It Wasn’t the Devil that Hurt Haiti; it Was Thomas Jefferson.

Henry Louis Gates Jr.:

By 1804, Jefferson told John Quincy Adams that he was determined to end trade with Haiti. Having helped the Haitians gain their freedom, he then sought to strangle the new-born nation. He sought to quarantine the island and opposed official trade because that would mean recognizing its independence. And that could inspire slave insurrections throughout the American South. The embargo on Haiti remained in force until the spring of 1810; trade fell from $6.7 million in 1806 to $1.5 million in 1808. Non-recognition of the republic remained official American policy until 1862.

Abraham Lincoln signed the bill to recognize Haiti, at long last (and Liberia, too, by the way) in June 1862. The bill passed both houses of Congress only after long and heated debate. James Redpath, the head of the Haitian emigration bureau and an abolitionist, had pressed Massachusetts statesman Charles Sumner to introduce this legislation, for one reason: to encourage the emigration of freed slaves and free blacks to both countries, which remained a dream of Lincoln’s even a month before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

The American occupation of Haiti lasted between July 28, 1915, and August 15, 1934. As James Weldon Johnson concluded as early as 1920, “If the United States should leave Haiti today, it would leave more than a thousand widows and orphans of its own making, more banditry than has existed for a century, resentment, hatred and despair in the heart of a whole people, to say nothing of the irreparable injury to its own tradition as the defender of the rights of man.” As W.E.B. Du Bois, ever the speaker of truth to power, put it in a debate over American foreign policy 1930, the United States invaded Haiti to protect the financial interests of the National City Bank. The audience demanded that he be “thrown out.”

You Can’t Please Everyone – Catcher in the Rye

One star Amazon reviews of classic movies, music and literature. Today we take a look at Catcher in the Rye:

I am very open minded when it comes to literature (I even read through Mein Kampf without any objection) but I just hated this book! If it wasn’t required reading, I would have stopped on the fourth page! I think Salinger could have done much better!

This book is pathetic. Many people called it a “classic.” It’s the book that killed John Lennon. Oswald had a copy. So I thought “What the heck?” I then embarked on four hours of my life spent reading this complete testacle sack of a book; four hours I will never get back, I might add. The long and short of it is: the writing style is mundane and repetative, the crude language, while could be seen as “liberating” considering the time in which the book was written, becomes more numbing than anything else thereby losing its effect on the reader, and to wrap it all up, the boy is so unbelievably annoying, you find yourself applauding the pimp for slapping the crap out of him. The only reason this book survived to the present day is more because of the folklore surrounding it, rather than the book itself.
J.R.R. Tolkien said to C.S. Lewis concerning Lewis’s first book “Clive, people who are willing to use the word ‘bunk’ are going to call this book ‘bunk.’ They don’t know any better.” I am an educated man, and to call The Catcher in the Rye “bunk” is to give it far too high a praise.

THIS BOOK WAS HORRIBLE. I AM IN HIGH SCHOOL AND WE HAD TO READ IT IN ONE OF MY ENGLISH CLASSES. WE WERE TOLD THAT PEOPLE WANTED TO BAN IT AND I TOTALLY AGREE. HOLDEN WAS JUST THIS LOW DOWN DEPRESSED PERSON THAT ALWAYS FELT SORRY FOR HIMSELF. PLUS THIS BOOK HAD TOO MUCH BAD LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL CONTENT IN IT. I’M NOT THE TYPE OF TEENAGER EVERYONE THINKS ABOUT. I DON’T SWEAR,DO DRUGS OR SLEEP AROUND. BUT WHEN I READ THIS BOOK, I FELT LIKE SWEARING BECAUSE THE WORDS WERE CARVED INTO MY MEMORY. AND THEN WE HAD TO WRITE A PAPER ON IT USING WORDS HOLDEN USED. I DIDN’T USE ANY SWEAR WORDS AND GOT A BAD GRADE ON IT. THIS BOOK REALLY MADE ME MAD. I WOULDN’T HAVE READ IT BUT I HAD TO FOR SCHOOL. DO NOT READ IT!!!!!!

I have heard about this ‘brilliant” work of literture for many years. But until now have never read it. After reading it, I never missed anything. This is nothing but a priviledge wuss trying to be something that he never will be–a mature useful part of society. He constantly whines, projects his uselessness on others and has little to no ability to see that the phoniness his so hates in others is nothing but his own personality reflecting back to him. if he had to actually be responably for one second of his life and didn’t live of the wealth of his parents, maybe just maybe he might amount to something. I wish I had the time i spent on reading this dreck back.

My god, probably the most boring, inconsequential book I ever read. Thank god it’s a short one though. Spare yourself the trouble and read what wiki has to say about it, you won’t take away anything else from this piece of ****. The book makes fun of “Phony” people, well, I say the “Phony” people are all those who recommend this book. They only do it so they don’t feel so bad they were the only ones that read it, kind of like the emperor’s clothes.

Having said that, I dare you to find a book that says “… and all”, “…kills me” and “depressed” more times than this one.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, maybe I missed something, but I thought this was the most pointless, boring, and redundant book I ever read. There was no climax; there was no meaning. The supposed “conflict” was non-existent. Just heed my advice: Don’t read the book. Heck, even if you do, I’m sure you’ll throw it out after the first 10 pages.

Continue reading “You Can’t Please Everyone – Catcher in the Rye”