We continue the Puerto Rican Plebiscite Seriers with part three of Gil C. Schmidt‘s “Puerto Rico: Never a State” essay. If you are interested in submitting your blog (500 words) for publication, add your comments here expressing your interest and we will run your blog unedited. (NOTE: This three-part column was originally intended for a piece I wrote when I was contributing to Being Latino magazine earlier in 2011, and Schimidt’s response was never published by BL, so we are following up on an invitation we extended to Gil to have it published here).
Puerto Rico: Never a State (Part Three)
By Gil C. Schmidt
Statehood for Puerto Rico is not going to happen for three unimpeachable reasons: 1) Ethnic and economic differences, masked or open, discussed in Part One; 2) History has spoken, as per Part Two and 3) Under domestic and international law, the ultimate decision is not “theirs”: it’s ours.
strong>The law says the ultimate decision is ours: During its 8th session, the U.N. General Assembly recognized Puerto Rico’s self-government on November 27, 1953 with Resolution 748 (VIII). This removed Puerto Rico’s classification as a non-self-governing territory under article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter.
Puerto Rico held its plebiscite concerning a new constitution in 1950. The constitutionally-based commonwealth was inaugurated on July 25th, 1952. However, the U.N. recognized Puerto Rico’s self-government in November 27, 1953.
Neither domestic nor international law recognizes a right to a plebiscite before a transfer of sovereignty. In short: In 1950 we weren’t empowered to choose our status.
Up until that day in 1953, we were not considered self-governing. Under domestic law (Supreme Court and Congress), we were “an unincorporated territory,” and as such, were not guaranteed anything by the U.S. So the process between the U.S. and Puerto Rico that led to the commonwealth “experiment” was not, as the pro-commonwealth party has always insisted, a deal between equals, it was merely a hand-me-down fait accompli between a sovereign nation and its territory.
Therefore, if according to international law we stopped being a colony in 1953, then we have to face up to certain truths:
- As a self-governing territory, it is up to us —and no one else— to make the focused effort to establish our permanent status. And by “us” I mean the Puerto Ricans who live, work and own property here, not “weekenders” waving our flag a couple of times a year during some New York parade.
- The only binding plebiscite the U.S. can offer —and never has— is a Congressionally-mandated referendum wherein Puerto Rico can automatically put into motion whatever ultimate status the voters choose. No such offer is being made now and won’t be: the fear of pledging itself to grant statehood to Puerto Rico is not something any U.S. politician wants to see looming ahead. Puerto Rico cannot force Congress to do this and Congress simply cannot be forced on this issue. History proves it.
I think it is way past time that we moved beyond all this statehood fantasy. For deep down, it isn’t a matter of pride, heritage, history or anything equally lofty: it simply boils down to a matter of money. They have it, they know many Puerto Ricans want more of it, and they don’t want—or have—to share it. On that basis alone, the U.S. will continue to reject seriously considering any Puerto Rican request for statehood.
And they should. Because we can do better.
Except that most of us don’t believe—or don’t want to believe—that.
Not becoming a state is not Puerto Rico’s loss; not knowing how to be ourselves is.
Bio: I lived almost 20 years in the U.S., spanning states from Nebraska to Texas to Mississippi. My appearance and name are those of a White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant, the proverbial W.A.S.P. But I was born in Puerto Rico, a fourth-generation Puerto Rican and have lived on the island continuously since 1987. You can find more of my writings about Puerto Rico at Gil The Jenius: http://gilthejenius.blogspot.com
An excellent series of articles, Gil. Thanks for posting them, Julio.
Thank you, Raúl.
Great writing and great topic. Republicans in Congress will never vote Puerto Rico in a s a state. They’ll try to insert English only stipulations and other items into any vote. Congress votes in who becomes a state, period. What’s odd to me is how Republicans on the island think they actually have allies here in the US Congress.
And you really believe Democrats are friends of Puerto Rico? Ever heard of “good cop, bad cop?” Like Barnum of Barnum and Bailey once said, “there is a sucker born every minute.” Open your eyes newenglandfather and check out the salaries our leaders in all parties made the last 20 years compared to the peanuts the rest of us 99% made. Nothing scarier than a blind follower.
“They have it, they know many Puerto Ricans want more of it, and they don’t want—or have—to share it. On that basis alone, the U.S. will continue to reject seriously considering any Puerto Rican request for statehood.” Jenius
Obviously someone does not keep up with the news. The only money the US has is what they beg for, print or may eventually have to steal…from it’s own people to survive. I guess if you tell a lie long enough Jenius it starts sounding like the truth. You are nothing but a charlatan Mr. Schmidt. A true divider of people. “ay Tony, we got a job in Washington for Gil?”
Mr. Harris… “The only money the US has is what they beg for, print or may eventually have to steal…from it’s own people to survive.” You toss this into the current discussion and I’m the charlatan? Following your lead–and the irrelevance of your so-called “counter argument”–you’re either a fraud or a mentally challenged…and you can’t spell “its”, either.
Here’s My point which has nothing to do with name-calling: The statehood argument in Puerto Rico, Mr. Harris, is about money. You’d know that if you lived here, and if you do live here and don’t know it, then there’s no hope for you. To far too many Puerto Ricans, the U.S. is the provider of cash, most often limited to welfare and government-based handouts, controlled locally by skanky politicos. The politicos in the statehood party sell the lie that statehood will mean more dollars…and the idiots believe them. If there is a lie repeated to the point of propaganda, it isn’t Mine, Mr. Harris: it is the pure claptrap of “jíbaro statehood.”
That the U.S. is essentially bankrupt is a point I’ve covered elsewhere and in greater scope. You leave out that the country is also fascist, with corporations given the power to legally bribe politicians, the right to free speech as if they were people and now the military has the power to incarcerate and try you without rights.
As for the rest of your supercilious remarks, enjoy the fact that you can type. It’s the only positive aspect they reveal about you.
And notice I spelled “it’s” correctly…
A well reseached essay, thanks for the time you took to put it together, and sharing it with us..
You’re welcome. Ms. Díaz. Plenty more to discuss here, but I am pleased to be a part of it.
Mr. Schmidt; this is something I recently wrote under one of the topics.
I love my country dearly Julito. And it is the diverseness of people who make the US so great. But I fear many are selling their souls for what they think is prosperity and security that is being offered by the leaders, both government, corporations and many organizations that cater to the fears of many. Not hand outs, but sacrifice and hard work will be the only way we get the global economy back up and running. Most people misunderstand the concept of
“rugged individualism” associated with America and it’s rise to greatness. This idea in no way places lesser value on communities working together to solve problems because this in fact how Americans survived the Great Depression. Governments did very little to help, in fact they may have prolonged it. It was the “rugged individual” that rose from the groups as a leader and took the people “where they needed to go, and not where they wanted to go.” We have not seen or heard from these “rugged individuals” in a long, long time. I fear corruption and greed are at the helm and driving us straight over a cliff. All under the guise of a better life ahead.
So if you think I don’t have issues with my country your wrong. But I am not looking for a government handout which only makes be dependent on it. It sounds to me like you are advocating for a welfare state.
And this is really, really petty; “and you can’t spell “its”, either.” Jenius
I am not advocating and never have advocated a welfare state. The biggest problem We have in Puerto Rico is that the welfare system allows nearly a third of Our adults to avoid work, to sponge off of Uncle Sam and thus be easy puppets of rancid-brained politicians, which is what We have. The welfare system is closely tied to the size of government here, where roughly 26% of Our Island’s employees work in it. (Government jobs are handed out as political favors, for voters, with the wages and benefits paid for out of federal fund allotments and petty taxation.)
Look at the numbers and roughly 55-60% of all adults–voting age adults–are tied into the system of “sponging off the government.” Toss in the unemployed, many of whom are receiving short-term benefits (that they paid for) and you have a large majority of Our people trying to get more out of the government teat.
It sucks. It’s revolting and it needs to be changed. But I don’t see statehood as the solution because it isn’t likely to happen. And it infuriates Me that We continue to waste time pursuing this “dream” when the nightmare surrounding Us isn’t fixed by mere wishful–and idiotic–thinking.
As for petty, you used a specious argument to “counter” Mine and called Me a charlatan. We both can behave better. We can at least try. And I don’t use a speech recognition program. If I did, it would have to manage My native fluency in English and Spanish. Any suggestions?
Mr. Schmidt; you will get no arguments from me concerning the welfare state here in Puerto Rico. It’s a mirror image of what is happening in the US, and yes, it infuriates me too to see so many helpless little chicks with their beaks wide open looking for a tiny worm from their mamas. This is not the kind of behavior that makes a country great. And if you have read my other posts I do not advocate statehood for PR. I’m more in favor of a true free association with the US restrictions on subsidies. They key change I see that would benefit us is being able to freely trade with more countries for the best deals. Your post made things clearer for me, and yes, I was just being a smart aleck when I asked about what speech recognition program you used. So let’s shake hands and work together for positive change here.
Mr. Harris: what say We get together and analyze this status issue on My podcast? I’m going be interviewing a series of people on topics that interest Me (in English) and there’s plenty of ground We can cover here. Doesn’t even have to be face-to-face: I believe We can do it over the phone.
Thank you and I hope We can get together on this soon.
So what speech recognition program are you using Mr. Schmidt?
Mr. Schmidt; If we were to meet face to face where would that be?
I live in Cabo Rojo. I don’t get to San Juan much, but I do travel around the island fairly often. My schedule’s tight for the next two weeks, then opens up. Thanks.
I live in Aguadilla so we’re practically neighbors. I could do a trip to your location. My schedule is pretty much wide open, so I will wait for you to set a date. I will get in touch with you through a mutual friend.
I shared emails with everyone. Now let’s go change PUERTO RICO! This is how it starts. NO MORE POLITIQUERÍA and no more LA COMAY!
And you are absolutely correct about personal name calling. I was wrong for doing so. But your own need to imply racism regarding a particular race just gets my blood boiling. I have always said the issue with Puerto Rico and it’s inability to achieve statehood is mostly due to economic reasons, and not racism. Unless you can prove you have the majority of support from other Hispanic groups in the US, which I really doubt, then you unfairly accuse only one group that is responsible for preventing Puerto Rico from becoming a state.
“The only money the US has is what they beg for, print or may eventually have to steal…from it’s own people to survive.” You toss this into the current discussion and I’m the charlatan? Mr. Schmidt
Fact: 3 major market crashes took place within a 10 year period. The .com in 1998, housing crash in 2007, and another stock market crash in 2008. In both crashes people lost at least 40% of their retirement savings. In the housing crash, well we are still crashing there. 1 million people lost their home in 2010. We will soon find out how many lost their homes last year. I highly recommend everyone start looking at ways to protect their savings based on historical facts and the current economic situation in China, The EU, and the US. If you think a superpower cannot fail, then you have forgotten the fall of the Soviet Union. They failed for exactly the same reasons the western world will very likely fail; over spending. By governments and private citizens. As in, you can’t spend more than you make. We know the governments are doing this, and the private citizens continue to do this as well. If you do not believe me then please, do your own research for you and your family’s sake.
Caught this after posting My previous response..
Racism is a fact, not a personal slant. To ignore its role in this discussion is to ignore U.S treatment of the Island since 1898. Historical evidence indicates that U.S. leaders at the beginning of the 20th century thought that Puerto Ricans were “too stupid to govern themselves,” and though We can say they were product of their times and culture, institutions have long memories and very little incentive to change attitudes. And U.S. society, like many or maybe all societies, reveals racist attitudes; that doesn’t make them right, it makes them relevant to this discussion.
The economic arguments you use are certainly factual, but they were not relevant to My argument about the economic issues I see that prevent Puerto Rico from becoming a state. In My view, the U.S. is aware that skanky Puerto Rican politicians use statehood as a “blank check,” a political lie that can only be sustained if, indeed, these same skanky politicians can get more money to flow to the Island. It’s why I call the Resident Commissioner the Head Beggar: he offers nothing, not even a vote, but trumpets being successful at getting more federal funds…for nothing. (I have to repeat it because it’s true.)
Many people use that “no vote” angle as a reason for statehood, ignoring the huge economic boost the U.S. has provided for Puerto Rico, with Our income per capita rising from last in the hemisphere in the 1930s to first amongst Central and South American countries in the 1960s. If the U.S. wanted Us to be a state–wanted, Mr. Harris, because We asked several dozen times between 1899 and 1952–then the process would have been accelerated by the clear economic incentive the Island represented, especially for a growing empire seeking a foothold between continents. That statehood didn’t happen, but the economic experiment did, to wild success, is very telling.
But that same success came with a price for Us: We are the 4th biggest buyer of U.S. goods. We rank higher than every other country but Japan, Canada and China. And We’re only 4 million people, and dwindling. We’re a captive business market for U.S. companies and in that sense, We’re like the cow that gives away its milk: why buy it when you’re getting so much for so little?
As for the economic crisis, I can’t say I’m well-prepared, but I can say this: I have no debt, no credit cards and have diversified investing. More needs to done, without a doubt.
I just read this and can’t say anything but that I have learned a lot. I’ve never heard this from any of the political analysts on the island. Probably they don’t have the brains or don’t want people to understand the real issues at stake. Thanks for enlightening us Gil.
A very nicely done set of of posts Gil C. Schmidt. If you’re ever interested take a peek at my blog here —> http://efrainortizsanchez.blogspot.com/
The U.S. really has no need nor importance in Puerto Rico today. It has merely become an attachment it can’t simply get rid of. I’ll leave with a statement found in U.S. Congressional records (which are very tedious to research)….”uneducated, simple-minded and harmless people who are only interested in wine, women, music and dancing” – U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar describing Puerto Ricans c. 1899.
“Hoar was long noted as a fighter against political corruption, and campaigned for the rights of African Americans and Native Americans. He argued in the Senate in favor of Women’s suffrage as early as 1886 and opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882. As a member of the Congressional Electoral Commission, he was involved with settling the highly disputed U.S. presidential election, 1876. He authored the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, and in 1888 he was chairman of the 1888 Republican National Convention.
Unlike many of his Senate colleagues, Hoar was not a strong advocate for an American intervention into Cuba in the late 1890s. After the Spanish-American War, Hoar became one of the Senate’s most outspoken opponents of the imperialism of the William McKinley administration. He called for independence for the Philippines, and denounced the Philippine-American War in the following terms.” Wikipedia
So Mr. Ortiz; maybe you can provide a reference regarding the statement you claim Sen. Hoar made way back in 1899. The statement you claim Hoar made does not fit the man who was obviously way ahead of his time in his thinking as recorded by Wikipedia historians. I’m guessing since he did not want the US involved in Cuba or the Philippines in the 1890′s, he probably felt pretty strongly concerning the US going into Puerto Rico as well. What do you say about this?
“Hoar opposed colonization of the Philippines. He believed that under the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, governments get their power only from the consent of the governed. Seizing a foreign colony that wanted to govern itself would violate the very principle of democracy upon which the United States had separated itself from Great Britain in 1776. Indeed, Hoar compared imperialism to slavery, saying that neither should exist in a free society.” Wikipedia
Seems Mr. Ortiz you picked the wrong Republican to demonize.
Again I ask, Mr. Ortiz, please post the reference in which you claim you found a statement by Sen. Hoar in which he belittles Puerto Ricans back in 1899. Some how I think this statement, if in fact it does exist, was taken completed out of context.
Thanks for pointing out the positive points in Senator Hoar’s life, which weren’t meant to be negated by the statement I posted. The only intention was to merely point out the way Puerto Ricans were perceived then and the simple fact that, in a stereotypical society, negative statements or references about a people, especially by someone in a Senate position, creates an unconscious bias. While this was a long time ago, we still have many stereotypes that linger on today.
A portion of a New York Times article in which Senator Hoar describes Puerto Ricans as incapable, ignorant and simple, published on 2/22/1899, can be found here –> http://tinyurl.com/739fxvj
Since you reference Wikipedia, browse through these and the references…
http://tinyurl.com/6qm55z2
http://tinyurl.com/78zal7d
and Puerto Rican Campaign, pg.11, http://tinyurl.com/7f2gt2d
Mr. Ortiz; than you for acknowledging my concerns with your first post. I have read the first article and noticed it was signed S.S. Harvey. I’m not sure who this person is, but I was expecting to see it signed by Sen. Hoar. I will read your other references. Thanks.
I think Mr. Ortiz found the information.
I read the second article that was an editorial written by Sen. Hoar. I wish I was able to view the entire article because the start of the second paragraph leads me to believe Sen. Hoard was mocking the powers that be who wanted to keep US military troops in Puerto Rico where Sen. Hoar goes on to say the people will be under “subjection”. Knowing how Sen. Hoar felt about imperialism this would be something he would be against. The word subjection means domination, oppression, mastery, repression and suppression. He also starts off the paragraph with “Ah” which could very well have meant Sen. Hoar wasn’t buying into the reason why the US was leaving troops in PR which was to protect the citizens. I believe Sen. Hoar mistrusted the intent of the US and believed the US had other intentions which we now know in hindsight he was correct.
The post has verified helpful to us. It’s quite useful and you are certainly extremely experienced in this area.
You have got opened my own eyes in order to numerous opinion
of this specific subject matter using intriquing, notable
and solid content.