Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:00:00]:

What did you think of the New York Times piece?

Chelsea Steiber [00:00:03]:

Is this gonna be recorded?

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:00:05]:

Yes.

Chelsea Steiber [00:00:07]:

There are some really, really good interpretations of that. So, yeah, I’m I’m happy to answer. Something that’s really important and something that is not captured is, again, all of this stuff that we’ve been talking about leading up to 18/25, the why but that would be something that Voylier would, well, you know, want to do or be, you know, forced to do. Right? Sort of A little bit more context about debates, right, among the plural colonial lobby in the Atlantic world would be really useful. I think also Something that, is really crucial is so many Haitians, again, critiquing this for so long. That day going on record, putting on blast, and, showing the absurdity of an indemnity payment that even the idea of it in 18/15 is something that would be so well placed in, this this long study that they did. Similarly, I’m, coediting a translation of a late 19th century thinker, named Louis Joseph. My co editor is Brandon Bird and, Nadiv Menard, who is a scholar and professor, in Haiti, did the translation.

Chelsea Steiber [00:01:23]:

But so Jean Pierre is really important, and I think it really I mean, you know, there I know everyone. Everyone who’s working on 19th century Haitian thinkers, like, can give more context and more voice to the people, to the Haitians who were actively, calling out these predatory finance capitalist moves, and this sort of thirst for debt in the late 19th century. But so just we we, you know, have read so deeply this text from called Haiti for the Haitians. And there’s this last essay that he writes called the trap, and it’s actually writing a lot about the 18/74, 18/75 loans made news, but also discovered, quote, unquote, in the New York Times piece, but it’s so interesting to read him talking about those loans and talking about how, distractive how dangerous, how, how alarmed he is, at these practices. Not I mean, of course, of these European banks who are just seeing Haitians and other Caribbean, people as potential marks in a way. He doesn’t use that language. But, right, there’s this just this they’re they’re just trying to entice you. He see and and, you know, You go back into the period and you read these, these circulars, these debt offerings, and they’re just so, you know, they’re so they’re they’re just trying to sell you.

Chelsea Steiber [00:02:48]:

But in addition to that, he really calls out those, Haitians who see an ability to make money on this because, absolutely, they can. And so he’s just, like, sounding the alarm on this these extractive, new, you know, forms of neocolonialism. And he just sounds the alarm and says what will happen. I mean, he basically how can I say it? He he he presages, he to. He foresees US occupation Mhmm. With just, like, chilling clarity and chilling prescience. I’ll just if you don’t mind, I’ll read from this piece called the trap where he basically says, like, we’re gonna be invading, and we’re gonna lose our sovereignty. I’ll just read.

Chelsea Steiber [00:03:32]:

So this is Jeanvier, and this is Nadev’s translation. When the debt is consolidated, if it is, 5 or 10 years later, financial syndicates belonging to some European nation or another will snatch up patient bonds, buying them and clearing out the European and American markets by driving down prices by telegraph. Then seizing upon the first pretext, which they will provoke themselves as needed, helped by unscrupulous legislators or advocates of the extreme colonial policy. They will send ships to our ports to display mizzen masts, bearing the military ensign and scuttle armed with steel cannons. If we do not resist, Our cities will be occupied. If we resist, they will be bombed like Alexandria was bombed. In both cases, we will be subjected to a political and financial protectorate. That’s 18/84, and, like, so many people have made some really, really smart critiques about the way that the New York Times framed.

Chelsea Steiber [00:04:27]:

They’re writing about the way that they both claimed to discover while at the same time representing, uh-uh, journalistic institution that has for so long refused to recognize. Those voices are people that we should absolutely be listening to. So I just wanna add to the course of that, and say that there are also Haitian voices that I absolutely want us, people who work on the 19th century, to be putting out there, because they were seeing this. They were calling it for what it is. They knew what it is. And it’s it’s almost even that much more unbelievably, agonizing to read it because they were so right, and they were saying it, and they were making it as public as they could. I guess, let’s just say on the other hand, like, I’m so happy to random people, my family, people I don’t even know are like, wow. You know, kids at the drop off at my kid’s school talking about it, and so that’s also really good.

Chelsea Steiber [00:05:18]:

And I wanna do as much as I can to, like, engage those people and keep that conversation going. So I recognize that, and I’m I’m happy about that. And I’m so thankful to all the people that gave their time, that may not be in that bibliography, but who really cares so deeply about this and believe that more, you know, more, visibility for it in such a massive, paper is really good, and so I’m thankful especially.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:05:42]:

Yeah. Yeah. Hopefully, you know, they’ll they’ll try to do a better job next time, you know, of, because if they had left that part out, that Look what we discovered. Look what we discovered. Right? It probably would have been better received. Right? Even if, let’s say, they were crappy on the work citation aspects of it. You know?

Chelsea Steiber [00:06:00]:

I I do not disagree. And, also, I will say it wasn’t just I mean, a lot of people have ever been on so many annoying think pieces, but it wasn’t just historians or scholars that notice that. Again, a lot of these very smart New York Times readers were like, what’s that about? Like, before I even said anything, you know, again, random people me being like, what? How’d you think about how they frame that? That was like, ugh. You know? So I don’t you know? Yeah. I I agree with you. But, certainly, Again, certainly, the conversation and, the call for reparations Mhmm. Is really important. So, like, Let’s get behind that.

Chelsea Steiber [00:06:36]:

Yeah. Like, has France answered yet? Will France answer? Can we get France to answer? These are all things that are front of mind, and I want us to, like, concentrate our efforts on.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:06:45]:

Yeah. The bank too. They said they’ll get back to us. Right?

Chelsea Steiber [00:06:50]:

Yeah. Oh, man. So much again, I think there’s some great stuff, on the debt, especially in the late 19th century, and that sort of really, Guy Pierre’s work, is really great. A lot of people writing about that. That’s fantastic that you get a whole lot more play even among scholars, so that’s awesome.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:07:11]:

Today on the Neck My Own podcast.

Chelsea Steiber [00:07:18]:

My purpose really the guiding purpose in doing this work, you could call the ethics and politics, if you will, was first and foremost, and I hope still always to do justice to Haiti, its history, its people, its intellectual legacies, and, again, the diversity, the complexity, the nuance sitting in the uncomfortable. Right? I tried to do that as rigorously as possible, as carefully as possible, which is not to say that my work is unimpeachable or that I didn’t make interpretations that people disagree with or that there aren’t things I got wrong. But I just I think anyone who subscribes to and supports that ethical imperative of doing justice to a place that has been so unjustly treated for so long and unjustly interpreted and, you know, utilized. They understand that part of doing that work involves disagreeing with ways that Haiti’s been interpreted, depicted, or characterized.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:08:17]:

This persistent slippage that you talk about, between 1804 and 1806, you were unsparing in your critique Of some of your colleagues and how they portrayed post revolutionary Haiti, are you still friends with most of them?

Chelsea Steiber [00:08:31]:

I this is a just sophistication. I don’t know if when I say it, I sound like it’s just a pet peeve or like a hobby horse or something. I really think The oft repeated, but but changing, and I think that’s really important to note. This idea that 18/04 was the Haitian Republic, I think It’s actually really, really important. Maybe maybe the most important thing, the thing that I think is the most important, but I still think it’s really crucial to bring attention to in the way that I do and reconsider it because it participates in this continued sort of lack of complexity, but maybe even beyond that, Here are some really crucial parts of not even crucial early parts of post independence Haiti, but, like, things that remain true of post independence Haiti, again, throughout the long 19 or long 19th century that I trace in the book. I guess just to be clear, when Haiti declared its independence from France, when with the official declaration of independence on January 1st eighteen o four. They’ve done so in November of 1803. With this 18 o January 1, 18 0 4 declaration, Haiti was the state of Haiti, and then Dessalines, replaced it with the empire of Haiti.

Chelsea Steiber [00:09:37]:

Haiti did not have a republic until 18/06, and this republic was mired in civil war until the death of Henri Christophe who’d had run the state of Haiti and then the until 18/20. For me, what’s really important about this, and again, why I just harp on it so much is that I think referring to 18/04 as the republic already obscures this deep political and ideological sort of divisions. These divisions we see at work that shaped the early post independence period and especially this crucial eighteen o four to 18 06 period. I’d go so far as to say, I don’t think I say it in the book, but I think it fundamentally erases Dessalines and the radical nature of Haitian independence in these 1st 2 years. It also facilitates the narrative of the inevitable republic is what I call it. On this idea that Christophe’s northern state was strange and aberration. Dessalines empire becomes just sort of this awkward thing that we account for or don’t. Right? It’s like, oh, but then, oh, yeah.

Chelsea Steiber [00:10:35]:

There was that. Rather than kind of considering it as part of the post independence political projects. Also, I, you know, I think referring to 18/04 starts to put the Haitian revolution squarely within or sort of western Republican enlightenment tradition that Dessalines was actively critiquing, not embracing. For me, that’s really crucial. And, again, I know it seems Maybe to some, like, a small thing, but I think it actually encapsulates so much more. And so to get to think with that, debate that, really tease out why why both it happens. Right? That this this really is persistent. And then what we actually see when we, you know, sort of question it, to me so product.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:11:23]:

You wrote about how the northern print culture was much more prolific than the southern, the the Republican output and and how, in terms of the archives that are available to us today, Northerners, They’re all over, like, Caribbean, I think you said, and and, and other places in America, in Europe, whereas the the southern output is, What? BNF, I think you said, in France. Right? Like

Chelsea Steiber [00:11:52]:

Primarily. Yeah. They’re actually also in South America. It shows up as an interesting right? The Bolivarian, report. Yeah.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:11:59]:

Right. Yet more I’m assuming there’s much more material out there from what The northern has had to say. Right? Like, why wouldn’t why wouldn’t the scholarship sort of naturally go there just from a basic supply and demand type of situation.

Chelsea Steiber [00:12:14]:

So Excellent. Yeah. An excellent point and a good question. If I could just say on that point, I mean, so one thing is there’s this amazing resource. It’s like a an active, bibliography map that Gregory Pierrot, who I know you talked to, and, Tabitha McIntosh, put together. I have it in a footnote in my book, but maybe we can I can send it to you and you can put it in show notes if that’s something you do? But, it’s great. It’s actually they it’s it’s a, you know, it’s an evolving thing. Obviously, people continue to find stuff, but it’s this, sort of open source bibliography of writing from the northern, kingdom and all these diverse places it’s held.

Chelsea Steiber [00:12:45]:

So it’s cool to be able to visualize that. Mhmm. And then, obviously, I know you spoke with Marlena Dowd. Her work is absolutely crucial to sort of the erasure of, you know, Vassy and his, black Atlantic humanism in his you know, all of his writing. And so it’s you know? Yeah. Mhmm. It’s it’s it’s both well documented and yet, again, stubbornly persistent.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:13:06]:

Did you find the same thing with the Haitian does the Haitian scholarship also suffered from this, persistent slippage?

Chelsea Steiber [00:13:12]:

Yeah. You know that natively. I’ve never thought of that. And and and and and the answer is I can’t think of a single example from 19th century Asian scholarship. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:13:22]:

Mhmm.

Chelsea Steiber [00:13:22]:

But I think that’s telling. I think the slippage really comes both from the deliberate effort of, again, a republican historiography to to a race, to for for I mean, I think it’s obvious to me. It’s certainly I make it clear in my book, the whys of the post 18 20 sort of both political and intellectual project to render strange the non Republican aspects of early Haiti and Haitian independence. So it’s a product of that, but in doing that, they don’t, like, lie or they don’t I know they don’t say like that. It’s almost in itself unthinkable. I think it’s a product of that very concerted effort to depict sort of the early post independence period in a certain way. I think it’s Also, and I I do, make this clear as well, in the introduction that it’s part of scholars, but also, sort of the media and the long heritage and history of people outside of Haiti have wanted to do with Haiti or have wanted to make Haiti mean. You know, Haiti gets mobilized and marshaled to illustrate tons of different ideas and defend different interpretations of the past.

Chelsea Steiber [00:14:29]:

I don’t need to point it out, obviously, for your your listeners, but it’s it’s just worth and that’s absolutely in quotes. Gets mobilized to justify European or US supremacy, white supremacy, the supremacy of modernity and progress, capitalism. But on the other hand, Haiti as an antislavery, anticolonial republic, quote unquote gets mobilized to illustrate the achievements of the French revolution, for example, or the enlightenment taken to their most radical instantiation. Again, that’s in quotes too. I I draw on Chris Brangie, for this quote in my book, but it’s this desire of what we and I I put myself there in there, scholars anchored in a western enlightenment institution or tradition. What we want 1804 specifically to represent formula. That idea, puts what the the insurgents did and what 1804 was. It sort of inserts it squarely back into a European logic and a European region for what formerly enslaved people did.

Chelsea Steiber [00:15:29]:

And, actually, I have a quote from Jean Casimier that I wanted to make I pulled here because I think he frames the problem so well, ways that we conceive of, you know, the revolution and about what it did and how we sort of talk about it in the slippage. It’s in his recent book, The Haitians, A Decolonial History, which, again, cannot more highly recommend. Laurent Dubois translated it. But he calls sort of the where he he talks about how these categories that we draw from of the French revolution and enlightenment reason sort of don’t to capture the actions and philosophies of the insurgent masses. And that part of his work, this decolonial history, is to move beyond, outside side of and away from these constructs. So he writes, quote, it does not do justice to the 18 o four revolution to lock it into a construct incapable of acknowledging the centrality of the political projects of the laboring masses who carried it out. And he that philosophy he elaborates later is every person is a person Mhmm. Which he sees as both in critique of, but but different.

Chelsea Steiber [00:16:31]:

Right? This is the the part that enlightenment philosophy could not fully embrace. And he, you know, argues I’ll just quote one more time. While those emancipated from a life of a slave fought for their own their lives as citizens, the Bosal and the true Haitians who joined them went to war for the pure and simple rights of a human being. Fascinating. He and I don’t entirely and I’m really willing to sort of rethink some of what I’m doing sort of with this idea of, like, sort of the Haitians more broadly. But, Yeah. Those are, like, productively interesting conversations.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:17:03]:

What are some of the agreements disagreements that you have or different perspective on this, Aline?

Chelsea Steiber [00:17:08]:

Oh, well, I mean so, I mean, Kazimir is absolutely I mean, the book is is very critical of, oligarchies. I mean, that is that is something that, it is the Haitian people. It is their resistance. And so Dessalines, as a state leader, you know, represents a formation of a state that both allowed for an extractive, you know, regime, but also did not honor the the Haitian’s resistance and their sort of philosophies of freedom. So no. But, I mean, it’s also interesting. Dessalines is sort of interestingly not fully part of like, I actually would want him to go further with Dessalyn. I have a lot of questions about where he sort of gestures to this.

Chelsea Steiber [00:17:48]:

He’s very pro bathe. He really does embrace sort of that Bosal perspective, and so maybe I want him to sort of think a little bit more about Desai.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:18:05]:

So do you find that, those that kind of get the plume do you did you find, like, a direct correlation with Actual on the ground action or would, the were they pretext to or justification after the fact? Or Or did you just pretty much kinda carve that just that space to focus on the back and forth in terms of in terms of, you know, The print culture.

Chelsea Steiber [00:18:28]:

That’s a great question. Yeah. I mean, I did I was most I was most interested in focusing on the print culture unto itself because I thought it was so important. But absolutely, you are noting also looked at this long history and actually what was going on on the ground. And oftentimes, it’s after the fact, but that’s not necessarily true. I mean, you know, it’s a it’s an evolving I I would say rather than being sort of an event or a battle in and of itself. It’s like a part of the arsenal. It’s one of the weapons, so to speak.

Chelsea Steiber [00:18:58]:

And so, You know, there are, on the ground skirmishes. This is happening, say, after Dacelline’s assassination. And those happen first, and then there’s this just absolute unleashing of print material, these pamphlets, and then you get a little bit of a a skirmish and then back and forth. You know, under someone like Saluk, it’s happening to justify and a little bit package what’s happening rather than actually sort of be part of the arsenal.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:19:23]:

So why Haiti?

Chelsea Steiber [00:19:24]:

I did my PhD jointly in the Institute of French Studies and the, Department of French Literature Thought, and Culture. But I I get I had the very, very, very good fortune of working with Michael Dash. So he was just a key inspiration to kind of think otherwise about, say, what French literature was and what even maybe Francophone literature was. But I think I also felt very strongly as I sort of moved forward in my research and even in just some of my lists, my master’s lists, and then my, PhD comps lists that my understanding of, like, what French universalism was and, the French Republic, even these foundational ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity We’re so out of as I was learning more, right, as I was learning more about the French empires or as I was learning more about the French rep, the French Haitian revolutions, that these concepts were so hollow when it came to addressing sort of Haiti, both both again the revolution and the 19th century. And so, sort of these nagging, questions I had about France’s just Really, blind commitment to its own universalist, glories really started to become so much more obviously stories that they told and histories that they wrote that excluded so much truth or so much of their past that Haiti became this way both for me to make sense of that and a way for me to continue to challenge it in order to more again, do justice to Haiti. I mean, I I see them as it’s it’s too simple to say, you know, it’s one’s a mirror of the other, but Haiti’s history and so much of its of its post independence reality. I mean, I don’t have to say I’m sure what everyone is thinking. I’m sure you are thinking it right now, the indemnity, the 18/25 indemnity.

Chelsea Steiber [00:21:15]:

I mean, so much of France’s past is bound to Hades, and so Haiti became this place for me to maybe rectify that.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:21:34]:

How are the 2 factions, The Republicans and the. Talk about how each of them used that term and and and what it meant to each of them.

Chelsea Steiber [00:21:48]:

Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, this is, again, part of what I’m sort of I really teased out in the introduction, but I think I’ve talked about in sort of a few of my other answers, which is this idea of sort of this framing of the inevitable republic and the problem of positioning sort of the French revolution as the origin or the logic that defined independence and and, you know, even associating it with thought. So there’s a liberty that defines itself within the terms of this sort of either French revolutionary or enlightenment sort of progress type of thought. Right? Liberty, property, security, resistance to oppression. This is sort of this idea of a Republican liberte that I identify. And then there’s a liberte that defines itself as freedom from colonialism, the plantation, and enslavement, but not necessarily these other sort of, notions of. But I think I mean, that you know, that’s sort of a rather schematic and simplistic where either one of these conceptions of freedom were being contested and threatened by slave holding states.

Chelsea Steiber [00:22:54]:

So what’s really key, I think, for me here is that the Republican notion of, again, in these French revolutionary or, French republican terms, they They were being made legible or or even sort of politicized and publicized, in a way legible to western powers in Atlantic Republican tradition that had kind of gone underground, at least in terms of the political or geopolitical chess word in the early 19th century. They’re kind of saying the enlightenment ideals and French revolutionary values survived here. We are where these ideas went for protection and cultivation. And on the other hand, you have this De Salinien conception, as I’ve called it and you’ve identified, that does not Trust fundamentally does not trust this French revolutionary foundation of the idea of freedom. It’s defining its own freedom and also, like, resisting and critiquing those ideals both within independent Haiti among a Republican faction and in the Atlantic world, the sort of tradition that exists. So I think Dessalini and Libertier in this sense is a recognition of the limits of these conceptions of freedom as they pertain to formerly enslaved black people. I don’t think he was wrong about that. We see the 19th century continue to move the goalposts on notions of autonomy, citizenship and freedom, that progressively excluded.

Chelsea Steiber [00:24:21]:

And, again, the paradox there in that formulation is really key. People outside of a western and increasingly white oriented notion of, like, civilization and, you know, citizenship. There’s also just a quote from Pierre O, who I know you interviewed on De Salinien thought. He called it in his book, quote, a bold attempt at lighting a beacon beyond the confines of white western thoughts.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:24:43]:

The word. Ah, oui. Mhmm. From from, 18 from the Salines 1804. You you you wanted to emphasize that for us. Why?

Chelsea Steiber [00:24:53]:

Yeah. I mean

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:24:54]:

The contesting meeting of it anyway.

Chelsea Steiber [00:24:56]:

Yeah. So there is there is this, sort of history as We’re, like, looking at the different iterations of versions of this document, and it is spelled as sophisticate. So what, is really important there? And I think it’s illustrative sort of of what I mean, you know, we’re reading these old documents, and sometimes there is a word that you cannot make out. And you either have to assume that it’s been incorrectly transcribed. Very clearly, the word, which is, as I define it, not as piteous, which again would be a mistranslation in which it has been translated as. But as a deceptive, which, again, the word deceptive being so different. Right? And this is to think about, and then I wanna pull it up in the book just so I don’t, get it wrong. We’re talking about the French writing and the eloquence of French writing, which can be deceptive instead of hideous.

Chelsea Steiber [00:25:51]:

I think just the word deceptive there is so crucial because what is happening is not that The the interpretation of of hideous or sad would be that their eloquence doesn’t work well or that, you know, maybe it’s a critique of their abilities, their, you know, ability to write, that a Haitian writer would be levying against them. And certainly, there’s plenty of that between the North and the South. They attack each other on, you know, whether or not they’re following, the correct poetic forms. I mean, there’s a lot of just, you know, low blows in terms of their ability to write in eloquence there as well. But this idea crucial document, the act of independence trying to do another of thinking back to the public sphere and then just all of the massive writing that the colonial lobby has expended trying to get to to lobby the government to to retake the island, all of their plans for how to get back this productive colony. It’s just so important that we understand And that we know that the, active independence, this this declaration made very clear that they knew that is exactly what the French were doing and would continue to try to do, and that part of their independence was being so attentive to those attempts. 18/25 looms large here. Like, there are so many attempts to counter or to get back what was lost, edits that we will not be gullible.

Chelsea Steiber [00:27:10]:

We will not be fall victim to these deceptive, you know, attempts.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:27:22]:

Why is a pamphlet different from Or is it different from other public focused type of mediums like a book or a newspaper writing at the time?

Chelsea Steiber [00:27:31]:

Yeah. Oh, love print culture. Yeah. I mean, a pamphlet it but I think Bebe would go back to to sort of this idea of paper war. I mean, it is a, it’s already inscribing itself self into a political sort of combative space, and that could be, again, within a wider Atlantic context or within an internal, Even an internal within, say, a regime. Right? There is a lot of pamphleteering, within the southern republic, for example, as there are opposition groups get mobilized especially in the later, 18 teens. So, I mean, I think the first most important thing about a pamphlet is that it is absolutely politically charged from its conception. Right? And that goes back again.

Chelsea Steiber [00:28:12]:

I mean, I think it’s really worth considering this pamphlet writing, not as like, oh, Haiti became independent in 18 for, and then it has its own print culture, like and that somehow this was just, like, invented out of whole cloth. There is a strong and really apparent and totally unavoidable tradition of political pamphleteering that goes back to, you know, say, the French religious wars or even before that. That that sort of set the terms of pamphleteering in some ways that are really useful. Of course, then there’s all the political pamphleteering from the French revolution. And all of this sort of informs the public sphere and the practice of print. I don’t you know, don’t have to remind some listeners, but it’s really important to note that The printers who were operational in, early post independence Haiti were printers who came from France and were printing under the French government in when it was the colony. There’s a continuity there that I think is important as well. You know, in addition, the pamphlet is a it’s political.

Chelsea Steiber [00:29:13]:

It is I mean, books, like, books are great. I think in this early period, it’s especially with the the publishing capacities on the ground in post independence Haiti. Not really the place that we want to look, or or the book is too much of, like, a con a construct that takes us out of this political sort of post independence civil war moment. I I make the argument that that holds true, you know, well into the late 19th century. Like, who’s publishing books and where and why is, I think, a really important question that some I think we should all be asking ourselves, especially about Haitian writing. But I think, again, in this early period, it’s the ability to control the mechanisms of print both in the North and the South that are crucial. It is essential for Haitian independence. It is essential for communicating the political project because the opposition to Haiti was also happening both, militarily, but in writing and in these massive PR campaigns that the colonial lobby was waging, that they’ve been waging since the revolution.

Chelsea Steiber [00:30:14]:

And so to do it, in print and to make it movable and legible again in a in a in a pamphlet form and then send it all around the world, like, that really matters. And so it’s a very, I think, deliberate and conscientious form. All sorts of political, significance and and a formal sort of a formal coherence that allows them to say a lot beyond what they’re writing. Right? It you know, the way that they put it together, how they choose to respond who gets a pretty, you know, elaborate cover page versus who’s just, you know, doing a quick one off. I mean, this is all really saying something more beyond just the words themselves that I think is really important. I’ll close with this. Papers often worked in tandem. I think what’s maybe more interesting is not seeing The distinction between genres even though I think or form, even though I think that can be really useful, but also seeing how used and reused this writing was.

Chelsea Steiber [00:31:06]:

And again, Marlena Dowd, does great work on this, especially connecting it to, like, a broader anglophone print culture, model. But it’s not It’s not a critique to say, like, oh, well, you know, this political thinker in, Christophe’s regime reprinted this pamphlet in the newspaper, and so it’s just derivative and not original or, like, somehow I don’t know. Like, it’s really I think it’s fascinating and really important to note that they thought something was so important that or or even just this practice of, like, we’re gonna do a pamphlet. We’re gonna do it in the newspaper. We’re gonna do a selection of works. We’re gonna send it here. Like, we wanna make this argument in as many different modes as we can. That also says something too.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:31:52]:

You write that you embrace a specific definition of regionalism. You touched on it briefly earlier. That’s in contrast to how it is customarily used in Caribbean studies. What’s your definition of regionalism?

Chelsea Steiber [00:32:07]:

Yeah. No. I mean, I I I mean, this is I I really am thinking particularly about how sort of a French literary, even a notion of would define, say, the Caribbean as a region. And the Caribbean Can be a region, and that’s great. But in defining the Caribbean as a region or even some parts of the Caribbean as a region, There are just a host of issues that are already put into place and already creating sort of exclusions and effacement in doing that. So, for example, to look at the Caribbean as a region sort of already is putting Europe at the center. Right? Europe business center. The Caribbean is a region.

Chelsea Steiber [00:32:45]:

We are looking at it from the outside and in this sort of, like, an opaque. Whereas I want to maybe look at a more traditional definition of regionalism, provincializing the Caribbean, to borrow Chakrabarty’s term, you know, where it’s not you know, we’re looking at actual very small regions of regions. Right? The the southern peninsula, we could argue as maybe 1 region, but actually within that, there are small pockets of really different, really strongly held traditions that that region creates. Is one example of that. And and and Chinese, another example. And then the just in in the is another region. And so really trying to, embrace, again, maybe a more traditional notion of regionalism that Does not consider the Caribbean as a discrete region, but really looks at 1 half of the island and its diverse regions and really kind of try and think about that in that sense.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:33:37]:

Looking at the post independence Haiti, what can you give us some some key points what actually caused the division between the supporters of Des Aileen’s northern authoritarian state and the republican opposition in the south.

Chelsea Steiber [00:33:52]:

Oh, that’s a big one. And I will be so Happy to shout out 2 works that are forthcoming, and I’m so excited about. 1 is Julia Gaffield’s biography of Dessalines, And the other one is, Marlena Dowd’s biography of Christophe. In the spirit of moving a scholarship forward and contributing to the conversation, there’s so much more to do.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:34:13]:

Can’t wait to have.

Chelsea Steiber [00:34:15]:

I know. Yeah. I mean, gosh, it’s gonna be so exciting to hear more as this work comes out. I mean, this the podcast only gets richer, and it’s really, exciting to sort of witness. There’s so much good stuff, and there is so much more good stuff coming. So yeah.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:34:28]:

That’s awesome.

Chelsea Steiber [00:34:29]:

It’s a pretty exciting time. I think a couple things that I’ll just, sort of, you know, tease here. 1 is that the southern peninsula, as I mentioned, is itself just a really unique, but also has its own history from that really, sets it apart both in terms of, you know, we’ll just talk about the geography. It is really discreet. It is It’s hard to get from, the southern peninsula to the other parts of the country. So in a way, it was cut off. In a way, it developed in its own sort of distinctive manner, especially, the center of Cap Francais, which was such a, again, an intellectual and colonial center in so many ways. Also the history of trading of sort of powers during the revolutionary period and the English that colonized or took over in the south during the revolutionary period.

Chelsea Steiber [00:35:12]:

I think also the real tradition. Again, Lake Kai is a republican stronghold, and has been. There’s so many interesting sort of, insurrections and movements that start there. Alan Louis Hall, I have his book in my bibliography. He wrote a book called La Peninsul Republiqueain. So he sees the south, you know, again, in this very, as a as a as an origin or as a as the Republican peninsula. So that, you know, that just gives you just a little bit of a flavor of, like, what the south and why it was. You know, Dessalines, his when he, set up his state and then the empire, he wasn’t in the north, which which I think is significant.

Chelsea Steiber [00:35:50]:

Right? He was in such. You know? So there’s also interesting diversity there in terms of the in terms of the way post independence, ideology and political affiliation, sort of separated out, but there is a pretty clear line, like, right around Saint Mark, south, and then north. I I think one other thing I’ll say just to sort of do a little self critique and and think more about ways to move the conversation forward is that When I’m doing these sort of somewhat schematic geographic and political, divisions, I’m talking about intellectual leaders, people who had access to print, and, you know, who what we can sort of discern, looking at the the map and looking at, the history, but that is not to say that the people who lived within these 2 different regions and under these different regimes necessarily agreed or thought that. Right? I mean, you know, there’s I I I just don’t wanna make it seem as though, like, the people who chose to live like, people didn’t have the choice necessarily. Right? These divisions happened, and Some people have the means to leave leave the north and go to the south and vice versa. But, you know, I mean, I think it’s I think I wanna make sure that I’m talking only about these political actors and

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:36:59]:

election Right.

Chelsea Steiber [00:37:00]:

Must have got the people that live there.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:37:08]:

So how important was violence? Was it used as just sort of a defensive feature, or was it Generally, a means to it then.

Chelsea Steiber [00:37:18]:

Oh, I mean, I’ll go back to start to something I’d mentioned because this is such a a delicate and important question, one that I do not want to take lightly. So to set it up, violence had permeated life in colonial Saint Domingue, in the war of independence, with the tactics and warfare of Bonaparte’s army under Leclerc and Rochambeau. It also, though, sort of defined the public sphere as well. This is both true of the colonial lobby during the early years after the 17/91 insurrections, and just the absolute sort of terror that they depicted for their own ends as well, but also and this is, just so well, documented. And, Jean Pierre, on. He just really traces with with precision and going back into the archive the writing of both the colonial lobby and then of, in the memoirs and the different post sort of war writings of generals and and different members of the expeditionary army and sort of how how much they used violence both to depict the insurgents, but also to justify their actions and also in their proposals for how to retake the colony. Because the point was to retake the colony. It was to reinstate a plantation economy.

Chelsea Steiber [00:38:43]:

It was to re reenslave. It was to once again make of Saint Domingue this extremely productive, fertile territory for them, to, extract from. So So I want like, that is also the way I wanna preface sort of the the work that violence does in if we will. We are in a, a lived sphere. We are in a lived sort of zone of experience and also a public sphere that is defined by violence. That being sort of the part the point that we’re starting from and the the need to choose my words correctly again because I recognize how broad and how important this is. The need to rest Their freedom from a state. I get I mean, I’m even just thinking, you know, so in 18/02, by the time Bonaparte sending the expeditionary army.

Chelsea Steiber [00:39:39]:

He the consulate has taken over in France in 17/99. He’s moving away from sort of the republic as we know it. 1 could even argue that the republic barely exists anymore. There’s an understanding that the French state that is sending troops, ships to retake the island are not operating under these principles again of freedom and equality. And so Violence becomes both the way cursive mode, but also a type of warfare to rest that freedom and independence to create an anti colonial, antislavery state, but also to prove Haiti’s commitment to not being re enslaved. Mhmm. And and I I think that is crucial. Again, I think it’s just crucial that we not look at violence in and of itself as some creation, but rather within this it’s just a saturated lived sphere and public sphere.

Chelsea Steiber [00:40:37]:

It is it is a form of warfare too. Right? Like, again, we don’t have to go back, but I would and I don’t, you know, recommend sort of sitting for a long time in these archives. They are really shocking and and just it’s a lot to to read. As Marlena points out, Baron Gauthier, sort of includes this compendium of these violences. Le Glonique shows how deeply this violence was thought out and sort of engineered. All of that to say, I think it’s really important to see the The choice of violence and and I you you point out or you’re right to point out that I sort of trace this violence recurring, this sort of imagery and language throughout the 19th century because I see it as really playing out in 2 different ways of thinking about how to present independent Haiti in in the Atlantic sphere post independence. There is sort of a racing of 18/04 to 18/06 in the inevitable republic framing, and this is among Haitian scholars and among well, mostly among historians and rules and not, put it in its context. In order to move toward a idea of progress, an idea of Haiti as a of independent Haiti of the republic as being part of this civilized sort of world.

Chelsea Steiber [00:41:47]:

And I put civilized in quotes. I I wanna make sure. Like, the the terms of sort of Republican, again, freedom and and and this independence is to to present progress and to and to say Haiti’s independence is now squarely within this Republican tradition, which again is in and of itself. I get to think a little bit silly. I mean, we could only think about, like, the French, terror and and the violence that was so crucial there to to see how sort of fabricated that is. But so there’s this idea of sort of and it’s a way it’s like a cursive way of quarantining or sort of creating a a little bit of a bubble around this violence. This was then. We have moved on.

Chelsea Steiber [00:42:25]:

This was him. He is gone. And, really, I think there is I I will just maybe read this quote because I see a way of returning to that dissolinian violence. The but but of the need to make sure that independence is understood within this hostile Atlantic world and that the reason for independence or the mode of independence was in this saturated sphere of violence that was done to the insurgents and to the formerly enslaved. But it comes from Emile Nop who wrote in in the preface to the Histoire des Cacique, which is a, work that he wrote and then was was published, I believe in 18/55, but I will I will look that up. It might be 18/56. It’s a quote that you read, so maybe you could just read it, and I can respond to it.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:43:10]:

He defined, defined sufficed Humanity and simulation, not by their ability to measure up to Atlantic standards, but by their act of resistance, of reclaiming their human rights Through violence against an inherently violent world system, unquote.

Chelsea Steiber [00:43:27]:

And this is happening, you know, mid mid 19th century. But it’s this reframing or or or return, really. There’s actually in this period of rethinking of sort of the way that Haitian independence was written, sort of challenging the sanitized republican version that, you know, had had to in order to sort of promote its vision and its projects had to to efface the Dicelandian project of independence. But here, it’s a sort of a reminder and really in a radical way that what was with the most central element, the thing that defined this 18 0 4 project was the inherently violent world system in which The colonial Saint Domingue existed and the way of claiming human rights that Dusselinian, both action and thought,

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:44:18]:

sophisticated. That was organized in Marchand to present the imperial constitution. I find that that was just fascinating. Emperor Salin is out and about doing his thing in the east. So sketch sketch the scene for us, especially in terms of sort of the theatrical performances, that his scene cabinet secretarial core. And and name names. And what are they what are they projecting to this audience?

Chelsea Steiber [00:44:40]:

Yeah. This is a great scene, so I’m glad that, registered for you. And, oh my, does it not Also, I hope I mean, again, in the hope of doing this sort of close reading of this counter, some of denigrating portraiture that I identified later in the Saluk chapters. Yes. Right? Yeah. So I think I think really trying to give life to this and show. But so yeah. I mean and and, again, with most of these things, I’m as interested in sort of the the content of this as it is for sort of the performative and symbolic elements of it.

Chelsea Steiber [00:45:08]:

Yeah. But so this, Sarah, to present the imperial substitution. It’s really important that the they selling secretaries read documents and made speeches out loud. Right? So there is this idea that It’s not just that the document itself is an important one. Of course, it is. It renders things legible in the Atlantic world, you know, for other world powers, but it also shows how this, imperial constitution was disseminated to a a larger pub and that there is something that’s really to the ceremonial grandeur. I think, you know, when we’re in a maybe a a more modern, not very critical mode sort of we’re we’re automatically like, Oh, ceremonial grandeur is just an attempt by a politician to, like, you know, protect their reign and whatever whatever. This is really important.

Chelsea Steiber [00:45:52]:

Right? Multi I mean, we’re what? 1805. So The number of different languages that are still spoken among, the formerly enslaved. Some remaining battalions, Polish soldiers who had, state after the, expeditionary army had left. You know, we’re talking about a public that is multilingual and probably doesn’t understand all of it. So the I think the performative and the ceremonial is really important. And telling that again tells us a lot about both the political savvy, but also the way that this kind of stuff worked, and we have so little of that. And, again, Julia’s work is gonna be absolutely outstanding for this. Like, this will be a tease, and we’ll get so much more.

Chelsea Steiber [00:46:28]:

But I think something that’s really interesting and, again, I go into it in detail in the book, but, like and this maybe gets to something else that I wanted to talk about, and I hope you’ll allow me to sort of do

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:46:36]:

a little Please.

Chelsea Steiber [00:46:37]:

Sideways go into. But, I mean, you know, there’s this question about, is Desaline an author? Did Deborah Jensen does great work on this, and there are a lot of people who are debating it. Chris Bongi talks about, quote, unquote, scribal complicity and the scribal politics of this kind of writing. I definitely want to consider that this is a collaborative process. It’s something that absolutely is taking place in conversation and collaboration. Des Plaines is definitely the political author of this, and I I believe Deborah makes that point as well. To to be like, well, no. He didn’t write it or, you know, this was Clearly, I mean, they’re all working together toward a political project, and so I much rather see it as collaborative than I would as sort of, like, trying to discern who’s the of what, I think that takes away both from, but also I think maybe misunderstands the nature of this political regime.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:47:26]:

Mhmm.

Chelsea Steiber [00:47:26]:

I think that’s actually true of Christophe as well. It’s obviously a little more complicated. And, again, I think Marlena’s work is gonna really shed light on this. But there’s a lot of evidence, and I I speak to some of it in my book of, again, a collaborative process by which pamphlets are written. You know, there are there are a lot of them are writing the same thing in different ways. This is actually not too dissimilar from the revolutionary period as well. I think that’s worth pointing out, you know, some of the political pamphlets written during the revolutionary period by Andre Rigaud, when he was defending himself against accusations made against him by the civil commission, the French civil commission. You know, you write a pamphlet.

Chelsea Steiber [00:48:00]:

You have somebody else write a pamphlet. You’d be defending you. You know? There’s a lot of, like, everybody rides together and they write these pamphlets and they sort of defend the cause. And so I think there’s absolutely that at work here as well. And so these of sort of who was it or can we say Nacillin is an author is is, getting you know, sort of missing the point. Without a doubt, also, you know, deciding sort of what is the line here and what is the political project. We get some great, people, you know, these these figures that come up that will become really important. Chonat.

Chelsea Steiber [00:48:31]:

Is there? Just the Chonat, which, again, really a critical member of both the early, post independence period under Dusanin and then under Christophe. There’s also a Diacois Henie of whom so he read well, so Duchonnak read the text of the constitution. I think that’s really important. Diakwa Enye, who was in the military, read the new military penal code. Bosley, who was the general, and head of state, read a speech, that encouraged people to quote, I’ll quote this, submit themselves to the laws and to devote themselves to upholding the constitution, and also ask them to swear eternal hatred, to the French for good measure. Again, this is part of this way of proclaiming independence, and showing the commitment of Haitians to maintain that independence at all costs. Of course, then we have Bois Ventonaire, who is, very well known in this 1804 to 1806 period. He wrote or he played the role of Dessalines himself.

Chelsea Steiber [00:49:35]:

I think that’s so important. I mean, he’s I’m saying he’s playing the role. It’s not as if it was some, like, play. Right? It’s not a joke. He really becomes and and this is Madhu who makes this language, noted, but he’s pulling from, a document from the period. I’m quoting here. His majesty, Dessalines, by the organ of Bois Ventaner pronounce the following speech to the people of Haiti. And so I just, that we have, who isn’t identified sort of as, you know, an author or even within, his role in the government, though he has a very important one.

Chelsea Steiber [00:50:08]:

He is the one who is, You know, Daesung min’s mouthpiece. He is the one who is reading, for him. I think that’s also just fascinating too. And, of course, you know, you have, the different roles that these very important, members of the his government have. Again, I see this as a collaborative effort with different, people playing different parts, playing different roles, if you will. I know that gets into, again, this sort of performative language. But, you know, Baron Tonner is reading Dieselyn’s own words in French. And I don’t again, I don’t think there’s this question, like, that it’s not because it was in French and because read it.

Chelsea Steiber [00:50:43]:

But, like, He is able capable of translating and making legible or understandable, you know, what the Dessalines Linian project is. And so he is both an arm of sort of Dessalines, but also the one who is capable, of doing this. And and I I make the argument it’s maybe a little bit less important than sort of these other, the way I’ve sort of organized it. But I do think there’s a a piece here of the 18 06 or the 18 05 imperial constitution that is really, maybe like I mean, I don’t want to say it’s trying to solve the problem of Republican opposition, but there’s definitely a gesture or or a way that I to see. You know, we we’ve now proclaimed the, or now here’s the imperial constitution, and it’s an attempt to maybe address some of these Republican concerns. You know, we’re moving away from violence. We we understand the importance of this crucial foundational moment. Mhmm.

Chelsea Steiber [00:51:43]:

But we are, you know, we are trying to transition this into a sustainable and durable, state form. Sophisticated. Sophistication. Sophists. Sophistication.

Patrick Jean-Baptiste [00:53:02]:

Sophistication. Sophistication.