> It's just crazy that the NYT wrote a lengthy article about France's relationship with Haiti after the war, but left out the genocide of the French population of Haiti. That is the sort of thing that causes bad blood between nations for decades, if not centuries. Maybe France would have given up on enforcing the debt sooner if it hadn't been for that historical context? The NYT doesn't even explore the possibility.
Assuming that's true, it's good evidence that journalists should stick to journalism and stay out of writing history. I like the NYT, but it seems like they've lately been taking themselves too seriously and wading into activities where they are not competent. IMHO, if they want to do projects like this, they should commission actual historians to write them.
They say that journalism is the rough draft of history. There's not much good in creating a rough draft for something that happened 230 years ago, and more than likely has better coverage elsewhere.