Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US acquired those countries and never made them a state. They may have some autonomy, but are not totally on their own. You can call it anything you want, but a territory is at least a pseudo-colony and not a state.
Except for the original 13, every US state was a territory first. And the first 13 states were originally colonies, but they fought a costly war to divest themselves.
The current US territories aren't being exploited like colonies traditionally have been. And if they voted to become independent, it most likely wouldn't result in a war.
This would be a moot issue if the problems of failed states were confined to them. If terrorists weren't posing as refugees. Of if Western lands were more vigilant in keeping them out.
The only reason we should bring back colonialism is to protect ourselves, if it indeed would. What Somali pirates, the Hutsies and Tootsies, or an Ottoman Poobah does is not our concern unless if affects out interests. All the foreign adventures we have engaged in since 1993 would surely have met with George Washington's approbation.
Europe may find it in its best interest to exert more systematic control over its former possessions but that is up to them. Europe might also feel threatened by Russia's renewed belligerence. But the day when Russia posed a threat to us is over. Who controls Crimea affects us not in the least. It isn't 1850 anymore.
Similarly, it's hard to see what the Spratley Islands are to us or we to them. If Japan, Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines can't muster to the will to defend their own interests, it commends no action by us on their part in return.
Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, the rest, have been brought into the 20th Century through our efforts. Our duty to them is discharged.
The barbarians are alive. Why should we act just like Isis? They think just as you do.
^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Because once they are removed, most of the developed world has enough of a conscience to return to civilized behavior, just as it did after exterminating the scourge of Nazism.
Any more questions?
I have one. Do you prefer gas chambers or starvation as a means of carrying out the genocide you propose?
The fact is that what you are advocating is exactly what the Nazis practiced.
The US acquired those countries and never made them a state. They may have some autonomy, but are not totally on their own. You can call it anything you want, but a territory is at least a pseudo-colony and not a state.
While what you say is true, it's still not colonialism. Colonialism isn't just one country having political control over another country/area. It is an economic system in which subject foreign areas provided raw materials to enrich the "mother country" with little to no regard for the effects on the colony. Political control is a means to an end, ie, securing that whatever wealth the colony produces flows to the mother country.
While the US acquired its territories with colonial motives, it really hasn't practiced colonialism, if at all, since WW II. It gave independence to the Philippines after WW II. I believe that Puerto Rico has voted several times to remain a territory rather than become independent or become a state. I'm not sure if the Pacific island territories have voted on independence or statehood, but they're self-governing except for foreign affairs, and the presence of US military facilities on the Pacific islands as well as Puerto Rico, benefit these islands rather than exploit them, so the US model of governing overseas territories is not colonialism.
Not to minimize the plight of your historical family, but almost every disadvantage in pre-independence Singapore similarly existed pre-1960 for non-whites in many areas of the rural US south without colonialism. Terrible conditions continue to still exist in some areas.
Maybe it's just me reading it wrong, but this paragraph makes no sense to me.
It gave independence to the Philippines after WW II.
the natives of the Philippines were on the verge of winning their independence from Spain when the Americans came. only the capital of Manila was still on the hands of the Spaniards.
they should have never been there in the first place
People who are interested in what can happen when colonialism goes awry should read "King Leopold's Ghost", which is the story of Belgium and how its mendacious king, Leopold, used the entire Congo region as his personal plantation. Millions were killed by various means, and the extent of the tragedy was not fully understood until the 1960s!
It occurred during the 1880's and forward. The movie, "Apocalypse Now" was based on the book "Heart of Darkness", by Joseph Conrad who used actual events and people he observed during his travels to Congo back when it was Belgian Congo.
On the subject of The Phillippeans, someone should point out that the US under Teddy Roosevelt killed some 250,000 of them in an attempt to bring them democracy and civilization, and acquire a colony. Thankfully, WW2 erased that memory for us all, and replaced a previously hated America with the currently hated Japanese.
People who are interested in what can happen when colonialism goes awry should read "King Leopold's Ghost", which is the story of Belgium and how its mendacious king, Leopold, used the entire Congo region as his personal plantation. Millions were killed by various means, and the extent of the tragedy was not fully understood until the 1960s!
It occurred during the 1880's and forward. The movie, "Apocalypse Now" was based on the book "Heart of Darkness", by Joseph Conrad who used actual events and people he observed during his travels to Congo back when it was Belgian Congo.
On the subject of The Phillippeans, someone should point out that the US under Teddy Roosevelt killed some 250,000 of them in an attempt to bring them democracy and civilization, and acquire a colony. Thankfully, WW2 erased that memory for us all, and replaced a previously hated America with the currently hated Japanese.
Life goes on.
Talking about colonialism.
The US colony of Puerto Rico is known as the Greece of the caribbean and like Greece it is in debt. The US government does not allow the island citizens to declare bankruptcy and restructure the loans. The US is more concerned with the investors in the vulture funds than with the colony.
And I agree, no one ever talks about the massacre in the Phillipines.
I think "colonialism" as practiced with the modern British Overseas Territories (Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falklands, the Caymans, etc) is largely positive for both the UK and the territories themselves. The territories are basically self sufficient but rely on the UK for defense, foreign affairs, specialist police assistance, and other functions normally associated with a national government. They are also self governing over most day to day matters. In the case of Bermuda poll after poll shows well over 75% of Bermudians - Black and White - content with the current arrangement.
In the case of Puerto Rico, the current fiscal crisis is caused largely by out of control spending. It has nothing to do with status. Puerto Rico could be a state or an independent nation and it could be just as indebted as it is as a territory. For the record, I am a huge Puerto Rico statehood supporter. In regards to other US territories such as Guam or the US Virgin Islands I favor a sort of reworked version of territorial status that would be like a statehood-lite than a "colony". These territories are too strategic for us to give up and they lack natural resources and a viable economy to support independence. Furthermore history has shown that very, very few Puerto Ricans or Guamanians would be willing to give up US citizenship, federal funding, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
Again, in regards to Puerto Rico - despite being a conservative - I strongly support allowing US territories to have access to Chapter 9 protections under the Federal Bankruptcy Code. That said, Puerto Rico is also going to have to cut spending and roll back some of the anti-business regulations and absurdly excessive local taxes imposed over the years. I believe the Republican Party is too welded to big business and big money donors and that is disgusting - and it badly hurts the party's image. This whole Puerto Rico fiscal crisis has driven a huge wedge between me and the GOP. I believe that a conservative we should be standing up for ALL Americans and that we should not support vulture funds over Americans ... period. I have actually gained a ton of respect for my state's US Sen. Chuck Schumer. I disagree with him on 99% of issues but on this particular issue he is 100% in the right. Also, from the conservative point of view I am concerned that refusing to help Puerto Rico in a fair manner could play right into the hands of the Democratic Party in next years elections and with the huge Puerto Rican populations in critical swing states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania it could end up handing the Democrats the Senate and put Hillary in the White House. Putting Hillary in the White House would be faaaaaaar more expensive than any debt restructuring. Unfortunately my party is stupid and in bed with big money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
