No more than we did to any other English-speaking US territory in the 19th or 20th century that didn't have enough people for statehood. (And before you bring up Puerto Rico, a) it's not English-speaking and b) no, it's not true that its people have ever voted for statehood, whether in 2017 or any other year.) If Guam or USVI ever gets to a population closer to that of one of the smaller US states, and its people vote to apply for statehood, we'll talk then. Same goes for Greenland should the US buy it, hordes of Americans migrate to it, and it develops a substantial English-speaking population.
back
3 comments
Why would English speaking have anything to do with applying for statehood?
Because English is vital to being part of a unified American culture.
If the US annexed Canada, I would also not want Quebec as a state for the same reason. Either make it a territory or give it independence.
I consider the current native speakers of New Mexican Spanish, whose family settled in New Mexico in the 1600s, to be equally a part of the "unified American culture" as you are.
The same for the Amish who speak Pennsylvanian German, the Gullah speaking people, the Cajun speakers, and the many indigenous people of North America who speak Navajo, or Hawaiian, or language at home.
+1
That's completely untrue. The US has no national language, and bilingualism is something to encourage not suppress. There are 41 _million_ spanish speakers in the US. HI, AK, ND, LA, PR, NM all have more than english as an official language.
The more language learning is taught, the more Americans of every type can appreciate other cultures, and the more new Americans feel supported in their communities.
Take the nationalism elsewhere.
> it's not English-speaking
So what? Do people who don't speak English have less claim to representation in the national government?
> no, it's not true that its people have ever voted for statehood, whether in 2017 or any other year.
Yes, it is. Statehood has won by the terms of the last two status referenda.
It's true that they were boycotted by some anti-statehood groups, who thought the choices were framed optimally, but when people choose not to vote because they don't like the available options, we don't say that the resulting winner didn't win.
I don't believe California or New Mexico had predominately English-speaking populations by the time of statehood, much less being aligned with viewpoints common to the rest of the US.
Quoting https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-population-of-California-... , "The Native population of CA in 1850 is estimated at 300,000. By 1863 it was down to 30,000 because of genocide and enslavement."
From http://explore.museumca.org/goldrush/curriculum/1stcaliforni... you see the US census says there were 92,597 of which 25,000 were Spanish speakers, and "Indigenous California Indians" were "Not included in the population count".
So California had far more non-English speakers than native English speakers when it became a state, and only 100,000 people.
I believe that the majority of New Mexico spoke Spanish as their primary language when New Mexico became a state in 1912.
The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for "New Mexico" says, in the causal racism of that era:
"The inhabitants of Spanish descent have been only slightly assimilated and cling tenaciously to their racial peculiarities. As a rule, they live in low adobe houses built around a court, and are poor and ignorant, but hospitable. They are more Americanized in the Rio Grande Valley than amoung the mountains where English is rarely spoken. Many of them have intermarried with the Indians, creating the class of half-breeds known as "Mestizos." Although the proportion of Spanish-American and Indian inhabitants is steadily decreasing with the arrival of immigrants from other parts of the United States, it was nevertheless computed by the New Mexican authorities to be about 63% in 1904. About one-tenth of the Spanish-American and Indian population habitually use the English language."
Quoted from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2900092&view=1up...
That's probably about 50% of the state which was predominately not using English when NM became a state.
Both NM and CA could expect large numbers of English speakers to outnumber those who spoke other languages. In CA this happened almost immediately, because of the Gold Rush; in NM it took longer. In both cases, English-speaking, common-law government institutions were immediately established upon US annexation.
Had the US annexed Quebec two centuries ago, the massive American population influx into the region would no doubt have assimilated the Quebecois, and today French Quebec would be a bunch of place names around the state, and tourist districts in Montreal and Quebec City. That wouldn't happen today because there is a substantial French-speaking population, and a new large English-speaking influx is unlikely.
And yes, I believe English is fundamental to being part of American culture. That doesn't preclude speaking another language as well. But the descendants of hispanos of New Mexico, Hawaiians in Hawaii, and every other group speak English, and would be the first to tell you of the importance of doing so for personal and societal advancement.
You write "because of the Gold Rush".
Please do not exclude "and genocide of the Indigenous peoples of California". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Indian_Wars
Your hypothetical analogy to Quebec of two centuries ago fails because the white population of the US would likely not have killed off 90% of the French-speaking population. As it was, we know that the population influx of the Great Migration of Canada of 200 years ago didn't cause the Quebecois to disappear.
You write "In both cases, English-speaking, common-law government institutions were immediately established upon US annexation"
Right, but earlier you wrote "English-speaking US territory", not "English-speaking government institutions". I was objecting to your earlier characterization. NM was not primarily an English-speaking territory.
Now you add "common-law" to the mix. Why is that relevant? Louisiana has a civil-law legal system, not have a common-law one, so it isn't like common-law-only is an essential part of the "unified American culture" you mentioned.