is no comparison between the neat plastered-­wall,
thatched-­roof cabin of the Haitian peasant and the traditional log hut of the South or the shanty of the more wretched American suburbs. The most notable feature about the Haitian
cabin is its invariable cleanliness. At daylight the country people are up and about, the women begin their sweeping till the earthen or pebble-­paved floor of the cabin is clean as can
be. Then the yards around the cabin are vigorously attacked. In fact, nowhere in the country districts of Haiti does one find the filth and squalor which may be seen in any backwoods
town in our own South. Cleanliness is a habit and a dirty Haitian is a rare exception. The garments even of the men who work on the wharves, mended and patched until little of the
original cloth is visible, give evidence of periodical washing. The writer recalls a remark made by Mr. E. P. Pawley, an American, who conducts one of the largest business enterprises
in Haiti. He said that the Haitians were an exceptionally clean people, that statistics showed that Haiti imported more soap per capita than any country in the world, and added, “They
use it, too.” Three of the largest soap manufactories in the United States maintain headquarters at Port-­au-­Prince.
The masses of the Haitian people are splendid material for the building of a nation. They are not lazy;; on the contrary, they are industrious and thrifty. Some observers mistakenly
confound primitive methods with indolence. Anyone who travels Haitian roads is struck by the hundreds and even thousands of women, boys, and girls filing along mile after mile with
their farm and garden produce on their heads or loaded on the backs of animals. With modern facilities, they could market their produce much more efficiently and with far less effort.
But lacking them they are willing to walk and carry. For a woman to walk five to ten miles with a great load of produce on her head which may barely realize her a dollar is doubtless
primitive, and a wasteful expenditure of energy, but it is not a sign of laziness. Haiti’s great handicap has been not that her masses are degraded or lazy or immoral. It is that they are
ignorant, due not so much to mental limitations as to enforced illiteracy. There is a specific reason for this. Somehow the French language, in the French-­American colonial settlements
containing a Negro population, divided itself into two branches, French and Creole. This is true of Louisiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, and also of Haiti. Creole is an Africanized
French and must not be thought of as a mere dialect. The French-­speaking person cannot understand Creole, excepting a few words, unless he learns it. Creole is a distinct tongue, a
graphic and very expressive language. Many of its constructions follow closely the African idioms. For example, in forming the superlative of greatness, one says in Creole, “He is great
among great men,” and a merchant woman, following the native idiom, will say, “You do not wish anything beautiful if you do not buy this.” The upper Haitian class, approximately
500,000, speak and know French, while the masses, probably more than 2,000,000 speak only Creole. Haitian Creole is grammatically constructed, but has not to any general extent
been reduced to writing. Therefore, these masses have no means of receiving or communicating thoughts through the written word. They have no books to read. They cannot read the
newspapers. The children of the masses study French for a few years in school, but it never becomes their every-­day language. In order to abolish Haitian illiteracy, Creole must be
made a printed as well as a spoken language. The failure to undertake this problem is the worst indictment against the Haitian Government.
This matter of language proves a handicap to Haiti in another manner. It isolates her from her sister republics. All of the Latin-­American republics except Brazil speak Spanish and
enjoy an intercourse with the outside world denied Haiti. Dramatic and musical companies from Spain, from Mexico and from the Argentine annually tour all of the Spanish-­speaking
republics. Haiti is deprived of all
4/7/13 Black Thought and Culture
solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/bltc/getvolume.pl?S8027 6/6
-­-­ 347 -­-­
such instruction and entertainment from the outside world because it is not profitable for French companies to visit the three or four French-­speaking islands in the Western
Hemisphere.
Much stress has been laid on the bloody history of Haiti and its numerous revolutions. Haitian history has been all too bloody, but so has that of every other country, and the bloodiness
of the Haitian revolutions has of late been unduly magnified. A writer might visit our own country and clip from our daily press accounts of murders, robberies on the principal streets of
our larger cities, strike violence, race riots, lynchings, and burnings at the stake of human beings, and write a book to prove that life is absolutely unsafe in the United States. The
seriousness of the frequent Latin-­American revolutions has been greatly over-­emphasized. The writer has been in the midst of three of these revolutions and must confess that the
treatment given them on our comic opera stage is very little farther removed from the truth than the treatment which is given in the daily newspapers. Not nearly so bloody as reported,
their interference with people not in politics is almost negligible. Nor should it be forgotten that in almost every instance the revolution is due to the plotting of foreigners backed up by
their Governments. No less an authority than Mr. John H. Allen, vice-­president of the National City Bank of New York, writing on Haiti in the May number of The Americas, the National
City Bank organ, who says, “It is no secret that the revolutions were financed by foreigners and were profitable speculations.”
In this matter of change of government by revolution, Haiti must not be compared with the United States or with England;; it must be compared with other Latin American republics.
When it is compared with our next door neighbor, Mexico, it will be found that the Government of Haiti has been more stable and that the country has experienced less bloodshed and
anarchy. And it must never be forgotten that throughout not an-­American or other foreigner has been killed, injured or, as far as can be ascertained, even molested. In Haiti’s 116 years
of independence, there have been twenty-­five presidents and twenty-­five different administrations. In Mexico, during its 99 years of independence, there have been forty-­seven rulers
and eighty-­seven administrations. “Graft” has been plentiful, shocking at times, but who in America, where the Tammany machines and the municipal rings are notorious, will dare to
point the finger of scorn at Haiti in this connection.
And this is the people whose “inferiority,” whose “retrogression,” whose “savagery,” is advanced as a justification for intervention -­-­ for the ruthless slaughter of three thousand of its
practically defenseless sons, with the death of a score of our own boys, for the utterly selfish exploitation of the country by American big finance, for the destruction of America’s most
precious heritage -­-­ her traditional fair play, her sense of justice, her aid to the oppressed. “Inferiority” always was the excuse of ruthless imperialism until the Germans invaded
Belgium, when it became “military necessity.” In the case of Haiti there is not the slightest vestige of any of the traditional justifications, unwarranted as these generally are, and no
amount of misrepresentation in an era when propaganda and censorship have had their heyday, no amount of slander, even in a country deeply prejudiced where color is involved,
will longer serve to obscure to the conscience of America the eternal shame of its last five years in Haiti. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum!
Notes
-­-­ nts -­-­
1 The National City Bank originally (about 1911) purchased 2,000 shares [return] of the stock of the Banque Nationale d’Haiti. After the Occupation it purchased 6,000 additional
shares in the hands of three New York banking firms. Since then it has been negotiating for the complete control of the stock, the balance of which is held in France. The contract for
this transfer of the Bank and the granting of a new charter under the laws of Haiti were agreed upon and signed at Washington last February. But the delay in completing these
arrangements is caused by the impasse between the State Department and the National City Bank, on the one hand, and the Haitian Government on the other, due to the fact that the
State Department and the National City Bank insisted upon including in the contract a clause prohibiting the importation and exportation of foreign money into Haiti subject only to the
control of the financial adviser. To this new power the Haitian Government refuses to consent.
2 Originally, Mr. James P. McDonald secured from the Haitian Government [return] the concession to build the railroads under the charter of the National Railways of Haiti. He
arranged with W. R. Grace & Company to finance the concession. Grace and Company formed a syndicate under the aegis of the National City Bank which issued $2,500,000 bonds,
sold in France. These bonds were guaranteed by the Haitian Government at an interest of 6 percent on $32,500 for each mile. A short while after the floating of these bonds, Mr.
Farnham became President of the company. The syndicate advanced another $2,000,000 for the completion of the railroad in accordance with the concession granted by the Haitian
Government. This money was used, but the work was not completed in accordance with the contract made by the Haitian Government in the concession. The Haitian Government then
refused any longer to pay the interest on the mileage. These happenings were prior to 1915.
3 “The general accounts and the budgets prescribed by the preceding article [return] must be submitted to the Legislative Body by the Secretary of Finance not later than eight days
after the opening of the Legislative Session.”
4 “The President of Haiti shall appoint, on the nomination of the President [return] of the United States, a Financial Adviser who shall be attached to the Ministry of Finance to whom the
Secretary (of Finance) shall lend effective aid in the prosecution of his work. The Financial Adviser shall work out a system of public accounting, shall aid in increasing the revenues
and in their adjustment to expenditures….”
Produced in collaboration with the University of Chicago.
Send mail to Editor with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2013 Alexander Street Press, LLC. All rights reserved.
PhiloLogic Software, Copyright © 2013 The University of Chicago.

What does Nakagawa suggest is the role of non-black people in the Black Lives Matter movement?

Read “Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression” by Andrea Ayvazian and “on Solidarity, “Centering Anti-Blackness” and Asian Americans” by Scot Nakagawa. What is an ally? Does Ayvazian’s use of the term provide an adequate model for people in dominant positions in the culture or people with relative power to enact social change? Why or why not? What does Nakagawa suggest is the role of non-black people in the Black Lives Matter movement? Write an essay in which you compare Ayvazian’s and Nakagawa’s articles, and the terms “ally” and “solidarity.” Where do you see their arguments as overlapping? How are they different? How can you apply these concepts to your own life and position in relation to social movements? Make sure you provide some concrete examples in your paper.

Does the passage you have chosen demonstrate that you have read the novel and thought about its meaning?

sell “+%

X   Season of Migration to the North b…

Season of Migration to the North, book response
Due: Monday, December 9 at 4pm

Originally published in 1966, Tayeb Salih’s Season of Migration to the North is a work of postcolonial fiction that offers “deep insights into the complexities of life in a colonized place after the colonizers depart.” Salih’s unnamed narrator returns to his village in recently independent Sudan after studying in England and meets a newcomer, Mustafa Sa’eed, who is trying to put his own brilliant and terrible years in Britain behind him. The novel challenges the reader to consider the consequences of

colonialism by playing with the concepts of power, identity, and conquest between “North” and “South.” Salih’s novel is a

primary source for understanding the period of decolonization following World War II. It shows that the impact of colonization did not end when colonized people gained their political

independence.

For this assignment, please choose a passage or short paragraph
(2-4 sentences in total) that you think best captures the novel’s
message about the legacy of colonialism in newly-independent
nations. Underneath your selected passage, please write a short
(500 word minimum) explanation or reflection on why you

chose that passage and what you think the author is trying to
convey with this novel about colonialism and decolonization.

You must cite the page number of your passage, as well as any additional quotations you include in your reflection like this: “Passage or quotation here.” (Salih, 38.)

This assignment is worth 5% of your total grade. You will receive a 10/10 if it is completed satisfactorily, or a 0/10 if unsatisfactory. There will be no grades in between. A

satisfactory paper must demonstrate the following:

– Does the passage you have chosen demonstrate that you
have read the novel and thought about its meaning? Note: I

strongly suggest that you avoid choosing a passage from the first or last 5 pages of the novel. If you do, please make sure that your reflection clearly demonstrates that you have also read the middle of the novel!

– Does your explanation/reflection engage with the plot and
themes of the novel? Please do not merely summarize the

novel or use long, block quotations!

Is your reflection mostly free from major grammatical,
spelling, and punctuation errors? Have you run

spelling/grammar check?

 

Again: DO NOT JUST SUMMARIZE THE PLOT OF THE NOVEL. Please think critically about the novel’s themes and ideas. Ask me if you need any clarification.

You will submit this assignment on Blackboard using
software that detects plagiarism. You may read reviews of
the novel (see below) and even refer to them in your
reflection, but you MUST cite the review using the footnote

 

format below, or
V V.
….A..
,
V v.,  es
on this