Black History

COMMENTARY: The Debt We Owe Haitians

THE AFRO — Even though Haitians shed blood for American independence, the United States in its foreign policy has always held a deep-seated hostility towards Haiti,

Published

6 years ago

January 26, 2019

Oakland Post

By Oscar H. Blayton

More than 500 Haitian soldiers (referred to as Les Chasseurs-Volontaires de Saint-Domingue) fought alongside French troops, Oct. 9, 1779, to aid the Americans in trying to force the British out of Savannah, Ga. in order to open its port for the colonists’ use. The attack was unsuccessful, but it has been noted that the Haitians played a significant role in providing cover for the French soldiers who had to retreat from their positions on the battlefield. But even though Haitians shed blood for American independence, the United States in its foreign policy has always held a deep-seated hostility towards Haiti, despite denials to the contrary.

[/media-credit] Oscar H. Blayton

Haiti was born of a slave revolt that began on the French half of the island of Hispaniola and resulted in a revolution costing 200,000 Black lives.

When the Haitians threw off the French yoke of oppression to become the Independent Republic of Haiti, France demanded recompense for the loss of its slaves. This demand for payment was backed up by the threat of an invasion, with the French navy laying off the Haitian coast. This forced payment, totaling more than $21 billion over the years, began Haiti’s slide from being France’s wealthiest colony to one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere.

When Haiti gained its independence, Southern slaveholders in the United States were horrified by the liberation of enslaved Black people by their own efforts. And in response, the U.S. government did not recognize the Black nation until 1862, when the United States was in the throes of its own brutal and bloody war over the perpetuation of slavery and the Southern states had seceded from the Union.

But recognition never meant respect. And ever since its creation, Haiti has had to battle against American hostility, with the United States keeping its heel on Haiti’s economy and domestic politics. This included a U.S. invasion in 1914 that precipitated a military occupation lasting until 1934.

The U.S. military occupied Haiti again in 1994, the year Haiti’s democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, returned from exile after fleeing from a coup by the Haitian military. When Aristide was re-elected in 2000, the U.S. military, in combination with the Haitian military, forcibly removed him from the country and sent him into exile again, this time in South Africa.

It is important to point out the irony of how badly the United States has treated Haiti, given the presence of a statue standing in Savannah’s Franklin Square. This statue was erected in 2007 to honor the Haitian soldiers that came to the aid of American revolutionaries 240 years ago in 1779.

But this statue is not the first recognition of America’s debt to Haitians. In April 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had Secretary of State Cordell Hull deliver a commemorative plaque to a cathedral in Haiti that reads, “Today we pay tribute to the courage and spirit of those Haitian Volunteers who in 1779 risked their lives for the cause of American Liberty.” The placement of Roosevelt’s plaque and the assistance given by the Haitians is unknown to most Americans. And even a 10-foot monument in a busy downtown square of a major U.S. city does not bring this piece of our history to the attention of most Americans.

Haiti’s contributions to the United States are not widely known because, throughout our country’s history, America has shown itself to be hostile towards Haiti and Haitians.

On Oct. 30, 2018, the British newspaper, The Guardian, ran the headline, “Flee or hide: Haitian immigrants face difficult decisions under Trump.” This headline, curious to most Americans, has a backstory. After a 7.1-magnitude earthquake hit Haiti in 2010, the U.S. government offered Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to thousands of Haitians whose lives had been destroyed. But now, Donald J. Trump has decided that their imminent deportation is best for America. Haitians who have made new lives in this country are now on the verge of becoming “illegal aliens” by the stroke of Trump’s pen.

But a monster like Trump has neither empathy for, nor any sense of obligation to, people of color whose ancestors helped to birth and build this nation. People of color can expect no consideration from this despicable, disgusting bully who wants to “make America white again.”

The White House also is planning to terminate TPS for people of color from other countries whose conditions have necessitated our compassion and offers of refuge because hostility towards Haitians is simply a part of the pattern of widespread American hostility towards people of color. Just as ancient barbaric people created narratives that gave animals human form and characteristics in an anthropomorphic attempt to conform them to the familiar, Trump and his supporters are pursuing a “europomorphic” attempt to mold America into a European form that is familiar to them. In short, he is attempting to make all Americans look as much like European Americans as possible. As ancient barbarians wanted to conform their world to their own image, these present-day barbarians want to conform America to their own image.

It is up to right-thinking Americans to stand up to Trump and the cynical, cowardly senators and congressional representatives who cater to his attempts at despotism. It is time to stand up and say “No!” to the deportation of Haitians and others living in the United States with Temporary Protected Status.

We must have compassion for our fellow human beings, even if the disgusting tenant in the White House does not.

Oscar H. Blayton is a former Marine Corps combat pilot and human rights activist who practices law in Virginia.

The opinions on this page are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the AFRO.Send letters to The Afro-American • 1531 S. Edgewood St. Baltimore, MD 21227 or fax to 1-877-570-9297 or e-mail to editor@afro.com.

This article originally appeared in The Afro.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Girlfriends Actress Talks Code Switching and Her New Role in “I Am The Night”

Don't Miss

An invitation from the Venceremos Brigade: Work and learn in Cuba this summer

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Bay Area

The Case Against Probate Part 2 – The Dr. Laura Dean Head Case

Zakiya Folami Jendayi says, “Dr. Laura Dean Head had two sisters but was estranged from them the entire 28 years we were friends.”Despite that fact, Head’s sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head, questioned Head’s trust three times after Head transitioned, attempting to acquire Head’s estate, and three different attorneys told them they didn’t have standing. Dr. Head did not include either of her sisters in her trust or will. Dr. Head’s Trust included a disinheritance and no contest clause regarding her sisters.

Published

10 minutes ago

May 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Dr. Laura Dean Head, right, and Zakiya Jendayi, left. Dr. Head was Jendayi's academic advisor, mentor, sorority sister and dear friend for 28 years. Courtesy photo.

By Tanya Dennis

Dr. Laura Dean Head, a Black Studies professor at San Francisco State University for 35 years, transitioned on June 19, 2013. Aware of her imminent demise, Dr. Head appointed former student and friend for 28 years, Zakiya Folami Jendayi as trustee, executor, and sole beneficiary of her estate in front of several credible witnesses and a notary. Head also gave Jendayi power of attorney and appointed Jendayi as her advanced healthcare agent.

Jendayi says, “Laura had two sisters but was estranged from them the entire 28 years we were friends.”Despite that fact, Head’s sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head, questioned Head’s trust three times after Head transitioned, attempting to acquire Head’s estate, and three different attorneys told them they didn’t have standing. Dr. Head did not include either of her sisters in her trust or will. Dr. Head’s Trust included a disinheritance and no contest clause regarding her sisters.

In 2020, Dr. Head’s deceased mother’s abandoned property for over 20 years sold, entitling Head’s estate to one-third of the proceeds. Jendayi filed a petition for distribution rights on behalf of Dr. Head’s estate. Head’s sisters responded, filing a lawsuit against Jendayi to invalidate Head’s trust, claiming Jendayi used undue influence and forgery, citing Head’s lack of capacity to make business decisions.

During trial, Della testified she had not seen Head since 1997 or 1998, and Helaine could not identify Dr. Head in a photo during her trial testimony. Head’s physician, Dr. Stephen Sarafian, wrote a letter and testified that Dr. Head lacked mental capacity, and her mental state rendered her unable to manage her own financial resources and/or to resist fraud or undue influence.

His letter had the wrong day, month, year and identified Dr. Head as a male. Jendayi filed a complaint against Sarafian with Kaiser’s grievance department and the Medical Board of California. Both agencies denounced Sarafian’s false letter.

When Jendayi subpoenaed Sarafian to testify a second time, Sarafian testified he had not performed a mental assessment on Dr. Head, had not diagnosed Dr. Head’s lack mental capacity, and had not determined if she could manage her own financial resources and/or resist fraud or undue influence,

During the 18-day trial, the sisters’ attorney, Daniel Leahy, stated that Jendayi named herself Head’s beneficiary. No one testified to that claim, nor was there any evidence. When Jendayi objected during the trial, Judge Sandra Bean stated, “it’s only argument.”

However, Bean accepted the “only argument” lie from Leahy, a court attorney who never met Dr. Head, over Dr. Head’s attorney, Elaine Lee, who testified that Dr. Head named Jendayi as her beneficiary after she met with Dr. Head privately. Bean ruled that Jendayi named herself beneficiary and unduly influenced Dr. Head.

Zendayi says “Trial transcripts show Bean’s extreme bias and discrimination against me, how Bean lawyered from the bench, abused her discretion, changed a witness testimony on the record and exhibited blatant racism.”

The Appellate Court upheld Bean’s ruling, They also ruled that Jendayi named herself beneficiary and relied on Sarafian’s invalid letter three times to uphold Bean’s ruling.

Jendayi then petitioned to the Supreme Court of California for justice, but the Court denied hearing her case. Jendayi is now headed to the Supreme Court of the United States seeking justice. Judge Bean has been contacted for comment, but thus far there has been no response.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control

The decades of direct intervention by state officials, Alameda County education officials and a powerful, state-funded regulatory agency, the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT), will finally come to an end in July, according to the office of State Superintendent of Schools Tony Thurmond.

Published

26 minutes ago

May 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Oakland Unified School District’s Central Administrative Center and Board Room at the site of Cole School in West Oakland. Courtesy photo.

By Ken Epstein

After 20 years under state control, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) will regain local authority over its budget and day-to-day decision-making, emerging from an era of austerity when the district was forced by state-appointed overseers to close more than 40 mostly flatland schools, eliminate educational programs, and cut millions of dollars in services for students and classrooms.

After making its final payment on a $100 million state loan at the end of June, the district in July will again be under the authority of the local school board, like other districts statewide.

The official narrative of the state takeover is a simple one: the district overspent its budget, and the state altruistically stepped in to rescue it.

But the truth behind the takeover is far different. It’s a story of raw power, greed, and racism.

When the state declared the district insolvent in 2003, OUSD had a $39 million deficit, and funds in a reserve account sufficient to loan itself funds to cover the deficit, a practice that was common in other districts. However, the state would not allow Oakland to use its own money to cover the shortfall.

The state stepped in, fired Supt. Dennis Chaconas, eliminated the authority of the Board of Education, forced the district to take a $100 million loan that it neither needed nor requested, and appointed a receiver, Randolph Ward, who reported to the state schools’ superintendent, making all the decisions related to the operation of OUSD, including how to spend the $100 million loan.

Not only did the district have to repay the loan, it had to pay the salaries of the various overseers it was required to hire.

Involved in the drive to take control of the district and sell school properties was Oakland’s then powerful State Senator Don Perata, who had been pushing for several years to take control of the district, unsuccessfully attempting to sell the district’s Second Avenue headquarters to real estate developers.

Other local business and political leaders, including State Supt. of Schools Bill Honig, were determined to eliminate the power of the Black majority school board, which was seen as an impediment to the agenda for business as usual.

Among recent interventions by Oakland’s outside overseers was in 2021, when the district, with broad community support, was about to adopt a resolution for “Reparations for Black Students.” The outside trustee spoke at a school board meeting to block the passage of the measure until the board removed wording that would have protected predominantly Black schools from being closed.

In 2024, during district negotiations with administrators, the trustee did not allow the board to approve more money unless it agreed to guidelines to close and merge schools.

In a letter to the district, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Alysse Castro agreed that the district has done what is necessary to regain local control but that challenges remain.

“These improvements co-exist with ongoing concerns that OUSD must still confront its structural deficit and address the long-standing overinvestment in small schools,” she wrote.

“However, these are challenges of local policy and the domain of a locally elected board of education, not of mismanagement or financial misconduct,” Castro wrote.

“Continuing to require a trustee to backstop them risks continued delay in local ownership and accountability and reinforces a counterproductive narrative that feeds resistance and undermines the board’s willingness to engage their community in making necessary tradeoffs.”

Going forward, the district still faces financial difficulties. According to reports, the board must make $73 million in cuts to the 2025-2026 budget and an additional $17 million from the 2026-2027 budget.