Blog #40 Puerto Rico statehood?

In less than two weeks, the territory of Puerto Rico will decide on a ballot issue that determines their future. On the ballot, there are two choices:
1. Should Puerto Rico stay as a commonwealth of the United States (its current status)?

2. a. Should Puerto Rico become an American state (something which hasn't happened in over fifty years - adding a new state to the Union);

   b. should Puerto Rico become an independent nation and break political ties with the U.S.;
   c. or should PR become a free nation with an association with the U.S.? 

The territory's residents have voted on this issue three times previously and all attempts to become a state have failed.  The latest vote, in 1998, saw a majority of voters (50.3%) vote for "none of the above" while 46.5% picked statehood and only 2.5% picked independence. 

An argument for independence points to the fact that Puerto Rico is a Latin American nation and that it is culturally, linguistically, and socially different than the U.S.  An advocate for independence stated the following:

"There's no reason for the United States to try to incorporate a Latin American country," he said. "If they want a country, why not Jamaica? They speak English there. It doesn't make sense." 5

Puerto Rico would become the poorest state in the nation, with a GDP of $16,000 and an unemployment rate of 13.7%.  Mississippi is currently the poorest state in the nation with a GDP of $21,000, and Nevada's unemployment is the worst w/ 11.8%.  3 4  By becoming a state, Puerto Ricans would be required to pay federal income taxes, even though the territory currently receives $4 billion in federal aid.  3  If Puerto Rico decides against statehood, they'd still receive federal aid.  Nearly half the island's 3.7 million inhabitants live below the poverty line, but the island is still currently big on tourism.  5

An advocate for statehood feels that the island would get more federal aid than it's currently receiving, especially because of the relative poverty:

"People are getting tired here of having to beg for things states automatically get," said Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock. "Many people who support statehood have moved to the States to enjoy the benefits of statehood. Some people are getting impatient." 5

Benefits for PR statehood would include gaining three representatives in Congress (a representative and two senators). Plus, though Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917, they cannot vote in presidential elections. 1.  The island's residents are allowed to vote in presidential primaries and send delegates to both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.  Puerto Ricans living in the United States, however, can vote in presidential elections. 

Senator Obama in 2008 promised to let the Puerto Ricans decide the issue of their statehood and is therefore in support of this referendum.  He became the first president to visit the island in 50 years when he went in 2011, since JFK went in 1961.  Former governor Mitt Romney has also supported this vote.  What statehood would mean for American politics is unclear: Luis Fortuna, the state's governor, is a Republican, and the state tends to be socially conservative but economically liberal.  Also, the people of the District of Columbia are looking to become a state as a way of balancing out the statehood issue. 


One big thing to remember is that even if a majority of Puerto Ricans vote to become a state on Tuesday, November 6, that does not mean they automatically become a state.  Congress would have to approve of their application for statehood, just like it had done with previous states. 

Your questions:
1. Should Puerto Rico become a state?  Why or why not? 
2. Does the U.S. want or need another state?  What benefits could Puerto Rico bring with it?

Your answer should be a minimum of 200 words and are due Friday, October 26 by 11:59 p.m. 


Sources:
1. http://news.yahoo.com/puerto-rico-statehood-vote-could-election-day-wildcard-100210615.html
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/obama-wants-puerto-rico-to-decide-statehood-or-independence-1-.html
3. http://cornellsun.com/node/52606 Cornell Sun, "Puerto Rico Moving Towards Statehood." 9/13/12.
4. http://www.bls.gov/lau/  Bureau of Labor Statistics.
5. http://www.ibtimes.com/puerto-rico-statehood-bad-business-us-or-next-swing-state-754173  International Business Times, "Puerto Rico Statehood: Bad Business For The U.S. Or The Next Swing State?"  8/23/12.
6. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/new-dc-statehood-plan-strategize-puerto-rico/  The Washington Times. "New D.C. statehood plan: strategize with Puerto Rico?" 9/6/2012. 

Blog #5 - Which debate option do you think is the best?

During our debate, we pretended that we were back in 1898 after having won the Spanish-American War and taken over colonies from Spain like the Philippine Islands. Option 1 argued that America should keep the Philippines and begin the development of an American empire. Option 2 felt that America needed to walk away from the potential empire that we were about to grab ahold of at that time. Option 3 includes the main idea of keeping the important harbor of Manila in the Philippines only, but not the rest of the archipelago. This is more of a business-centered focus as opposed to military (Option 1) or moral (like Option 2).

I want you to look at this from 2 angles:
1. In 1898, which option do you think was best for America? Why?
2. And now, which option do you think would be best for America today if we continue to gain more territory?
(150 words minimum - please make sure you answer both questions). Due Monday 10/20/08

Additional websites/assets:

http://www.filipino-americans.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?url=filamwar.html

http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

http://www.spanamwar.com/warinPhil.htm

http://opmanong.ssc.hawaii.edu/filipino/philam.html

http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/history/buffalo_soldiers/philippine_war.htm

Reenacted trench battle film from 1899 in the war (it's o.k. to laugh, no one died in this fake battle footage): mailto:NUMBER+@band(sawmp+0849))+@field(COLLID+spanam))

The Next Blog (#4) in a Long Series of Excellent Blogs - Is America an Empire?

There have been dozens of books written lately about how America has become an empire - especially with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The premise of many of these books is that whether we like it or not, America is an empire. Whether we like acknowledging it or not is whole other thing.

When many people think of empires, we tend to think of the ancient Romans with their gladiators and colisseums, or the British Empire and some guy in a funny-looking pith helmet tromping through the African jungle: "Dr. Livingston, I presume?" With the word "empire" or "imperialism" comes so much negative baggage; plus, those words are so down-right anti-democratic. If we're controlling the destinies of other countries, how are we allowing them to be democratic and free nations?

Being an imperialist nation, apparently, has been something we've been working at for several decades now. A book by Stephen Kinzer called Overthrow outlines over a dozen instances where the United States has taken control of a country b/c our business or political interests were threatened, resources were slipping out of control, or during the Cold War, we felt the creep of socialism/communism get too close.

When comparing the early 20th Century to today we will talk about how widespread today's American military is across the world: 700 military bases in 60 countries; 1.4 million soldiers. There's an upside to all of this - don't get me wrong! Because of these brave men and women, we're so much safer than we would be without them. I am grateful for theirs and their families' sacrifices.

The question to answer: Is America an empire? Why or why not?
Questions to consider but not necessarily answer - is the course we've taken towards building an empire worth the hatred of the world? Our safety doesn't mean much when terrorists want to kill us at home. Morally, are we doing the right thing by keeping other countries from determining their own destiny? Economically, is the tax money we're spending on our military also the right thing to do? Should the other countries of the world shoulder their own defense expense? Why or why not?

Minimum response - 200 words - due Monday- 10.13.08

Find out how we overthrew Iran in 1953: A Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ

Blog #5A - Is America an Empire?

There have been dozens of books written lately about how America has become an empire - especially with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Here's just a sample:

The premise of many of these books is that whether we like it or not, America is an empire. Whether we like acknowledging it or not is whole other thing.

When many people think of empires, we tend to think of the ancient Romans with their gladiators and colisseums, or the British Empire and some guy in a funny-looking pith helmet tromping through the African jungle: "Dr. Livingston, I presume?" With the word "empire" or "imperialism" comes so much negative baggage; plus, those words are so down-right anti-democratic. If we're controlling the destinies of other countries, how are we allowing them to be democratic and free nations?

Being an imperialist nation, apparently, has been something we've been working at for several decades now. A book by Stephen Kinzer called Overthrow outlines over a dozen instances where the United States has taken control of a country b/c our business or political interests were threatened, resources were slipping out of control, or during the Cold War, we felt the creep of socialism get too close.

We've talked about how widespread American military is across the world: 700 military bases in 60 countries; 1.4 million soldiers. There's an upside to all of this - don't get me wrong! Because of these brave men and women, we're so much safer than we would be without them. I am grateful for theirs and their families' sacrifices.

The question to answer: Is America an empire?

Questions to consider but not necessarily answer - is the course we've taken towards building an empire worth the hatred of the world? Our safety doesn't mean much when terrorists want to kill us at home. Morally, are we doing the right thing by keeping other countries from determining their own destiny? Economically, is the tax money we're spending on our military also the right thing to do? Should the other countries of the world shoulder their own defense expense? Why or why not?

Minimum response - 250 words - due Wednesday - 2.13.08

Find out how we overthrew Iran in 1953: A Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ

Journal #7 - Can we learn from the lessons of past imperialism?

During our look at the Spanish American War and the Filipino-American War, I tried to draw some obvious parallels between the Persian Gulf War (1990-91) and the Iraq War (2003 - present) . Hasty, short wars like the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War were thought to be the wars of the future: short and relatively bloodless using the latest in technology. Then there's the Filipino-American War and the Iraq War: two wars fought to quell insurgencies (though intitially Iraq was about toppling Saddam). Both wars have proven to be brutal, divisive at home, and required our soldiers to do some wicked things in order to win.

Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Ledger in 1901 about the war in the Philippines:
"Our present war is no bloodless, fake...engagement. Our men have been relentless: have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten on up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog, noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was the rubbish heap. Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to "make them talk," have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-ridden corpses."

Taking into account the stuff we've learned in our imperialism unit and in the imperialism debate, what kinds of lessons can we learn from American imperialism? Any one of these questions could apply for your journal.
- Is it worth the economic security to control the destinies of countries we can barely identify on the map?
- Are we sacrificing our democratic ideals when we take over other countries and pick their rulers for them? Why or why not?
- If we continue to worry about and depend upon oil in the Middle East, how will we ever develop clean energy sources that will get us off of our dependency?
- Is our dependency upon Middle East oil a security threat? Why or why not?
- When we are $8.659 trillion in the hole, how can we afford to be everywhere around the world?


Pick a question or come up with another angle on how we can learn from our past history of over 100 years of imperialism.

Editor's Note: We didn't amass this monstrous $8.659 trillion dollar debt just on Iraq alone. It started in 1969 when we were fighting the War on Poverty and the War in Vietnam at the same time. Then, we started outspending the Soviet Union during the 1980s to win the Cold War. That didn't happen until 1991. After 1991, our government was huge and wasteful, but still provided essential services. President Clinton signed a huge tax package to begin chipping away at the national debt in 1993, and by 1999, taxes along with a booming economy helped the government start to slowly pay down some of the debt. That all changed w/ President G.W. Bush.

Plus, there is security to think about when America acts as we do. Are we acting in our own best interests for vital resources, strategic locations, and the security of the nation?

- G.W., your devil's advocate!