It was mid 80s, and I had just started living in New York. I came across a newspaper article one day that the mayor of New York City refused to attend the Lunar New Year festival in Chinatown, saying it would be a waste of time because Chinese Americans never vote or donate. That article I read on the Village Voice is still fresh in my memory after thirty years. […]
What is the meaning behind the existence of all creation? Why do these creations exist and why do they constantly fight for survival? The author believes that the existence of the creation that remains today was created by the identities of those who have existed before. The author’s existence is the result of the author’s parents, his progenitors, and those who have settled on the Korean peninsula and created a cultural identity. To put it forward, the meaning of existence is to maintain one’s identity and pass on what we have now to our future generations.
The identity that we hold is not just a standard to be imposed on ourselves, but it has to correlate with the mainstream society’s classification. If they do not match, serious confusion will result. For example, if one is a human being, but others treat him as an animal, he will resist vigorously. But once he gives up, he will either give up his life or accept his assigned identity as nothing more than an animal.
We have left our homeland and live in the United States now. We call ourselves Korean Americans, and the American society calls us that as well. The term “Korean American” came to define our identity. How will we continue to preserve our identity? What must we do?
First, we must create our homeground. For a group that shares an identity, having a homeground is very important. If a family related by blood lives apart for a long time, it becomes extremely difficult for them to live in the same house once again. In history, we see that the Kitans have disappeared without a trace when they ruled northern Asia for over a thousand years. The Kitans acted as the conquest army for Tang’s campaign to take over Goguryeo and created their own empire after taking down Balhae, but was conquered by the Jin Dynasty. The Kitans switched their alliance to the Mongols and served important roles in the empire but they disappeared into history because they lost their homeground. Where can the Korean American community call home? The author believes that the location where Korean Americans are concentrated at and can exercise influence is the place we must base our power in.
Second, we must create leadership within the community to plan for the future. We must also strive to be accepted by the mainstream American society. Koreans in American are currently unable to create a stronghold like the Chinese Americans. The Chinese tend to choose a place and remain there for an extended period of time. However, Koreans have a nomad-like trait to them, so they move to better places.
Third, Korean Americans must overcome differences and create bridges with each other to become united. Korean Americans have a difficulty of gathering cultural resources with each other. However, through the advent of advanced communications, we share culture with the mainland Korea. Korean Americans must get along with the American society as well, so in essence, we live between two cultures.
We will live here as well as our future generations, and to prevent them from disappearing into history like the Kitans, we must make sure that our identity is kept faithfully. We have a lot of work on our hands. With this in mind, the 1992 LA Riots was a big turning point for Korean Americans. The community began to think about whether Korean Americans should continue live separately or unite together with one identity. To reinforce our identity and get our voices heard, the community began to register voters, urge participation in the local community, and worked to increase the knowledge of Korean among the newer generations.
On top of our efforts, it would be great to see the planning of centralized leadership in our communities and the future of the Korean Americans.
What is the meaning behind the existence of all creation? Why do these creations exist and why do they constantly fight for survival? The author believes that the existence of the creation that remains today was created by the identities of those who have existed before. The author’s existence is the result of the author’s parents, his progenitors, and those who have settled on the Korean peninsula and created a […]
The Los Angeles Riots was an occasion that led many Korean Americans to seriously rethink their American Dream and contemplate about how to plant their roots in the American society. Many people with a greater purpose in mind joined together to prevent such a disaster from occurring ever again. Thanks to their efforts, Korean Americans who were uninterested in their local government and politics began to take interest one by […]
Time to Strengthen Family Immigration
Published: March 24, 2013
The momentum in Washington for immigration reform has been growing with amazing speed in recent weeks, and it seems that the question now is not whether Congress will try to fix the immigration system this year, but how big and effective the repairs will be. We hope that whatever bill emerges will continue to protect and unite families, preserving and strengthening a bedrock value of America’s immigration system.
It might be hard to imagine that America’s long tradition of allowing immigrants to sponsor spouses, children and siblings for visas would be threatened. But anti-immigration groups and lawmakers have long attacked the practice, using the slanderous and misleading term “chain migration,” which summons images of a relentless flow of undesirables, usually from south of the border. Even as some of the staunchest resistance to reform is crumbling — legalizing 11 million immigrants was unthinkable for leading Republicans a few months ago, and now even rock-ribbed Tea Partiers like Representative Rand Paul favor it — right-wing resistance to family migration persists.
Bills are still being drafted, but some lawmakers are reportedly trying to reduce or eliminate visas for extended family members in order to expand employment-based immigration. Advocates are resisting this zero-sum game.
These tensions emerged at a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, who led the hearing, spoke movingly of her own experience immigrating to Honolulu as a young girl, and yet joined other witnesses in explaining how the system falls short: she noted that it treats women unequally — many who arrive as dependent spouses are denied the right to work legally, and face discrimination and severe obstacles to assimilation. And Mee Moua, president of the Asian American Justice Center, explained how backlogs kept families separated for years, if not decades. “As of November 2012,” she said, “nearly 4.3 million close family members were waiting in the family-visa backlogs” — with Latino and Asian-American families most affected.
But even as Ms. Moua explained how important family visas are, Senator Jeff Sessions balked at the very concept. Using an example of two hypothetical Hondurans, he suggested that the visas were bad because some relatives can be underachievers. He ignored the powerful truth that family immigration is an economic bulwark. Families incubate job-creating businesses, provide a safety net for their members and hasten assimilation. Employment visas are important for companies to recruit needed workers. But these workers have spouses and children and siblings.
And we need workers at all levels of the economy: As Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois recently put it, “Silicon Valley engineers and entrepreneurs would not be very productive or competitive engines of our economy if they did not have food to eat, or people to care for their children or parents, or a clean office and clean clothes, or a made bed in their hotel room on a business trip.”
Immigration is more than a business relationship America has with selected foreigners. It’s a process that renews this country; it means going all-in on America, through binding ties of love and blood. Recruited workers enrich the country. Reunited families do, too.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on March 25, 2013, on page A22 of the New York edition with the headline: Time to Strengthen Family Immigration.
EDITORIAL Time to Strengthen Family Immigration By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Published: March 24, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/time-to-strengthen-family-immigration.html?_r=0 The momentum in Washington for immigration reform has been growing with amazing speed in recent weeks, and it seems that the question now is not whether Congress will try to fix the immigration system this year, but how big and effective the repairs will be. We hope that whatever bill emerges will continue to protect and […]
The most barbaric war amongst religions was neither the Crusades nor the thirty-year war between the Protestants and the Catholics, but rather the war between the Muslims and the Hindus in the 20th Century. When India was under British control, their quarreling was relatively quiet. However, these two religions feared each other more than they had feared the colonizers. Hindus under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, and Muslims under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah waged their own struggle for independence from the British. When the time for liberation was near, the Muslims sought a separate sovereignty from the Hindus, who formed the majority of the population. When the British finally left India in 1947, thus brought the birth of two separate nations: India and Pakistan. But with the departure of the British, the two new-born nations became sworn enemies. Hindus in Pakistan fled to India for their lives, and millions of Muslims in India fled to Pakistan. This was, by far, the largest immigration of people in history. The two religions have nothing in common, and consider each other cults. The two nations consider each other as critical threats to their existences. When India and China went to war over their borders in 1962, Pakistan quickly joined China, and this led to a fruitful relationship later on. In the midst of this conflict, the Soviet Union allied with India to counter the Chinese. And to prevent the spread of communism, the United States poured military support on both India and Pakistan. However, the truth of the matter was that both nations were intent on building up their arsenals to fight each other rather than keep communism at bay.
In 1974, India tested its first nuclear weapon, joining the nuclear club. Prime Minister Gandhi stressed that their nuclear arsenal was built for defense and peace, but there was no use. As soon as Pakistan learned of this fact, they began to work on their own solutions. For the next twenty years, they used Kashmir as a proving ground for each others’ military forces and continued to develop their nuclear arsenals. India conducted an underground nuclear testing in May 1998. Pakistan followed suit shortly. The international community realized that the conflict between India and Pakistan has gone far enough but they weren’t able to do anything. China was criticized for supporting Pakistan’s nuclear program. But criticism was unseen in the respective countries’ sentiments. Citizens of the two nations rejoiced because their nations were finally armed with nuclear weapons. Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State expressed a strong discontent. When the US attempted to impose sanctions on the two nations, India and Pakistan accused the Americans of hypocrisy.
The nuclear competition between India and Pakistan placed the entire Indian subcontinent in threat of a nuclear war. Not only did it bring about drastic policy changes, but it threatened the safety of the Earth. When visiting India in 2006, President Bush spread the logic that India did not attempt to proliferate nuclear weaponry, and their nuclear armaments not only supports the constant development of democracy and a free economy, but keeps China in check as well. US Senate did not complain much about India when they accepted India’s nuclear war plans in November 2006. Same thing happened with Pakistan as well. As a result, the nuclear powers increased from 5 to 7.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed into place in March 1970 to stop the increase of nuclear weapons. The original signatories of the NPT were the United States, United Kingdom, Russia (Soviet Union), France, and the People’s Republic of China. However, India and Pakistan conducted nuclear testing in 1974 and 1998 respectively. Israel is presumed to have nuclear weapons in its arsenal, and is recognized as a nuclear power. On April 11, 2006, Iran self-proclaimed its place as a nuclear power. On October 9th, 2006, North Korea successfully tested its nuclear weaponry, but was ignored by the United States, who deemed North Korea unworthy of having the status as a nuclear power.
Despite the constant pressure placed upon North Korea by South Korea, US, Japan, and China, North Korea held its third nuclear test on February 12th. Experts estimate that North Korea has both short- and long-term strategic objectives. In the short run, North Korea aims to hold weapons considerably more powerful than that of South Korea, and in the long term, seeks to be recognized as a nuclear power by the US and continue peace talks along the same level. Some experts carefully suggest that North Korea’s nuclear testing in 2006, 2009, and this February will reinforce its status as a de facto nuclear power, using India and Pakistan as an example. But one thing is certain: all experts agree that there is no chance that the US will recognize North Korea as a nuclear power. They reached the consensus because North Korea’s actions alone is shaking the foundation of the NPT treaty. But Chuck Hagel, the nominee for the Secretary of Defense referred to North Korea as a “de facto nuclear power.” Perhaps, US’s policy for North Korea will start under the pretense that North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea’s advantage in negotiation will increase no matter what. North Korea will use its nuclear armament as a tool to negotiate directly with the United States, demanding a peace process first, then denuclearization.
The most barbaric war amongst religions was neither the Crusades nor the thirty-year war between the Protestants and the Catholics, but rather the war between the Muslims and the Hindus in the 20th Century. When India was under British control, their quarreling was relatively quiet. However, these two religions feared each other more than they had feared the colonizers. Hindus under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, and Muslims under the […]
An atmosphere of uncertain danger looms over the Korean peninsula following North Korea’s nuclear test. South Korea, divided from Asia major by the Demilitarized Zone, is at its peak when it comes to the economy. But as for reaching into the Asian continent, it shares a situation similar to that of Japan, an island nation. The divided Korea is beginning to turn into an isolated island of some sort again, and our view of the world is becoming similar to that of Japan. We have been divided for such a long time, and we derive artificial satisfaction from watching television shows and movies.
If we were born in an undivided Korea, how we see the world would have been totally different. We would have taken a train from Busan and travelled to Europe on a road trip. Our products would have been exported via rail through the Eurasian continent and would have arrived in Europe. We would have experienced the world firsthand.
Instead of using a huge sum of money to head into Beijing, we would have been able to travel through Mongolia to Central Asia. Through easy and frequent relationships with Asia, we would have grown closer through a cultural exchange. We would have completely avoided a small-country mentality, and been able to exert a stronger influence not just in Asia, but the world as well.
Korea is in an unprecented situation of utmost danger right now. Despite carrying on with our busy lifestyles, we are constantly reminded of how we have a ticking bomb on top of our heads when tensions intensify in the peninsula. But the bigger problem is that unless the two Koreas unify, disarming the bomb, we will be in a situation where we will not be aware when the whole thing blows over.
A wise person once stated that daybreak is closer when the night is darker. Should we believe that the dawn of unification will result from this touchy situation? How do we resolve this matter? Embargoes and policies against North Korea for the past sixty years created this situation: the nuclear arming of North Korea. What kind of solutions does the United States have in mind? The two entities facing each other in the Demilitarized Zone are the two koreas, but the real combatants in this situation are North Korea and the United States. United States does not have a strategy for the Korean peninsula at the moment. They do not have a strategy for unification as well. Though over two million Koreans live in the United States, Americans are not taking the effort to think about all other matters except for the North Korean nuclear threat.
Israel, a tiny nation in Middle East is not a very important place for America’s area strategy. Perhaps, oil-producing nations may be of more importance. But because of the six million Jews, Israel became an important partner of the United States. It is supported by American taxpayers’ dollars every year. Many Korean Americans come from families divided by the Demarcation Line, but the Department of State and the American Red Cross don’t seem to care. This is all because of the two million Korean Americans who have yet to act upon this problem. The American government and the Congress only move when voters begin to take interest. The current situation in the Korean peninsula stemmed from the complacent Korean Americans as well. It is not too late. When Korean Americans begin to take this issue sueriously, we can turn this threat into an opportunity for peace.
An atmosphere of uncertain danger looms over the Korean peninsula following North Korea’s nuclear test. South Korea, divided from Asia major by the Demilitarized Zone, is at its peak when it comes to the economy. But as for reaching into the Asian continent, it shares a situation similar to that of Japan, an island nation. The divided Korea is beginning to turn into an isolated island of some sort again, […]
A petition campaign proclaiming that Dokdo is a Korean territory is well underway on the White House home page. This is a reaction to Japan calling it “Takeshima” and claiming sovereignty over the island.
The campaign stating that Dokdo is a Korean territory stayed inside Korea at first. However, when an advertising expert started to place advertisements about this issue on the New York Times, this sovereignty issue came to light in the U.S. as well. As Korean Americans and related organizations joined this performance, Korean correspondents spread the news, making the advertiser a hero of some sort. But through this, the Korean government was chastised severely for maintaining a low-key stance on the Dokdo issue.
Thanks to their effort, Dokdo finally became the center of an international controversy. Japan took up the name “Takeshima” again, leading Google and Microsoft to take a neutral stance towards this issue. Instead of naming the contested territory “Dokdo” or “Takeshima”, these two companies started using the old name, “Liancourt Rocks.”
When Koreans took the issue to the world, the international community began to look at Dokdo as a contested territory. This is exactly what Japan wanted.
These people spent a large amount of money to place their ads on influential media. However, the media made it clear that the ads did not represent the views of the holding companies. The advertisements were just advertisements that did not entice anyone in regards to this issue. Not only that, I am beginning to wonder about the stance of those media companies that did not receive this advertisement.
In 2007, we constantly delivered information regarding Japan’s forced sexual slavery of women during World War II. On March 6th, the New York Times printed an opinion column on the ‘Comfort Women’ problem, followed by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. Their actions brought motion to our efforts and the Congress began to take this issue seriously.
Recently, individuals and groups who do not have a clue on what to do started petition campaigns to the White House. The White House’s answers to these issues are quite obvious yet people do not realize it; they only believe that the number of petitions collected matters. There is no doubt of the fact that these people started the petitions with good intentions, but for this issue, they should have been more cautious strategically.
Why did they spend all that time and effort along with money to advertise this issue in the United States and make it into an international controversy? Of course, citizens’ rising up against social or political problems is highly encouraged. But sensitive diplomatic problems such as the “Comfort Women” issue, a human rights issue at its very essence and territorial claims is on a totally different scale. For such matters, the citizens and the government must work together, and do a careful analysis on their course of action to predict outcomes.
When you really think about it, there was no need to respond to Japan’s territorial claims over Dokdo. The island is maintained by the Korean government with police presence. The only thing that was needed when Japan made a territorial claim was a strong rebuke from the Korean government.
When the petitions are collected, how will the White House respond? The response is obvious. “The White House cannot comment about the two nations’ historical claims, and we wish the best to these nations as they work out their differences.” This statement recognizes that Dokdo is under Korean sovereignty, but authenticates the claim that the island is a contested territory.
I sincerely ask that the community compounds their opinions together and work together in a coherent and strategic manner.
A petition campaign proclaiming that Dokdo is a Korean territory is well underway on the White House home page. This is a reaction to Japan calling it “Takeshima” and claiming sovereignty over the island. The campaign stating that Dokdo is a Korean territory stayed inside Korea at first. However, when an advertising expert started to place advertisements about this issue on the New York Times, this sovereignty issue came to […]
Recently, while surfing the Internet, I came across an article written by Professor Victor Cha, who is of Korean descent. I do not think that Professor Cha is aware of the fact that the Government of Japan and its officials came all the way to the United States and visited local governments and local officials and are interrupting with its internal affairs regarding a human rights issue that we know as the ‘Comfort Women’ issue.
If there is a historical inaccuracy regarding a basic human rights issue, there must be a time of reflection upon it and make sure it will never happen again. Despite this, Japan is still denying the truth and further distorting history.
Professor Cha, who is active in Washington D.C. as a scholar on Korea-related issues and academics, stresses upon the trilateral alliance between Korea-United States-Japan while emphasizing that historical animosity between Korea and Japan must be buried. But, this author thinks differently.
Firstly, Professor Cha mentioned that it is historical fact that Korea did not have any noticeable economic growth during the 1960s without the support of Japan. This argument has a point.
But at the time, Japan reaped much more practical benefits. Through Korea’s relatively cheap labor, Japan was able to increase its price competitiveness. In doing this, Japan was able to capture the global market. Japan was able to reap the most benefits during the time of the Korean War and Korea’s economic development period. In the end, that was just economic logic, this cannot be viewed as Japan specifically doing something for the benefit of Korea.
Secondly, Japan was originally critical of unification of the Korean Peninsula. In truth, Japan is a culprit of the division of the Korean Peninsula, and an interfering force to unification. It is said that Japan is a democratic country, but in reality, it’s a parliamentary system in format only. Most of Japan’s politicians practice hereditary inheritance with their respective seats in Parliament, its politics/economics/media is in adhesion with each other, so they are only wearing a label of ‘democracy’, but in reality it is a country run by a monarchy. In addition to all this, the Yakuza, an external force that manipulates politics through the use of violence and threats, are still in adhesion with Japanese politics.
Thirdly, Professor Cha mentions that Japan can play a crucial role in Korea confronting an emerging superpower in China. Here, Professor Cha is already using the Korea-United States-Japan alliance as a basic premise. If the relations between the three countries were to weaken, China will be able to raise its voice louder towards its smaller neighbor, Korea.
This is a correct argument. But, does this mean Korea must bury issues of the past and unilaterally forgive Japan?
For the Korea-United States-Japan alliance to be legitimately established, Korea and the United States must advise Japan together. In addition to this, Japan must offer a clear apology and acknowledgement and recording of historical truth so that there will be historical education without any misconception.
Without this, Korea cannot unilaterally give credibility to Japan and maintain the Korea-United States-Japan alliance.
There is no Korean who does not know the value of the Korea-United States-Japan alliance. The obstacle to this alliance is not the past victim, Korea, but Japan. This author thinks we must advise Japan, who despite the fact is the past offender, has engaged in sugarcoated diplomacy with its money and although it does not practice true democracy, they hide behind the United States’ back and even now in Washington D.C., Japan continues to drive a wedge between Korea and the United States and are conspiring to make the Korea-United States-Japan alliance into a United States-Japan alliance and making Korea into a minor partner.
Recently, while surfing the Internet, I came across an article written by Professor Victor Cha, who is of Korean descent. I do not think that Professor Cha is aware of the fact that the Government of Japan and its officials came all the way to the United States and visited local governments and local officials and are interrupting with its internal affairs regarding a human rights issue that we know […]
“Toussaint L’Ouverture” is a leader of black rebellion in Haiti. His name means ‘the awakening of all saints.’ In 1794, when France declared the abolition of slavery in its overseas colony, Toussaint L’Ouverture allied with France and eradicated Spain and Britain out of Haiti. He was impressed by Voltaire’s French revolution ideals that consisted of liberty, equality and fraternity and subsequently cooperated with the French military for the abolition of slavery and Haiti’s independence.
However, Napoleon from mainland France had a different idea. He had the ambition of driving out the British from the North American continent by making Haiti as a colony and securing it as a bridgehead. The natives of Haiti and the blacks had to fight again with 20,000 Napoleon’s forces. With independence army leader Toussaint L’Ouverture’s cleverness and judgment, Napoleon’s army’s defeat seemed certain.
They cheated. The commanding officer of France courteously invited Toussaint L’Ouverture over for peace talks, man to man. Toussaint L’Ouverture responded to the invitation, and was arrested on the spot and was sent in custody to France. Napoleon confined him in a prison on the rugged mountain range near the border of Switzerland. In April 7th, 1803, the great leader of Haiti independence Toussaint L’Ouverture died of pneumonia in Napoleon’s prison suffering from solitude and cold.
Although Toussaint L’Ouverture diet in prison, the black independence army fought desperately and finally eradicated the French military. In January 1st, 1804, independence was declared and the republic was named ‘Haiti’ in the meaning of ‘High Mountain’ in the native language. Haiti is pronounced as [aiti] in French pronunciation (this is how it is pronounced in Korean), but in the United States, it is called [heiti].
The newly declared Haiti republic’s future was rough. The United States didn’t even acknowledge Haiti as a country for 60 years due to the fear that African-American slave of the southern farm belt will revolt against the government. With an overwhelming power of armed forces, France invaded Haiti once more in 1825.
France threatened Haiti to pay back ?150 million, since Haiti’s independence damaged France as much. Considering that France sold Louisiana for ?80 million to the Unites States back then, ?150 million is definitely a large sum of money. Haiti ended up paying back all debt in 1948. Haiti has been paying back for 143 years. In the end of the 19th Century, 80% of the country’s budget was to be given to France.
Even after the independence, foreign merchants held the real economic power since the government had no money. When Haiti planned a reformation, United States, Germany, France and Britain interfered with these efforts. Every time an ethnic government was established, these countries planned an uprising and brought up an opposing power that will represent their benefits. During the 200 years of history, 32 coups took place instigated by foreign powers. Even President Wilson of the United States, who declared the principle of national self-determination and gave hope for the people of small and weak power, invaded and colonized Haiti in 1915.
Unites States, afraid of Central and South America’s liberation movement, called Haiti ‘a fortress of anticommunism’ and continued to support pro-US dictatorial government that ruled with an iron fist even after acknowledging the nation as an independent republic. The infamous dictator with his 30 year reign over Haiti is Francois Duvalier. He is well known as “Papa Doc, Baby Doc.”
A flash of hope has shown upon Haiti in mid 1980s, influenced by the theology of liberation within the Catholic community. A priest and a believer of liberation theology, Jean-Bertrand Aristide came into the political arena with nonviolence and reconciliation as a slogan stating; “The gospel is important, but poverty eradication comes first.” He was elected as the president of Haiti in late 1990, with support from the majority of the population.
Pro-American compradors that are monopolizing the economic management could not stand this. The Haiti military authorities planned a coup in September of 1991, and ousted President Aristide as they claimed that he made Haiti a red nation. During this process, thousands of Haiti citizens who were defending President Aristide were slaughtered by soldiers.
In 1994, the United Nations and President Clinton put Aristide back into his presidency to settle the situation as he was the lawful president. Aristide was out for a term since there is a limit to serve consecutive terms, but soon was elected again in the presidential elections of late 2000 with an overwhelming public support. After the Bush administration took over the office in 2001, the United States government has posed tough economic sanctions on Haiti and also has blocked economic aid and loan that was to be provided, by pressuring diverse international organizations.
Also the Bush administration is accused of supporting the opposition of the Aristide with weapons and funding to replace the Aristide administration. Professionals say that the economic sanctions of the Unites States and the blockade of loans from the international financial institutions is the largest reason for the Haiti government’s current situation. Haiti became the poorest nation in the world.
Yesterday I met my junior in school, a correspondent who came back from Haiti’s tragic earthquake site. Would he have been close to tears if it weren’t that bad? Haiti was already a country in turmoil by man-made earthquakes with foreign powers and comprador influence even before the natural disaster. America is leading the plans of restoration and reconstruction; however no one in the international community trusts it. Repentance and self-reflection of history should firstly be done. Therefore, ‘praying’ for Haiti is what really should take place. Helping Haiti to become the real nation of Toussaint L’Ouverture is what a civil citizen should do, making Haiti the country of ‘the awakening of all saints.’
“Toussaint L’Ouverture” is a leader of black rebellion in Haiti. His name means ‘the awakening of all saints.’ In 1794, when France declared the abolition of slavery in its overseas colony, Toussaint L’Ouverture allied with France and eradicated Spain and Britain out of Haiti. He was impressed by Voltaire’s French revolution ideals that consisted of liberty, equality and fraternity and subsequently cooperated with the French military for the abolition […]