Haiti didn’t become a shithole all by itself
Earlier this week, Jay investigated the reaction to President Trump’s comments about Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, calling them “shithole” countries. Jay found Trump’s comments “ignorant and vicious,” and Trump’s behavior “gratuitously offensive.” It’s probably not very interesting to dive back into those comments any more than has already been done. But Jay also brought up an interesting question — can any place be described as a “shithole?” Should all aspiring immigrants to the US be considered the same?
First a quick word about Haiti
I don’t imagine President Trump has a strong grasp on the economic and political history of Haiti and why it became such a “shithole.” It becomes harder to think of a country as a shithole, any country for that matter, when you consider how it got that way. Especially when you consider how US foreign policy and military occupation played a role in making it a “shithole.” Or that Haiti had to pay reparations to France, for its own independence, in the 20th century. Or that the US invaded and overthrew a democratically elected government in Haiti in 1994 and leveled major trade restrictions. Or that even today, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which share an island, have drastically different economic realities because of preferential trade policies and treatment of refugees on side of the border versus another.
I don’t clutch my pearls because someone, even the President, uses the word shithole. I was offended because of the lack of knowledge and interest it displayed in how the world works. Which I consider a prerequisite to helping run the world. Or at least running a country full of immigrants from all sorts of countries — shithole and otherwise.
Can any country be described as a shithole? And do we want immigrants from shithole countries?
But back to the more interesting question at hand: can we talk about differences between countries? Yes. Absolutely. Politicians, academics, business leaders, progressives, conservatives talk about cultural differences, gaps in governing success, GDP, happiness and all sorts of other comparative topics. But that’s not the conversation Trump seems to be interested in having. Or if he is, he is doing it in a very indirect and ill-conceived way. If charges or racism are reductive (there’s mounting evidence that they’re not) and if in fact the true question is about the fitness of new immigrants to the US, we should have that conversation on those terms.
And if we want to talk about shithole countries versus not shithole countries, it behoves us to investigate why mostly nonwhite countries are considered shitholes, and why the histories of those countries might play a role in this. If we want to talk about falling fertility in the US, and worries about replacement rates among non-native populations, let’s have that discussion publically, but let’s also be mindful about the racial implications around these topics.
These are all worthwhile, complicated, generation-defining discussions worth having in public, in civil terms. I have a vested interest as a naturalized immigrant and member of an immigrant community. I have a vested interest as an American, trying to map out the coming decades of my life here as an American. As someone who believes in trying to achieve the Second American Experiment, I think this is exactly the kind of thing we have to get right. But I don’t think we can have these debates as long as we leave a comment like “shithole countries” uninvestigated and unchallenged.
