Quantcast
Channel: NO REST FOR THE AWAKE - MINAGAHET CHAMORRO
Viewing all 864 articles
Browse latest View live

Leave Pagan Alone

$
0
0
Ya-hu i titilu-ña este na tinige' gaseta.

Put fabot, kao siña ma sotta i islan Pagan?

Sen gefpå'go ayu na lugåt.

Esta meggai na lugåt gi hilo' tåno' mandinestrosa ni' fina'militåt.

Kontodu meggai na lugåt giya Guahan yan gi otro isla siha gi kadenå–ta.

Atan i isla mafa'na'an FDM.

Esta i meggaiña na Chamorro manmaleffa nu ayu na lugåt.

I mañasaga guihi på'go i bomba yan i paluma siha.

****************


“Leave Pagan Alone”
by Cherri Anne E. Villahermosa
Marianas Variety
April 8. 2015

NORTHERN Islands Mayor Jerome Aldan’s message to the military is to “pack up and leave Pagan alone.”  Aldan was among the public officials who were in the House chamber yesterday to hear what the representatives of the Marine Corps Forces Pacific had to say during a meeting that lasted for more than three hours.

Aldan in an interview said he has not changed his position and is still opposed to the proposed use of Pagan for any military activities in the Northern Islands.

“Pagan is an island that people of Northern Marians descent should use to the full extent. There are a lot of resources there that we can tap. When you’re talking about bombs and live ammunition, that’s destruction to me. No matter how you call it…I still find it hard to believe because when you’re dropping bombs of course they will have a a significant impact once they hit the ground.”

Instead of considering the military proposal, the CNMI government should help implement the homestead program for the Northern Islands.

He did not say how the financially strapped CNMI government can finance the resettlement of Pagan, which has an active volcano.

“We need the government to help us expedite the homestead program so we can go back to the Northern Islands. It’s not true that the place is uninhabited. There are still families living there and the numbers have tripled. So instead of prolonging the issue, let’s implement the homestead program. We can start it in Pagan. There’s a lot of flat land in Pagan and it’s a lot easier to maneuver there — there’s a road and there’s an existing landing area there already and all we have to do is renovate and upgrade them.”

The mayor said the airport master plan was done by Efrain Camacho & Associates and it cost $500,000.

“All we need is to get the money,” he added.

“We are losing a lot of lands already. There are over 4,000 pending applications for homestead lots so my take is let’s do it. Let’s start improving Pagan. We don’t need the military’s money. In fact I even asked the Marianas Visitors Authority to include Pagan to the list of the CNMI’s tourist attractions. It’s beautiful and there are a lot of attractions there.”

Aldan said he is not against the military.

“Our CNMI leaders are also leaning toward no to bombs, no to live fire exercises at all. Even on Tinian, there are a lot of concerns…. I’m just surprised that nobody has asked yet about the possible contamination.”

He is urging members of the public to get involved in the upcoming meetings.

“It’s important to participate. We want the people to come out and voice their concerns and be active and be involved because these are their islands.

“Again, I am not against the military. It’s their proposal that I’m against with. It’s not the plan that we see for our kids and the future. I just hope the Legislature and the governor will do the right thing and decide what is best for the people.”

For his part, Lt. Gov. Ralph Torres is also requesting community members to participate in the hearings and public meetings regarding the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Torres in a statement yesterday said: “We are in a crucial stage of the long-discussed military activities on Tinian and Pagan. In the hearings and public meetings of the coming weeks, we are provided an opportunity to participate in this important process.

“I strongly encourage the members of the public and community organizations to take the time to contribute your thoughts and comments both in writing and during the scheduled public meetings.”

***************

U.S. MILITARY: MARIANAS ISLE NOT HARMED BY BOMBING
By Raymond A. Martinez
Marianas Variety
 Jan. 30, 2008

During a two and a half hour briefing conducted by Roy Tsutsui, U.S. Department of Defense representative, in the House chamber yesterday, lawmakers expressed concerns regarding environmental damage caused by the ongoing U.S. military bombing exercises on Farallon de Medinilla.

Tsutsui said 3,277 pieces of ordnance were dropped in certain areas of the island last year.
An average of 99 pieces of ordnance were dropped on target zones over a period of 120 days, he said.

According to Tsutsui, "after all the bombing, the terrain isn’t much damaged. The island isn’t degrading much after our monthly inspection."

He showed lawmakers aerial photos of the island’s topography.

He said the type of ordnance used doesn’t contain hazardous chemicals that could damage the environment.

No napalm, incendiary, gas or nuclear bombs are used on FDM, he added.

Only inert bombs are used in the bombing exercises over the years and although an inert bomb weighs the same as a regular bomb, it has no explosives, Tsutsui said.

He said 40 of the 60 pieces of ordnance used in the drills were inert bombs.

The U.S. military is expected to use more inert bombs in the coming years, he added.
Tsutsui said not all pieces of ordnance explode on FDM, as some fall into the water.

Reps. Diego T. Benavente, R-Saipan, Victor B. Hocog, Ind.-Rota, and Edward T. Salas, R-Saipan, asked if these "skippers," or unexploded bombs, are removed from the island.

Tsutsui said "a team is sent in to remove unexploded ordnance and metal scraps."

He said the Division of Fish and Wildlife is working side by side with a team of biologists hired by the U.S. military to monitor the environment on FDM.

Washington Rep. Pete A. Tenorio asked whether migratory birds are protected during the bombing drills.

Tsutsui said the U.S. Navy, through surveys, monitors marine life and bird species on FDM.
The number of certain birds is actually increasing, he added.

"The U.S. military invests on the monthly monitoring of birds," Tsutsui said.

The military, he added, has provided about $250,000 for the preservation of megapodes on FDM.

Speaker Arnold I. Palacios, R-Saipan, said the U.S. military should also ensure that no invasive species would be transported by chance to FDM, and that target objects and facilities should pose no danger to the environment of the island.

Rep. Stanley T. Torres, R-Saipan, said he is satisfied with the monitoring team given that the Division of Fish and Wildlife is part of it.

Vice Speaker Joseph P. DeLeon Guerrero, R-Saipan, noted that the U.S. military "is thorough and meticulous in monitoring the impact of the bombing [drills]" on FDM.



The Fox News Effect

$
0
0
In the United States and its territories, it is common to look at other places, in particular Europe and lament the way racist and xenophobic political parties have emerged, which sometimes achieve a relatively significant amount of power and legitimacy. When viewing them from a distance, it is easy to critique them as being out of touch in a world with nice things such as tolerance, diversity, multiculturalism. But such positioning too often allows the exact same problems, the same contradictions, the same nasty hatred and evil to go unanalyzed or unexamined. In Chamorro there are a variety of ways of calling this out and challenging such simple forgetfulness. Cha'-mu tumoto'la hulo'. Saosao i mata-mu antes di un sangan put i inaplacha' i otro.

Trump's presidential primary insurgency has kicked things that have been developing for decades into hyper-drive. The Republican party has been feeding off of white anger and loathing for quite a while now, Fox News, with their approach to reporting the news and exaggerating any threat to the dominance of white America and Republican leaders. Those claim who not to recognize the Republican party this election cycle and use the example of Trump as the reason for things being out of focus or blurry, are either willfully blind or simply not paying attention. All Trump is doing, is unleashing in a variety of naked and blatant ways, the terrifying animus that Fox News and the Republicans have been directing towards teachers, environmentalists, atheists, liberals, minorities, foreigners and so many others in order to get their ratings and scare up their votes.

Below is a great article from The Huffington Post that talks about how blame for the demonic fury of the Republican Party under Trump's banner, can be laid at the doorstep of Fox News for their constant ideological assaults meant to convince white Americans that they are in danger and that those different from them are taking everything from them.

************************

How Fox News Unwittingly Destroyed the Republican Party
by Cody Cain
Huffington Post
4/10/16
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/how-fox-news-destroyed-republican-party_b_9644594.html


The Republican Party is in a pickle.
The Party itself despises its own two leading presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. This is a remarkable oddity just in itself. But there is good reason for it. Both of these candidates are so extreme and disastrous that they will almost certainly never be able to win a national election for the Republican Party.
But much worse, if and when one of these candidates does becomes the Republican Party’s nominee for president, the Party could very well be torn asunder into factions. One wing would split off to support the extremist candidate, and the other more moderate wing would be so embarrassed by what the Republican Party had become that they might even abandon the Party altogether. And forget about attracting new members into the Party because it would be too mean and extreme.
This could devastate the Party for years or even decades to come. So the Republican Party now finds itself teetering on the precipice of disintegration.
The Republicans, however, have no one to blame but themselves. This is a crisis of their own creation. And it didn’t just happen overnight.
The Republican Party has been fomenting anger and discontent in the base of its own Party for years. The mechanism through which this hate has been disseminated has been the network of extremist media of right-wing talk radio and the Fox News Channel, which is essentially talk radio transposed onto television.
Just think of all the right-wing “superstars” who spew messages of anger and hate every single day throughout the land over this enormous megaphone. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Ben Shapiro, Dana Loesch, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, to name a few.
And make no mistake, spewing hate has a significant impact upon society. It is the equivalent of modern-day propaganda where the population is barraged with a stream of consistent messaging. As ordinary people go about their daily lives, they are exposed repeatedly, day-in and day-out, to the same messages in numerous different forms and by numerous different people. Pretty soon, these messages begin to sink in and take effect. The audience begins to adopt a worldview consistent with these messages, regardless of the degree of truth. It is a remarkable phenomenon.
History is replete with examples of how propaganda can be very effective in altering the views of a population. Nazi Germany in the 1930’s is a classic example. How could it possibly be that a maniac like Adolph Hitler was able to convince millions of ordinary people throughout the entire nation of Germany to go to war against the world? Well, propaganda was an extremely powerful component.
For years, Hitler inundated the German population with a stream of consistent messages that the German Aryans were the superior master race of all humans, and that Germany was under imminent threat of destruction by foreign enemies as evidenced by the Treaty of Versailles, which was the international peace treaty that ended World War I but that also imposed upon Germany the hardship of having to make enormous reparation payments to the foreign victors for having caused the war. The Nazi messaging also preached about internal threats from various segments of Germany’s own population, like Jews, homosexuals, and communists. The German population began to adopt this perverse and paranoid worldview as truth, and a national war machine was born.
A more contemporary example is the Bosnian War from the early 1990’s that shockingly occurred in the heart of Europe right near Italy and Greece. The government of Serbia deployed propaganda to incite its Christian Serbian population to turn against the Bosnian Muslim ethnic group. Previously, however, the Serbs and the Bosnians had lived together in peace for generations in the very same towns and villages. But the propaganda from the nationalistic Serbian government whipped-up its population into a frenzy that resulted in former neighbors and friends killing each other in horrifying atrocities of ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape, and genocide.
Another contemporary example is the genocide that occurred in the African nation of Rwanda in 1994. The Hutu-led government systematically employed propaganda to spread fear and paranoia that the Tutsi minority was about to rise-up and enslave the Hutus, so the Hutus had better spring into action and save themselves by striking first against the devious and plotting Tutsis. This incited a wave of violence that lasted for months. In villages across Rwanda where Hutus and Tutsis had previously lived together in peace and harmony, suddenly mobs of Hutus were rampaging against their own Tutsi neighbors with machetes and clubs. One million Tutsis were killed in the genocide.
Propaganda is powerful stuff. Many people are susceptible to it and can be swayed by it, especially the less educated.
In America today, the right-wing media network is engaged in this very same activity through Fox News and extremist talk radio. This network is constantly barraging its audience, day-in and day-out, over and over again, with a stream of consistent messaging. And this messaging is overwhelmingly negative and destructive.
The messaging consists of common themes that recur over and over in various forms. One central theme is a fierce opposition against government, especially so called “big government.” This reappears in various sub-forms as well, such as rage against bureaucracy, regulations, Washington, D.C., the IRS, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal politicians.
It is really quite remarkable that a major political party could get away with so shamelessly trashing our very own government and our very own nation. But yet, there it is.
They rant and rave about how our nation is a disaster, out of control, a huge mess. The government is so far off the rails that it no longer even follows the Constitution of the United States! Absurd, of course. But wildly popular.
Another big theme is fear and victimization. You had better watch out because government is gonna getcha! “They,” whoever that may be, are about to take away your rights. Your freedom is about to disappear. Your religious liberties will be stripped away. You won’t be able to make your own healthcare decisions. Free choice will be gone. Your children will suffer. You are under a big threat. Even though you are just an innocent person minding your own business, you are about to be victimized!
Another common theme is the fear of foreigners, or outsiders. We must protect our own in-group from the vague and mysterious threats posed by those who are a little bit different from us. The particular targeted group changes with the times, but it has included Muslims, illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, Russia, China, Mexican immigrants and communists. But the concept remains the same.
And, of course, someone from the Democratic Party, or some “liberal,” is to blame for all of this wreckage. Demonizing a specific target is powerful. If a Democrat is in the White House, then the President becomes the favorite bullseye. Otherwise the demon is some other Democratic politician, typically from Congress.
But why would a Democrat want to take away people’s rights throughout the nation? This would mean that the Democrat would also be taking away their own rights, and also the rights of their constituents. Why in the world would they do that? Well, of course, this makes no sense whatsoever. But it doesn’t need to make any sense. It just needs to instill fear, anger, and discontent.
Now, a political platform comprised of nothing more than hate and anger is not a very viable or sustainable political strategy, especially for a national party like the Republican Party. It may be a good strategy for a specific election or an isolated situation, but an entire political party cannot endure based upon only a message of outrage and opposition.
So why would the Republican Party devise such a strategy that has no hope of success? Well, it turns out that they did not devise this strategy. In fact, it’s not even a strategy at all. It emerged not as a result of a grand Republican master plan, but rather, it emerged as a result of market economics.
The extremist right-wing network of Fox News and talk radio was not created by politicians, and it is not funded by a political party. It is not supported by donations from people seeking political expression. No. It was created for one central purpose: to make money.
The founding motivation and the driving force behind all of this propaganda of hate and anger that is being disseminated throughout our society is nothing more than the almighty dollar. The profit motive. It is a business. Pure and simple.
And, as it turns out, the business of peddling hate and anger is a fantastically profitable one at that.
Rush Limbaugh raked-in $80 million for himself in 2015 alone. Sean Hannity was paid $30 million. Glenn Beck is personally worth over $100 million. Bill O’Reilly’s television show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” generates over $100 million per year in advertising revenue.
If these front-men are making this much money, well then you know that their corporate masters are making even more.
Fox News has dominated the ratings as the number one cable news channel for the last 14 years and reportedly earns over $1 billion in profits annually, making it a golden goose in the overall Fox corporate empire. Fox itself is one of the most valuable brands in the world with sales of over $13 billion. And the tycoon behind Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, is personally worth $12 billion.
This is Big Business.
It is no joke. We are not talking about some folks just yearning to express their opinions. No. This operation is not being driven by politics or by a desire to promulgate political viewpoints. No. This operation is being driven by money. Big Money. This is what it’s all about.
Of course, politics is involved as well. No doubt. The content spewed by this media network is highly political in nature and it champions right-wing issues, right-wing politicians, and the right-wing Republican Party. This is no accident. In fact, it makes perfect sense when viewed through an economic perspective.
Corporate profits are greatly impacted by governmental policies. Corporations, therefore, desire the government to be controlled by whichever political party is the most favorable to corporate profits. And this, of course, is the Republican Party. So it makes perfect sense that this extremist media network would use its megaphone to attempt to influence politics by urging support for the right-wing Republican Party.
Interestingly, the Fox media empire that is dominated by the tycoon Rupert Murdoch is shockingly reminiscent of the media empire from around 1900 that was dominated by the tycoon William Randolph Hearst.
Mr. Hearst was notorious for printing false information in his media network of newspapers in order to influence public opinion and politics. Instead of using his vast media network to objectively and fairly report news and disseminate information, Mr. Hearst used his media network as an instrument of power by controlling the content and distorting the truth in order to manipulate public opinion for his own benefit.
So we have seen this playbook before. One would think that we would now be savvy enough to prevent this terrible abuse from happening again. But apparently not. It is astonishing that Mr. Murdoch has been able to recreate right before our very eyes the abusive practices pioneered by Mr. Hearst over one hundred years ago.
Today, the bottom line is money. Politics is secondary. While the media content is highly political, the purpose behind influencing politics is to serve the primary objective of protecting the big profits.
Just think what would happen if the Republican Party suddenly proposed a tax on excessive corporate media profits. This right-wing network would shift away from the Republican Party so fast your head would spin. Bill O’Reilly would be sporting tie-dyes and Birkenstocks.
Corporate profits is what led to the creation and expansion of this extremist right-wing media network. And it is indeed a cozy little business model. The network builds an audience by appealing to people’s fear, insecurity, and anger, and simultaneously directs its audience to support the right-wing political party that best protects the network’s own profits.
It’s like a rigged game. The content disseminated over the network masquerades as being objective and informative, but in reality the content has instead been carefully designed to promote the network’s own business interests.
Pretty nifty.
What is best for corporate profits, however, is not necessarily best for a democratic society.
From a political perspective, it is certainly not healthy to incite anger and hate within a nation’s own population. And it is not very wise to inflame hostility and rage against a nation’s own government. From a business perspective, sure, it is perfectly understandable because a corporation can exploit this and profit handsomely from it. But from a political perspective of creating a cohesive society and maintaining peace and harmony among the population, this is disastrous.
Responsible politicians certainly know better and would never endorse any enterprise seeking to inflame anger and hostility in the population. A true political leader would not participate in any such conduct, but instead would speak out against it. A true political leader would not condone the dissemination of false and misleading information, but instead would seek to correct it with accuracy. A true political leader would not sacrifice unity in society in order to capture a few easy votes, but instead would uphold his or her principles and integrity even at the risk of losing votes.
That is genuine political leadership. Doing what is best for society, even in the face of adversity.
But politicians in the Republican Party could not resist. The extremist right-wing network of Fox News and talk radio had built up an audience that could easily be exploited for political support. Even though the extremist media network was fomenting anger and hatred that is disastrous for society overall, the network could also be used to deliver political votes to Republican politicians.
And there it was. The Republican Party had made a deal with the devil.
An unholy alliance was formed. The Republican Party would allow the extremist right-wing network to promulgate its destructive propaganda throughout society in order to generate its enormous profits, and in exchange, the network would direct its audience to vote for the Republican Party.
The allure of easy votes was too great. Exercising true leadership was too difficult.
So for years and years, the extremist right-wing media network spewed out content full of anger, hate, and division. And Republican politicians jumped on the bandwagon. They began preaching the same destructive messages and appearing on the extremist right-wing network all across the nation.
And guess what? It worked.
The base of the Republican Party grew more and more angry. Their resentment against our very own government grew ever greater. Their sense of victimization became ever more acute. Their fury at the establishment boiled over.
And then, predictably, it backfired.
The base of the Republican Party became a Frankenstein. It became radicalized into an extreme movement that turned against the established order, including the leadership of the Republican Party itself. It has become a monster of its own that is now roaming the countryside and terrorizing the very political party that created it.
This is the reason behind the rise of candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The Republican Party establishment despises these candidates, but the Party has no idea how to slay these dragons.
These candidates now pose the enormous threat of potentially causing a giant split within the Party that could lead to the utter destruction of the entire Republican Party itself.
It is a remarkable story.
The Republican Party has enjoyed its dance with the devil. Now it must pay the piper.

Trump and Consequences

$
0
0
“Trump and Consequences”
by Michael Lujan Bevacqua
The Guam Daily Post
March 30, 2016

There’s a Chamorro saying, comes in different forms, but follows this basic logic, “an esta masångan, mappot pumañot tåtte.” Once something has been said, it’s difficult to swallow back.

This applies to what parents say to their children. What friends say to each other. What people post on their Facebook or Instagram. It is a simple reminder, that while it is easy to spit whatever nonsense comes into your mind at any given moment, the ease with which it is verbalized, is in direct contrast to how impossible it may be to rid the world of it. Nowhere is this more true than for politicians. There is an amazing process in which lifetimes of public service, legacies of accomplishment are reduced to gaffes, or mistakes or slips of the tongue. You must always be vigilante about what you say, because once it leaves your mouth, it belongs to the world, and it can be used to elevate you higher or drag you lower.

It has been remarkable to watch the rise and rise and rise of billionaire Donald Trump in this year’s election for President of the United States. He has defied conventional wisdom and even perceived common decency time and time again, to continue winning in Republican primaries, much to the horror of the majority of his own political party. What has been most remarkable for me, is the massive unchecked ego that he navigates the world with, which makes it possible for him to say ridiculous things, reverse his positions almost instantly, and take up a variety of mind-blowing policy arguments without appearing to know anything about them or consider what types of challenges or consequences would be involved.

For most of the election cycle, we have been able to observe the chaos of the Republican primaries from afar. As comedian Stephen Colbert has noted, this political season, which at one point had more than 15 candidates, isn’t just the Hunger Games, it is the Hungry-For-Power-Games! From Guam, we could watch as the Republican party eviscerated itself, trying with so little success to tame the angry white fearful political base that they have spent generations creating. Trump emerged like a towering “yuge” beast, smashing aside all respectful, likeable or “electable” candidates and becoming a deity for this menacing base to worship and to see as their savior. For the millions who nurse daily at the teat of Fox News, and are fearful of Sharia law, anchor babies and secret Obama cabinet Muslims coming to take their guns and declare war on Christmas, how could someone as bland and normal as Jeb Bush inspire them? Only someone like Trump, who promises grandiose impossible things as often as he blinks, could sate them. Only he who can salve their irrational and laughable feelings of marginalization and oppression, with equally irrational and laughable aggression could be the one to guide them. When those who belong to what you could argue is the most privileged demographic of people in the history of the human race, want to act like they are a besieged and embattled minority, only someone who is filled with an equal level of fantasy and insanity could be the hero they are searching for.

Trump reared his voice and his large orange head locally, briefly earlier this month for the Republican caucus on Guam. His comments were vague and baffling. Trump who leads a coalition of people who appear to become more xenophobic and racist with each state that votes, reaching out to one of the most diverse places in the American empire was hysterical. He used the same rhetoric used on the campaign trail, referring to the territories as places not taken seriously, and he will make sure we are treated seriously. It would be interesting to hear what a focus-group of Trump supporters might say about places like Guam, and what they know about them and how they should be treated?

This is both part of the appeal, but also the danger of Trump. It is enticing, because he appears beyond political calculations. He is definitely not your usual politician. He may have an ego the same size as your usual politician, but his approach to politics is generally something that would disqualify him from ever achieving a sizeable presence in terms of political power. Straight-talking or straight shooting sounds nice, but tends to be a terrible approach to governance and also leads to people who know little of the world or their own country being propelled into power.

This is one of the many dangers with Trump, is that because he doesn’t seem to have any internal order to ideology, but just wants to be in the news and wants to be liked, he speaks and acts without any sense of what might happen afterwards, who might be affected and who might get hurt. We can see this in terms of the treatment of protestors at his rallies. We can see it in the way he has thoughtlessly or strategically demonized various groups, further inflaming the racial animus that makes up his core supporters. We can also see this in the way Trump talks about the rest of the world, and the how his foreign policy seems to be built on whatever random fragment of information he knows about a certain place. He sees authoritarian leaders as being models that he admires and sees almost every other country as needing to be put in its place. As his rhetoric is built around America losing, being taken advantage of and needing to be made great again, he is constantly speaking in coded terms about a lost greatness. Something that was there before and we can’t find anymore. His foreign policy is built on the idea that people around the world, have gotten their grimy mitts on America’s greatness, and they need to be forced into giving it back.

Interview with William Wyler

$
0
0
Isa, the kids and I watched Ben-Hur over the weekend. Isa and I had watched parts of it before, but never sat down to experiences its 200+ minutes of epic drama. The kids found it boring for the most part, but the scenes in the slave ship and of course the chariot race, got them very interested and excited. Akli'e' found it particularly difficult to follow, as so many scenes would feature dramatic music in the background and characters looking pained off into space. The tension and emotional complexity was completely lost on the poor boy. Sumahi tends to enjoy movies based on a formula that boils down to "How many animals are in this movie?" and the hope that there be more animals visible than humans in this film. For both Isa and I, we were watching the film with a variety of things in mind. We've been trying to watch more "great" films and then work to analyze the camerawork, the acting, the effects, the writing and other logistics that create a fantastic film. Both of us come from a very religious background and upbringing, but don't believe much in the faiths that we were born into.There was a lot of nostalgia as we watched, certain parts echoing sermons, songs and lessons from our religious past.

I've been reading up on the production of Ben-Hur, as well as the director himself William Wyler. I came across an interview with Wyler in 1946 from the New York Times, and I've pasted it below.

****************************

“The Best Years of Our Lives”
William Wyler and His Screen Philosophy
By Thomas M. Pryor
November 17, 1946
The New York Times

When William Wyler was last interviewed in September, 1945, as he was about to return to directing films in Hollywood after serving three years in the Army Air Forces, he frankly admitted that he was ''scared.'' His anxiety was not alleviated by thoughts of the Academy ''Oscar'' he had won in 1941 with ''Mrs. Miniver.'' In fact, that distinction served to heighten his apprehension of the Hollywood axiom that a director is only as good as his last picture, because, as things work out, each successive undertaking becomes in turn that fateful last picture. Thus it wasn't what he had done, but what he was about to do which would really matter. ''I with,'' he said at the time, ''that I could go back quietly and make a small picture just to get the feel of things.'' 

But he couldn't do that. He was committed to make a picture right off for Samuel Goldwyn in order to terminate a pre-war contract. Moreover, he had then just organized a new independent producing company, Liberty Films, Inc., in association with Frank Capra, George Stevens and Samuel J. Briskin. Like himself, those gentlemen also had absented themselves from Hollywood to help out in the war effort. Being thoroughly versed in the foibles of Hollywood, he reasoned that since his picture for Goldwyn would be out first, the movie colony's estimation of Liberty would blow hot or cold, depending on the showing he made. 

Confidence Restored
 
Fourteen months and the completion of ''The Best Years of Our Lives'' has restored Mr. Wyler's self-confidence. The other afternoon he chatted freely and with the assurance that befits an accomplished craftsman who has enriched the screen with such pictures as ''Dead End,''''These Three,''''Dodsworth,''''Wuthering Heights'' and ''The Little Foxes,'' in collaboration with Samuel Goldwyn; ''Mrs. Miniver,'' for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer; ''The Letter,'' for Warner Brothers, and the brilliant documentary of a bombing mission over Germany, ''The Memphis Belle,'' for the Army Air Forces. 

Mr. Wyler discovered during the making of ''The Best Years of Our Lives,'' which opens on Thursday at the Astor Theatre, that no appreciable differences in technique had been developed during his absence. He speaks with confidence, devoid of any trace of braggadocio, of the picture as the fulfillment of a deep-rooted personal obligation to do something ''worthwhile,'' as ''the best'' film he has yet made and ''the most important'' in terms of what it has to say. 

Homecoming
 
''The Best Years of Our Lives'' tells of the homecoming of three veterans to the same town. There is a middle-aged sergeant (Fredric March), with a wife and grown son and daughter and a good job awaiting him. There is an Air Forces captain, a lead bombardier (Dana Andrews), who has outgrown his pre-war job as drug store soda jerker, returning to a philandering wife whom he married before going overseas. There is a disabled sailor (Harold J. Russell, a non-professional who was incapacitated in the Army), who was a star athlete in high school and lost both hands. 

''This is the kind of picture I couldn't possibly have made and done with conviction if I had not been in the war myself,'' said Mr. Wyler. ''If Sam (Goldwyn) had handed me this story five years ago I would have had to say, if I didn't want to make a fool of myself, 'Wait just a minute! I'll join the Army and come back in three years after I get to know these characters.''' As Mr. Wyler thinks back over some of his earlier pictures, he realized that he didn't understand the characters well enough. ''But I know these fellows,'' he continued. ''I've come home twice myself from the war and I know just how these fellows would feel and act. One character is very much like myself in the sense he comes back to a nice family, a good job and a little money. This fellow has lived with the same woman for twenty years, yet he feels a bit strange and out of place at first. No man can walk right into the house after two or three years and pick up his life as before. 

''I explained all my own fears and problems to Bob (Robert E.) Sherwood, who wrote the script, and he worked them in just the way I wanted them. He did a wonderful job in weaving the characters together. Writing the script was like doing an original story. The three characters we have now are not at all like the ones MacKinlay Kantor had in his book 'Glory For Me,' which he wrote at the suggestion of Mr. Goldwyn. Kantor's story was good for 1944-45, but we wanted a story that would stand up in 1946-47. Our toughest problem was shaping the character of the disabled veteran. We had a spastic case first, but I realized such a character would never ring true; that no actor, no matter how great his talent, could play a spastic with conviction. 

''One day while I was looking at some Signal Corps films about disabled veterans I saw 'Diary of a Sergeant,' which showed a fellow who had lost both hands trying to get accustomed to hooks, artificial hands. I knew that he was to be our sailor. Bob Sherwood agreed with me and we approached Goldwyn, fully believing that he would reject the suggestion as too gruesome. But he saw what we were driving at and said 'Go ahead.' We decided to take up this boy where 'Diary of a Sergeant' left him and show him returning home fully readjusted and determined to live among other people and to act like them in every respect. We wanted to show people that these disabled men were thoroughly capable of doing ordinary things with artificial hands; that we, in fact, are the ones who are maladjusted, since we annoy and embarrass them with our patronizing attentions. 

''I sought out Harold Russell for our film. He never was overseas but he was a war casualty just the same. He lost both hands in an accidental explosion in an Army training camp in Georgia. After seeing him in 'Diary of a Sergeant,' I knew no one else could play the role. He isn't an actor, of course, and he has no acting technique, but he gives the finest performance I have ever seen on the screen. I didn't try to teach him to act. I concentrated on guiding his thinking more than his actions, because I reasoned that if he was thinking along the right lines he just couldn't do anything wrong. I call his performance a 'thought' performance because you know instinctively what he is feeling just by the expression on his face or the way he tilts his head or covers his hooks.'' 

Drama Based on Facts
 
Mr. Wyler firmly believes that the picture ''has something as important to say to audiences as big news story.'' Yet, he says, ''what it has to say is gotten across in such an entertaining manner that people coming out of the theatre will think they are saying it, not the writer or the director or the producer.'' He has not yet decided on the subject of his first picture for Liberty, but feels pictures seeking a world-wide audience ''cannot be detached from the great events of the world.''
''Great pictures can't be entirely fictitious,'' says Mr. Wyler. ''Pictures that will live on for years, like 'The Birth of a Nation' and 'Gone With the Wind,' had great historical events in the background. The trouble with Hollywood is that too many of the top people responsible for pictures are too comfortable and don't give a damn about what goes up on the screen so long as it gets by at the box office. How can you expect people with that kind of attitude to make the kind of great pictures that the world will want to see?'' 

The Code
 
The Production Code is another barrier in the path of screen progress, says Mr. Wyler. He doesn't deny its usefulness and admits that there is a need for some sort of check to hold irresponsible producers in line. However, he is strongly critical of the way in which the Code is being enforced and cited an experience he had in making ''The Best Years of Our Lives'' to illustrate his contention that the ''Code is too rigid when enforced according to the letter.'' 

Mr. Wyler was called on the carpet by Joseph I. Breen's Code staff and reminded of ''the sanctity of marriage'' because the ex-bombardier had fallen in love with the daughter of the sergeant and obviously desired to get a divorce from the wife who was two-timing him. ''On the other hand,'' he went on, ''there was one scene which was full of sex and quite vulgar, not because of any dialogue that was spoken, but because of the way it was played. It was out of key with the rest of the picture and it actually embarrassed the preview audience. I cut out the scene myself after that because I knew I had done the wrong thing. But the point is that the Breen Office raised no objection, either on reading the script or after seeing the picture. 

''Incidents like that convince me that those people have no real judgment. They apply the Code evenly to all pictures, which is just like giving an aspirin to mend a broken arm. If we must have the Production Code than I think the only way to use it effectively is to judge a film as a whole and determine whether its effect is good or bad.'' 

Turning to a discussion of filming technique, Mr. Wyler said he deliberately refrained from cutting sharply from one scene into another and also held back on using close-ups of the players. ''I shot most of the scenes through from beginning to end and by letting the camera turn with the actors it caught their actions and reactions. In that way the players did their own cutting. I don't believe in overworking the close-up and only use it when I want to make a point by excluding everything else from the audiences' view for a certain length of time. The close-up is a tricky business and must be done in silent agreement with the audience, because if they don't want to look at a specific face or object at the precise moment you want them to do that, then it's no good.''

Mensahi Ginen i Gehilo' #13: The End of the End of History

$
0
0
After the Cold War ended, conservative philosopher/political theorist Francis Fukuyama penned an argument about "the End of History." His basic thoughts boiled down to the idea that with the United States victorious in the Cold War, and with Communism and Marxist thought and governments disappearing, the dialectics of history were over. The United States would never have another worthy antagonist, who could challenge it, and that liberal democratic capitalistic ideas would become the norm and nothing viable could ever appear again beyond it. There are many ways that we can see some truth to this argument. Very few people would ever openly argue nowadays that democracy isn’t the best possible for of political government. Capitalism appears to be the happy norm, after all, who could openly argue against the making of money and spreading of wealth? Whereas technology seems to constantly shifting and changing, making previously unthinkable things feel very normal, in political terms, most people accept that the world is in most ways set. Despite, the adoration and addiction people seem to feel for dystopian visions in their popular culture rations, most of the world goes about their lives imagining that no significant shift in the world exists just around the bend. This creates problems for those, such as Chamorros, who in many ways have been “left out” of history or “left behind” by the progress that build the idea of the world today. For those who remain in colonies, for those whose lands have long been stolen and are now called “indigenous” in the countries that were once theirs, for those who have long dreamed of their own place in this world, but have been relegated to being “minorities” or “discontents.” As I’ve written elsewhere, we wait beyond The Fourth World Wall. It can be difficult to build any momentum for our movements, because for us to achieve decolonization or independence or self-determination might fundamentally alter the map of the world, might call into question that idea that History has really ended.

We can find an inkling of this in the 1995 film Strange Days. Set in Los Angeles, days before the start of the 2nd millennium, it chronicles society on the verge of breakdown and collapse as a race war threatens to erupt following the death of an outspoken black rapper. As military and police roam the streets to maintain “order,” one of the characters watching the “end of the world” on TV, does some amateur philosophizing. He agrees with the overall apocalyptic mood, his reasoning being that, the stuff which would make history History is all gone.
You know how I know it’s the end of the world? Cause everything’s already been done, you know. Every kind of music’s been tried, every government’s been tried, every fucking hairstyle, fucking bubble gum flavors, breakfast cereal, every type of fucking. What are we gonna do? How are we gonna make another thousand years?

For over a century of colonization in Guam, the United States has, for the most part, come to be understood as a similar end to all things. The limit against which no one, especially not the lowly Chamorro, on Guam could question or surpass. Within all attempts at decolonization, or acts of decolonization, we find at some level a critique of the United States, its presence in Guam, which either requires or offers something different, something better.

For example, policies and actions of the United States have dislocated Chamorros from their land and from the subsistence agricultural economy they thrived on for centuries. Yet, those who seek to decolonize Guam by returning to the land and farming it, are contesting the colonizing common sense that we find throughout the Pacific, where the smallness of the islands and lack of “resources” means that economic and physical survival will always be based on the mental and material resources of those outside of the Pacific. They are in a sense saying that the United States didn’t get it right, that, in fact, there is a better way of doing things here.

Guam suffers through the End of History in its own particular way, which I refer to as the decolonial deadlock. An overall resistance to the idea of political status change, of Guam becoming something other than being a mere possession or colony of the United States. This deadlock has many dimensions, some of which are tied to fear, overwhelming feelings of dependency, inability to see things beyond the colonizer’s gaze, but the aspect that is most connected to this notion of History being over and the impossibility of anything new or authentic appearing comes about when people compare Guam in its colonial smallness, with the US and its colonial grandness. The most distilled version I’ve come across was when I was speaking before a group of Guam high school students about decolonization and my ideas for changing the make up of the Government of Guam. I was rebutted by a student with the following sentence, “What makes you think that you can do better than the United States?”

The you in that statement is not just me, it is in reality that lowly Chamorro from Guam who stands in weak defiance against History’s end. The connection to the excerpt from Strange Days is clear – greater men and greater nations have tried everything already, especially governments; and as Guam is nothing more than a “dot on the map” and the United States is the greatest country in the world, what can you offer against this megalith to create History? As contradiction is the engine of History, what could a Chamorro from Guam offer in competition with the United States, which could be considered an alternative, something understood as conflicting, contradicting? What does this Chamorro have that could be considered something that the wheels and gears of History would even consider turning for? All that the Chamorro can offer, is his or her shattered existence to be entombed in what Fukuyama terms the Museum of History.

For those of us pushing for decolonization and independence in Guam, we are challenging that notion that History has ended and that there is no real work left to do. Guam is not alone. There are other places, primarily small islands that are still in need of decolonization, attached to colonizers who have little interest in pushing them towards self-determination. Here is an article below from The Diplomat which describes some other islands in the Pacific.

*******************

"State-in-Waiting: Introducing Your Future Pacific Neighbors


Within a few years, the Pacific Islands region will likely become home to the newest states in the world. Each of these nations is emerging from a complex history of colonization and civil unrest, and the creation of new states in the region has significant political, social, and economic ramifications for the Asia-Pacific as a whole.

First up is the French overseas territory of New Caledonia, which must hold an independence referendum before the end of 2018. Following violent clashes in the 1980s between the indigenous Kanaks and the pro-French European settlers, the UN listed New Caledonia as a non-self-governing territory in 1986, effectively placing the territory on its “decolonization list.” After further killings, hostage crises, and assassinations in the 1990s, the French government signed the Noumea Accord in 1998, mandating that a vote on independence was to take place before 2019.

The outcome of the upcoming referendum is difficult to predict, and is causing heated debate in a nation that is already intensely polarized. Changes in 2015 to the electoral eligibility laws prescribed that only the indigenous population and persons who were already enrolled to vote in 1998 would be automatically eligible to vote in the referendum, causing protests among pro-French groups. The latest census results reveal that within a population of 260,000, 39 percent are indigenous Kanaks, whilst 27 percent are European. The remaining 34 percent comprises “mixed race” persons, migrants from other Pacific islands, and a handful of Asian minorities.

As the referendum approaches, pro-independence activists have some hard work ahead of them in order to broaden their appeal beyond the Kanak bloc and gain the majority vote necessary for independence. Little more can be said at this stage while the New Caledonia Congress continues to debate the question of electoral eligibility, but it seems likely that the results will be close.

The Autonomous Region of Bougainville, currently a province of Papua New Guinea, will follow suit with a referendum in 2019. The decision to stage a referendum came out of the Bougainville Peace Agreement in 2001, following a long and bloody civil war from 1988-1998. The conflict was fought between Bougainvillean revolutionary forces and the Papua New Guinean military — assisted by the infamous private mercenary company Sandline International – and the ten years of fighting left as many as 20,000 dead.

Longstanding feelings of alienation toward Papua New Guinea among Bougainville’s estimated population of 250,000 suggests that a strong vote in favor of independence is the most likely outcome of the 2019 vote, meaning that Bougainville could become the world’s next new country.
In appreciating the necessity to establish diplomatic relations with what may well become the newest fragile state on Australia’s doorstep, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced that Canberra would be setting up a diplomatic post on Bougainville in May 2015. The government of Papua New Guinea responded by banning Australians from travelling there, with PNG Foreign Minister Rimbink Pato denouncing the plans as “outrageous.”

Despite the overwhelming support for independence among Bougainvilleans, Papua New Guinea’s frosty attitude toward the question of independence intimates that secession is not entirely guaranteed. Part of the peace agreement was that the PNG Parliament would have “final decision making authority” over the referendum results, meaning that Bougainville’s independence will theoretically require parliamentary consent. It is unclear how this will play out in 2019, and it is also unclear how the UN, regional leaders, and Bougainvilleans themselves would respond if Papua New Guinea refused to ratify a vote for independence.

The Pacific also holds a number of more long-term candidates for statehood. One of the key areas to watch over the next decade is French Polynesia, an island collectivity in the South Pacific that the UN* re-classified as a non-self-governing territory in 2013. As such, the French government was called upon by the UN General Assembly to take rapid steps toward effecting “a fair and effective self-determination process” in French Polynesia, a major win for the indigenous Maohi nationalists.
Similarly to New Caledonia, the French Polynesian parliament is split between the pro- and anti-independence political parties, and these sentiments broadly divide the population into the indigenous and European camps. The political situation is further complicated by the intertwining of the independence movement with the campaign for recognition and compensation from the French government for the 193** nuclear tests carried out in French Polynesia between 1960-1996, with anger and momentum in the latter movement fueling the independence campaign.

While a referendum is some way off in French Polynesia, the events in New Caledonia over the next few years are likely to provide significant impetus for the decolonization process. Aside from New Caledonia and French Polynesia, France has another overseas territory in the form of the islands of Wallis and Futuna. Whilst the islands’ indigenous populations have traditionally been strongly pro-French, Futuna chiefs recently hinted at a potential push for independence in the midst of concerns over French mineral exploitation.

The Pacific Islands of the future seem set for some radical changes. Some of the biggest questions will be those surrounding governance capacity, fiscal independence, and resource management. New Caledonia, home to 25 percent of the world’s nickel reserves, can be expected to undertake a dramatic renegotiation of its mining arrangements upon independence, while the fate of the Panguna copper mine in Bougainville — estimated at a value of $37 billion and an infamous flashpoint for bloody clashes and indigenous exploitation during the 1990s — remains at an impasse.

Sorely neglected within the field of IR analysis, the Pacific Islands region may yet emerge as as one of the geopolitical hotspots of the 21st century. With a number of other independence movements growing across the Pacific — including the Chilean territory of Rapa Nui (Easter Island), Chuuk State in the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji’s Rotuma islands, Banaba Island in Kiribati, New Zealand’s Cook Islands, Australia’s Norfolk Island, and the Indonesian territories of West Papua, Aceh, Maluku, and Kalimantan, to name a just a few — it’s high time that we paid some attention to our Pacific neighbors.

*An earlier version of this article said that France had re-classified French Polynesia as a non-self governing territory.
**An earlier version of this article said that there had been 196 nuclear tests in French Polynesia.
Sally Andrews is a New Colombo Plan Scholar and the 2015-2016 New Colombo Plan Indonesia Fellow. She is a Director of the West Papuan Development Company and the 2016 Indo-Pacific Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs.
This article was first published on the Young Australians in International Affairs blog. This article can be republished with attribution under a Creative Commons Licence. 

Suette Yu'

$
0
0



Suette Yu’

Tumotohge gi me’nan i fanhalum’an i ante-ku
Mames i linamlamlam i magagu-ña
I pekkåt-ña siha muna’fakmåta yu’
Ya i gaige-ña muna’figan gi sanhalom-hu
Un ti chaguayan na guafi

Anai humålom gui’
Ya ha faloffåni yu’
Malingu i tano’ gi papa’-hu
Sa’ ha guaiya yu’
Achokka’ ti må’gas yan matua yu’
Tåya’ lulok oru na potseras para i kannai-ña
Ya i dibi-hu taihinekkok
Ha atanñaihon yu’ gi hinanao-ña
Ya ha chatgeñaihon yu’
Ya hu li’e’ i semnak uma’atok gi chinalek-ña

Calvo's 2016 State of the Island Address

$
0
0
Governor Eddie Calvo's 2016 State of the Island Address
Posted: Mar 31, 2016 5:21 PM Updated: Mar 31, 2016 7:21 PM 
State of the Island Address 2016

Lt. Gov. Tenorio, Madam Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, Congresswoman Bordallo, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, but more importantly…

Manelu’hu, manaina’hu, yan I man’hoben,

Welcome to the Guam Capitol District! Look at how beautiful this city has become. This museum will be open in a few months. Paseo renovations are underway. I can’t wait to deliver next year’s address in the Guam Congress Building next door. And I have to tell you, as a son of Hagatna, a resident of Agana Heights, and a worker in the capital, I’m so happy that some of the best restaurants opened up shop here. We welcome even more business. We welcome artists, performances, tours, and the return of the government of Guam to the seat of government.

We have even bigger plans for this place. I received the Hagatna Master Plan for consideration. And in it, this city really looks like the Paris of the Pacific.

I was inaugurated at the Plaza Kiosko over there five years ago. That’s where I laid out my goals as your governor. My agenda, in whatever we did with the issues at hand, was to restore confidence in ourselves, and to get us believing again in our ability, ingenuity, and place in this world.

I followed that speech a few months later by declaring the state of our island was fragile. Then in 2012, I said the island was improving. The next year, we were growing. And then we were strong, and growing stronger.

Today the state of our island is growing confident.

It’s time we confronted the fact that, for nearly 400 years, the state of the island has also been colonial. It is the unchanged and unrepentant shadow cast upon our unshackled destiny.

Confidence may be the one trigger that can change our colonial state once and for all.

Evidence of our collective confidence abounds.

More businesses expanded or opened shop the past year. That probably explains the additional 900 jobs and growing paychecks.

More people earning more money meant that the poverty growth rate would slow. It didn’t just slow. It reversed. In 2015, we recorded the first reduction in SNAP utilization in 10 years. The homeless count also went down, while more families moved into homes.

This improvement in the economic stability of so many on the fringes – seen just five years ago as unrealistic – is the result of your hard work and every pat on the back that you gave your neighbor to succeed.

Our focus on poverty and the middle class stirred a culture of empowerment. Once people got their heads above water, they began to exercise and make healthier choices. The data backs this up with the number of fitness centers, sports enrollment, and preventive care going up. This is in addition to data showing that we’re buying less alcohol. These dramatic improvements will translate into fewer diagnoses of obesity, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Healthy people are happy people, and happy people pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Our children and teenagers, whom we call iGen, understand that we prevent poverty by creating opportunity. This generation is paving its way to success. The graduation rate has been going up, while the drop out rate is on the decline. More students are going to college at GCC and UOG.

All these indicators of the state of our island are promising. But it’s the explosion of interest in the arts and the humanities that makes me beam with pride. Like never before, we are seeing young people picking up instruments, dancing, acting, protesting, singing, painting, sculpting, writing, rapping, filming, and debating. And for the first time since the 2,000 census showed a decline in Chamorro language use, we now have data showing that we’re turning the river back. Over the past five years, the Hurao Academy has produced 615 new Chamorro-language speakers.

I want to thank all of you artists and cultural revivalists. Because of your work, I get to hold my head up high when I open the 12th Festival of Pacific Arts right here in this city. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be a sight to behold. Over 3,000 Pacific artists will join ours in the world’s most beautiful display of solidarity, fellowship, and progress. This is a time for us, my dear people, to rediscover our roots and bond in the glory of our history and our customs. Celebrate the talent and courage of Guam’s greatest thinkers and masters of our traditions. Discover just how brilliant this Pacific Ocean shines with the cultures and talents of islanders throughout.

An event this size requires years of planning. For reasons we don’t need to dwell on, my office was informed less than two years ago that FestPac would fail without our intervention. So we took over the coordination. We raised the money. We organized the partnerships. And we managed the progress of 88 subcommittees that all pulled together to turn this story around. I want to thank everyone involved with this remarkable effort, especially my Deputy Chief of Staff, Rose Ramsey, who is the lady in charge of this whole thing.

What I described above is how the state of our island has improved the quality of life of many people. But there’s more to do, because there are more people whose lives need to improve as well.

These are my initiatives to improve the state of the island in the short term:

First, we’re going to put more families in affordable homes in two ways. One, we’ve brought a developer who will build beautiful, family-sized homes for below $100,000 on Chamorro Land Trust lots. Two, we’re going to infuse Guam Housing Corporation with the money to issue more mortgages for families who the banks deny. In order to do this, I will introduce a bill that assesses a fee on major real estate transactions… and I’ll be speaking with Sen. Barnes over the next few days to get this done.

Second, we’re going to market and promote the technology, cultivation, and consumption of locally-manufactured products, starting with agriculture.

Third, we’re going to push even more resources into our wellness and health outreach programs, and into the facilities we need to encourage fitness. Those programs are working. They are convincing more residents to exercise and eat better, to stop smoking, stop drinking, and to stay off drugs. We’re going to match this vigor with more sidewalks, bikepaths, rehabilitated parks, sports fields and facilities in the villages, a new fishing platform, the new farmers’ market, and the renovation of the Paseo Stadium.

Fourth, Senators, I want to work with you to figure out the ways and means to build more athletic facilities and to pave more village streets. I’d also like to see how we can further support Dr. Judy Flores’s plans for Inarajan.

And lastly, the Hurao Academy’s success at producing hundreds of Chamorro language speakers says that immersion works. We’re going to work on a way to support our mayors so that they can provide immersion programs in every village. We must increase the number of Chamorro language speakers.

The state of the island is confident partly because the state of your government is strong. It is a government that manages its resources and finances responsibly, values its employees, and delivers services better as a result.

I could run through a list of agency achievements, but we don’t have all week. So let me summarize with some perspective.

We are now on the fourth year of paying tax refunds on time, without borrowing a cent. By the end of April, we’re set to release another $40 million in refunds. That will cover the next 13,000 refund checks.

You haven’t heard of a payless payday in the executive agencies, or the cutting of hours, or the trimming of services. As a matter of fact, we’re providing more services. Thank you, GovGuam employees.

If you want to know where the biggest increases in cost have come from, I’ll gladly tell you. EITC has doubled in just one decade. That’s an unfunded federal mandate. The solid waste federal receiver decided to stop paying debt service on the Ordot Dump bond. So we’re paying for it now. Another federal mandate. And, finally, Medicaid costs are ballooning.

Yet, we’re paying the bills, even the ones Uncle Sam left for us. And despite the occasional cash crunch or procurement problem or overtime that wasn’t budgeted, finances are no longer what cripples government. The financial condition of your government has bred progress in services.

How else could there be resources to fix potholes and pave village roads? From school buses to sanitary inspections and hot meals for the elderly – this government functions, and it prioritizes its resources to its three most important services.

You all remember the crime wave that started in 2011 and consumed us for the next two years? Lt. Gov. Tenorio made it his mission to rebuild  the Guam Police Department and shuffle resources. He hired more officers, increased patrols around your homes, established neighborhood watch programs. The police let the criminals know that they were watching. Indeed, thieves think twice about stepping foot on private property now that Sen. Tony Ada’s Castle Doctrine is law. The facts speak to a community that took back the streets. The numbers of reported burglaries and assaults have gone down. Of the reports that were made, the data shows a dramatic increase in the rate of arrest. This means that even with fewer reports of these crimes, our police officers are catching more criminals than they could just five years ago. That, my dear people, speaks to the commitment to excellence of the Pacific’s finest police force.

When I was a senator, the daily problem had something to do with the Department of Education. There were threats of payless paydays. Millions in salaries were withheld from teachers. The facilities were just rotting. No toilet tissue for the kids. Aircons breaking. Books gathering mold in storage rooms when there was a shortage. That’s not even 10 percent of the list.

We addressed many of these problems, and perhaps we can list those accomplishments another day. All throughout the country, states and territories that adopted the Common Core standards were warned: expect test scores to drop when you implement the Common Core. This is because the standards are higher. They’re more rigorous. And it’s true… test scores dropped throughout the country. But not in Guam. Almost every grade level tested with higher proficiency in English, reading, and math.

I’m sure there are many reasons for this upward trend in education, but allow me to focus on a few. First, it is proven that the biggest influence in a student’s success is the classroom teacher. Teachers, great job. Kudos go to the principals, parents, support staff, the mayors and community leaders, and to the students themselves.

The improvements that led to these achievements are the result of leadership that is inclusive and unafraid of change. When it comes to public education, I no longer worry like I did in 2011. Jon Fernandez, you and your team along with the Board of Education have really changed this island for the better.

The government has made some significant progress, but we still have our faults and failures. We still face the frustration of issues that persist, despite our hard efforts. Well, we’re just going to try harder.

The most important of these services is medical care. Guam Memorial Hospital provides life-saving services from the most caring doctors and nurses around. And no matter who you are or how much is in your pocket, they will care for you. That makes GMH the worst business model you can think of. That hospital is bleeding cash and needs a transfusion right away. It also needs new and renovated facilities, both for current services and for new services.

To make this all possible I am withdrawing my bill that appropriates the Legislature’s lapses to GMH and I’m encouraging a better solution. I am asking the Legislature to support Sen. Rodriguez’s partnership with us in financing $120 million in capital improvements, $30 million of which will be an immediate cash infusion. This is on top of revenue-generating programs we are implementing. We can secure a low interest rate if we do this now, and we identified the repayment source. If we do this, along with Sen. Rodriguez’s bill that authorizes public-private partnerships, we will stabilize GMH for the foreseeable future.

The next priority requires our Washington Delegate’s help. Congresswoman Bordallo, I’ve sent my support to Congress and the President for Puerto Rico’s EITC measure. That will fill the tax refund account to full capacity within just two years if it becomes law. I implore you to lobby that issue and follow up our push for Medicaid and TEFRA parity.

It’s also time for DOE’s third-party federal agent to pack its bags. And it’s time for the solid waste federal receiver to pay his bills and leave. We can free up $160 million if we just get some equity and justice on these federal issues.

But just as we get that movement going, another federal problem happens. Tourists are waiting 3 hours in line at U.S. Immigration at the airport. We have brought this issue up to the federal folks on the ground here, and their bosses in San Francisco. Nothing has changed. We even offered to pay for more officers to get the lines going. Still, nothing. And then they surprise us with the sudden drop of visas for skilled workers. This action will cripple our construction and medical industries, among others. Margaret Metcalfe will be knocking down some doors in Washington over the next few days. And I’m going to call the Secretary of Homeland Security and reason with him. The federal government is strangling us everywhere. Now, their actions are affecting our number one industry! It is unacceptable and, more importantly, it’s damaging to Guam.

While the root of many of our problems in government stem from federal law or regulations, we, too, are guilty of problems we either created or failed to resolve.

First is transparency. We came to office and we opened everything up. We rescinded gag orders. We took pride in giving the media the information they asked for. What we weren’t prepared for was the increasing frequency of requests for information, and the scrutiny that mounted with it. Reporters, I want you to know that I understand you are doing your jobs. I want you to know we’re committed to transparency, and we’ll keep working at it.

To help with that is another objective that has been painfully slow. And that’s our IT initiative to get more services and information online. I’d rather save everyone’s time  and put all public documents on the government’s websites. Instead of you waiting four days for a FOIA response, you can just click on a site and be on your way. We’ve got nothing to hide, and you’ve got every right to access your government.

And last, I know the negotiations are happening in good faith, but it’s taken so darn long to deliver a teacher contract. I promised I would sign it and I am eager to keep my promise. I want to thank the negotiating teams for the progress they are making. I just ask that we get that contract on my desk soon.

There are other problems that need greater attention, I understand. But Rome wasn’t built in a day.

A few days ago in that city, Pope Francis said this, “We see and will see problems both inside and out. They will always be there. Let us not allow darkness and fear to distract us and control our hearts.”

Some of my advisors lament the criticism we get in the media. Every now and then there’s the feeling that some people are being nit-picky about things.

Let me show you what the media was reporting in 2011, when we started.

Now let me show you some of our recent headlines.

I’m glad that teenagers have the drive to protest and stand for what they believe in. I think we are blessed that the daily story isn’t how we’re going to survive, but what we can do better with every little thing. Five years ago, we were worried about the government’s inability to deliver life-saving services that paying tax refunds on time wasn’t even on the radar.

Together, my dear people, we raised the level of conversation. The standard of living has improved to the point, where people can breathe with their heads above water and notice the imperfections of paradise.

We now have time and give attention to the environment we sacrifice in the face of development. We can have public discourse about a tree. We dissect the investment we make into the arts. These were not discussions we were having just five years ago. We were just trying to survive then.

Do we have problems? Of course we do. But boy have we solved a lot more problems than we have now. The problems that remain – they’ve always been there. We just now have the luxury of thinking about them because we’re not drowning in the others.

The criticism that I really like, though, is that we’re dreamers… that the things we want to do are just too far from the realm of possibility.

We were told we couldn’t pay refunds on time.

And that we couldn’t eliminate the almost-$400 million deficit.

Or that we couldn’t work harmoniously with Jon Fernandez to institute education reforms.

Or that a Republican governor would open the statute of limitations in favor of sex abuse victims, and agree with the Democrat vice speaker to raise the minimum wage

And even when we accomplished what the cynics said we couldn’t do, the so-called experts said that making the once-impossible a reality was just wrong. Here’s an editorial that says building a museum at Skinner’s Plaza would ruin Hagatna:

I don’t know. Look at it. It’s here. What do you think?

I chose this place and I’m standing this way for a significant reason. Because behind you are the remnants of our past…

In front of you, on this wall, is a message for the ages ascribed on this edifice of our enduring heritage, our commitment to the liberty, achievement, and contribution of the people of Guam, starting with the exercise of our inalienable right of self determination.

I have been reading the Prayer of St. Francis in Chamorro. It was my daily prayer during Lent. The Chamorro inscriptions here inspired me… this from Chief Hurao, and the monument to the welcome we made to the Catholic Church when Chief Quipuha gave that land to Rome. And so I thought to strengthen the blessings of our ancestors tonight by joining the foundations of our heritage today. (PALE JOSE VILLAGOMEZ READS THE PRAYER).

Thank you, Pale Jose Villagomez, for blessing us tonight.

Behind us are the ruins of our colonial past. In front of us, the promise of our future, determined by us.

So what are we waiting for?

Self-determination is a powerful path for a people to take. It waits for no one, and requires the collective control of the conscience and choice of the community. Years ago, as the military buildup was hot in the news, I dreamed that one day, our community could come together and build our own vision of Guam. I didn’t want us to peg our future to someone else’s dream. We needed to come up with it, and we need to make it happen with the work of our hands and the genius of our children.

A singular, long-term vision of Guam has never been created. All the planning and operations have happened in silos. No plans pegged to a vision. Not even the last Guam Master Plan, adopted in 1967. How does the government know what to plan without knowing what the people want in the end?

So last year, we started the Imagine Guam initiative. And we involved students from the get-go. The public was invited to join a group of thinkers, mainly educators, to put into words the foundation of any vision that would be created: the values of this community. After much debate and public input, they said that the vision of Guam must value Chamorro culture and language and the sustainability of our environment. From these roots grow strong families that blossom with health, education, self-reliance, and sustainable development. The team also adapted the Hurao Academy’s Sisteman Kostumbre to help guide the understanding of our culture and its core values: aguaiya, agofli’e’, a’umitde, afa’måolek, arespeta, amamåhlao, ageftåo, yan a’adahi.

From there, a major effort went underway to identify residents from all walks of life and every corner of this island. About 400 students, teachers, artists, homemakers, professionals, academics, business people, single mothers and fathers, activists, and more – all very different people with very different views about things – came together three times this year. We hosted three conventions, open to the public, where strangers came to volunteer their thoughts… no one was turned away. In these conventions, these 400 islanders got into 17 teams, each representing different disciplines of society’s makeup. They had one main objective: design Guam in the year 2065 – 50 years from now.

They were lively in their debates and discussions. You could see their passion growing about Guam as each hour passed. And finally, every team emerged with a vision. We compiled that vision to produce the island’s first singular, long-term strategic vision: Guam 2065.

It is a beautiful vision that says this about your grandchildren and the place they will live in 50 years:
- The Pacific will look to us as the leader in renewable energy development, sustainable practices, shipping, agriculture, science and research, medical care, education, the arts, tourism, and athletics.
- We’re going to be 100 percent free of fossil fuels and we will generate zero waste
- Our grandchildren will be the healthiest and happiest people in the world, ranked first in the index of Gross National Happiness
- The technology and practices we invent will lead the Pacific in adapting to climate change
- We will be multilingual, and we all will know and speak Chamorro
- And no matter how modern things get, we will always have abundance of green space, time for family, and faith in God.

These are just six points I’m highlighting. I encourage everyone to visit imagine.guam.gov to read the full vision. For those of you here tonight, we’re passing it out for you to see.

To make this official, the people of Guam, through this Executive Order, are adopting this strategic vision with my signature tonight. (SIGN)

Thanks to the imagination of the hundreds who contributed, we now have the basis for a major planning effort that will transform this government and our community. Transform into what? This vision.

I announced at the end of the last convention that I was ordering the creation of the Guam Master Plan, to be based on this vision. The executive order I just signed also officially charters the Guam Master Plan under the direction of my office through the Bureau of Planning. All agencies and instrumentalities of the executive branch are now to coordinate all planning efforts with the Bureau. All existing master plans are being overlaid. And everything we do from here out must be done in open collaboration and coordination.

To build the Guam Master Plan, I have commissioned the creation of eight component plans. They are to be developed from the ground up – engaging the grassroots first. The eight components are
- The Guam Land Master Plan
- The Guam Capital Improvements Plan
- The Guam Tax Code Plan
- The Government of Guam Modernization Plan
- The Guam Social Stabilization Plan
- The Guam Workforce Rehabilitation Plan
- The Guam Career Paths Plan
- And the Guam Education Blueprint

In five years, we turned our island from an era of despair to a state of confidence. I know that we can figure out how – in 50 years - our grandchildren will be the healthiest and happiest in the world. The reason we’re doing all of this is more common sense than make-believe in CandyLand. If you’ve ever run a successful company, then you know how important strategic planning is. You know that it’s based on the values and vision of your organization. You know that its most important asset is its workforce. And you know exactly how to train your workforce to do the job that achieves your vision.

Imagine Guam is about building that workforce, so that it is our children who build and benefit from the industries of the future. It is a creation of the people of Guam, and not someone else’s design.

I know that we can do this. We can determine for ourselves the course we will take to achieve the dreams we set. In a sense, that truly is self determination.

But it is incomplete until we exercise our right of political self determination.

Are we ready to determine our future? Are we mature enough to decide for ourselves? It’s funny that no one asked us these questions when they took our determination from us.
- We survived a wave of disease, war, and genocide brought by the Spanish conquest. Of course we are ready!
- We adapted 300 years of cultural and political change, together with a Catholic heritage that runs through our veins. Of course we are ready!
- We sacrificed our identity throughout the 20th Century so that we could be patriotic Americans. We’ve paid our dues, and our time has come.

There’s this thinking among some that Guam is not ready. That we need a guiding hand because, all too often, we fail at what we’re supposed to do. Ask yourselves this, though. What was it that we failed to do? What rules did we fail to follow? And then ask yourselves, who made those rules?

I get it. I understand that we failed as a local government to do some important things in following federal laws. But could it at least have been a partnership for improvement and progress, rather than a parent slapping his child? Could there have been a conversation of two people at the table, instead of a command from the master to his subject? Better yet, could we at least have had a say in those federal laws – laws that we are paying for - with even one vote in Congress? And how about a check mark at the ballot box that counts to elect the President, who sends our sons and daughters to war?

These inalienable rights have been denied us. Yet, even if granted a voice in the U.S. political process, one inalienable right remains and blankets all others. Before you include us, can you ask us if that’s what we want? Because, it has been nearly 400 years since anyone asked us that. It’s been centuries since we had a choice.

Colonial sympathizers are now hopping off their seats to point out that we made a choice in 1949 when the elected Guam Congress petitioned President Truman and Congress for citizenship. Let me explain this for those of you who don’t know the history of these things.

Before the Organic Act, the Chamorro people did not have the freedom of speech or religion in three centuries. The supremacy of colonizers over what we could say and where we could say it was so great that the very language we spoke was forbidden and systematically brought to the brink of extinction. All it took was a paragraph on a piece of paper signed by a Naval captain, and his will be done. But these weren’t the only rights deprived from us. We neither had rights to privacy, trial by jury, property, education, nor the plenary power of local law established by a legislature of our election. We were subjects.

What the Guam Congress of 1949 petitioned the federal government for wasn’t a political status choice. It was recognition of our human rights and dignity, and the application of the law to protect our rights. For what is an island of people and no citizens? It is a colony of subjects.

President Truman, at the will of Congress, transformed us from a colony of subjects to a colony of citizens with human rights. The key part there is, ‘at the will of Congress.’ So, as things go in this world, we should be thankful that in 1949 Congress was populated by enough progressive thinkers, who determined that the Indios of its outlying possession deserved human rights. It was possible then, as it is possible now, that a majority of its members can press a button in the House and Senate chambers and take all our rights away. We are not citizens by virtue of the Constitution. We are citizens by virtue of a benevolent Congress. And what Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. Some people want to build a wall to keep non-Americans out of the country. I’ve oftentimes wondered whether that wall already exists, and we’re the ones stranded outside the fort. What more if another wall goes up? Will we be considered Americans when we knock at the gate?

The progressive movement of 1949 was seven decades ago. We’ve since established local governance. We manage our finances far better than our federal parent. As measurements of maturity go, we care for one another, we carry the burdens of the downtrodden on our shoulders, we are masters of industries that sustain our economy and propel our workforce, and now, we are confident. Manelu’hu yan manaina’hu… man’mapos manaina’ta… ekunguk yu yan in komprendi este todu i Linala’ta… after almost 400 years, it is time we make a choice.

If we are committed to our self determination, then there’s no reason to wait for another election to pass. There are two triggers to conduct the political status plebiscite, according to Guam law. The first is that an education campaign should be conducted before the vote happens. But in order for the vote to be scheduled, the law says 70 percent of the native inhabitants eligible to vote must be registered to vote.

We can certainly conduct a massive registration drive, but it won’t matter. How do you determine 70 percent of the eligible voters if 100 percent of them aren’t already registered? There is no mathematical way of determining how many native inhabitants must register to vote to meet the 70 percent requirement.

If the Legislature would like to change this law, I welcome it. But this has been a known problem to all of us who served as senators. It is just too controversial an issue to touch. We have to get over that. We need to do what is right. It’s been 20 years!

As the Chairman of the Commission on Decolonization, I have ordered its staff and my office to design a massive education campaign. We will not create any content. We leave that to the academics at UOG, in partnership with the three status task forces. But we will do something that we do well: carry out a winning campaign. Our strategy starts with a major information campaign that helps people understand what self determination is, why it’s important, our history, and the facts and myths of the different status options.

If, by mid-July, indications are strong that voters will be ready to choose, I will ask the Commission on Decolonization to release equal portions of funds to the task forces. The task forces then will have a four-month period, with equal resources, to make their case. This is a realistic timetable for an education campaign. We just have to be committed to it.

As for the changes needed to law in order for the plebiscite to take place in the November General Election, I will not hold my breath. There’s an old saying that if the mountain won’t come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain. And go I shall.

Tomorrow morning, I, registered native inhabitant Eddie Calvo, will submit, a draft measure to petition for the referendum of the political status plebiscite. I have organized a campaign to secure the required signatures. I’m not changing any of the status options or even the wording and order of the plebiscite question and choices. A second question will appear below the status choices. It will ask the voter whether he or she was made a U.S. Citizen by virtue of the Organic Act of Guam, which is the definition of “Native Inhabitant.”

We will aggressively seek the required number of signatures, making this a grassroots decolonization effort. If, by mid-July, we determine that the education campaign is succeeding, I will file the petitions, and we will vote – FINALLY – on our political status.

Some may fear this issue or feel removed from it. Look at me, and look at my name. I am the great grandson of an Scotch-Irish-American named John Francis McDonald. The Calvo name? It came from my great great great grandfather, Felix Calvo, a Spanish officer in Manila, whose Philippine-born son married a Chamorrita. Baza didn’t come from the Chamorro language either. I am proud of my heritage as a Filipino, a Spaniard, and an American. I do love America, very much.

But I’m also the descendent of Hurao. His words here, spoken in this city to Chamorro warriors who did not submit to their colonizers, reverberate through my heart. While we all claim pride in heritages and cultures throughout the world, we all owe our lives in paradise to the Lord and to the ancestors of this land. Self determination isn’t about loving or hating the United States. It’s about our right to be part of something, or to be on our own. It’s a choice that was taken from us with the blood of this great man and all those who died so that we could choose. This unfinished business looms upon our heritage. It is our legacy.

The burden of this duty looms heavily on my conscience. I would like to recognize that there are many leaders, past and present, who have taken this mantle. Besides our former governors, the late Speaker Ben Pangelinan – for all that we disagreed on – I bow my head in prayer and reverence for his leadership on this issue. It is something that Speaker Won Pat and Sen. Respicio have been lobbying me to focus on.

But I came to this idea after I had a meeting with Victoria Leon Guerrero, Melvin Won Pat Borja, and Moneka De Oro. They were upset with me a few months ago because of my statements in support of the military buildup. Their point was that if we, as an island community, were to embrace the buildup of a sovereign power in our land, should we not – at the least – determine that this was by the consent of the governed? Should we not at least self-determine how this should move forward in the context of a political status?

Here’s the part that weighs on me, and I’ll never forget it. They said, “You are our Maga’Lahi. You are the one we look to first, who should be standing at the front of this.”

They are right. I’m not simply the governor of Guam. I am the descendent of Hurao – I am the Maga’Lahi. And while my duty is to the administration of government, my allegiance belongs to Guam and the inalienable rights of her people.

What I’m saying, my dear people, is that, I love America, lao hu guiaya Guahan mas.

Si Yu’os ma’ase yan Hita I man taotao tano!

Quentin Tarantino Interview

$
0
0
Last year I got the chance to work with a great group of people on a film project. It is tentatively titled Lalahen Sinahi. I co-wrote the script with Kenneth Gofigan Kuper, and we made it almost entirely in Chamorro. We had an intense couple of weeks filming it, only to have some of the scenes disappear on us. Ken is currently off-island attending graduate school, but when he returns next month we'll need to figure out what to do next with the project, if we should shoot it again or try to salvage what we have. 

As we were writing the screenplay, a specter who was always shadowing our discussions was Quentin Tarantino. His dialogue driven stories was something we both wanted to capture in small and large ways. Sometimes people can get irritated with that type of storytelling, but when it works, it is incredibly effective and ridiculously engrossing. The flavors that he infuses into the dialogue, the tension he builds can be amazing. I am hoping that in either this project or others, one day I can write dialogue in a similar way. 

Below is an interview Tarantino did with Entertainment Weekly last year prior to the release of his most recent film The Hateful Eight.  

*************************

Quentin Tarantino: The Hateful Eight Interview
By Jeff Labrecque
Entertainment Weekly
December 31, 2015

Quentin Tarantino has Westerns in his blood. His mother named him, in part, after Quint Asper, Burt Reynolds’ character in Gunsmoke, and he grew up consuming Hollywood’s Wild West — the good, the bad, and the ugly. With 2012’s Django Unchained, he infused the genre with his provocative brand of cinematic vim. In The Hateful Eight, which opened limited on Dec. 25 and expanded nationwide on Dec. 30, Tarantino rides again. 
Set a few years after the Civil War, this bloody, brain-splattered whodunit strands a bounty hunter (Kurt Russell) and his captive (Jennifer Jason Leigh) in a desolate mountain stopover in the middle of a blizzard. Trapped with them are a Union major (Samuel L. Jackson), a Confederate general (Bruce Dern), and a motley melange of suspicious dudes, including Tarantino regulars Tim Roth and Michael Madsen. Paranoia — and racial rancor — run high.
Those themes were magnified in real life when Tarantino drew fire for his comments at an October anti-police-brutality rally. Police unions threatened to boycott his films, casting the director as a black hat. But Tarantino’s not hiding out from the posse. If anything, he’s scrapping for a fight.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: I’m going to steal my first question from Tom McCarthy, who once mentioned that when he’s with other directors talking about each others’ films, he always asks, “What was your biggest gamble on this picture? What were you most nervous about? What didn’t you know was a sure thing?”

QUENTIN TARANTINO: That’s a good question. I think if you go through the majority of interviews with me, rarely do I talk about technical stuff. I usually talk about the material or cinema in general. I’m never the guy who gives an in-depth interview in American Cinematographer. Just let [cinematographer Bob Richardson] do those and I’ll give them a few sound bites. But in this one, the thing that wasn’t a sure thing wasn’t the idea of shooting it in 70mm. That, we figured would be okay. Other people have done it before. Using the lenses that we used — those Ultra Panavision lenses from the late ’50s, early ’60s — that was the thing that wasn’t a sure thing. We did tests on them and everything. So we knew they worked. We wouldn’t be mounting this entire production with one foot on a banana peel and the other on a roller skate. But the fact that we would be in the freezing cold was an issue. I just had to assume that there would be times that the lenses would freeze, or that the big camera would freeze. We’re dealing with a really tricky technical process and we’re doing it in a very untricky way, being open to the elements the way we were. And I’d already had a bad experience with that to some degree or another at least on one important day on Django when we were shooting in the snow. Even the guns didn’t work. And that happened to be the day we were doing Django’s fast draw. So literally in between takes, you got a hair dryer on the lenses and a hair dryer on the guns to make sure that they were warm enough. But literally, Gregor Tavenner, our first AC [on Hateful Eight], just did all the leg work that he needed to do in order to make sure that we were never down because of camera. And we were never down because of camera. That stuff never happened. 

The other dangling participle was just the weather itself. As you can see, we got all the weather we needed. But it was never easy. We were at the whims of the weather and you could never trust a weather report that was any more than three days in advance. So depending on what the weather was, we’re either doing this or we’re doing that. There was no, “Oh, okay, we’re going to start a scene and then work it to its emotional integrity until we’re done with it. And then we’ll do some other scene and work it to its emotional integrity.” No. It was: drop and pick up, drop and pick up, drop and pick up pretty much the entire time we were in Colorado. Which is not my normal way of working, or my preferred way of working. Having said that, there can be energizing things about doing things outside of your comfort zone and rising to the occasion for a purpose. And our purpose was we wanted to capture that weather. So it was a good trade, and it was actually kind of neat to be a bit of an old dog, having to deal with new tricks.  

After Django, there were critics and members of the African-American community who weren’t happy. The film touched certain third-rails — slavery, race in America, violence on screen. And as I watched Hateful Eight, I was like, “He’s doubling-down.” I think some artists are very sensitive to any type of criticism, and just the fact that it’s a hassle can deter an artist from swimming in the same shallows again.
That’s actually well said. That would be one of the reasons an artist would censor themselves — not because they feel they’re being censored by this totalitarian regime. But it’s a hassle. It’s a pain in the ass. Maybe I can take a break on it for this next one.Brian DePalma used to talk about that all the time, about all the s–t he had to deal with, at every single junket. Roman Polanski was one of the best makers of horror films that really got under your skin. But at a certain point, he got sick of it, because he just got sick of being put on the hot plate about it so much. But where I’m coming from is, social critics don’t mean anything to me. It is my job to ignore them, because their critiques are about right now: 2015. My movie is not a carton of milk that has an expiration date. It’s going to be available 20 years, 30 years, hopefully 100 years from now. Those critics will come and go, but the movie will be the movie. My revenge is I’m going to win their kids and grandkids over. They’re going to be stuck, an old man at Thanksgiving, having their granddaughter talk about how she’s taking a Tarantino class in college, and it’s the most stimulating class that she’s taking. They’re going to fry an egg on their bald pate while their grandkids exalt my virtues.



So you said you had no problem ignoring the social critics. But does it work the other way… where you almost wanted to — not antagonize them — but do you feel emboldened—
Am I just trying to be a provocateur?

Well, not just, but I mean, after Django, was there a feeling of, “Know what…? F— them. I have this other story that’s going to make their heads spin.”
To put things in there just to stick a weed up the social critic’s ass ultimately is the exact same starting point as censoring yourself — to appease them and give them a break. People can say that there’s a provocateur aspect going on in my work from the very, very beginning and that might very well be the case. But the reason it’s the case is because, I don’t give a f— about it. Not because, “Oh no, I give a f— and I’m going to teach you a lesson. I’m going to show you.” [My dialogue is] literally the things that the character said in that hot-house environment that I trapped them in. If nobody had written that stuff, that would’ve been what they said. If everybody wrote that stuff, that’s still what they said. I hopethat’s where I’m coming from. 

The Hateful Eight is set a few years after the Civil War—
Actually, I made it ambiguous, as is almost everything about this script. It’s kind of up for you to decide about almost every important aspect in the piece that reveals itself. But in the script, I actually wrote that it takes place six, eight, or 10 years after the Civil War. 

Yet there’s so much in there about race that resonates true in 2015. The line where Walton Goggins says white folks are safest when blacks are scared. Then, Samuel L. Jackson turns it around, and says it’s only safe for blacks when whites are disarmed. Is all that stuff intentional or does that just sprinkle in during the whole evolution of the writing? 
Literally, it’s sprinkled in just during the hot-house environment of writing this piece. I felt that by throwing a black cavalry officer in the middle of this mix and knowing that I was going to have a Southern general and, like, the son of Quantrillin this mix, that I’d be kicking a can that deals with these issues. How much that can would be kicked and how much would spill out, that I didn’t know. And that was just the surface, the process of writing the material. The film that I ended up making ends up being a really serious examination of both the Civil War and the post Civil War survivors. But I really was coming more from a mystery angle, creating a little Agatha Christie thing. That was what got me putting pen to paper. Obviously, I knew I was going to deal with the Civil War. But I didn’t know it would end up being so serious when it came to that issue. I was realizing when I was watching it about [seven] weeks ago that this could almost be a post-apocalyptic movie, to some degree or another. It’s like this frozen wasteland, and the apocalypse has destroyed every semblance of their society and their way of life, and these survivors are huddled together in this pitiless wasteland shelter. And suddenly they’re all blaming each other for the apocalypse, but the apocalypse isthe Civil War. But that wasn’t what I was necessarily thinking about on page 72 in my bedroom when I was writing it.

During the movie, I think I scribbled down that Major Marquis Warren is half-Shaft, half-Obama…
We didn’t call him Shaft, we called him Hercule Negro.

Did Samuel L. Jackson say anything specific about his big monologue when he read the script the first time? 
He was like, “This is my Iceman Comethand that’s my Hickey monologue.”

Race is a recurring theme in your films. Are you working through your own experiences with race via film?
No, I think me dealing with race in America is one of the things I have to offer to cinema. That is one part of my interest in American society, and so the fact that it bleeds into my work makes perfect sense. In particular, it’s what I have to offer the Western genre, because it’s really not been dealt with [there] in any meaningful way.

Mel Brooks once said when he was doing a Blazing Saddles, whenever he felt like he was in trouble with the N-word, he would just kind of rely on Richard Pryor, who was the co-writer, who would say, “Oh, that’s fine here,” or “No, not there.” Do you have— 
No. 

No? 
I would never ever give anybody that kind of expertise on my work. I am the expert on my work. Absa-bloody-lutely.  

At the Rise Up October rally, you became the story after referring to some police officers as murderers. Did you say exactly what you intended to say? Or, looking back, do you think, “I should’ve been more careful with my words”
No, I stand by that. I mean, I was completely misrepresented. I didn’t say all cops were murderers, or everysingle police shooting was a murder. We were talking about very specific instances. Chicago just got caught with their pants down in a way that can’t be denied. But I completely and utterly reject the “few bad apples argument.” Yeah, the guy who shot [Laquan McDonald] is a bad apple. But so are the other eight or nine cops that were there, that said nothing, did nothing, let a lie stand for an entire year. And the chief of police, is he a bad apple? I think he is. Is [Chicago Mayor] Rahm Emanuel a bad apple? I think he is. They’re all bad apples. That just shows that that’s a bulls— argument. It’s about institutional racism. It’s about institutional cover-ups that are about protecting the force as opposed to the citizens.

When the police unions threatened a boycott, they also promised that they had a “surprise” waiting for you…
The cops’ response to it has made my point for me in so many ways. Civil servants, even rhetorically, shouldn’t be threatening private citizens. They sounded like bad guys in an ‘80s action movie. It was like Jim Glickenhaus wrote their dialogue for them. That’sa reference. [Laughs]

A, did you anticipate this, and B, have you encountered any type of—
No, no, no. I haven’t encountered anything like that. I actually don’t believe the police is some sinister Black Hand organization that’s going to target me and screw me in in any way. The only question that I had going in was just natural human trepidation because I knew a lot of fans that were police officers, and I did have a little apprehension about the fact that a lot of them could misread what I was saying and a lot of them might jump to conclusions and not take in the nuance of what I might say or mean. All of a sudden, some regular on-the-street patrolman who would now be like, “Oh, look Tarantino. F— that guy. F—in’ doesn’t know s–t.” Did I feel bad that they’re not going to kiss me for this? Yeah, a little bit. But not as bad as I feel sitting on the couch watching literally people being gunned down and then the cops just facing some Mickey Mouse cop tribunal and just being put on desk duty.

A boycott could effect the box office of your movie, though. You’ve worked with studio head Harvey Weinstein from the beginning of your career, and he’s releasing Hateful. What was his phone call to you about this like?
If he was Rupert Murdoch, I’m sure the conversation would’ve gone a slightly different way. Harvey’s a known liberal. He called me up to tell me he was proud, because he’s never seen me take a political stand about anything publicly before. At the same time, I’m sure it was a gigantic pain in the ass that he didn’t need. And it did have an effect on the film: we had some really interesting commercial tie-ins that went away because of the cop boycott.  

What kind of stuff are we talking about — not fast-food restaurants? 
Well, one of them was a fast-food restaurant that were going to do little Happy Meal kind of things, with character cups of the different eight and everything. And that would’ve been really fun and really cool; we would’ve been breaking new ground for such a tough movie, to have those kind of tie-ins. But [those companies] got scared, and I understand why they got scared.

That really sucks because—
Yeah, that f—ing sucks! [Laughs] It really sucks! 

I didn’t mean to be flippant, but what really sucks — on top of the obvious impact on your film —  is that the Weinsteins and other studios are aware that [these opportunities] went away and why. And they might be more cautious in the future for another film or filmmaker that’s slightly controversial. 
Uh-huh. Look, I’m involved in a big commercial endeavor. It would not be right for me to be completely flippant about the fact that I’ve put an undue burden on this big commercial endeavor that I have partners with. And I don’t think we’re going to pay a price later, but we’ve paid a price now, as far as that’s concerned. But at the same time, what made me want to talk about it is I do feel that this type of police brutality and this type of abusive power, and this institutional disease that has infected the police forces in America has to stop. 

Why are you and Harvey Weinstein so good together? Not everyone has a great experience with Harvey.
Yeah, I know. One answer to that would be — and this is a good thing and a bad thing — is we kind of love each other. We’re literally like family members. I’m some weird version of his little brother and his son, and he’s a weird version of a big brother and my father, to some degree, especially as far as this industry is concerned. We have genuine affection for each other. Now, that can be a good thing and a bad thing because we take things way too serious, and we’ll take things way too personal. Some of our fights are the fights you have with family members where things get way out of hand way too quickly, because you’re talking about everything else other than what the argument is really about. But there is also the idea that I’m not just working with somebody who got this job at a given studio and they will be there for a certain amount of time depending upon how good their slate does. This is Harvey’s studio, and the buck stops with him, and he still works from a gut. He has that old mogul aspect about him that is romantic because you are dealing with somebody. It’s a double-edged sword, you know. He can get the wrong thing in his mind and just be on the wrong road, and it takes a Herculean effort to get him on the right road. But in its own way, over a course of a long period of time, that is preferable to somebody just trying to keep their job and is trying to back up anything they’re saying with statistics and market research about this or that or the other. Harvey’s not really coming from things like that; he’s coming from his own tastes and his own experience. He doesn’t need market research to back up his own perceptions of things.

One of the common themes of your characters is how they are often pretending — they are hiding something. This goes back to Reservoir Dogs, and this film is full of these types. 
It must be an obsession of mine to some degree or another. In movie after movie, characters go undercover as somebody they’re not. But it wasn’t necessarily the intention. I wrote most of these characters for these actors — I called them the Tarantino Superstars. They can handle my material. They can handle my dialogue. It sounds good coming out of their mouths. They understand the rhythms, but also — and this is probably the most important part — they get the jokes. They know when, even when it’s not officially a joke, they know there is a laugh there. But that’s not for everybody. Not every actor is born from that kind of theatricality that is required in my pieces. 

Jennifer Jason Leigh is amazing in the film as Daisy Domergue, and I don’t know if you’ve seen her voice performance in Anomalisa.
Not yet. I’ve heard it’s terrific. 

It’s terrific, and it’s the perfect bookend to what she does in your film. She’s the sweet, kind of meek-voiced character in that animated film. And in your film, she’s a Valkyrie. Why did you cast her?
Well, there’s a really cool aspect about writing a character for an actor you like because you’re writing for what you think they can do really well. You know maybe some of their limitations. You know some of their pluses, and so you write to their strengths, and you have a good sense. When you close your eyes you can kind of see them doing it. When you read the dialogue, you can kind of hear them doing it, to some degree of another. But if you’ve done that for a lot of characters in a piece, then you start getting completely enamored and fetishistic with the one character that you’re not writing for an actor. And that character, I’m not worrying about an actor’s limitations or their pluses — it only is the character. That character can really go and find itself any way it can, and hopefully, it completely exists on the page. Now you have to find somebody that can take it from the page and take it even further. And if they’re not right, then what was special about them on the page will only stay on the page.

A super example of that would be Christoph Waltz’s character in Inglourious Basterds, in so far as I didn’t know Col. Landa was a linguistic genius until writing him. He just ended up being able to speak every language that he was encountered with. I didn’t know that at the start, writing that farmhouse scene, but it just kept revealing itself. Now, if I was literally writing it for somebody else that I knew, I wouldn’t have been able to go in that direction, because they wouldn’t have been able to pull it off to that degree. In this situation, I just let Landa be — and literally, if Filipinos had walked in to the middle of Inglourious Basterds, he would have been kicking it in Tagalog because he can talk any language he wants. But consequently, I needed to find an actor who was a linguistic genius, or else that aspect — which was a very important aspect of Landa — would always just remain on the page, and there would’ve just been an actor trying to do it. 

So that’s a little look into when you’re notwriting the character for an actor. Now in the case of Daisy Domergue, it was almost an impossible role to cast in a conventional way — i.e., an actress coming in the room and knocking our socks off, and us saying, “Oh wow, that’s Daisy.” Because if you’ve seen the movie, you know that the way she is in the last chapter is not necessarily the way she is in the chapters building up to it. So, with that in mind, I wasn’t necessarily looking for someone to nail her speech in that final chapter. I ended up looking at a few different actresses that all were more or less from the ‘90s, what you would think of as young actresses that were kicking ass and doing a really great job particularly in the ‘90s. That’s the era that most of my actors made their bones, and that’s the era when I made my bones. There was a throwback to Reservoir Dogs quality to this whole [movie] so there was this kind of full circle quality going on. So I was like, the actress should be from that same boat as the [other] actors, and there were about three actresses from that period that really kind of made an indelible mark on me. I started going on little film festivals of the three, and frankly, it was the Jennifer Jason Leigh film festival that I enjoyed the most.

Single White Female
Single White Male was definitely one. I watched that one on my laser disc. But it was more kind of the combination of Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle and Georgiaand Miami Blues and The Hitcher. I watched Heart of Midnight. I watched The Men’s Club. I watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Another big one that helped was a Paul Verhoeven movie she did, Flesh+Blood, with Rutger Hauer. She’s terrific in it. So I literally was just having a ball with this Jennifer Jason Leigh film festival. It was a nice little reminder that in the ‘90s, she was like a female Sean Penn. You didn’t just cast her in girlfriend roles; you cast her in movies where the whole movie was about herperformance. So it got me very, very excited about seeing a performance-dominated Jennifer Jason-Leigh movie.

She doesn’t fit into this category of three actresses, but there were reports that there was a brief flirtation with Jennifer Lawrence.
Well, I’m a huge Jennifer Lawrence fan. I think I’ve been on record of saying that her and David O. Russell’s relationship is very William Wyler-Bette Davis like, and that’s a good thing to be like. And I can see her doing a good job with this role, so we went to talk about it and everything. She was just doing me a courtesy to see me, I think. She was doing Joy. She had to do all this publicity on the Hunger Games movies. There was just no f—ing way in the world that she was available. Having said that, I’m glad I didn’t cast somebody that young. I think I absolutely positively made the right choice, as far as the ages of the characters. 

There’s a lot of s–t to worry about in the world, so I know this isn’t high on anybody’s list, but it always bugs me at the Academy Awards when studios try to shoe-horn a lead performance into the Supporting category. Going back to Pulp Fiction, Sam was in the Supporting category. To me, he was a lead or at least co-lead in that film. Do you care about such things? Is Sam a lead actor this year? 
Oh, yeah, he absolutely is the lead actor this year. [I care] only when it’s absolutely positively completely egregious, and I don’t think Sam in Pulp Fiction qualifies. I mean, he can qualify as a lead, but I don’t think it qualifies as a egregious or a travesty, because frankly in the casting of it, no one was talking about Jules being one of the leads. They were talking about Vincent being the lead, and everybody else was supporting — even Butch was supporting. We offered it to an actor before Sam, and his people talked him out of it because [they said], “You need to be doing the lead now.” So now the fact that everyone talks about Jules as the lead, that’s not what everyone was saying earlier on. But where it actually is a thing maybe is Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation— she’s obviously the co-lead. Actually, he’s co to her lead, in many ways. You see the movie through both of their eyes, so she’s not a supporting. That was obviously an attempt to get her nominated and I think it actually backfired. At the same time, like you said… with all the things to worry about in the world, they were just trying to get her a nomination so ultimately who f—ing cares? 

I have to ask you about the music in The Hateful Eight from the legendary Ennio Morricone. It’s very different in the first half and the second half. 
Well, I play around with it a little bit. In the first half of the movie, you never hear movie music when you’re in Minnie’s Haberdashery — until the music kicks in during [Sam’s] speech. I get rid of that idea in the second half, but in the first half, I wanted to play by Reservoir Dogs rules, which was it was the dialogue that was carrying it. It was the tension that was carrying it. It was the threat of violence that was carrying it. 

I feel like Morricone did something completely different too. You’ve done homages to his classic Western themes, but no one’s going to listen to this and be like, “Oh yeah, vintage Morricone.” It actually reminded me of Bernard Herrmann in Psycho, with the pounding strings.
I didn’t expect a soundtrack similar to the The Five Man Armyor Two Mules for Sister Sara. I expected something very, very different, and I got it. He gave me pretty much a horror film soundtrack, with that kind of music box theme that kicks in from time to time that’s really creepy and spooky. Well, that is my movie. That’s what he was responding to. He was responding to the claustrophobia and the paranoia of the characters trapped in this situation together. He even told me, he goes, “I just had this idea in my head when I read the script for a theme… It would suggest two things: it would suggest the stagecoach — moving forward and moving forward and moving forward — yet it would also suggest the violence that would come later.”

You’ve talked about not wanting to be an “old” director. You’ve said you’ll retire after your 10th film. Hateful Eight is No. 8. Is that still your plan?
Almost to the man, most directors actually think they have more time than they do. They all talk about five or six movies that they want to make in the future at some point in time. Because when it comes to stories in the proverbial incubator, maybe I have four that are in that incubator, waiting to see how they come out. But it’s a lie. What do you want to do [right now]? I think there’s something really vital and exciting about thinking: I only have two movies left. What do you want your last two statements to be? How do you want to wrap up your persona for future generations? I think that’s a really creative way to look at it, and I do like the idea of there being an umbilical cord from Reservoir Dogs to the last movie?

I’m going to ask a personal question, but let me explain why. Do you want to have kids? And the reason is because kids change who you are, everything. And there’s part of me that would want to see a Quentin Tarantino Dad movie — I’m not talking about Mrs. Doubtfire.
Yeah, I know what you mean.  

I’m talking about who you would be as a father and how would that impact your filmmaking. Do you think about having kids? 
I did. There was a time about 13 years ago that I had a baby fever, that I really thought about having kids. Usually, it’s a situation like that where somebody very close to you has a kid, and you kind of experience vicariously though them the joy of a child, and the joy of the love of a child. And I was thinking about it a lot. And I was getting a lot of encouragement in thinking about it, in so far as people telling me what I great father I would be. And that was very moving. But that fever has passed. I had baby fever, and the fever broke. It doesn’t mean that I don’t want to have kids, but right now, perfectly thinking, I want to do the 10 movies — without distractions.

Do you know what your next movie will be? Everyone keeps whispering about a third Western. 
There are a lot of people writing about that one right now. But it’s the loophole that doesn’t count as one of the 10 because I would do it as a miniseries, so I wouldn’t count that as one of the 10. 

I was always interested in the World War II movie about black soldiers rampaging across Europe, Killer Crow
Yeah, that’s definitely in the old incubator. That definitely is one of the ones that I could do. And the fact that I have about half of that written goes a long way towards hearing the microwave ding. 


Decolonization Debate

$
0
0





Friday, 22 April 2016
Decolonization Debate Held at Tiyan High
Written by  Clynt Ridgell
Pacific News Center

The Governor's office and the Commission on Decolonization facilitated a student debate on decolonization.

The debate was held at Tiyan High and it featured students from various GDEO high schools. The students were broken down into three groups one for free association one for independence and one for statehood.

 "We may fear that we will lose our citizenship and federal programs but if you look at the Federated States of Micronesia also known as the FSM they have their own passport their own citizenship yet they can travel to anywhere in the United States without a Visa and they can still obtain their federal help,” said Fredalyn a student from Tiyan High who represented the free association group.

 "With independence we will be able to have more control and finally vote for all of our leaders we can sign our own treaties and make deals with the countries we want to have relationships with. We will finally have the ability to make decisions for ourselves. Some think we will be poor but there are so many things our government can do to make money as an independent nation. For example we can have the military pay for the land they use,” said Peter Cruz of Tiyan High.

 "Increasing tensions in the Asia pacific region has highlighted the importance of Guam's strategic location. The escalation of these current events have created the urgency for statehood. which means the ability to govern ourselves as long as we don't conflict with federal regulations or interests,” said a GW High student who spoke on behalf of statehood.

 Governor Eddie Calvo has said that he would like Guam to hold a vote for self-determination during this year's election in November.

Saving the Chamorro Language

$
0
0
This article, written in 2013 is a surprisingly complete look at issues of language revitalization in Guam today. The discourse on the death of the Chamorro language is common in the media, I myself often resort to using it in order to make a dramatic point. But these articles on the impending demise of the Chamorro language tend to be overly simplistic in a number of different ways. They can focus in very negative ways, by writing one-dimensional laments about the remaining life the language has. They can be cluelessly optimistic, by taking one positive example to mean "hallelujah" the language has been saved! I like this article because it approaches it from different points, from different perspectives and the projects that are being organized in order accomplished the shared goal of language revitalization. It would be interesting though to compare articles of this sort over time, to see how much changes and how much remains the same. If the same valiant individuals make the same arguments over and over and advocate the same strategies, but never get real support, than the whole endeavor may be pointless.

*********************

Guam Celebrates Chamorro Language Month
Youth encouraged to learn language of the elders
By Joy White

HAGÅTÑA, Guam (Marianas Variety Guam, March 12, 2013) – Over the past 30 years, the number of Chamorro speakers on Guam has declined steadily – from 35,000 in 1990 to 25,000 as of the last census in 2010.

Such decline, according to scholars and cultural activists, underscores the need to preserve the language that has been pushed to the periphery due to the pre-war ban on the language, coupled with Western influence and the influx of immigrants.

Saving the Chamorro language from the brink of death is the focus of this year’s Chamorro Month celebration with the theme "Learn the Language of Your Elders and Practice It Every Day."

"It’s all about getting the language taught," said Joseph Artero-Cameron, director of the Department of Chamorro Affairs. "The theme this year is to get that language to our children in any shape or form."

The theme, according to Artero-Cameron, seeks to encourage the daily use of the Chamorro language, "whether it’s in the school system or at home."

Language ban

According to linguists, Chamorro constitutes a possibly independent branch of the Malayo-Polynesian language family. Unlike on Guam, the language is still common among Chamorro households in the Northern Marianas.

Chamorro language was suppressed on Guam in 1917, when the Naval Government Executive General issued Order No. 243, which banned speaking Chamorro and designated English as the only official language of Guam and ordered that "Chamorro must not be spoken except for official interpreting."

According to Guampedia, speaking Chamorro was also forbidden on baseball fields, a sport growing in popularity, to encourage English use. "In the early 1920s, ‘No Chamorro’ policies were implemented and enforced within the schools and playgrounds. Public school students were reprimanded or penalized for speaking their native language. This policy continued after World War II."

In recent years, Guam is seeing a cultural resurgence to learn the language.

School setting

Artero-Cameron believes the key to promoting the language is through the Department of Education’s Chamorro Language Curriculum.

"Students need to be able to use the Chamorro language for real communication by speaking; understanding what others are saying; reading; and interpreting written materials – all in the Chamorro language," Artero-Cameron said.

"For too long, Chamorro language students in Guam have been judged by the number of years they have spent in the classroom rather than by their actual performance in the Chamorro language," he said, adding elementary, middle, high school, and higher education instruction programs must be better articulated.

In 2011, Public Law 31-45 introduced by former Sen. Mana Silva Taijeron expanded previous legislation requiring Chamorro language instruction for elementary schools and one year at each level of education, to all grade levels in elementary and middle school and two years in high school. The law also mandates a reformation of the curriculum to incorporate a new curriculum for Beginning Chamorro (Introduction to Chamorro Language), Intermediate Chamorro (Basic Usage and Application of the Chamorro Language), and Advanced Chamorro (Conversational Chamorro).
By the new school year, 2013 to 2014 course work in the 7th grade should start and by the following school year, 2014 to 2015, the course will be included in the 8th grade. High schools should start the required course work by 9th grade, with the 10th grade mandated program starting in school year 2014 to 2015.

In addition, the law requires a Chamorro Language Department and department chair for all programs to be created at all schools to develop and implement the curriculum.

Competition

Rosa Salas Palomo, educator and coordinator of the University of Guam’s Chamorro language competition, stresses that oral competency must come hand-in-hand with social or cultural literacy.
The competition, themed "The Chamorro Language: Learn, Use, and Show," starts at 3 p.m. today
"Aside from the language, we also have the linguistic competency, where they can speak the language but we also need to focus on the cultural or social competence, because sometimes we have someone who is using Chamorro but behaving like a mainlander and they contradict each other. Sometimes it’s difficult for children to grasp this, but there are mannerisms associated with individual languages. You need to make sure they are intact, that they match," Palomo said.

"It’s our obligation as teachers to teach this, as well as the language because they go together. Why teach a language if you're not going to teach how to use it competently?" Palomo added.

Private efforts

Private individuals are also trying to create venues to learning the language more accessible.
For example, Troy Aguon created the Learn Chamorru! DVD and website for children.

Born and raised on Guam, Aguon worked in Las Vegas for about 13 years. When he returned with his two young children, he found there were no kid-friendly learning tools for Chamorro.

After being away for so long, he promised he would learn to be more fluent in the language and teach his children.

"My desire is to put as much Chamorro lessons, games, trivia and challenges on the LearnChamorro.com website for mom and dad to learn with their children in a fun and interactive new media resource tool (Internet audio/video, SMS, email, and smart phone). We believe teaching the language must start in the home and reinforced at home. Without language, there is no culture," said Aguon, who is also partnering with Pay-Less Supermarkets to promote the Chamorro language.
The partnership promotes the language by identifying grocery items in the store and providing interactive activities, such as a scavenger hunter promotion that will be tied in with the website.
In addition, Aguon is working on volume two of the Learn Chamorro DVD and other technological tools, such as mobile friendly website software that will help children learn the language.

Marianas Variety Guam: www.mvguam.com
 
Copyright © 2013 Marianas Variety. All Rights Reserved

Mensahi Ginen i Gehilo' #14: A Very American Idea

$
0
0

"Independence: A Very American Idea"
by Michael Lujan Bevacqua
Co-Chair, Independence for Guam Task Force
April 12, 2016
 
Recent weeks have been brimming with discussion of decolonization, self-determination and political status change for Guam. Governor Calvo spent a large part of his recent State of the Island Address talking about Guam’s political status and laid out a bold plan to hold a political status vote by the end of the year. Calvo’s proposal created a stir in the community, especially among those who have been fighting for self-determination for decades, as it seemed to open the right to vote in a self-determination plebiscite to all registered voters and not just those who are considered to be “native inhabitants.”

Last week Calvo presented his plans to the Commission on Decolonization, of which I am a member, representing the Independence for Guam Task Force. We had some very spirited discussion on the Governor’s plans, sharing our concerns, but also expressing our appreciation for his new aggressive pushing of the issue. At present, the Governor has agreed to forgo using the referendum process to hold a plebiscite, and instead work with the Commission on Decolonization, to focus on public education and resolving legal impediments that currently complicate this process. As someone who has committed much of my life to seeing Guam decolonized, this is incredibly exciting.

Guam has been a colony for centuries. Its treatment as a colony has changed depending on who is doing the colonizing and what their interests are. Spanish colonization had several different phases and faces, as does American colonialism. This first and sometimes most difficult step in conducting a public education campaign about decolonization is getting people to recognize the need for political status change. Getting them to see that there is something wrong with the current political order and that things could be better if it was changed. If Guam was currently being colonized by a small and unassuming country, it would be easier to convince people of the need to change things. But when your colonizer is the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, some of that bravado trickles down, and people in the colonies will come to accept it as truth. Under those ideological conditions people come to see all possibility for the future not only through their colonizer, but tied to their colonizer. It is primarily for this reason that discussions about decolonization have always been inhibited due to fears of such ideas being anti-American.

When the first modern conversations about political status change began, few were sure about how to talk about it. The idea of Guam being anything other than a colonial possession was daunting and it felt ungrateful and wrong to reject the existing way in which Guam is tied to the United States. Generations of self-determination activists endured the slings and arrows of being labeled “anti-American” because of their beliefs that Guam should be decolonized and that Chamorros should be given the chance to determine their political destiny after centuries of colonization. But I am grateful for their efforts, as it has brought us to the point today, where fewer and fewer people understand political status in such narrow and inaccurate terms.

After all, if you pay attention to the voices of the some men who are credited with founding the United States, they would seem to be very support of Guam’s colonization, as they were struggling against their own forms of disenfranchisement, discrimination and colonial restriction. The rhetoric that gave birth to the United States has been something that has been the model for so many other movements for decolonization and independence in the centuries since. This is true, despite the fact that the United States has scarcely lived up to its own lofty rhetoric, as it was created atop the disenfranchisement of women, the massive displacement of Native Americans and the continued enslavement of African Americans. Regardless of how you see the “spirit” of the United States today, during its genesis, there was a clear anti-colonial spirit and loud condemnations of colonization and also the rights of those who are colonized to become free and independent.

The thoughts of Thomas Jefferson are a good place to start when looking for this type of relevant rhetoric. I’ll list three quotes here from Jefferson, you may have heard them in the context of US history, but imagine them instead in the context of Guam’s decolonization: 

“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government."

"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will."

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be … the signal of arousing men to burst the chains … and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.”

Or if perhaps Jefferson isn’t close enough to the core of what makes America America, take for instance this passage from the Declaration of Independence:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

You could easily take this document upon which people claim the spirit of a great country was born, and rework it to reflect the historical experiences of Chamorros. What does it mean then when a country so obsessed with expounding and solid-gold-engraving the world with its greatness has trouble remembering its own decolonial origins? Or that the United States has trouble accepting the fact that the colonial injustices that helped spark its own birth may still exist and that the US itself may very well be the perpetrator?

Article 5

$
0
0
The film American Soil, Chamorro Soul premiered last week at the University of Guam Film Festival. The documentary is currently on sale through the website Chamorro Film. Head there to watch it online or purchase a DVD. I'll be posting more about the film as I was involved in the filming of it as an informant and a consultant. It is a very interesting and exciting short documentary about contemporary Chamorro culture.

Below is an article about the film and the director Jessica Peterson.

***********************

Where Does America's Day Begin?
by Amanda Pampuro
Guam Daily Post
April 3, 2016

From cultural resurgence to sustainability, healthcare and tourism, the documentary short “American Soil, Chamorro Soul” raises a number of questions. Painting “intimate portraits of Chamorro people living their culture,” the film features master dancer Frank Rabon leader of Tao Tao Tano, carver Ron Acfalle as he rebuilds the ancient proa as best he can, and Audrey Meno who is studying agriculture and holistic medicine. The vignettes are largely tied together by commentary from historian and activist Dr. Michael Bevacqua, an associate professor at the University of Guam.

“The people, culture, and beauty of Guam have gone largely undocumented, especially to the English market. As a U.S. territory, Guam struggles to be both American and to retain Chamorro cultural values,” the press release said. “Our lens takes an unflinching look at both the raw beauty of Guam and the struggles of its inhabitants to preserve their cultural identity from WWII to the present.”

Produced by blogger and travel writer Jessica Peterson, “American Soil, Chamorro Soul,” was shot by nomadic visionary Brandon Li and Project Inspire star Justin Baldovino.  Though the film is still awaiting its premiere, the trailers have already gathered a great deal of commentary from the community, ranging from excited anticipation to candid criticism. “This is a hot film, highly anticipated,” GIFF founder and filmmaker Kel Muña said, noting that most people take a second glance because, “wait a second, she’s not from here, what does she have to say? That's how you start great dialogue.”

While Peterson has made Guam her home for the last seven years, she admits that as an outsider, her objectives are met with cynicism. “Whatever your intentions are, it’s hard to get that across,” she said. “I made this film, not just for Chamorros, but for mainlanders.”

Peterson said she hopes this documentary can serve as a brief introduction for people who may be visiting for the first time and are not well-versed in the complexity of the island’s history. “Originally I thought I was going to make a travel film about Guam,” she said, “but although the original trailer was widely watched, it got a lot of bad feedback, so I decided to remove myself from the film.”
After putting out a casting call, Peterson spent the last year gathering as many stories as she could, to see what narrative arc bubbled to the surface.

Although the film will not be featured in FestPac, GIFF founder and filmmaker Don Muña said this is still the perfect time to showcase it, adding that he wanted to get involved because, “I know the difficulties of being a first-time filmmaker, not just with the making of it, but with the premier.”

After the film premieres at the University of Guam Film Festival on April 29 and 30, it will also air on Docomo cable, and is available for download from Vimeo.

Bernie Stands with Guam

$
0
0
Next week Guam Democrats will be casting their votes in the race for the party's nominee for President this year. Here is the information from Bernie Sander's website about his position on Guam's issues.

***********************

Bernie is proud to stand with the people of Guam, and work together with Guamanians to build a better future. As president, Bernie will fight for a more just society with an economy that serves the needs of all Guamanians – not just a handful of those Americans on top. His College-for-All plan would allow students across Guam who study hard to attend college without burdening themselves with mountains of debt. Bernie’s plan to create a Medicare-for-all, universal health care system will make sure Guamanians have the health care they need regardless of how much money they make. His climate plan would fundamentally transform Guam’s energy system away from fossil fuel towards sustainable energy by providing grants to Guam’s communities for solar, wind and other renewable energy projects. Bernie will also fight to make sure that federal environmental and public health laws are aggressively enforced to protect the land and water in Guam.

Bernie also recognizes the specific needs facing Guam and the responsibility of the federal government to lend a helping hand. Bernie supports the right of the people of Guam to control their own destinies. All Guamanians are entitled to fair representation at the Federal level and should be empowered to choose their own political future. He would make sure all of those exposed to radiation from past nuclear tests get the compensation they deserve. Bernie will also make sure that Guamanians finally receive compensation for being subjected to unspeakable abuses at the hands of occupying powers during the Second World War. Finally, Bernie will keep Guam safe and secure while seeing to it that that the military presence on the island is managed responsibly in way that respects local needs and the natural environment.

EDUCATION

It is counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future that Guam’s bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that so many who do pursue higher education leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades. That shortsighted path to the future must end. As President, Bernie Sanders will fight to make sure that every American who studies hard in school can go to college without going deeply into debt, regardless of how much money their parents make.

Bernie has long fought for access to affordable higher education by:
  • Expanding Pell Grants to make college more affordable.
  • Fighting for funding for low-income and first-generation students through the federal TRIO programs.
  • Combating sexual violence on campus by co-sponsoring the Campus Accountability and Safety Act.
  • Fighting to create the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program to forgive federal student loan debt after at least ten years of public service. 

  • Bernie’s College-for-All plan would:
  • Make public colleges and universities tuition free.
  • Cut new student loan interest rates almost in half.
  • Allow students with existing student loan debt to refinance their loans at lower rates.
  • Triple funding for the work study program to provide income and experience for college students.

HEALTH

Bernie believes that health care is a right, not a privilege. The Affordable Care Act was an important achievement, but unfortunately not all of its provisions apply to Guam. As president, Bernie would fight for a federally administered Medicare-for-all plan that would cover everyone and apply equally to states and territories, including Guam.

Bernie is concerned that people in Guam have been exposed to radioactive fallout, resulting in chronic medical conditions. A 2005 National Research Council report concluded that Guam was subjected to fallout from nuclear testing. But residents of Guam are still not able to receive compensation under the Radiation and Exposure Compensation Act. As President, Bernie will strongly support efforts in Congress to make sure people in Guam exposed to radiation receive compensation.

REBUILDING GUAM

Bernie believes it is time to address Guam’s long-neglected public infrastructure. As President, Bernie will create new jobs and make Guamanian businesses more competitive in the global economy by enacting a national jobs program to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Bernie’s Rebuild America Act would create good-paying jobs in Guam and put 13 million people to work all over the U.S. This plan would help rebuild Guam’s crumbling roads and bridges, improve its port, upgrade its drinking water and wastewater plants, and fortify flood control projects. It would also improve public transportation in Guam, modernize Guam’s aging electric grid, and expand high-speed broadband networks all across the island.

MINIMUM WAGE

Bernie believes that no one who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty. Bernie has proposed to gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. This would affect thousands of lower-income Guamanians whose wages have stagnated over many years.

EMPOWERING THE PEOPLE OF GUAM TO DECIDE THEIR OWN DESTINY

Bernie believes that the people of Guam have the right to self-determination. As president, Bernie will support the efforts of the people of Guam to hold a binding referendum on their desired future political status. This is a decision that should be made by the people of Guam without interference from the federal government.

Bernie believes that the people of Guam should have the same rights as any other American, including the right to vote for president and to have fair representation in the U.S. Congress. He supports the current efforts by the We the People Project to extend equal rights to all Americans who live in the U.S. Territories. It is unconscionable that the people of Guam, who send so many of their brave sons and daughters to fight to protect the United States, are denied some of the most fundamental rights.

MILITARY PRESENCE ON GUAM

Bernie understands that the U.S. military presence on Guam is important for the local economy and national security. Bernie is committed to ensuring that the military presence on Guam is managed responsibly, including:
  • Making sure military activities are done in a way that protects the natural environment.
  • Ensuring military activities respect Guam’s unique history and culture.
  • Providing the broadest opportunities to local small businesses that compete on military contracts.
  • Making sure that military contractors pay local taxes.
Bernie believes that the federal government should follow through on returning land no longer required by the military or other federal agencies to the people of Guam. As President, Bernie will convene an interagency taskforce to identify excess federal lands which will be returned to the people of Guam.

CLEAN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Bernie believes we must move aggressively away from fossil fuels toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy production. Guam is blessed with abundant solar and wind resources. The island also is well-positioned to develop cutting edge marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, as well as oceanic thermal energy. Yet, virtually all of Guam’s energy comes from imported fossil fuels that are extraordinarily expensive for Guamanians and awful for the environment.

Bernie’s climate plan would fundamentally transform Guam’s energy system away from fossil fuel towards sustainable energy by providing grants to Guam communities for solar, wind and other renewable energy projects. Not only would this improve the environment, it would also create good-paying jobs by establishing a 100 percent clean energy system. And as we make this transition, fossil fuel workers will receive job-training opportunities and the financial assistance they need to maintain family-level wages, health care and pensions until they are able to start new jobs. His Rebuild America Act will help modernize the island’s antiquated electric grid to end rolling blackouts and make it easier to integrate new solar and wind installations.

WAR CLAIMS

Bernie believes it is long overdue that the people in Guam who were subjected to unspeakable brutality at the hands of a foreign occupying force during the Second World War be recognized and compensated for their great courage and sacrifice. As President, Bernie will work to bring a final resolution to this issue for the people of Guam.

COMPACT IMPACT FUNDING

Bernie is concerned that Guam may not be receiving adequate funding from the federal government to help pay for the costs of providing public services to migrants under the Compact of Free Association. As President, Bernie will launch a review to ensure the government of Guam is fully compensated for the costs of providing public services under the Free Association agreement.

HIllary Stands With Guam

$
0
0
Chelsea Clinton: Why Guam Should Choose My Mom
Letter to the Editor
Pacific Daily News
May 4, 2016

I’ve spent the last few months on the road doing everything I can to make sure that my mom, Hillary Clinton, is elected our next president because I believe this is the most important presidential election of my lifetime. I feel that way for two fundamental and interconnected reasons that I think many in Guam share.

First is a deeply personal one. This is the first presidential election I voted in as a mom — on April 19 in New York. I didn’t know I could care any more about the issues that I already cared about until I became a mother. As many parents I’ve talked to this campaign cycle have shared with me and I’ve shared in turn, everything feels much more personal once we have children in the world. Whomever we elect our next president will play a fundamental role in shaping the country, the world and the future that all our children will grow up in.

The second reason is because there is so much at stake and I think my mom is the only person who has a record of being able to deliver real progress, the plans to build a better future and the grit and grace to get it done.

My mom is running to break down all the barriers that still stand in our way, and Guam has more than its fair share of barriers. I hope that the people of Guam know that a President Hillary Clinton would pay attention to Guam and Guam’s issues and fight every day to provide the same ladders to opportunity as on the mainland.

That will mean making sure that all our veterans are taken care of when they come home from protecting our country. It will mean combating the urgent threat of climate change, the effects of which will hit island territories especially hard. And it will mean continuing my mom’s lifelong fight for our children, making sure that every girl and every boy has the education and the opportunity to live up to her or his God-given potential.

Having visited Guam, my mom is also keenly aware of the island’s importance to America’s national security. As Secretary of State, she was one of the key architects of President Obama’s pivot to Asia. With her as president, Guam will continue to be an essential base for the deployment of our armed forces, and she will ensure that the Department of Defense upholds the important understandings it outlined in the “four pillars.”

My mom knows that diagnosing a problem isn’t enough — we need real solutions from a progressive who knows how to get things done.

We need to do everything we can to make sure we keep a Republican out of the White House. Families in Guam and throughout America simply can’t afford to see all the progress we have made be rolled back. That’s why I believe my mom is the Democrats’ best chance of winning on Election Day in November. I hope she can count on your support in Guam’s Caucus on May 7 at the Agana Shopping Center Expo Hall. Polls open at 10 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. time.

I urge you to support my mom on Saturday, so she can support you as president.

Chelsea Clinton is the daughter of Hillary Clinton.

On the Eve of the Guam Primary

$
0
0

People on Guam do not get to vote for the President of the United States.

As one scholar at UOG loves to mention, just about no one in the United States gets to vote for President either, as the Constitution makes clear that the electoral college determines the leader of the executive branch, not the will of the general population.

But this misses the point when people say that people on Guam don't get to vote for President.

Guam, as a territory, a colony, doesn't have any electoral college votes.

We get to pretend that we can vote.

The Government of Guam prints out ballots that we can fill out, and we get to participate in a very fancy straw poll.

As the electoral college votes are tallied, Guam is absent from the constitution of the United States through red and blue shapes on computer and tv monitors.

It is an interesting reminder of the delicacy of Guam's political connection to the United States.

All it takes is the will of a group of people in Washington D.C. or in the media, and suddenly Guam doesn't exist anymore. 

But sometimes, during Presidential campaign seasons, Guam does matter and it does exist.

In 2008, the race between Obama and Clinton was very tight and every delegate could matter.

As such, the primaries towards the end of the schedule, which normally aren't supposed to matter, suddenly do.

Guam got attention, not all of it friendly, from Democratic leaning and mainstream media.

We are at a similar point today, where some slight media attention is turning to Guam. Where candidates and their family members have penned platforms or letters to the people of Guam, asking for their support.

Unlike with the general election, these votes do matter, as Guam's delegates get counted into the total, and either Hillary or Bernie can claim the island as an important symbolic victory.

Below are some recent articles about the Democratic primary in Guam tomorrow.

*************

Clinton and Sanders scrap for delegates in Guam
By

The lingering race for the Democratic presidential nomination is moving to an unlikely battleground this week: the tiny island territory of Guam.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running radio advertisements on the Western Pacific island, costing each candidate more than $10,000, before Democrats cast their ballots in the island’s caucuses this Saturday.

Clinton went up on the airwaves first, according to data provided by the media-monitoring company The Tracking Firm. She reserved about $22,000 on a number of stations on the island, beginning Tuesday and running through Saturday.

Sanders responded on Thursday, making a $12,000 outlay through Saturday on many of the same stations.

Persuasion efforts on the island haven’t been limited to radio advertising: Chelsea Clinton penned an op-ed supporting her mother’s campaign for the Pacific Daily News published on Wednesday. “My mom is running to break down all the barriers that still stand in our way, and Guam has more than its fair share of barriers,” she wrote for the paper. “I hope that the people of Guam know that a President Hillary Clinton would pay attention to Guam and Guam’s issues and fight every day to provide the same ladders to opportunity as on the mainland.”

Guam will send 12 delegates to the Democratic convention this summer — seven pledged delegates and five superdelegates.

The candidates themselves won’t be traveling to Guam — they are focused on the primary in West Virginia next Tuesday, and the May 17 primaries in Kentucky and Oregon.

Voting in Guam will be conducted Saturday from 10 a.m. through 8 p.m. local time at a shopping mall in the capital of Hagåtña. The caucus is closed to non-Democrats, but already-enrolled voters can register with the party at the caucus site.

**************

Hillary Clinton Receives Three Key Guam Endorsements
Tony Azios
Guam Daily Post
May 2, 2016

Three of Guam’s key Democratic leaders have announced their endorsement of Hillary Clinton for U.S. president, ahead of the island’s May 7 caucus between the former secretary of state and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“I strongly endorse Hillary Clinton for president,” said Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo through a press release issued by Hillary for America, Clinton’s official campaign. “There is no one more prepared to tackle the challenges that face our next president more than Hillary.”

“It is an honor and a privilege to endorse Secretary Hillary Clinton,” said Taling Taitano, Democratic national committeewoman for Guam.

“Hillary Clinton has the strength, compassion and principled leadership that we need in a president,” said Sen. Rory Respicio, Democratic national committeeman for Guam. “She is knowledgeable about the issues important to the people of Guam, and she will be a great leader for the nation.”

The triple endorsement comes on the wings of several critical East Coast primary victories for Clinton on Tuesday. With Clinton winning four out of five state primary contests and furthering a massive lead in both pledged and unpledged delegates, Sanders’ presidential campaign is increasingly seen as unviable, with no realistic path to securing the Democratic presidential nomination.

Guam’s delegates

Still, Guam’s 12 Democratic delegate votes are being pursued by both candidates as Clinton tries to wrap up the party’s nomination process to pivot toward the general election and Sanders attempts to close the delegate gap and gain leverage to push for platform concessions.

Sanders’ campaign also released its official Guam platform earlier this week, spelling out the candidate’s positions on issues such as the territory's political status, his support of war time reparations, Compact of Free Association impact funding, and managing the growing military presence.

Clinton’s Democratic National Committee supporters rebutted through endorsements, pointing to Clinton’s personal experience with Guam and knowledge of the challenges it faces.
“Having visited Guam twice, she knows our critical issues such as Compact impact, self-determination and the strategic role Guam plays in national security,” Taitano said in the press release.

“She understands the issues important to the people of Guam, and I know that with her in the White House, we will have a friend who works to address federal issues that impact the lives of our people,” Bordallo said.

Guam's presidential caucus for the Democratic nominee is on May 7 and allows for same-day voter registration.

*****************


Hillary Clinton is a friend of Guam and the right choice to be our Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States.

I have known Hillary for most of my years of public service. We were first ladies together when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and Ricky was governor of Guam; she was first lady of the United States during most of my two terms as lieutenant governor; and she served as a U.S. senator from New York and then Secretary of State during my time as Guam’s representative in Congress. I have always known Hillary to be an intelligent and motivated individual who works hard to positively affect change for others.

Throughout her life of public service, Hillary has fought for justice and equality for women, children and families, the middle class and working Americans, and the poor and underprivileged. She has been a strong advocate for Guam and has supported many issues important to our island and our people. Throughout her career, she has visited Guam on several occasions, and she understands well the challenges that we face as an island in an increasingly volatile part of the world.

As a senator, she supported efforts to resolve war claims for the survivors of the Japanese occupation of Guam and to improve benefits and advocated for more assistance to be provided to the U.S. territories. She was also keenly aware of the challenges of Compact-Impact in the affected jurisdictions, and I know she would work with members of Congress from the affected jurisdictions to find innovative ways to solve this challenge.

As secretary of state, Hillary was a key architect of the rebalance strategy to the Asia-Pacific region. She understood that America must have a strong presence in our region and that the future of trade and security for our country will depend in large part on the stability of the Asia-Pacific region. I know that as president she would continue to focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition to supporting these issues, it is Hillary’s passion and devotion to making real change that will positively impact our residents and millions of Americans across our country that makes me confident that Hillary is the best candidate for president of the United States.

In 1995, I led the Guam delegation where Hillary gave her now-famous speech to the United Nations Fourth World Congress on Women in Beijing, where she proclaimed that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.” This sentiment has been the foundation of her career of public service.

She will fight for those who need it most and will not give up until everyone is treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve, and that everyone can compete on a level playing field. Hillary has demonstrated time and time again that she can get things done and has the results to prove it.
We need effective leadership in Washington, given the challenges posed by extremely conservative elements of the Republican Party.

I’m with Hillary Clinton this election. I encourage our Guam Democrats to join me in voting for her on May 7 to be our nominee and the next president of the United States. Let us help Hillary break the bamboo ceiling in national politics to become the first female president of the United States.

Madeleine Z. Bordallo is the Guam delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. She previously served as lieutenant governor of Guam, senator in the 16th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd Guam Legislatures, and first lady of Guam.

 **********************


As the Guam Caucus approaches, the people of Guam have to consider who to support for president. I believe the best choice for Guam is Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders opposed the war in Iraq and fought for and won expanded and improved education and health benefits to U.S. veterans. As chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, Sanders authored a comprehensive veterans bill that expanded health options for veterans.

Sanders continues to fight for the progressive values of the Democratic Party, including universal health insurance and providing equality of opportunity to all young people. His Medicare for All universal single-payer health insurance plan would eliminate premiums, deductibles and co-pays for all Americans, including people who live in the territories, replacing them with a progressive income tax. According to the health plan, the average American family would save over $5,000 per year.

Just as important to young adults is Sanders’ plans for tuition-free college at public colleges and universities. This means that at institutions like the Guam Community College and the University of Guam, students would save thousands of dollars a year and more of our high school graduates and GED-earners would be more likely to be able to continue their education.

Sanders has recently released the most comprehensive policy platform addressing Guam’s issues of any presidential candidate of all time. He firmly supports equal voting rights for Guamanians, including fair representation in Congress, and the people of Guam’s right to self-determination.
Sanders has a large lead among independents that can transform the landscape of this presidential election. Sanders is the only serious contender for president who has favorable opinion ratings and wins virtually every matchup against any Republican challenger.

I am certain that when Sanders is the nominee for president, he will win and follow through on his support for Guam’s issues.

Julian Janssen is a resident of Tamuning.


All Hail Trump

$
0
0
Anai humålom si Trump gi botasion para President gi ma'pos na sakkan, i meggai ma po'lo na eskareng gui'. Tåya' chanså-ña. Ti "serious" na gåyu gui'. Anggen un ekungok gui', kalang kaduku gui' nigap, taklalalo' gui' på'go yan agupa' taitiningo'. Achokka' mitbotleha yan masumai ni' tinaimamahlao i sinangan-ña, i otro na gayun Republican ti ma gof fåna' pat kontra gui', sa' pine'lo-ñiha na ti magåhet na kadidåtu gui'. Sen ma'lak i danges-ña på'go, lao para u malachai chaddek siempre.

Mansen lachi siha nu ayu. Gi ma'pos na simåna, tumunnok si Ted Cruz yan si John Kasitch. Si Trump i uttimo na gåyu tumotohge gi Republican påtida na bånda. Guiya humahatsa på'go i babaon Republican. Lao kao anggokuyon este na guerrero? Taitai este na halacha' na tinige' siha ni' hu hokkayi guini.

**********************

The GOP's 24-hour meltdown
by Nolan McCaskill
May 6, 2016
Politico

Donald Trump on Tuesday night assumed the mantle of presumptive nominee and declared: “We want to bring unity to the Republican Party. We have to bring unity.”

Three days later, the GOP is tearing itself apart.

Friday brought another day of incredible division and revolt with Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham falling in line not behind Trump, but behind House Speaker Paul Ryan, who said a day earlier that he cannot yet support the brash real estate mogul as his party’s standard-bearer.

Trump, instead of trying to make peace, lashed out.

He fired off a vicious statement, calling Graham an “embarrassment” with “zero credibility.”

Then he laced into both of his former rivals during his rally in Omaha, Nebraska, where he is continuing to campaign ahead of Tuesday’s primary, despite having vanquished the rest of the GOP field.

“But I won’t talk about Jeb Bush. I will not say — I will not say he’s low energy. I will not say it,” Trump told a boisterous crowd who booed at the mention of his critics. “I will not say it. And I won’t talk about Lindsey Graham, who had like 1 point, you ever see this guy on television? He is nasty. … He leaves a disgrace, he can’t represent the people of South Carolina well.”

Trump also alternated on Friday between shrugging off Ryan’s bombshell announcement and scorching him.

During a phone interview with Fox News, Trump said he was “very, very surprised” at Ryan’s comments. “It’s hard to believe,” he said, adding, “It doesn’t bother me at all.”

His tweets, however, suggest otherwise.

“So many great endorsements yesterday, except for Paul Ryan!” Trump tweeted. “We must put America first and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Roughly 90 minutes later, Trump came back with a sharp critique of another comment Ryan made Thursday. “Paul Ryan said that I inherited something very special, the Republican Party. Wrong, I didn't inherit it, I won it with millions of voters!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

The sharpest words, however, came from Trump’s spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson. Not only did she say it’s incumbent upon Ryan to be the one bringing unity to the party, she suggested Ryan may be ill-suited for his current job.

Asked pointedly by CNN’s John Berman whether Ryan is fit to be speaker if he can’t come around to supporting Trump, Pierson responded, “No, because this is about the party.”

In the 10 months since Trump descended the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his presidential bid in front of paid actors, the Republican Party has failed to coalesce around a strategy on how to marginalize the reality TV star.

Now that Trump’s the presumptive nominee, a full-bore GOP civil war has broken out, dividing the party into factions that are providing fresh headaches for Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

Priebus on Friday tried to encourage his fellow Republicans to put down their arms. Sitting down for a one-hour conversation with POLITICO’s Mike Allen, the beleaguered party leader repeatedly stated that it’s just been three days since Trump became the presumptive nominee, and that it’s going to take time for Republicans to absorb their new reality.

Priebus said Trump understands that the party has to unify wide blocs of voters, and he dismissed the latest furor over Trump’s tweet celebrating Cinco de Mayo with a picture of him tucking into a taco bowl.

“He’s trying, and honestly, he’s trying and I will tell you what, I honestly think he understands that building and unifying and growing the party is the only way we’re going to win," Priebus said. "And I think he gets that.”

Playing the role of chief GOP diplomat, Priebus empathized with Ryan, who said on Thursday afternoon that he’s “not ready” to support Trump and that, “I think what a lot of Republicans want to see is that we have a standard-bearer that bears our standards.”

Priebus said the speaker is “being honest, and I know how he feels.”

“And so, I'm comfortable with the idea that it is going to take some time in some cases for people to work through differences,” he said. “We talked about it and talked about it multiple times, and they're very comfortable with sitting down with Donald Trump, and it may be at my office, it may be somewhere else, but we're going to have that meeting to start the process of unifying.”

Ryan’s office announced later on Friday that the high-stakes meeting will happen next Thursday with Priebus in tow.

"Having both said we need to unify the party, Speaker Ryan has invited Donald Trump to meet with members of the House Republican leadership in Washington on Thursday morning to begin a discussion about the kind of Republican principles and ideas that can win the support of the American people this November. The Speaker and Mr. Trump will also meet separately, along with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus," the statement read.

The Republican leaders will have plenty to discuss, including the growing number of former Republican candidates who are ripping up their former pledges to the RNC to support the eventual nominee.

Lindsey Graham on Friday first issued a statement and then went on CNN — the same venue Ryan used — to explain why he can’t support Trump.

He said he couldn't back Trump because he doesn't think he is a "reliable Republican conservative, nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as commander in chief."

Jeb Bush took to Facebook to announce his disavowal.

“The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years,” Bush said in his post.

“Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character,” he continued. “He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.”

It’s not clear when Trump’s most recently downed rivals will announce their positions.

Ted Cruz, who dropped out Tuesday night after Trump’s blowout win in Indiana, has not yet indicated to people close to him what he'll do regarding an endorsement. John Kasich, who dropped Wednesday, has been quiet about what's next, but according to a source close to the governor, the early indicators are that he's unlikely to throw his support behind Trump.

But not everyone is forswearing the real estate mogul, with some stating that it’s important to bring the party together for its battle against Hillary Clinton.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday said he will support Trump, after previously calling the billionaire a “liberal Democrat.”

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who had endorsed Cruz, said he’s now all-in for Trump.

“I’m fully supportive of our presumptive nominee, and I do think Donald Trump will do well in the state of Indiana,” Pence told reporters, according to Indianapolis'Fox affiliate. “I’m going to campaign hard for the Republican nominee because Indiana needs a partner in the White House.”

And Ryan’s counterpart in the Senate isn’t on the same page, at least publicly.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier this week offered a tepid endorsement of Trump, remarking in a statement that "I have committed to supporting the nominee chosen by Republican voters, and Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee, is now on the verge of clinching that nomination."

With Congress coming back to Washington next week, Republicans will have plenty to talk about.
In the meantime, there’s at least one Washington figure reveling in the GOP’s identity crisis — President Barack Obama.

He came out at the top of the daily news briefing to talk about the latest jobs numbers, but was clearly ready to talk Trump. When asked about Ryan’s stunning announcement from the day before, Obama told reporters — with a smirk— that he couldn't begin to guess what will come of the civil war.
"I think you have to ask Speaker Ryan what the implications of his comments are," Obama said.

Katie Glueck, Daniel Strauss, Nick Gass and Brianna Gurciullo contributed to this report.
 
********************
 
Truth and Trumpism
by Paul Krugman
New York Times
May 6, 2016
 
How will the news media handle the battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? I suspect I know the answer — and it’s going to be deeply frustrating. But maybe, just maybe, flagging some common journalistic sins in advance can limit the damage. So let’s talk about what can and probably will go wrong in coverage — but doesn’t have to.

First, and least harmful, will be the urge to make the election seem closer than it is, if only because a close race makes a better story. You can already see this tendency in suggestions that the startling outcome of the fight for the Republican nomination somehow means that polls and other conventional indicators of electoral strength are meaningless.

The truth, however, is that polls have been pretty good indicators all along. Pundits who dismissed the chances of a Trump nomination did so despite, not because of, the polls, which have been showing a large Trump lead for more than eight months.

Oh, and let’s not make too much of any one poll. When many polls are taken, there are bound to be a few outliers, both because of random sampling error and the biases that can creep into survey design. If the average of recent polls shows a strong lead for one candidate — as it does right now for Mrs. Clinton— any individual poll that disagrees with that average should be taken with large helpings of salt.

A more important vice in political coverage, which we’ve seen all too often in previous elections — but will be far more damaging if it happens this time — is false equivalence.

You might think that this would be impossible on substantive policy issues, where the asymmetry between the candidates is almost ridiculously obvious. To take the most striking comparison, Mr. Trump has proposed huge tax cuts with no plausible offsetting spending cuts, yet has also promised to pay down U.S. debt; meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has proposed modest spending increases paid for by specific tax hikes.

That is, one candidate is engaged in wildly irresponsible fantasy while the other is being quite careful with her numbers. But beware of news analyses that, in the name of “balance,” downplay this contrast.

This isn’t a new phenomenon: Many years ago, when George W. Bush was obviously lying about his budget arithmetic but nobody would report it, I suggested that if a candidate declared that the earth was flat, headlines would read, “Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.” But this year it could be much, much worse.

And what about less quantifiable questions about behavior? I’ve already seen pundits suggest that both presumptive nominees fight dirty, that both have taken the “low road” in their campaigns. For the record, Mr. Trump has impugned his rivals’ manhood, called them liars and suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was associated with J.F.K.’s killer. On her side, Mrs. Clinton has suggested that Bernie Sanders hasn’t done his homework on some policy issues. These things are not the same.

Finally, I can almost guarantee that we’ll see attempts to sanitize the positions and motives of Trump supporters, to downplay the racism that is at the heart of the movement and pretend that what voters really care about are the priorities of D.C. insiders — a process I think of as “centrification.”

That is, after all, what happened after the rise of the Tea Party. I’ve seen claims that Tea Partiers were motivated by Wall Street bailouts, or even that the movement was largely about fiscal responsibility, driven by voters upset about budget deficits.

In fact, there was never a hint that any of these things mattered; if you followed the actual progress of the movement, it was always about white voters angry at the thought that their taxes might be used to help Those People, whether via mortgage relief for distressed minority homeowners or health care for low-income families.

Now I’m seeing suggestions that Trumpism is driven by concerns about political gridlock. No, it isn’t. It isn’t even mainly about “economic anxiety.”

Trump support in the primaries was strongly correlated with racial resentment: We’re looking at a movement of white men angry that they no longer dominate American society the way they used to. And to pretend otherwise is to give both the movement and the man who leads it a free pass.

In the end, bad reporting probably won’t change the election’s outcome, because the truth is that those angry white men are right about their declining role. America is increasingly becoming a racially diverse, socially tolerant society, not at all like the Republican base, let alone the plurality of that base that chose Donald Trump.

Still, the public has a right to be properly informed. The news media should do all it can to resist false equivalence and centrification, and report what’s really going on.

Read Paul Krugman’s blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow him on Twitter.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter
 
************************


Why Hillary Clinton is Uniquely Suited to Take on Donald Trump
by Sam Stein
Huffington Post
5/6/16

Back in the fall of 1989, a group of researchers published a paper looking at the ways in which individuals contort the circumstances surrounding them into their preexisting world views.

This particular investigation, titled “Expert Decision Making in Evolving Situations,” gave 11 groups of Army intelligence analysts a realistic battlefield scenario and asked them to assess the most likely avenue for an enemy attack. The scenarios were largely the same, though with slight variations to produce different answers. Each group was given time to study and each expressed confidence in their answers. 

The noteworthy stuff is what came next. The groups were given updated intelligence reports and asked to reconsider their assessments. Some reports contained items confirming initial judgements. Others were designed to spur skepticism. The majority were neutral. The process was then repeated two more times. 

In the aggregate, the level of confidence should have stayed roughly the same. But what the researchers found was that the groups grew more convinced in their initial judgements the more information they received. Only one of the 11 teams changed its assessment of how the enemy would  attack. Seven of the 11 teams expressed more confidence in their call over time. 

Additionally, the subjects gave significantly more weight to information that reinforced their earlier decisions. Not only that, but when presented with contradictory evidence, they were dismissive or downplayed its significance. 

Confirmation bias like this had been observed before. What stood out to the researchers was that individuals trained to be open and sober-minded were now exhibiting it. 

“The results of this experiment lend support to the general conclusion that trained subjects in an evolving, realistic, decision environment demonstrate performance characteristics similar to those of novices working with less realistic and relatively more static scenarios,” the study read. “Specifically, confidence in an initial hypothesis is generally high, regardless of the hypothesis.”

Presidential campaigns are not literal battlefields. And voters are not Army intelligence analysts. But as the 2016 general election comes into focus, the same behavioral patterns observed in this study will play a significant role in determining the next president. 

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, filleted a field of 17 Republican primary candidates by branding them in uniquely terrible ways: Little Marco Rubio, Lyin’ Ted Cruz and Low Energy Jeb Bush. With his attention shifting to November, the fear among preternaturally panicked Democrats is that he will do the same against his likely opponent: Hillary Clinton. Trump has already begun trying, adding the descriptive “Crooked” to her first name.

But political scientists and branding experts aren’t so sure that he’ll find much success. And it goes back to “Expert Decision Making in Evolving Situations.” Referencing that specific study, Timothy Calkins, a clinical professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, noted just how hard it is to mold perceptions when people have already thought through their choices. 

“It is very hard to reposition a well-established brand, and what we have here are two really well-established brands,” Calkins said of the election matchup. “There is a whole idea of mental exhaustion. When you force people to really think about something, it is difficult and challenging. And the easy thing to do is to just not think about it. For someone to really challenge and change their beliefs requires a lot of energy.” 
When you force people to really think about something, it is difficult and challenging. And the easy thing to do is to just not think about it.Timothy Calkins, a clinical professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University
At its current juncture, the Democratic primary is boiling down to a fight over electability. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who trails in pledged delegates, has argued that party insiders should switch their votes to him precisely because his polling numbers are better suited for the general. And that’s true. Sanders does better in mock contests against Trump. His favorability ratings are far superior to Clinton’s. 

These strengths, however, are somewhat cosmetic. Though he’s been on the trail for over the year, Sanders is not as known a political figure as Clinton. He’s faced a tiny sliver of the negative attacks. As The Huffington Post reported in mid-April, of the roughly $383 million spent on campaign television advertising in 2016, only about 2 percent was on anti-Sanders ads, much of which just briefly mentioned his name or featured his image. 

“People are pointing to his general election numbers as being stronger than Clinton’s, and that’s largely a byproduct of the fact he hasn’t seen incoming fire,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth College and a columnist for The New York Times.
Clinton, by contrast, presents a surer bet, albeit with less potential upside. Should she secure the Democratic nomination, she would have a favorability rating worse than any general election candidate in history ... save for Trump himself. 

But she brings advantages to the ticket too. 

On the trail, Clinton touts the political battles she’s experienced as proof that she can succeed where Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted and Low Energy Jeb failed. The impression left is that she has the political acumen to navigate a race against Trump. But what she is also underscoring is that she has the longevity to not be defined by her opponent. Like those Army intelligence officers, the voters have studied her resume, and new parcels of information will simply be plugged into their preexisting views.  

“People have an amazing ability to reinforce what they believe,” said Calkins. 

Consider this: In public opinion polls, a full 96 percent of the public is able to rate Clinton either unfavorably or favorably, the same percentage as Trump. By comparison, 86 percent of the public was able to rate Mitt Romney when he was the presumptive nominee in May of 2012. In July of 2015 — roughly when the Republican primary began — 67 percent of the public was able to rate Ted Cruz and 64 percent of the public was able to rate Marco Rubio

The public is about as likely to have a strong opinion about Clinton at the start of the general election as they were to have any opinions about Cruz or Rubio at the beginning of the GOP primary. Across recent polls, more than 60 percent rate her at one extreme or the other: either “very favorably” or “very unfavorably.” Since last June, her numbers have moved relatively little, considering all the campaigning and negative headlines. Her average unfavorable rating has drifted from the high 40s to the low- to mid-50s, but that is likely due to dissipating goodwill from her time as secretary of state. Her favorable rating has dropped, but it’s likely to rise again should disaffected Democrats (Sanders supporters) come back on board. 
The numbers are relatively static for Trump, too. Despite being the most divisive political figure in the country over the past year, his unfavorable rating remains in the low 60s (the same place it was in June 2015). His favorable rating is the one that’s changed, rising from the mid-20s to the mid-30s, presumably as Republican primary voters have gotten to know him as a politician.

“Look at Trump,” said Nyhan. “With all the stuff that has been said about him, his unfavorables ... they barely changed. This whole time. With everything that has been said about him. It is strikingly stable.” 
In a year without Trump, the case could be made that Clinton would be a serious gamble for Democrats — voters’ confirmation biases would be working against her were she facing a more-liked Republican nominee. But there are other factors influencing elections beyond a candidate’s favorability rating. Often, in fact, favorability ratings tend to be overstated as a metric. Nyhan has written extensively about this.
While it might seem obvious that people vote for the candidate they like best, that notion often gets the direction of causality backward. In the heat of the campaign, we ultimately tend to find reasons to support candidates who share our party affiliation or seem to have a good record in office (and to oppose candidates who do not).
Certainly, there are exceptions to the rule that party, not personality, is more determinative of election results. Trump could very well be one. The outsized force of his personality overshadowed nearly all the traditional contours of the Republican primary, and the next six months will test whether partisanship is an even stronger motivation.

But by and large, as the general election progresses, the expectation among political scientists is that we will enter a more stable race than the current political commentary foreshadows. Republican voters will warm up to the nominee. Beleaguered Sanders supporters will find a way to Clinton. A brutally negative campaign will be waged, but confirmation biases will once again take hold. 

“Public opinion figures tend to converge,” Nyhan noted. “When Al Gore ran, Democrats weren’t enthusiastic about his candidacy but they mostly made their peace with him. [Senator] John McCain had incredible favorability numbers. But to win the nomination he became a classic Republican, and he ended up performing like a general Republican when the election came around. So personal qualities tend to be overstated relative to other structural factors.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post misstated what Donald Trump has been calling Hillary Clinton. He has been using the term “crooked,” not “corrupt.”

Letters to the Colonizer

$
0
0
When talking about decolonization in Guam it is easy to assume that the lack of progress must be due to local problems. It is easy to look at the last three administrations and say in different ways that they weren't focused, or didn't understand the issue, or were afraid to upset the United States by taking it on more aggressively. We can also to certain Government of Guam agencies, such as the Commission on Decolonization, the Guam Election Commission or even the Department of Chamorro Affairs, for not taking the issue more seriously and incorporating it regularly into their outreach and community goals. It is easy to look at the Guam Legislature and see its members as not really understanding the gravity of the issue, or being afraid of taking it on because it may make them seem anti-American to local voters or US Federal officials. All of these things carry some truth to them. But to assume that this is the problem misses the larger structure, the larger limitations by being the colony of a country that doesn't want to admit that it has colonies. The United States government is disengaged in this process, and has been for decades. Some leaders will support it in broad terms by saying that they agree that "self-determination" for Guam is important, but what that means is always vague and generally amounts to little more than "improved status quo" or more being a colony with friendly benefits. The United States doesn't cooperate with the United Nations on this issue and with the exception of a small amount of funding providing this year for educational outreach, there has been little since the failure of the Commonwealth movement in the 1990s to indicate any meaning traction. Compelling the local government to act on this issue is very important, but we must always keep in mind the larger problem, the imperial apathy that will no doubt deter us, even if we educate ourselves, hold a political status plebiscite and begin work towards realizing it.

Recently the Calvo Administration has begun to take up in a stronger and more focused way the issue of decolonization. But at least in rhetoric it has always been there, something mentioned in various State of the Island Addresses and in press releases dealing with problematic Federal-Territorial relations. In 2011 for instance, as we can see below, the Calvo Administration sent a letter to the Obama Administration reminding them about the need to decolonize Guam. This reminds me about what Robert Underwood once said about the purpose of the non-voting delegate to the US Congress, your purpose there isn't so much to pass legislation, but rather to simply remind the colonizer that you exist, and that you have a different set of interests and needs.


**************************

Guam Governor Advises President Obama on self-determination process
Pacific News Center
October 17, 2011
(via Overseas Territories Review)

Guam Governor Eddie Calvo has written a letter to President Barak Obama detailing Guam's intentions to seek political self determination. The Commission on Decolonization met last Friday for the first time in 8 years. In his letter, the Governor declares that Guam's Commission on Self Determination "is embarking on a quest for political destiny."

He points out that Guam is one of 16 non self-governing territories identified by the United Nations and he asks the President for his administration's continued support during this "significant endeavor."

Members of the Commission on Decolonization voted to schedule regular meetings every first and third Friday of the month.
















Chamorro Soil, Chamorro Soul

$
0
0
Chamorro Soil, Chamorro Soul
by Michael Lujan Bevacqua
May 4, 2016
The Guam Daily Post

Last week’s University of Guam Film Festival or UOGFF was very exciting for me personally. In three of the films featured, I had a role in creating, whether as an actor, producer or consultant. I had a minor speaking role in the film “You’re Not Going Anywhere…Kid” directed by my former student Kyle Twardowsky, who shot the entire film on his iPhone. The documentary “War For Guam” which was premiered last year on PBS stations around the United States was also shown. It was directed by Frances Negron-Muntaner, a prominent Puerto Rican scholar who teaches at Columbia University. I worked for a several years as a co-producer (along with local filmmaker Baltazar Aguon and others) on this film that shows the Chamorro experience in World War II, primarily through the re-telling of the stories of American holdout George Tweed and Chamorro priest Jesus Baza Duenas.

The final film, which was premiering at the UOGFF and will also be screened during FESTPAC later this month is “American Soil, Chamorro Soul” directed by Jessica Peterson of “The Guam Guide.” In this film, I was featured as a historian and cultural expert, who tied the different themes together. After the screening was finished, members of the cast and crew gathered on stage to take questions from the audience. As I listened to the discussion, I couldn’t help but reflect back on how the film had come together, and why for me, it represented a very important and different representation of Chamorro culture today.

When the director, Jessica had first released a teaser for her project, which would be a travel film of the same name, she received some criticism through social media. The initial teaser seemed very focused on the director and her experiences on Guam interacting with Chamorros, rather than allowing the people themselves to drive the narrative. Jessica took this feedback seriously and decided to reimagine the film. She met with myself and others to talk about the concerns people had expressed and what would be the best way to approach a portrayal of contemporary Chamorro culture.

The resulting film uses the voices of a group of practitioners in the realm of dance, traditional medicine and navigation to talk about how Chamorros are working to preserve and revive their culture. Through suruhåna Bernice Nelson and a young woman named Audrey Meno, we visit Åmot Taotao Tåno’ farm and talk about how our traditional medicine has contemporary value. Through Master of Chamorro Culture Frank Rabon and his dance students, we see how Chamorros are joining cultural dance groups to empower themselves. And finally through Ron Acfalle and his sons, we watch as they work to carve and sail traditional Chamorro canoes, seeking ways to connect to the spirits of our ancestors.

It is a very different portrayal of Chamorros, when compared to some previous documentaries and also representations in travel media or the work of scholars. In those representations, Chamorro culture is described as being dead and gone, something long lost and buried beneath centuries of colonization and cultural change. But this documentary challenges that notion.

Human perceptions of culture are so intriguingly paradoxical. Cultures always change, but humans feel at the same time, like cultures exist to always stay the same and are “lost” when they do. This is the contradiction of human social existence. Our cultures live and breathe and change just as we do, but we all wish that they could be reduced to static objects that we could fit in our hands, buy from vendors at fairs or would fit nicely onto tattoos or t-shirts. Each culture is as complicated as the human that claim it, but also subject to their desires that it be reduced to static simplicity.

Chamorros and other colonized peoples feel this more than most. People look at us and say that we have no culture, we’ve lost it all over the years, but when they look at another culture, they say that they haven’t lost anything, but just changed due to modernization and evolved or innovated. Even Chamorros themselves will generally subscribe to this notion, and perpetuate the terrible idea that nothing that we have is our own, our culture is an exotic mishmash of everyone else that has made Guam their military base, parish or home.  

It is important that Chamorros not simply accept these ways of seeing ourselves. They have roots in the writings of explorers, missionaries and anthropologists, who see indigenous people as either being exotic, pure natives or else impure, pathetic victims of history. It is important that, regardless of the tragic history that we might have had, where parts of our culture were prohibited or forgotten, we do not accept that the actions of colonizers forever shape who we are and what we can be. In my interview for the film, I note that even if the dances of Chamorros from the 17thcentury were eventually lost, does this mean that Chamorros as a people cannot ever dance “authentically” again? No, because cultures live and breath. They lose things, they gain things. It is not something you just plop into a museum exhibit, it is as complicated and abundant in potentiality as life itself.

For the film “American Soil, Chamorro Soul” what I felt was most powerful in terms of its narrative, was the way it exemplified this idea, that Chamorro culture, regardless of whether you want to bring in labels or authentic or inauthentic, is nonetheless alive. It is a living culture, where we find those who are fighting to preserve, to revitalize, to keep imagining the world, even as it changes within what could be called a Chamorro perspective.


Si Yu’us Ma’åse to Jessica, the cast and the crew for their beautiful film. If you want to learn more about “American Soil, Chamorro Soul” please head to its website Chamorro Filmwhere it is available for purchase or renting.  

Educate to Liberate Teach-In

Jean-Michel Basquiat

$
0
0

 
I don't paint as much as I used to, but I'm still an artist gi korason-hu.

Achokka' ti mamementa yu' kada diha, manhahasso yu' todu tiempo put pinenta yan atte. 

I have been inspired by many artists over the years, especially when I was an undergraduate and graduate student at UOG.
At that time, I was painting a great deal and displaying and selling my artwork around the island. 

One of the biggest influences on me, and something which made me the butt of a great deal of "måtai na pepenta" na jokes, was my looking up to Jean-Michel Basquiat. 

He was one of the consummate bohemian artists, who challenged artist norms in his time, was used by the artworld during his short life, and then died. 

When I first created an email account for myself in 1998, I was so enamored with Basquiat, that I didn't use my name, but instead blended our names together.

Rather than mlbevacqua, I instead entered mlbasquiat. 

It has created a lot of confusion over the years as people who haven't met me in person but only over email, sometime assume that my last name is Basquiat and greet me and address me as Michael Basquiat or Dr. Basquiat or Mr. Basquiat. 

Below is a long article about Basquiat that appeared in Vanity Fair a few years ago. 

***************************

“Burning Out”
by Anthony Haden-Guest
Vanity Fair
April 4, 2014


Much has been written about the heroin-linked death of Jean-Michel Basquiat. But one voice was missing—that of the wildly talented, wildly extravagant painter himself. Anthony Haden-Guest interviewed America’s foremost black artist in the last stages of his blazing trail, as he careened between art dealers and drug dealers.

At about one in the morning on Friday, August 12, I saw Jean-Michel Basquiat at M.K. I was surprised. The extravagantly talented young painter, once among the more visible night birds of Manhattan’s haute bohème, had become famously reclusive. The reason was not a secret. He was locked in a battle with heroin.

The upper floor of the club is baroquely lit, but he looked changed—midriff fuller, face plumper. “That is you, Jean-Michel?” I asked.

“Yeah . . . ” A front tooth was missing with disconcerting effect. His eyes were remote, his smile wan. Oh, well. Basquiat was notoriously moody. I moved on, past the pool players, down to Bryan Ferry’s postconcert party on a lower deck.

Basquiat had arrived, typically, with a couple of young women, both stunning, Kelly Inman, a makeup artist, who lived in the basement below his studio, and Kristen Vigard, a young singer, whose long red hair was now very short and bleached white, and he had only come at their urging. “We wanted to get him out of the house,” Kelly remembers.

One of the people that Basquiat bumped into was a close friend, Kevin Bray, an N.Y.U. film student. Bray, like so many, had supported Basquiat in his struggle with his addiction, and had been delighted when the artist had returned from Hawaii ten days before, ebulliently announcing that he had finally kicked the habit. “But I could tell he was really high,” Bray says. “I was very discouraged.”

Inman and Vigard were wandering around somewhere. Impulsive as always, Basquiat suggested to Bray that they leave. He wanted company. Basquiat took a cab the twenty blocks downtown to his Great Jones Street loft, Bray bicycled. “We sat, and drank Gatorade,” he says. Recently, Basquiat had been loquacious with his close friends about his plans for a new life, which were colorful, if sometimes contradictory.

Certainly he was leaving Manhattan. Almost certainly he was, at the age of twenty-seven, giving up the mercantile and treacherous art world. Perhaps he would be a writer. Perhaps he would take what he called an “honest job,” like running a tequila business in Hawaii. The following Thursday, he was leaving for the Ivory Coast, where he was expected in a Senoufo village five hundred miles inland from the capital, Abidjan. Here he would take a tribal cure for the heroin— and other New York wounds.

Tonight, though, Basquiat was quiet. “He didn’t really want to talk about anything,” Bray says, “and soon he started nodding. And I said, I’m sorry—I just can’t stay around. I wrote kind of a weird note . . . I DON’T WANT TO SIT AROUND HERE AND WATCH YOU DIE . . . And then, YES, YOU DO OWE ME SOMETHING. Because we have an ongoing dialogue . . . why he should stop [drugs], why he should keep on painting . . . he never thinks people understand the paintings.”

That agonizing present tense, when the fact of death hasn’t quite sunk in.
Bray passed the note to Basquiat, but he was too loaded to focus, so Bray read it aloud, and left, fuming. “Somebody who gets that high is dying over and over and over again,” he says now.

Kelly Inman got back from M.K. at about four in the morning. “I didn’t see Jean-Michel,” she says. “I went downstairs to bed.” She was woken by the telephone at 2:30. It was Kevin. Jean-Michel was going with him to a Run-D.M.C. concert that evening. Inman climbed into the bread-oven heat of the upstairs bedroom—the air conditioner had failed, an annoyance that Basquiat, with a characteristic twinge of paranoia, blamed on his landlord, the Warhol estate. He was sleeping, she decided not to disturb him.

Bray rang again three hours later. Inman called, received no response, and again climbed the stairs. Jean-Michel Basquiat was lying in a pool of vomit. Inman felt the pulse and did what she calls “the usual things,” but with rushing emotions—fear, frozen calm, and an odd relief that his ordeal was over— she saw that he was dead.
The brilliant, intense life of a most remarkable artist—America’s first truly important black painter—was over.

I had visited Basquiat several times last April. No name marked the thick metal door that sheltered his loft from the neighborhood derelicts and crack vendors, and the ground-floor studio/kitchen/dining room looked both busy and cozy. The floor would always be covered with unstretched canvases in various stages of completion, and Basquiat, with his usual nonchalant, fuck-you, art-world attitude, would trot messily across them to fetch me a beer or tend to the spaghetti. The place looked lighthearted, with dark-side-of-Pop touches—portraits of Elvis and James Dean—and a giant birdcage adorned with a rubber bat and containing the bird’s nest that he sometimes wore to parties. The only visible artwork not by Basquiat was a portrait of him by Andy Warhol, hanging near the sink.

The Warhol, silkscreened on a background of splotched greeny gold, was one of the notorious “piss paintings” (mostly abstracts, created by the interaction of urine and copper sulfate on canvas). “I didn’t know it was a piss painting,” Basquiat told me. He later mentioned to a friend, writer Glenn O’Brien, that the splotches were oddly predictive of his own current skin condition, which was indeed terrible, marring his striking looks. Otherwise, he seemed alert, even mischievous—on one visit he was wearing a girlfriend’s black dress—and he insisted that he had his heroin problem “under control.” Beyond that, he was reticent about it.

He was anything but reticent, though, about his upbringing, which he painted in the darkest terms. Basquiat would often talk of beatings at the hands of his father, of his mother being hospitalized for depression, of their marriage breaking up when he was seven. “I had very few friends,” he told me. “There was nobody I could trust. I left home when I was fifteen. I lived in Washington Square Park. Of course my father minded. Jesus Christ!”

The tormented picture was obviously deeply felt, but lengthy meetings with Jean-Michel’s father, Gérard Basquiat, suggest that it doesn’t wholly jibe with reality. Basquiat Sr. comes from a solidly bourgeois family in Haiti which incurred the ire of “Papa Doc” Duvalier. “My mother and father were jailed,” he says. “My brother was killed. I came to America when I was twenty.” Here, he became an accountant, married Matilde, a woman of Puerto Rican stock, and had three children, at three-year intervals, Jean-Michel, Lisane, and Jeanine. He worked hard, and prospered. “Jean-Michel, for some reason, liked to give the impression that he grew up in the ghetto,” Gérard Basquiat says, adding, “I was driving a Mercedes-Benz.” They lived in a four-story brownstone the family owned in Boerum Hill, a couple of blocks from the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

At six, Jean-Michel had been hit by a car, and had his spleen removed. This didn’t prevent him from becoming a school champion in the sprint, but it was to trouble him later. The boy was bright, and intent on becoming a cartoonist, but very difficult. He went to a sequence of schools, and finally wound up in the City-as-School, an excellent establishment which specializes in the talented and contrary. Here, actually, he had numerous friends. “Jean-Michel was very rebellious,” his father says, “very rebellious. He was expelled for throwing a pie in the face of the principal.” It was June 1978. Sometimes Gérard Basquiat “spanked”—his word— his troublesome son, but the fact is Jean-Michel stayed in fairly constant touch with both parents. He, his father, and his father’s companion of twelve years, an attractive Englishwoman called Nora, would go to the Odeon and Mr Chow’s, and Jean-Michel once took Andy Warhol to a dinner party in Brooklyn.

“My father could be severe. It came from his Haitian background,” says Lisane Basquiat. But he was a loving father, and she is glad of the strictness now. “I never realized Jean-Michel held on to so much. Childhood fights. All those little things,” she says. “He was just a boy who didn’t grow up,” says their father.

But this tendency to hoard resentment was not apparent in the inquisitive, slyly humorous seventeen-year-old who started showing up in Manhattan, at first mostly with school friend Al Diaz. Soon he was noticeable in the hyperactive downtown scene, where he had a brief fascination with bisexuality. His artistic ambitions were still unfocused. He sold painted T-shirts to tourists in Greenwich Village. Martin Aubert, another school friend, remembers Basquiat talking about how much money he could make. “He craved parental approval,” Aubert says. Meanwhile, Basquiat slept on the crash circuit of sofas, floors, and the beds of friendly women. “I was a cute kid,” he said.

Along with his raw talent, he had a shrewd tactical eye. Graffiti was very much around, although, as painter Kenny Scharf puts it, “it wasn’t really connected with art yet.” Hence, the birth of Samo. The messages that began appearing on Manhattan walls in 1978 ran from the simplistic SAMO FOR THE ART PIMPS to the poetically ominous PAY FOR SOUP, BUILD A FORT, SET IT ON FIRE. They were signed Samo, with a copyright symbol saucily appended. “Samo meant same old shit,” Basquiat told me. “It was kind of sophomoric. It was supposed to be a logo, like Pepsi.”

Basquiat was always drawn to the idea of collaboration—Al Diaz, whose graffiti tag was Bomb 1, was a partner—but Basquiat was the conceptual leader. “You didn’t see Samos up in Harlem,” observes Fred Brathwaite, a.k.a. graffiti artist/rapster Fab 5 Freddy, a close friend of Basquiat’s and a fellow Brooklynite. “They were aimed at the art community. Because he liked that crowd, but at the same time resented that crowd.”

His next step forward was through music. In late 1979 Basquiat became a member of Gray, a band that a fellow member, Michael Holman, describes as “between an art band and jazz. ‘Gray’ was Jean’s idea. I think it had to do with the color of a piece of paper that was hanging up. We said great. It wasn’t like the Angry Toads or something.” Fred Brathwaite remembers the first gig. “It was at the Mudd Club. David Byrne was there. Debbie Harry. It was a real Who’s Who. Everyone was there because of Jean . . . Samo’s in a band! . . . They came out and played for just ten minutes. Somebody was playing in a box. It just blew me away.”

Basquiat was also making art. He would draw on Mudd Club matchbooks, and sell them for a dollar. He became briefly associated with Canal Zone, a group that included Fab 5 Freddy and fellow graffitist Lee Quinones. “We were lent a loft,” Brathwaite says. “Jean-Michel would be in the back room, making ‘baseball cards.’ He would cut up these photographs, lay them down on graph paper, and draw on them. He would color-Xerox them on Spring Street, and sign them Samo or Manmade. Original limited-edition-type things.” Basquiat hawked them on the street for a few dollars. Alert to the fact that Kenny Scharf had made a splash by showing work at Fiorucci, he talked the fashion store into seeing him. “He bought oil paint on the way,” painter Keith Haring says. “He smashed it open on the street, and made a painting. In Fiorucci, he got paint on the carpet, on the couch, and all over. They threw him out. For him, this was a great triumph. He sort of wanted them to buy some color Xeroxes, but at the same time, he had a disdain for it.”

Basquiat approached Andy Warhol in a downtown restaurant where he was eating with Henry Geldzahler, and sold him one of these Xeroxes. Warhol was Basquiat’s most specific obsession. Chris Sedlmayr, an electrician who had met Basquiat at the Mudd Club, gave him odd jobs such as an installation in the Castelli gallery, where he gleefully scribbled a few furtive Samos on tubes containing Warhol silkscreens. Fred Brathwaite remembers hanging out with Basquiat, John Sex, and some other downtown types outside Club 57, and discussing the idea of doing a performance piece based on the Factory. Somebody asked, “Who will play Andy?”

“I will,” Basquiat insisted.

Visiting the actual Factory, he sold Warhol a few more Xeroxes for a dollar. Warhol gave him four or five cans of expensive Liquitex paint, which he slathered on more clothing and sold at Patricia Field’s shop on Eighth Street.

Basquiat was by then a natural choice to star in a movie about downtown called The New York Beat. It featured Debbie Harry, was financed by Rizzoli, directed by the photographer Edo (later questioned in the Crispo case), written by Glenn O’Brien, and based loosely on Basquiat’s own life. “It never came out,” O’Brien says, “because a couple of the Rizzolis went to the slammer.”

The art Basquiat painted for the movie was a departure. “I hadn’t done anything good until then,” he told me. “Actually, my basic influence had probably been Peter Max.” But by now Basquiat had voraciously assimilated a whole new world of art, from Monet’s water lilies to Cy Twombly. He devoured Picasso’s Guernica, and later noted the irony of coming to African art via the Spaniard.

“I want to make paintings that look as if they were made by a child,” he told Fred Brathwaite, Picasso-like, in the street.

While he was living in the movie production office above the Great Jones Café, Basquiat painted his first figurative works. Then he moved in with a girlfriend, Suzanne Mallouk, his age and half Palestinian, half English. Mallouk allowed herself to be dominated. “I paid the rent waitressing,” she says. “I supported him.” Now he set fanatically to work.

“In 1980 I heard that Samo was making this really great art,” says Jeffrey Deitch, an art consultant for Citibank. He went to see. “I couldn’t believe it. Every surface was covered, the refrigerator, the tables. He had dozens of these little drawings on typewriter paper. The paintings were on doors and window frames taken off the street.”

Basquiat was now both ubiquitous and noticeable around lower Manhattan. For a while he had sported a bleached blond mohawk, but soon grew a crown of dreadlocks. “And he would wear this paint-spattered smock,” says Fred Brathwaite. “You could see the look on people’s faces: I don’t want to walk by this guy!”

In early 1981, Diego Cortez included a group of Basquiats in the seminal “New York/New Wave” show at P.S. 1. The show featured more than five hundred artists, but the pieces by Basquiat—who showed as Samo—were standouts. A style had suddenly fallen into place. The work is graphic, crudely drawn with oil sticks, often featuring bits of found writing—downtown street signs, whatever—and always using images at once witty and disturbing, like those used to propitiate powerful forces. No wonder, alongside his more formal sources, such as Leonardo’s codices, Basquiat sometimes mentioned voodoo.

“The common reaction, which was mine,” says Alanna Heiss, the director of P.S. 1, “was that this was the new Rauschenberg. It was a really clichéridden reaction, in terms of tingling, goose bumps, all the words we use all the time, but this time it was really true.” It was at P.S. 1 that Basquiat made converts of such influential voices as Henry Geldzahler and Peter Schjeldahl, whose review in The Village Voice singled out Robert Mapplethorpe and “Jean-Michel Basquiat, a twenty-year-old Haitian-Puerto Rican New Yorker.” Alanna Heiss recalls that, “by the end of the show, people were trying to find Jean-Michel to buy pictures. Things had gone a bit bananas already.”

Old identities folded. Samo’s penultimate graffito was: LIFE IS CONFUSING AT THIS POINT . . . Basquiat then had a “falling-out” with Al Diaz, and went around downtown writing SAMO IS DEAD. He also pulled out of Gray. “He was on this ego trip,” says band member/artist Vincent Gallo, “schmoozing with Eno and Bowie instead of taking care of band business.” Basquiat, David Byrne, and Arto Lindsay of DNA briefly rehearsed as a group named for one of Basquiat’s obsessions: Famous Black Athletes.

Basquiat’s first dealer was Annina Nosei, an Italian woman with a nose for talent and a SoHo gallery. “I was doing this show called ‘Public Address,’ ” she says. “It was a group show. I said, Are you sure you fit in? He said, Yes, yes, I fit, I fit. He said his work was addressing the public, although it was poetical, and intimate. I gave him the money to buy a big canvas.” Among the other artists that Nosei was showing for the first time were Jenny Holzer, Barbara Kruger, and Keith Haring. “They were in the front room,” says Nosei. “Jean-Michel had a whole room, with five or six pieces, so it became Jean-Michel and the others.”

They all sold, at $2,500 apiece. “After that success, we planned a one-man show for March 1982,” Nosei says, “but he needed a place to paint.” She offered him the space in the basement of the gallery, which he cheerfully accepted. “It was the first time I had a place to work,” he told me. “I took it. Not seeing the drawbacks until later . . . ”
The “drawbacks” were firstly practical. “She used to bring collectors down there, so it wasn’t very private,” said Basquiat. “I didn’t mind. I was young, you know.” The greater drawback was symbolic. Brathwaite remonstrated with him: “I said, A black kid, painting in the basement, it’s not good, man. But Jean knew he was playing off this wild-man thing. Annina would let these collectors in, and he would turn, with the brush in his hand, all wet, and walk towards them . . . real quick.” On the other hand, Yann Gamblin, the French photographer, recalls Basquiat totally ignoring his visitors while attacking three canvases more or less at once.

Annina Nosei, slipping into a parental role, advanced him cash to live on. Typically he would spend it on lunch at Dean & DeLuca, the pricey SoHo grocery. Gérard Basquiat recalls a dinner with his son and Nosei at Hobeaux. “I’m like a mother to Jean-Michel,” the dealer told Basquiat père. “I thought, Oh my god, she’s finished,” he says.

Patti Astor, who started the Fun Gallery in the East Village as an anarchic reaction to the white-walled SoHo machine, says the Nosei show was one of Basquiat’s best ever, but is wry about the opening. “The fashion that year was for these hideous, green-dyed mink coats. It was raining, and the whole gallery was filled with these soaking-wet, green mink coats. Jean-Michel was hiding in the back. I couldn’t go and say hi, because I couldn’t face that horrible phalanx. I felt that Jean-Michel needed a place to show where he could really have some input.”

Basquiat—who would always veer from receptivity to intense mistrust— did show at the Fun Gallery. Shortly before the opening, Astor invited various artists to a pumpkin-carving party. “Kenny [Scharf], Keith [Haring], and Jean-Michel were all sitting, doing it. Julian [Schnabel] came over, and he said, Oh, this is stupid, but then he sits down, and carves this pumpkin, and he’s so proud of it, he wants to have it cast in bronze.” The pumpkins were put in the gallery window. The Schnabel one was stolen. “It became the most famous pumpkin in town,” Astor says.

The perpetrator was, of course, Jean-Michel Basquiat. The remains of the vegetable wound up in a box of white painted wood covered with drawings and enigmatically inscribed “Vagina water,” as Basquiat’s contribution to the “Art” installation at the club Area in May 1985, mounted as counterprogramming to the opening of the Palladium.

The Fun Gallery show was a resounding success for Basquiat in every way except, as he would often carp, financially. He had made his first real money in Italy, selling ten pieces through Emilio Mazzoli’s gallery in Modena. “Suddenly from nothing he has $30,000 in his pocket,” Astor says.

At the end of the year, Basquiat went to stay with the dealer Larry Gagosian in Los Angeles. “I had a big house on the beach in Venice,” Gagosian says, “and I gave him an enormous room for a studio.” Basquiat stayed for six months, working ferociously. He developed a pattern in which work and life, completely entwined, were both forced to the limit. There was something childlike about his appetites. He had used so much cocaine he’d perforated his septum. Nile Rodgers, the musician, who ran into Basquiat in the Maxfield Blue store and gave him a ride, later found he had left half a dozen brand-new Armani suits in the car. “He was flying out friends to stay with him,” Gagosian says. “It was really a zoo.”

The long affair with Suzanne Mallouk was breaking up—“I couldn’t take it anymore,” she says. “He was too overpowering.” He had embarked on a series of relationships with young women. “He had a need to be surrounded by blonde models,” she adds. He could be possessive and dominating, with the usual role games, but the erotic is not a powerful element in his painted world. “It’s a theme I never approach,” he told me. “Or hardly ever. If I see sex in a movie, I want to turn away.” He was equally shy about his use of hard drugs. Though he enjoyed smoking what were obviously joints in full view, few were aware of his freebasing and dabbling with smack. “I had seen him sitting on the steps of the Electric Circus at the end of 1980,” says Martin Aubert, now a sessions guitarist. “He was covered with paint and shivering. He said, I’m on heroin. I guess you don’t approve of that, but I have decided the true path to creativity is to burn out. He mentioned Janis Joplin, Hendrix, Billie Holiday, Charlie Parker. I said, All those people are dead, Jean. He said, If that’s what it takes . . . ”

In later years, Basquiat would claim that he only started shooting heroin after Warhol’s death. This was the junk lying. An ex-addict friend of mine remembers seeing Basquiat in late 1982 at an East Seventh Street apartment where art-world and uptown users—“no street junkies at all”—would buy their drugs and socialize. “He had a legendary habit. It gave him a lot of cachet. He would drop $20,000 or $30,000 at a time. We’re talking ounces, not stuff that had been cut and put in bags. The expectation was quite general that he wasn’t going to be around for much longer.”

Basquiat spent Christmas 1983 in Los Angeles with a girlfriend, the then unknown Madonna. Larry Gagosian remembers, “He told me, She’s going to be a big, big star.” Fred Hoffman, of the Hoffman Borman gallery, took them to lunch in the Twentieth Century Fox commissary, and remembers them glowering around, sizzling with ambition.

In the art world, at least, Basquiat had become a figure of glittering success. He had two canvases in the Palladium’s Michael Todd Room, and his name was dropped in gossip columns. There was a rustle of attention when he walked into a restaurant or a club, and he was making much more money than his friends. His success both excited and disturbed him. “From being so critical of the art scene, Jean-Michel was all of a sudden becoming the thing he criticized,” says Haring. He coped by profligacy. He tossed $100 in dollar bills from a limousine window at the panhandlers on Bowery and Houston. He ruined his designer suits by painting in them. He lent indigent friends money and art materials. He scattered drawings and paintings around like a tree shedding leaves. The rapacious homed in. “I worked with him a lot in Los Angeles,” says Matt Dike, who now has a small label, Delicious Vinyl. “Everybody was just picking up paintings and drawings. Jean-Michel was so dusted that he didn’t know what was what.” It was also at this time that he slashed a roomful of his own canvases.

With this relentless bohemianism went an odd yearning for propriety. He would now stay in hotels in Los Angeles, but disdained the funky Chateau Marmont in favor of the solidly bourgeois L’Ermitage. The lavish “art dinners” that he threw in Manhattan were less likely to be in the downtown eateries than in staid Barbetta’s on West Forty-sixth. John Good, who then worked for Leo Castelli, remembers Basquiat energetically entering the world of fine wines. “We went to Sherry-Lehmann. They were very suspicious at first, but he whips a thousand bucks out of his pocket, trying to find the best, the oldest bottles that they had. I said, Jean-Michel, you don’t have to drink ’61 Lafite all the time. There are a lot of cheaper ones that are very good. He said, Yeah, but it’s not that expensive! I mean, it’s cheaper than drugs . . .

“He was always asking about [art] dealers, which were good, which were bad. He was more ambitious than anybody ever dreamed,” says Good. “Should I have a boxing match with Julian Schnabel?” he once asked Mallouk. And he was uneasy when she posed for Francesco Clemente. “Who’s a better artist?” he asked her.
“Francesco,” she told him, wickedly. “He’s more spiritual than you are.”

One night he woke her to show her a portrait of her he’d just finished. A snake was floating above her. “Is that spiritual enough?” he asked.

Basquiat was just as hypersensitive in his relations with dealers. He left Annina Nosei for Bruno Bischofberger of Zurich, a dominant figure in the international art market. “I took him to Mary Boone. She and I were partners,” Bischofberger says. At his grand Mary Boone opening he told his former school-teacher Mary Ellen Lewis, “I wonder what Fred [the principal at whom he’d thrown the pie] will think of me now. Wasn’t I the one least likely to succeed?”

In February 1985 a shoeless Basquiat adorned the cover of The New York Times Magazine. At first euphoric, he signed copies in the Odeon and Area, but on reflection he decided to be offended. The title of the Times piece was “New Art, New Money: The Marketing of an American Artist.” “As though I didn’t do it myself,” he complained. It was just one more sign that Basquiat was a rare black in a monochrome art world. Fred Hoffman celebrated Basquiat’s birthday at a fancy restaurant in Beverly Hills: “I remember him looking around, then saying to us, You know what? Everybody in this restaurant is trying to figure out just why I should be here.”

His mood swings were intense, from sweetness and dry intelligence to an untrusting sullenness, abrasive, prickly, sometimes bordering on something worse. Hoffman, who was probably as close as anybody to Basquiat then, speaks of periods of “dissociation” in which the artist would have problems distinguishing reality from phantasms.

“One thing that affected Jean-Michel greatly was the Michael Stewart story,” says Haring. “Suzanne was now going out with Michael Stewart, who was a skinny black kid. He was an artist. He looked much like Jean-Michel.” Stewart was beaten up by cops in a subway station. They claimed he had been doing graffiti. He died of his injuries. That night Basquiat painted red and black skulls. He told Haring about it at the Roxy club. “He was completely freaked out,” says Haring. “It was like it could have been him. It showed him how vulnerable he was.” (The interminable inquiry into the death of Stewart ended with nobody being convicted.)

Basquiat’s metropolitan celebrity was as shiny as ever, but a new chill was developing within the inner councils of the art world. Neo-Expressionism, suddenly rather vieux chapeau, was being replaced on the assembly line by Neo-Geo and Commodity art. “It doesn’t seem very new,” Basquiat groused to me. “But people have a very short attention span. They’re looking for another artist every six months. There’s only twenty good artists in a century.”

He was also increasingly aware that he was failing to consolidate on his first success. It was true that he had influential supporters—at his death, Basquiats were owned by Eli Broad, Paul Simon, and Ethel Scull, among many others— but when Basquiat deciphered the clues, the art establishment was not anointing him. Castelli gave Haring a show—not Basquiat. He was not represented in the Saatchi Collection. “Charles Saatchi has never liked my work at all,” he told me. Most embittering of all, although pieces were owned by both MOMA and the Whitney, he had never been accorded a museum show. Some of this was paranoia induced by cocaine, but he also seemed to embrace the martyr role. “He wore a kick-me sign,” says a friend. Basquiat’s sourness extended to his fellow artists—only Schnabel and Clemente had been welcoming, he felt—and he would parse reviews for condescension, the demeaning phrase. “They still call me a graffiti artist,” he complained. “They don’t call Keith or Kenny graffiti artists anymore.” Fred Brathwaite agrees: “Graffiti had become another word for nigger.” What Basquiat felt he was encountering wasn’t racism of the cruder sort, but the subtler prejudice that women artists encounter: He wouldn’t build a career, just drop out of history, or, worse, out of the marketplace. Burn out.

There was a convenient focus for Basquiat’s resentments: his dealer. Later he complained that “Mary did nothing for my career. She never got me a museum show.” In fact, Boone worked hard to build up his market, but heroin is a formidable opponent.

Basquiat, capable of terrific work, was also alarmingly erratic and undiscriminating. She began to doubt his capacity for “articulating his vocabulary,” meaning develop, grow. Tensions worsened. He felt she was behaving like another heavy parent. One friend remembers Basquiat “literally jumping up and down, shouting, I’m the star—not Mary Boone.”

Publicly, he was having a high old time. Jonathan Scull, Ethel’s son, who owned a limousine service and sometimes drove Basquiat himself, remembers taking the artist to an opening—he was wearing pajamas and that bird’s nest on his head. After the opening of Bruce Weber’s Rio exhibition at the Robert Miller Gallery he dropped his trousers, to the astonishment of some young women. At a Puck Building opening he tossed a stink bomb. The high jinks, though, were increasingly fueled by heroin. He had now grown to hate junkies and resent his addiction, but he was himself drifting out onto the dark ocean of opiates when he found a new collaborator, an unlikely savior, and a complaisant father.

Andy Warhol.

Warhol did not often permit himself to appear upset. The 1982 book Edie, by Jean Stein and George Plimpton, which depicted him as a greedy voyeur in an addict’s destruction, was one such recorded case. “I never saw him so upset about any negative press,” recalls Warhol biographer Bob Colacello. In Basquiat, Warhol probably saw something like a redemption. “It was clear that Andy was trying to wean Jean-Michel off drugs,” Fred Hoffman says. “They got into this health program together, and they were exercising a lot.” (The poster for their 1986 double show would depict the unlikely partners mock-boxing in Everlast gloves.)

Basquiat and Warhol exchanged portraits in 1982. Later they began to work in the Factory, making art. Their first collaborations, prompted by Bischofberger, also involved Clemente; then the two of them carried on without him. “Jean-Michel called me and said, Papa, I’ve got Andy with a brush in his hand for the first time in twenty-three years,” Gérard Basquiat tells me. Warhol, certainly, benefited hugely. “Andy felt he was getting stale. For him, it was tremendous,” says Ethel Scull. “For Jean-Michel it was a disaster. He got whooshed into the vacuum of Andy’s world.”

Jean-Michel sometimes bubbled with resentment: “It’s as if I am just a protégé. As though I wasn’t famous before Andy found me.” Scull took Basquiat to a black-tie ballet affair at which Warhol was present, and Basquiat acted up, like a little boy: “I want to sit at Andy’s table, he demanded. Then I found him smoking marijuana in the bar.” A longtime supporter, she began to wonder if the painter was a goner.
On the surface, though, things were going well. Bruno Bischofberger says that he had paid him $300,000 for some of the Warhol collaborations and, like many Basquiat advisers, had tried to persuade him to buy real estate. Warhol moaned to Thomas Ammann, the powerful Swiss dealer, that Basquiat frittered away money: for instance, by renting an apartment in a fancy hotel that he never used. “Andy said, Buy something from Thomas. He bought a little 1922 Picasso, something a bit Constructivist.” Worried about his junkie friends, he never took possession but would sometimes show people an Ektachrome color slide of it.

By mutual consent, sixteen of the large Warhol collaborative pieces were exhibited at Tony Shafrazi’s gallery. The show got lukewarm reviews, and only one was sold. “It wasn’t seen as part of the history of art,” a collector told me, sniffily, “but of the history of public relations.” Again a parental relationship had failed to reach his expectations. He distanced himself from Warhol. That summer, Basquiat left Mary Boone’s roster of artists. It was a severe blow to him. “He had executed a number of works that had a great energy and necessity to them,” she says. “Then he began imitating those works. He was much too involved with the glamour, the names. He was more involved with who was coming to his opening party than the paintings that were going to be in the exhibition.”

Basquiat denounced Boone. His reputation among New York dealers was dismal. Bischofberger, his only remaining dealer, granted his “dearest wish” by organizing a show in “black Africa.” In mid-1986 he took Basquiat and his then regular girlfriend, Jennifer Goode, now a partner in M.K. with her brother Eric, to Abidjan. “It was Jean-Michel’s first visit to Africa,” Goode says. “We had a wonderful time. Artists came and talked to him. I remember he was disappointed that they were doing copies of Western art. He thought it would be more like his work, but the only things that were anything like his were on the outside of houses. Or just signs.” Ironically, Basquiat, who had come to primitive art via Picasso, felt that contemporary African artists needed liberation from the School of Paris.

He felt slighted by Warhol’s Christmas present that year—one of his silver wigs, flattened and framed, the precursor of a line he was planning to sell. Basquiat was so offended he withheld the Christmas card he had made for Andy, a drawing executed in the Louvre of the Victory of Samothrace. Although Basquiat had only turned up for five or six of his invitations to meet since the Shafrazi show, Warhol remained the single figure he both trusted and respected. “He was number one,” says John Good, “and that’s what Jean-Michel wanted to be.”

Warhol died on February 22, 1987. Again, swamped by grief and guilt, Basquiat reeled.

Basquiat had often been Bruno Bischofberger’s guest in Europe. The dealer now introduced him to a new Manhattan gallery, Maeght Lelong, which together with Bischofberger began paying him a monthly stipend. But he had also grown close to another dealer, Vrej Baghoomian, Tony Shafrazi’s cousin and former business manager, and began selling him paintings.

Basquiat signed a contract with Bischofberger nonetheless, exchanging his share of another twenty of the Warhol collaborations for $500,000. The contract was handwritten on a single sheet of paper, and Basquiat later claimed that he had misunderstood it. He’d thought that he was to get all the money at once. “But he’s trying to pay me $10,000 a month for years, and years, and years,” Basquiat told me, bitterly. “I realized too late that I didn’t have to sell them to him at all. He must think I’m a jerk.”

“The big ones were on sale for $200,000 to $400,000 even before Jean-Michel died,” a rival of the Swiss dealer says. “Two of the works pay for the whole thing. There’s a lot of elements of the Mark Rothko thing in this. A desperate artist, who has his own psychological problems, believes that he is being taken, but somehow still ends up in the grip of this dealer.” Bischofberger says that he and Maeght Lelong were already owed more than $275,000 by Basquiat in advances, and that the established practice of paying monthly would be “better for Jean-Michel” than a lump sum. “But sometimes he was paranoid,” says Bischofberger, whom Basquiat once drew as a wolf. “His dealers were his friends but also his enemies.” In the fall of 1987 Baghoomian opened a gallery “not for him, but because of him.”

The escalating desire for money was the root. When Basquiat had money, he got rid of it, as if he was trying to purge himself. He bought a musician friend a fishing boat. He lent a painter friend cash, and refused repayment. By 1987, he was always running out of it himself. “He even borrowed money from me, and I don’t have any,” says Arto Lindsay. It isn’t hard to see why. Sales were slow. And after Warhol’s death, he started buying dangerously adulterated heroin from street dealers. One painter who visited him for an afternoon to discuss donations to an AIDS benefit remembers Basquiat darting out four or five times to buy drugs, then disappearing upstairs to shoot up before resuming the conversation. The Maeght Lelong gallery planned a big “comeback exhibition” for the fall of 1987, but, says director Daryl Harnisch, “I saw there wasn’t going to be anything to show. He was too drugged.” He was meant to have done six or eight drawings for a show at Tony Shafrazi but only managed three.

The drawings and paintings that he had showered on friends were turning up for resale. Paintings that he had sold for hundreds were selling for tens of thousands. As his anxiety grew, so did his use of drugs. It was now all too much for Jennifer Goode. “I went to a program,” she says, “so did Jean-Michel. But he couldn’t go through with it.” He told friends that they were too intrusive, they didn’t understand that he was an artist. “He had problems with authority,” Goode says. “All those white doctors and psychiatrists, telling him what to do. He was going to do it by himself—prove he was stronger.” Similarly, he had rejected his father’s numerous offers to organize his financial affairs.

There was the psychological problem, too, of not wholly knowing the relation of the drug to his torment, and his torment to the quality of his art. Paige Powell, another longtime girlfriend, and Warhol’s frequent companion, heard from him after his Bruno Bischofberger opening in Zurich: “Somebody told him his work had softened. Next thing, he was doing heroin in Amsterdam.”

Increasingly Basquiat withdrew from the milieus he had frequented. “I can’t relate so much to the kids that go out these days,” he said. “All these young, perfect kids. It’s not the same sort of artistic climate as it was back then.”
I used the word “cave.”

“Medicine men live in caves,” he said.

He wasn’t acting like a medicine man. In Basquiat’s life, art dealers and drug dealers were now inextricably mingled—he was being given drugs, or money for drugs, in exchange for freshly painted art. One friend could see that the work was deteriorating. “He would just do something quickly, and sign it—just to get them out of there.” Then he would feel terrible. “He would talk and talk about it.”

On his rare forays out, his behavior could be fantastical. “Last year, Jean-Michel called to invite me to Bianca Jagger’s birthday party,” says Maggie Bult, one of the very few collectors he could abide. “We walked, and on the way he bought every imaginable thing in the world. He bought an enormous bubble-blowing thing from a man on the corner. He bought himself three pairs of shoes. He bought me some lilacs to give Bianca. Everyone was looking at him. Everybody knew just who he was.”

The party was at Nell’s. “As soon as we walked in, he became very paranoid,” Bult says, “because his career was a bit on the wane, and he felt he should be paid a bit more homage. He wanted more attention.” Within five minutes, Basquiat was whisking her off for dinner at Barbetta’s. “He was greeted very ceremoniously,” Bult says. “So we sat there, and he ordered only the best of the best. Champagne, and baby lamb, and on, and on. Poor thing! The bill was over $300. He loved to spend, but he shouldn’t have been spending that sort of money.” It was almost, she feels, as if he felt guilty. On their way out, Basquiat spoke sharply to the proprietor, Bult says. “He didn’t feel he had been treated with enough respect.”

The horror was looking for a taxi. Bult was in a leather skirt, and Basquiat was in a floppy black suit from Yohji Yamamoto, an open white shirt, a straight-brimmed black hat. Not one taxi driver stopped. “Several went by, two of the drivers were black, but nobody would take him. Jean-Michel turned to me and said, You know why nobody is taking us? It’s because I’m black. Can you get a taxi?” Bult swiftly got a taxi. Back at Great Jones Street, Basquiat disappeared upstairs. “In half an hour, I called up and said, Jean-Michel, what’s going on? Come up, he called.” Upstairs she found the artist collapsed, and sweating heavily. “He was in a bad state,” she says. “He began talking about Andy. He was crying. He was weeping.”

Warhol’s death precipitated a decision. When Ed Hayes, the Warhol-estate attorney, went to Great Jones Street, he found Basquiat convinced that they were trying to evict him. Actually, Hayes says, although Basquiat was chronically late with the rent, he had been instructed to offer to sell him the place at an insider price. Basquiat, he says, didn’t believe him. (Earlier, the painter had told friends that he might raise the $350,000 purchase price by selling his Picasso. He did sell it, but the money did not go into bricks and mortar. He made a 50 percent profit in eighteen months, and asked Ammann for slices of it from time to time.)

Basquiat decided his only hope was to leave New York. He had told me he was “controlling” heroin. Now he told friends he was going to give it up—using his mind, his will.

Basquiat went to Europe in January 1988. At his Paris gallery, Yvon Lambert, he met an Ivory Coast painter called Outtara. Outtara, a longtime Paris resident, thought Basquiat “un vrai bon vivant” and invited him to his homeland. Impulsively, Basquiat agreed. In Africa, surely, he could clean body and spirit alike.

He returned to Manhattan. Soon he, Kelly Inman, and Vrej Baghoomian were driving around the Catskills, looking at houses. “We saw four or five,” Inman says. “Jean-Michel put in an offer on one. He was too late. It was sold.”

Basquiat was despondently aware of the parlous state of his reputation. “The cheerleaders . . . are already reassessing Basquiat as a never-was,” a columnist wrote in the spring edition of Art Line,and his struggle with addiction continued. Frequently Inman, who had moved into the Great Jones Street basement (they were not lovers—drugs made a relationship impossible), would threaten to move. “Vrej would tell me, You can’t go,” she says.

“One day he would tell me he was giving it up,” says Vincent Gallo, “the next he’d be boasting he was doing a hundred bags a day—more than Keith Richards.”
 
“I truly believed he was stopping,” says Ethel Scull. She offered to take him to the Warhol sale in April, where there was a Twombly he wanted as a memento. “I said, Jean-Michel, can you afford it?” remembers Scull. He had been so desperate to get it that she was touched. “I happened to have dinner that night with Asher Edelman,” she says. They discussed it, and the other probable bidders. Maybe they could help him out by not bidding it up. “I called Jean-Michel,” she says. “I told him, You’re sitting with me. We’re going to try to let you get it.” She warned, “If you stand me up, I’ll kill you.”

Inevitably, he never showed.

“I later heard that he had gone to a jazz festival in New Orleans.” Scull abandoned all thought of saving Jean-Michel. “I never saw him again.”

Basquiat had first flown to Hawaii during an early trip to California, and had been there for visits ever since. He returned there this summer. “He called me,” says Inman. “He sounded terrific. He said he was fishing with the guys, he was giving up painting, he was going to be a writer.”

Inman joined him there at the end of June. It was less than she had been led to expect. “He started drinking in the morning. He was drinking all day,” she says. “He had stopped one thing, but hidden it with another. There were art supplies out there, but he wasn’t working. He was playing music twenty-four hours a day. He had all his jazz tapes. Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday.” As Kelly speaks, her ambivalence is painful. “He lived the right way—he lived every day. Most people have a lot of fear. Not Jean. He said he was either going to die young or he would be very old—and broke, the way he started.”

They left Hawaii at the end of June, stopping off for a day in Los Angeles. That, at least, was the plan. “He called, and said he didn’t have any money for a hotel,” says Matt Dike. “Could he stay for one night?”

From Dike’s, Basquiat called another old friend, filmmaker Tamra Davis. “We went to this dinner at Mr Chow’s,” she says, “and all these strange, strange people were there, like he’d met at the airport, a contractor from Orange County, like it was weird, man. Just two years before we’d been at the same table in the same restaurant with the cream of the arts community. But Jean-Michel was in such a good mood, smiling, and jumping up and down, and really happy, because he’d cleaned up in Hawaii, you know, not like he used to, staring at you, kind of testing you before he would say anything, if he hadn’t seen you for a while. It was like a guy had suddenly come back to life, but all of a sudden I got really afraid . . . ”

Dike was also unsettled by this freaky good humor. Basquiat announced that he was having such a terrific time— “the best time of my whole life,” he told Tamra Davis—that he had decided to stay in Los Angeles at least a week. “He wasn’t doing any art,” Dike says. “He was giving up. Now he was saying he was going to start a tequila business in Hawaii. He was drinking any kind of hard booze. He could drink a quart of tequila. It was to kill the cold turkey, I guess.”

Tamra Davis was given the task of trying to check Basquiat into a hotel. Not, this time, L’Ermitage. “I said, Let’s go to the Chateau [Marmont]. He said, No, no, no. He wanted a really cheap, sleazy hotel on Hollywood Boulevard. I was afraid of that. The drugs. We drove around for eight hours, and he kept saying he didn’t want to drive by any neighborhoods that had drugs. So I took him to this strange hotel called the Hotel Hollywood. With all that he had done to himself, poking and scratching his body, he looked like this crazy Rastafarian, he had humbled himself to such an extent. I said, You stay in the car. You can’t even be seen with me when I try to check you into this hotel. He looked like a bum or something.”

So she managed to sneak one of the outstanding painters of his generation past the desk, and upstairs. There she unpacked the bag, and it was filled with all his usual stuff, the copy of Kerouac’s The Subterraneans he often traveled with, and two sketch pads, both abnormally empty. “I said, Why don’t you draw? He said, No, I’m going to become a writer. I want to become a writer. But I can’t write. . . . ”

She left, filled with forebodings. Over the next few days, she saw him continuously. There happened to be a painting by Basquiat at Dike’s, a self-portrait executed a couple of years previously on an old door. It showed the artist, missing a front tooth, with his body as a skeleton. He was now actually missing a front tooth—he said it had just dropped out in Hawaii. “He looked at the bones,” Dike says. “He said, I hope that doesn’t come true, too.”

One night he and Davis drove up to the Country Store on Laurel Canyon Boulevard. Basquiat was uproariously drunk, and in an excellent mood. “He’s sitting there with the door wide open, drinking tequila mixed with Corona, and yelling to everybody that would pull up—in a friendly way, but these people were looking at him as if he was totally crazy. Then he would get very sentimental, and want to talk about himself, really heavy things about his childhood, how he’s going to stop painting, what’s going to happen to him. K/Earth 101 was playing. There was this Firecracker 300 countdown. I was telling him to stay up and listen to the winner so he could tell me the number-one song. Because I knew it would be in the middle of the night. And I was afraid he would die before that, even.”

One of the songs they listened to was Elton John’s lament for Marilyn Monroe, “Candle in the Wind.” “He said, That’s me,” Tamra Davis says. “I’m not a real person. I’m a legend.”

His apprehensions, once he was back in New York, seemed to fade. “I saw him on the street,” Haring says. “It was the first time I had seen him in a whole while. He was really up. He told me he had kicked. Which is the first time he had even acknowledged a habit at all. He seemed honestly excited.”

Haring, who had an assignment to photograph street fashion, was carrying a camera, and Basquiat insisted on posing. Haring shot him, laid out on a subway grating on Lower Broadway. “It’s almost too weird,” Haring says. “In a lot of them he’s got his eyes closed.”

He spoke to Vincent Gallo about getting back into music. “It was as if art wasn’t part of him anymore,” Gallo says. Arto Lindsay recalls that Basquiat played some tapes to him and John Lurie of the Lounge Lizards: “murky-sounding tapes that didn’t go anywhere, outer-space-type things.”

The Palladium was redecorating the Mike Todd room and Basquiat told me he had offered to sell them his two paintings there for $50,000 each. Steve Rubell had declined. They were delivered back to the artist. “They’re O.K.,” he said, “except for a few holes and ballpoint-pen marks.” He returned to Hawaii for another couple of weeks, and again stopped in Los Angeles on his way back. “He must have called a million times,” Tamra Davis says. “I feel so guilty I never answered. How could I invite that drama back into my life?”

Gérard Basquiat says that his son had a flight booked to Abidjan on Sunday, August 7, but he didn’t arrive in New York until Monday. He rescheduled for Thursday, August 18. Outtara was there, waiting. “We were going to go to my village,” Outtara says. The plan was that he’d stay there for three months, painting with “natural materials,” curing himself. “Everything was ready for Jean-Michel. Everything was done,” Outtara says.

Kelly Inman returned from a trip home to the Midwest on Wednesday, and was appalled by Basquiat’s beer bloat. His sister Lisane called him on the morning of Thursday, August 11. He was curt. “I was angry when I hung up,” she says. “I discussed it with my mother. I said, How can he still keep all that pain in him?”
That was at about half past ten in the morning. There are rumors that Basquiat bought drugs that day. His father confirms that substantial quantities were found in the bedroom.

Kristen Vigard was passing Basquiat’s front door at about half past six. She hadn’t seen him for some time, but impulsively she knocked. “He took two of my friends to Hawaii. A boyfriend of mine, and a girl. They had drug problems. He cleaned them up. I thought he was a saint.”

Basquiat was overjoyed to see her, but she was shocked to find him high, and rambling. “I didn’t know what to say,” she says. “I read him a poem against drugs I had written.” Kelly Inman arrived, and they sat around drinking Coco Rico. Then Vigard went out to the store to get Basquiat some supplies. Jay Shriver, Warhol’s former painting assistant, came over at 7:30. “He told me that he was giving up drugs,” Shriver says. “He said he was just bingeing a little.”

Shriver departed. “I don’t know how Jean-Michel got out of there,” he says. “He could hardly walk.” Vigard and Inman, now both thoroughly alarmed, determined to get Basquiat on his feet. “Come to the Bryan Ferry party,” Vigard implored. They coaxed Basquiat to M.K. There they lost him.

It might be said that Basquiat died of many things. His body was terribly weakened—that missing spleen. Also that missing tooth—which fueled the rumors Peter Schjeldahl cited in his 7 Days obituary that the artist had AIDS. Junkies, however, tell me that their teeth often go (the sugar diet, the acid in the vomit). And one close friend says he saw a bag with a shiny, deadly load of needles in Basquiat’s bedroom—so forget shared syringes: “He probably changed the works every time he shot up.”

The morning after the day on which Basquiat died, Inman, who was still in a state of stunned calm, was telephoned by one of Basquiat’s “old friends.” He perfunctorily expressed his regrets. “Then he said he’d left something in the studio, a painting, a drawing, and could he come around and collect it.” Inman said no. “I would have flipped if I had seen him,” she says. “Now there’s a guard outside. The place is locked up tighter than a drum.”

Thus, the rapacity that plagued the artist in life pursues him still. “Vultures,” says Bischofberger. Even close friends of Basquiat’s that I spoke to would often get around to asking how his death would affect the value of the works. Thaddaeus Ropac, a Salzburg dealer who had put on Basquiat’s final show, ending on August 10, two days before the artist’s death, immediately bought back an important painting at double the price he’d sold it for. “I hadn’t even been paid yet,” he says. Basquiat talked of having a great deal of his work salted away in storage around New York. Michael Stout (also attorney for Dali and Mapplethorpe) speaks of four possible stores, one with “one hundred works” and another with twenty-five, also “one hundred on canvas at Great Jones Street, and hundreds of drawings,” plus “works out on consignment that we would have claims for.” It would be hard to estimate the total value of all this, probably in the tens of millions, but Vrej Baghoomian says he’s only aware of a dozen salable canvases in the studio. Paige Powell, among others, disagrees: “Andy told him to keep his best paintings. He made it cool for him to be a businessman and an artist.” Anyway, Christie’s is cataloguing, and in mid-November the Mayor Gallery in London will be showing, seventeen of the Warhol-Basquiat collaborations, priced at $300,000 a piece.

At the time of writing, no will has surfaced, so Gérard Basquiat is administering the estate. There is, however, the persistent rumor of a child. Basquiat told friends of a son in New Orleans called Noah, who would now be five. Though one source doubts that Jean-Michel was the father.

That said, Basquiat’s bitterly ironic cliché of a death—the young black on dope belongs with the drunken Indian, the thrifty Scot—will surely focus attention where it actually belongs, on his work, some of the best of which was never hung in his relatively few shows. “They were taken straight out of his studio,” says Jeffrey Deitch. “They were never catalogued. Some of the most incredible work went straight to Europe. The art world never got a chance to see them.” Much of this can now be expected to change. “I suppose he’ll get a Whitney show at last,” says Fred Brathwaite. “And all that shit he never got when he was alive. Motherfuckers!”

Three years before, on a Hawaiian holiday, Gérard Basquiat had asked his son why he was so “tense.” “You’ve got everything,” he had told him. “Only one thing worries me,” his son had said. “Longevity.” He had meant as an artist, not as a man. Some, including Larry Gagosian, feel that Basquiat was facing “a block.” Others feel his work was constantly getting stronger. It is now unknowable, as it cannot be known how seriously to take his plan of abandoning art, Rimbaud-like. “The body of work is phenomenal,” says Tony Shafrazi. “The guy produced maybe five to six hundred major canvases in about eight years. He was the epitome of the romantic artist—literally living the dark side of Van Gogh.”

Which is not to say that Basquiat’s death should be read as a pat conclusion. “Everybody was sitting around, waiting for him to do what he did,” says Glenn O’Brien, “so he could be the Jimi Hendrix of art. He burned out his body, I guess. But I don’t think he intended to die—I think he could have recovered.” In September, O’Brien and I passed Basquiat’s scarred metal front door. Somebody had made a shrine of wickerwork and hung it on the adjoining wall. A photograph of Basquiat, from the poster for his last show, was framed with flowers, candles, handwritten love letters, and a couple of brushes, one dipped in gold. “Voodoo, voodoo,” a passerby told us, cheerily. Jean-Michel Basquiat would have liked that.
Viewing all 864 articles
Browse latest View live