Progress and plantations

“Where Black Rules White” (first published in 1900, with a second corrected edition in 1910) is a pamphlet attacking the Caribbean nation of Haiti (spelled “Hayti” in the book). Haiti was the first Black colony to achieve independence, something it did after a successful slave rebellion against the French colonial power. The revolt had culminated in 1804. The author of this book, Hesketh Prichard, was a British explorer who visited Haiti in 1899.

The idea of an independent Black nation was deeply disturbing to most Whites, and a whole cottage industry of anti-Haitian books and pamphlets grew up during the 19th century. Unsurprisingly, Prichard reaches the conclusion that the “Negro” can't rule himself, since Haiti after a century of independence is still poor, immensely corrupted and dangerously superstitious. It's also – wait for it – racist, since the Blacks despise Whites and Mulattoes! “Where Black rules White” has been reissued by Ostara Publications, a White nationalist-supremacist press associated with Arthur Kemp.

I don't think anybody denies that Haiti was far from a freeman's paradise. The place really was poor, its leaders corrupt and brutal, and its population beholden to Voodoo (spelled Vaudoux in the book). Most eked out a living as subsistence farmers, while the former plantations were left to be re-conquered by the jungle. But, as usual, context is everything.

The British author says nothing of the enormous indemnity Haiti was forced to pay to France in return for diplomatic recognition, an indemnity that virtually bankrupted the Haitian treasury. Prichard paints the Haitians as ridiculously paranoid (apparently, the “Negro” lives in constant fear of being enslaved again), yet the constant military provocations of the colonial powers against the Black republic are mentioned only in passing. Perhaps there was a reason behind the seeming paranoia? Besides, the author himself believes that Blacks shouldn't be allowed to rule themselves, presumably a common opinion among Whites at the time!

Sometimes the author is simply silly. Prichard wonders why the Blacks accept Black rulers, even when these are brutal and corrupted, but hate being ruled by Whites and Mulattoes. Surely a racist should understand this feeling, which is all but universal? Who would our splendid Englishman prefer on the throne of England, a brutal Anglican king or a gracious African Lord Protector? The former, I gather… Besides, the constant revolutions on Haiti show that people didn't automatically accept even Black rulers. Above all, Prichard simply can't understand why anyone would prefer subsistence farming in the jungle to the progress and riches of the modern world. Here's a wild guess: because progress and riches for the colonial powers don't automatically translate to progress and riches for the guys actually working the plantations. The Haitian peasants had been impressed to work by both White, Mulatto and Black rulers, with few tangible benefits for themselves, so their decision to stay clear of the state (any state) by moving to the interior of the island wasn't entirely irrational. Prichard does mention the forced labor under “Emperor” Henri Christophe, yet ironically, he seems to rather admire the old murderous chap!

Of course the failure of Haiti was a tragedy. However, that doesn't take away the Haitian's main achievement: staging one of the world's most successful slave rebellions and winning independence. And that, of course, is their “original sin” in the eyes of White supremacists everywhere. Few people deny that Spartacus was a hero, yet, the Thracian prince didn't manage to do anything constructive either after his successful slave rebellion against Rome. But I suppose Hesketh Prichard is ready to cut Spartacus some slack. He was, after all, a White European.

Even more importantly: he lost. Spartacus is a harmless icon. And Rome got to keep its progress and plantations…