Like my guest today, I’ve never found it particularly useful to cast François Duvalier as some frothing, otherworldly monster. That story is too easy. It offers too little. Once you wrap him in the veil of pathology, the conversation dies. You’ve exiled him to a place beyond history, beyond explanation, beyond us. But what haunts me still—what lives in the marrow of Belleau’s work—is not the spectacle of evil, but its intimacy. The way Duvalier wrapped the Haitian state around himself like a second skin. The way repression was not distant, not sterile, but close. Whisper-close.
This week on the Nèg Mawon Podcast, I sat with anthropologist Jean-Philippe Belleau, and we waded deep into the dark waters of the Duvalier regime—not for the thrill of horror, but to understand the anatomy of power when it is warm, personal, and woven through the lives of the very people it crushes.
Here are three strands we pulled from that knot:
Power in the First Person
Belleau unearths a truth many prefer buried: that Duvalier’s rule was not built in cold, bureaucratic chambers, but in bedrooms, churches, courtyards. It lived in nods and whispers, in godfather promises and godson debts. This was not Orwell’s 1984—this was something older, more Haitian, more intimate. The regime was not an iron wall; it was a web, spun from relationships and obligations, holding the country not at gunpoint, but by the soul.
Who Gets to Be a Victim?
There is a comfort in believing the elite escaped unscathed, that they watched from balconies while the poor bled. But Belleau complicates that myth. His research pulls us toward a difficult truth: the violence had no clean class lines. Elites, too, were crushed, sometimes precisely because they presumed immunity. Belleau invites us to reconsider how history renders victims—how it decides who gets remembered as broken, and who gets blamed for surviving.
The Ties That Bind (Even in Hell)
And still—amid the surveillance, the fear, the Tonton Macoutes—Haitians clung to each other. Kinship, friendship, neighborhood, lakou… these weren’t just sentimental relics. They were lifelines. Belleau shows us that even in the shadow of dictatorship, the social fabric didn’t unravel. It tensed, stretched, contorted—but it held. And in that, there is something both tragic and profoundly human.
To understand Duvalier is not to exorcise a demon, but to study a mirror. We cannot afford to look away—not when the terror came wearing a neighbor’s face, a cousin’s smile. Not when history walks so close to home.
I. Executive Summary:
This briefing summarizes the core themes and significant insights presented by Jean-Phillipe Belleau, an associate professor of anthropology, regarding his book “Killing the Elites, Haiti 1964.” The book challenges conventional understandings of the Duvalier regime’s violence in Haiti, particularly the Jeremie Vespers massacre of 1964. Belleau emphasizes the highly relational nature of Haitian society and its paradoxical intersection with political violence under Duvalier. He highlights the victimization of the Haitian elite, the central role of social ties (including kinship) in the regime’s operations and repression, and the unique targeting of entire families. Belleau also discusses the concept of “denied intimacy” as a source of resentment, the limitations of “noirisme” as a governing ideology, and the military’s role as the primary instrument of repression under Duvalier, rather than the Tonton Macoutes. He also touches upon the challenges of historical memory and the current nostalgia for the Duvalier era amidst Haiti’s contemporary crisis.
II. Key Themes and Important Ideas:
- Intimacy and the Duvalier Regime: Belleau found the intimacy of Duvalier and his inner circle, and the regime’s violence, particularly disturbing. He states, “it was quite disturbing to me how intimate from his, discussions with his inner circle to the final outcomes to those families which we’ll get into later.” This contrasts with an expectation of “cold distant state sponsored massacre.”
- Haiti as a Highly Relational Society: A central theme is the profound importance of social relationships in Haitian society. Belleau argues that while all societies are relational, in Haiti, relationships are more valued and play a more significant role in everyday life. He notes, “even if all cultures, all societies are relational, in some societies, relationships are more valued and take a more important place in everyday life.” This relationality extended to the inner workings of the Duvalier regime.
- Challenging the Pathologization of Duvalier: Belleau rejects the common portrayal of Duvalier as simply “crazy,” a “madman,” or a “psychopath.” He argues that such pathologizing avoids a deeper understanding of the subject. Drawing on discussions with psychiatrists, he notes that psychopaths cannot function well in society, whereas Duvalier “could function perfectly well, actually. It’s the fact that he functioned so well that allowed him to rise, politically and build a fellowship.”
- The Victimization of the Elite: Belleau’s most provocative finding is the historical pattern of political violence against the Haitian elite, which he argues is “paradoxically both widely documented and strangely overlooked.” He notes the historical tendency to focus on the elite as perpetrators, leading to “endemic victim blaming” where the blame for massacres is reoriented towards the victims. He states, “There is no entry for the elite and our contemporary taxonomies of victimization.” He challenges the notion that being upper class necessarily precludes one from being a victim, citing instances like the richest family killed in Jeremie in 1964, whose sons became communists.
- Relational Nature of Regime and Repression: Social ties were deeply embedded within the Duvalier regime and influenced its operations and repression.
- Within the Regime: The Presidential Palace was a highly social environment where individuals knew each other and socialized. Duvalier actively engaged in conversation with people of all statuses, from guards to ministers, demonstrating “very strong, very deep” social ties.
- Between Perpetrators and Victims: Notably, many members of the regime, including henchmen and those in positions of authority (like the chief of staff Pierre Meson), had kinship ties to the victims of violence. Belleau found this through extensive genealogical research.
- Within Society at Large: The pervasive nature of social networks meant that individuals could leverage relationships to seek help or intervention from regime members, and this often proved effective in securing release from detention.
- Targeting of Entire Families: A key aspect of the violence, particularly in the Jeremie Vespers, was the targeting of entire families, not just politically active individuals. Belleau believes this was a new phenomenon in Haitian history under Duvalier, a form of “mutuality of guilt” or collective responsibility based on kinship. This was justified by the perpetrators with the idea that future generations would seek revenge if not eliminated.
- “Denied Intimacy” as a Source of Resentment: Belleau introduces the concept of “denied intimacy” to explain the resentment felt by the non-elite towards the elite. Despite living in close proximity and having daily interactions (familiarity on the “veranda”), there was a clear social boundary preventing the non-elite from being fully included in the elite’s private lives, particularly through invitations to social gatherings like balls. This denial of expected inclusion, fueled by egalitarian ideologies coexisting with social verticality, created significant frustration. Belleau suggests Duvalier himself may have experienced this denied intimacy in his earlier life.
- Limitations of “Noirisme”: Belleau describes “noirisme” as a “half-baked ideology” or set of representations rather than a comprehensive program. He argues that it primarily served as a vehicle for resentment against mulattos and a means to gain government jobs, lacking a substantial socioeconomic framework.
- Genocide vs. Massacre: Belleau clarifies the distinction between genocide and massacre, stating that the key difference is intention, not necessarily the number of victims. Genocide involves the intent to exterminate an entire group. He notes that while the Jeremie Vespers was a horrific event, the number of casualties (27) is relatively low compared to other instances of mass violence and cannot be characterized as a genocide by this definition.
- Less Spectacle, Still Terrifying: Belleau argues that the violence of the Duvalier regime was less “spectacular” and involved fewer obscene atrocities (like rape and torture of children) than often portrayed in existing literature. While acknowledging that killing is inherently atrocious, he emphasizes that his research indicates these specific horrors were not characteristic of the Jeremie Vespers. However, he notes that the intimacy of the violence makes it terrifying.
- Relatively Low Numbers in Haitian History (Post-Independence): Belleau posits that the numbers of casualties in instances of mass violence in Haitian post-independence history are relatively low when compared to comparable countries in the region like Guatemala. This includes the Duvalier regime, despite repeated violence.
- The Military as the Primary Instrument of Repression: Contrary to popular belief and some historiography that emphasizes the Tonton Macoutes, Belleau asserts that the military was the main apparatus of repression under Duvalier. Duvalier distrusted the military leadership but relied on the institution for its bureaucracy, hierarchy, and discipline to carry out the regime’s most brutal tasks. The Tonton Macoutes were less organized and played a minimal role in events like the Jeremie Vespers.
- Duvalier’s Personal Relationship with Henchmen: A unique aspect highlighted by Belleau is Duvalier’s personal relationship with individual killers and henchmen. He suggests this was partly utilitarian, as Duvalier didn’t trust the military or Macoutes to carry out the most atrocious tasks, but also speaks to Duvalier’s peculiar personality.
- Challenges of Historical Memory: Belleau discusses the difficulties in reconstructing historical events, particularly mass violence, due to the nature of memory. He provides an anecdote of a friar who witnessed the Jeremie Vespers and initially reported 27 victims but decades later recalled 300, influenced by later historiography.
- Nostalgia for Duvalier: Belleau acknowledges the current phenomenon of nostalgia for the Duvalier era among some Haitians amidst the present crisis. He attributes this to the breakdown of the state and escalating criminality since 1986. While horrifying to victims’ families, he suggests it’s an understandable reaction to the current state of anarchy and a reflection of a lack of deep analysis regarding Haiti’s recent history.
III. Significant Facts and Details:
- The book “Killing the Elites, Haiti 1964” focuses on the Jeremie Vespers massacre.
- The estimated number of victims in the Jeremie Vespers according to Belleau’s research is 27. This contradicts earlier accounts of hundreds or thousands.
- Belleau’s research involved extensive interviews with survivors and individuals connected to the regime, as well as genealogical research.
- Duvalier’s distrust of the military began early in his rule after a failed coup attempt by mulatto military officers in 1958.
- Duvalier dismantled and controlled the military, preventing it from having a say in government affairs, unlike in previous and subsequent periods.
- The Tonton Macoutes were less organized and played a minimal role in key acts of repression like the Jeremie Vespers, according to Belleau.
- Duvalier reportedly killed his own brother-in-law, Lucian Make, in a fit of temper in 1962, highlighting the intimate nature of his violence.
- The concept of “mutuality of guilt” in the context of kinship was, to Belleau’s knowledge, a new development in Haitian history under Duvalier, not seen in earlier instances of political violence.
- Belleau interviewed Abel Jerome, a key figure in the Jeremie Vespers, who described his personal relationship with Duvalier.
- Belleau mentions the work of Michelle Orle, a Haitian scholar who does not speak English and focuses on Haitian history and the flight of elites. She is currently a refugee due to gang activity.
- Belleau’s forthcoming book with Michelle Orle will utilize previously untapped archives to explore land ownership by descendants of former slaves, potentially challenging existing theories about Haitian peasantry.
- Belleau emphasizes the lack of a functioning state in Haiti since 1986.
IV. Quotes from the Source:
- “it was quite disturbing to me how intimate from. His, discussions with his inner circle to the final outcomes to those families which we’ll get into later.”
- “even if all cultures, all societies are relational, in some societies, relationships are more valued and take a more important place in everyday life.”
- “clearly that was not the case of Valier. They told, to psychiatry, a psychopath is somebody who cannot function in society. Val could function perfectly well, actually. It’s the fact that he functioned so well that allowed him to rise, politically and build a fellowship.”
- “as do most people who write on violence, I felt an obligation to the victims, a mandate that grew stronger, as I noted the endemic victim blaming.”
- “There is no entry for the elite and our contemporary taxonomies of victimization.”
- “The difference between a massacre and genocide would not be about the volume of the killing, but about the intentions of the perpetrators.”
- “I think that the devalue regime in general less, again, that’s might, I understand that might be shocking to a lot of people, but was less the violence was less spectacular than than what we think it was.”
- “when we compare with the rest of the region, central America, in particular, all Latin America in general, the numbers are relatively low.”
- “many of the. Of, even of the henchmen and members of the regime were related by kinship to victims.”
- “Duvalier knew each of them personally. he knew Sony Borch. He knew each of them personally because they, all of them worked in the presidential palace. He saw them almost every day.”
- “I believe that’s unique in none of the other authoritarian regime, in the military regime, in Argentina, in Chile, and so on. Did the killers have a personal relationship with the dictator?”
- “who knew somebody was not a guarantee to be freed. what really struck me there is the absence of. Ideology in the decisions that is devalue. Took somebody in his government, in his regime, in his inner circle, on political or ideological grounds, but on social grounds.”
- “mutuality of guilt the eye of the perpetrator… it’s the idea that someone who committed or is seen as having committed a crime not the sole perpetrator of that crime, but the people related to him by kinship also share responsibility.”
- “relational exceptionalism is this idea that if you have a bond with somebody, it becomes cognitively nearly impossible to kill unless there’s a context that forces them.”
- “this is what I mean by denied intimacy. Intimacy could go so far, but at some point there was a war.”
- “The military didn’t rule during Deval… It has even been described as a victim of the Regime by Prosper peril.”
- “the repression apparatus of the regime was not the maku, it was the military.”
- “in the case of Jeremie, they played no role whatsoever. And that cost me months of research, because at the beginning I thought they had played a major role.”
- “the state is dead. For me it’s obvious. It doesn’t even need to be proven, because the evidence are clear.”
V. Areas for Further Exploration (Based on the Interview):
Exploring the specific characteristics of Haitian animism and its potential, albeit cautiously considered, connection to concepts like “mutuality of guilt.”
The details and findings of Michelle Orle’s research on land ownership in Haiti.
Specific examples and dynamics of “denied intimacy” and its impact on social relations.
The motivations behind Duvalier’s personal relationship with his henchmen beyond utilitarian reasons.
A deeper analysis of the transition from the Duvalier regime to the current state of anarchy in Haiti and the role of past political decisions.
Study Guide: Killing the Elites: Haiti 1964
Quiz: Short Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source material.
- What was the author’s initial expectation regarding the nature of the Duvalier regime’s violence, and how did his research findings differ?
- How did the author’s specialization in anthropology shift over his career, and what led him to study Haiti and the Duvalier regime?
- According to the author, why is pathologizing figures like Duvalier and Hitler problematic for understanding their actions?
- What is the key difference between a massacre and a genocide, according to the author’s discussion of the concepts?
- How did the organization “Devoir de Mémoire” influence the author’s research and writing process for his book?
- What does the author mean by “victim blaming” in the context of discussing violence committed by the Duvalier regime?
- Describe the concept of “mutuality of guilt” as it relates to the Duvalier regime’s targeting of families.
- What does the author describe as “relational exceptionalism,” and how does it challenge conventional ideas about intimacy and violence?
- Explain the concept of “denied intimacy” within Haitian society, particularly concerning the relationship between the elite and the non-elite.
- What was the primary role of the military during the Duvalier regime, according to the author, and how did Duvalier’s approach to the military differ from previous periods in Haitian history?
Quiz Answer Key
- The author initially expected the violence of the Duvalier regime to be a cold, distant, state-sponsored massacre. His research revealed a more intimate form of violence, deeply intertwined with the personal relationships of Duvalier and his inner circle.
- The author originally specialized in indigenous peoples in the Amazon, focusing on classical anthropology. He shifted to studying Haiti and the Duvalier regime due to his interest in how an authoritarian regime operates within a highly relational society.
- The author argues that pathologizing figures like Duvalier and Hitler (calling them crazy, madmen, or psychopaths) is problematic because it avoids genuinely discussing the subject of their actions. They were capable of functioning effectively in society and maintaining relationships, which contradicts the definition of psychopaths.
- The key difference is intention. A genocide is characterized by the intention to exterminate an entire group, whereas a massacre is an instance of mass killing that may not have this specific intent, regardless of the number of victims.
- The organization “Devoir de Mémoire,” dedicated to the memory of victims, had a profound impact. The author forged friendships with members, who provided deep knowledge of their family experiences and views, influencing the book’s writing.
- Victim blaming, in this context, refers to discourses that reorient the responsibility for killing towards the victims themselves. This includes arguments that the victims (like the elite or Mulattos) somehow provoked or were responsible for the violence due to perceived arrogance or social systems.
- Mutuality of guilt is the notion that someone who committed or is seen as having committed a crime, and the people related to them by kinship, also share responsibility. Under Duvalier, this justified targeting entire families based on one member’s opposition or perceived guilt.
- Relational exceptionalism is the idea that having a bond with someone makes it cognitively nearly impossible to kill them, challenging the notion that intimacy is inherently a source of danger during mass violence events.
- Denied intimacy refers to the situation where members of different social classes in Haiti had familiarity and social interaction in public spaces (like verandas) but were excluded from intimate social gatherings like parties and marriages within the elite, creating frustration and resentment.
- Contrary to some beliefs, the repression apparatus of the Duvalier regime was primarily the military, not the Tonton Macoute. Duvalier dismantled the military’s traditional role in government affairs but relied on its structure and ethos for carrying out repression, often requiring killers to have a personal relationship with him.
Essay Format Questions
- Analyze the tension between the highly relational nature of Haitian society and the perpetration of political violence under the Duvalier regime, drawing on the author’s discussion of social ties among regime members, between perpetrators and victims, and within society at large.
- Discuss the author’s argument for considering the Haitian elite as potential victims of mass violence, contrasting this perspective with traditional historical narratives and explaining the concept of “victim blaming” in this context.
- Evaluate the author’s critique of pathologizing historical figures like Duvalier and Hitler, explaining why this approach fails to adequately explain their actions and the functioning of their regimes.
- Explore the concepts of “mutuality of guilt” and “denied intimacy” as described by the author, and explain how these factors contributed to the specific nature and targets of violence during the Duvalier regime.
- Based on the author’s discussion of memory, oral history, and the changing narratives surrounding the Jérémie Vespers, analyze the challenges and complexities of historical research on periods of mass violence, particularly in the absence of comprehensive archives.
Glossary of Key Terms
Plantation System: A system of agricultural production based on large estates worked by forced labor (slavery or indentured servitude).
Classical Anthropology: Refers to the earlier forms of anthropological study, often focusing on the description and analysis of distinct, non-Western cultures, including their social structures, kinship systems, and belief systems.
Highly Relational Society: A society where social relationships are particularly valued and play a significant role in everyday life, interactions, and decision-making processes.
Pathologize: To view or characterize something as medically or psychologically abnormal; in this context, treating historical figures as simply “mad” or “psychopathic” to explain their actions, potentially overlooking socio-political factors.
Genocide: The intentional action to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part.
Massacre: An incident of mass killing, typically involving a large number of victims, but not necessarily defined by the intent to exterminate a specific group.
Devoir de Mémoire: A French term meaning “Duty of Memory”; in this context, an organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the victims of the Duvalier regime.
Victim Blaming: A phenomenon where the victim of a crime or wrong is held partially or entirely responsible for the harm that befell them.
Ethno-religious Identities: Identities based on a combination of ethnicity and religion.
Contemporary Taxonomies of Victimization: Current ways of categorizing or classifying groups of people who are considered victims of violence or injustice.
Noirism: A Haitian ideology, particularly associated with the period leading up to and including the early Duvalier regime, often characterized by resentment against the Mulatto elite and a focus on empowering the black masses, though sometimes seen as hiding material agendas.
Bidonville: A French term for a shantytown or slum, often characterized by informal housing and precarious living conditions.
Latifundia System: A system of large agricultural estates, historically prevalent in Latin America and other regions, often involving the exploitation of a labor force, typically peasants or enslaved people.
Conrado Americans: Refers to those in Haitian society who gained wealth and status through their connections and collaborations with foreign powers, particularly the United States.
Mutuality of Guilt: The concept that responsibility for a crime is shared by an individual and their kin; used by the Duvalier regime to justify targeting entire families.
Collective Responsibility: The idea that a group as a whole is responsible for the actions of its individual members.
Kinship Ties: Relationships based on blood or marriage.
Animism: The belief that spirits inhabit natural objects and phenomena; in a broader anthropological sense, it can refer to the idea that substances or ideas can be transferred between people.
Relational Exceptionalism: The theory that having a personal bond with someone makes it cognitively very difficult or impossible to kill them, suggesting a protective effect of close relationships in instances of mass violence.
Denied Intimacy: The phenomenon in Haitian society, particularly in towns like Jérémie, where different social classes had public familiarity but were excluded from the private, intimate social spheres (like parties and marriages) of the elite.
Egalitarian Ideologies: Belief systems that advocate for equality among people.
Verticality of the Social System: Refers to the hierarchical and unequal nature of the social structure.
Jérémie Vespers: A specific massacre that occurred in Jérémie, Haiti, in 1964 under the Duvalier regime, targeting members of the elite.
Tonton Macoute (VSN – Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale): A paramilitary force created by François Duvalier, often associated with repression and violence, although the author notes their role was less significant in some instances than the military.
Military Ethos: The characteristic spirit, beliefs, and customs of a military organization.
Historiography: The study of historical writing; the body of historical works on a particular subject.
Predicaments of Memory: The challenges and unreliability of memory, particularly in the context of recalling traumatic or historical events, as memory can be shaped by later information or narratives.
Oral History: Historical information gathered through interviews with individuals who have firsthand knowledge of past events.
Anarchy: A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
Viennese State: Likely a reference to the characteristics of a modern state, perhaps drawing on sociological theories of the state.
