![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Did not realize the Democratic Socialists of America is officially against statehood for Puerto Rico and the other overseas territories of the US, including the already-a-state Hawaii. (But they're OK with Alaska as a state for some reason? because it can be reached via land? Or am I being nitpicky.)
Instead they favor decolonization, aka full sovereignty, aka independence. If the residents of Puerto Rico wanted independence, I'd support that ... I'm not sure that's top of their list ...
But an interesting result of the DSA's position on Puerto Rico is that they will not allow a Puerto Rican branch of the DSA to exist. Instead they will work with the democratic Left of Puerto Rico as allies. This is a high level of consistency of thought for a political organization.
The same statement seems to support turning over all the ancestral lands of any indigenous peoples within the current borders of the US, to full sovereignty for those peoples. I'm not sure that's what all those peoples would want. There are benefits that flow from belonging to a single, large, political and economic unit the size of the US. So it's a trade-off. Independence is always a trade-off. The more sovereign political entities that exist, the more difficult it is to address global problems, the more difficult it is to exchange goods and services or travel, the more difficult it is for people to migrate across borders. The more likely it is these different political entities will clash militarily. Will the newly independent nation of Puerto Rico develop its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own nuclear weapons? Its own currency? Will it join a trade bloc?
Also, independence movements tend to be based around myths of nationalism, racism, or ethnicity, and generally assume that having a more local set of elite rulers will automatically work out better for the 99%.
I mean, if people want independence, I don't want to fight them over it, but think it through all the way. I don't think it is my position to say I support their independence before they've come to that conclusion themselves.
And before fully embracing decolonization as a strategy, I invite the audience to investigate the mixed bag that has been decolonization in Sub-Saharan Africa. It definitely hasn't always resulted in well-run democratic governance. I kind of prefer the modern French approach in which all French territory has been fully integrated into the French state, with full funding of public services (roads, hospitals, schools, police) and full participation in French democracy -- France is France, wherever on the globe you may stand. No other rich country treats all of its territories as full and equal participants in the state.
So if Puerto Rico or any other group wanted independence, I'm cool with that, but first I'd immediately grant statehood to every territory of the US so that every territory is treated equally under federal law with every state. Then if you want to leave anyway, cool. If Texas wanted to leave, cool. If Maine wanted to leave, or Alaska, or Hawaii, or Guam, cool. But first I'd make sure you have a full and equal seat at the table of the United States as a state.
Instead they favor decolonization, aka full sovereignty, aka independence. If the residents of Puerto Rico wanted independence, I'd support that ... I'm not sure that's top of their list ...
But an interesting result of the DSA's position on Puerto Rico is that they will not allow a Puerto Rican branch of the DSA to exist. Instead they will work with the democratic Left of Puerto Rico as allies. This is a high level of consistency of thought for a political organization.
The same statement seems to support turning over all the ancestral lands of any indigenous peoples within the current borders of the US, to full sovereignty for those peoples. I'm not sure that's what all those peoples would want. There are benefits that flow from belonging to a single, large, political and economic unit the size of the US. So it's a trade-off. Independence is always a trade-off. The more sovereign political entities that exist, the more difficult it is to address global problems, the more difficult it is to exchange goods and services or travel, the more difficult it is for people to migrate across borders. The more likely it is these different political entities will clash militarily. Will the newly independent nation of Puerto Rico develop its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own nuclear weapons? Its own currency? Will it join a trade bloc?
Also, independence movements tend to be based around myths of nationalism, racism, or ethnicity, and generally assume that having a more local set of elite rulers will automatically work out better for the 99%.
I mean, if people want independence, I don't want to fight them over it, but think it through all the way. I don't think it is my position to say I support their independence before they've come to that conclusion themselves.
And before fully embracing decolonization as a strategy, I invite the audience to investigate the mixed bag that has been decolonization in Sub-Saharan Africa. It definitely hasn't always resulted in well-run democratic governance. I kind of prefer the modern French approach in which all French territory has been fully integrated into the French state, with full funding of public services (roads, hospitals, schools, police) and full participation in French democracy -- France is France, wherever on the globe you may stand. No other rich country treats all of its territories as full and equal participants in the state.
So if Puerto Rico or any other group wanted independence, I'm cool with that, but first I'd immediately grant statehood to every territory of the US so that every territory is treated equally under federal law with every state. Then if you want to leave anyway, cool. If Texas wanted to leave, cool. If Maine wanted to leave, or Alaska, or Hawaii, or Guam, cool. But first I'd make sure you have a full and equal seat at the table of the United States as a state.