4 ms·

Before I get to the main point, it would seem that I must clarify my point about governmental agencies: New Mexico gets to spend nearly three times what Puerto

Before I get to the main point, it would seem that I must clarify my point about governmental agencies: New Mexico gets to spend nearly three times what Puerto Rico spends on preserving its legacy and history, despite having about a third fewer residents. This is the privilege of statehood. I'm not endorsing "paternal colonialism" when I say that we must interpret the desires of island peoples; I'm talking literally about the fact that, since their delegates cannot vote, it is our votes which carry their desired change in the law. I would like to remind you that I am on the side of giving those delegates votes, and further, giving them votes which would normalize their relations with the rest of the States and the Union; I think that we ought to end the paternally-(neo)colonialist practice of non-voting delegations of second-class residents, in favor of voting Reps and Senators.

eesmith 7y ago
You wrote "This is the privilege of statehood." That is not what I inferred from your original statement. Still I ask, is your argument that American Samoa isn't now doing enough to preserve their history and culture, and that statehood would improve the situation? If so, why? You write "I am on the side of giving those delegates votes" Yes, I am aware of that. I again quote from the Samoa Historic Preservation Office: "American Samoa has remained an “unorganized” territory, with its own Constitution but under direct Federal government supervision delegated by the President to the Department of the Interior. This unique status is not accidental. It is the result of decisions consciously taken by the American Samoan leaders—not to obtain citizenship nor acquire an organic act—in order to keep their traditional land tenure system, whose racial preferences would make it unconstitutional under Federal law." What you want want tear apart the local culture by destroying the traditional land tenure system. That is another of the lessons of Hawaii, and the American Samoans are well aware of it (based on a recent podcast I listened to where they went to American Samoa to talk with American Samoans on this exact topic). When you say that you know better and "interpret the desires of island peoples" in a way to completely invert the explicit agreement with those people, made through a voluntary and informed process, then why shouldn't I describe it as "paternal colonialism"? You want your preferred system of government - the states and federal system - to be their government, and get rid of the ‘aiga system of land ownership. That's colonialism. You want to override their decision because you think you know better. That's paternalism. How am I wrong about my characterization? I agree that there's also a "paternally-(neo)colonialist practice of non-voting delegations of second-class residents". But we can't fix that by continuing to practice colonialism and ignoring the wishes of the people and their non-voting representation.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Then let's let American Samoa leave the USA entirely, yes?
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Certainly. If that's what they themselves decide, yes. We must fulfill our obligations to them, and there must be "clear, solid restrictions on outsider influence in the debate and discussion" concerning that topic (quoting myself from earlier.)

eesmith 7y ago

You wrote "This is the privilege of statehood." That is not what I inferred from your original statement. Still I ask, is your argument that American Samoa isn't now doing enough to preserve their history and culture, and that statehood would improve the situation? If so, why? You write "I am on the side of giving those delegates votes" Yes, I am aware of that. I again quote from the Samoa Historic Preservation Office: "American Samoa has remained an “unorganized” territory, with its own Constitution but under direct Federal government supervision delegated by the President to the Department of the Interior. This unique status is not accidental. It is the result of decisions consciously taken by the American Samoan leaders—not to obtain citizenship nor acquire an organic act—in order to keep their traditional land tenure system, whose racial preferences would make it unconstitutional under Federal law." What you want want tear apart the local culture by destroying the traditional land tenure system. That is another of the lessons of Hawaii, and the American Samoans are well aware of it (based on a recent podcast I listened to where they went to American Samoa to talk with American Samoans on this exact topic). When you say that you know better and "interpret the desires of island peoples" in a way to completely invert the explicit agreement with those people, made through a voluntary and informed process, then why shouldn't I describe it as "paternal colonialism"? You want your preferred system of government - the states and federal system - to be their government, and get rid of the ‘aiga system of land ownership. That's colonialism. You want to override their decision because you think you know better. That's paternalism. How am I wrong about my characterization? I agree that there's also a "paternally-(neo)colonialist practice of non-voting delegations of second-class residents". But we can't fix that by continuing to practice colonialism and ignoring the wishes of the people and their non-voting representation.

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Then let's let American Samoa leave the USA entirely, yes?
- eesmith 7y ago
  Certainly. If that's what they themselves decide, yes. We must fulfill our obligations to them, and there must be "clear, solid restrictions on outsider influence in the debate and discussion" concerning that topic (quoting myself from earlier.)