Quote:
Originally Posted by NALs
I understand what you are saying, but what you are suggesting has more implications that mere changing the role certain heroes had in the development of the country and the name of the country has a big meaning. Its not just a mere name with no strings attached.
There is a reason why the country created in 1844 was named República Dominicana and not Haití Español. Also, there has never been made an attempt by the founding fathers of the republic to assume that the Dominican Republic is a continuation of what once was Spanish Haiti.
As far as everything goes, the DR became independent in 1844 with help of the Catholic church and never has there been suggested that the DR is a continuation of the former state of Spanish Haiti.
That is different from what happened during the Spanish annexation. Once the republic was restored, it was basically a continuation of what once was before the Dominican Republic became Spanish territory once again. For that reason Gregorio Luperón and others did not went about declaring a new independence for a new country with a new name or new institutions. It was all dealt with as a continuum of what once was before the Spanish annexation.
That's why Feb 27 is our independence day and not Dec 1st.
Another aspect that has to be taken into account is the current pro-illegal immigrant stand that many in many social circles outside the DR (and even within) have taken. Any attempt to remove a connection to Haiti will be seen as an anti-Haitian act and that will not bode well for our country's image abroad, which is not good already.
I think we should leave history alone. There are differences between the Spanish Haiti independence, the independence of the Dominican Republic, and the restoration of the Dominican Republic. There are fundamental and ideological differences and the Dominican state and identity as we know is based on the independence of 1844 and not of 1821.
This is not just a matter of re-writting history, its almost akin to building a new state and that is neither easy nor desirable from a social, economic, or any other point of view.
This is just my opinion.
-NALs
|
So basically you're suggesting we accept things for what they are judging from what was on the liberators' minds at the time of our independence and not what we seem to conceive at present time a little over a hundred years later. You're saying that because they did not leave something in writing or otherwise, clearly stipulating that they're continuing a liberation movement started back in 1821 by José Nuñez de Cáceres but this time under the new name of
República Dominicana and not
Estado Independiente de Haití Español that the latter could not and would not be grandfathered under the first independence movement. The way I see it, the Haitian invasion/occupation was only an obstacle, a setback if you will, to a greater end started on December 1st, 1821 - independence. Remember,
a setback is a setup to get back.
Then you imply that we need to cater to the international community's perception of what they may believe our true intentions are - regardless of what the historical facts are. That, unfortunately, doesn't sit in too well with me. Be it as it may, we declared our independence from Spain, Haiti saw an opportunity to take advantage of a weak, newly created nation seeking outside support from La Gran Colombia and invaded it occupying it for 22 years. By then, the initial dream of being free gained enough support to turn things around and be independent once again. We should see those twenty two years of occupation as just that, an occupation. Not a colonization. We were never a colony of Haiti. Our identity, our culture and our ideals had already been clearly defined by the time Haiti invaded Santo Domingo.