re: Turkey and the EU; Mexico and the US (Bienvenido Macario, Philippines) Feb. 9, 2007

https://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=13691&objectTypeId=7941&topicId=1

Bienvenido Macario writes:

The WAIS discussions of late are quite interesting. It is not easy to simply join the “fray” for fear of adding unnecessary work for the WAIS editor. [No problem! I enjoy doing this on Friday evenings—JE.] It seems the most important points are covered or being actively raised on both sides of the arguments anyway.

MEXICO & the US

Selected US Purchases & 1 Annexation from 1803 to 1899:

1.) PHILIPPINES, Marianas Islands & Puerto Rico Purchase (1899) – The 1898 Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War – $20 million from Spain. (Seriously, is there another country called “Philippines” on this planet?)

 

2.) Hawaii Annexation (1898).  Made a territory in 1900 and became a state on August 21, 1959. No payment or exchange was made.  This is only annexation on this list.

3.) Alaska Purchase (1867) $7.2 million (from Russia)

4.) New Mexico-Arizona Purchase or Gadsden Purchase (1854) $10 million (from Mexico – Gen. Sta. Ana)

5.) Land for Railroad Purchase for US$10 million (1853) a 30,000-square-foot strip of Californian land south of the Gila River, today’s southern New Mexico and the southern quarter of Arizona. (from Mexico / Gen. Sta. Ana)

6.) California Purchase / Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty (1848) $15 million (from Mexico Gen. Sta. Ana)

7.) Florida Purchase (1819) was ceded to the United States and purchased from Spain for $5 million.  In addition, the remaining border disputes were settled with Mexico.

8.) Louisiana Purchase (1803) – $15 million (from France)

Except for the Philippines, in which known pro-Japanese oligarchs, quislings and collaborators “declared” independence in 1946, territories annexed by the US were first made territories or trust territories before being allowed to apply for statehood. In fact, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands are still US Trust Territories, although the recently Democrat-dominated House of Representatives gave delegates from these islands the right to vote in the US House of Representatives.

 

Democrats give delegates~ voting rights

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:36 PM ET

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401261_pf.html

WASHINGTON – Democrats on Wednesday pushed through a rules change giving limited voting rights on the House floor to the chamber’s five non-state delegates. Republicans described the move as an unconstitutional power grab.

With the 226-191 vote, delegates~ representing the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa can cast ballots on amendments. The lawmakers, however, will not be allowed to vote on final passage of legislation. If the delegates’ votes decide the outcome of an amendment, the House immediately will vote again without the delegates’ participation. (news abbreviated)

=================

 

re: US: Howard Dean’s Remark (Bienvenido Macario, (John Eipper, USA, 08/17/08 10:06 am)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=22831&objectTypeId=17081&topicId=1

Randy Black wrote on August 16:

I am interested in the WAIS reaction to comments by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee:

“If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the Republican Party,” (Howard) Dean said Friday in an appearance on NPR’s “Tell Me More” program.

Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[…] What in heck is a person of color and why is it important to Howard Dean?

Bienvenido Macario responds:

I anticipate a very lively and interesting discussion on the two points Randy Black raised in this post.

First this is a major political history test beginning with the history of the Democratic and Republican Parties around 1854. Which of the two parties for the last hundred years or so is more supportive of the Native Americans or non-Caucasian peoples? We have to look at the period immediately after the American Civil War, to the SS St. Louis episode of 1938. And to which party did those who strongly opposed

Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights movement belong?

If England’s and Germany’s political history would be of any guide to that of the US, then I have to say that the first female president of America will likely come from the conservative Republican party, including the first president with non-European family heritage. Margaret Thatcher, the first female prime minister of England, and Benjamin Disraeli, the first and only prime minister of Spanish-Jewish ancestry, were conservatives. Angela Merkel, the first female Chancellor of Germany, also came from the equivalent conservative party of Germany.

Already, I am grateful to Randy Black for bringing up the second topic: the definition of “Native American.” I will watch this discussion closely.

The inhabitants of land purchased by the US from 1803 automatically became Native Americans. This is the status I am seeking for the people of the Philippines, and in the process we are willing to give to the US Federal government the right, power and authority to take good care of our natural resources, especially because it has been proven beyond any doubt that Filipinos have turned the tropical islands into a massive environmental disaster.

JE comments: If we accept the experiences of other nations as a guide, it no doubt would/will be easier for the Republicans to elect a woman to the White House.

—

For information about the World Association of International Studies (WAIS), and its online publication, the World Affairs Report, read its homepage by simply double-clicking on: http://wais.stanford.edu/

John Eipper, Editor-in-Chief, Adrian College, MI 49221 USA