The Lie of “Genocide Against Whites”
in Haiti, Algeria, Kenya, and Zimbabwe
* These four nations all share in common that supposed genocide against whites looms large in the imaginations and fears of white racists, white supremacists, and other whites with persecution complexes. All four nations are or were often held up by racists as supposed proof that nonwhites are inherently incapable of government and will seek out revenge against white oppression, so therefore white oppression should continue.
* There are just enough facts in the claims to be confusing to those who do not know the history of these nations in detail. In all four countries, there were or are either atrocities or political persecution. But to claim that any of the violence that happened constituted anything close to genocide against whites is false. In all of these cases, to even claim that whites were targeted solely for being white is false. More often, whites were included as targets, along with local collaborators, as occupiers, or for their political control or economic domination. It was their power that made them a target, not their color.
* In Haiti in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, two genocides happened at the time, neither against whites. The slave trade was itself genocide, killing tens of millions. (See Section Two.) Haiti was the site of one of the most extreme forms of slavery the world had ever seen. Slaves were often literally worked to death, with torture, mutilation, and rape routine. Up to one million slaves were killed by Haitian plantation owners. That genocide led to the most successful slave revolt in history. (Also see Section Two.) The French slave owners' attempt to crush that revolt led to a second genocide, killing 170,000 more Haitians.
* In 1804, after having fought off French, Spanish, and English troops, one of the Haitian leaders, Dessalines, ordered the massacre of some remaining French civilians. As many as 4,000 may have been murdered. The effect of this massacre was cataclysmic. For decades, slave owners and other racists would point to this as an inherent sign of Haitian or African savagery, and it became the excuse to isolate Haiti.
* But to claim this massacre was genocide is false. To say that there was a systematic campaign against whites on the island is also false. Start with the obvious: The Haitian Revolution began in 1791. If there were still so many French civilians on the island thirteen years later, that is a sign of the opposite, that the French were not being targeted collectively or for their race alone.
* Not only that, Haitian ex slave armies and militias had Europeans or mixed race people as allies. The first Black militias on Haiti were free Blacks, or mixed blood Creoles, some of whom had Black slaves. Creole militias actually helped to crush earlier slave revolts in exchange for rights of their own. It was Napoleon's attempt to reinstate slavery after it had been ordered abolished by the French Revolution that led to the Haitian slave uprising.
* Many mixed blood leaders were prominent among the slave revolt. This should not be surprising, since they had military training and in some cases education. Not only that, some French colonists and soldiers chose to side with the Haitian revolt. Some were anti-slavery, and some fought for money or social positions or power.
* Finally, Haitians at times allied with the British or Spaniards for their own advantage. Though some Haitian slaves did target slave owners, overseers, or French soldiers, one can hardly blame them any more than one could blame Jews targeting Nazis. The truly surprising thing about the massacre is how reluctantly that small number of Haitians involved took part. First, start with the obvious: most Haitians had nothing to do with the massacre. A few thousand did out of a population of hundreds of thousands. Some in the army carried out scattered killings when ordered by Dessalines. But in most cases, Dessalines had to be personally present to make sure the executions happened as he ordered.
* In any case, since this book is in large part about presidential roles in atrocities, US presidents did respond. (See Section Two.) If anything, they responded far out of proportion to the crimes. All Haitians were collectively punished for half a century for what a few did. Haiti was still being punished by the French government as late as the mid twentieth century.
* An independence movement in the north African nation of Algeria in the 1950s and 60s is often accused of being anti white or anti European. Both the Algerian independence fighters and French soldiers and Algerian collaborators were guilty of many horrific atrocities, random killing of civilians, torture, and terrorism. But in no sense did the atrocities approach genocide. Algerian independence fighters targeted collaborators, not just whites. While a majority of Algerian-born Europeans did flee, many stayed after Algeria's independence. Even France's own government expected no more than a fourth would leave Algeria. What both sides carried out was terrorism. What most Algerian-born French fled from was not just terrorism, but also fear that their own terrorism would bring reprisals, harassment, or property seizure.
* The US, including presidents, had little response to the Algerian War for Independence. Some hysterical racists in the US like George Wallace did use the war to demonize nonwhites. Truman's administration only called for “continued progress,” never defining what that was. Eisenhower, seeing the war was obviously an independence movement with many Islamists taking part, refused to step in as he did in Vietnam. Kennedy did play a minor role, but in opposition to Algerian independence, refusing to support it at the UN.
* In Kenya in the 1950s, a rebel group called the Mau Mau tried a revolt calling for killing all European occupiers and local collaborators. Left out from the claims of “white genocide” is, first, that it was a revolt against the conquerors, not a race, and second, the fact that it failed utterly. Most victims of the Mau Mau were Kenyan collaborators with the British. Those victims were far outnumbered, by more than ten times, by those killed by the British in retaliation. US involvement, and that of presidents, in this uprising was minimal.
* In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe has ruled the nation since independence in 1980, only winning the first election fairly, every other by fraud and force. In part because white members of the military tried to assassinate him several times and white farmers controlled almost all farmland in the nation, Mugabe has often demonized the small white minority.
* Mugabe clearly is a racist and deeply corrupt. But his actions against white Zimbabweans do not come anywhere close to genocide. At first he encouraged white farmers to sell their land to Blacks. When very few of them did, his government stood aside while some farms were seized by militias. A few farmers were killed, but more often they were driven off. Far from being genocide, one newspaper account reported the death toll as eleven white farmers out of over 4,000. This also happened over more than a ten year period as well.
* Two other groups were and are far more threatened by Mugabe than well off whites losing their land. Gays have been the target of Mugabe's anger, with him threatening to kill them all. Also, Black Zimbabweans are far more harmed by Mugabe than whites. Tellingly, western media focus far more on white land loss than huge numbers of Black lives lost.
* Mugabe's regime withholds food from opponents. Large parts of the nation are starving in an entirely man made famine. This is an element of genocide, using starvation as a war tactic. Yet the hysteria coming from far right racist publications like World Net Daily and Front Page Mag reserve their sympathy for solely for whites.
* American presidents certainly have not neglected Zimbabwean human rights. Reagan cut off Zimbabwean aid based on human rights concerns, something he notably never did for right wing or military dictatorships. George Bush Sr. restored much of the aid.
* Since 2000, both administrations of GW Bush and Obama condemned Mugabe's regime and cut off military aid and most non-humanitarian aid, as well as sanctioning people within Mugabe's administration. In 2009, Obama publicly stated he would keep sanctions against Zimbabwe because of human rights concerns. The US has continued to send food aid to Zimbabwe to aid against starvation.