> Did Citibank see an opportunity for profit in Haiti? Yes. Was that sufficient to commit the US to a full-scale invasion? Not a chance.
That is a flat out refutation of the NYT's article entitled "Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged".
> the title [of another NYT article] reveals the central thesis. The Root of Haiti's Misery. The argument is that the indemnity not only contributed to Haiti's poverty; it's the cause.
> Since that all started before the 1825 indemnity, it was unaffected by the debt and is therefore one really big reason why Haiti would not have grown like the rest of Latin America.
> Maybe without the indemnity, Haiti could have formed coalitions that ended the instability. But that's imagining a counterfactual that we have no evidence for.
In other words, another refutation: the NYT is making strong, evidence free claims of a causal link between indemnity and Haiti's relative historical poverty.
> both existing is healthy / ok.
Were all readers of the NYT's Haiti series to read this article, I would agree. But that's not the case. The NYT will reach millions, this article will reach thousands. As such, the NYT should adhere to a higher standard or just get out of this business of history.