Renda's Taking Haiti

                Before reading Taking Haiti by Mary A. Renda, my prior knowledge and personal exploration of the concept of paternalism in Haiti was, in a sense, limited. While I knew the meaning of concept and was aware of its implications of white supremacy, patriarchy, and cultural oppression, I was unaware of the extent to which its effects impacted not only those who were subjected to it, but also those who perpetuated it. Renda’s presentation and analysis of US paternalism in Haiti not only provides fascinating historical narratives, it also provides a variety of sociocultural lenses through which we can view the events which transpired, and ultimately, grasp a more comprehensive understanding of the damage of paternalism and imperialism to Haitian culture and identities.

                Renda’s analysis of the gendered language utilized by the US marines during their occupation of Haiti was fascinating. Of course, the word “paternalism” in itself is already laden with gendered connotations, but I was struck by the literality of the term in this context, especially as it applied to individual relationships. Renda writes, “The discourse of paternalism drew on this emerging constellation of cultural meanings surrounding fatherhood. It invited Americans, and particularly US marines serving in Haiti, to stand in as father figures for a child nation” (Renda, ch. 2). The occupation of Haiti, as Renda further explains, provided American men who rejected domesticity to have some kind of connection to fatherhood, or in some cases, validated these men’s personal experiences with paternal figures. I found this ironic, considering the violent manner in which these men interacted with the Haitian citizens was indicative of anything but a fatherly type of relationship. Instead, it was indicative of the traditionally patriarchal view of masculinity as being necessarily oppressive. This becomes particularly evident in the comparison of the nation of Haiti to female sexuality which Renda details in chapter one, wherein the US missionary Wilhelm F. Jordan expressed his belief that it was the duty of the US to tame the supposedly unrestrained nature of the Haitians, similar to the taming of a “wayward girl” (Renda, ch. 1).

                Renda makes the following assessment: “The complexities of national, racial, and gender identity in the occupation- the marines’ desire to affirm their whiteness, their masculinity, and their social distance from Haitians- created tensions that could not be fully managed by paternalist injuctions” (Renda, ch. 4). This suggests that personal relationships between the Haitians and the marines only exacerbated the violence by which this US occupation was carried out, and the superiority associated with the US marines in comparison to the implicit inferiority associated with the Haitians only served to further the dichotomy of the oppressor versus the oppressed. I found it interesting how, in chapter 4, Renda discussed how the violent acts committed by US marines were conveniently blamed on prolonged exposure to Haitian surroundings and citizens, which allegedly caused mental instability in American white men. This systematic blame is evidence of the lengths Americans went to in order to portray the nation of Haiti as being defined by conditions of deviance which warranted occupation, as well as blatant disregard of the humanity of the Haitian citizens.