Haiti’s Ambassador to U.S. Pwns Pat Robertson
Jan 14th, 2010 | 47 responses
The ambassador’s name is Raymond Joseph, and he seized the initiative at the start of an interview with Rachel Maddow to deliver this rebuke to Pat Robertson:
I would like to address one thing that I heard tonight, about how the pact with the Devil made it possible for Haiti to suffer the way it has. I would like the whole world to know — America especially — that the independence of Haiti when the slaves rose up against the French and defeated the French army … the U.S. was able to gain the Louisiana Territory for $15 million. That’s three cents an acre. That’s 13 states west of the Mississippi that the Haitian slaves’ revolt in Haiti provided America. Also, the revolt of the rebels in Haiti allowed Latin America to be free. It’s from Haiti that Simon Bolivar left with men, boats, to go deliver Grand Colombia and the rest of South America. So, what pact the Haitians made with the Devil, has helped the United States become what it is.
I’m not sure what Ambassador Joseph meant by “Grand” Colombia, but I listened to it several times, and that’s what he said. The article at HuffPost has the complete video, including Rachel’s response. You will also find there the complete video of the CBN news report in which Pat Robertson made his demented remarks.
47 Responses to “Haiti’s Ambassador to U.S. Pwns Pat Robertson”
Grand Colombia aka Gran Colombia, Great Colombia, was the name of a state that Colombia (including Panama), Ecuador and Venezuela formed from 1819 to 1830/31.
Good for him
Ahh…so this is what the President of Haiti was talking about.
Personally, I don't think anyone owes a debt for historic connections from over 100 years ago. I do think as a world society, it is our responsibility to help Haiti in their time of need.
I think the world is responding as well as it can right now. I've been impressed with Spain's little setup in that region…very impressed.
Muy correcto, Rouge77.
Because of geography then and now, La Gran Colombia also included small parts of what today are Brazil and Perú and a couple of other Caribbean regions.
Gracias
Dorian
Good for the Ambassador! Viva la revolucion!
Looking at it from a Social Capitalist’s point of view, I believe Haiti is due a finder’s fee. I suggest three hundred billion dollars and settlement rights in New Orleans.
Kathy, I'm surprised you don't know what Gran Colombia is. It's not only an obvious piece of history, that everyone should have learned before leaving high school (if not before entering it), but it has re-entered the consciousness of those of us who are awake and can think, given what our friend Hugo Chavez has been doing and what else he may want, not only in Venezuela.
“Colombia (including Panama)”
Indeed — at its extreme, “Bolivarian revolutionary” activities would include threats to the Canal, among other things.
Not really. Teaching underclass Hispanic history is largely a southwest thing. The other states really don't concentrate on it. However if education had been nationally centralized and standardized maybe they would have taught this universally. Then you would have no need to be surprised.
F-T, “Gran Colombia” is basic Latin American history, associated with Bolivar and the Latin American independence movement. It has nothing to do with a southwestern (only?) “Hispanic underclass” (and how many Hispanic kids were in our schools long ago?), or with any weird foreign concepts like Aztlan.
You're confusing basic history (which everyone should know — Bolivar, “ploughing the sea” in that part of the world, included; Chavez is not ignorant of basic history to exploit) with the Aztlan movement (the Hispanic secessionists who want to form their own nation) or variants of it, such as the provocative (but not surprising) “Republica del Norte” idea propounded a few years ago by Truxillo.
I grew up in California in the 60's. There were, even then, whole districts where it was just easier to teach in Spanish. Latin American history was as much a part of our curriculum as North American history – I just took it as a given that the same lessons were being taught in New York or Chicago too.
As such, when I first watched the Haitian ambassador on MSNBC feed, I didn't question the Gran Columbia comment. But my wife, raised in Pennsylvania, did. So I took her to the wiki page where I now take all of you who wish to also go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia
Happy reading.
I grew up in California. There wasn't teaching in Spanish, though there was Spanish as a subject of study (and I took it starting in the fourth grade — we didn't have to wait until high school to do it). That we learned typical Latin American history was totally independent of being in the Southwest (which California is, though it's primarily seen as West Coast, not arid typical “West,” and cosmopolitan rather than rural ranching country, and was then, too). It wasn't until later years that a Hispanic presence became news in itself (i.e., a presence beyond workers in the farm fields, like in the Salinas Valley spotted when driving up and down Highways 99 or 101, and occasional Spanish heard in exurban and rural locations), and we heard of the “bilingual education wars” and leftist multiculturalism (anti-mainstream and anti-”Establishment), ballot language and related antics, 200+ languages (not only Spanish) eventually in LA schools, and so on.
” I didn't question the Gran Columbia comment. But my wife, raised in Pennsylvania, did”
Our east coast is “their” (South America's) west coast. Miami is the gateway to Latin America, or at least the place with greatest potential to be it, despite the great history in the southwestern USA of Latin American settlement and ties (very old). I'm surprised that “Gran Colombia” would be unknown.
[shrug] I also don't know what to think (and how poorly) of those still referring to the West as “out there” (including a book title by someone who naturally “discovered” the West and Seattle a few years ago, for example, or others who joined the fad a few years ago and “discovered” Santa Fe — [rolling eyes]), or who still undervalue the West, or think the South[east] is still the Third World (or earning degenerate leftist PC hatred, as we often see), or otherwise are like those in the “Detroit bubble” arrested culturally and possibly mentally in a state before 1980 (like liberals and the 1980 elections, who can't understand why people rejected or even questioned liberalism prior to that time). The Sunbelt is the growing, vital part of the nation now, and has been that way since the 1980s (just as LA and Southern California displaced SF and the Bay Area in importance and influence, even though the northern part of the state is still splendid).
It is Truljillo, DLS, [rolling eyes] but I won't use your error to question either your Spanish or your knowledge of Latin American history.
It is the “Gran Colombia.”
Picky picky! ;D
Thanks
Which part of CA. I was spending a lot of time in the Salinas Valley in schools where native English speakers were the minority. The teachers would often just break down & explain subjects in Spanish just to make certain that more than 10% of the kids understood.
As I got older, the English became more frequent & Spanish was never spoken, even in the earlier years, when the principal or other outsider was in the class. (i.e. it was used unofficially)
I must admit, I grew up in Upstate New York, and we learned about Gran Colombia in middle and high school. So it is not exclusively a Southwest thing.
“Picky picky! ;D”
No offense intended, Frith_Ra. I am enjoying your comments
“It is Truljillo, DLS, [rolling eyes] “
He spells it with an X, and people who have interviewed him and written about him have used an X.
You're on a roll today, you really are…
uh…it wasn't “basic” in High School and below when Kathy and I were kids I assure you. I am fairly certain that it is not now in many states.
What is your point anyway?
“Which part of CA. I was spending a lot of time in the Salinas Valley in schools where native English speakers were the minority.”
Bay Area (inland from the Bay Flats, between them and the Central Valley).
Salinas Valley doesn't surprise me. That's where farm workers have been for years, along with the farms and related businesses (think Spreckels). Little towns like Chualar or Gonzales could well have been as you described your experience, from the Sixties.
“What is your point anyway?”
This was surprising:
“I’m not sure what Ambassador Joseph meant by 'Grand' Colombia”
My apologies, DLS. You are talking about Charles Truxillo, the University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor.
I thought you were referring to Rafael Trujillo. Should have known by the present tense of your comments and reference to la República del Norte. Hint: Use alt 163 to get a ú.
You are on a roll
Yes, sir, I was talking about just that guy (Truxillo).
“Should have known by the present tense of your comments and reference to la República del Norte. Hint: Use alt 163 to get a ú”
Thanks for the tip for the accent. (I'm too lazyXXXX practical-minded to mess with details these days.)
The República del Norte concept is not the only, or the most noteworthy, work on the “Aztlanian” concept, but it's definitely one that made the news (notably on far-right “nativist” and some racist Web sites).
[...] At least the Ambassador from Haiti has his head screwed on straight. [...]
Thanks, DLS. I need to read more about Truxillo and la República del Norte.
Dorian
I think the ambassador made the wrong rebuttal. He should have said “Pat Robertson is an ass and is irrelevant. We are in trouble and need your help. Please do the Christian thing and help a people in need.”
Dorian, I cannot now do a Web search and find his site successfully (that had text as well as several maps, from earlier historic times through the years 2050 and 2080, if I recall). There are references to him and perhaps to his maps on “nativist” and racist sites, but I don't visit these sites; you might use them in lieu of better alternatives, though, at least to have them direct you toward the other (better) sites.
Got it. Thanks
Thank you, Rouge! I'm so glad someone knew the answer to that, and I just had no idea. Thank you!
Kathy, I'm surprised you don't know what Gran Colombia is. It's not only an obvious piece of history, that everyone should have learned before leaving high school (if not before entering it), but it has re-entered the consciousness of those of us who are awake and can think, given what our friend Hugo Chavez has been doing and what else he may want, not only in Venezuela.
Laughing out loud, DLS. Just laughing out loud. This comment is such a keeper. It's the essential expression of who you are.
Thank you for making me laugh.
Good rejoinder, F_T. Thank you.
But my wife, raised in Pennsylvania, did.
And I was born on Long Island, and was raised in New York City and its suburbs (in the 1950s and 1960s).
That we learned typical Latin American history was totally independent of being in the Southwest….
How do you know that?
Our east coast is “their” (South America's) west coast. Miami is the gateway to Latin America, or at least the place with greatest potential to be it, despite the great history in the southwestern USA of Latin American settlement and ties (very old). I'm surprised that “Gran Colombia” would be unknown
But lots of people who live on the East Coast do not live in or near Miami. Miami is not the only city on the East Coast. And the East Coast is a very big place.
I assume this is not the same person as Rafael Trujillo, the former dictator of the Dominican Republic.
Even I knew how to spell the name of the country Colombia. But maybe that's because my daughter goes to Columbia University in NYC.
“Thank you for making me laugh.”
That's an illogical reaction, but you're welcome, anyway.
That we learned typical Latin American history was totally independent of being in the Southwest….
“How do you know that?”
We were never told we were being taught this because we were living in the Southwest. Latin American history was part of history related to geography class (which wasn't limited to our hemisphere!), or it was part of history or Latin American studies.
That's even true of Spanish instruction. But that (being in the Southwest, interest sparked among some) wasn't why we were offered that language. Other languages were offered, too, and when they weren't, Spanish was offered because it is an easier language for somebody to learn than, say, French with spelling quirks, or non-Romance languages. (The written and spoken Spanish are consistent.)
You can argue that perhaps Spanish or Latin American studies had more interest in California (which is in the Southwest) and led to their pursuit as electives in college, but that does not apply to curricula for all classes in all elementary, secondary, and post-secondary grades.
“But lots of people who live on the East Coast do not live in or near Miami. Miami is not the only city on the East Coast. And the East Coast is a very big place.”
I wasn't saying Miami defines the East Coast (I've lived and traveled all over the USA, not just knew about it when I was a kid — don't worry; I know it is a big place). And in fact, having other communities (not only the well-known Puerto Rican community in New York metro, but don't forget, for example, the Bergenline community in Union City, Your State, NJ of Cubans, the “other than Miami” Cuban community, where I used to buy Cuban CDs) makes it even more clear that Easterners should be fully aware of Latin America, and if you claim geography affects perception, then it's even more weight for the argument you should know better about South America than people in the western USA (because you're not only closer to the former ”Gran Colombia” but because you have more Latin communities than merely in Miami).
We were never told we were being taught this because we were living in the Southwest. Latin American history was part of history related to geography class (which wasn't limited to our hemisphere!), or it was part of history or Latin American studies.
I don't think that your conclusion (Latin American history is a standard part of the curriculum for middle- and high-school students nationwide) follows logically from your statement of fact (that you were never told that you were being taught Latin American history because you lived in California).
There is no national standardized K-12 curriculum in this country, you know. Curriculum and instructional standards are formulated at the state level, and implemented at the local school district level. In addition to which, curriculum standards change. I went to middle school (called junior high school then where I lived) and high school in the 1960s. You and I may not be the same age, or even in the same generation. It's possible that Latin American history was not taught in some places in the 1960s.
I am not sure why you assume that Latin American history is a standard part of the curricula for all middle and high school students in the U.S. In fact, I find it somewhat odd that you do apparently assume that.
Being “fully aware” of Latin America; and having been taught in school about the history of Latin American independence movements, or the term “Grand Colombia,” or the details of Simon Bolivar's struggle to liberate Colombia from Spain and how Grand Colombia was a part of that, are two quite different items of knowledge, DLS. Living in a metropolitan area that includes a significant population of immigrants (and descendants of immigrants) from the Caribbean islands and from every country in Latin America does not mean that Latin American history is taught routinely in NYC and environs high schools. There is a difference between knowing that Latin America exists, or between being able to name the countries in Latin America and that knowledge is certainly part of any American student's basic public education. But entire, complete, separate, individual courses devoted to the single subject of Latin American history are not at all to be assumed standard educational fare in this country, even in high school. Even for contemporary students. I know my daughter took World History in high school, but she never took a course just about Latin American history.
I'm sure that within specific Latin American and Caribbean communities in the NYC metropolitan area, residents know a lot more about Latin American history than residents of communities that are not heavily Latino. I am sure that lots of people in Union City and in Jersey City, for example, know lots and lots about Latin American history, but I don't live in Union City or Jersey City.
And New York City is really not that close, geographically, to Latin America.
Again, I'm surprised that this seems to come as such a shock to you. It really shouldn't. If further perspective is needed, consider the reality of how even U.S. history is taught in American schools. I am reasonably certain that slavery, for example — an institution that existed in this country for about 250 years and that had (somewhat arguably, but not really very arguably) deeper and more substantive and far-reaching consequences for and effects on the United States than any other single historical institution or event in our history — is barely taught at all in many if not most public schools in the United States. And by that I mean that, judging from what I have observed most people seem to know about American slavery, I suspect it is mostly taught in this country only in broad generalities and in outline form.
So why would you think that the history of an entire continent not our own would be taught more completely and in greater detail than is the most historically consequential period of time in our nation's entire existence?
Yes, Kathy, I was referring to Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina, the former head (now deceased) of La República Dominicana
Dorian
“I don't think that your conclusion (Latin American history is a standard part of the curriculum for middle- and high-school students nationwide) follows logically from your statement of fact (that you were never told that you were being taught Latin American history because you lived in California).”
I wasn't trying to prove anything conclusively. I took the liberty of actually providing a suitable explanation (it's not the only one) for something that really doesn't or shouldn't need an explanation.
“I am not sure why you assume that Latin American history is a standard part of the curricula for all middle and high school students in the U.S. In fact, I find it somewhat odd that you do apparently assume that.”
Why would this be neglected, anywhere? Perhaps I'm being too kind, and assuming too much…
I'm wholly reasonable in what I can expect people to know Kathy. That includes understanding what I've posted here, which is clear and is (or should be) easy to understand. My examples of Latin American communities in the eastern USA outside Miami, for example, dispatched (obviously!) with your defense of some people's ignorance of history because they are at a substantial distance from Miami (where even you seem to understand that obviously nobody has an excuse for ignorance about Latin America). Enough already.
Enough already.
I hate to bring out that hoary chestnut, “You started it,” but… well…
I wrote a line in my post about not knowing what Haiti's ambassador meant by “Grand Colombia.” It was a term I'd never heard before. Whether I should have or not, is not the point. I hadn't. New (to me at least) commenter Rouge77 was kind enough to tell me what it meant. After I read and responded to Rouge's explanation, I saw that Dorian had also answered my question — telling me, simply, what “Grand Colombia” meant, for which I was also grateful.
Then, after I had seen both Dorian's and Rouge's comments, I saw yours. You answered my question, too, but with a heavy overlay of judgment and sarcasm about my not being familiar with the term. After having read Dorian's and Rouge's matter-of-fact explanations — not judging my question, just answering it — my reaction was a half-and-half mixture of affronted and amused, that two readers had managed to give me the information I lacked, without judgment about the fact I lacked it, but you were not so able. It seemed predictable to me. Hence, my initial response.
Now you say, “Enough already.” Well, there would not have been any response from me at all other than a thank you if you had not chosen to turn a simple definition that I happened not to know, into an opportunity to put me down.
When all of your stuff about how there shouldn't need to be an explanation, and you're surprised I didn't know it, and this information is a standard part of every American child's public school education has all been said and said again, this is the bottom line: I did not learn in school what “Grand Colombia” was. Or, if I did, I don't remember it. I *am* 59, after all, and even though I am not senile and do not have Alzheimer's, that period of my life is still over four decades back in the past.
I have not made any excuses for not knowing what “Grand Colombia” meant. I merely said that I didn't. That is a fact. It may appall you, but it's still a fact. So if you think it's something I should know, you can either simply tell me, or you can judge my lack of knowing. You did the latter, and so you accomplished nothing because I already had been given the information by two people before you, and all you managed to add was insult.
So be it, and now, after having explained this to you as straightforwardly and non-judgmentally as I can, I am choosing — *I* am choosing — to say no more.
Kathy:
I have kept quiet throughout this entire “debate,” but for whatever it's worth, I agree that too much has been made of the Gran Colombia “issue”…”Illegitimi non carborundum,” or something like that.