Haitians respond to Rioux
A stinging open letter signed by fifty people of Haitian origin has been published by Le Devoir in response to last week’s Christian Rioux screed about how Haitians shouldn’t think of themselves as Black. The paper undermines itself by allowing Rioux a snotty rebuttal within the page itself, which is despicable.
Meezly 11:13 on 2020-07-25 Permalink
Agreed. And Rioux, who doesn’t have the decency and wisdom to make an apology. I had to read his original article. The caucacity and ignorance is astounding for a so-called intellectual. But sadly not surprising in a paper like le Devoir. Rioux is cocooned enough in his milieu where I doubt he would suffer any serious consequences. This crap would not fly in English media. I don’t know much about Fanon’s work but I suspect Rioux has taken many of his quotes out of context to suit his distorted and privileged perspective on how Haitians should align and identify themselves.
DeWolf 12:17 on 2020-07-25 Permalink
Wow, 50 people sign an open letter and Rioux still gets the privilege of having the final word. That’s so disrespectful of the Devoir’s editors. Not to mention the kind of snivelling, self-pitying tone that Rioux takes, which is familiar to anyone who has dealt with unafflicted white men who are shocked (shocked!) they aren’t automatically considered authorities on issues of gender, race, sexuality, etc.
mb 16:41 on 2020-07-25 Permalink
Le Devoir always gives Rioux the last word, whoever he insults. Why do they give him such a platform in the first place?
Myles 19:29 on 2020-07-25 Permalink
I really shouldn’t be surprised anymore by how arrogant and cringe-worthy his type of spoiled white columnist can be, but here I am. He’s outdone himself.
Blork 20:52 on 2020-07-25 Permalink
My initial reaction to Rioux’s article was to think “Hmmm, this is a fascinating hypothesis that upends conventional thinking, so maybe there’s something here that could use some further exploration” (I know, what a quaint, old-fashioned way of thinking), but no.
The idea that Haitians, because of their country’s pioneering history are somehow “above” the identity of “black” is ridiculous. The one thing that Rioux gets right is that there is no black monolith; being black in the US or the Caribbean or Sweden or France or Nairobi are all very different experiences, and not every black person experiences their blackness the same way (yo, Ben Carson). They are, after all, first and foremost, humans, and are therefore subject to the vastness of the variability of human nature. But all of those various black people from all of those backgrounds do share some common experiences when they come to live in a place that is predominantly white (whether in numbers or in power dynamic).
So a tiny kernel of an idea, based primarily in the writings of Franz Fanon, who died at age 36 in 1961, cannot find any sort of fit into the reality of 2020. Especially coming from a white person. The idea that Haitians are so noble because of their history that they rise above the US-centric identity of “black” is essentially a kick in the nuts to American blacks. The subtext (not so sub- really) is that black identity is fundamentally flawed and is something to be overcome, the way the Haitians did. FFS white dude, STFU!
Uatu 00:28 on 2020-07-26 Permalink
Yes and that common experience is their unfair treatment from cops. The fact that these demos took place all over the world means it’s much more than trying to be ‘murican. I guess he also missed the “driving while black” demo that took place a couple of weeks ago which proves his thesis is full of shit. I sometimes think post graduate degrees only exist as a means of learning how to find “scholarly” research to support whatever whackadoo ideas anyone thinks up.
DavidH 16:39 on 2020-07-26 Permalink
LeDevoir’s insistence on giving Rioux the last word reminds me of this kerfuffle on a much lighter subject: https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/idees/574216/histoire-de-l-art-l-art-du-passe-nous-parle-souvent-des-enjeux-du-present
Art history professor Itay Sapir had sent a letter to LeDevoir on his own about one of Rioux’s texts. The text itself was incredibly ill-informed but unless you work in the field of academia or art history, it was nothing infuriating. LeDevoir did not publish it then but Sapir posted it on Facebook and it became sort-of viral (viral in the Montreal Art History Academia world). LeDevoir then agreed to publish it as a collective text (if it’s going to circulate anyways, might as well be on your website, right?) followed by yet again a Rioux rebuttal.
The bulk of Rioux’s response was that Sapir was a coward for not signing the text alone…. which he had actually done.
I don’t know if Rioux knew the history of the letter before publication or not, but either ways, the editor certainly did. They allowed something entirely false and pejorative to go to print. All to defend a text that made no sense written by someone with no expertise. (Which brings up another question, the art critics at LeDevoir are actually very knowledgeable and even teach alongside Sapir. Why let Rioux stray into this field he clearly knows nothing about? If you do let him write, why not have him run his text by one of the paper’s contributors that actually does teach art history to enrich and support his text?).
If they do this with a somewhat trivial subject, imagine what they do when they feel involved with the issues…
The media ecosystem in Quebec has to few players not to support them but LeDevoir and QMI (TVA, Journal, etc) sometime seems to outdo themselves to determine who is the more ethically bankrupt. They make it very hard to root for them.