Alaska and Hawaii

[Fistalis]

So, I'd hate to be "that guy", but Alaska and Hawaii should technically be colonies of the US, since they weren't states until after WWII had concluded. Any chance of that being an update, or is it just not happening?

hey.. i AM that guy and i pointed this out months ago...

As for territory doesn't = colony... wtf up with Puerto rico and guam then?

Matter of fact all the U.S. "colonies" are actually territories. Won't change your mind.. just pointing out inconsistent logic.

In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained ʻIolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for sixty years

Self governance = colony

But idc.. i'll "fix" it.

[number47]

So, I'd hate to be "that guy", but Alaska and Hawaii should technically be colonies of the US, since they weren't states until after WWII had concluded. Any chance of that being an update, or is it just not happening?

hey.. i AM that guy and i pointed this out months ago...

As for territory doesn't = colony... wtf up with Puerto rico and guam then?

Well, the difference is Guam and Puerto Rico (among the others) are still considered unincorporated territories of the United States while Hawaii and Alaska were considered incorporated territories from 1905:

From 1901 to 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of opinions known as the Insular Cases, held that the Constitution extended ex proprio vigore to the continental territories. However, the Court in these cases also established the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies fully only in incorporated territories such as Alaska and Hawaii, and applies only partially in the new unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.[6][7]

Now you know the difference

...though you can still change it your mod as you see fit (I'm eagerly expecting MW mod for 1936 )

[Hullu Hevonen]

Hawaii was colonized, even if it may say differently on paper (which was written by the victors), this is the definition of colonization. Hawaii for example was taken by force, it's demographics altered by illnesses and migration of the victors population to this new area, this process was continued well into 20th century.

links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Demographics

EDIT:
-colonization: Faction "A" invades/occupies Faction "B", because faction A has now control of the faction b's territory, they start moving A's inhabitants to B's territory. This migration often brings with it problems, typical to colonization, like illnesses, native uprisings/revolts etc

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Hawaii

[number47]

EDIT:
-colonization: Faction "A" invades/occupies Faction "B", because faction A has now control of the faction b's territory, they start moving A's inhabitants to B's territory. This migration often brings with it problems, typical to colonization, like illnesses, native uprisings/revolts etc

As oppose to annexation, which would be...what?

[Hullu Hevonen]

EDIT:
-colonization: Faction "A" invades/occupies Faction "B", because faction A has now control of the faction b's territory, they start moving A's inhabitants to B's territory. This migration often brings with it problems, typical to colonization, like illnesses, native uprisings/revolts etc

As oppose to annexation, which would be...what?

Annexation, fully incorporating the territory to yours, giving it's habitants citizenships and full rights. Think there was some Geneva accord about this, which is the reason why Israel for example hasn't annexed the west bank. (even though the occupation has become more colonization in Israel). Well atleast your supposed to give your the annexed full citizenships, rights etc..

Occupation according to geneva, cannot involve emigration or immigration, but it's inhabitants rights has to be respected

links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Gen ... erritories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation

EDIT:
According to the dictionary bellow, annexation loosely implies incorporation of territory to some others. So you can say annex hawaii as an colony, or it can become or remain as a colony even though an annexion has taken place.

"the French annexation of Madagascar as a colony in 1896"; "a protectorate has frequently been a first step to annexation"

Links:
http://annexation.askdefinebeta.com/

[ForTheRepublic]

Very well. I do wish territories were an option, but oh well.

[Hullu Hevonen]

So from reading more about "annexation" it becomes clear that this term is very loose, in some cases it's synonymous with colonization, sometimes it's synonymous with occupation and sometimes it simply means adding one territory to another. My definition of annexition comes from more modern interpertations of the term, like after the arab-israeli war of 1948 when Israel incorporated land previously held by arabs and granted the arabs that stayed israeli citizenship.

Occupation and Colonization are however terms that are clear. Colonization as I stated above, imply that power A coumes to you and then 'colonizes" your territory affecting the demographics makeup of the territory, while occupation according to the Geneva convention can't have emmigration or immigration to the territory in question and the occupier has to respect the inhabitants by granting them rights they previously had.

So judging by the actions taken by the US gov towards Hawaii and Alaska, I see it's "annexation" of these as synonymous with a formal colonization, as was the international tradition then, like the example of Madagascar above. Additional reasons for this is the demographics changes in these territories by the influx of other peoples than the natives. The third reason is that the US gov granted the Hawaii a government separate from it, but that was still controlled by it. Thus Hawaii was a colony until it's statehood when the people was granted the right to elect their own representatives with the right to vote to the US gov.

[davidclaywood]

Well if this is all that is wrong, it is ready to release then. Assuming of course we fix the issue where our units cant move in an enemies colony.

[Aragos]

PR vs. Hawaii/Alaska/DC.

First, HI/AK were territories (the legal step before statehood in the US system). Guam and Puerto Rico, in contrast, are US "Possessions"--technically, they are considered 'owned' by the US government (the same with the US Virgin Islands). While they may become territories or a commonwealth (like PR), they currently are not. The people who live there are US citizens, but have only indirect representation in the US Congress. They serve in the US military, but those areas (and their residents) do not pay US Federal taxes.

So...a resident of Puerto Rico is a US Citizen, but is a "resident" of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. They serve in the military, etc. but no tax. There have been several referendums for a change in status (status quo, independence or US statehood). They all end up being the status quo.

Washington DC is a Federal District (The District of Columbia). It is the only one in the US system. The residents who live there do not have voting representation in the US Congress, but pay Federal income taxes. The DC budget is still heavily influenced by the US Congress, who funds much of the basics of the city.

In contrast, Alaska and Hawaii went through the traditional territory-to-state process. In terms of the game, you might as well say that Arizona or Kansas could be 'colonies' of the USA.

Confused yet?

[Lossidian]

If you want to knit pick at this, and yes I do see where you're coming from, but in technicality the way our government is set up in the United States, all 50 states can easily be considered colonies. Every state has the power to govern itself, and the United States stands only as a legal, economic, and military union between 50 separate countries, and until the civil war, it had hardly any power whatsoever. The modern EU provides the same logic, except focuses more on economic unity, and provides little (if any) military unity, while the US focuses on military unity but offers economic and legal unity as well. I believe there's also an Asian format of it, but I don't have any knowledge beyond that.

So the argument that Hawaii and Alaska should be colonies is perfectly valid, but only under the same logic that all 50 states be considered colonies with a headquarters in the District. Inversely, if you've ever tried to play D.C. in the shattered world campaign, there proves some flaws that would have to be worked out for any chance of historic accuracy. I wouldn't mind seeing a union feature added to the game though, that'd actually be extremely cool, especially considering how well the formal alliance feature plays out .

[Aragos]

Well, technically, the US is a Republic formed of independent states, vs. a Federal system (like Germany or France).

[Lossidian]

Well, technically, the US is a Republic formed of independent states, vs. a Federal system (like Germany or France).

But you at least see where I'm getting at with that right?