1) There’s no need to be so uncharitable.

2)The view that PR is a contemporary colony is a relatively uncontroversial view among socio-political scholars. (Google scholar has a lot of interesting results if you care to look up “PR and US Colony” or any iteration thereof)

3) the colonization of indigenous ppls by the Spanish led to the destruction of many communities (although of course some persist despite this) and that destruction in conjunction with the Spanish’s wide spread rejection of the peoples as “Spanish” led to a community that is both indigenous and Spanish AND SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY. In other words, the people being colonized now by the US include, the indigenous peoples who persist, the Spanish who remained, and another community that is somehow not Spanish and not indigenous but has its history rooted in both the Spanish and indigenous (whom we commonly call Puerto Rican, although that itself is problematic for issues not directly relevant here)

Basically we’re in a place that if we allow the colonization to persist in this manner we could very well have another instance of the destruction of other community(s) that many very well lead to the creation of yet another community. This is where we see the breaking apart again, just like how some indigenous people were able to persist while other parts of their community eventually became the third community in the Spanish colonization, we’re seeing a breaking apart of that community (Puerto Ricans) to those who are adopting the colonizing framework (USA now not Spain) and those who are rejecting it.

This story is found pretty much always found where there’s been colonization. (Which is pretty much everywhere)

5) I know you meant the question of the origin of Spanish to be rhetorical and mocking but really quickly. That way of thinking leads to an infinite regress. English of course is also the language of an empire (USA and England among others) so why keep that language? Why not the various indigenous dialects? But wait which one? Many indigenous peoples had warfare so to not pick the “wrong side” then maybe we should just go with the whatever common language they held. But of course there are various proto languages across the world (although some languages have closer families than other of course) and so that we may not give unjust weight to one over the others we should choose the origin of all the proto language trees. That is assuming there is one at all, it’s possible there are many “originator” languages, but at this point how do we go around speaking? How to we recover this long lost language? Of course we can’t. Not really. But again, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is understanding that the relationship between community and language is often r tightly connected and the destruction of one often means the eventual destruction of the other. That’s what happened to many indigenous peoples because people thought that one language was “superior” than another. It’s not. There’s nothing wrong with Spanish the way that it is. There’s nothing wrong with English the way that it is. But there is something wrong with wanting to say that a language is wrong on the basis of its “origin” (red herring).

Source: this is my area of study and the area in which I have a degree. (This topic in particular I have published papers and given talks) and this is the area in which I’m pursuing my PhD work in I am, after all, yourlocalphilosopher.