Disparates
I will start with the usual disclaimer I make every time I discuss this issue at Telling Stories: when it comes to Puerto Rico, I am and have always been pro-Statehood. I don't see Puerto Rico's status as a "cultural dilemma" or a matter of national identity. When it comes to Puerto Rico's status, Puertoricans are being asked to make a political decision. If P.R. votes for statehood, I'm fairly certain that the next day Puerto Rico won't have a majority white, blond, blue-eyed population, people won't jump out of bed speaking English, El Yunque won't be a snow-covered peak, and Puerto Rico won't be any more or less racist than it is now.
I also believe that if at any time I believed P.R. couldn't or shouldn't become a State, the only true alternative left is to become an independent nation where Puertoricans have full control of their affairs. Again, not a matter of culture or nationalism, just a matter of political self-determination.
What I hate is the current colonial status.
And what I really hate is the idea the pro-Commonwealth party is now putting forth that there is room for "improvement" in this relationship. Even the headlines don't make sense:
Which translates to "sovereignty under federal control." If it doesn't make sense to you, welcome to the club. That's nothing more than wanting to have the cake and eat it too. And what's more, there's no room under the U.S. Constitution for such a creature:Soberanía bajo control federal
Some in Puerto Rico have proposed a “New Commonwealth” status, under which Puerto Rico would become an autonomous, non-territorial, non-State entity in permanent union with the United States under a covenant that could not be altered without the “mutual consent” of Puerto Rico and the federal Government. In October 2000, a few months before President Clinton established the Task Force, the House Committee on Resources held a hearing on a bill (H.R. 4751) incorporating a version of the “New Commonwealth” proposal. William Treanor, who held the same position in the Office of Legal Counsel that I now hold, testified that this proposal was not constitutional. . .
The effect of this legal conclusion is that the “New Commonwealth” option, as the Task Force understood it, is not consistent with the Constitution. Any promises that the United States might make regarding Puerto Rico’s status as a commonwealth would not be binding. Puerto Rico would remain subject to Congress’s authority under the Territory Clause of the Constitution “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” Puerto Rico receives a number of benefits from this status, such as favorable tax treatment. And Puerto Rico may remain in its current Commonwealth, or territorial, status indefinitely, but always subject to Congress’s ultimate authority to alter the terms of that status, as the Constitution provides that Congress may do with any U.S. territory.
What's even more interesting is that the pro-Commonwealth supporters don't even realize - or don't want to realize, since colonialism hurts - is that, from the beginning, the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico is not a relationship between equals. Here's what the governor proposes:
Lo que plantea el desarrollo del ELA, fundamentado en la soberanía del pueblo de Puerto Rico, es que nos sentemos de tú a tú . . . y que en ese diálogo franco, con ciudadanía americana, se tomen los acuerdos que se tenga que tomar de hasta dónde es que llega la jurisdicción . . . Que esté claro que el poder último de gobernarnos y tomar nuestras decisiones está en las manos de los puertorriqueños.
Which translates to,
So, what the pro-Commonwealth crew wants is for the federal government to (a) give up its control over P.R., (b) to reach an agreement where U.S. citizenship is non-negotiable, (c) to enter into an agreement about how far the feds can go to apply federal law, and (d) with the government of Puerto Rico having the ultimate say on whether those laws apply to it and its citizens or not.What the development of the Commonwealth grounded in the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico proposes is that we [the U.S. and P.R.] sit down and negotiate as equals . . . and that as part of that earnest dialogue, with American citizenship, whatever agreements that must be made are made to determine how far the [federal] jurisdiction reaches . . . Let it be clear that the ultimate power of self-government lies with the Puertorican people.
You tell me: disparates, yes or no?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Disparates.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.latinopundit.com/~latinopu/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/371
18 Comments
Leave a comment
While I disagree with your position on Rican statehood, I agree with you 100% with the "huh?" with the Pava's "new" idea. I have no idea how the hell the island can be sovereign under a federal government.
A colony by another name is still a colony.
While I disagree with your position on Rican statehood, I agree with you 100% with the "huh?" with the Pava's "new" idea. I have no idea how the hell the island can be sovereign under a federal government.
A colony by another name is still a colony.
definitely. I can't see why they think they can get that status when something not too dissimilar (for different reasons) caused a nontrivial conflagration between the States about 150 years ago: nullification == bad idea.
Speaking as blonde and blue, I'm pro statehood, but especially anti colonial. As much as I'd hate to see PR go, I'd rather that than the status it currently has.
Will, at least it was a "conflict between the States." P.R. isn't even one! And I agree with you in being anti-colonial: either you pursue political equality as another State or you pursue political equality as an independent nation in the world.
Otherwise, like Meagan said, a colony by any other name is still a colony.
No me gusta la idea Estado Libre Asociado. O somos el estado cincuenta y uno o somos independiente.
at least it was a "conflict between the States" P.R. isn't even one!
True. However, once you let one part of the US become something of that nature, the others will want it too. Rep Serrano put it pretty well:
http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2008/04/congressman-sereno-discusses-hr900.html
Otherwise, like Meagan said, a colony by any other name is still a colony.
amen. (and I am not terribly religious)
How's the kiddo doing?
How's the kiddo doing?
I wouldn't know, Will. You'll have to ask Mr. Latino Pundit himself. (No, it's not split personalities or even "Bruce Wayne/Batman." We really are two different bloggers!!!)
Thanks for asking Will. Everything is great; as you can imagine I am getting not a lot of sleep and am very busy; I should be posting an update soon.
Thanks again
Looks like Hawaii wants out of the U.S.A., and the flag already has fifty stars. So if Puerto Rico ever votes for statehood, there might just be an opening.
"Looks like Hawaii wants out of the U.S.A."
Actually, you will find that it is a vocal minority that wants this. Most are, iirc, of the aboriginal population that is distinctly very much a minority. The vast majority of the rest are very much for staying in the US.
You will find in many states - Alaska, California, and Texas to name ones that I hear about the most - that they all have separatist movements. None of them, including Hawaii, are even close to being able to must any sort of mass movement to make it happen.
Even then, you will find that this question has been settled, oh, about 150 years ago in a rather fraticidal manner.
You've got a good point there. Personally I think Staten island should be the fifty-first state. They're never liked being part of NYC, and New Jersey isn't crazy about them either.
But seriously, I sited Hawaii (in jest) to make a point- two points actually. The first point is, statehood for Puerto Rico will mean some loss of cultural identity. Puerto Rico will just be another state, and so there will be nothing more special about it than Alaska or Hawaii.
The second point is that right now the US is gong through a very significant election. She should wait to see how the new President (whomever that is) feels about commonwealths and US territories.
Being a state right now, might not be the best deal in town.
Well, in that case, NorCal would LOVE to dump SoCal. I have a feeling though that there are plenty of states with sections that'd love to do some dumping or jump ship themselves. IIRC, only Texas has that right w/o Congress getting involved.
I think that the people of PR ought to decide for themselves one way or another irregardless of whatever the new President may feel. We just need to clear the way and make it plain colonial status is unacceptable.
The first point is, statehood for Puerto Rico will mean some loss of cultural identity. Puerto Rico will just be another state, and so there will be nothing more special about it than Alaska or Hawaii.
First Marc, why would 'ricans have any loss of cultural identity? How? What is it about statehood that would change that? That is one of the biggest myths about statehood out there.
Second, you could make the same argument if P.R. became a sovereign country: there would be nothing special about it; it would be just another nation. And, IMHO, the current status is just degrading.
The second point is that right now the US is gong through a very significant election. She should wait to see how the new President (whomever that is) feels about commonwealths and US territories.
Puertoricans have to ask for statehood. Congress will grant it or it won't. And if the reasons for the denial can be addressed - e.g., need a "supermajority" - then you deal with that. If the differences can't be resolved, it's either free associated republic or independence. The U.S. can tell P.R. whether it can become a state. But it cannot keep P.R. from making - and pursuing - other non-territorial solutions like independence.
The U.S. has every right to say "no" to P.R. statehood or free associated republic. It has no right to say "no" to P.R. independence.
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like a void. So it goes. What can I say? I haven't gotten anything done today, but maybe tomorrow. Eh.,
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like a void. So it goes. What can I say? I haven't gotten anything done today, but maybe tomorrow.
Name, it seems to me that you just need some time to "go away" mentally, take in the view, and forget about the world for a while. Not necessarily a vacation. A stroll in the park may do the trick.
well done, brother
I don't get your comment about "self-determination" and "culture" WITHOUT independence.
That is sheer political naivete. You need independence to achieve one and maintain the other.
History is littered with the examples of conquered peoples and their obliterated cultures.
You need independence to achieve one and maintain the other.
GRT, so you suggest that Puerto Rico's culture as it is is worthless? Because after all Puerto Rico hasn't been "independent" in over 514 years. We were a colonized people under Spanish rule too, remember? In essence, you're saying Puerto Rico's culture doesn't count because P.R. has been forever colonized and the only people who would have any hint of "real P.R. culture," Taíno natives, are long gone.
Second, you're essentially advocating that P.R. must be independent in order to determine whether it wants to be independent.
That is naive.
What P.R. needs is to be able to make a fully informed decision as to what it means to be a state, what it means to be a free associated republic, and what it means to be independent in terms of rights and responsibilities.
Puerto Rico's culture is Puerto Rico's culture. There are over 4 million people living in an area about 3,300 square miles. The overwhelming majority are Puerto Ricans. Unless that changes dramatically, the predominant culture will be the majority's culture, i.e., Puerto Ricans.