Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
It is still fundamentally immoral regardless of legality. If we are talking about power imbalances of such can you even say there is actual self determination. By that logic you could make an argument for "voluntary" slavery, but I think we can all agree this is bullshit.
As things are, the territories (and to an extend, DC) are subservient to the US. They are de fact inferior the the main country. That is absurd. For me to say "but they want to" obscures a lot of fucked up stuff that happened in the past that led the current situation to be somehow desirable.
Again, if statehood or independence aren't ideal, then a new better solution should be thought of. But the fact that Puerto Ricans, American Samoans and people from DC have de fact less rights than other Americans is completely unacceptable.
Edited by Heatth on Nov 11th 2020 at 9:12:05 AM
![]()
I am not sure what you mean? Is it that weird of an opinion to think people shouldn't have different rights depending on where they were born? I think the concept of countries in itself is bad, but to have stark differences between people on the same country is absurd. How can it be justifiable for American Samoans to not be citizens? That Puerto Rican's can't vote for presidency if they want to? That DC have little say on their own laws? Or that all of them are less able to influence the politics of the country they live in.
Again, if the problem is "statehood" itself, then a new category should be created to solve these fundamental problems. Or just improve the rights and representation of the territories directly without messing in anything else. If having more rights is less desirable then something fundamentally wrong is going on elsewhere, so that should be rectified.
Edited by Heatth on Nov 11th 2020 at 9:17:16 AM
While I don't agree with it, if the people of a place like the Marshall Islands have collectively voted to remain a territory over independence or statehood, then it's their democratically-made choice, not mine. In the case of Puerto Rico, it's because they have voted in favor of a particular outcome over another, and thus we should honor that choice.
That said I am in favor of automatically granting all residents of US territories automatic birthright citizenship, they are entitled to that much. That is not a question of self-determination like statehood/territoryhood/independence is.
Edited by AlleyOop on Nov 11th 2020 at 7:19:11 AM
I'm pretty sure they get to determine that.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.D.C. and Puerto Rico's situations are bad because the people who live there aren't happy with the situations in place. American Samoa is more complicated because a lot (maybe most) people actually are comfortable with the current situation for a variety of reasons.
Maybe that's antonym to you, but you can't both argue for self-determination and say that their preferences don't matter because they hurt your personal sensibilities.
![]()
Of course they do. But if they prefer having less rights then something fucked up is going on. Why is that the case? Why is, for example not being able to vote for presidency a better deal? And why don't fix that?
In that example, you can fix the issue by abolishing the electoral college and accepting all votes as valid regardless if the place is a state or not. Other issues such as the American Samoan citzenship could be easily fixed also.
But the issue is, I fundamentally disagree that an oppressed group can "choose" to be oppressed. If that is happening, then there is compression happening in some form.
Yeah, it is against my personal sensibilities that a second class of people exist, that is right.
If American Samoas are comfortable being second class, ask yourself why is that the case and solve that.
Edited by Heatth on Nov 11th 2020 at 9:24:46 AM
Well, here's a article specific to American Samoa and how a lot of people there view the situation.
Part of the issue I think is, at least in this specific case, they would deny being second-class, and find your arguments to be incredibly condescending.
Edited by LSBK on Nov 11th 2020 at 6:28:42 AM
Thanks, that is actually an excellent article that demonstrate my point. From what I can understand a big reason have to do with the laws of land ownership. So, what people want is not "have less rights than others" but rather "not have their land laws disturbed. The fact the the two are connected is artificial and could be changed.
Another reason have to do with religion curfews but, frankly, fuck that shit. Religious tolerance only goes so far. The article is right that an imposed curfew of US citizens would be unacceptable. But it should be unacceptable for everyone. If the people there want to obey the curfew for the prayers that is fine. But they shouldn't be forced to, regardless of their citizenship status.
That article shows that just granting citizenship is not a magic bullet and should be carefully studied. But it does nothing to show that such a thing would be bad if carefully implemented.
Edited by Heatth on Nov 11th 2020 at 9:35:27 AM
![]()
![]()
I can see your train of thought, but you're coming rather problematiclynote close to White Man's Burden.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Nov 11th 2020 at 7:36:24 AM
My musician pageTo my understanding, being a full-on state with US citizens would give the US more power over their territory and would basically "force" certain duties onto them they don't necessarily want.
So, basically, they don't want to be 100% independent of the US, nor do they want to be 100% a part of it, so being a territory is a comfortable middle for them.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
So the solution is to not give the US more power and not force duties they don't want to.
Again, these things are just connected because current laws says they are connected. But that can be changed. That is why I said that if "statehood" is a problem then a new solution should be sought. But if current status quo is desirable because otherwise the US would enforce some bad consequences, then that is not free will, that is extortion.
Well, that is your problem. I never said anything about having things forced upon them. My initial post is how I think it is absurd the US having colonies is not a major topic all the time.
Edited by Heatth on Nov 11th 2020 at 9:40:03 AM
Personally I get a "they don't know what they want" vibe from his arguments, which isn't much better than White Man's Burden.
i'm tired, my friendEdit: all the back and fourth edits. Can't keep my posts lined up.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Nov 11th 2020 at 7:40:42 AM
My musician pageThis does relate back to something I've found strange about the Puerto Rico situation, though. One of the major party's is pro-status quo, and I don't really get that.
I could understand not wanting to be a state, but also not wanting to be fully independent, but even then I feel like that would lead people to to try and work out some new arrangement. Not just say "keep what we have now" because clearly what they have now isn't working for most people.
If multiple people are commenting on how you're coming off (which seems to be the case), then it's at least partially an issue on your part.
Edited by LSBK on Nov 11th 2020 at 6:43:24 AM
Well, part of the problem is that people keep acting like there are these binaries situations (technically, a thrinary here), right? If all the time there is a discussion about the status of Puerto Rico all everyone says is that it got to be either a state or independent, then it gives the impression these are the only alternatives. Thus, if someone don't like either, they either will accept the "status quo is best" as a default or will support that position to avoid the others.
If I am not mistaken one of the problems with one of the Puerto Rico plebiscite was that, right? Of what voting for a "change in the status quo" would actually mean.
There is also the issue that people are often resistant to any change to the status quo, even if they status quo is clearly not good.
Edited by Heatth on Nov 11th 2020 at 9:56:57 AM
IMO the decision should be the people's to make, not mine or yours Heath's. If the people desire to remain a territory for the reasons given above, then it's not really my place to speak over them and deprive them of their agency regardless of my opinion. I agree with the others and especially Physical Stamina's point that this side of the argument has strong undertones of White Man's Burden.
And it doesn't have to be a binary, because again I have already argued for a significant change to the status quo that can be done without altering the territory-state relationship, and that would be to grant the citizens of all territories automatic birthright citizenship, rather than just a few.
Edited by AlleyOop on Nov 11th 2020 at 7:52:52 AM

To my understanding, with colonies/territories and such, the big sticking point is that most of them basically want to be US territories.
It's perfectly legal for nations to have colonies and such. The big issue from an international law standpoint is one of self-determination. If they're ok with being colonies, it's fine.
Leviticus 19:34