The gangs formed due to foreign invasion and an illegitimate state seizing power. They aren’t some separate group from the people, they are the people that should decide what state they have. The primary victims of the largest gang, for instance, were politicians and un ‘workers’, the latter of which regularly were caught raping women and children.
The gangs are the security. Against actual evil. These aren’t international cartel members or gun runners or even drug dealers. They’re resistance to occupation.
Like I just said, I don’t think the way things have been going is the way they should be.
Your comment struck me as completely off base, but I thought maybe I’m wrong and did some googling and reading. I learned a few things (check out this Wikipedia), but definitely confirmed that the Haitian gangs are not “security against actual evil”. Kidnap for ransom, looting and massacres are not “resistance to occupation”.
Given half the references are from the same people that said a gang leader was called barbeque because he was a cannibal instead of the actual reason, I’m going to suggest there might be a bit of a propaganda problem going on there.
The gangs formed due to foreign invasion and an illegitimate state seizing power. They aren’t some separate group from the people, they are the people that should decide what state they have. The primary victims of the largest gang, for instance, were politicians and un ‘workers’, the latter of which regularly were caught raping women and children.
The gangs are the security. Against actual evil. These aren’t international cartel members or gun runners or even drug dealers. They’re resistance to occupation.
Like I just said, I don’t think the way things have been going is the way they should be.
Your comment struck me as completely off base, but I thought maybe I’m wrong and did some googling and reading. I learned a few things (check out this Wikipedia), but definitely confirmed that the Haitian gangs are not “security against actual evil”. Kidnap for ransom, looting and massacres are not “resistance to occupation”.
Given half the references are from the same people that said a gang leader was called barbeque because he was a cannibal instead of the actual reason, I’m going to suggest there might be a bit of a propaganda problem going on there.
Care to share other reliable sources?