8 thoughts on “Bush and the political status of Puerto Rico…”
Asking Puerto Ricans to vote in a plebiscite is akin to taking a vote of enslaved peoples in the United States the 1855 to decide if they want to continue being slaves or if slavery should be abolished.
If you are not going to begin from the premise that all peoples have an inalienable right to self determination and to accomplish it by any means necessary, then there really isn’t anything of substance to debate.
Don Pedro Albizu Campos laid out, in a legal brief in a case that was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, why, under international law and under its own laws, the acquisition of Puerto Rico by the United States was illegal and why the Treaty of Paris, pursuant to which Spain purported to cede Puerto Rico to the United States as “spoils of war,” was null and void “ab initio” (from its inception) because it violated the Autonomic Charter pursuant to which Puerto Rico was granted autonomy by Spain.
The passage of over 100 years does not change these facts. It is patently absurd to be continually debating whether Puerto Rico wants to be independent or not and whether Puerto Rico wants to decide for itself its own status and its own future.
I pose to you readers this question: If, in the porposed plebisicite of 1855 that i mentioned earlier, enslaved people had voted against abolition, would this have legitimizewd slavery or would it have continued to be a scourge on the human race and a crime against humanity?
Regardless of the status, PR will always be within the U.S. sphere of influence and economic grip. Make no mistake about this. Look at the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America. On the Puerto Rican side, what is the reason for raising the question of status now? On the U.S. side, why seek to address it now?
I believe that we continue to be used and played like political puppets by the U.S. government. Slavery was wrong in the past and continues to be wrong in the future. Many colonialized Boricuas are unaware that the acquisition of PR by the US was illegal and that the plebiscite stems from that evil. But I believe the question now becomes one of if the people of PR can govern their own land & economics rather than the legality of the plebiscite. How can there ever be a majority vote for independence if many mainland Boricuas still possess a colonialized mentality?
Bush Administration Proposes Vote by Puerto Ricans on Status
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 (AP) – The Bush administration gingerly stepped into the debate over Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States on Thursday, asking Congress to set another vote for the island’s citizens to decide on their future.
Puerto Rico has been a United States commonwealth since 1952, when Congress approved the relationship. Puerto Ricans voted to keep that status quo and reject statehood in nonbinding referendums in 1967, 1993 and 1998.
But deep divisions remain, with a sizable number of Puerto Ricans supporting the call for statehood and a much smaller group backing full independence. Statehood would bring the right to vote for president and voting representation in Congress. Full independence would require some Puerto Ricans to relinquish American citizenship.
The issue raises tricky political questions in the United States. For instance, admitting Puerto Rico as a state could affect the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.
President Bush’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status concluded that another vote by Puerto Ricans was the best next step. Releasing its final report on Thursday, the panel urged Congress to set a vote, or at least hold hearings on the issue, by the end of next year.
The panel took no position on which of the three options – continued commonwealth status, statehood or independence – was preferable. It said the plebiscite should ask Puerto Ricans to choose between remaining a United States commonwealth or moving toward a permanent solution.
If Puerto Ricans supported a permanent status option, another plebiscite should be set to choose between statehood and independence, the panel said.
The island’s nearly four million people have been American citizens since 1917. Islanders can serve in the American military but are barred from voting for president, have no voting representation in Congress and pay no federal income taxes.
It’s always odd to read Puerto Ricans objectified by the New York Times or any other North American media. I always feel somewhat soiled or insulted.
As far as the status question. It may be a colonial charade or a symptom of our condition (inertia — no exit — living in bad faith) but we certainly enjoy talking about it.
In practice, what would it mean for Puerto Rico. Greater poverty, and fewer amenities. More, not less drugs and violence. Etc. Think about it. Nothing could be more disadvantageous under the terms that would be exacted from the Gargantuan north of us. If the U.S. and we were able to think out of the 19th century colonial box, and past the 20th century neocolonial strait jacket, perhaps we might invent a more exciting future relationship. Perhaps a partnership.
Tito, tito, tito . . .. do you actually believe in what you just wrote. Obviously, in essence, there are more obstacles to overcome if PR decided to move towads independence. There is nothing “exciting” about any potential “future relationship” when currently the US denies PR their right to be free. We often want the ocean but without the might roar of its waves, liberty without sacrifice, independence without struggle. With all do respect Tito, you are thinking with a colonialized mentality which has impaired your discernment on issues concerning justice and freedom. After years of servitude, the slave, growing accustomed to his/her bonds, with good behavior, becomes a house slave. Woe unto the slave if he forgets whose house he lives in because the Master will be quick to give him/her a dose of reality.
In honor of Dr. King – Wake up!
When we examine the political and economical infrastructure of the island, we are faced with the question: “To be to not to be?” as it pertains to the status of our mother land. Our next question are:” What status will be of greater benefit to our struggling economy and failing political infrastructure? What are our long term goals? Is common wealth keeping us in complacency? Will we ever find balance between agriculture and industry? Will we ever become free of a colonial mentality? Will we ever resurrect our economy thru becoming, as in times past, an agricultural giant amongst other carib nations?
Bush has nothing to do with this. On this issue he is “Buchi pluma nama.” He hopes that defining the status of PR will become his trupm card out of his low standings in current polls as it was for Clinton when he ensured the liberty of Viequez. Seemingly solving the issues of PRicans always become a political “double six”. Many a politicans can begin it but Boricas are left with the “capi-cu”.
Asking Puerto Ricans to vote in a plebiscite is akin to taking a vote of enslaved peoples in the United States the 1855 to decide if they want to continue being slaves or if slavery should be abolished.
If you are not going to begin from the premise that all peoples have an inalienable right to self determination and to accomplish it by any means necessary, then there really isn’t anything of substance to debate.
Don Pedro Albizu Campos laid out, in a legal brief in a case that was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, why, under international law and under its own laws, the acquisition of Puerto Rico by the United States was illegal and why the Treaty of Paris, pursuant to which Spain purported to cede Puerto Rico to the United States as “spoils of war,” was null and void “ab initio” (from its inception) because it violated the Autonomic Charter pursuant to which Puerto Rico was granted autonomy by Spain.
The passage of over 100 years does not change these facts. It is patently absurd to be continually debating whether Puerto Rico wants to be independent or not and whether Puerto Rico wants to decide for itself its own status and its own future.
I pose to you readers this question: If, in the porposed plebisicite of 1855 that i mentioned earlier, enslaved people had voted against abolition, would this have legitimizewd slavery or would it have continued to be a scourge on the human race and a crime against humanity?
Regardless of the status, PR will always be within the U.S. sphere of influence and economic grip. Make no mistake about this. Look at the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America. On the Puerto Rican side, what is the reason for raising the question of status now? On the U.S. side, why seek to address it now?
I believe that we continue to be used and played like political puppets by the U.S. government. Slavery was wrong in the past and continues to be wrong in the future. Many colonialized Boricuas are unaware that the acquisition of PR by the US was illegal and that the plebiscite stems from that evil. But I believe the question now becomes one of if the people of PR can govern their own land & economics rather than the legality of the plebiscite. How can there ever be a majority vote for independence if many mainland Boricuas still possess a colonialized mentality?
Bush Administration Proposes Vote by Puerto Ricans on Status
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 (AP) – The Bush administration gingerly stepped into the debate over Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States on Thursday, asking Congress to set another vote for the island’s citizens to decide on their future.
Puerto Rico has been a United States commonwealth since 1952, when Congress approved the relationship. Puerto Ricans voted to keep that status quo and reject statehood in nonbinding referendums in 1967, 1993 and 1998.
But deep divisions remain, with a sizable number of Puerto Ricans supporting the call for statehood and a much smaller group backing full independence. Statehood would bring the right to vote for president and voting representation in Congress. Full independence would require some Puerto Ricans to relinquish American citizenship.
The issue raises tricky political questions in the United States. For instance, admitting Puerto Rico as a state could affect the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.
President Bush’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status concluded that another vote by Puerto Ricans was the best next step. Releasing its final report on Thursday, the panel urged Congress to set a vote, or at least hold hearings on the issue, by the end of next year.
The panel took no position on which of the three options – continued commonwealth status, statehood or independence – was preferable. It said the plebiscite should ask Puerto Ricans to choose between remaining a United States commonwealth or moving toward a permanent solution.
If Puerto Ricans supported a permanent status option, another plebiscite should be set to choose between statehood and independence, the panel said.
The island’s nearly four million people have been American citizens since 1917. Islanders can serve in the American military but are barred from voting for president, have no voting representation in Congress and pay no federal income taxes.
It’s always odd to read Puerto Ricans objectified by the New York Times or any other North American media. I always feel somewhat soiled or insulted.
As far as the status question. It may be a colonial charade or a symptom of our condition (inertia — no exit — living in bad faith) but we certainly enjoy talking about it.
In practice, what would it mean for Puerto Rico. Greater poverty, and fewer amenities. More, not less drugs and violence. Etc. Think about it. Nothing could be more disadvantageous under the terms that would be exacted from the Gargantuan north of us. If the U.S. and we were able to think out of the 19th century colonial box, and past the 20th century neocolonial strait jacket, perhaps we might invent a more exciting future relationship. Perhaps a partnership.
Tito, tito, tito . . .. do you actually believe in what you just wrote. Obviously, in essence, there are more obstacles to overcome if PR decided to move towads independence. There is nothing “exciting” about any potential “future relationship” when currently the US denies PR their right to be free. We often want the ocean but without the might roar of its waves, liberty without sacrifice, independence without struggle. With all do respect Tito, you are thinking with a colonialized mentality which has impaired your discernment on issues concerning justice and freedom. After years of servitude, the slave, growing accustomed to his/her bonds, with good behavior, becomes a house slave. Woe unto the slave if he forgets whose house he lives in because the Master will be quick to give him/her a dose of reality.
In honor of Dr. King – Wake up!
When we examine the political and economical infrastructure of the island, we are faced with the question: “To be to not to be?” as it pertains to the status of our mother land. Our next question are:” What status will be of greater benefit to our struggling economy and failing political infrastructure? What are our long term goals? Is common wealth keeping us in complacency? Will we ever find balance between agriculture and industry? Will we ever become free of a colonial mentality? Will we ever resurrect our economy thru becoming, as in times past, an agricultural giant amongst other carib nations?
Bush has nothing to do with this. On this issue he is “Buchi pluma nama.” He hopes that defining the status of PR will become his trupm card out of his low standings in current polls as it was for Clinton when he ensured the liberty of Viequez. Seemingly solving the issues of PRicans always become a political “double six”. Many a politicans can begin it but Boricas are left with the “capi-cu”.
Happy 3 Kings
Carlito