Is the person or group criticising a country just as revealing as the country being criticised?

[Andullero]

I just can't think they are 75-100% guilty of being a failed state. The idea that "this colony (applies to most) was a rich productive paradise and everyone was happy, then a native wanted freedom and it became a shithole" seems hard to believe when either crazy reparations were demanded or the metropolitan exploration structure was still up and running.

For me it is particularly hard not to assign blame to them on a large part, considering that they have had a longer timespan being independent than the rest of us put together (outside the US), and even the times when they have been intervened, the foreigners in question have taken good care to give them more latitude than the one they deserve. Even right now, when they have a situation where other countries would have had a military force sent their way, the powers at be are careful in not offending their sensitivities, ffs. I am not demanding for them to build a developed country overnight, but a minimally functional (or even one with livable third world standards) neighboring country would be nice.

P.S.: Also, regarding their reparations payments, which is the go to excuse that progs like to use regarding them, Mats Lundhal and other economists have proven that these werent the factor crippling them, but the fact that they consciously chose to destroy the productive apparatus that gave their country its fabulous wealth, and didn't care to rebuild it post-independence, compounded with the fact that they also chose to isolate themselves from the trading circuit by their anti-foreigner stance and exclusivist policies regarding these owning wealth and landownership in the country, policies that even the Yanks wouldnt care to reverse in the practice when they occupied the country, although FDR and other functionaries of the Navy did so to them on paper.

[Incal]

I don't know if we get the "talented tenth" of something like that but our experience in Brazil with Haitian migration has been great.
They are working people who managed to have good relations with a knowingly racist society like the immigrant dominated South Brazilian interior.

Also to this day there's no crime involving Haitians in my region, and even if this was the case, the ones who do it the most are our own triracials born in suburban outskirts and slums.
I'd rather deal with Haitians speaking good Portuguese than with some of the Brazilians here.

I just can't think they are 75-100% guilty of being a failed state. The idea that "this colony (applies to most) was a rich productive paradise and everyone was happy, then a native wanted freedom and it became a shithole" seems hard to believe when either crazy reparations were demanded or the metropolitan exploration structure was still up and running.

In that regard I have a theory that observes 3 types of people:

1) The ones that can prosper by themselves or anywhere (Anglos, Japanese, etc...)

2) The ones that can't do a thing on their own but if they move somewhere can prosper with some help (Armenians, Filipinos, etc...)

3) The ones that can't do shit in any possible scenario (tons of examples but don't want to turn thread into shitfest)

[Tooting Carmen]

For me it is particularly hard not to assign blame to them on a large part, considering that they have had a longer timespan being independent than the rest of us put together (outside the US), and even the times when they have been intervened, the foreigners in question have taken good care to give them more latitude than the one they deserve. Even right now, when they have a situation where other countries would have had a military force sent their way, the powers at be are careful in not offending their sensitivities, ffs. I am not demanding for them to build a developed country overnight, but a minimally functional (or even one with livable third world standards) neighboring country would be nice.

P.S.: Also, regarding their reparations payments, which is the go to excuse that progs like to use regarding them, Mats Lundhal and other economists have proven that these werent the factor crippling them, but the fact that they consciously chose to destroy the productive apparatus that gave their country its fabulous wealth, and didn't care to rebuild it post-independence, compounded with the fact that they also chose to isolate themselves from the trading circuit by their anti-foreigner stance and exclusivist policies regarding these owning wealth and landownership in the country, policies that even the Yanks wouldnt care to reverse in the practice when they occupied the country, although FDR and other functionaries of the Navy did so to them on paper.

Isn't it true that both the US and France constantly interefeted in Haiti, and the reparations the latter in particular demanded were often very crippling and overwhelming?