Has Haiti always been so poor?

Obviously, Haiti is a horrible place to live, which has recently become even worse of a place after getting pounded by a succession of four tropical storms or hurricanes. According the CIA World Factbook, 80% of their population is under the poverty line, which is a fairly horrifying figure.

I know that obviously, for a small island nation in the tropics, your options for industrial development are fairly limited no matter what. But geography alone can’t explain those levels of misery - the Dominican Republic, right next door, practically looks like paradise by comparison.

So what exactly went wrong in Haiti’s history that either they’ve always been so poor, or what made them fall to the state they’re in now?

Jared Diamond discusses Haiti’s problems in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I can’t remember all his conclusions off the top of my head, but I do remember he attributes some of Haiti’s difficulties to the climate. Because of the way Hispianola’s topography is, the Dominican Republic has suffered less from erosion and forest loss.

Yes, I do know the Haitians suffer from having chopped all their forests down.

Corrupt (even by tropical standards) government(s) over much of 200+ years have not helped either.

Is this a chicken or egg question? Did the deforestation occur due to poverty brought on by a corrupt government or did the corrupt government survive due to the poverty brought on by the fact that the forests couldn’t regenerate?

Here’s a good summary to start you off: History of Haiti - Wikipedia

Pretty much. In colonial days it was a plutocracy with a very small and very rich planter class (mostly white and with some mulattoes*), and ever since it’s been a military plutocracy (the rich military political elite and everyone else).
*I know mulatto isn’t a politically-correct word, but it is historically correct, and to this day skin tone is a HUGE factor among Haitians. Many of the planters took slave mistresses and the biracial class borne of these unions were a form of aristocracy as many received educations, freedom, and inheritances from their white parent [not always the father, incidentally], thus qualifying them much more for leadership and at the same time leading to a “brighter is brighter” prejudice.

I think the discussion you are thinking of is in his Collapse, but it’s been a while since I’ve read GG&S, so maybe the same ground is covered there as well.

Actually, the hurricanes are more of a drop in the bucket, so to speak, given how many people died because of the Aristide troubles or the previous dictator - one method used by several political leaders in the past years in Haiti, in order to better stay in power, was to arm gangs which were left to roam the cities at free will. If people are kidnapped for ransom, hands and feets hacked off, kidnapped and tortured to death, nobody will go outside, which isn’t good.

When at the start of the year, food prices rose all over the 3rd world, Haiti was among those hit hardest, because of earlier globalisation: In the 80s, Haiti bought food cheaper overseas than from its own farmers, which lead to ruin of local farmers (and no steps being taken by a corrupt government to educate farmers in the most efficient, self-sufficient, long-term, nutritiouts and complimenting agriculture methods). So when prices of the imported food suddenly rose, they couldn’t switch over night to being self-sufficient; instead, the poor people had to go hungry.

(Three guesses as to who profited most from this switch from domestic produced food to imported food, and who therefore put pressure on the government? Yes, the capitalists in the 1st world countries).

Haiti is poor and will stay poor (the prospects look bleak, because a whole generation is about to be lost, due to lack of food and education, and the violence on the street), because the violent corrupt politicans are propped up by foreign powers to serve those interests instead of helping the people of Haiti to grow strong.

The Dominican Republic has a better government, interested in developing the country, and the effects are striking (not that the DR is rich by our standards.) But in Haiti, forests are being chopped down everywhere because people need wood now to sell for a few cents to maybe buy some food because when their children are starving in front of their eyes, a parent doesn’T care any more about what happens tomorrow, only what he can do today. DR attracts a lot of tourists (even though most of the money for those cheap resort ghettos goes elsewhere, it’s still an income and employment for the economy. In Haiti, with armed, vicious gangs running wild out of political reasons, foreigners are warned off., and even natives try to stay off the streets. And so on.

A solution isn’t in sight as long as enough people with influence profit from this state, while the rest doesn’t care - there are many poor fucked up countries, many failing states; real nation-building or serious help takes a long commitment (20 years is the usual estimate - one generation) both in personnel, resources and money; there is no oil there, and no threat from nuclear weapons, so nobody important will act.

Haiti is poor because its population is unable to govern itself, no one wants to go there, and there are no substantial resources anyone wants to exploit. Without tourism and without natural resources, no predominately black country has been very successful on the world stage in terms of developing a robust economy or creating wealth. Haiti is simply lower on the list of a pitiful cohort. External forces have been blamed–we capitalists, for instance; racism…–with various degrees of success in persuasion. Among the explanations not seriously considered by Jared Diamond (and many others) is the obvious one: it’s population is not capable.

Didn’t Haiti used to have a thriving tourist industry till AIDS ruined it?

Hmm, some Googling makes it seem so:

(from here). Interesting - to someone like myself born in the 80’s, the idea of Haiti as a tourist destination is a bit insane.

This explanation sounds racist to me… Can you list any predominately white countries that have been successful on the world stage in terms of developing a robust economy without natural resources or tourism? Or are the populations of predominately white countries more inherently capable?

Since we are in GQ here, can you back up any of your assertions with facts? Maybe a study showing that the IQ of Haitians is lower than the people in the Dominican Republic? Or maybe can you show me a reputable source that does seriously consider the “obvious” explanation that Haitians are poor because they just are not capable of taken care of themselves…

I disagree with the “racist” accusation. Intelligence ≠ capability. It doesn’t matter if they’re intelligent if they’re ignorant (and “ignorant” means simply “doesn’t know”). However smart the population may be on average, they’ll still be incapable of governing themselves effectively if they lack the education and experience to do so.

Fair enough. I don’t know the Chief and I should not be so quick to judge; in all my years here I have never had cause to think his outlook was offensive or extreme. That said, I would still like to see a single reputable authority that believes that an “obvious” cause of the continuing poverty in their capability. This explanation is simplistic at best.

The explanation is weird. For one thing, I can’t see why light manufacturing should be considered more complicated than tourism. If anything, I’d say it’s the opposite: sweat shops are notoriously easy to set up.

My understanding is that things were pretty hunky dory throughout Hispaniola up until around 1491 or so… :stuck_out_tongue:

Considering that Diamond spends most of his time debunking the idea that human beings’ capabilities are tied to their ethnic or geographic origins, that’s not surprising.

I’ll assume your comment about a “racist” explanation is an observation and not a refutation, since whether or not a position is racist has no bearing on whether or not it is correct…

Here’s a list of countries by GDP per capita (Hit the Rank button to sort): List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia

Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland,Taiwan (and Hong Kong, too–functionally a national entity while it was creating wealth) are examples of countries which have created robust economies not dependent on national resources or tourism. Indeed all of the high-earners not dependent on a single large resource (oil, e.g.) have broad economies with successful presences in world capital markets.

The debate about whether the meagre representation of predominately black countries in the top echelon of successful nations represents an inherent net (in)ability is probably a topic all by itself. Over the years it has certainly been debated endlessly on the Straight Dope.

There are sources which correlate IQ and the wealth of nations, with Richard Lynn’s book being the most notorious. IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia This has also been endlessly debated on the Dope.

I am one of those who does believe that there are measurable differences among populations, that those differences have a large innate (genetic) contribution, and that the failure of black populations to be as successful as whites and asians in every country and every political system is more likely to be due to an inherent difference in ability for those tasks than it is to be due to external cause. If that makes me a racist, so be it; I am unable to compromise what is for me the scientifically obvious.

At the level of individuals, it’s completely irrelevant. There is enough overlap so that to judge a single person a priori based on their genetic ancestry is just plain stupid. On the other hand if you are determined to believe that particle physicists have an underrepresentation of blacks because the process that gets you there (in every country in the world) is anti-black, or that selection for the NBA is anti-white, it’s my turn to ask for evidence.

If it makes you more comfortable to side with Jared Diamond and blame external circumstances, you will certainly find a lot of company. It’s a much more comfortable position to take and you’ll get a lot less heat for it. :slight_smile:

It’s darn near impossible to convince anyone that scientifically one accepts a difference among population groups and is still a nice guy. Those damn neo-nazis have wrecked it for us all. :frowning: The politically correct crowd haven’t helped either but then I sorta think their heart is at least in the right place. There’s a lot more to the human story than a high IQ or the ability to make money, and neither of those two things are at the top of my personal list in qualities I look for in a friend.

But still, if you are asking if I am saying that the evidence shows rich nations are smarter and poor nations are dumber–on average, of course and with the exception of wealth obtained from selling your raw resources or getting people to come stay in your hotels–…yes, I am saying that.

How can it be “scientifically obvious” that the correlations you indicate “have a large innate (genetic) contribution” when there’s no actual direct genetic evidence to base it on? In other words, if you’re so confident about this, then where’s the gene that makes black people inherently incapable?

If your standard is “direct genetic evidence” I can’t meet it…yet. I suspect such a standard will be met within the next few years, so I do encourage you to avoid placing too much stock in that argument.

I’m not interested in grinding this ax. There are many Dope threads that have beaten it to death. In any case I suspect it’s unlikely I’d persuade you that anything other than a variety of unfortunate external circumstances, all coincidentally directed preferentially against blacks has been the cause of their inability to succeed as full equals on the world stage, whether as individuals, populations or countries.

I note that less umbrage would be taken if the debate under consideration posited that blacks were genetically advantaged to superior performance in sprinting and basketball (on average etc blah blah blah).