Writing Against Empire and Constructing Postmemory in Occupied Hispaniola
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Please do not remove this page The Occupied Strike Back: Writing against Empire and Constructing Postmemory in Occupied Hispaniola Langley, Elizabeth https://scholarship.miami.edu/discovery/delivery/01UOML_INST:ResearchRepository/12355213430002976?l#13355500820002976 Langley, E. (2019). The Occupied Strike Back: Writing against Empire and Constructing Postmemory in Occupied Hispaniola [University of Miami]. https://scholarship.miami.edu/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991031447264402976/01UOML_INST:ResearchR epository Embargo Downloaded On 2021/09/29 01:20:27 -0400 Please do not remove this page UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI THE OCCUPIED STRIKE BACK: WRITING AGAINST EMPIRE AND CONSTRUCTING POSTMEMORY IN OCCUPIED HISPANIOLA By Elizabeth Langley A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Miami in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Coral Gables, Florida August 2019 ©2019 Elizabeth Langley All Rights Reserved UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE OCCUPIED STRIKE BACK: WRITING AGAINST EMPIRE AND CONSTRUCTING POSTMEMORY IN OCCUPIED HISPANIOLA Elizabeth Langley Approved: ________________ _________________ Lillian Manzor, Ph.D. Alexandra Perisic, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Assistant Professor of Modern Languages Modern Languages ________________ _________________ George Yudice, Ph.D. Guillermo Prado, Ph.D. Professor of Dean of the Modern Languages Graduate School ________________ Kate Ramsey, Ph.D. Professor of History LANGLEY, ELIZABETH (Ph.D., Romance Studies) (August 2019) The Occupied Strike Back: Writing against Empire and Constructing Postmemory in Occupied Hispaniola Abstract of a dissertation at the University of Miami. Dissertation supervised by Professor Lillian Manzor. No. of pages in text. (217) The Occupied Strike Back: Writing against Empire and Constructing Postmemory argues that the specter and experience of occupation have inextricably influenced the island of Hispaniola. The centenaries of the US Occupations of Haiti (1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1924), which took place in 2015 and 2016, serve as a mnemonic point of departure for this work. Using a comparative approach, this manuscript analyzes narratives in French, Spanish, English, and some Haitian Creole that contribute(d) to a project of resistance against US occupation and intervention over time—spanning the early twentieth century to the early twenty-first century. It further avers that these narratives foment a project of postmemory, or memory by adoption or transmission rather than lived experience. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION: HISPANIOLA, THE OCCUPIED ISLAND .......... 1 Chapter 1 THEORIZING POSTMEMORY AND RESISTANCE .............. 15 2 SIMULTANEOUS OCCUPATIONS AND A GAP IN CRITICISM ... 60 3 RECALLING OCCUPATION AND FORESEEING INTERVENTION .. 93 4 RESISTING FORGETTING IN THE 21ST CENTURY ........... 142 CONCLUSION ............................................. 200 WORKS CITED ............................................ 206 iii Introduction: Hispaniola, the Occupied Island A cursory history of Dominican-Haitian relations nearly immediately turns to events such as the Parsley Massacre of 1937 and the more recent stripped citizenship and forced deportations of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic. The former event, which occurred under the Trujillo dictatorship, saw the deaths of thousands of Haitians, Dominicans of Haitian descent and likely other Dominicans as well on the basis of race, even as the name of the event in English carries the cultural vestiges of a supposed linguistic test of belonging: being able to pronounce perejil with a tapped r. The second event is based on the 2013 high court decision, TC-168-13, which retroactively removed citizenship from the children of undocumented workers born in the Dominican Republic who had enjoyed citizenship from 1929-2010, something the 2010 Dominican constitution also previously supported (Aber and Small 84). Despite some attempts to mitigate the full repercussions of this decision, deportations have been occurring since 2015. Although each of these events belongs to specific political contexts, each is rooted in antihaitianismo, an ideology that attempts to cement supposedly inherent differences between Dominicans and Haitians through an intersection of race 1 2 and culture. This ideology is often thought to stem in part from the seemingly painful memory of an event that is commonly known as the Haitian Occupation of the Dominican Republic (1822-1844), an event that is recalled by Dominicans as brutal despite the circumstances of this moment, which, scholars like Anne Eller have clarified. That is, the arrival of Haitians in the territory in 1822 was supported by many Dominicans after previously seeking Haitian support during the waning, negligent colonial days of Spain (Eller 5). For twenty years, there was relative stability and widespread support, but problems began to emerge economically and politically in 1844. Eller claims, for example, that: “Boyer’s autocratic style, the political and economic burden of a so-called indemnity debt to France, regional divisions, and a plurality of other grievances rankled an increasing number of political opponents” (23). There was a plurality of positions and causes for dissent at least by 1844, including natural disasters, but members of la Trinitaria from this time period, who were members of the Dominican elite, have since come to be seen as the founding fathers of the Dominican Republic. Still, some members of the elite voiced their opposition at the time of Haitian rule, and official 3 histories in the Dominican Republic came to recognize— especially under Trujillo and Balaguer—this event as a cause for discord between the two nations. Thus, although the 1822-1844 moment cannot be easily classified as an occupation, it is frequently referred to as one by scholars and figures who are not associated with the Trujillato, and this moment and its contested relationship to the idea of occupation is still significant and often informs the understanding of the relationship between the two countries. That is, the postmemory—or memory by adoption or transmission—of this event for many is related to occupation. Although this event certainly had repercussions for the relationship between these burgeoning nations, I would argue that the US Occupation of the Dominican Republic in the early twentieth century (1916-1924) is a catalyzing force for antihaitianismo because of the question of US racism and racialization, the training and empowerment of Trujillo, as well as the resulting turn toward identity and nationalism for Dominicans, especially Hispanic heritage. That is, some accounts of the occupation indicate that the occupying Americans institutionalized racism during the occupations on both sides of the island mirroring the severity of the contemporaneous Jim Crow South in the US 4 while recalling the pigmentocracy of colonial times (Wright 21; 23-24). At the same time, the Americans may have contributed to the development of bateyes for the sugar industry in the Dominican Republic where Haitian laborers would predominate. Trujillo was trained during the occupation by US Marines and in this racialized context, rose through the ranks to become the head of the army, and eventually contributed to a coup leading to a 30-year dictatorship. For some Dominicans, Haitian rule and US Occupation served to highlight difference and foment nationalism. There were also attempts to respond to and resist the present or occupying power. It is, however, following the US Occupation that Trujillo and Balaguer use Haitians as an economic, racial other and scapegoat for their own political ends. This coupled with a turn toward the Hispanic portion of Dominican identity becomes a further reason for the citing of the supposed Haitian Occupation of the Dominican Republic1 as a cause for difficulties between the two nations and subsequent decisions on the part of Dominican leaders in the latter 1 I refer to this moment at times in the text as the supposed Haitian Occupation of the Dominican Republic because recent scholarship suggests that the unification of Hispaniola is a more apt name; yet, I use this term when referring to the way the event has been viewed and named by those who view it as an invasion and a threat to sovereignty and identity, so that that context and experience can be better understood. 5 twentieth century. This is, of course, in spite of a lack of a continued threat of Haitian invasion. Indeed, invasion and occupation have persistently influenced this island from the landing of Columbus to the present. In the nineteenth century, as previously mentioned, occupation was specifically intra-island with Haiti occupying the Dominican Republic, as both nations had recently gained or were still in the throes of establishing their independence from colonizing powers. Occupation, nonetheless, continued to affect these nations--and all the more profoundly--in the twentieth century. That is, the United States’ somewhat limited relations with the Caribbean and Latin America prior to the nineteenth century changed profoundly with the bourgeoning independence of Latin-American countries from Spain, the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, along with the Spanish- American War. The former warned against future colonization in the region by European countries, while the war in question