Etzer Émile and the Necessary Provocation: Between Raw Truth and Symbolic Awkwardness
By Jean Wesley Pierre · Port-au-Prince
· 4 min read · Updated 24 April 2026
Translated from French — AI-assisted and reviewed by the editorial team. The French version is authoritative. Read the original · About our translation policy
« 🔵🔴 In 2025, we must stop riding on Dessalines' coattails. We cannot continue to beat our chests about what our ancestors did in 1803. What have we done ourselves? » This sentence, signed by Etzer Émile, economist and professor, ignited social media, rekindled identity wounds, and reopened an old debate: that of national memory in the face of collective failure.
On one side, there are those who see his statement as a salutary shock, a word of truth that finally needed to be spoken. On the other, those who read it as an offense, a desacralization of the legacy of Dessalines and the Founding Fathers.
Between these two poles unfolds the full tension of contemporary Haitian society: that of a people caught between admiration for its past and an inability to write a future.
A statement that disturbs because it hits home
Etzer Émile says nothing false. What he points to is the collective hypocrisy that pushes us to glorify Dessalines in speeches, while betraying his ideals every day in our social, political, and economic practices.
Ralph R. Moïse aptly summarizes the core message: « We must move beyond this sterile heroic patriotism to a patriotism of action and results. »
The problem is therefore not the pride in evoking Dessalines, but the fact of making him an identity alibi, a memorial masturbation that masks our inability to produce concrete results.
Naldo Filmmaker, via X, formerly Twitter, goes further: « The man puts us face to face with our responsibilities. »
In other words, the anger provoked by Etzer's statement is merely a reflection of our own discomfort with the truth.
But… A word without context becomes a misdirected weapon
However, if the substance of the argument is sound, the form is clumsy. By declaring that we must « stop riding on Dessalines' coattails », Etzer Émile does not sufficiently consider the emotional and symbolic weight that the name Dessalines carries in the Haitian consciousness.
This name is not just a memory: it is a refuge, a cry of dignity in a country where everything is collapsing.
Lynn Gédéon rightly reminds us: « The Citadel was built with Haitian hands and courage, a marvel… and we are angry with Etzer Emile. »
In other words, if it is true that we have failed to keep Dessalines' spirit alive, we must know how to talk about it.
Etzer's criticism would have gained power if he had recontextualized his statement, reminding us that Dessalinian pride does not lie in celebration, but in the construction of a sovereign, just, and prosperous country.
Without this framework, his sentence, taken out of its initial intent, becomes a slap rather than a lesson. It is not about denying the legacy, but reinventing it As Marc Alain Boucicault says, « The work was never finished. The revolution must continue with people who have not forgotten Dessalines. » And that's where the debate takes on its full meaning: we must not stop quoting Dessalines, but stop betraying him. Yes, we must reinvent a historical date, a new foundational moment not to replace January 1st or October 17th, but to reactivate their meaning. A day that would symbolize modern revolt, no longer against colonial slavery, but against the social, mental, and institutional slavery in which we indulge. In this sense, I agree with Etzer Émile on the urgency of a new moral and civic revolution. But this revolution cannot begin by negating the past; it must be born as its continuation. A pride to rebuild, not to erase Gary Victor, in his searing text, said it bluntly: « If Dessalines returned, he would have all Haitian leaders shot. And a large part of us would have to suffer his legitimate wrath. » This is not a literary exaggeration; it is a mirror. A mirror in which we refuse to look at ourselves. Wendy Phele summarizes it thus: « These words of conscience are supposed to come from the mouths of every young man who wants to engage in politics in the country. » And yet, this country is outraged as soon as a man dares to say that we live in a lie. Journalist Kimberly Pierre ironically asks: « What did Etzer Emile say that was wrong? » What is disturbing is not what he says, but what it reveals: our inability to accept responsibility for our own decadence. Between Etzer's lucidity and Gary Victor's prudence I share Etzer Émile's anger, his desire to awaken consciences.
But I believe that the pedagogy of anger must be accompanied by a pedagogy of contextualization. One does not speak of Dessalines as a slogan. One speaks of him as a matrix of meaning, a moral compass, an eternal cry of dignity. Yes, we must create a new historical date—a date of rupture, of rebirth, a day of revolt against mediocrity, corruption, injustice, and resignation. But this revolution, unlike that of 1804, must not be made with guns, but with ideas, rigor, discipline, and collective courage. Dessalines, if he were alive today, might not need to shoot anyone.
He would simply demand that we be worthy of his sacrifice, of his legacy. Etzer Émile is not wrong.
But we must learn to speak truths without crushing symbols.
Because in a country where everything is crumbling, symbols are sometimes the last stones holding the wall upright.
Without this framework, his sentence, taken out of its initial intent, becomes a slap rather than a lesson. It is not about denying the legacy, but reinventing it As Marc Alain Boucicault says, « The work was never finished. The revolution must continue with people who have not forgotten Dessalines. » And that's where the debate takes on its full meaning: we must not stop quoting Dessalines, but stop betraying him. Yes, we must reinvent a historical date, a new foundational moment not to replace January 1st or October 17th, but to reactivate their meaning. A day that would symbolize modern revolt, no longer against colonial slavery, but against the social, mental, and institutional slavery in which we indulge. In this sense, I agree with Etzer Émile on the urgency of a new moral and civic revolution. But this revolution cannot begin by negating the past; it must be born as its continuation. A pride to rebuild, not to erase Gary Victor, in his searing text, said it bluntly: « If Dessalines returned, he would have all Haitian leaders shot. And a large part of us would have to suffer his legitimate wrath. » This is not a literary exaggeration; it is a mirror. A mirror in which we refuse to look at ourselves. Wendy Phele summarizes it thus: « These words of conscience are supposed to come from the mouths of every young man who wants to engage in politics in the country. » And yet, this country is outraged as soon as a man dares to say that we live in a lie. Journalist Kimberly Pierre ironically asks: « What did Etzer Emile say that was wrong? » What is disturbing is not what he says, but what it reveals: our inability to accept responsibility for our own decadence. Between Etzer's lucidity and Gary Victor's prudence I share Etzer Émile's anger, his desire to awaken consciences.
But I believe that the pedagogy of anger must be accompanied by a pedagogy of contextualization. One does not speak of Dessalines as a slogan. One speaks of him as a matrix of meaning, a moral compass, an eternal cry of dignity. Yes, we must create a new historical date—a date of rupture, of rebirth, a day of revolt against mediocrity, corruption, injustice, and resignation. But this revolution, unlike that of 1804, must not be made with guns, but with ideas, rigor, discipline, and collective courage. Dessalines, if he were alive today, might not need to shoot anyone.
He would simply demand that we be worthy of his sacrifice, of his legacy. Etzer Émile is not wrong.
But we must learn to speak truths without crushing symbols.
Because in a country where everything is crumbling, symbols are sometimes the last stones holding the wall upright.