I read the article. I just wanted to point out that statement was entirely incorrect.
As for the top comment the point they are making is that you can’t have a conversation about Haiti without including all the details. All history is complicated and leaving out or downplaying major pieces of the story is a bad idea. There is no one simple explanation that answers the article’s question.
The top comment missed this part of the article entirely where they actually did mention and consider some effects of colonialism, and dismissed it as a major factor (due to the reasons given in the part I quoted, and more, "Indeed, Mats Lundahl, the leading economic historian of Haiti, does not even include the indemnity in his list of decisive events in Haiti’s economic history.").
Whether that was wrong or too simplistic might be up for debate but the assertion that they didn't mention imperialism is just incorrect.
As for the top comment the point they are making is that you can’t have a conversation about Haiti without including all the details. All history is complicated and leaving out or downplaying major pieces of the story is a bad idea. There is no one simple explanation that answers the article’s question.