Another coup in the Americas

I've thought alot about this film recently as the events in Haiti have unfolded. One of my first questions now is over the extent to which the U.S. has been involved.

On the KPFT (Pacifica-owned) call-in show here in Houston, the hosts and most of the callers seemed to think that the U.S. was behind the rebel "terrorist" coup against Aristide. They were saying that U.S. marines led him away in handcuffs to an undisclosed location.

I'm not sure why the U.S. really cares about Haiti, to be honest. Sounds harsh, I know, but most of the decisions are made for economic reasons, and Haiti doesn't have the oil industry that Venezuela has. Many of the callers seemed to believe that the U.S. wanted to replace the dark-skinned Aristide with the lighter-skinned "Mulattos". Also, some were suggesting that the U.S. actions were in revenge for the Haitian uprising against the French 200 years ago. Conspiracy theories abound. What's true and what's not? Who really knows?

One thing I know is that what's happening in Haiti has nothing to do with race or the slave revolt 2 centuries ago.
When something of this magnitude happens anywhere in the Caribbean, the ramifications deeply affect my community. Local and state politicians (including Governor Bush) do exert pressure on the Federal Gov. to influence the situation in a variety of ways. Local politicians including folks like Mayor Celestin of the City of North Miami (to name one of many prominent Haitian-Americans) make sure their opinions are heard at higher levels of government. This is one variable that perhaps you have not considered.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
One thing I know is that what's happening in Haiti has nothing to do with race or the slave revolt 2 centuries ago.

---

I agree with you. The slave revolt argument is an absurd one, but several people on the call-in show seemed to believe in it. Pacifica radio and KPFT (the local affiliate here) tend to lean pretty far to the left, and Bush bashing is currently en vogue. The animosity towards Bush and the status quo tends to result in many things being said that don't appear to have much basis in fact. (Of course, we see the same thing on the other side, and those on the right tend to have a much larger forum in which to express their views). On the other hand, this was the only station (radio or TV) in town covering this coup extensively, and I appreciated the opportunity to listen to a call-in show where listeners could express their opinions, instead of a station giving us a 30-second soundbite of the event.

My opinion is that the Bush Administration really just wants stability in Haiti, and late last week and this weekend it became clear that Aristide was the source of the rising instability. A tipping point was reached, he had to go.

The Revolution will not be Televised has me paranoid, though. Nothing is as it appears on the surface, and the quotes we get from the Bush Administration are not to be trusted. The images can be and will be manipulated to tell a story that those in power want told. That's the way it'll be, unless there's another pair of documentary filmmakers in Haiti right now... just kidding, but you get the idea.

I agree with your whole post.

The USA has a long history of intervention in Latin American politics. The position and actions of our government is always an important variable for consideration. A few films have tackled these themes. Missing and State of Siege being two that come to mind. John Sayles' Hombres Armados does so more indirectly.

Hombres armados is definitely a good cinematic reference here. I don't see how you can say, JustiFied, that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised makes you feel paranoid, and still use a phrase like Aristide was the source of instability and "he had to go."

Quote:

---

They were saying that U.S. marines led him away in handcuffs to an undisclosed location.

---

I wonder whyever they would say such a thing!

Quote:

---

My opinion is that the Bush Administration really just wants stability in Haiti. . .

---

Yes, indeed they do.

And one could ask as with Iraq but more obviously, "What is the danger from that country to us?" And what does "stability" mean, and what is the advantage of it to "us"?

What does "He had to go" mean? Who decides? What about elective democracy?

I can say Bush "has to go," but I would mean he should be voted out, or at the most radical impeached, not that he should be driven from office or kidnapped and taken to the Central Republic of Africa. Though some have suggested that he be flown to Mars, that is only a joke!

It seems like Americans have a double standard, one for ourselves, and another for everybody outside the First World.

[

In saying that Aristide "had to go", I was simply trying to imagine the underlying logic behind the Bush Administration's decision. I meant it to be a rather curt statement, and it's separate from my personal opinion. I imagine they would say that the removal of Aristide was important in returning "stability" to Haiti. Of course, it also begs the question of whether they were responsible to some extent in helping to generate the "instability" in the first place.

I also used the term "paranoid" somewhat sarcastically. A better word might have been "skeptical", but to many people in our country, if you express concern or skepticism about the motives of the United States, you are labeled as "paranoid". You are pushed to the fringe.

I didn't see your sarcasm, which sometimes doesn't come accross clearly in these telegraphic exchanges. I guess we're closer together than I thought. But not quite. I think it's very obvious that the US is behind this coup, and that it has nothing to do with stability, by the way. The US armed the so-called "rebels" -- really just thugs with a violent illegal history. Then they sent in the Marines and CIA. Then Aristide disappeared, and the US media got stories about how he chose to resign, which he has denied, that he chose where to go, which he has denied, and that he left peaceably, which he has denied. The US didn't just "let this happen," they engineered it. This is more obvious than the coup against Chavez and less obvious than Grenada, but within that scale, it's obviously US-engineered. Equally obviously, the US and France could easily have stabilized the situation and protected Aristide's legitimate presidency, had they chosen, which they clearly did not. The Congressional Black Caucus has a lot to say about this, and it's all going to come out eventually.

Being a critic of the Bush administration in the US today hardly places one in the "fringe." Don't let anybody tell you that. As Bush's popularity ratings continue to drop and a lively set of democratic candidates continues to act as a very vocal challenge to administration policies, disapproval of most everything he's done has become totally mainstream. The concept of the "loyal opposition" may serve us well here. Dissent is patriotic. It's not paranoid and it's not fringe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
A better word might have been "skeptical", but to many people in our country, if you express concern or skepticism about the motives of the United States, you are labeled as "paranoid". You are pushed to the fringe.

---

It's strange, some Americans actually believe that questioning the government is unpatriotic. I wonder if they ever thought about how we got here in the first place.

Though it contradicts what I just said, I like to quote Samuel Johnson's remark: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." The implication is that if somebody starts calling you unpatriotic for dissenting, chances are he's a scoundrel. Quote Johnson to the dude.

Another interpretation of Johnson's remark is that the real patriots are the weirdos and the people on the "fringe." A recent book with this title (The Last Refuge of Scoundrels--I haven't read it though) argues that the Declaration of Independence gang were a bunch of rich gentlemen -- and scoundrels -- who wanted to protect their moneyed interests.