UNDERSTANDING THE DESIRE OF BORICUAS TO RETURN TO ESPANA

In today's anti-colonial political climate, the idea of any people wanting to return to the status of a colony seems almost unthinkable. For instance, it would be strange for an average American to hear of an (east) Indian citizen wanting to rejoin the British Commonwealth as a territory or colony. To date, I have never met an American who wishes to reintegrate into the British Commonwealth, and if anything the attitude of being anti-colonial or anti-imperial is in vogue. Yet, there exist small groups in various states, countries, or territories that long for a return to their former imperial affiliation.

One particularly intriguing example is the movement among some Puerto Ricans who neither advocate for U.S. statehood nor full independence but instead wish to reunite with Spain. This desire challenges the prevailing notions of "independence, freedom, and liberty.” But does reunification truly contradict these principles?

Rethinking the Historical Narrative

For many Americans, particularly Anglo-Americans, the notion of Latin Americans wishing to return to Spain seems absurd. The common historical narrative paints Spain's role in Latin America as one of conquest, pillage, and oppression since Columbus's arrival. However, a growing community of historians and intellectuals challenge this view, especially among Puerto Rican reunification advocates. Figures such as Marcelo Gullo Omodeo and the online historian "Captain Peru" have worked extensively to counter what is known as "The Black Legend"—a long-standing campaign that has demonized Spain and Mediterranean Catholic nations. Hispanists employ various methods to challenge these historical narratives: correcting misconceptions, providing alternative perspectives, placing events in context, and exposing outright falsehoods. Engaging with their scholarship is invaluable, but much of their work is only available in Spanish. Fortunately, I speak and read some Spanish and can present key insights regarding the Puerto Rican case.

Puerto Rico: A Colony or an Autonomous Province?

Puerto Rican reunification advocates, or "Reunificacionistas," argue that Puerto Rico was never technically a colony. Instead, they assert that Puerto Rico functioned under a "Capitanía General," a military-governed region akin to the military districts established in the U.S. following the Civil War. This structure allowed Puerto Rico to appeal directly to the Spanish Crown rather than being governed by a viceroy. By 1897, Puerto Rico achieved the status of an autonomous province of Spain, meaning its residents were Spanish citizens with a degree of self-governance. It is akin to being in a federation like the United States, in which conceptually the states are to be independent but cannot overstep the authority or laws established by the federal government.

Nevertheless, the distinction between viceroyalty/capitancy-general and colony is crucial for Hispanists who differentiate between the Spanish Empire and other colonial powers like Britain. To them, a "colony" implies an exploitative relationship centered on resource extraction, whereas viceroyalties and captaincies represented an extension of Spain itself. While I hold a slightly different view, which I may explore in another article, it is undeniable that Puerto Rico's trajectory as an autonomous province was abruptly ended by the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Why Reunification?

Reunificacionistas argue that Puerto Rico's incorporation into the U.S. was illegitimate since Puerto Ricans never voted to secede from Spain, which is to say, it was not the will of the people. Thus, they believe Puerto Rico should have the legal right to hold a referendum on rejoining Spain. Beyond legal arguments, their case is built on economic, social and cultural considerations.

1. Economic Considerations

Reunificacionistas contend that Puerto Rico would have been more economically developed under Spain. Before 1898, the Spanish government had just established the Bank of Spain in Puerto Rico, which could have spurred agricultural investment and modernization. They argue that remaining under Spain would have allowed Puerto Rico to develop more organically rather than relying on U.S. federal funding and bureaucratic oversight, which is not to say it has its own benefits, but that these benefits must be weighed by the alternatives.

Although Spain's economy was smaller than that of the U.S., Puerto Rico outperformed many of its Caribbean neighbors, such as the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Proponents point to the Dominican Republic, which, despite being an independent republic, has struggled economically in comparison. Similarly, they highlight that Haiti, once the wealthiest colony under French rule, never became an economic powerhouse post-independence, and has struggled very much since becoming independent. When looking at PR’s progress in comparison with the independent Haiti, or their former Spanish-Caribbean cousin the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico was more advanced in terms of infrastructure, trade, or literacy rates by 1898.

Furthermore, Puerto Rico’s strategic location—between Europe and the Americas, with access to the Panama Canal—could have positioned it as a thriving trade hub, potentially resembling Singapore, Hong Kong, or Macau. However, the U.S. dollarization of Puerto Rico's economy in the early 20th century prevented the island from benefiting from the kind of economic policies that fueled Hong Kong’s rapid growth.

2. Social and Cultural Cohesion

Puerto Rico developed a mestizo culture, blending Spanish, Taino, and African influences for over 300 years. However, U.S. rule has introduced Anglo-American cultural influences, raising concerns about cultural erosion. Some fear that Puerto Rico could follow Hawaii's trajectory, where native culture has been marginalized. Puerto Rican artists, like Bad Bunny in his song Lo Que Pasó a Hawaii, have expressed concerns about this phenomenon.

Hispanists argue that Spanish and Portuguese colonial societies historically exhibited greater racial and cultural integration than their Anglo counterparts. The Portuguese concept of "Luso-Tropicalismo," for instance, suggested that because Portugal itself was a fusion of Celtic, Roman, Visigothic (Germanic), and Moorish (North African) cultures, it was more adept at fostering multicultural societies abroad. Similarly, Puerto Rico’s existing Hispanic mestizo culture is seen as more compatible with Spain than with Anglo-American influences. While cultural blending is possible under U.S. rule, Hispanists argue that Anglo-American society lacks a strong tradition of mestizaje (racial and cultural mixing) compared to Iberian cultures. Instead of fostering a new hybrid Anglo-Latino identity, some fear that Anglo-American influence will gradually replace Puerto Rico’s existing culture.

Conclusion

The debate over Puerto Rico’s status remains complex. While reunificacionistas present compelling historical, economic, and cultural arguments, their movement faces significant challenges, including U.S. political opposition and limited public awareness. Nevertheless, their perspective offers a valuable counterpoint to dominant narratives about colonialism, independence, and national identity.

The question remains: Is Puerto Rico's future better aligned with Spain, the U.S., or independence? While the answer may differ depending on one's perspective, understanding the motivations behind Puerto Rico’s reunification movement provides a richer, more nuanced view of the island’s history and identity.