Puerto Rico (”rich port“), with a current population of 4 million and comprising the main island and several smaller islands, has a complex and “rich” history. Very little is known about it prior to Columbus’s arrival, not surprising since the history of North America as taught by schools in the United States   began with “Columbus.”

The island has been known by several names before it was called Puerto Rico. When Columbus arrived on his second expedition to the New World in 1493, he named it San Juan Bautista in honor of John the Baptist. The Tainos called the island “Boriken (Boriquen)“. It’s unclear where its current name came from, but it was known as Puerto Rico soon after Ponce de Leon became its first governor in 1508.

According to Wikipedia, the first attempt to uncover Puerto Rico’s origins was described by Fray Inigo Abbad y Lasierra in 1786, three hundred years after the first Spaniards arrived. The first settlers are believed to have originated from the Oronico valley in South America who migrated through the Caribbean, inhabiting the Antilles from Trinidad and Tobago to Puerto Rico. Recent archaeological expeditions found evidence of their existence on the island of Vieques (1990), dating approximately to 2000 BC. Among the early tribes that were believed to descend from the Taino was the Arawak Indian Culture. They were the dominant society until the Spanish arrival in 1493.

The Spanish brought diseases which spread throughout the indigenous population, affecting the labor force, necessitating the Spanish to bring African Slaves for replacements to transform Puerto Rico into the entry port of the Caribbean on its way to South America, Mexico and parts of what is now the United States. Although the French, English and Dutch occupied the island at various times, they were not there long enough to affect the culture or language until the United States invaded Guanica in 1898 at the beginning of the Spanish American War. Subsequently, Spain was forced to secede Puerto Rico to the United States in the treaty of Paris (1898).

Under US occupation, in the early Twentieth century, Puerto Rico was treated as a conquered adversary, controlled by the American military with its governor as a political appointee of the US President. It wasn’t until 1917 when the Jones-Shafroth Act granted US citizenship to Puerto Ricans under “commonwealth status” that free elections established its ability to choose its cultural path. The first gubernatorial election was held in 1948, however full and equal voting representation in the US Congress afforded by statehood still eludes Puerto Rico.

Part of the problem Puerto Ricans faced under US occupation had been from the pharmacutical industry and other businesses which established a strong foothold on the island due to the tax breaks afforded by their commonwealth status. Vast areas of the island were “cultivated” for its natural resources and forests destroyed to build factories to support commercial interests of the mainland while doing little to enrich the economic life of the population other than provide low paying jobs. Puerto Rico also acutely suffered from the great depression and natural disasters such as hurricanes by losing jobs from those companies. Many migrated to the mainland, primarily New York City, where they and the second and third generation comprise a large percentage of the Latino population while maintaining ties with the island, and wanting a vote in the future status of the island. As time passes, fewer inhabitants remain that were born before citizenship and between 1898 and 1917. In many respects, it remains “a Third World country” with areas of poverty and high unemployment and less financial benefits afforded states or foreign countries receiving aid from the US government.

Over the years, Puerto Rico has been presented with three choices, independence, statehood or commonwealth, each time they have chosen commonwealth, however protectorates, territories or commonwealth status are fast disappearing in the Twenty-First century as more subtle economic and cultural imperialism increases by advancing technology. Puerto Rico will not be able to retain its current status indefinitely. They will be faced with choosing the future extent of its cultural uniqueness by relinquishing American citizenship with all the benefits and protections it provides in an increasingly uncertain world. The future for Puerto Rico will be either independence or statehood.

Puerto Rico con una población actual de 4 millones de habitantes, es la isla principal de varias islas más pequeñas, tiene una historia rica y compleja aunque se sabe muy poco sobre ella antes de la llegada de Cristobal Colón. No es sorprendente, ya que la historia de América del Norte, como se enseña en las escuelas en los Estados Unidos empezó con “Colón.”

La isla ha sido conocida con varios nombres antes de llamarse Puerto Rico. Cuando Colón llegó en su segunda expedición al Nuevo Mundo en 1493, el la  llamó San Juan Bautista en honor a Juan el Bautista. Los taínos de la isla la llamaron  ”Borikén (Borinquen)”, de ahi que los habitantes son llamados “Boricuas”  No está claro de donde proviene su nombre actual, pero se conoce como Puerto Rico poco después que Ponce de León se convirtió en su primer gobernador en 1508.

Según Wikipedia, el primer intento de descubrir los orígenes de Puerto Rico es descrito por Fray Iñigo Abbad y Lasierra en 1786, trescientos años después que los primeros españoles arrivaron. Los primeros pobladores se cree llegaron desde el valle de Oronico en América del Sur que emigraron a través del Caribe, poblando las Antillas desde Trinidad y Tobago hasta Puerto Rico. Recientes expediciones arqueológicas encontraron pruebas de su existencia en la isla de Vieques (1990), que data aproximadamente de 2000 ac. Entre las primeras tribus que se cree que descienden de los Taínos era la cultura de los indios Arawak. Eran la sociedad dominante hasta  la llegada de los españoles en 1493.

Los españoles trajeron con ellos enfermedades que se propagaron por toda la población indígena afectando a la fuerza de trabajo, lo que obligo a los españoles traer esclavos africanos para reemplazar fuerza de trabajo y transformar a Puerto Rico en el puerto de entrada de el Caribe en su camino hacia América del Sur, México y partes de lo que que hoy es Estados Unidos. A pesar que las lenguas  Francés, Inglés y holandeses ocuparon la isla en varias ocasiones, no estuvieron el  tiempo suficiente para afectar  la cultura o la lengua sino hasta que Estados Unidos invadió Guánica en 1898 al comienzo de la Guerra de la América española. Posteriormente, España se vio obligada a ceder  Puerto Rico a los Estados Unidos en el tratado de París (1898).

Bajo la ocupación de EE.UU., en el siglo XX, Puerto Rico fue tratado como un adversario vencido, controlado por el ejército estadounidense, con un gobernador funcionario político nombrado por el Presidente de los EE.UU.. No fue sino hasta 1917 cuando la Ley Jones-Shafroth concedio US ciudadanía a los puertorriqueños bajo el tratado “estado libre asociado” en que  en elecciones libres se estableció su capacidad de elegir su camino cultural y su primera  elección de gobernador que tuvo lugar en 1948.  Sin embargo plena e igualitariamente la representación con voto en el Congreso de EE.UU., que ofrece la condición de Estado, todavía no llega a Puerto Rico.

Parte de los problemas que los puertorriqueños enfrentande bajo la ocupación de EE.UU. ha sido la de la industria farmacéutica y otras empresas que establecieron una fuerte presencia en la isla, debido a los beneficios fiscales que ofrece el Estado Libre Asociado. Vastas zonas (bosques) de la isla fueron destruidas para construir fábricas para apoyar los intereses comerciales de USA, mientras se hacia poco para enriquecer la vida económica de la población con trabajos mal pagados. Puerto Rico también sufrió agudamente la Gran Depresión y los desastres naturales como los huracanes, como las pérdida de puestos de trabajo de esas empresas. Muchos migraron hacia  USA principalmente la ciudad de Nueva York, donde ellos, la segunda y tercera generación representan un gran porcentaje de la población latina, manteniendo  lazos con la isla, y esperando un voto en el futuro estatus de la isla. Con  el tiempo, un menor número de habitantes recuerdan que nacieron antes de la ciudadanía entre 1898 y 1917. En muchos aspectos, sigue siendo “un país del Tercer Mundo”, con zonas de pobreza y con un porcentaje de desempleo elevado.

A lo largo de años, Puerto Rico se le han presentado tres opciones, la independencia, la condicion de estado o estado libre asociado, sin embargo, protectorados, territorios o estado libre asociado están desapareciendo rápidamente en el siglo XXI.  Puerto Rico no será capaz de mantener su estado actual por tiempo indefinido. Ellos se enfrentan a la elección en el futuro, de su singularidad cultural renunciando a la ciudadanía americana con todos los beneficios y protecciones que ofrece en un mundo cada vez más incierto. El futuro de Puerto Rico será la independencia o la estadidad.

translated by Davin Blu

The term, Egg of Columbus, perhaps began with Italian historian Girolamo Benzoni. In his document of the New World he wrote: Columbus was dining with many Spanish nobles when one of them said to him: ‘If your lordship had not discovered the Indies, there would have been, here in Spain, one who would have started a similar adventure with the same result.’

Columbus did not respond to these words but asked for a whole egg to be brought to him. He placed it on the table and said: ‘My lords, I will lay a wager with any of you that you are unable to make this egg stand on its end like I will do without any kind of help or aid.’ They all tried without success and when the egg returned to Columbus, he tapped it gently on the table breaking it slightly and, with this, the egg stood on its end.

All those present were confounded and understood what he meant: that once the feat has been done, anyone knows how to do it.

From Lifehacker.com

New years Eve is a milestone to celebrate in 2011. So much has happened this year, all those roller coaster ups and downs this past 365 and 1/4 days: earthquakes, tsunami’s, volcanic activity and changing weather patterns to political and financial upheaval and the loss of Jobs and Taylor. They are now footnotes of history, recorded and thought of as landmarks, as Earth rotates on its tilted axis wobbling around the sun.

Some say the final day of December is unnecessary, although they acknowledge that December Thirty-First is the last twenty-four hour period defined by the vertical line (The International Date Line), intersecting the Pacific Ocean as it moves to the east, thus completing one rotation of Earth as it revolves around the sun; they also claim that the instant the planet reaches the line is where the new cycle begins for Earth, dismissing the need for a Thirty-First day of December as an illusion. The International Date Line, they argue was an arbitrary concept created by scientists, mathematicians, politicians and religious leaders of the time to define the orderly transition of Earth’s spin, towards the east.

Nevertheless, this is a remarkable achievement since it took everyone, everywhere to agree for the system to work. Perhaps there is hope that there is something else on which they can all agree.

The current financial crisis has less to do with economics than it does with stubbornness. A radical faction of the Republican Party has taken control of the debate and refuse to budge on anything by demanding their positions be accepted without compromise.

They claim that their power, (of numbers), reflects the statistical composition between the parties elected to Congress and is strong enough to stonewall any policies that conflict with their own; creating a stalemate by preventing the ability to credibly govern since they are there, according to them, to express the will of the constituents who voted them into office.

The problem lies not only with the politicians, but with the electorate who voted them into office based on regional concerns and the anger which results with the delay in gratification to see changes in what is perceived as a failure to resolve some of the most serious economic problems, most of which are global and based on such things as climate changes which require international cooperation.

Events in life almost never play out as they were initially envisioned, and the future offers many circumstances that cannot be anticipated on election day. Should politicians be rigidly held to the promises they made during the campaign after which events often change, a result of fluid conditions that cannot be anticipated until they happen?  Or should other criteria be used to elect them to office?

Are we doomed to a cycle of changes in administrations every time politicians are rigidly held to promises made that are impossible to keep. Or should we be looking for another basis to decide who will legislate and lead?

Unfortunately, people vote on the basis of anger and frustration, seeing the banking system as wall street and the financial markets reek with greed, owing allegiances to their stockholders who are concerned less with what is best for the public then lining their own pockets.

Human nature tends to demand short term outcomes more than long term results which may take years or decades to see. However by that time, the increased changes in advancing technology creates new challenges that cannot be foreseen from a present perspective.

Perhaps ethics, morality, judgement and the willingness to compromise should be the basis for electing officials to office, and those who cling to rigid philosophies should be thrown out of office. Even the framers of The Constitution knew the world would change and expected politicians to reflect those changes and act with eclectic resolve.

What do you think?

The recent execution of Troy Davis, convicted of murder twenty-two years ago in Georgia has  reawakened the issue of the death penalty and brought it to public consciousness. Does termination of life constitute a rational way of averting murder, a form of retribution felt to be based more on revenge than justice.

Many who support the death penalty are also pro-life when it comes to abortion. Mr. Spock would submit that this is illogical. Life is life, whether it’s a sinned life or an innocent one. Kirk might respond, “But life is not logical, Mr. Spock, the truth lies somewhere between instinct and unknowable forces that come to play when conditions are right.”

Scotty would say in a heavy Scottish accent, “Aye, but ya gotta look at this as a mechanical problem. Society is like a star ship floating around with all the  gravitational forces pulling the hull in all sorts of directions. If one system in the ship fails to work the way its supposed to, then it can run adrift and get caught up in unidentified cosmic things like a wormhole, losing control of navigation, pulled into that black demon and spit out in an alternate reality where people are put to death because of overpopulation. How do you choose who lives and who dies?”

Gandalf might say, “Many that live deserve to die. Some that die deserve life, can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be so eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

The Bible says in Matthew 5:38-40 “You have heard that it was said, ‘eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”

If a child asks , “But suppose the person who was struck on the right cheek hit someone else first, where does it begin and where does it end?  Society might say, “Listen to the sermon and when you grow up, you can be the one to decide what is the truth and what is not.” On the other hand a wise person might add in a calm reassuring tone, “But keep all hailing frequencies open.”

Putting aside the criminal justice system and its flaws, many would agree, if not swayed by prejudice or anger, and in the privacy of their own thoughts,  that putting someone on trial for murder with the death penalty as an option for the jurors to choose isn’t the best way insure that justice is served. The only thing worse is executing someone without a fair trial even if they are innocent. “Someone has to pay for this.” In this instance, guilt or innocence becomes less important than the process of putting the whole thing to rest until another compelling case again reawakens the issue once again.

In the film, BUtterfield 8 (1960), there is a tense moment when Elizabeth Taylor who portrays Gloria Wandrous shouts in a confrontational outburst with her mother. “Mama, face it, I’m the slut of all time.” A moment of clarity from a woman who was judged “loose,” or perhaps it reflected one persons attempt to live a passionate life without the constraints of guilt.

Many scientists question whether the guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity are enough to get people to answer inquiries about sex, honestly. Usually, the most  unconventional of fantasies, the thoughts that flirt with danger and border on the taboo, urges played out in mental privacy, are the ones that are most exhilarating although not for public scrutiny, let alone personal acknowledgement.

Looking at sexual behavior candidly becomes difficult when one is caught in the theologically defined battleground of good and evil, provoking a tendency to view oneself with the noblest of motives and thus compromising objectivity especially when compartmentalizing sexual events becomes a basis for privacy..

Scientific surveys may not be reliable measure of the way fantasies translate from scenario into behavior because they are frequently influenced not only by how moral boundaries are defined and socially appraised but also applied differently for each sex.

Men and women are not treated equally when it comes to morality, and exploring these differences has been the subject of great literature, cinema and controversy. Women who express their sexuality openly are viewed as sluts while men under the same circumstances are portrayed as sowing their oats, unless they are gay. Imagine how Elizabeth Taylor as Gloria Wandrous would have been treated if she were a man.

An essential part of communication with others is a function of the ability to vocalize sounds, write symbols and use body language. If physical conditions altered radically, we would be forced to adopt new techniques to break the isolation. In such a case a broad imagination could create infinite possibilities if we are able to suspend our disbelief of what can change.

Imagine waking up in a completely underwater existence while all our recollections from living on land are conscious, and we fully remember breathing and speaking. There is no memory of how we got here, nor is an explanation given for the transformation, what it means, or how it could have happened. Then, the challenge is being left alone with others in the same conditions to figure out ways to communicate with each other. Where would you begin?