When was the REAL (Dominican) Declaration of Independence made?

[asopao]

ndependencia sólo es posible concebirla frente a la Madre Patria", agregó Espinal Luna.[/i]

Madre patria? It is a pitty that there are still many imbeciles out there ( like Luna) referring to Spain as " Madre Patria".

It is truly an archaic expression, It is a term of endearment used by hispanophiles. characters like Balaguer liked to use it many times in their books.

I don't know what "endearment" can Dominicans find in a kingdom that used its land and people of color as commodities for exploitation.

By calling Spain by " Madre Patria, all you are doing is slapping in the face all those " nameless" slaves that were beaten, tortured, raped and even killed back in colonial times. We Dominicans have to eradicate such unpleasant terminologies, such as " pelo malo" too.

[Criss Colon]

Why not just call a "Spade A Spade" and name the whole island "Hispanola Negra", or something that tells the true history of the island??? "Creole" is the "National Language" of both sides now!!
Cris Colon

[BIZC8]

I'll explain. Independence from a colonial power and liberation of an already independent nation from an occupying force are most definitely two different things. Iraq for example. Iraq is an independent country occupied by foreign forces. Once Iraq regains control of its people and land, it will go back to being what it always was - an independent country. Regardless of the fact that it's got years and years of experience as an independent country. The essence, the concept is the same. Iraq is militarily occupied by foreign forces. They will not regain independence once the occupation ceases because they never lost it.

Our country (then known as Spanish Haiti) was already declared and proclaimed as an independent state through a proclamation made on December 1st, 1821 by José Núñez de Cáceres. Haiti militarily occupied our new country several months later. The occupation lasted 22 years, but in the end we fought our way back to independence. Yes, I must concede that our case is not exactly a mirror image of what's currently going on in Iraq, BUT the sequence of events are rather very similar. We were already independent (although briefly) and we were again invaded (first by Spain who colonized us, then by Haiti who did not). You gain independence from a colonial power, not from an occupation force. You occupy sovereign soil. You colonize all others.

Bottom line it is just my opinion. Much the same way that NALS presented his. I'm of the opinion that history should be corrected although I frankly don't see it happening anytime in the near or distant future. I'll go further and quote NALS when he said that at the very least we must agree to disagree.

[BIZC8]

Originally Posted by Criss Colon

Why not just call a "Spade A Spade" and name the whole island "Hispanola Negra", or something that tells the true history of the island??? "Creole" is the "National Language" of both sides now!!
Cris Colon

Criss, I sense a tad of bigotry in your comment. If that's what makes your hormone levels balanced, then so be it. Call it what you will. We Dominicans, on the other hand, will call it what we Dominicans know the facts to be. I believe your comment was out of place, tasteless and uncalled for. We have an illegal immigration problem from Haiti much like the US has it with Mexico. Would you make that kind of comment to the general Anglo US population? How do you think they'd feel about a comment like that?

[Rick Snyder]

History is always such a debatable subject, the reason I moved this thread, and is always interpreted differently by different people regardless as to what the supposed truths are that are published.

A very classic example of this would be the US Civil War. Almost 150 years after the fact it is still being taught that slavery was the reason for that war.

Presenting your opinions and debating the substantiality of that which you proclaim is all well and good but the possibility of changing the minds of those that don't wish to change that which they have been led to believe and that which has been written sounds like a losing battle.

Rick

[Chip00]

Originally Posted by Rick Snyder

History is always such a debatable subject, the reason I moved this thread, and is always interpreted differently by different people regardless as to what the supposed truths are that are published.

A very classic example of this would be the US Civil War. Almost 150 years after the fact it is still being taught that slavery was the reason for that war.

Presenting your opinions and debating the substantiality of that which you proclaim is all well and good but the possibility of changing the minds of those that don't wish to change that which they have been led to believe and that which has been written sounds like a losing battle.

Rick

Rick

I agree that history will at most times appear different depending on one's poit of view. Obviously, the OP has an agenda to prove that the "real" independence was is 1822 or so - using subjective semantics of certain terms more than substance to justify revising history according to his point of view.

Also, with reference to the Civil War, it may have not been all about slavery, but one thing is for certain - there would have been no Civil War if there was no slavery.

[Rick Snyder]

Chip you crack me up. Hehehe. And we come full circle because your last sentence is DEBATABLE.

This is in no way being posted to start such a debate so please let's not have anyone go there.

Rick

[asopao]

Originally Posted by BIZC8

I'll explain. Independence from a colonial power and liberation of an already independent nation from an occupying force are most definitely two different things. Iraq for example. Iraq is an independent country occupied by foreign forces. Once Iraq regains control of its people and land, it will go back to being what it always was - an independent country. Regardless of the fact that it's got years and years of experience as an independent country. The essence, the concept is the same. Iraq is militarily occupied by foreign forces. They will not regain independence once the occupation ceases because they never lost it.

Our country (then known as Spanish Haiti) was already declared and proclaimed as an independent state through a proclamation made on December 1st, 1821 by José Núñez de Cáceres. Haiti militarily occupied our new country several months later. The occupation lasted 22 years, but in the end we fought our way back to independence. Yes, I must concede that our case is not exactly a mirror image of what's currently going on in Iraq, BUT the sequence of events are rather very similar. We were already independent (although briefly) and we were again invaded (first by Spain who colonized us, then by Haiti who did not). You gain independence from a colonial power, not from an occupation force. You occupy sovereign soil. You colonize all others.

Bottom line it is just my opinion. Much the same way that NALS presented his. I'm of the opinion that history should be corrected although I frankly don't see it happening anytime in the near or distant future. I'll go further and quote NALS when he said that at the very least we must agree to disagree.

Dude, Haiti didn't do an occupation, Haiti did an ANNEXATION,part of the confusion is that there are crappy history books that don't make these distinctions, or are simply biased. It was an annexation because the eastern sides became provinces of Haiti, Jean-Pierre Boyer included Easteners ( future Dominicans) in his government, like Buenaventura Baez.
contrary to popular belief, the majority of Easterners in 1821 were in favor of uniting with Haiti, because racist, azqueroso José Nuñez de Caceres didn't want to abolish slavery,and kept racial discrimination in place for the free people of color. For all the free Blacks and Mulattoes, Haiti represented to them a just country, that will offer them the opportunities that Caceres and his colonial mentality wouldn't provide them.

Now that we know that 1822 wasn't an occupation, but an annexation,we can deduct that the separatist revolt in 1844 was in fact an independece. independence because a new State emerged out of another one.The same way Greece emerged out of the Ottoman Empire in 1822. A new State different from Caceres's Haiti Español, which had a different flag, and racist laws, like keeping slavery for example. Something tht Duarte wouldn't allow in 1844.

[Criss Colon]

Does the side of the "FENCE" you live on make any difference???
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCC

[Kyle]

remember people, history is "his story" which is one person's view....many falsehoods have come to light because of "his story"...