Much like the Falklands and Gibraltar are cut off from the UK, Alaska is cut off from the rest of the USA. Arguing that, because you couldn't walk there from mainland USA without passing through Canada, Alaska can not be part of the USA is very much the same as saying the Falklands or Gibraltar can not be part of the UK if it's not right next door.
And on top of the dubious claims anyone else would have, talking in these terms would simply be inappropriate today. How many Russians have you heard of living in Alaska? How many people who live and have lived in Alaska all of their lives would actually support becoming Russian? This is similarly the case in Gibraltar and in the Falklands.
Imagine if Russia were to stake a claim to Alaska. How would Americans react? If, for example, the USSR were to have acted in the way the Spanish or the Argentinians have done there would have been exactly the same reaction. Rather than just listen to the Spanish and the Argentine buzzwords on 'colonialism', looking at the situation logically and impartially you see the only ones who want to 'colonise' are those who want to force people who overwhelmingly want to be part of one country to be part of another for political reasons. The only argument on colonialism- that the natives were forced out by the incoming Brits- is really invalidated by the fact you probably couldn't find anyone who has lived so much of a day in this mercy historic world.
You would have thought the Spanish at least would agree with this while they retain outposts in Africa for exactly the same legitimate reasons. Contrary to the popular belief among more liberal politics students out there, many big and democratic nations will always be out for themselves where it comes to territory and power. Being able to spot the difference between self interest and doing what's right is suddenly quite hard.BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS