Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

An American Colonial Office?

NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:32:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I recently read a little bit about a proposal that the United States create an equivalent institution to the colonial office, which I suppose begs the question, should the USA have colonies?

This notion seemed somewhat outdated to me, but then I thought that, perhaps, if America is going to argue for hegemony, however principled (or not), then formalizing the relationship might actually be the most humane thing to do. After all, it seems that on the one hand, all the ideological & legal fictions of national sovereignty being absolute, of democracy, equality, etc., do act as a check on foreign policy (ie: public expectations of America "The Good" mitigates administration's ability to be "bad"). On the other hand though, having the status of "colony of America" would, debatably, serve countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan better than the current situation, where they may be left with impunity, hypothetically no matter the consequences. Subordination can be chafing, and exploitative, but in such an explicit system, there may be more responsibility on the part of the imposing power, greater ties to prevent collateral damage excess, and to ensure a certain basic benevolence to the paternalism.

Naturally, I'm not suggesting that it be exactly like the Colonial Office of old, it would be updated, as befits a liberally democratic republic. There could be a parody of the current framework, where a colony has a President elected from an American-approved list, a House of Representatives that's wholly elected without any restraint, and a Senate appointed by the American Federal Government - perhaps the UN could get to draw up a list for the Vice Presidency, to appease the international community. Although, given that institutions need to be built, I imagine it would be quite similar in some ways to strong constitution molds: a Bill of Rights enshrined in the colony's law would take precedence over the legislature, at-least in the beginning, until they were ingrained enough. Such constitionalism, founded upon Western values, would hopefully limit American abuse or colonial corruption.

Basically, I've played devil's advocate a little, but if America is going to be active globally in a sort of national interest-serving way, what should that look like? Must it appear in the guise of the faux-spontaneity that currently reigns (it just so happens that we consistently must do these set, almost formulaic, things).

Feel free to ladle on criticism, genuinely discuss, or play a little Baal lawyering yourself.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:31:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

I imagine the question is moot, as following an attempt to recoup the costs of a war in their interests with the Space French, they'll rebel.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:28:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

What are you talking about? We fought like hell to hold on to the Philippines and Cuba. We didn't have to take them- they sure as hell didn't want to be taken. And we took them anyway.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 1:59:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

What are you talking about? We fought like hell to hold on to the Philippines and Cuba. We didn't have to take them- they sure as hell didn't want to be taken. And we took them anyway.

You call the Spanish-American war fighting "like hell"?

That was the easiest and shortest war we ever fought.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 4:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Guam, American Samoa, and the US virgin islands are US colonies. Most states were at one point US territories.

The constitution grants congress the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the only geographical area the Federal Government has authority over, are territories, and military districts(10 miles or less) within the states. The Federal government also has interstate and international jurisdiction, such as space, rivers, and/or the high seas.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 1:59:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

What are you talking about? We fought like hell to hold on to the Philippines and Cuba. We didn't have to take them- they sure as hell didn't want to be taken. And we took them anyway.

You call the Spanish-American war fighting "like hell"?

That was the easiest and shortest war we ever fought.

Gulf War
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 4:53:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

At first it won't be a problem, because of the low population and dependence on Earth. When technology advances to allow large populations and self-sufficient we'll be in trouble, unless we've also developed technology that allows us to move troops to Mars and the Moon at a reasonable speed. Either way I'm sure the colonies will side with us when the Zerg invade.

The issue then is how to prevent the Protoss from glassing our colonies.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:40:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 1:59:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

What are you talking about? We fought like hell to hold on to the Philippines and Cuba. We didn't have to take them- they sure as hell didn't want to be taken. And we took them anyway.

You call the Spanish-American war fighting "like hell"?

That was the easiest and shortest war we ever fought.

First of all, Mexico actively tried to avoid the war, and the US pursued it like mad. Mexico sent diplomats to try to negotiate peace, and the US government stopped them. US soldiers were sent over the border to harass and brutalize civilians to try to incite war, for god's sake!

Second of all, I was referring to the Filipino Insurrection. The Philippines wanted independence, they had been fighting for it, and yet the US military was sent in to take the country by force. There was nothing reluctant about it. We sent warships across the Pacific and poured effort and soldiers into it. And in the end, the US military murdered 1.4 million Filipinos in a massive genocide. How does something like that happen without a massive commitment on the part of the attacker?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:45:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:40:37 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:59:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

What are you talking about? We fought like hell to hold on to the Philippines and Cuba. We didn't have to take them- they sure as hell didn't want to be taken. And we took them anyway.

You call the Spanish-American war fighting "like hell"?

That was the easiest and shortest war we ever fought.

First of all, Mexico actively tried to avoid the war, and the US pursued it like mad. Mexico sent diplomats to try to negotiate peace, and the US government stopped them. US soldiers were sent over the border to harass and brutalize civilians to try to incite war, for god's sake!

Second of all, I was referring to the Filipino Insurrection. The Philippines wanted independence, they had been fighting for it, and yet the US military was sent in to take the country by force. There was nothing reluctant about it. We sent warships across the Pacific and poured effort and soldiers into it. And in the end, the US military murdered 1.4 million Filipinos in a massive genocide. How does something like that happen without a massive commitment on the part of the attacker?

Bump. I'd like a response from CP before this topic gets buried.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:22:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:40:37 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:59:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

What are you talking about? We fought like hell to hold on to the Philippines and Cuba. We didn't have to take them- they sure as hell didn't want to be taken. And we took them anyway.

You call the Spanish-American war fighting "like hell"?

That was the easiest and shortest war we ever fought.

First of all, Mexico actively tried to avoid the war, and the US pursued it like mad. Mexico sent diplomats to try to negotiate peace, and the US government stopped them. US soldiers were sent over the border to harass and brutalize civilians to try to incite war, for god's sake!

Second of all, I was referring to the Filipino Insurrection. The Philippines wanted independence, they had been fighting for it, and yet the US military was sent in to take the country by force. There was nothing reluctant about it. We sent warships across the Pacific and poured effort and soldiers into it. And in the end, the US military murdered 1.4 million Filipinos in a massive genocide. How does something like that happen without a massive commitment on the part of the attacker?

A.) it was Spain not Mexico
B.) President McKinley also tried to avoid the war, but Democrats forced him into it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 11:00:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:22:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:40:37 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:59:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:02:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The U.S. has had colonies, but has wanted to get rid of them. The Philippines and Cuba were acquired in the Spanish-American War, and soon exited. The idea in Iraq and Afghanistan is to get out ASAP.

However, maybe there is potential for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Such would pose a challenge to the legal structure. Do the colonists file absentee ballots or have representatives?

What are you talking about? We fought like hell to hold on to the Philippines and Cuba. We didn't have to take them- they sure as hell didn't want to be taken. And we took them anyway.

You call the Spanish-American war fighting "like hell"?

That was the easiest and shortest war we ever fought.

First of all, Mexico actively tried to avoid the war, and the US pursued it like mad. Mexico sent diplomats to try to negotiate peace, and the US government stopped them. US soldiers were sent over the border to harass and brutalize civilians to try to incite war, for god's sake!

Second of all, I was referring to the Filipino Insurrection. The Philippines wanted independence, they had been fighting for it, and yet the US military was sent in to take the country by force. There was nothing reluctant about it. We sent warships across the Pacific and poured effort and soldiers into it. And in the end, the US military murdered 1.4 million Filipinos in a massive genocide. How does something like that happen without a massive commitment on the part of the attacker?

A.) it was Spain not Mexico

My mistake.

B.) President McKinley also tried to avoid the war, but Democrats forced him into it.

If he truly opposed the war, then he was one of the only people in the entire US government that did. The US government as a whole clamored for war. And seriously, you can't just peg the war on Democrats. Yes, they were imperialists at the time, but it wasn't as thought the Republicans made some sort of noble stand.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK