The perils of U.S. moral superiority complex

Kerry: US, intl community won't recognize outcome of Crimea vote on secession from Ukraine

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/03/14/west-readying-sanctions-after-crimea-vote

Crimea's are 90% ethnic Russians. Crimea's took a democratic vote (as much as the U.S. and it's minions refuse to believe) to secede from Ukraine and annexation with none other than their natural partner, Russia.

Of course, democratic votes are as good as the government taking such a vote, per the U.S.A. Our country loves to export our democratic model throughout the planet, and if possible throughout the confines of the universe. Yet, when such model is used against the so called U.S. interests, then the U.S. simply refuses to recognize the democratic process and replies back with...sanctions. Convenient hypocrisy, or moral superiority complex?

A good "memory refresher" for our friends in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans: The 1898 Treaty of Paris that brought to an end of the short lived Spanish-American war. The Spanish-American War had an overwhelming U.S. public support due to the popular fervor towards supporting Cuban freedom (and of course furthering U.S. economic interests overseas) The U.S. was especially interested in developing developing and having a stake in the sugar industry in Cuba.The U.S. military even resorted to falsifying reports in the Philippines in order to maintain public support for U.S. involvement abroad. Sounds familiar? Iraq 2003 anyone? The U.S. justified its participation in the war based on the principles of Manifest Destiny and expansionism, proclaiming that it was America’s fate and its duty to take charge in these overseas nations. 


Basically, at gunpoint, the United States forced Spain to relinquish the Philippines, Cuba and, Puerto Rico (this one not being a major point of interest, but since it was an all inclusive package, why not?)  During the Senate debate to ratify the treaty, Senators George Frisbie Hoar and George Graham Vest were outspoken opponents of the treaty.

This Treaty will make us a vulgar, commonplace empire, controlling subject races and vassal states, in which one class must forever rule and other classes must forever obey.

—Senator George Frisbie Hoar

Some anti-expansionists stated that the treaty committed the United States to a course of empire and violated the most basic tenets of the United States Constitution. They argued that neither the Congress nor the President had the right to pass laws governing colonial peoples who were not represented by law-makers.

With the takeover of Puerto Rico, a territory that was 99% ethnic Spanish, the United States began a campaign of "Americanization". Did the United Sates gave the people of Puerto Rcio the chance to vote on this idea? No. On the contrary, it was forced deculturization. In 1899, U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar, the same one who first criticized the Treaty of Paris of 1898, had a sudden change of heart and  described Puerto Ricans as "uneducated, simple-minded and harmless people who were only interested in wine, women, music and dancing" and recommended that Spanish should be abolished in the island’s schools and only English should be taught.Schools became the primary vehicle of Americanization, and initially all classes were taught in English, which also made for a large dropout rate. Thank you Senator!!

In 1901, the first civilian U.S. governor of Puerto Rico, Charles Herbert Allen, installed himself as president of the largest sugar-refining company in the world, the American Sugar Refining Company. This company was later renamed as the Domino Sugar company. In effect, Charles Allen leveraged his governorship of Puerto Rico into a controlling interest over the entire Puerto Rican economy.By 1930, over 40 percent of all the arable land in Puerto Rico had been converted into sugar plantations, which were entirely owned by Charles Allen and U.S. banking interests. These bank syndicates also owned the entire coastal railroad, and the San Juan international seaport; land grab anyone?

Of course, it was all advancing U.S. interests in the Caribbean, so it was morally acceptable to become a colonizing nation, the same thing Washington and his cronies so much detested from the Brtish some 122 years earlier.

Now, 115 years later, this same Nation, the United States objects to the peaceful secession of Crimea from Ukraine by a democratic vote of the Crimean people and its annexation to Russia. A luxury not afforded by the people of Puerto Rico...Thank you uncle Sam!

References:

Safa, Helen (March 22, 2003). "Changing forms of U.S. hegemony in Puerto Rico: the impact on the family and sexuality". Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development. Retrieved 2007-08-03.

Harvey, S.S. (February 22, 1899). "Americanizing Puerto Rico". New York Times. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-08-03.