Collapse: One Island, Two Peoples, Two Histories: The Dominican Republic and Haiti

One Island, Two Peoples, Two Histories: The Dominican Republic and Haiti

The Situation:

Haiti and the Dominican Republic make up to two halves of one Caribbean Island located south of Florida.  While the Dominican Republic and Haiti directly border one another, economic, social, political, and environmental conditions differ vastly.   Both nations began with Indigenous roots; the Tainos people inhabited the land.  However, Spanish colonization in the East and eventually French colonization in the West led to the death of natives through disease, exhaustion and sometimes, direct cruelty from the colonizers.  Both the eastern (Haiti) and western (Dominican Republic) parts of the island are rooted in a history of European colonization.   Africans were imported into the island to replace the dying labor force.  Furthermore, both nations endured histories of deforestation and a depletion of natural resources.  Both islands endured harsh ruling from dictators.  While both countries are poor, the Dominican Republic’s “per capita income is five times higher, and the population density and population growth are lower.”  Furthermore, its political system is much more stable and is “at least nominally a democracy.”  Finally, the Dominican Republic has a complex natural reserve system with 74 parks or reserves that make up 32% of the land.  On the other hand, Haitians live in general poverty with little access to water or electricity.  Most of the people are subsistence farmers.  Haitians endured a history of political turmoil with little economic and environmental development.  Only four parks make up the natural park system in Haiti.   How is it possible for two nations to exist so differently on one island?

Jared M. Diamond’s Argument

Diamond argues that the divergence between Haiti and the Dominican Republic begins in colonization and ends in the decisions made leaders.  Haiti was colonized by the French who focused on developing the agricultural output through increased imports of Africans for labor.  On the other hand, the Dominican Republic was colonized by the Spanish who raised cattle and imported notably less slaves.  The Spanish eventually lost interest in that area of the Island, and therefore did not focus on developing agriculturally.  Ironically, this impacted the future of the two nations in an opposite manner than expected.  The French’s efforts overpopulated Haiti, increasing population without an increase in resources.  Furthermore, farming in the mountainous and less-nutrient rich Haiti led to depletion of resources early on.  Haitians, now mostly descendents of African slaves or mulatto mixes launched rebellions that left them fearful of foreign invasion.  Hence, the people developed a deep fear and distrust of foreigners, closing the country to participation and investment from immigrants or foreign people.  The people divided the lands and survived on subsistence farming without room for development.  On the other hand, the lack of attention from the Spanish allowed the Dominican Republic to maintain its natural resources and develop more naturally.  Viewed from the outside as more Spanish (and therefore European), the Dominican Republic became desirable for European immigrants.  The lack of a strong history of slave rebellion left the Dominican Republic more open to participation from immigrants, who eventually became valuable assets in helping to develop the nation economically.  Hence, there were less people in the Dominican Republic and more trusting outlook on development from the outside world.

Furthermore, Diamond argues that the history of leadership makes a huge difference in the fate of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.  Following decolonization, both countries existed in political and social chaos.  However, the Dominican Republic was able to stabilize through the ruling of a dictator.  This dictator was interested in developing the economy, which eventually led to protection of the environment and development of dams to support hydrological energy.   Despite his violent and cruel treatment of his people, Diamond argues that his interest in developing the Dominican Republic is what revived the nation from chaos.  Furthermore, the people of the Dominican Republic played a significant role in lobbying the government to protect the natural resources, and eventually the dictators who followed played a role in passing laws and regulations that banned outside logging.  The people also formed non-governmental organizations that actively seek to protect, maintain, and develop environmental resources.  On the other hand, Haitians survived on subsistence farming.  The people had no manner of developing their farm work into cash crops because there were no governmental initiatives to develop the economy.  Haitians endured dictatorships under rulers who had no interest in developing the country, but who had more interest in exploiting the people.   Hence, the country has become the poorest country in the New World and one of the poorest countries in the world, after African nations.

My Reflection

While Diamond’s analysis on the legacies of colonization and the impact of leadership is revelatory, his criticism of Haitian’s fearful response and individualistic mentalities following colonization lacks complexity.  Diamond praises Dominicans for their resilience following decades of colonization and lack of agricultural development.  Furthermore, he depicts Dominicans’ efforts to seek a protectorate relationship with their former colonizers in a positive light by suggesting that it demonstrates their trusting relationship with foreign powers.  Hence, Dominicans became a nation open to immigration and desirable to immigration.  The lack of agricultural investment in the Dominican Republic meant that there were less Africans brought into the nation as slaves.  As a result, there are less Dominicans who distrust foreign powers.  On the other hand, Diamond suggests that it is this very distrust of foreign powers that leaves Haiti underdeveloped.  Histories of colonization led Haitians to divide land individually, leading to an individualistic model of economy.  Furthermore, Haitians fear immigration because they fear foreign powers.  Hence, Diamond asserts that because Haitians do not open their nations to foreign powers, they are closing themselves to further development.  However, Diamond fails to offer an alternative.  Diamond almost blames Haitians for their reaction to legacies of colonization.

Post Submitted By: Layhannara Tep

Collapse and the Malthusian Principle

Background Information

Malthusian: term used to describe East African population issues in Diamond’s Collapse.
This phrase comes from Thomas Malthus, an English economist and demographer, who posits that population growth is exponential and food production is not (rather, food production can only develop arithmetically).

Rwandan genocide deaths exceed all other genocides proportionally— except for the Cambodian genocide.

Belgians made preexisting ethnic distinctions more pronounced by requiring all Hutus and Tutsis to carry identification cards. Throughout the early 1990′s the extremist Hutu government organized Tutsi killings.

Diamond’s Interpretation

Diamond argues that although overpopulation certainly does not necessitate genocide, it seems that the pressure of a country to face an overpopulated nation’s growing needs is one of the most important factors to consider in the Rwandan genocide. Diamond draws parallels between the theoretical Malthusian picture and Rwanda’s very real state of affairs. For instance, he states that “Severe problems of overpopulation, environmental impact, and climate change cannot persist indefinitely: sooner or later they are likely to resolve themselves, whether in the manner of Rwanda or some other manner not of our devising, if we don’t succeed in solving them by our own actions” (328).

Personal Reflection

As Diamond proposes, primarily discussing genocide in terms like “the Malthusian crisis” is not only dispassionate, but quite wrong. It is important to remember that genocide is not a matter of logical, causal relationships. We must understand the indescribably savage and hateful human conditions that occur in genocides before we begin to diagnose their causes according to our cultural prescriptions. Diamond, I think, has this in mind in his book. In this way, (namely, empathy before analysis) we can come to “better” history-writing instead of disadvantageously fragmented narratives. One of my future goals is to achieve official U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide and Cambodian genocide. This is not only because I have personal political and emotional investment in the genocides or want to hit our youth over the head with more violence and killings, but because we must institutionalize understandings of such atrocities to develop empathy and then important research, like Diamond’s. From there, we can actually contextualize our history and create stronger world leaders.

Posted by: Tiffany

Collapse of the Mayan Empire: America is next! Just kidding, but there are lessons to be learned here.

For my special blog post on Collapse: How Societies Choose to fail and Succeed by UCLA professor Jared Diamond I selected the chapter on the Mayan empire and its particular brand of self-destruction. How the Mayan empire collapsed, according to Diamond, first four points of the five-point framework on empire collapses that Diamond has developed: Damage to environment, climate changes, inter-empire hostilities and political/cultural factors.

Simply put, the Mayans are not completely responsible for the demise of their empire. However, the environment and climate changes are not completely responsible for the demise of the empire either. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The southern region of the Mayan empire, the heartland, collapsed in a manner Diamond labels a “Classic Mayan Collapse.” To start, the southern region had several disadvantages, compared to the northern half of the empire, which spurred the collapse of the southern region. First, the very climate and terrain of the southern region put the area at a severe disadvantage. The soil in the southern region was dryer than the northern region and thus limited the amount of ground water that the region had. Thus the area was limited to rain and reservoirs that they had created. Still, during periods of great drought, the southern region of the Mayan empire was severely pressed for water. To make matters worse, crops require rainfall and not reservoir water which the southern region  (which would be too difficult to properly irrigate the region).

The amount of land available for farming also contributed to the decline of the region. This is where the human aspect of the collapse enters. The farmland in the southern region, limited by the climate, essentially comes in two forms: farmland on flat land and farmland on hills. Farmland on flat land in the southern region of the Mayan empire  is fertile and relatively easy to grow on but limited in amount. Hilly farmland is difficult to grow on and is very lose and dry. To make matters worse. during an early period of growth the Mayans began to destroy much of the usable farmland by chopping down much of the trees in the hills to use for plaster. The deforestation loosened the poor soil in the hills, destroying a lot of the farmland in the hilly regions and forced people to compete for the limited farmland on flat land. This process continued until the collapse of the southern region.

Diamond is never explicit in blaming either trend for the destruction of the Mayan heartland and instead points to several interesting historical facts that coincide with these factors. He notes that there were great periods of unrest in the region during periods of time when there was severe drought in the region. Discontent stemmed not only from the lack of food but also the fact that the legitimacy behind a Mayan ruler was that he spoke to the Gods in order to obtain great rainfall. Thus during periods of drought, the legitimacy of Mayan rulers are threatened. Diamond also notes that the growing trend of movement of people from the hilly regions to the flat land followed a trend of a collapsing region. These two factors were primary contributions to the collapse that ended the great Mayan empire.

What does any this mean for the United States? While the Mayan collapse teaches us that even advanced societies can collapse from the most primitive needs (water and food). However the application of the Mayan collapse to the United States would be a grand oversimplification for one reason: much of the world relies on the United States.

Despite the “America sucks” kind of attitude that is relatively popular, much of the world relies on the United States. The United States produces around 14.3 trillion dollars through its economy,  a figure that, should it disappear from the world economy, would leave a giant hole in the economic production of the world (which is estimated at 58.2 trillion dollars). The collapse of the United States would be something, at least economically, that the world would not be interested in.

Also, the United States provides military backing for much of the free world. South Korea relies on the stationing of US troops to keep a North Korean and Chinese coalition from overrunning the region. Japan and Israel similarly relies on the United States for protection against enemies in their respective regions. Even the current international system relies on the United States military backing of Western Europe, while Russia backs the eastern half of Europe.

Simply put, much of the world cannot afford to have the United States collapse. If ever the United States appeared to be on the verge of collapse, there would likely be efforts by the rest of the world to prevent such a collapse. But there are still some important lessons to take from the Mayan collapse that could be applied more generally. First, the Mayan collapse stresses the importance of basic necessities in relation to the survival of human institutions. With the rapid population growth in the world (specifically China and India), it is not reasonable to think that without adjustments to the use of resources that there will be enough resources for everyone. The Mayan collapse tells us that tremendous culture and innovation cannot save a civilization that cannot feed its own people. While currently there is less of an issue with being able to feed the world and more of an issue with the willingness to (the world certainly has the technology to feed Africa but does not) there is still the fact that there is a finite amount of resources available in the world which can run out. The amount of drinkable water is constantly being threatened by tainted ground water (the main source of drinkable water), global warming (destroying the icecaps) and pollution. The amount of available food depends not only on the finite amount of land that can be farmed upon, but also the issues with water listed above.

Alas the end of the Mayan empire does not equate to the end of the American empire but there are lessons to be learned about conservation and the importance of basic necessities. Without them, the rest of society simply cannot function or grow. This important concept is the final gift from the Mayan empire.

Post Submitted by: Jesse Chiang

Short Essay: The Empire of Los Angeles

Los Angeles: home to the one of the largest populations in the United States.  Los Angeles: one of the most industrious cities in the world.  Los Angeles: the melting pot of the nation. Los Angeles: future vicitm of collapse?  These statements each reflect components in the city of Los Angeles that explain how and why Los Angeles has the potential to deteriorate.  As described in the 16th chapter “The World As a Polder: What Does It Mean to Us Today?” of  Jared Diamond’s book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,  we Los Angeleans are in the middle of an environmental crisis due to over-use of technology and our emphasis on industries as well as over-population.  Despite this, Diamond poses a plan of action so that we can prevent our society from collapsing.

First, Diamond paints a picture of an already-dying society, at least in terms of the environment.  He argues that we, as citizens, do not take good enough care of the environement in which we live.  We use automobiles, which extinguish gases that act as polluntants for the environment.  We participate in industrial behaviors, increasing the amount of fossil fuels.  We are over-populated, which causes a limit in resources and abuse toward the environment.  We need to change unless we want our society, and most importantly, our environment, to collapse. 

In order to do this, Diamond proposes that the wealthy use their money to good use: that they help heighten environmental awareness and help pay for the cost of bettering our environmental situation.  What about the average citizen? How can he help?  According to Diamond, we can contribute to the prevention of a collapse by refusing to support companies that destroy our environment.  Also, we can make personal choices to protect our environment and learn from history’s mistakes.

All this being noted, it is also necessary to look outside Diamond’s perspective at the current issue in Los Angeles.  What are the city’s  main issues? Will our society collapse simply from an environmental standpoint, or are there other factors that may possibly contribute to this collapse?  How can we practically prevent this from approaching us rapidly?  Although the world’s end, as many argue, is inevitable, how can we prolong it? Will we become the next Sodom and Gomorrah?

Please think about about the previous questions and those mentioned by Diamond.  Be more aware of lifestyle choices and habits that affect the environment, and make a difference if you aren’t already.

Post submitted by Casey O’Neill

New essays about Jared Diamond’s “Collapse”

This is one of my favorite books because it combines science with sociology.   I feel like it works out both sides of my brains! It gives a critical assessment of how each society succeeded or collapsed; more importantly, it provides invaluable lessons and insight for our modern day societies and the future of our global communities.  WSP Staff members each chose a different chapter/society to read and write about.  Look out for upcoming posts featuring critical essays on chapters from Collapse.

 

Post submitted by Sahra

Short Analytical Essay: Sending Shocks to the System

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Chapter 15

Big Business and the Environment: Different Conditions, Different Outcomes

One of the biggest struggles our generation faces today is finding the balance between satisfying the interests of big business and those of environmentalists.  Often times, there is no room for compromise.  In this chapter of Jared Diamond’s book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, the famous scientist, author, and UCLA professor delves into the business practices and motives of several “extraction” industries: oil, hardrock mining and coal, logging, and marine fishing.  While politicians, CEO’s, and environmentalists may play a vicious game of tug-of-war in terms of public policy and business regulation, Diamond argues that the interests of big business, environmentalists, and society as a whole coincide more often than you might guess.  What may seem like poor, careless business practice on the side of these industries may instead be the product of a society’s failure to make good decisions.  For today’s blog post, I plan to briefly summarize each of these industries business practices in relation to their effect on the environment and  highlight some misconceptions about the extraction industries that Diamond discusses in this chapter.  I will also attempt to connect his insight to other things that we can more easily relate to.

First, to clarify a bit: the chapter does not condemn the oil, mining, logging, or fishing industries and impose an altogether environmentalist philosophy upon us.  Rather, Diamond works through each of the industries motives and operations and presents them so that you can determine what business practices seem right or wrong.  He begins his discussion with background on oil fields, particularly, the oil fields of the company we know as Chevron.  Some of us may already have some pre-existing ill feelings towards the oil industry.  Take, for example, British Petroleum’s mega oil spill last year in the Gulf of Mexico.  For three months, pictures of oil sodden birds, dead fish, and polluted estuaries bombarded the news and infuriated millions of people across the country.  Some people even went as far as boycotting BP, claiming that the billion dollar company hardly makes any effort to spare the environment from its extraction operations.  This isn’t the case.

As bad and horrible and devastating an oil spill may be, the public outrage on these accidents completely undermines years of effort on the behalf of oil companies to prevent such catastrophes.  Although oil spills do not happen often, when they do, the negative reception of it by the public is enormous.  And that is rightly so, but just like we are suddenly afraid to swim in open waters after a report of a shark attack flashes across the news, we cannot assume that because of one oil spill, the oil industry is the worst thing to ever happen.  In fact, Diamond explains that oil companies spend millions of dollars on environmentally conscious business policies and practices so that these accidents never occur.  Such practices include paving the narrowest possible roads through rain forests, strict employee safety rules, and fauna conservation within the confines of their oil fields (in Papua New Guinea, there are more wildlife found within Chevron’s oil fields than outside the oil fields).  Although Chevron claims that their concern for the environment is their motivating factor, saving money is the ultimate reason for pursuing more environmentally friendly business operations.  Look at the Gulf oil spill.  Cleaning up accidents and the pollution that they leave is far more expensive than investing in infrastructure that actually prevents such accidents.  Do this, you save money and you get the approval of the general public.

The story, however, is different for hardrock mining operations.  Hardrock mining, or the extraction of metals, and its effect on the environment is far worse than that of the oil industry.  Why?  Because it takes so much more land and digging up to attain metals in the earth such as copper or palladium.  While the oil industry’s major waste is water, hardrock mining produces mountains of dirt and excess material from the ground that eventually ends up polluting our rivers and oceans.

For the last two industries–logging and fishing–we explore the extraction of renewable natural resources.  Trees and fish can reproduce and replenish their populations–oil and copper cannot.  So what does Diamond mention about these industries? Unfortunately, they will soon be non-renewing industries because of rapid deforestation and overfishing.  When the world population has jumped up above 6 billion, this should come as no surprise.  In both these industries, big business seems to win.  The demand for paper and seafood (especially in Asian countries) has rapidly increased over the years because of the world’s growing population.  And what is driving big business’s to conduct less environmentally friendly behavior?  ”Economics, the industry’s cooperate culture, and the attitudes of society and government.”

The film Wall-E was Pixar's first film with eco-friendly themes and, arguably, anti-capitalist propaganda.

So what does this mean for us?

Perhaps a subject we can all relate to is the subject of food.  Food is like any of these other industries: we need it, so we buy it.  Or you’re like my mother and you grow it.  Since there is such a huge demand for food, there are huge corporations and companies that are there to help us satisfy our needs.  As explained earlier, when there is big business, you generally have its counterparts–environmentalists and/or other special interest groups that deal with human rights, working conditions, etc.  Big business opposition tend to enlighten us through documentaries such as “Sicko” and “The Cove.”  If there is one thing that I learned from watching movies like “Food, Inc.” and reading books like The Omnivore’s Dilemma, it’s this: us individuals are a lot more powerful than we might think.

Let’s say you’re at the grocery store and you’re ready to fill your shopping cart with goodies to last you for the next two weeks.  You head over to the produce section and scan the area for some tomatoes.  As your looking for those tomatoes, what is your main criteria for your fresh produce choice?  Is it size?  Color?  Farm/manufacturing company?  Price?  The cost of the things that you buy at the grocery store are probably the main criterion, if not the singular criterion, on which you base your purchases.  Do you spend time reading labels?  Do you know what those labels mean?

The Perverse Pyramid: The Farm Bill's skewed system of subsidies helps explain why unhealthy foods are often cheap and plentiful, while healthy foods are more expensive and less available. The priorities in the subsidy system stand in stark contrast to the federal government's own advice on nutrition.

Here, I’ve posted an interesting depiction of America’s current food industry.  Now while we would like to place all the blame on big business and politics for trying to make us fat, we have to remember that every purchase we make is a vote for something.  Each time we decide on dinner at McDonald’s over a farmer’s market is a win for the fast food industry.  Every time we order a 12 oz. top sirloin steak over a vegetarian plate is a vote for more meat.  A demand for something leads to the increased supply of that something, and that is reflected in the distribution of government subsidies and the availability of that object in demand.

Diamond tells us that our blaming of businesses “ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public.”  In actuality, we have created the conditions that allow the oil industry, the mining industry, the logging and seafood industry to hurt the public by not forcing them to clean up or be more sustainable.  This goes for the food industry as well.  We as a public have chosen to let businesses dominate our economy and be less concerned with the environment through either our apathy towards the issue or our consumer decisions.  I argue that we do have the power to send shocks to the system.  Now, it is a question of whether we are willing to do so or not.

Post submitted by: Crystal Maranan