hampshire_1365-OBJ (3)

themselves ­­ at any cost necessary, especially throughout the 1900s. As the Dominican
government and elite set out to “modernize” the country, they “sought to privilege an ideal
somatic type (white/European), preferred regions (Cibao and Southeast), dominant gender
(male), and supreme status (property owner) – standards that would define the modern
62
Dominican citizen.” The Dominican government began targeting palo in the 19th century with
63 64
the ​Bando de Policía y Buen Gobiern which prohibited Vodú​ ​practices. More specifically, in
65
1878 the ​Resolución del Ejecutivo ​ prohibited palo music and dance. Davis discusses the
political voice and reason behind these prohibitions:
Se denuncia y lamenta escenas de inmoralidad que se están
efectuando en los barrios de Santa Bárbara y San Miguel,
y que se proyecta repetirlos en el pueblo de San Carlos,
tales como ‘bailes tan obscenos, tan infernales, que su
66
pluma no se atreve a explicar.’
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo went as far as to punish Vodú participation with up to one year in
67
prison, and a 500 peso fine with Law 391 of September 20, 1943. These “modern Dominican
citizen standards” excluded many Dominicans and led to a persecution of Afro­Dominicanness
that demanded a response. There were two Vodú movements that were critical to the survival of
palo in the Dominican Republic: the ​Liborismo ​and ​Palma Sola​ movements. These movements
62
​Adams, Jr. 9.
63
City ordinances.
64
Davis 35; Torres­Saillant 132.
65
Executive Resolution.
66
It denounces and regrets scenes of immorality that are taking place in the neighborhoods of Santa Barbara and San
Miguel, and projecting that the same is repeated in the village of San Carlos, such as ‘obscene dancing , so hellish ,
that His pen dare not explain.’ ​Davis 35.
67
Torres­Saillant 133.
21