🚀 go-pugleaf

jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.214015.6724@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>>   You need to read a little more history of the Phillipines, also Takaki's
>>   excellent history of Asian-Americans, which covers the US attitude
>>   toward the Filipinos.  Your assertion that Puerto Ricans don't "want
>>   independence" is somewhat at variance with the facts.  A significant
>>   minority of the population _do_ want independence, and an even larger
>>   group want the priviliges of statehood.  And, in any event, it has
>>   _nothing_ to do with the original imperialistic motivations of the US
>>   Government.

>You know as well as I that repeated referenda in Puerto Rico have
>rejected any change from the present commonwealth status.  Certainly
>an insignificant fraction of their population wants independence, and
>another insignificant fraction wants statehood.  However in a
>democracy the will of the people is determined by a majority vote.

I know that such referenda have occurred, with a great deal of
dissension and a lot of politicking.  Your dismissal of any of the sides
as "an insignificant fraction" is not only undemocratic, it's untrue.
My memory of the most recent voting is that about 25% of the population
wanted independence and another 25% wanted statehood (actually that
particular group was considerable larger, I think).  The tradeoff, of
course, is that statehood was tied up heavily with the fact that Puerto
Ricans speak Spanish and English is the national language of the US --
not an inconsiderable barrier.  Not to mention the loss of certain
economic protection, nor the influence on voting of the US corporations
using the island as a source for _very_ cheap labor.

Not that this has anything to do, of course, with your original
contention that the US hasn't acquired any land (or maybe it's "much"
land through imperialistic acquisition.  The fact that the Philippines
were eventually given independence and Puerto Rico commonwealth status
in not way negates their original acquisition.  A fact which you
continue to ignore.


>>   Obviously you weren't around in the 1960s, or you would realize that a
>>   lot of people living in Watts, Harlem, etc. _did_ consider themselves
>>   --with plenty of reason--to be colonies.  And there is a great deal to
>>   be said for maintaining a source of cheap labor.  But that's another
>>   issue.

>I remember the 1960s quite well.  It was a period of political
>extremism, on both sides, where catchphrases were used as weapons of
>class struggle, more than as accurate descriptions of reality.  The
>word colony obviously does not apply to these neighborhoods, but was
>used as an epithet for the racism and economic malaise they suffered
>under (and still do).

>>   Anyway, WHAT ABOUT THE INDIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>I prefer the Yankees, myself.
>--
Hmm, cute, Jim, but still...  Why does the US policy toward the
indigenous population -- of that area outside the original 13 colonies
-- not constitute imperialism?  It's a very simple question, and one you
continue to avoid by asserting that all US territory was acquired _from
European nations_ by "legitimate" means -- that is, war or purchase.

Frankly, it beats the hell out of me why you feel the need to portray US
policy as lily-white simply to criticize Israeli policy.  It simply adds
credence to the frequently-voiced opinion of Israelis that they are
being held to a higher standard than anyone else in the world.  It
betrays an astonishingly blinkered vision of history.

--Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson