As part of an ongoing series for 2012, the year of yet another Puerto Rican status plebiscite, JulioRVarela.com will periodically be posting columns by influential Puerto Rican political bloggers. We are honored to kick off our series with the first of three columns by Gil C. Schmidt. (NOTE: This three-part column was originally intended for a piece I wrote when I was contributing to Being Latino magazine earlier this year, 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 One)
By Gil C. Schmidt
Statehood for Puerto Rico is not going to happen for three unimpeachable reasons:
- Ethnic and economic differences, masked or open;
- History has spoken and
- Under domestic and international law, the ultimate decision is not “theirs”: it’s ours.
For statehood, the procedure says that 38 States have to approve. It’s easier to find 38 States to vote against Puerto Rico. First off, none of the 9 Southern states (Louisiana to Kentucky/North Carolina) would approve. If you have to ask why, you’ve obviously never lived in those States.
Large Western states, like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are famous for having a strong sense of freedom, “America First” sentiment and an array of militia radicals. They’ll vote NO with nary a split-second’s thought. That makes 12, so Puerto Rican statehood is finished.
But to make the point clearer, take your pick of almost-certain “No” votes: New England states that are as ultra-conservative as the winter is long or some of the other 21 States that would see their comparatively small representation overwhelmed by Puerto Rico’s in the House of Representatives, where the number of votes is based on population, not State seniority.
Furthermore, unlike the Senate, which could rise to 102 Senators, Puerto Rico’s five “representatives” would be taken from high-population states, namely California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois or Pennsylvania. These states have high Hispanic minorities, but would these states allow one of their “voices in government” to be given to a fledgling state with a comparative poverty level that makes Mississippi look like Monaco?
And let’s not ignore the question of race. It matters. It matters a lot. Maybe 50 years from now, when the majority of the population of the U.S. is non-white, maybe it won’t matter as much. Or then again, it will, as the difference between “Them that have” and “Them that don’t” could very well make the race issue seem trivial by comparison. But for now, it’s a deal-breaker, whether it’s carried out openly (“English only”) or quietly.
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
Prior to joining Twitter, I encountered Gil’s blog and read it but never posted a comment because he is a Jenius and I didn’t want to sound dumb. But thanks to Gil, he gave us the exposition as a small business to speak about how we used social media. During our effort of building the job board, he continued to send me information about. His knowledge and passion about Puerto Rico won’t rub everyone the right way, but the information he imparts is viewed by many as spot on! It is great to see that you will run his series of posts!
We are lucky to have the Jenius here!
“But to make the point clearer, take your pick of almost-certain “No” votes: New England states that are as ultra-conservative as the winter is long” Gil Schmidt
I’m not sure what the author meant with this statement, but 4 of the 6 New England states are considered ultra-liberal. You are awfully quick to point out how racist Americans are, yet the world knows the US is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Can that be said about Puerto Rico? Unfortunately no. Americans are also the most charitable of people throughout the world. If Americans do reject Puerto Rico becoming a state, it will not be because of racism, but because of a lack of real information. Does the average american have more important things on their minds like jobs and economical concerns within their own families? Absolutely. And why should Americans be knowledgeable about the plight of Puerto Rico? I find many Puerto Ricans don’t have a real in depth grasp of the situation here either. So let’s stop with the use of vinegar and try a little honey to persuade a people who are unfairly labeled as racist.
Happy 2011, Bruce! Your support of this blog is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!!!
I’m happy to know this will be an ongoing series.
I really enjoyed reading this article and love that the author has such a strong opinion even though I may not entirely agree. I live in the South and know very well the picture you have painted is accurate but I’m an eternal optimist. I’m believe future candidates will jump on the ‘growing number of Latinos in the US equals more votes for me’ and want to appease them.
Thanks fort sharing!
This article has one good thing going for it: The author’s strong believe that he is right. However, he is wrong on Puerto Rico statehood. His exposition of states’ attitudes toward new states simply do not fit with history. If he were right, this country would not be 50 states, but 13. The entire Southwest of this country was inhabited by “different people.” Hawaii, Texas, and California were countries! Many others had varied cultural and linguistic identities. As for the southern states, Puerto Rico’s current governor IS the head of the Southern Governors Association!!
Come on, this article was written by purely anecdotal gut feeling and not research. There is nothing serious here to believe. However, one thing going for it is that these “gut feelings” (as I call them) are shared by many in this country, so the author’s argument is easy to follow–and believe.
I will also mention my perceived bias from the author because it is obvious he does not consider Puerto Ricans Americans, which they are. Nor does he understand the concept of dual nationalism whereby one can be a Texan AND and American, or a New Yorker AND and American, or a Puerto Rican AND an American.
Sorry, but this entry does not rise to any level of seriousness on the matter of Puerto Rico’s status, its complex relationship to the USA, or even the question of territorialism under the federal system in the U.S. Constitution.
Javier, thanks for adding, but I don’t agree 100% with you. I believe Puerto Ricans on the mainland have done very little to pressure their elected officials to make PR a legislative priority. Let’s change that in 2012. It starts here. Will you sign it? http://www.change.org/petitions/pass-a-revised-puerto-rican-democracy-act
I don’t believe that the US Govt and its people will ever accept a Puerto Rican state in the world of Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina. I don’t agree with you, but I respect your opinion.
By the way, one more important FACT that makes this entry even less serious: The process of “38 states” mentioned here is actually the process to amend the U.S. constitution. New states are admitted by Congress (House and Senate) and only requires simple majorities. So, again, this article is not serious and shows a deep lack of understanding. Not trying to be mean, but this should not be posted with so many inaccuracies.
(I say all this with a lot of respect to my fellow human being, the author.)
You are more than welcome to guest post here if u like email me at juliorvarela at gmail 500 words
Then what do you say to President Obama who basically said that Puerto Ricans on the island and their vote doesn’t matter? https://juliorvarela.com/2011/09/28/president-obamas-message-to-puerto-rico-the-us-congress-still-decides-your-fate-not-you/
Although i don’t use the word “racism,” there it is: implied. New England states are ultra-liberal in terms of supporting Democratic Party positions, but have consistently shown a conservative bias towards large-scale change. Along those lines, accepting PR as a state is a wholesale change: a nation 8 million strong (half of that already on U.S. soil), economically-disadvantaged when compared to most American citizens and culturally separate, to boot. To bring Hawaii to the discussion, in that context (economics and culture), ignores the fact that Hawaii was largely undeveloped at the time, there were no large-scale social support programs (no question of added budgetary costs) and the Hawaiian population was relatively small.
In the baldest terms, Southern states have no use for PR, and neither do many of the large Western states, no matter how much information about us they might have. It isn’t that we are worth little: we are definitely worth as much as any of them. It is simply a question of “My house, not yours; my house for my people.” I don’t see anything wrong with that stance. The mistake is made by the people who believe–against history, facts, reality and human nature–that anyone can barge into someone else’s house and be accepted. Or worse: beg for it on the basis of “dignity.”
Thank you for commenting. There’s plenty more to look at in this topic, and you’ve added much to consider.
I do believe strongly that the US will never accept a Latino state in 2012, maybe in 2040, but I don’t plan to wait 38 years.
And I thought you did not want statehood Julito?! Feliz Ano Nuevo to you as well!
I don’t!!!
Great article even if I don’t agree with some parts. PR statehood would be possible when whites are a minority but I do not see it happening anytime soon. The PNP party is pushing for this vote but it will only fall on deaf ears. The US economy is in no shape to absorb a 51st narco-state that day by day is becoming more of a 3rd World country.
I agree with you on that point, Joel. In the age of reduced gov’t spending, why take on 19 billion a year for a Latino narco-state? That is the political reality and the PNP is missing the point. But I strongly agree that the next plebiscite NEEDS to be binding.
“A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan”
If Puerto Rico becomes our state, tomorrow we would have the same problems that Canada has with Quebec. The Hispanic leaders of Texas, California and New Mexico would echo the same demands that Puerto Rico would make in relation to language. The Congressional Puerto Rican delegation would be the center of a new political militancy for Spanish speaking. And, as in Quebec, Puerto Rico would insist in its condition as “different society”. Why not? It is about a different society, hence the actual Canadian crisis (Buchanan 1990b).
Like Rubén Berríos said at one time: “Congress is going to grant us statehood in the week of the three Thursdays.” In other words, never. Congress has everything to lose and nothing to gain from turning Puerto Rico into a state. We have a different culture and different language, which is a poor country that doesn’t meet the economic minimum standard to become a state, a threat to the access of funds of 25 to 26 states of the Union, and a threat to the relations between the US and Latin America. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ruben es amigo de mi viejo
And here again, just like a women who marries a man she knows is not 100% to her liking, but believes after the marriage, by golly, I’ll change him!
Here’s sensitive subject:
In Congress there were racist remarks towards Puerto Ricans. During a debate in the US Congress concerning the Foraker Act (1900), which established a civil government in Puerto Rico, one senator spoke against the idea of Puerto Rico being given statehood saying that Puerto Ricans were “a heterogeneous mass of mongrels” and “savages addicted to head-hunting and cannibalism” (Pérez 9). Also, much later, in 1913 there was another remark made by Judge Peter Hamilton when he wrote to President Woodrow Wilson:
The mixture of black and white in Porto Rico threatens to create a race of mongrels of no use to anyone: a race of Spanish-American talkers. A governor from the South, or with knowledge of Southern remedies for that trouble, could, if a wise man, do much . . . . (Pérez 9).
Maybe somebody will argue that those are not the present times, and that the US has changed for the better, that the US Congress is not as racist as before. This is true. However, there are still statements being made in recent times that sound as racist as the beginning of the 20th century. We just have to consider, for example, the article by Don Feder published in the Boston Herald which had a very eloquent title: “No Statehood for Caribbean Dogpatch”. This same article ends up with the phrase: “It’s hard to imagine a worse candidate for admission to the Union than this Caribbean Dogpatch” (Feder). As we say in Puerto Rico: “A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan” (For a person who understands well, only few words are enough).
Thank you much Mr. Schmidt for your column, find it very digestible, looking forward to part 2 and 3 .. thanks for your insight Julito in giving him the platform.
Happy New Year, people. Joy!
“Birds of a feather will always flock together.” And racism will always exist. We all need to develop thicker skin and continue to fight the good fight. Has anyone filled out an online application lately? Well I have. Plenty of them, for both private companies and government jobs. If you have, you will know at the end of the application they ask for the applicants sex, race and military service and any service connected disabilities. I’ve noticed under the race the first selection is usually Hispanic; non white, and the last is usually Caucasian; white european. I’ve become callous to this, usually choosing not to answer the questions if I am given a choice. Why can’t they just list the races in alphabetical order? Just my observations.
I doubt there is a conspiracy about that.
I don’t see this hiring practice as a conspiracy Julito, rather it show’s the hiring preference by businesses and governments in the US. This is a good thing for Hispanics- Americans. I say when the ball is in your court play it well.
Pardon, I omitted the source of my 2 comments posted 12/31/2011 .. I do agree, though race relation has improve among groups, the stench of the “Jim Crow” era still lingers. http://www.prosario-2000.0catch.com/Politics/statehood.htm
Great link!
Race weight a lot when it comes to admitting a state to the union. Some guy named Krikorian made it pretty clear a while ago when he wrote for the National Review Online:
“We”? Puerto Rico is a foreign country that became a colony of the United States in 1898, no different from the French colony of Togo or the British colony of Uganda (or the U.S. colony of the Philippines). Congress granted residents of the island U.S. citizenship during World War I, but Puerto Ricans remain a distinct people, a distinct nation, with their own (foreign) language, their own history, their own culture.
I wrote it in Spanish for the people in the island who dream of becoming a state:
http://poder5.blogspot.com/2011/03/los-pnpes-en-puerto-rico-estados-unidos.html
Like the Jenius says, maybe in 50 year Puerto Rico may be considered for admission but now it’s really farfetched.
Agreed
“but Puerto Ricans remain a distinct people, a distinct nation, with their own (foreign) language, their own history, their own culture.” Prometeo
If Puerto Rico were to ever become a state then say goodbye to all of the reasons to all the distinctions listed above. It doesn’t take a “Jenius” (pun intended) to know this. So why then do so many posters sound like they are disappointed because they believe Puerto Rico will never become a state?
The soul of Puerto Rico will win out. Right now that soul is stuck in ambiguity and limbo. The motif of the island victim is perpetuated.
The “woo is me” syndrome. Were culturally different, we speak Spanish, we have our own unique history…and americans are nothing but white racist who hate latinos. Just look at what they are doing to the poor undocumented immigrants crossing illegally into their country! Why would they ever accept us? Sounds like a pity party to me people. Why should other immigrants feel sorry for Puerto Ricans when they would give their left whatever to be able to live and work in the US? Maybe more respect would be shown by other Latinos if the “Occupy San Juan” protest lasted longer than just one weekend! If you really want something then you will need to start causing “the wheel to squeak if you want the grease.” So far I have only been hearing lots of negative attitudes.
Bruce, I will agree with you when the major candidates for the GOP nomination begin to tone down the anti-Latino immigrant rhetoric in the United States. No wonder US Latino voters are clearly in the Democratic camp based on the latest Pew Research survey. The whole anti-immigrant rhetoric is going to kill the GOP and there is no way that Puerto Rico will be seen in any different light. When US Congressmen speak against the Puerto Rican Democracy Act and label PR as a welfare state, there is a campaign of ignorance going on. As for blaming the Governor, you can’t have it both ways. Obama is making the same mistake. Fortuño has had three years to impact change but 54 out of 55 months of double-digit unemployment, a dwindling population (first time since 1970 that PRi’s population has decreased) and no sustainable sector (no wonder that the public sector is one of the only sectors GROWING on the island again, see the US Department of Labor), and there are problems. Sure, PR’s economy is a global issue but its current colonial status limits its options. Time to change that. If the island wants statehood, great, but in the end I don’t agree with it and will continue to shed light on this.
Julito; Fortuno and Puerto Rico cannot print money, or borrow from other countries accept the US. That is where I made the distinction on why Obama’s mistakes are hurting the US. As for GOP members calling Puerto Rico a welfare state, do you believe it is not? Many GOP members call Obama the food stamp president. Statistics do show more americans are on food stamps than any other period. Is it then wrong to call something what it is as your friend Yeyo believes? And for the record, I am not defending the republicans. I am defending americans, no matter what party they are affiliated with. And here is a fact, the Obama administration has jailed and deported more illegal immigrants than any other President. He has also stepped up the law enforcement on the border. So while he is openly vocal about Arizona’s immigration law, he is quietly conducting a massive war against illegals. He’s a politician Julito. “Believe only half of what you see, and nothing of what you hear.” Look more towards individuals to find your friends.
I don’t think Obama is doing a good job and neither is Gov. Fortuño. My blog has been very critical of both, especially the President’s policy towards PR. Probably the biggest reason I wouldn’t vote for him, but at the same time the GOP is so anti-Latino right now, they are clowns. Both parties are awful, just like the PNP and PPD are right now as well. And the PIP is stuck in the 60s. But the reality is that it is straight out lying that the current GOP trial balloon of Fortuño for VP is even being considered. The island of PR is in a mess, I doubt there will be a miracle unless the entire system changes. Statehood ain’t gonna save it. The US right now in 2012 will not welcome a Latino state. Maybe in 2050 but not now.
I do think PR is a welfare state, but the problem with Fortuño is that he is hypocritical since he just needs to admit that if government jobs weren’t add to the island’s workforce again, the island would be in 20% unemployment. He is not the miracle GOP wonderboy. That’s the truth.