Talk:1804 Haitian massacre

Error?

The numerical reference in "8.00 French prisoners of war" (early in the article) cannot be correct. I can't see the cited sources. Some sources that I have found indicate that 500 French prisoners were executed, but the sources I've seen do not say those prisoners were too sick to evacuate. Please fix the number. Is it 800 or 500 or 8 or 8.000 or ??? --Orlady (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I found "800" in the Swedish version of the article. --Orlady (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for that number? should it be referenced/cited here too, then? Meerkat77 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

20 September 2014

I have added some material to give a better understanding of where the hatred for the former slave-owners came from.Leutha (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged your unsourced claim as original research. - Metalello ^talk 14:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

25 February 2016

The people below me, do have valid points as to the "one sidedness" of the article, which should explain the factual circumstances behind these events but they are mistaken in arguing that their portrayal in a negative light, dismisses the citation would invalidate if correct, EVERY genocide ever to occur in history as "taking sides" with events. Particularly if required that EVERYONE be killed who's targeted (The Holocaust eliminated 60% of the Jewish population of Europe, but not EVERYONE, nor did Rwanda, Armenian Genocide, Bosnia or others) Providing a separate dissenting argument by a reasonable source providing factual evidence in contrast to ALL of Dessaliness statements would cause the article to require a two sided article, or to the factual allegations on a significant scale (which when based on census or numeric numbers of whites in Haiti before and after supports the contention of a genocidal period or acts against the White or French-Creole groups...). Not the "opinion" of whether the actions were justified, is not what Wikipedia is designed or intended for if its an appropriate factual encyclopedia. Modern "new" sources not considered first hand or even second hand, need to be viewed with skepticism as they are responses to contemporaneous sources, (Whether it be enslavement and Persecutions, and Inhumane acts or murder as Crimes Against Humanity committed against many blacks DURING the war, OR the massacres of 1804 which occurred FOLLOWING the peace treaty and emancipation) are required to provide a portrayal of events whether it is the slave uprising, etc. However due to arguments previously stated, regardless of time of war or peace, the events of 2 months in 1804 VERBATIM meet the Genocide Convention whether 3 or 5,000 were killed. To provide a analogue which is genocide, by ICTY, ICJ, US Congress, UN, Human Rights Watch etc. are considered targeting a "substantial part" is Srebrenica, In July 1995 the Bosnian Serb army exterminated 7-8,000 men and boys, and "transferred" 25-30,000 women and children, the men were aged 12-77...it was during a war, and in reality only eliminated 1% of the Bosniak population of Bosnia. In Bosnia the events of 1992 killed many more individuals and were a larger geographic scale HOWEVER have yet to be found by the international courts to COMPLETELY meet the specific intent requirements of genocide (physical destruction vs. Violent Persecution and "ethnic cleansing"), but events in other areas of Bosnia where 5,000 or 3,000 were killed were found to meet the "actus reus" requirements, (even though it constitutes a small part of that group.) The event to constitute genocide with intent to physically destroy, the Srebrenica Genocide effectively eliminate the Bosnian Muslims from the Eastern portion of Bosnia and Herzegovina and thus constituted genocide, as without the men and boys, the reproduction of the population would be effectively impossible. International law clearly states there is no numeric requirement (though it may be considered when appropriate, due to the fact that many ethnic groups consist of only a few hundred people, if a group or even individual knows a group only has several hundred members, to attempt to and destroy a few hundred would still be genocide as it is the potential destruction of, enough of the group to have an effect on the group as a whole -ICTY Krstic Appeal.) The physical destruction of the group that the crime rest on and the method in which it was carried out physically is defined as a "Genocide is a crime, committed during war, or peace...", intent to destroy in whole or in part (substantial), a national, ethnic, religious, or racial group..." The methods defined in that convention are A) KILLING MEMBERS OF THE GROUP B) Causing Serious Bodily or mental harm C) Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated It cannot be denied the French-Creole (ethnic group) or White population (a racial group) killed thousands of white or French people's AFTER the war, the signing of the peace treaty and the end of slavery BEFORE this occurred cannot be disputed with regard to time table even if alleged, with the only sources available at that time, without sources to dispute the sources cited the cabinet and highest level officials instigating hatred of a group due to past injustices (which constitute crimes against humanity under present international law) the desire to physically eliminate that group. The presidents decision and clear statements to in retaliation kill as many whites as possible, and actions taken to prevent escape, demonstrate specific intent to physically destroy a group, along with many cabinet members, through using methods specefically identified in the genocide convention, and did have a d vestating impact on the existence of that group in Haiti. The specific intent has been met, the acts have been met, and the consequences and effect it had had also been met. The opinion of someone who wrote his opinion before genocide was even identified as a crime is very questionable. Though it is fact, that de hire, the war was over, in fact it may have still been occurring, yet that STILL does not negate the obvious conclusion that if the genocide convention is applied, this is one of the most blatant cases of it in the West, regardless of reason or justification. Yea, reasons why it occurred, and acts of white Alec owners SHOULD be addressed, but I feel BECAUSE of this events brutality and genocidal nature, many seek to include it in the "war" section, feeling that legally negates it as genocide, or that because ALL didn't die (which never happens in genocide almost ever) it can't be considered that. The crimes of 1804 can and should be verbally explained more objectively, however dislike or disagreement with the cited source can only dismiss it if the allegations can be proven false, if not then they should be cited as first hand statements and that's it, unless other sources DO prove that the facts stated did occur which is then justified in being put down as a factual event. HOWEVER this event did NOT occur during the war, followed the emancipation of slaves, and was by definition clearly genocide under the CPPCG, and a few of the quickest single atrocities in the west. This clearly if analyzed by any scholar was an act of genocide, which is what angers people who disagree with being labeled as such, or feel it was justified. Justification, is subjective, war does not negate a finding of genocide. Yes, please be objective in the fact's, but don't dismiss facts, historically written by perpetrators themselves to whitewash the events to fit a preconceived notion. More can be added, but this clearl was a genocidal operation. (Which why and whether it's ok is up to the reader). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac2204 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

19 February 2016

Section renamed from "It is not right"

The killing of White sympathizers of the French occupation was the epilogue of the war against Napoleon's army in former San Domingue (Haiti). In fact, the article has little that is historically accurate, and that is because of both, the sources that it uses, and the ones that it misuses. Take for example at the lede, which cites the 19th century St. John, Spenser, the most racist and unscientific writer on Haitian history ever. In fact, the article (save for the attempts of some editors to ameliorate its extremes), appears as an extension of Spencer's writing. And then, in the second source, it refers to Philipe Girard (not very favorable to Haiti at the time he wrote this piece either), but it reads him backwards. While the WP article claims the massacre was a genocide, look at what Girard, in fact, wrote: "1804 would have turned from massacre to genocide only of there had been more white people for Dessalines to kill" (p.46). So, not even Girard is saying that this was a genocide. The Popkin's book here cited does not even cover that period of history (it focuses on 1793), and yet it is referred to as if it does, twice. In addition to Spencer, this article relies significantly on Dayan's 1998 book, which is not a history book, but more a cultural studies' approach to memory. Recent works dealing with Dessalines' work and legacy (e.g., Jensen and Gaffield), which explain how this was more a military tactic, and show how Dessalines even apologized for the innocent people he killed, are ignored. In other words, this article has no reason to exists. There was no genocide (Girard clearly said it). If you think differently, this is the forum to discuss it and defend it. Thanks Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 21:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Caballero1967, you have really hit the head on this one. It's sources are undeniably one-sided; Anti-Haitian and almost seems fitting from their perspective without any mention of justification taking place given the fact that the majority had been oppressed and slaughtered before they had risen to the occassion. Apparently to these authors, it was these oppressed peoples who were the brutes, the so-called "Horrors of San Domingo." However, if we take anything of Henri Christophe's account carefully he poses many questions as if he was justifying these acts towards a jury, that basically if they had not been oppressed, beaten, treated inhumanly etc., then prehaps the outcome would not have been quite the same. Furthermore, I think they have also forgotten that a war was also taking place and to any other people, beheading or hanging, it would have been "normal," and was "absolutely" a military tactic, which is also why they were fearful about any foreign influence making its way back to the island, even to the east where that would be too close for comfort. I have been investigating the other side and have started by attempting to justify these acts and neutralize this bias. The notion that all whites were massacred is also not true. There are accounts of people being spared, who may have been useful to the new founded state. I mentioned this here. I agree that this should not be a seperate page and is simply an "icing on the cake" of the revolution; so they declared themselves independent on 1 Janaury 1804, that didn't mean they were not dealing with prisioners of war or future rebels who would later avenge their deceased love ones. I had to even take down a picture in earlier edits that was used by an editor depicting a former black slave belting a white with a club or something, but the picture was depicted "during" the war and was being used in this article! Understandable mistake, but the same could said about these authors who probably saw the entire revolution as one big white genocide. I would enjoy to see other, more neutral takes as you mentioned and would strongly consider a merge into the Haitian Revolution article, need it be. Awesome, breakdown. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your intent to cover-up and censor this article, and I certainly count this as an absolute barbaric genocidal massacre, which would play right into the hands of every anti-black racist of the last 200 years, and seemingly prove them to be not irrational at all in doing so, I strongly reckon that the article, like most wikipedia articles with any profile, interferes to act as an apologist for the killers here, whatever the anti-southern, pro-black, pro-gay, pro-secular, etc. position is considered to be at the present time - that will be the position advanced by the majority view on wikipedia, it is easy for Dessalines to make some mealy-mouthed apology after all the whites were dead wasn't it? Either way, his more extreme friends killed him right afterward. - Perhaps some thought should be given to including the context of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror and how this has historically (read: not by modern revisionist historians) been seen as a Haitian aftershock or equivalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don’t think this is a matter of pro or anti anything, other then available information to the public. If every single author, the main, and two or more secondary academics...as well as outside relevant and used media, popular discussion, even amateur academic research has cited the common theme and term appropriate in historic context, why is genocide not an appropriate term? This opens up, nearly every academic and every source to original research and personal criticism and every article to omission of information for the purpose of bias and opinion that is what Wikipedia is specifically NOT intended for is more appropriate to be used to refuse admitting then the methods for admission. If academic resources can be countered with other equally relevant and factually based resources, then that is fully appropriate for disputes inclusion in that article. However when academic research found in any university, and multiple public and private social institutions, both respected and not, that cite the main source used as being relevant and treat it as such, suggestions of “no value” or “clearly biased”, and “they are (blank), (blank)”, and “I don’t like them...”. That is the very definition of original research, and opinion not to end relied upon. If the argument to apply a term that’s well recognized in definition, and it is based on contemporaneous writings, witness evidence, physical findings, self-evident statements and actions, perpetrators own statements, and at LEAST three academics found in university circles, media and external discussion...even attempts at justification in not including a term with such support, used to counter or justify what a person includes, requires acceptance of the assertations made and terms being used as being clearly relevant, for Wikipedia. This event...there is no large scale, systematic and government sponsored extermination campaign, academically and historically cited with first hand witness and popular observation and all the required references, and support outside the article itself that avoids educational or descriptive terms due to objection by individual opinion. I mean how could one state, “a loosely compacted ice composed space object, traveling through the solar system with no planetary or moon association (even with makes no change and can be observed by researchers, and a number of astronomers have asserted this to be a comet, as well as outside media sources, outside social networks, and academics who themselves reference the cited, “its a comet”,) even if a large number of researchers (who haven’t been cited) are stating it isn’t, it’s an,”ice formation that was chipped off of a moon and thus not a comet...” Would we state, “good enough...do we really need to call every body of ice recognized by multiple academics, outside discussion, satisfaction of definition, media reference, and the finder of the object themselves stating the definition of a comet...a comet? Is it necessary?” I would see no reason to find it unnecessary, if a large number of contributors as well all find it very relevant, and the best definition for modern understanding. If one chooses to counter that term with a “disputes” portion, or even use this term in the latter portions of the article and not immediately, this would be cooperation and a collaboration. Simply refusing to include a word that people seem to say, “well it really has no purpose and isn’t a major element”, than when one makes that argument, then why is it wrong to utilize it as an apt definition that is utilized so widely by many authors. The argument of, “well that’s a serious assumption and original research and not true...”, how is one persons citations of multiple relevant resources of multiple categories, somehow negated by ones opinion of, “is it necessary” or, “I don’t see a reason...”...that is original research and opinion, of what is and is not important. Genocide has nothing to do with war or peace time as the CPPG states, if it’s not yet included in an article or an event that references dozens or even hundreds of deaths or thousands over long periods...understandably it could be disputed. However the acts in this article and accepted to have occurred, when we talk of multiple thousands of deaths, by government sponsor, systematic, planners targeting and clear racial, ethnic or national group entirely (surpassing many other genocides spoken widely of) with so much... When occurring during, or post industrial revolution, and New World discovery....what’s the justification of omission of a critical term of politically scientific importance outside of opinion or personal objection? If a persons adds a “disputed” portion to the article, or uses this terms and meaning later in the article, in spite of initial use likely being appropriate. This would be excellent cooperation, and collaboration. The other steady refusal is obstructionist and omission of information, when providing information for outside readers, even if we don’t find palatable, is preferable to deliberate omission of information, due to distaste, the requirements for inclusion are more then satisfied, the dispute of that inclusion opinion is precedent? -Ac220404 Ac220404 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The last mention, we are discussing the biological and physical destruction of a group in whole, (not in part as frequently while included in the CPPCG, case law requires it be “substantial part”), many refuse to use genocide unless it’s a group targeted entirely, this is the case here. Is it government sponsored, organized, and systematic or large scale? Yes...the leases themselves stated this. Are the acts stated, part of the genocide convention? Yes, they are in fact three acts, 2(a)killing members of a group (b)serious bodily or mental harm (c)conditions calculated to bring its destruction (declaring groups non-existance). (e) preventing births within the group (forced marriage). This is post industrial revolution and new world settlement by the west. The term “genocide” may even be apt to describe the French plan and desires during the revolution to exterminate large portions of the black populace. It should not include those killed while slaves seek liberation which is clearly a exception by law and common sense. However following cessation of hostilities, freedom of persons, and all above stated elements....from any perspective it’s incredibly abnormal to disregard so much resource and common beliefs for, exclusion of information that is politically and scientifically relevant. Ac220404 Ac220404 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

20 February 2016

Ac2204, I am curious to read the rest of your explanation. The message was cut off in the edit history section. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

After further review of the source that I have cited, for you to include "and others who did not actively" involved in your opinion on the account of these authors and therefore WP:OR. That also defeats the whole purpose of this inclusion. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Stroganoff, I am having a real hard time trying to decipher whether or not "the horrors of St. Domingo" started as the Revolution was going on, or up until this event took place. In the following source and other like it [1], it mentions "reminding them of the horrors of the slave uprising in San Domingo of 1791", which would imply that this sentiment started "before" this 1804 (aftermath) massacre and in which case, belongs to the wrong article. In which case, this article is "extremely limiting" and should in fact be merged with the Haitian Revolution. These acts were in direct relation and are not exclusive to each other. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the concept that this should not be a separate article. Ironically for all the reasons stated above. The "Horrors of Santo-Domingo", refers to a SEPERATE, part of the Haitian Revolution, involving the slave uprising, as, the slave uprising, even if it resulted in the deaths of many slave owners, and led to the war of independence. In modern terms, an uprising of that nature to break away from slavery would be justified by military necessity. The "sentiment", of the populace (be they slave owners, or slaves) does not equate with the actual crimes or massacre of the population in early 1804. Sentiment is an element but not the "actus reus" of a crime (guilty act) which is required for any investigation or article not in legal terms, or by any book, the act, that was carried out in 1804', though it may play a role in the acts and killings during year. A reference to look to in legal, encyclopedia, and media sources); "Scream Bloody Murder" or "Worse than War" (two genocide documentaries created by reliable sources), and "The Serbs" by Tim Judah, all address for comparison the Srebrenica Genocide with, but also seperate from the other crimes, or acts during the war in Bosnia. In fact, that has a seperated article (and should), but the Srebrenica Massacre occurred DURING hostilities and the state of war. The 1804' massacre occurred FOLLOWING the end of the war in Haiti and after the peace treaty with France was signed. (At the time this occurred was when Robbespierre had implemented the "Reign of Terror". He was firmly against slavery and sought to set all slaves free, supporting that contention. It would be somewhat inappropriate to include this event (1804 massacre), as part of the War of Independence as opposed to a separate event, yet connected as a result of the "sentiment", following the revolution, and slavery. The 1804' massacre in hindsite fairly definitively meets the genocide convention, rather other events that may have occurred "Genocide means any of the following acts, committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such; (a) Killing Members of the group b) Causing Serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Etc", the other events referred to in the article and atrocities, while large scale, and possibly Crimes against Humanity, don't have the luxury of being thoroughly vetted. However similar to The Armenian Genocide, an attempt, organized, planned, systematic at the highest levels of government to kill all white's, (or French Creole)people's in the country, on the face of it, clearly due to the immense measures taken to ensure the populations permanent destruction, and refusal to allow many to leave, defines genocide practically word for word, and act for act. "The numeric size of the targeted part, is a necessary and important starting point, though it is not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted, should be assesed also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition the prominence of the group can be a useful consideration..." Considering many convictions for genocide in Srebrenica specifically relate to the killings of "4,900" individuals, (those killed by the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt...and this is the targeting of a "substantial part" of that group, the targeting of the ENTIRE group, when based on the same numeric calculation's clearly support the genocide contention, and the timeline of this event support a separate but related article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac2204 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerns

Section renamed from "Concerns about this article being slowly slanted towards a pro-genocide view"

It looks like the user "savvyjack23" is slowly editing out bits of this article that paint Haitian history in a negative light, the same way he's slowly edited poverty, famine, and lack of education out of the article on Haiti. I have serious concerns that articles edited by savvyjack involving the Caribbean are extremely biased, and I believe an unbiased expert in Western history from the era should be found to help mediate.

If you look at the history for this article, you'll see dozens of edits by savvyjack, slowly removing content on well cited history. Steve348 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Genocide?

Section renamed from "Why is genocide such a dirty word? Avoided?"

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/01/10/5-acts-of-retribution-by-black-people-in-response-to-european-oppression/#

The killing organized at the highest level by a President and his canbinet like enslavement or forced removal of a population? The "trail of tears" is appropriately adressed as a force removal or ethnic cleansing. The definition of genocide is "intent to destroy, in whole or in part (substantial), a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." Though a) killing members of the group. b) causing serious bodily or mental harm. Etc. The man who created the genocide convention specifically in the 1920's assessed past atrocities and genocidal periods and drew upon them for the convention. Through examination of both pro-African American groups, white supremacist, and general academic's the term and definition of these events regardless of during war or peace (which is also stated in the convention). I see NO reference or even sentence that adressed this...which, makes this article appear biased and not thoroughly adressed and debated. It really doesn't take much to state the parallels between genocide legally defined and this which...nearly defines the convention word for word. It seems absurd to state "an entire people were systematically exterminated by killing entirely in the thousands so they wouldn't exist." (But this article won't mention genocide. That's...ridiculous. I didn't appropriately reference but p newspaper that itself defined this event as such and others do similarly. Why website and newspaper, provided a pro-African americanwebsite which characterized these events as such. A complete and extensive evaluation is unnecessary, however a sentence speaking of the modern debate which is not a small element of history seems...an obvious attempt at avoiding the use of that term. Ac2204 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Um. There are many Wikipedia articles that could, but don't, use the word genocide, such as Slavery in the United States, Red Summer (1919), Tulsa race riot, and Rosewood massacre. Maybe it's because the historians and other scholars who write the reliable sources we cite don't throw the word "genocide" around the way laypeople do? Nah! Couldn't be. Please take a look at WP:No original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't original research, though I have done much, as a genocide/Ethnic Cleansing prevention advocate, if you approached any scholar or international law major and asked them, "what is the crime that's committed when a government exterminates an entire racial group from a country in the thousands?" Yes, those events you stated were horrific and constitute Crimes against humanity, If part of a widespread systematic policy directed against civilians. That, I see is met during the 1919 Red Summer possibly meeting that criteria. It could be put in that article, the international crimes of modern ||international law|| that may have been violated if it is clear, obvious has two or more rational, objective, reasonably trustworthy source or outside academic research (I will be providing two examples in my references) However, solely looking as a "lay-man", for any objective individual, the context, scale, organization, and blatant stated intent. The high level government officials who organized and pre-planned operation to murder or exterminate the ENTIRE French-creole populace in all of Haiti by killing a MINIMUM of 3,000 and maximum 5,000, likely 4,000 people including 1,000-1,200 in one city. Certainly even a "Lay" person would understand in the legal and moral sense that intent, and scale when applied proportionally to a statistically equivalent act in the United States...would be the permanent physical and biological elimination of a race, ordered by the federal government, on a MUCH larger scale. ||Slavery|| is a ||Crime Against Humanity||, Enslavement is by the ICC and ||Nuremberg||. It's also persecution which could and would be very appropriate to include in the article about Slavery in the U.S., when looking at the context and modern assesment and legal and moral CONCEPT and legal requirements being that the "specific intent" establish beyond any reasonable doubt the intent to physically and Biologically destroy a group either in whole (which is applicable here and almost universally legally accepted), or in "substantial" part so as to effect the physical existence of the entire group. The ||actus reus|| requirement even has been legally stated, "the commission of individual paradigmatic acts even if several occasions does not automatically demonstrate the act of genocide", again the number of individuals destroyed have to be significant enough to affect the group...well it exterminated the ||French||-||Creole|| entirely. The Krstic appeal judgement (the most important legal judgement on the crime of ||genocide|| and its requirements related to the Bosnian Serb extermination of 8,370 men and boys and terrorization and removal of 25-30,000 Bosnian Muslim women, children and elderly and their forced removal was found to constitute genocide, "the numeric size of the targeted group is the first but in most cases the only consideration, the number of individuals killed must be assessed in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In that case dozens of international judges ruled unanimously that it did constitute genocide, due to the organization scale and result of physically harming the group in an entire portion of Bosnia (Central Podrinje) and it destroyed an emblematic target that while constituting a small percentage of the entire group, the scale of the event constituted genocide. Now...this is a plain instance of intent to destroy in WHOLE a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, "the French Creole" or "white French", group. The ordering of one wave of mass executions, not letting people leave and ordering "silent weapons be used to not alert anyone and let them escape." Then killing the entire male population, then targeting the female and children, the majority were exterminated as a cabinet member states "there will still be Frenchmen if they live." So killed to stop that. Required to marry non-white Haitians which would have been impossible anyway (except other ethnic groups and Germans but the French Creole were singled out for extinction) which is genocide based on every legal standard and contains ALL legal requirements (mens rea, actus reus, size of targeted portion). The concept of genocide as it relates to this event is extensively addressed by Universities, academic and legal assesments and various large scale media sources. It therefore probably is a very important for any modern understanding, (Enslavement is the term that is appropriate to describe the suffering of the black population in the US, not "forced workers" simply because the ICC statute has implemented the crime of Enslavement only after WW2, genocide was a term created in the late 20's/early 30's and is BASED on past historic events Raphael Lemkin the writers of the ||Genocide Convention|| based his writings and legal creation on. Events that coorelate to the same time period and earlier. Now, I completely understand when it is PART of a group targeted or destroyed, that it's inappropriate to introduce modern terms without thorough assessment, however when it's targeted for destruction in whole, clearly, and on a large scale, it does not take an academic with two doctorates to understand the crime that was committed. In reality very few genocides targeted EVERY member of a group of people except the Holocaust, Rwanda and this (not genocide) "event". Certainly the other events are horrifying violations of international law and humanity in general (at least one or two was a Crime against Humanity). The difference between inflicting violence on racial grounds is different then inflicting complete physical extermination of a group. [ref]http://thehaitimassacreof1804.weebly.com[/ref] [ref]https://prezi.com/m/nwsh-uhp8haa/haitian-massacre/[/ref] [ref]http://www.haitilegacyproject.org/index.php/haiti-history/2014-04-17-17-34-37/2014-04-17-17-35-26/item/caribbean-genocide-racial-war-in-haiti-1802-4.html[/ref] [ref]http://playerpage.blogspot.com/2015/07/mans-inhumanity-to-man-1804-haiti.html?m=1[/ref] Now there are many, many more online pages reaffirming this description, or characterization or debating it. Every genocide, has been "justified" as revenge for a past abuse...and in modern law, every single one has been condemned as being "the crime of crimes." Or "the worlds most heinous crime." The crimes by French Forces and Creole slave owners does not dismiss the facts, events, intent, result and statements by Dessalines and his cabinet. It would be disingenuous to discuss a massacre that eliminates a small percentage of an ethnic/racial group in the realm of genocide...However one that physically eliminates an ENTIRE racial group...isn't? I'll link to the genocide convention and its preamble that, "recognizing during all periods of history, genocide has inflicted great loses on humanity..." The purpose of its characterization as an "act of genocide", "genocidal massacre"(my preference to avoid appearing to officially declare a crime but still providing a clear, understandable characterization is necessary, or "genocide". It WAS a massacre and did eliminate an entire ethnic group and had the specific intent to do so. As the CPPG states it's belief that in "all periods of history." Therefore an argument that it's, "in revenge", or "some survived." Given recent judicial rulings on this crime does not take away the results. The obvious character of this event. No, genocide does NOT happen frequently and all the time. In historical purposes it should not be stated as being "genocidal", unless it's clearly targeting an entire people for physical destruction and is very probable. Here is the CPPCG. Many would be confused as to whether a "massacre" due to the period and the relation to the war was part of the war, or a different action. In my opinion and (opinions and consensus are part of what Wikipedia relies on.) this is NOT part of the Haitian Revolution, it is close in time period, however the Haitian Revolution saw mass killings, but many were arguably necessary for slaves to become free. Additionally a state of war existed at that relevant time. French forces carried out massive Crimes against Humanity (again I would NOT characterize it as genocide as it might be if judicially evaluated today, however a targeting of a group "in part" prior to the CPPCG should NOT be evaluated on historic foresite, an intent to destroy in whole though...when combined with clear statements of intent , resulting in entire physical destruction, methodically planned against multiple thousands or more people...doesn't really even for the lay person seem controversial as to what occurred. [ref]https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021-english.pdf[/ref] -Ac2204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac2204 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A few sources do call it genocide, like the 2005 Girard source, but a more complete look at the literature shows that most sources do not. Because of that, I don't think definitively calling it a genocide in the lede can be supported, as User:Malik_Shabazz helpfully pointed out.--Beneficii (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beneficii: @Malik Shabazz: @Ac2204: In addition to Girard I found Nicholas A. Robins and Adam Jones who coined a specific term for this kind of act: "genocide of the subaltern" (their statements are here, on page 3 of the book, and they specifically say Haiti and they cite Girard's statements). Do you know of any academic works which explicitly say these acts weren't genocide? And also, were there academic works that just call it "ethnic cleansing"? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any academic works that explicitly say the massacre wasn't genocide, nor am I aware of academic works that say cats can't fly. Nevertheless, I wouldn't add a sentence to an encyclopedia article that says cats can fly.

If one trawls the internet long enough, one can find a source that says just about anything. Is it the mainstream view among historians that the massacre was genocide? If it is, why has it proven so difficult for editors who want to call it that to produce sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"Is it the mainstream view among historians that the massacre was genocide?" To do that one will need to case all of the academic literature, published by verified historians and from respected university academic presses, discussing the incident, and figure out who says what. What is the reputation of the historian saying it? How many say A versus how many say B? When I was taking a history class in university we often heard "Guy A says this, guy B says that". While it's true "If one trawls the internet long enough, one can find a source that says just about anything.", I would never consider using the silly fake news sites from Macedonia or Twitter echo chambers. That narrows the field to the good sources.

One thing I like to do as well is write a Wikipedia article about each book in and of itself. Each book has a list of reviews, and the reviewers make comments about the reliability of the book, its reputation, etc. The information from those reviews make up the sourcing for the article.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's verifiable sources saying for example the Armenian Genocide is not a genocide but more of mutual massacres, revolution movement, and civil war type situation in the middle of WWI. However, the Haiti 1804 massacre should be appropriately RETITLED as "Haitian genocide" or "Haitian-French Genocide" because that fits perfectly with actual explicit orders telling soldiers to massacre. Worse, the soldiers themselves refused to do it until the leader visited each city personally to tell them stories about white torture/slavery and thus to encourage them and then finally order them to carry out the genocide while he is witness. That's as systematic extermination as it gets. That's pretty much one of the closest instances to genocide aside from the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide (a real genocide). Yes, we could say "maybe you can't apply it retroactively" but it is by definition. Watch out for people who misuse the genocide term. They say the Native American ethnic cleansing (Indian Removal Act) is genocide, but then it's literally ethnic cleansing by definition as witnessed in the Trail of Tears. They misuse the term often. Often there is a American-Euro centric view to this. Blacks are a minority in the US, so they label Haiti as a "massacre" instead of genocide, but blacks were a majority in Haiti, so why do they not feel empathy for the white victims, even those who treated blacks fairly were murdered in cold blood. It's a Euro-centric and American-view because blacks are a minority there. They don't even consider that blacks were the majority and the whites the minority in Haiti. That kind of psychology and emotion rather than definition & facts are bleeding into wikipedia and it needs to be stopped. As far as "do majority of historians call it genocide" I think it's more fair to say, majority of historians don't study Haiti in 1804 but even if they didn't most sources about the events show that it is genocide. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

[M]ost sources about the events show that it is genocide. Such as? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This leads me to believe you didn't read the very Wikipedia article we are discussing. Do you not see the sources cited? So then it fits the definition of genocide. It's the very definition of it. A systematic extermination with intent to destroy the white race from the island. Yes or no? How can anyone in this whole planet disagree with the description of events here as genocide? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. There are two or three sources cited that call it a genocide, out of around 20 total sources. That doesn't look like "most". Whether you or I think it fits the definition of genocide is irrelevant; we go by what published sources say. At the moment the "genocide" label, while reliably sourced, seems like it might reflect the opinions of a minority of sources, and so might be better used with in-text attribution≤. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Several of the sources cited in the article don't entirely talk about the events. The question is how many say it is a genocide versus how many explicitly say it isn't. I haven't seen the latter so far. Also for sources before the 1940s remember genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in that decade. Contemporary sources won't use the word. The Armenian genocide was described as a "race extermination" in contemporary sources, for example. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Then we should trim those sources in favor of ones that focus on the topic specifically. We're looking for reliable sources that describe it as a genocide/extermination/ethnic cleansing, regardless of which actual term they use. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I checked several of the books: We know that Girard (in a book and here) and Robins/Adam Jones explicitly use "genocide".

Mark Danner (from this book) stated: "The panic was not discouraged by Dessalines, one of whose first acts as the ruler of independent Haiti was to order the massacre of all the whites remaining on the island."

From page 46 of Hayti: Or, The Black Republic (old book): "Curious people ! they who never hesitated to destroy the whites, guilty or innocent, or massacre, simply because they were white, women and children, down to the very babe at the breast,"

From Facing Racial Revolution: Eyewitness Accounts of the Haitian Insurrection: "Peter S. Chazotte was one of the rare French whites who survived the last months[...]and the subsequent wave of massacres ordered by Jean-Jacques Dessalines[...]"

• Page 17: "The first common element is the background of sheer horror: the sudden inversion of power relations that turned whiteness from the sign of privilege to a pretext for extermination"
• Pages 17/18 of the book has a fragment "Here we see a third common element as well: the fact that their authors survived to tell their stories reflected the fact that the insurrectionists were not completely bent on genocidal slaughter. Furthermore, white narrators' survival often depended on the complex racial politics of the French colonial world, with its three-way division between whites, blacks, and people of mixed race." (in the Armenian Genocide some Armenians were left alive to be raised as Turks, though it's still classified as a genocide)

The Frankenstein of 1790 and Other Lost Chapters from Revolutionary France talks about a 1791 massacre but I haven't yet seen one about 1804.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

---

The cited source fails verification. https://web.archive.org/web/20151215193403/https://iacenter.org/haiti/impact.htm It refers to French genocide of the Blacks, not Black genocide of the French. Somehow, I'm not surprised. 2607:FCC8:944C:5300:901F:F03E:5979:608C (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. It's an advocacy group anyway, not reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

26 December 2016

The background section, often used to frame the narrative of a story or article, mentions here the privations of the preceding war in a quote attributed to Henri Christophe's personal secretary (who no doubt gained a great deal of wealth and social stature from the spoils of the crime), which was obviously made after the revolution and subsequent massacre, and not preceding it (as background), because #1 - Christophe's notability is primarily after 1807 and #2 a comment by his servant or secretary would only be relevant in the context of publicly defending such a crime, and only then after Christophe had risen to a high enough deportment that a quote by someone without personal fame and only associated with him would gain some weight.

Further, there is absolutely no discussion or illustration of what tortures were entailed, while there is graphic description given to that done to the slaves in the preceding war, so as to provide an ameliorating factor, this information exists I'm sure, the man who is described as 'killed with a dagger' was butchered and beheaded publicly, not just 'killed with a dagger', but then, that would emphasize the savage brutality of the massacre, rather than the noble avenging of past wrongs, evil racists getting their come-uppance, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

23 January 2018

The people of color in this article are portrayed horribly. It is framed as a genocide when it was really throwing off the shackles of oppression. This article is being referenced heavily on neo-Nazi, white nationalist alt-right websites such as Reddit's The_Donald and 4chan's political board to incite violence against PoCs in the US.

I am formally requesting a comprehensive evaluation of this article and how things can be worded to stop indulging the bloodlust fantasies of America's most paranoid. --Lunatic, Esquire (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is serious or not, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. Either way, see WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. The article can't be totally rewritten just because people are referencing it, but you can suggest improvements or make them yourself provided you follow the sources. Euphemisms like "throwing off the shackles of oppression" are not a good idea. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Today's view in Haiti?

An interesting addition to the article would be how Haiteans of today, and their government, view the events from the past. Whats their opinion about it. Right or wrong? Wrong but necessary? I searched the internet for answers, but questions similar to mine tend to drown in answers how justified the massacre was and that "of course haiteans dont feel sorry nor have to". Something like a poll or interviews from people from the street would be nice but I havent found no source like that. Maybe somebody else have? 95.33.90.87 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to find an already published reference saying that the Haitians do or do not support the genocide. If no source is forthcoming, the content can't be added to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed

This statement appeared in article as of 9-24-19:

These stories [accounts of slave torture] most likely arose from terror visited on the Haitian rebels by Charles Leclerc in the 1801–1803 war.

No citation is provided for this statement, and it is contradicted by numerous accounts of slave torture prior to 1801, e,g, see C. L. R. James Black Jacobins, Chapter 1. What source does claim come from? ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

11 May 2022

While I understand it was a huge blow to Western white hegemony's hubris that an island of enslaved Africans liberated themselves, and I appreciate that this demonization and erasure of Dessalines has been 200 years in the making, we still need to publish articles that state facts and contextualize actions, not unsupported claims and half-truths filled with white fragility nonsense and tears.

1. "Genocide"

Citing two barely known white American scholars from the same book, whose entire careers focus on "both sides-ing" the actual genocides of oppressed minorities and the just resistance of those same minorities does not make this "genocide" assertion fact. This is not a consensus in actual academia, international law, or anywhere in the real world outside of a support group for disgruntled neo-nazis. It does not belong here.

Additionally, there were white groups and allies who weren't executed, which undermines the entire idea behind this assertion. Further, this doesn't meet the ICT standard for genocide on the intent element: "Genocidal intent requires that acts must be committed against members of a group specifically because they belong to that group (Akayesu, ICTR, Trial Judgment § 521)".

Did Dessalines target them specifically for being white or was it because they were colonizers (not "white Haitians") who literally enslaved and subjugated them, and had reason and the means to return with reinforcement and do it again (See next paragraph)?

What this poorly written article conveniently fails to mention, is that Napoleon Bonaparte had previously signed laws to reinstate slavery in 1802 after initially abolishing it. The original copies of the laws—signed by Napoleon—are available for viewing at the Parisian Cultural Center and record of this is easily obtainable online. This did not happen "after" the Haitian Revolution. it was the last battle *of* the Revolution—one that secured Haitians' permanent liberation. Next.

2. "Unsupported stories and rumors"

While an unsupported second hand account or two might be appropriate to provide further context to a more authoritative source, writing a whole section filled with unsupported claims that invoke racist images of brutal "black savages" archetype is not appropriate. Some of these claims are so outlandish, it's honestly laughable. A mythical brutal mulatto man named Zombi stripped and stabbed a white man and is where we get "zombie" from? Please touch some grass.

Linking these rumors to an author who is merely retelling the rumor does not a reliable reference make. It does not belong here.

3. "But the slaveowners and colonizers were nice to the blacks!"

"[They even killed] whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population".

This is comedy.

This article needs to be rewritten and subsequently locked—this particular article as well as Dessalines' biography. Unfortunately, search engines do display Wikipedia first. This is merely attempt to deligitimize a historical event, as well as evoke racist, dehumanizing imagery of Black Haitians. It's also hilariously pathetic. Kairanuli (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

So what's stopping you from going ahead and fixing it? ITBF (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kairanuli: Your response states that the scholars are not well known. However the Haiti events themselves are also not well known in the US. You need to consider a literature review where all of the literature specifically about the massacre and consider the scholars' views in proportion to the other literature about it. To be honest I have not seen a source which specifically says this was not a genocide. Remember too, in regards to the term "genocide" itself, that the word was invented in the 1940s. You will not find a contemporary source calling it a explicitly genocide because the word did not exist in the 1800s. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Girard (2005A) states: "The 1802/4 period remains little studied" ("Caribbean genocide: racial war in Haiti, 1802–4", page 158) and he explains how the victims were slavers who were planning to genocide the black slaves as a factor (as other genocide victims were from oppressed groups, rather than oppressors). It's OK here to cite these two unknown scholars since this is... an unknown topic in the US. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sympathetic whites

I've removed this statement:

Eyewitness accounts of the massacre describe imprisonment and killings even of whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to black slaves.

This is conflating one eyewitness account with a statement by the author, who says on page 363:

The story recounted in the Histoire des Mesdemoiselles de Saint-Janvier corresponds to the known historical facts about the 1804 massacres. Like some of the other whites who remained on the island after Rochambeau’s withdrawal, the girls' father had thought that his friendly relations with members of the black population would protect him. Instead, he was imprisoned with other white men and then killed, leaving his wife and their two daughters defenseless.

However, The author, Jeremy D. Popkin, does not frame this as a definite eyewitness account, saying the story "purports to be the story of two white girls who were hidden by black rescuers after their parents had been killed in the massacres ... Some critics have read [the story] as a novel rather than a true story" (my bolding). Popkin also says the story's "principal interest lies in its description of the efforts made by black rescuers on behalf of the victims". Even treating the (primary) source as reliable, it's WP:UNDUE to mention the killing of sympathetic whites but not the actions of black rescuers. The author's roundabout statement on "the known historical facts about the 1804 massacres" is given undue emphasis by being cited in the lead since it is about this one story, not the massacre itself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Toussaint Louverture

The article as previously written gave the impression that Toussaint Louverture was involved in the 1804 massacre—impossible, of course, because he died in 1803 and was taken to France in 1802. It seems to me that there is irrelevant or marginally relevant material in the "Massacre" section about previous massacres in which Dessalines was involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5A:457F:E8C0:B178:9820:4B86:B97B (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Not only that, but Girard (2005A) outright said that Louverture was a moderate, and the French pushing him out led radicals like Dessalines to assume power. See p. 158 of "Caribbean genocide: racial war in Haiti, 1802–4," which states: "The French unwittingly sealed their own fate by deporting Louverture." WhisperToMe (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; I would take issue with the idea that Girard (2005A) is encouraging or condoning this behavior, or making a general statement about "moderates" stopping the anti-white revolution or anything like that; the statement you quote is merely commenting on the history in this particular instance. See remarks below on Sourcing (which I do think should be the solution to the perspective in this article). Meerkat77 (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Girard himself stated "Despite all of Dessalines' efforts at rationalization, the massacres were as inexcusable as they were foolish." in this book chapter, page 56. Girard made the statement about the moral issue to explain why genocide scholars don't often study this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. No one, Gerard included, condones Dessalines' methods. That doesn't mean Toussaint was really a moderate, whatever the word "moderate" can really mean in an abolitionist context. Meerkat77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Clear sourcing helps

I think clearly sourcing the info here will help. The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James was written before World War II (in 1938, so just immediately before; the Wikipedia article has an overview of the situation at The Black Jacobins#Historical and social context); C.L.R. James in this book gives a really good overview of the super-complex racial, social and economic situation both in Haiti and in France at this time. Black Jacobins and C.L. James probably would NOT be ok with the simplistic formulation that "Toussaint L'Ouverture was a moderate, and when pushed out Dessalines the radical took over." There were abolitionist "whites, blacks, mulattos," and also anti-abolitionist whites and mulattos, for a variety of reasons (among the French back in France, many "republicans" were pro-slavery, but many were abolitionist as well, and the early revolutionists freed all French slaves, which was fought against by many who owned slaves in Saint Domingue (Haiti); the new Declaration of the Rights of Citizens called for equality across all races, and freedom for all citizens--including those overseas; Toussaint L'Ouverture was a French citizen, loyal to the end really)--and much of it had to do with France's attempts to hold onto their empire in Haiti throughout their own civil war and revolution (which failed and put Napoleon into power--and yet Napoleon, under whom the re-enslavement of the area was policy (he literally promulgated edicts to do this), was also the one who made the practical decision in the end to let go of the overseas empire, and hence as an indirect result free the slaves). In Haiti, not all the designated "races" cooperated with each other, for similarly various reasons at different times, many economic or social in the sense of having to do with legal statuses given or taken away by France or by the "official" government in Haiti at the time. Meerkat77 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)