4 ms·

And you feel that it is morally defensible to maintain this type of one-sided relationship?

karpodiem 9y ago
The US is free to walk away and leave it how they found it, which was a worse state than present conditions, even after the hurricane. No relationship is one sided - it takes two to make it a relationship. The US doesn't need Puerto Rico - Puerto Rico needs the US.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The US is free to walk away and leave it how they found it, The US didn't “find” it, it took it by force. EDIT: From another colonial power. I’m not sure Spain is really in the market for a Carribean colony right now, so it might not be that easy for the US to walk away and leave PR in its pre-US position.
- JorgeGT 9y ago
  Well, when they "found it" this is, conquered by force, Puerto Rico was a territory of Spain. With the Constitution of 1812 Puerto Rico got a representative, like the other territories, and he was in fact chosen as Vice-president (= Deputy Speaker) of the House. 200 years later, the US hasn't still allowed them to ever send a representative...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > 200 years later, the US hasn't still allowed them to ever send a representative... Well, we do let them have one non-voting representative in the House (similar to D.C. and other territories.)
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I get this thread is off topic but: That 1812 Constitution of Spain was a product of the Napoleonic wars and seems to have been basically ignored everywhere but Iberia-proper. So really, PR has never had proper representation to its colonial rulers. And technically PR has had a non-voting rep. in the US house of representatives since 1901.
dragonwriter 9y ago
If I did, I probably wouldn't keep pointing out on HN that it only persists because the US Congress has found excuses to ignore the fact that statehood clearly won by the terms of both of the last two status referenda.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
That's a harsh interpretation to make of dragonwriter's comment. I read it as a factual statement about what the U.S. does with colonies by someone that probably disagrees with the practice. That's also a charitable default. If anyone wants more info on the topic, John Oliver has a great, 13-min segment on U.S. territories along with the clearly-evil justifications for their situation. Wait till yall see the Supreme Court ruling. It should get way more attention in media discussions on this topic. His finale with America's Got Talent contestant is also an epic counter to that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE

The US is free to walk away and leave it how they found it, which was a worse state than present conditions, even after the hurricane. No relationship is one sided - it takes two to make it a relationship. The US doesn't need Puerto Rico - Puerto Rico needs the US.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The US is free to walk away and leave it how they found it, The US didn't “find” it, it took it by force. EDIT: From another colonial power. I’m not sure Spain is really in the market for a Carribean colony right now, so it might not be that easy for the US to walk away and leave PR in its pre-US position.
JorgeGT 9y ago
Well, when they "found it" this is, conquered by force, Puerto Rico was a territory of Spain. With the Constitution of 1812 Puerto Rico got a representative, like the other territories, and he was in fact chosen as Vice-president (= Deputy Speaker) of the House. 200 years later, the US hasn't still allowed them to ever send a representative...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 200 years later, the US hasn't still allowed them to ever send a representative... Well, we do let them have one non-voting representative in the House (similar to D.C. and other territories.)
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  I get this thread is off topic but: That 1812 Constitution of Spain was a product of the Napoleonic wars and seems to have been basically ignored everywhere but Iberia-proper. So really, PR has never had proper representation to its colonial rulers. And technically PR has had a non-voting rep. in the US house of representatives since 1901.

dragonwriter 9y ago

If I did, I probably wouldn't keep pointing out on HN that it only persists because the US Congress has found excuses to ignore the fact that statehood clearly won by the terms of both of the last two status referenda.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

That's a harsh interpretation to make of dragonwriter's comment. I read it as a factual statement about what the U.S. does with colonies by someone that probably disagrees with the practice. That's also a charitable default. If anyone wants more info on the topic, John Oliver has a great, 13-min segment on U.S. territories along with the clearly-evil justifications for their situation. Wait till yall see the Supreme Court ruling. It should get way more attention in media discussions on this topic. His finale with America's Got Talent contestant is also an epic counter to that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE