In 1898 Cuba wanted to be independent and was fighting an insurgency against Spain, they were not at any point making overtures to the USA. Puerto Rico was not looking for independence, and the PI while there was an independence movement there were other circumstances.
Sorry but they absorbed 20,000 Europeans of which 2/3 were catholic. Not hundreds of thousands with majority brown skinNote that the early United States, with a population that skewed very anti-Catholic, happily absorbed Louisiana despite the large Catholic, Francophone population in and around New Orleans and would also have gladly annexed Quebec if given half the chance.
Sorry but they absorbed 20,000 Europeans of which 2/3 were catholic. Not hundreds of thousands with majority brown skin
Sorry but they absorbed 20,000 Europeans of which 2/3 were catholic. Not hundreds of thousands with majority brown skin
I don't disagree with your post as a whole however this aspect is overstated I believe. Cuba at least prior to the revolution had a very sizable white spanish background population, I'd hesitate to say its black/mulatto population as a percentage wouldn't have been much higher than the US states of Mississippi or South Carolina of the same time.
Not to mention it would have soon been flooded by American settlers as soon as it became a part of the US. Hawaii is still minority white, I'd hesitate to say Cuba by the end of the 20th century would have been majority white if part of the US.
Again another myth that is based more on present day Cuba than how Cuba was at the turn of the century. Cuba was actually very racially stratified maybe more akin to southern US states than Brazil. According to the 1931 Cuban census 72% of the population was white.
Not sure why people think people who look like Desi Arnez or Andy Garcia or hell Cameron Diaz would be equated to American Blacks or Filipinos?
Cuba's population is multiethnic, reflecting its complex colonial origins. Intermarriage between diverse groups is widespread, and consequently there is some discrepancy in reports of the country's racial composition: whereas the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miamidetermined that 62% of Cubans are black,[243] the 2002 Cuban census found that a similar proportion of the population, 65.05%, was white.
Does that mean that all the white folks who claimed that they were descended from Pocahantas were not really "white"? Many people who all people considered as white have Native American ancestry. Like Woodrow Wilson's second wife, Edith Wilson. Or many of the First Families of Virginia.
Why? They'd have more influence in a territory than in a state.It's been argued that the Navy was the power behind the scenes to have Hawaii become a state - for security reasons.
You all do know that Alaska became a state at the same time, they were a bit less excited about it, to politically balance off Hawaii?
The "one drop" did matter, if you were found to have a black ancestor you were "black" and if you subsequently tried to pass for white you got in to big trouble.
Oh they not have a problem annexing them but had a real problem treating them as equal and allowing them same rights as Europeans.
Why? They'd have more influence in a territory than in a state.
Hm, while the Europeans may have wanted US annexation the Hawaiians were against it. It was another example of Europeans slowly overtake the local population in terms of size and then hi jacking the country. This was the same in California or New Mexico.Well, consider the times. Overseas territories were possibly vulnerable to independence movements. France had dealt with that prospect however remote for them by making the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe in the Caribbean Départements de France: loosely akin to American states (more like how counties are in most American states, but on a national level)
Hawaii's population was (and is) atypical. While we may think of that concern nowadays as being absurd, giving Hawaii statehood, which was apparently fairly widely desired in the islands, was an easy fix to what was seen in some Navy circles as a risk.
The cynic would say that is why there was no strong push for Puerto Rico becoming a state - no great strategic interest to offset some of the more awkward political consequences.
This sums it up nicely.If you read the discussions in the various sources at that time - newspapers, congressional speeches, etc, there are several pro and con arguments concerning the territories the US did or did not acquire in the late 1890s. On the pro side were geostrategic reasons for naval bases, protection of trade, and also to prevent another power from acquiring the territory. On the pro side were economic arguments, basically that economic benefits to the US were better with direct control, and also should that territory fall to another power US business access would be restricted. On the con side were the general anti-imperialism sentiment, issues of "quagmire" and long term cost, and yes racism and anti-Catholic issues. In the case of the PI the "little brown brothers" (a phrase used often) were not ready for self government and if the US walked away and gave the PI to some local government, the PI were sure to be snapped up by some other power which would be a bad thing for the USA. Therefore McKinley, after supposedly praying on his knees, decided to annex the PI in spite of the population being nonwhite and Catholic (except where it was Muslim in the southern part). Puerto Rico was not agitating for independence, was not going to be given back to Spain, and as a western hemisphere territory was unacceptable to be attached to a European power, so the US held on to it. Cuba had a strong independence movement, but remember the various agreements the Cubans signed that gave the USA a lot of power in Cuban affairs for some time, so the US got economic interests, geostrategic security with a friendly and dependent Cuba without getting the Cubans. Yeah the Cubans as a whole were not as brown as the Filipinos, but outside of a small proportion of the population would not pass for "pure white" in the Alabama of 1898. Hawaii is a different situation, and should be discussed separately.
Bottom line is that it was not all about race/religion, but those were important factors in the equation.
The "one drop" did matter, if you were found to have a black ancestor you were "black" and if you subsequently tried to pass for white you got in to big trouble.
the same is true of the entirety of North, Central, and South America.Hm, while the Europeans may have wanted US annexation the Hawaiians were against it. It was another example of Europeans slowly overtake the local population in terms of size and then hi jacking the country. This was the same in California or New Mexico.