1915–1934: (The Ubiquity of Surveillance — While Working-Class Peasant and Urban and Rural Poor Women Having Greater Exposure to the Intersecting Dynamics of…

1915–1934: (The Ubiquity of Surveillance — While Working-Class Peasant and Urban and Rural Poor Women Having Greater Exposure to the Intersecting Dynamics of Infrastructural Change and Bodily Harm Surveillance Was Ubiquitous, Ghislaine Remembering an Atmosphere of Surveillance Captured in Archives and Literature, Her Grandfather’s Political Comrade Robert Cabeche Closely Monitored as “a Member of a Family Known to Be Contrary to the Occupation and Gendarmerie,” Wives and Children Perceived as Possible Transporters for Antioccupation Literature and Paraphernalia, US Occupiers Monitoring Information Circulation Because Their Reputation for Brutality Was Spreading — Yet the Reality of Violence Repeatedly Denied by Occupation Officials): While the evidence of encounters in the occupation landscape suggests that working-class, peasant, and urban and rural poor women had greater exposure to the intersecting dynamics of infrastructural change and bodily harm, surveillance was ubiquitous across class lines. As a young person, Ghislaine remembered an atmosphere of surveillance that pervaded every layer of social life. Her grandfather’s political comrade, the same man who had refused to sign the protectorate alongside Auguste Garoute, was being closely monitored. US military records of rebel activity categorized him as Robert Cabeche, a member of a family known to be contrary to the Occupation and Gendarmerie. Surveillance of the Cabeche family and families close to Ghislaine revealed that they too were monitored on the street. In particular, wives and children were perceived as possible transporters of antioccupation literature and paraphernalia — the occupation understood that resistance traveled through domestic and feminine networks as surely as through armed bands. The US occupiers monitored information circulation because during the first decade of the occupation their reputation for brutality was spreading. Yet the reality of violence and impending harm toward Haitians was repeatedly denied by occupation officials. The denial and the violence were not contradictions but twin instruments of the same colonial logic: harm was enacted and then disavowed, the wound inflicted and then declared imaginary.