There Are Still Colonies

[King Blackwood]

Of course the comparison to a colony is apt - they are colonies. But again, I object to the implication that they lack agency in these matters. The territories in question have democratic rights. They do not have full representation in the US federal electoral process, but they have the ability to change that if they wish. As I linked above, Puerto Rico recently achieved a majority in favor of statehood and that process is still moving forward, with a federally-funded plebiscite on the issue being enacted.

As it stands, the territories do not have equal standing, nor do the citizens of said territories enjoy fully comparable rights and privileges as other US citizens. It's unfortunate, and I've not studied it much, but it doesn't seem that there is a powerful agitation for a change in the status quo coming from within those populations at this time. Would you force them to change to something that they do not themselves want?

I'm fully for Puerto Rican statehood, and I'm wondering why real steps haven't been taken towards their accession to statehood seeing as they had a non-binding referendum on it two years ago.

Well key things for many of these places are size and location. Guam has a population of around 150,000 people and is fairly isolated. On one hand, independence will mean a reduction in their standard of living - almost certainly. OP suggested some kind of arrangement where they are nominally independent but the US props them up economically. IMO, that is actually worse than being a colony. You are dependent on another (now foreign) government for aid and don't get any benefits of citizenship.

Going the other route and becoming a US State is problematic because they would get 2 US Senators representing a population much smaller than an average US city and therefore be way over-represented in the federal government. Many people are already unhappy with this when it comes to small population states like Wyoming having the same senate representation as California. The status quo for Guam, being that they do have US citizenship, is probably the best deal around for all parties involved. And I' not saying that because I am an American and dislike criticism of the fact that we do maintain a few colonies, I just think it makes the most practical sense from the perspective of both Guam and the US.

Puerto Rico is an entirely different animal since they have more people than several current US states. I'd fully support PR as a State if that is what they want to do, or if they wanted to be independent I'd support that too.

Micronesian, Palauan, and Marshallese citizens (the members of the Compact of Free Association) have access to US social services, can move to, and live indefinitely in, the US, and are fully protected by the the US Armed Forces. Plus, they are universally recognized as sovereign nations and have a seat in the UN, control over foreign affairs, etc...

I agree they are too small and too far to be states, so COFA membership is a win-win as I see it. They're independent and still get nearly all of the perks of being a US territory.

While I agree that jumping up and down and going "Slavery bad!" is the worst possible way to address a topic of constitutional rights - there are somewhere between 12 million and 27 million slaves in the world at the moment, depending on definitions: half are in India, and around thirty to forty thousand are in the USA (if anyone can get this site working, it's a useful source, but my work computer hates it), so if your target is slavery, you have many better targets - I agree with ljkeane that there are serious questions to be asked about the democratic position of dependent territories' citizens.

Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Life, though, is a balance of those factors. I give up taxation ££ to pay for the safety of police and fire services. Every adult in London recently got a £4.70 tax cut (or promise not to increase tax, I forget which) in order to close seven fire stations. When the first person dies because a fire engine can't get to a burning house in time due to extra distance travelled, I don't think that the relatives of the dead will call that a good trade off.

And so it is with everything. Guam and Jersey, both islands, don't need to run their own navies because the US and UK respectively do it for them. Farewell protectorate status: hello drug smugglers. (I'm not saying there aren't drug smugglers using those islands at the moment, I'm just saying that having a navy hanging around can help.)

Then again, two hour queues for polling booths in certain areas of the USA proper is effectively disenfranchisement, and really, regular citizens get virtually no more rights than residents of these islands. (I don't include the American Samoan-not-being-US-citizens bit, which seems ridiculous especially when the other US dependencies' inhabitants are US citizens.) I vote against the person who ends up becoming my MP, and that's it. Don't even get to live in a tax haven.

Symbols of nationhood are important, but so are practicalities. It's for the people living in the area concerned to decide which symbols and which practicalities are important, and to adjust their status to fit.

What I was trying to say with the slavery analogy was that some slaves would sell themselves into slavery for security and economic purposes. The territories may choose to remain in their unequal status for the same reasons (and the territories can be legally bought and sold between sovereign nations). The comparison may be to extreme, and I apologize for having offended all of you.

The Dutch have just divested, three carribean territories are now proper municipalities of the Netherlands. Three others independent nations within the kingdom of the Netherlands (a different entity).

I believe the French have incorporated most if not all of their former colonies that are now not independent.

St Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna, St Martin, St Barthelemy, and New Caledonia are "overseas collectivities" instead of "overseas departments." The collectivities are territories in the traditional sense, and the departments are officially "integral areas of the French Republic."

As for sources...

http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/190920/american-samoa-call-for-autonomy-referendum

http://guampedia.com/guams-political-status/

If you'd like me to provide sources for anything I've said, I'd be happy to, just let me know.

[Jaxom 1974]

If you'd like me to provide sources for anything I've said, I'd be happy to, just let me know.

I think that this has been mentioned by a number of posters already. The esscence of the internet debate: Show. Don't tell.

Needless to say, I'm still not seeing the issue on this topic.

[Reposado]

Do you understand how much people have given up for the right to vote? And you would sell away that...?

I don't vote now. I'd give up my "right" for a sandwich

[King Blackwood]

I think that this has been mentioned by a number of posters already. The esscence of the internet debate: Show. Don't tell.

Needless to say, I'm still not seeing the issue on this topic.

What would you like me to provide a source for? Could you please be more specific?

The issue is that the relationship between territories and colonizers. One owns the other, and that is wrong.

[King Blackwood]

I don't vote now. I'd give up my "right" for a sandwich

And that is terrible.

[all swedes are racist]

I don't vote now. I'd give up my "right" for a sandwich

you've got yourself a deal!

[King Blackwood]

Is slavery inherently evil? Sorry, but I don't quite agree. Is a relationship between a child and a parent inherently evil because the child is completely beholden to the parent, legally, financially and otherwise?

Are you really comparing the relationship between master and slave to parent and child?

First off, most parents love their children. So that's a HUGE difference. The parents are in the relationship not because they get any personal gain out of it, but because they truly care for their child. You also can't legally sell your children...

If you think colonizers have colonies for the benefit of the colonized and not for themselves....well next you'll be quoting "The White Man's Burden".

[King Blackwood]

It's like you didn't even read my post.

1. The relationship between master and slave does not rule out any feelings of love or attachment; and even if it did that doesn't mean it's any less beneficial for a nation involved in the relationship described above.

2. As has already been said many times, the colony may benefit far more from existing under a different nation than the nation in charge.

Clearly you didn't read my post, because otherwise you wouldn't be under the impression that I am in any way trying to condone the actions or motivations of previous colonisers.

Again, your argument is predicated almost entirely on your outrage at thinking someone is trying to justify the kind of slavery practised in previous centuries.

If you love someone you think it's ok to OWN them? Children are legal adults at 18. Slaves are property unless freed by their master. If you love them, and you care about their economic and social security, you can legally free them and keep them on as workers. Very similar to the Compact of Free Association.

[Jaxom 1974]

What would you like me to provide a source for? Could you please be more specific?

The issue is that the relationship between territories and colonizers. One owns the other, and that is wrong.

Well, seeing as multiple posters have asked you to provide evidence to support any statements or claims you're making when you make such statements or claims, I'd say you better be providing sources pretty much every time you post.

As for your thesis, I think it's been pretty well established here that the territories in question, at least add far as US possessions are concerned, that there isn't some sort of nineteenth century colonial mischief going on.

The peoples of these areas have chosen to stay attached to the US by choice, not coercion...

[Castel]

Is slavery inherently evil? Sorry, but I don't quite agree. Is a relationship between a child and a parent inherently evil because the child is completely beholden to the parent, legally, financially and otherwise?

The mistreatment of others is inherently evil, but that doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with slavery as it is defined by oxford online dictionary.

Perhaps. By the same measure autocracy is not inherently evil. It just lacks the protections against the actual mistreatment in one sense or another. which is why democracy is generally preferable. Someone could call that evil I suppose.

Of course, someone could make an argument that it's objectively eveel but even by the above argument it should be avoid.

[King Blackwood]

Well, seeing as multiple posters have asked you to provide evidence to support any statements or claims you're making when you make such statements or claims, I'd say you better be providing sources pretty much every time you post.

As for your thesis, I think it's been pretty well established here that the territories in question, at least add far as US possessions are concerned, that there isn't some sort of nineteenth century colonial mischief going on.

The peoples of these areas have chosen to stay attached to the US by choice, not coercion...

The two links I provided contain information on American Samoans and Chamorros calling for greater autonomy...

The Puerto Ricans voted for statehood. Has it been acted upon? No.

Aside from Puerto Rico, when was the last referendum on a change of territorial status held in any of the territories? The Northern Marianas had one in the 90's...that's twenty years ago. The others? I'm having a tough time coming up with anything.

The US Virgin Islands asked to join the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The US said no.

[King Blackwood]

I think it's okay to OWN anything, provided both participants are happy in that situation. It's not justice to say no to this kind of relationship and then walk away whilst the former ''slave'' sinks into poverty and misery.

Hence the Compact of Free Association.

[Castel]

I think it's okay to OWN anything, provided both participants are happy in that situation. It's not justice to say no to this kind of relationship and then walk away whilst the former ''slave'' sinks into poverty and misery.

What sort of ownership is that?

[King Blackwood]

Isn't it kind of bullshit to say you're free, despite being beholden to another nation in everything but words?

CoFA seems ideal compared to colonies, but how different is it really in a modern society?

They go from being an owned colony to being a fully independent nation. They get a seat at the UN, all while keeping the vast majority of benefits from when they were colonies. I think that's a pretty big deal.

[Jaxom 1974]

The two links I provided contain information on American Samoans and Chamorros calling for greater autonomy...

The Puerto Ricans voted for statehood. Has it been acted upon? No.

Aside from Puerto Rico, when was the last referendum on a change of territorial status held in any of the territories? The Northern Marianas had one in the 90's...that's twenty years ago. The others? I'm having a tough time coming up with anything.

The US Virgin Islands asked to join the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The US said no.

First: Well done on linking something that goes along with a statement you're making. Well done.

Second: You do realize that it is incumbent on these territories to decide for themselves on what their status is, correct? Take the Marinaras for example, they're the ones who chose to go the route they have. They'll be the ones to change it if they so choose.

The people of the Northern Mariana Islands decided in the 1970s not to seek independence, but instead to forge closer links with the United States. Negotiations for territorial status began in 1972 and a covenant to establish a commonwealth in political union with the United States was approved in a 1975 referendum. A new government and constitution went into effect in 1978 after being approved in a 1977 referendum. Similar to other U.S. territories, the islands do not have representation in the U.S. Senate, but are represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by a delegate (beginning January 2009 for the CNMI) who may vote in committee but not on the House floor.

The United States isn't holding a gun to their heads here.

[Aemon Stark]

It would seem that these territories are about as oppressed as the residents of Washington DC, which is to say, not at all.

The slavery analogy is entirely specious and inapplicable. I don't know that anything more needs to be said about that.

And while I'm not an "international affairs major", I do have an honours BA in political science and wrote my honours thesis on theories of sovereignty applied to Quebec secession question.

[Reposado]

They go from being an owned colony to being a fully independent nation. They get a seat at the UN, all while keeping the vast majority of benefits from when they were colonies. I think that's a pretty big deal.

so a seat at the UN? that's really going to make a difference to them.

when you consider how many sporcle quizzes will have to be edited, i'm not sure how it's worth it

[King Blackwood]

First: Well done on linking something that goes along with a statement you're making. Well done.

Second: You do realize that it is incumbent on these territories to decide for themselves on what their status is, correct? Take the Marinaras for example, they're the ones who chose to go the route they have. They'll be the ones to change it if they so choose.

The people of the Northern Mariana Islands decided in the 1970s not to seek independence, but instead to forge closer links with the United States. Negotiations for territorial status began in 1972 and a covenant to establish a commonwealth in political union with the United States was approved in a 1975 referendum. A new government and constitution went into effect in 1978 after being approved in a 1977 referendum. Similar to other U.S. territories, the islands do not have representation in the U.S. Senate, but are represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by a delegate (beginning January 2009 for the CNMI) who may vote in committee but not on the House floor.

The United States isn't holding a gun to their heads here.

I'm aware that the Northern Mariana Islands chose to become a US territory instead of a UN Trust Territory under US control.

Guam, on the other hand, was annexed by the US from the Spanish Empire, and they haven't had a say in their territorial status since.

The US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark during WW1 without consulting the residents.

Samoa was partitioned between Imperial Germany and the US in 1899, again without any say from the natives.

So for the most part, the US literally was holding a gun to the natives heads when they became territories. The Northern Marianas are no exception. The US gained control during WW2, and the constitutional change in the '70's was just them choosing to remain under the US. It makes sense that they'd want remain politically tied to Guam, as they are historically one nation, the Chamorro. And they chose that status forty years ago. Opinions change.

I've already stated that there is an independence movement in the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), with support from many of the native Chamorros. Here's another link.

[Gertrude]

The Puerto Ricans voted for statehood. Has it been acted upon? No.

That is actually disputed because of the way the question was phrased and lack of other responses. But say they did, this still has to be voted on by our disfunctional congress. PR tend to vote Democrat, so it would be interesting to see how hard the GOP fight it.

I get it, on a gut level it doesn't feel right to me either, but I don't see it in the same light as slavery. Exploitation? More likely, but this is a situation I am not well informed on, so have to cobble up views and facts on the fly. I do have a Certificate of Logic, however, and it says the slavery anaology is a crap way to make your point.

[King Blackwood]

Seems to me like the nations in CoFA with the USA are just extra seats for the US

^This is a good argument. If they are dependent on the US, are they truly free in international relations? Probably not. But it is "Free Association." If they wanted to go it alone, their Head of State (they have their own Head of State, also a big deal) could say so. If they wanted to associate themselves with another country, they could.

That is actually disputed because of the way the question was phrased and lack of other responses. But say they did, this still has to be voted on by our disfunctional congress. PR tend to vote Democrat, so it would be interesting to see how hard the GOP fight it.

I get it, on a gut level it doesn't feel right to me either, but I don't see it in the same light as slavery. Exploitation? More likely, but this is a situation I am not well informed on, so have to cobble up views and facts on the fly. I do have a Certificate of Logic, however, and it says the slavery anaology is a crap way to make your point.

The official stances of both Obama and Romney said they would support the Puerto Ricans with whatever they would choose. "Official stance" and what the parties actually do are very different things, for sure, but the stance is something, no?