The New York Times is wrong about Haiti
The two main points of contention are:<p>1) While "wall street" did want the U.S. to invade Haiti to increase profits, there were other reasons for the U.S. to invade as well. Specifically, there was a worry that Germany would invade (Germany was 80% of Haiti's trade). This was during WWI where there were fears about Germany's Latin America business dealings. After the invasion, it appears Citibank (aka "wall street") lost out due to increased competition.<p>2) Haiti had a number of structural differences that would have prevented it from developing even if France didn't force Haiti to pay for its freedom. One example is that Haiti tore down their plantations and distributed land among individual farmers. These farmers were not economically productive and prevented Haiti from adopting new technology as it became available. The other example is that Haiti had extreme instability even before France demanded payment. Leaders were frequently assassinated and the government even split in two for some time.<p>The author of this post feels the NYT glossed over the facts in order to paint a narrative.