By Kevin Stoda
As many of my readers know, this week I am with my family on the island of Guam and am fascinated by its history and its peculiar relationship with the rest of the United Sates. In visiting here–one of “America’s so-called outlying territories”–I have begun pondering what it means exactly to be a territory or to be a colony. Guam, like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Saipan, is one such outlying territory of the U.S.A. (I believe nearly half Americans have no idea where Guam is located and do not know that the USA has outlying territories so far away.)
A list of so-called outlying territories world-wide can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlying_territory
In many cases, one-time foreign colonies of a regime have been redefined or redesignated in modern times to be territories, rather than states or colonies.
What is exactly the difference between being a colony and being a territory?
I have tried to find out on line and the best distinction I can find is that [a] “a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state” while [b] “a territory is a defined area, including land and waters, considered to be a possession of a person, organization [or nation state]”.
With such a definition, I begin to see why the concept of a ‘territory” contrasted with the concept of a “colony” is a bit difficult to determine historically. That is, a territory was often previously a colony of the current protector or possessor of the “territory”. (In other cases, the protected territory came into the hands of another state after one state gave up its colony or former colony to the United Nations or some other organization or regime.)
Currently, the citizens of “outlying territories” of the USA cannot vote in national elections, nor can they have direct representation in Congress or in most forms of federal governance. To me, this appears to be similar to the role of colonies in many large empires or colonies under a kingdom, empire or a regime. I would, for example, still see Gibraltar as a colony of the UK and Palestine to be a colony of Israel.
In Guam’s case, there appears to be a desire to become a state. This has, however, been ignored by the US Congress. In turn, there is also a significant Independence movement there–perhaps stronger than Hawaiian independence movements but not as vocal historically as in Puerto Rico. I think both Guam and Puerto Rico could do better financially and geopolitical as either (1) actual US states with all there rights and privileges or (2) as independent sovereign states.
What do you readers think?