Photograph by Steve Winter, National Geographic Stock
In National Geographic, there's a fascinating interview with anthropologist Wade Davis on Voodoo in general and Haitian Voodoo in particular (via Tyler Cowan at Marginal Revolution). Now, I know virtually nothing about voodoo, and while I am somewhat skeptical of some of the claims, I find this to be quite enlightening. Says Davis:
What do you think of Pat Robertson's recent remarks that this month's earthquake in Haiti was God's revenge for a pact Haitian slaves made with the devil to overthrow French colonists in the late 1700s?
Cruel, ignorant, unforgivable, the ravings of a lunatic. He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
What happened—according to both historical record and the founding history for the Haitian state—was that there was a voodoo ceremony where the symbol of freedom sang out, which was the sound of the conch trumpet [spurring African slaves to rebel against French coffee and sugar plantation owners in 1791].
In the same way that we speak so reverentially of Washington crossing the Delaware, that was the catalyst of the slave revolt. It was the only successful slave revolt in history [to have won control of a country], and it's said to have begun with a voodoo ceremony.
So Pat Robertson is saying by that comment that voodoo itself is the devil. Voodoo is not a black magic cult, nor does it have anything to do with a Christian notion of the devil.
All he's saying by that comment is that all African religion is devil worship, and he's revealing not only his ignorance about what voodoo really is, but also his bias that any religion not his own is devil worship.
I assumed Robertson was ignorant, but I didn't realize just how ignorant the man was. I took him at face value and thought there was some myth about "devil worship," I didn't realize that it was a voodoo ceremony, which, as Davis pointed out, is most certainly not devil worship. (Of course, even if it were devil worship, that doesn't excuse Robertson's comments...)
Here's where Davis goes of the rails a bit:
For a man who aspired to the presidency he revealed himself to be remarkably unschooled in American history.
Had it not been for the revolutionary slaves of Haiti, we might well be speaking French in much of what is today the U.S.A.
Napoleon at the height of his power dispatched the greatest military force ever to sail from France. Its mission was twofold: Crush the slave revolt in Haiti, and then proceed up the Mississippi, hem in the expanding 13 Colonies, and reestablish French dominance in a continent that only 30 years before at the Treaty of Paris had become British North America.
Now, maybe some reader out there with a better knowledge of U.S. history can tell me if this holds water, but it sounds like Davis is overstating his case. My understanding is that there were a number of complex reasons why France chose not to pursue a more aggressive tact in the U.S., and, prima facie, it seems simplistic to put the weight solely on Haiti. Am I wrong?
Intrigued? Go, read.
|