Does the USA make a good colonial administrator?

Trump has suddenly switched from anti-imperialism to expansionism. How adept have Americans been at imperialism?

Donald Trump has been talking loudly about expanding American territory to include Greenland, the former Panama Canal Zone, Canada, and, today, that jewel in the crown, that heart’s desire of every red-blooded American, Gaza.

Granted, who knows what his strategy is?

Still, who can forget the ending of Huckleberry Finn?

“But I reckon I got to light out for the Gaza Strip ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before.”

What good American hasn’t scanned the headlines and lamented that Americans don’t yet enjoy the full, endless benefits of being even more involved in Gaza than we have been? As the song says,

This land is your land, and this land is my land
From California to the Gaza wasteland

It’s worth looking at America’s track record as a colonial administrator.

What’s the gold standard of colonial administration?

Probably British Hong Kong.

Sure, it helps to rule over Chinese, but across the bay from Hong Kong is Macao, a former Portuguese colony. In the second half of the 20th Century, it was widely accepted that Hong Kong was much better than Macao. But lately I’ve noticed in the PISA test results that Macao and Hong Kong have both done very well, suggesting that Hong Kong’s superiority over Macao was more due to British administration being better than Portuguese administration than Hong Kongers being better than Macouers.

What about the U.S.?

Paywall here:

I realize that California is out of fashion, but it was a valuable acquisition.

The 1840s were the decisive decade for the West Coast of North America.

They began quietly enough with the publication of Harvard man Richard Henry Dana’s bestseller Two Years Before the Mast about his experiences shipping out from Boston to Mexican California to buy cattle hides from Californio ranchers for the shoemakers of Massachusetts. Dana was impressed by most parts of California, other than Los Angeles, but he raved about the San Francisco Bay. It struck him as the finest place in the world for human habitation … but, he informed his fascinated American readers, practically nobody lived there, wink wink nudge nudge.

Then in 1841, the Russian Czar gave up on expanding his empire south of Alaska, selling the Russian outpost at Fort Ross, 90 miles north of San Francisco, to Swiss-Mexican businessman John Sutter.

In 1844, Democratic candidate James K. Polk was elected President in part on his platform of annexing all of the Pacific Northwest — what’s now Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia — up to 54’ 40” latitude at the south end of Alaska, while the British wanted to take B.C. and Washington down to the Columbia River.

Eventually, Polk decided it was more prudent to fight Mexico than Britain or both at the same time, so in 1846 he settled peacefully with the UK by agreeing to extend the 49th parallel border all the way to the Pacific, giving each country excellent harbors on the Pacific, Seattle and Vancouver.

Meanwhile, Californio rebels occasionally fought Mexican regulars, such as in the Second Battle of Cahuenga Pass in the San Fernando Valley. Most of the what little fighting in these desultory uprisings against Mexico City’s rule of Alta California was done by American son-in-laws, who eventually started thinking that rather than fight each other, they ought to be running this place.

The Mexican-American War began in 1846, the Yankees of California declared the Bear Flag Republic, then quickly accepted U.S. rule, eventually becoming a state in 1851.

Shortly after the political fate of California had been decided, gold was discovered at Sutter’s Fort outside Sacramento, setting off the Gold Rush of 1849, populating California with Americans, with California becoming the most populous state by 1962.

So, the U.S. had relatively little experience as a colonial administrator in the 48 contiguous states, since the settler population tended to quickly move in and overwhelm the locals.

But, how as the U.S. done running places not settled by American settlers?

Indian reservations? American control has succeeded at the the basic task of keeping Indians from attacking us and converting them, on average, into brave warriors for the U.S. military. But, otherwise, it’s hard to see that we can be proud of the job we’ve done with Indian reservations compared to, say, how the British did with Hong Kong.

The U.S. acquired Hawaii in the 1890s. When I was a kid, Hawaii seemed like a huge success story. Today … I dunno. Now, you have a state with similar ancestral demographics to Silicon Valley, but it’s nowhere near as productive.

The original assumption was that any new American territory would be destined for statehood. But the Guano Islands Act of 1856, which allowed American citizens to establish U.S. sovereignty over unclaimed islands covered with valuable bird droppings (most famously, Midway), established the concept that some places weren’t quite up to becoming states.

The U.S. bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. So the U.S. Virgin Islands are a huge success, right? Once again, I dunno. America’s Virgin Islands aren’t a bad place, but Wikipedia lists them as having the second highest homicide rate in the world:

The big acquisition of 1898 was Puerto Rico. How is Puerto Rico doing today?

My impression is that Puerto Ricans in the U.S., after a lousy second half of the 20th Century, have been behaving better recently.

But Puerto Rico itself is depopulating as Puerto Ricans flee their native island to Orlando and the careful administrations of Rick DeSantis.

Nobody in the US seems to know how to fix PR and nobody much seems to care.

So, is the US ready to take on ruling the furious holy men of Gaza (how’d that work out in Afghanistan and Iraq?), the nationalists of Quebec, the Inuit of Greenland, and the irredentists of Panama?

Once again, I dunno … This all seems like a lot of work for little gain.

For example, sure, if global warming is real, then maybe the giant icecap of Greenland will melt, uncovering valuable territory. But then Gaza would be flooded, so the Trump-Kushner MAGAza Beach Resort would be inundated.

I recognize that maybe I’m insufficiently Trusting the Plan, but still …