Quantcast
Channel: NO REST FOR THE AWAKE - MINAGAHET CHAMORRO
Viewing all 863 articles
Browse latest View live

Two Articles on the Chamorro Diaspora in San Diego

$
0
0
The Chamorro Diaspora
Michael Lujan Bevacqua
The Marianas Variety
April 23, 2016

I spent five years of my life in San Diego while I was attending graduate school there at UCSD. It was an interesting experience that truly helped to shape and deepen my understanding of Chamorros as a people today. 
 
We may see Chamorros as tied to home islands in the Marianas, but the reality is that more than half of the Chamorro people live in the United States in what scholars refer to as “the diaspora.”

For most of my life, I have moved back and forth between Guam and this diaspora — spending a few years in Guam and then a few years in Hawai’i, a few more years in Guam, a few more years in California and so on. Although people tend to conceive of Chamorros as being either the “from the island” or “from the states” variety, there has, since the revoking of the military’s postwar security clearance, been a constant back and forth migration of Chamorros. Individuals and families travel east for education, military service, seeking new opportunities, and they also move back west into the Pacific, because of homesickness, family obligations and even for new opportunities.

In the formation of a diaspora, people can settle anywhere they choose but tend to follow particular patterns. The Chamorro diaspora to the United States began in a limited way with bayineru siha, or whalers who left during the late Spanish and early American colonial periods. They settled primarily in Hawai’i, the West Coast and even New England. During the 20th century the U.S. military, in particular the U.S. Navy became the next means of aiding in Chamorro migration. Chamorros began to settle in places where some whalers still retained a sense of being Chamorro, but more so they settled in areas with Navy bases. San Francisco, Virginia, Hawai’i and San Diego were all places where the Chamorro population was significant even before World War II.

After the passage of the Organic Act and the onset of the Korean War, more Chamorros began to join the U.S. Army and eventually the Air Force. This changed the Chamorro diaspora even more as Chamorro populations began to grow in areas like Texas and Washington. Chamorros traveling to the states who weren’t in the military would nonetheless follow these same routes, taking advantage of family members and friends who were already settled.

At present, the Chamorro diaspora still remains structured around these large populations, but Chamorros now migrate because of perceived economic opportunities, with people seeking places that are nice to live in, have affordable housing or possible job opportunities.

San Diego is the area with the largest diasporic Chamorro population and you could call it the ma’gas na sinahi of Chamorro diaspora communities. What makes San Diego different than other areas with large numbers of Chamorros is the amount of presence they have created for themselves and to represent themselves to others. San Diego has several different types of Guam clubs, the largest of which is the Sons and Daughters of Guam Club. This club is considered to be a central location in terms of the Chamorro diasporic landscape, because unlike many Guam clubs, it has a large permanent physical space. The clubhouse is used for all types of activities, from fundraisers to dinner dances to conferences. Chamorro language and cultural dances classes are also sometimes held there. The clubhouse is even rented sometimes by non-Chamorros for quinceañeras or debutante balls for young Latinas. The clubhouse also acts like a senior center where manåmko’ can hang out and play cards and also eat lunch. 

The San Diego Chamorro community has also come to a certain level of consciousness that through the nonprofit CHELU (Chamorro Hands in Education Links Unity) it now organizes an annual fair. This past March, they held their most recent “Chamorro Cultural Fair” that drew crowds of thousands. Chamorros from across the Western United States converged in San Diego to eat Chamorro food, buy Chamorro themed arts and crafts, listen to Chamorro music and watch Chamorro dance. A highlight of the festival was the display of a 47-foot replica of an ancient Chamorro canoe, or sakman. The canoe was carved by the group Sakman Chamorro, and not only is the canoe a sight to behold, it also does sail. Mario Borja, the main carver for the project, is promoting the idea of the sakman making a voyage to Guam in 2016 just in time for the Festival of the Pacific Arts.

It is often easy to dismiss Chamorros in the diaspora as being “po’asu” or “taimamahlao” because of their distance from the home islands of Chamorros. People sometimes think of them as being a lower type of Chamorro, possessing less knowledge, less respect and, in general, being less Chamorro. I would argue against these stereotypes. Chamorros everywhere are concerned about issues of language and cultural loss. Chamorros in the states don’t benefit from having easy access to a lot of the things that people in the Mariana Islands take for granted. On Guam, it is still easy to find a place where you can be surrounded by the Chamorro language, if you live in Nebraska that might be a bit more difficult. But it is exciting to see Chamorros in San Diego working to create more regular spaces for maintaining their heritage.


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

The Making of the Sons and Daughters of Guam Club
By: Guilllermo Taitano (Gil)
From the Sons and Daughters of Guam Club Website

Somewhere back in time, the spring of 1953, the formation of a Sons and Daughters of Guam Club began in San Diego, California. The initiators of the club were Jose Flores (Cabesa), also known as Joe Flores, and Guillermo Taitano (Calextro) also known as Gil Taitano.

Joe Flores came to California when he was sent by the bishop of Guam to continue his studies for the priesthood. Family problems and the draft board changed all that for him. Joe then joined the Marine Corps stationed in Camp Pendleton. He left the service after the Second World War.

Joe lived in San Diego with his cousin Jose Aquiningoc (Cabesa). It was during this time that he started the idea of a Guam Club. Years later, Joe joined the Merchant Marines on Guam. It was soon after this that he caught pneumonia and passed away.

Gil Taitano joined the Navy in 1937 and was stationed in San Diego. In 1950, he decided to move his wife Rosa Reyes Finona and their children to San Diego while still in service with the Navy. It was during this time that Gil met Joe and helped him with the idea of starting a Guam club. At present, Gil Taitano still resides in his first home in San Diego.

The club was formulated to serve common interests such as learning English, so that our members and their children could compete in the American mainstream and still keep the customs of their Chamorro heritage. It also served as a recreational outlet in the form of a softball team that played on the weekends. Through the group efforts of its founding members and weekly meetings, the idea of a Guamerican club became a reality.

Jose Flores (Cabesa) and Guillermo (Gil) (Calextro) Taitano
The Essence of the Sons and Daughters of Guam Club

We the members of the Sons and Daughters of Guam Club do agree to bond together with the purpose of aiding, assisting, and promoting all matters beneficial to our members and their families. It is our hope that we would realize the full potential of our God given rights, the search for the "good-life", the blessings of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the goals which direct our lives. It is this bond that will bring about peace and security during troubled times.

The Beginning
Early on, the prime movers and shakers were Joe Flores and Gil Taitano. One evening, Joe was talking about his desire to get the Chamorro people together who were living in San Diego. This conversation was held at the home of his cousin, Jose Aquiningoc.  Jose's wife, Sixta, and her sister, Gloria Taitano overheard Joe's conversation and joined in the discussion. The suggestion was made to talk to Gil Taitano, brother of Sixta and Gloria.  Joe Flores was invited to Gil's home at 317 San Albetto Way, San Diego, California for coffee and "dunkin' doughnuts." At first the conversation centered around the family and Gil's new baby.  Joe offered to be the Godfather and Gil consented.  Afterwards, the conversation turned toward Joe's initial idea.  Joe asked Gil to join him in the endeavor of forming the Guamerican club. Joe and Gil worked closely with some other lead members. Several informal meetings were held and it was decided to hold a general meeting in the backyard  of Gil Taitano's house on May 1, 1953, just two months before the first Liberation  celebration. Between 40 and 50 people were present at the meeting.  The following roster shows the first temporary officers:

President - Joe Flores
Vice President - Gil Taitano
Secretary - Maria Mendiola
Treasurer - Juan Duenas
Hospitality Chairperson - Carmen Garrido
Master at Arms - Jesus Garrido

In The Fullness of Time, We Have Arrived

The meeting began with the posting of the flag of Guam and the American flag. The Vice-President led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. The meeting was called to order with the drop of the gavel. The president opened the meeting with a prayer, invoking the Holy Spirit, "Enkindle in us the fire of God's love. Grant that in the same spirit, we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in His consolation." The constitution and by­laws of the club were discussed at later meetings. The first order of business was to plan the first Guam Liberation celebration in San Diego. The assignment of chairpersons for the various Liberation committees were made, such as fundraising, entertainment, Queen selection, guest speakers, music, hotel accommodations, master of ceremonies, invitations, dinner menu, and no-host cocktails. At the conclusion of the first meeting, a motion was made to make all of the temporary officers permanent. The meeting ended with a social gathering.

All of the details for the first annual Guam Liberation celebration were worked out and put in place at subsequent meetings of the Sons and Daughters of Guam Club. The meetings rotated from house-to-house of the current members until Joe Flores rented an apartment around 20th and Market Street.  The club also used the Navy facility on Main Street for its annual celebration. As the membership grew this space became too small to hold the meetings. The club members rented a building on 11th Avenue. It was at this time that Adrian Sanchez formed the Master Chef Catering Service in the Guam club building. Several years later, the members of the club negotiated the purchase of the present Guam club on Ozark Street, now known as Willie James Jones Street in San Diego.

The property consisted of a five acre lot with a large house that was used as a home for handicapped children.  The house was formerly owned by the Tokels. One of the greatest triumphs of the Sons and Daughters of Guam Club was the enthronement of the Statue of Our Lady of Camarin in the St. Joseph's Cathedral; the ceremonies were performed by Bishop Maher, Bishop Flores and Bishop Chavez.

The full cooperation of all of the members was rewarding for those involved with the club's beginning. What made the club successful was the dedication of the members. To this day, Joe Flores (in his memory) and Gil Taitano remain grateful.

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the Year, “Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.., And he replied, " Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way!"

I want to dedicate this story of the early years of the Sons & Daughters of Guam Club to Chairperson Lee Ann C. Cruz, and her staff, because they have worked so hard to create the Chamorro Directory.

Forum Failure

$
0
0
Ti hu egga' i Commander and Chief forum gi NBC yan MSNBC pa'go.

Tinane' yu' ni' mamana'na'gue.

Hiningok-hu meggai gi internet put håfa masusedi.

Ti makopbla si Trump. Machanda si Hillary.

Ti nahong i minagahet gi sinangan-ñiha.

Lao, impottante nai na ti ta po'lo na parehu este na dos.

Ti chumilong i hinasson-ñiha. Ti chumilong i minalate'-ñiha.

Buente ti ya-mu i idehå-ña pat i sinangån-ña si Hillary, lao ti puniyon na gaitiningo' gui'.

Lao ai adai si Trump.

Annok na ti meggai, ti nahong i tiningo'-ña put este na asunto siha. Ti listo gui' para u presidente.

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

Clinton: No US Ground Troops in Iraq, Syria; Trump: Steal Iraqi Oil
by Juan Cole
Informed Comment
September 8, 2016

The NBC Candidates Forum continued the shameful corporate coverage of the Great American Meltdown that is our election season. That season has given us a Faux Cable News that runs clips of only one side and pays out hush money to cover up how its blonde anchors were not so much hired as trafficked; a CNN that has hired a paid employee of the candidate as a consultant and analyst; and networks that won’t mention climate change or carbon emissions the same way they won’t mention labor unions. They aren’t even trying to do journalism any more– cable “news” is mostly infotainment as a placeholder between ads for toilet paper. I can’t bear to watch it most of the time and just read the news on the Web. If I have to watch t.v. I turn on local news (often does a better job on national stories too) or Alarabiya and Aljazeera, which for all their faults do actually have real news (and their faults cancel out one another). I can always get the transcript for the cable news shows; reading it is faster and less painful than having to watch.

The NBC Forum didn’t really challenge either candidate on implausible statements, but on the whole engaged in a lot of badgering of Hillary Clinton while letting Donald Trump get away with outright misstatements of the facts and tossing him a lot of softballs.

The big Middle East questions for Clinton came from military personnel and veterans and concerned Iraq and Syria. She also got an Iran question.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, as an Army veteran, a commander-in- chief’s to empathize with servicemembers and their families is important to me. The ability to truly understand implications and consequences of your decisions, actions, or inactions. How will you determine when and where to deploy troops directly into harm’s way, especially to combat ISIS?
LAUER: As briefly as you can.
CLINTON: We have to defeat ISIS. That is my highest counterterrorism goal. And we’ve got to do it with air power. We’ve got to do it with much more support for the Arabs and the Kurds who will fight on the ground against ISIS. We have to squeeze them by continuing to support the Iraqi military. They’ve taken back Ramadi, Fallujah. They’ve got to hold them. They’ve got to now get into Mosul.
We’re going to work to make sure that they have the support — they have special forces, as you know, they have enablers, they have surveillance, intelligence, reconnaissance help.
They are not going to get ground troops. We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we’re not putting ground troops into Syria. We’re going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops. So those are the kinds of decisions we have to make on a case-by-case basis.
So that’s the headline: Hillary Clinton pledges no ground troops in Iraq or Syria. She doesn’t seem to understand that President Obama has recreated the Iraq Command and has 4,000 or so troops there. There are 250 embedded with the far-left Kurdish YPG in northeast Syria. So is she saying she would pull those troops out? Or that they aren’t ground troops?

Plus she started by saying she will defeat ISIL (though it may be already defeated territorially before she ever gets into office). She says she will defeat it from the air and give support to the Iraqi Army.
From the point of view of military strategy, nothing she said makes any sense. You can’t defeat a guerrilla group from the air. So far no force on the ground has been willing to go after ISIL in its Syrian lair, al-Raqqa. How would she change all that?

As for supporting the Iraqi army, it collapsed in 2014 and only one really good brigade has been retrained and shown effectiveness. None of the cities she mentioned it taking would have fallen to it without extensive help from Shiite militias, many of which are tight with Iran. So if she is going to intervene from the air, she is going to have to support pro-Iranian irregulars, not just the Iraqi army.
Nor is it clear that the Iraqi Army and its Shiite auxiliaries can truly defeat Daesh/ ISIL. Yes, they can take territory. But a lot of Sunni Arabs are frustrated with the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad and they are not going to be less frustrated if they feel they have traded Daesh rule for Shiite militia rule.

Iraqi Shiites have a profound blind spot to their own sectarianism, having occupied the space of “the national” in Iraq and claimed it for themselves. They are in denial about how much the Sunni Arabs collaborated with Daesh to get away from Shiite rule. While it is true that many Sunni Arabs were happy to be rescued from Daesh by the Iraqi Army, it is not clear that any of the promises of Baghdad to put money into cities like Ramadi and Fallujah will be honored.

As for Iran, she stood by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that pledges Iran only to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.
“LAUER: Do you think they’re playing us?
CLINTON: On the nuclear issue, no. I think we have enough insight into what they’re doing to be able to say we have to distrust but verify. What I am focused on is all the other malicious activities of the Iranians — ballistic missiles, support for terrorists, being involved in Syria, Yemen, and other places, supporting Hezbollah, Hamas.
But here’s the difference, Matt. I would rather as president be dealing with Iran on all of those issues without having to worry as much about their racing for a nuclear weapon. So we have made the world safer; we just have to make sure it’s enforced.
It is not clear to me what terrorists she thinks Iran is supporting. Hezbollah doesn’t function as a terrorist organization but as the national guard for Shiite-majority south Lebanon. Israel annexed south Lebanon in 1982 after launching a brutal war of aggression that may have left 90,000 dead. Hizbullah grew up as a resistance movement to that aggression and that occupation, both of which the United States government tacitly supported. We all know exactly what Israelis would do if someone tried to occupy 10% of Israel as it is now constituted. So why call Lebanese who resist occupation ‘terrorists’? Except, if you rather like the idea of Israel occupying neighboring Arabs?

As for Hamas, Iran and it haven’t had good relations since Hamas broke with Tehran to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (they bet on the wrong horse). Besides, demonizing Hamas is silly. The Gaza Strip is a large outdoor concentration camp kept that way by the Israelis and the inmates under such conditions are likely to stage prison riots from time to time. End the occupation, Hamas might go away. There wasn’t any Hamas in Gaza to speak of anyway until the Israelis themselves covertly built it up in the 1980s as an alternative to the secular PLO.

The Iranians are not involved in any meaningful way in Yemen, which is beset by internal struggles between the deposed president Ali Abdullah Saleh (an Arab nationalist that Mrs. Clinton used to support) and his vice president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, with the Saudis having come in on the side of the latter (they used to support Saleh). True, Saleh has allied with a Zaidi militia, the Houthis, but Zaidism is a completely different kind of Shiism than in Iran and Iran is not a big player in Yemen. Saudi Arabia, which is indiscriminately bombing civilian infrastructure in Yemen like bridges and hospitals, is the meddling party, not Iran. Over a hundred thousand residents of the capital, Sanaa, demonstrated recently against the Saudis. Not even one was an Iranian.
It is truly scary that this is Clinton’s take on Yemen.

As for Syria, I also criticize Iran for propping up the genocidal al-Assad regime. But the forces backed by the Saudis in conjunction with the US CIA are just as bad; some of them are worse.
And besides, we just decided that she needs pro-Iranian Shiite militias if she is going to have someone to give close air support to in the fight against Daesh.

These talking points on Iran may as well have been written for Clinton jointly by Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman. They bear no resemblance to an American grand strategy that would make sense for American interests.

So I don’t think she has a realistic way of intervening effectively in the Middle East (air power is useless in these kinds of struggles), and I fear she is so biased against Iran that she will end up de facto undermining the JCPOA and thence alienating the only effective set of potential regional allies against Daesh.

She also doesn’t say what she will do when air power fails to defeat Daesh.
As for The Donald, I don’t know if there is a lot of point in analyzing what he says, since he will say the opposite things tomorrow.

On Middle East issues, Trump said:
“President Obama took over, likewise, it was a disaster. It was actually somewhat stable. I don’t think could ever be very stable to where we should have never gone into in the first place.
But he came in. He said when we go out — and he took everybody out. And really, ISIS was formed. This was a terrible decision. And frankly, we never even got a shot. And if you really look at the aftermath of Iraq, Iran is going to be taking over Iraq. They’ve been doing it. And it’s not a pretty picture.
The — and I think you know — because you’ve been watching me I think for a long time — I’ve always said, shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil. If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil.
LAUER: How were we going to take the oil? How were we going to do that?
TRUMP: Just we would leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. They have — people don’t know this about Iraq, but they have among the largest oil reserves in the world, in the entire world.”
Iraq was not stable in 2011; it was being regularly blown up by terrorists. Obama’s withdrawal of US troops did not destabilize it. That had already happened. There was no way for US troops to stay there since the Iraqi parliament would not vote them immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Trump’s ridiculous suggestion that the US should have found a way to steal Iraq’s petroleum, apparently by establishing a mercenary force at the Rumayla fields near Basra, is so preposterous that even Matt Lauer timidly and briefly questioned it.

The proposition that if the US had in fact managed to steal Iraq’s petroleum fields for itself that would have calmed the country down and prevented the rise of ISIL is so absurd that there are no words to describe how absurd it is. It is actually more absurd than any of Sarah Palin’s word salads.
It is like a presidential candidate saying that we’d have much better relations with Norway, and that country would be more stable, if the United States hired local mercenaries to occupy its oil fields and siphon of their profits to US banks. (Sounds properly absurd when you put it in the context of white people, doesn’t it?)

Then there was this:
“TRUMP: Hey, Matt, again, she made a mistake on Libya. She made a terrible mistake on Libya. And the next thing, I mean, not only did she make the mistake, but then they complicated the mistake by having no management once they bombed you know what out of Gadhafi. I mean, she made a terrible mistake on Libya. And part of it was the management aftereffect. I think that we have great management talents, great management skills. “
Trump supported the Libyan intervention at the time. In fact, he was outraged before the intervention that there hadn’t been one according to Politifact:
“”I can’t believe what our country is doing,” Trump said, according to a BuzzFeed transcript. “Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around we have soldiers all have the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage and that’s what it is: It’s a carnage.”
Matt Laurer didn’t challenge any of Trump’s lies about his past positions, and his journalistic reputation suffered badly for it last night.

Trump also said that Russia wants to defeat Daesh/ ISIL as badly as the US does and there should be more cooperation between the two. But in fact, Daesh doesn’t pose that big a danger to the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, since it is out in the eastern desert. So Russia is not in fact that interested in it, since it is in Syria to prop up al-Assad. Russia wants to destroy the Syrian Army of Conquest or Nusra Front, the leader of which is an al-Qaeda operative. The US complains that the fundamentalist militias vetted by the CIA are cooperating too closely with al-Qaeda for it to be possible to separate the two out in bombing raids. Actually I’d say that if the militias you support are so intertwined with al-Qaeda that they’d get hit if al-Qaeda was bombed, then you haven’t done a very good job of vetting.

Then Trump went on to heap praise on Vladimir Putin and to call him a better leader than President Obama. He kept saying Putin had called Trump “brilliant,” which he didn’t (not sure if praise from an old KGB operator is high praise or just manipulative).

Lauer was criticized for letting Trump get away without answering any substantial questions about his Middle East policy.

It was a low, wretched performance, by the network and both candidates, full of fluff and posturing and Alice in Wonderland statements of policy along with an almost complete derogation of authority by the anchors. It marked a low point in our national discourse about world politics.
Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. His new book, The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation Is Changing the Middle East (Simon and Schuster), will officially be published July 1st. He is also the author of Engaging the Muslim World and Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East (both Palgrave Macmillan). He has appeared widely on television, radio and on op-ed pages as a commentator on Middle East affairs, and has a regular column at Salon.com. He has written, edited, or translated 14 books and has authored 60 journal articles. His weblog on the contemporary Middle East is Informed Comment.

Cruz Kontra Calvo Put Salape'

$
0
0
Some recent articles about budgets and bills and the yinaoyao between the Legislature, most notably Senator BJ Cruz and Governor Eddie Calvo and his team at Adelup. Ti menhalom yu' put este na asunto siha, pues tåya' otro sinangån-hu. Taitai este siha, ya hagu un diside håyi gaitinina yan håyi mambebende dinagi.

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

September 10, 2016
The Honorable Edward J.B. Calvo
Governor of Guam
Ricardo J. Bordallo Governor’s Complex
Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Re: Response to Lapse Message on Substitute Bill No. 250-33 (COR)

Dear Governor Calvo:

Håfa adai! On September 1, 2016, I delivered a letter to you relative to the concerns you identified regarding Substitute Bill No. 250-33 (SB250), now the Annual Appropriations Act of FY 2017. I had hoped my clarifications would have prompted you to direct your fiscal team to reconsider its initial findings on SB250. Unfortunately, based on your lapse message to Speaker Judith T. Won Pat, you have disregarded the facts raised in my letter. Instead, you remain committed to a misguided temper-tantrum against the overwhelming bipartisan majority of senators who crafted the budget, which is now law.

Put simply Governor, fourteen senators built a budget that made sense because you transmitted a budget that made things up. As I have said before, the General Fund revenues you provided to the Committee on Appropriations and Adjudication (Committee) were inflated, overly aggressive, reckless, and irresponsible.

As such—and for the second consecutive fiscal year—both the Committee and the Office of Finance and Budget (OFB) worked diligently to correct General Fund Revenue Projections to a more conservative level. Because of this work, your General Fund revenues (which presumed a 10.7% increase in the General Fund as compared to FY 2016’s adopted levels) were reduced by $55 million.
Notwithstanding this reduction in General Fund revenues, there continues to be $18 million more appropriated from General Fund revenues in SB250 than in Public Law 33-66 (Annual Appropriations Act of FY 2016).

In light of the glaring contradictions and misunderstandings perpetuated by your fiscal team, I will take the time here to address every “concern” raised in your recent letter to the Speaker:

SAFETY

1. Department of Corrections (DOC): You claim that there is a $2.8 million shortfall for the DOC-Guam Memorial Hospital Authority consolidated cooperative agreement.

Fact: Section 1(n)(3), Chapter V of SB250 allocates $1.1 million toward this agreement. This is the same figure provided in DOC’s FY2017 detailed budget request. This request was certified by the Bureau of Budget and Management Research (BBMR) and provided to the Committee.

2. Guam Police Department (GPD) and Guam Fire Department (GFD): You claim that there was a $3.7 million cut from GPD which would have gone to hiring more police officers, promoting officers, and covering anticipated overtime and utilities. You also claim that there was a $1.8 million shortfall for GFD that would have gone to hiring vacant positions.

Fact: I would like to direct you to the OFB Website at ofbguam.org, which can provide you and your fiscal team with comparative appropriation levels from FYs 2015 to 2017. There you will discover that GPD and GFD have consistently received an increase in appropriation levels over the past three (3) fiscal years.

Over the past two (2) fiscal years, the Guam Legislature has appropriated to, and prioritized the recruitment and hiring of, additional public safety officers for DOC, GPD, and the GFD, providing nearly $9.5 million ($6.2 million in FY 2015 and $3.3 million in FY 2016). You have not utilized this funding source to the full benefit of our people.

In the original version of SB250, the Committee wanted to truly prioritize funding to DOC, GPD, and GFD by restricting your ability to both transfer funds out of and reserve spending authority from these agencies. Yet, at the request of certain senior Adelup officials, an amendment was made to delete the transfer authority restriction—providing you with the authority to take money from agencies you say are so shortchanged.

HEALTH

1. Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center (GBHWC): You claim that there was no funding for the GBHWC Drug & Alcohol Prevention and the Focus on Life Suicide Prevention Programs.
Fact: Sections 2 and 3, Part III, Chapter III of SB250 clearly allocate funding in the amount of $1.57 million and $86,000 to these programs, respectively.

2. Retirees Medical, Dental, and Life Insurance Premiums: You haphazardly claim that there is a $4 million shortfall in Retiree MDL Insurance Premiums.

Fact: Both you and Lieutenant Governor Tenorio were completely aware of the appropriation level in SB250 prior to the signing of the FY 2017 Health Insurance Contract. In that contract, Lieutenant Governor Tenorio selected a non-exclusive contract and that “choice” will now cost the taxpayers of Guam $21.6 million more than the alternative. I will admit: it takes a lot of brass to blame me for a shortfall your administration has chosen to create.

I should not have to remind you that, as of the end of FY 2015, the government of Guam is facing a $120 million General Fund deficit because of what the Public Auditor has called “overspending.”
The memo sent to you by the Health Insurance Negotiations Committee states, that with the selection of an exclusive health insurance carrier—in other words, one (1) carrier which was TakeCare Insurance—the government of Guam would have saved $20 million. Yet, despite this information, Lieutenant Governor Tenorio still decided to choose the non-exclusive option which included Calvo’s SelectCare, Netcare, and TakeCare Insurance at a $1.6 million increase over what was spent in 2016.
Governor Calvo, it is decisions like these that make so many people wonder how you can continue to complain about shortfalls when your administration has had such a large hand in creating them.

Your administration had the opportunity to save $21.6 million, money that could have met any of the alleged shortfalls you are now lamenting. How many policemen could $21 million support? How many lifesaving pharmaceuticals could it buy? Your administration had all of the information and the power to save millions, and it said “no.” Sadly, the consequences of that poor decision will not belong to you alone.

3. Residential Treatment Fund (RTF): You claim that the RTF appropriation is short by $1.6 million.
Fact: As I explained to you in my previous letter, this was the exact same amount that you requested in your Executive Budget Request for FY17.

4. Department of Public Health and Social Services (DPHSS): You claim that DPHSS was cut by $2.6 million, of which $2 million is from the Medically Indigent Program (MIP) and $600,000 is from the Medicaid local match program.

Fact: For MIP, the amount of $15.8 million appropriated in Section 2(a) and $1 million in Section 2(b), Part II, Chapter III of SB250 was more than what was requested in the DPHSS detailed budget requests as certified by BBMR. It was only after the DPHSS Budget Hearing that its Director provided a correction to the BBMR’s certified DPHSS detailed budget request, wherein $15.8 million was requested for MIP.

For Medicaid, $14.3 million was requested by you and appropriated by the Guam Legislature in Section 3, Part II, Chapter III of SB250.

In FYs 2014 and 2015, you transferred a total of over $3 million from both DPHSS and GBHWC to other agencies. If you continue to believe that there are any shortfalls in DPHSS or GBHWC, it would be prudent for you to discontinue your practice of taking funds from these agencies and actually provide them every single cent the Guam Legislature had appropriated.

EDUCATION

Guam Department of Education (GDOE): You claim that $11.5 million was cut from the GDOE that would have helped pay for personnel, utilities, and operating expenses as well as $2 million for the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Program.

Fact: The total GDOE appropriation was increased by over $3 million compared to FY16. What concerns me are how highly disingenuous your actions are regarding our three (3) education agencies this fiscal year. You continue to withhold nearly $10 million from the GDOE, $20 million from the University of Guam, and $10 million from the Guam Community College. You claim that we shortchanged education on spending authority, but you won’t release cash for the spending authority they already have.

Instead of the division, scare tactics, and temper-tantrums to which the Administration now seems accustomed, I hope that with the enactment of SB250 you can truly prioritize Education, Health, and Public Safety in a manner commensurate with the tone of your recent message.

Si Yu’os ma’åse’,

Benjamin J.F. Cruz

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

Cruz slashes $55 million from Calvo's budget
by Robert Tupaz
Guam Daily Post
August 18, 2016

Before the budget battle even began, the administration yesterday sent out its initial reaction expressing concern with a $55 million cut from the governor’s 2017 fiscal year budget appropriations request.

Lawmakers convened at 9 a.m. yesterday morning to begin fiscal year 2017 budget hearings, but recessed before discussing a substitute version of the budget so that lawmakers could review the new proposal versus the one proposed by Gov. Eddie Calvo in February. Lawmakers are scheduled to reconvene today at 9 a.m.

Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz, legislative appropriations chairman, on Tuesday said he cut, capped and balanced the budget. He introduced a substitute version yesterday in Bill 255-33. Cruz explained that the substitute budget “responsibly cuts $55 million in newly proposed spending without jeopardizing current operations, lowers the ‘cap’ on GovGuam’s debt ceiling, and commits to a balanced budget based on conservative revenue estimates and expenditures.”

Thus, instead of utilizing a projected $736.4 million that the administration pegged would be derived from the general fund, Cruz provided $681.2 million for government operations. Cruz in his Tuesday statement said, “conservatism is necessary.”

“In response, the governor’s office expressed several concerns. Among the most glaring, said the administration, is what they view as an “abdication of responsibility in the actual creation of the budget.”

In a statement from Adelup, Gov. Eddie Calvo expressed five areas of immediate concern.

“The Legislature’s duty is to appropriate funds to agencies and offices to support the functions of the government and the services provided to the people of Guam,” Calvo said. “This substitute bill is a stack of papers with a bunch of numbers, and with it the Legislature is essentially telling me and my administration to find the money for essential services without a valid revenue source.”

In a bulleted statement, the administration contended the substitute budget:

• Cuts about $60 million in General Fund revenues and increases or adds Special Fund Revenues (i.e. Section 2718 Funds), which are phantom revenues.

• A $60 million cut of departments’ budget will trigger draconian measures to include furloughs of current staff.

• Despite being advised of the current appropriation shortfall for retirees' medical, dental and life insurance, nothing has been done to fully fund such need. An additional $10 million is needed.
• The vice speaker continues to insist Section 2718 Funds (health insurance reimbursements) be used as fund source, but history shows that GovGuam rarely receives a reimbursement because it is not overpaying. $5 million was appropriated from this fund for retirees' medical, dental and life insurance.

• Inadequate appropriations and expanding the governor’s budget authority does NOT make a budget.
Cruz, alluding to an audited deficit of $120 million from the past two fiscal years, said he wouldn’t put forward a budget bill full of false expectations.

“Any budget that plans to spend more money than we can actually collect makes a promise we can’t keep, and I think we all have had enough of that,” Cruz said.

In the committee report on Bill 250-33, Cruz noted that the committee on appropriations was “at a crossroad.” The report stated that on one hand, Calvo’s fiscal team maintained a bullish outlook on the economy with projections based on “aggressive assumptions.” On the other hand, the report noted that though optimistic, “eminent economists on island … foresee moderate growth for the upcoming fiscal year.”

Cruz reasoned that any shortfall in anticipated revenue will add to an audited $120 million cumulative deficit dating back two fiscal years. Cruz said the appropriations committee thereby “invokes the accounting principle of conservatism.”

The budget proposed by Cruz sets the following for the executive branch: line agencies, $389.7 million; semi-autonomous agencies, $337.16 million; debt service, $79.3 million; and miscellaneous expenditures, $55.5 million.

The legislative branch will be appropriated $8.97 million and the judicial branch $34.3 million.

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

 Guam Governor Raises Concerns Over Fiscal 2017 Budget
9/1/16
Radio New Zealand International

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (Radio New Zealand International, September 1, 2016) – Displeased with the fiscal 2017 budget act lawmakers passed earlier this week, Gov. Eddie Calvo said the Legislature failed to adequately appropriate funds to necessary services, such as government of Guam retirees' health insurance premiums.

In a 14-1 decision, the legislative body on Monday passed the annual spending bill, which cut spending and lowered revenue projections by about $55 million. Calvo said such savings come at a cost to GovGuam retirees and the Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center.

“We all want to save money, but we also have a responsibility to fulfill,” Calvo said in a press release. “And this budget bill falls short of providing for those services. That’s just the beginning of what my team has found so far.”

Sen. Mike San Nicolas, D-Dededo, opposed the bill, saying it did not do enough to ensure the speedy payment of tax refunds.

Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz, D-Piti, whose finance committee worked on the bill, reduced spending levels to create a balanced and conservative budget without adding to the local government’s $120 million deficit, according to lawmakers. Anticipated revenue levels were also lowered because the governor’s fiscal team had overprojected certain revenue collections, according to lawmakers.

Adelup noted the government’s current shortfall of about $13.8 million for this fiscal year’s Retiree Medical, Dental and Life Insurance plan. The administration criticized the Legislature in the press release, stating the governor’s office brought the shortfall to lawmakers’ attention months ago, “but nothing has been done.”

The current fiscal year budget appropriated a total of $24.2 million for such costs.

When the governor submitted his budget request to the Legislature earlier this year, he had set the retirees’ health care appropriation at $34.86 million, but that appropriation level was reduced in the Legislature’s final version of the fiscal 2017 budget bill to $24.86 million.

Oyaol Ngirairikl, Adelup’s communications director, said the issue is that the retiree health insurance plan is a contractual obligation that needs to get paid, regardless of whether the Legislature adequately funds it or not.

“When you have the shortfall, then the governor has to use his transfer authority to pay for this,” she said.

Another example the governor’s office noted was the appropriation to the Department of Administration for the residential treatment fund. The treatment fund pays for the residential care of individuals under the Superior Court’s jurisdiction who have physical, mental or emotional disabilities.

The treatment fund is set to receive an appropriation of $1.6 million, however, Health and Wellness directors told lawmakers that there are more clients to take care of and is expected to cost $3.2 million.

The current budget bill increased funding to several agencies, including the public safety entities like the Guam Police Department and Guam Fire Department.

When asked if the governor would be on board with lawmakers re-appropriating funding from other GovGuam agencies like GPD and GFD to pay for the retirees’ health insurance plan, Troy Torres, Adelup’s policy advisor, said the Legislature would be well within their right to do so as it comes down to priority spending.

Torres, however, continued to state that the administration’s response to such an action would questions Cruz’s decision “to arbitrarily reduce revenue projections.”

For the last two budgets, Cruz has lowered the revenue projections Calvo and his financial team have submitted to the Legislature in the annual executive budget request. Cruz has stated that Calvo’s financial team has overprojected revenue in areas such as business privilege taxes.

For the current fiscal year, Calvo’s budget request had General Fund revenue projected at $848.6 million, but Cruz lowered it to $825 million. The administration’s latest budget report for July states General Fund revenue is tracking at $827.5 million — $21.1 million short of what the Calvo administration projected.

The government first ended fiscal 2014 with a $60 million deficit, and it was announced earlier this summer that that deficit doubled at the end of fiscal 2015. DOA Director Christine Baleto told lawmakers that the deficit was the result expenditures the government is obligated to pay for as well as a $10 million shortage in revenue.

Public Auditor Doris Flores Brooks further explained that the government’s spending has been outpacing its revenue.

The governor blamed the Legislature for the $120 million deficit GovGuam is currently in, stating that lawmakers have shortchanged government agencies their necessary budgets to operate.

“In these last few months, the vice speaker has criticized the administration for having a deficit,” Calvo said in the release. “Yet, it is precisely this type of legislative financial wizardry that got us into a deficit; they are once again making false and empty promises because they didn’t appropriate from viable fund sources.”

When lawmakers passed the fiscal 2014 budget act, Calvo chastised the Legislature by calling the spending bill “the worst exercise of political gamesmanship over the pst two years.”

“It is so painfully obvious some senators had just one thought in mind: ‘Where can the Legislature appropriated all this money for the greatest number of votes?’”

However, upon signing the fiscal 2015 budget, Calvo stated “for the fourth year in a row, GovGuam has passed a budget that reflects the priorities of our community,” going on to note that they had increased funding to public schools, health care services and public safety. He also said that “for the most part” the Legislature used the administration’s revenue projections.”

Ngirairikl said that although the governor supported the fiscal 2015 bill at the time, what Calvo is stating now is that the Legislature then and now have failed to appropriate for certain services that need an adequate appropriation level.

Radio New Zealand International
Copyright © 2016 RNZI. All Rights Reserved

NASAA 2016

$
0
0
Gaige yu' giya Grand Rapids, Michigan gi este na simåna para i kada såkkan na konferensia para i NASAA (National Assembly of State Arts Agencies). Gof umachågo' iya Guahan yan iya Michigan. Siña este i uttimo na sakkån-hu gi CAHA, nai sumesetbe yu' komo membron board desde 2011. Gi este na konferensia mandanña' membro ginen i arts council gi diferentes na states pat territories, ya ma diskuti hafa guaguaha put prugraman art siha gi i bånda Federåt. Ma diskuti lokkue' diferentes na strategies put i prublema yan chinanada siha i arts councils ma fafana' på'go.

Two Letters to the Editor about Decolonization

$
0
0
Two letters to the editor on recent and not so recent activities related to Guam's decolonization.

For those who don't know, there are three political status options that are outlined per local and international law for Guam's future, integration (statehood), free association and independence. Each of these status has a task force that is mandated to educate the community about their status. These task forces are volunteer and have always been, although public law does indicate that the Commission on Decolonization is supposed to provide funding and support for their outreach.

But there is little written into the law about the structure of these task forces or details about their obligations. They are supposed to have a certain amount of members and they each have a chairperson who gets to serve and vote on the Commission itself, but other than that, they are amorphous and nebulous non-governmental organizations. The business of government usually moves slowly, unless there are electoral concerns that indicate a need to move more swiftly. When the Commonwealth movement died in the late 1990s, our political leaders tried to keep the movement for decolonization formalized and alive by housing it and placing responsibility over it in particular government agencies or entities, such as the Guam Election Commission and the Commission on Decolonization. But as interest at the executive level of government faded or the process become too complicated, things ground to a halt. If things move slowly when people are receiving a salary in order to maintain or advocate something, you can imagine what might happen to those whose role was based purely on passion and volunteerism. These task forces became largely inactive mirroring the inactivity of the government itself. Individuals on the task forces kept up their advocacy in their own way, but as groups, the task forces stopped engaging the public in educational outreach.

Under the current governor, little happened during Calvo's first term for the reasons we found in the previous two administrations. No money was provided for outreach, the Commission on Decolonization was not given enough autonomy or authority to work effectively. The governor and his team were not informed enough about the issue and had no workable plans or strategies in order conduct outreach effectively. In Calvo's second term however there has been a shift, a sometimes inconsistent shift, but still a promising one. Working with the Legislature he provided funding for the Commission and for the task forces. The Commission has become more active, even if appears to be more dysfunctional than anything at times.

But over the past year, only the Independence for Guahan Task Force has been making use of this shift and the money that has been provided. It has been a difficult process, as we are a volunteer organization that has to follow the laborious and sometime soul-draining government procurement process, lao para bei in singon ha'. We've been having meetings and undertaking social media campaigns to help get the word out and so far we've been fairly effective at promoting both decolonization in general and independence in particular to the island community.

The other two task forces, Free Association and Statehood have yet to spend their money or really even try. In our last Commission on Decolonization meeting the statehood task force surprised everyone present by insisting that they wouldn't do any education unless a date for the plebiscite had been set. They insisted they didn't have to do any education since they had reached out to people more than a decade and a half ago, and that they were certain that everyone still remembered they information they had disseminated back then. As their task force chair Eddie Duenas noted, without a date for a plebiscite, any activity to educate people on this issue would just be spinning our wheels. The Independence for Guahan Task Force challenged that idea and said that education is always important and is the key to empowerment, regardless of whether the purpose has been completely clarified.

A co-chair to the Statehood for Guam Task Force wrote a letter to the Guam Daily Post, in which he misrepresented so many things, including what happened at the most recent Commission on Decolonization meeting. Ray Lujan, a UOG student who attended the Independence for Guahan's last general meeting in August wrote a response. Both are included below.

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

Not Ready to Decide
by Ray Lujan
Letter to the Editor
Guam Daily Post
9/12/16

I am writing this letter in response to the statements by Mr. Eloy Hara on Sept. 3 in this newspaper. He represents the Statehood Task Force with the Commission on Decolonization. While I wholeheartedly respect and appreciate the historical reference to the work of the commission as offered in the letter, I think it’s equally important to point out that there indeed is a need for more in-depth education outreach from all three task forces and from the commission.

As Mr. Hara points out, each task force began conducting its outreach in 1989 – well before I was born. But now that I’m an adult, I think it’s fair for me to ask for updated information and re-energized conversations devoted to this issue. Although I was a little more hopeful with Gov. Calvo’s initial claims that his administration would actually address self-determination more seriously, the most helpful information I’ve received has come from the Independence Task Force.

I began taking special interest in this very important matter a couple of years ago. Since then, I have involved myself with the decolonization commission’s joint projects with the University of Guam. I was a student of Dr. Carlyle Corbin in a special topic area class titled "Democratic Governance in Non-self-governing Island Territories" and I have recently been in attendance at the Independence Task Force’s public meetings and forums. Even then, I, along with many others, feel the need for more research on the process as well as the implications all three statuses have for Guahan. After the most recent decolonization forum at the university, which hosted keynote speakers from Guahan and a journalist covering the process in New Caledonia, many left with more questions than they had answers. The questions posed to the keynote speakers from the audience, which consisted mostly of young adults, illustrated just how little is known among members of my generation about the process of political self- determination.

Much has changed since the position papers were produced by the three task forces over 15 years ago. We are realizing more and more how our current non-self-governing status has proven to be of grave consequence to our way of life. The cost of living continues to increase, and our natural resources are quickly being squandered away for military and foreign commercial interests. Like others, I have many questions that I feel should be addressed by the task forces.

Although I have yet to make up my mind, I applaud the work of the Independence Task Force and their team for putting out the information they have shared. They have offered comparative analyses, they have invited other people who have experienced independence in their own countries to share with us, and they have asked for input from the community to be able to develop a more balanced outreach. This grassroots approach seeks to hear the issues and concerns from the people, myself included, in the hope of potentially providing answers. In addition, their monthly general meetings serve to inform those in attendance about a different component of the process. Even with its limited resources, this one task force has managed to organize very well thought-out events and meetings for those of us who aren’t old enough to have been involved since 1989.

I feel there is a moral and ethical obligation to educate the younger generation and to provide the knowledge necessary so they can make an informed and competent decision about the island’s political future. We, too, will live with what those eligible to vote decide for the future of our island. Our voices matter in this process and we are saying we need more information and time.

I hope to see more of this type of work from all three task forces as well as from the commission.

Until I do, I agree with the commission’s decision to delay the plebiscite.

I absolutely agree with anyone who says that our community is not ready for this plebiscite until each of the three task forces has exhausted all means necessary to fully engage our people in widespread discussion of the benefits and the consequences of each status. Our people must not be too hasty in making this decision until we understand what each status could mean for us – regardless of how Congress could potentially respond.

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


Decolonization As I See It
Letter to the Editor of the Guam Daily Post
From Eloy Hara
September 3, 2016

After I read the Aug. 24 article on page 8 of The Guam Daily Post, titled “Independence Task Force Faults Calvo for Plebiscite Delay,” I became very upset! Again Gov. Calvo is being blamed for what the Independence Task Force created by their continued insistence to the commission that they and the people of Guam are “not ready.”

In 1989, Gov. Joseph F. Ada appointed former Sen. Edward R. Duenas and myself as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, for the Statehood Task Force. Regularly scheduled meetings were held and the three task forces - statehood, independence and free association - were tasked to research their respective statuses on how to proceed with the plebiscite. They must point out the various “pros & cons” and start an educational process on the plebiscite with “Eligible Guam Voters.”

A few months ago, Gov. Calvo went to the Guam Election Commission and Registered the Decolonization Commission for the November General Election Plebiscite. For that bold move, he was chastised by the Decolonization Commission and the Independence Task Force for taking things into his own hands. However, that move sparked things up and attendance at meetings was revitalized with strong forward movement until the Independence Task Force stalled the progress again.
At that time, I decided to start attending decolonization meetings again. I have not attended any since Gov. Calvo started the meetings knowing that it would have been a complete waste of my time. The Decolonization Commission had been going around in circles and continues to do so, thanks to the new Independence Task Force co-chairpersons.

Move to delay plebiscite

During the very first meeting I attended, it was obvious who was actually running the meetings. Some of the Decolonization Commission members, at the insistence of the Independence Task Force, moved that the plebiscite be delayed yet again until sometime in the future because they were not ready for the November election. Mr. Joe Garrido of the Free Association Task Force objected and stated that he was ready and would not be able to continue if there is further delay and even offered to give the $80,000 of his education money to the Independence Task Force. Sen. Edward Duenas and I objected and stated that we have been ready and have in fact already completed a full round of educating the island community until such time that Gov. Gutierrez cancelled the whole process during his administration.

Sometime in 1997, Sen. Hope Cristobal established by local law the Guam Decolonization Commission to research the three terminal status options (statehood, independence and free association) as endorsed by the United Nations. In 2000, the Decolonization Plebiscite was scheduled to be held in conjunction with the 2000 general election. However a separate voter registration was required for the plebiscite and adequate public education on the three options and funding were lacking, thus postponing the plebiscite, which has languished since then.

Encountering one obstacle after another, here we go again! This process for granting Guam a permanent civil government, which was signed by 30 Chamorro leaders, has been going on since 1901.

Here we are some 115 years later still going around in circles that we must first educate everyone in Guam. If the law had intended that “all” the people of Guam should be educated, the separate voter registration would not have been necessary. Since my first day of participating in the Decolonization Commission meetings, the three task forces understanding are for us to research and educate the “eligible” plebiscite voters only. The bottleneck issue regarding the “70-percent need” should never have been an issue at all. The way I see this issue is simple: Have the Legislature repeal this law.

Obstacles at every meeting

Another obstacle that recently surfaced is the new co-chairs of the Independence Task Force dominated all of the conversations at every meeting. They talked whenever they desire, never following any parliamentary procedures by raising their hands and waiting for the chairperson’s recognition. When we, the statehood chair and vice chair, raise our hands we don’t get recognized. Even our objections to postponing the plebiscite were not recognized, right along with the free association chairman’s objection.

The Statehood and Free Association Task Forces never agreed that the governor’s Troy Torres head the educational process. The educational process has always been the respective task forces' job and facilitated by the Decolonization Commission. Both the Free Association and Statehood Task Forces suggest that we not waste time and money to continue the education process until within one year of a scheduled plebiscite. We further recommend that the next plebiscite be held the very next gubernatorial election on November 2018.

My personal contact is 688-0504 for those that may desire to question me.

September General Assembly Meeting

Democracy Now! and the North Dakota Pipeline

$
0
0
Democracy Now! is doing some great coverage of the protests over the North Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota. Here are some interviews and a column from Amy Goodman after a warrant was put out for her arrest in response to her coverage. If you are able, please consider donating in order to support their continuing efforts.

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

Native American Activist Winona LaDuke at Standing Rock: It's Time to Move On from Fossil Fuels
September 12, 2016
Democracy Now!

While Democracy Now! was covering the Standing Rock standoff earlier this month, we spoke to Winona LaDuke, longtime Native American activist and executive director of the group Honor the Earth. She lives and works on the White Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota. She spent years successfully fighting the Sandpiper pipeline, a pipeline similar to Dakota Access. We met her right outside the Red Warrior Camp, where she has set up her tipi. Red Warrior is one of the encampments where thousands of Native Americans representing hundreds of tribes from across the U.S. and Canada are currently resisting the pipeline’s construction.

AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. While Democracy Now! was covering the standoff at Standing Rock earlier this month, on Labor Day weekend, we spoke to Winona LaDuke, longtime Native American activist, executive director of the group Honor the Earth. She lives and works on the White Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota. She spent years successfully fighting a pipeline similar to Dakota Access, the Sandpiper pipeline. We met her right outside the Red Warrior Camp, where she has set up her tipi. Red Warrior is one of the encampments where thousands of Native Americans, representing hundreds of tribes from across the U.S. and Canada, are currently resisting the pipeline’s construction. Her tipi is painted with animals that are threatened by climate change. We began by asking Winona LaDuke why communities are now protesting the pipeline.
WINONALADUKE: It’s time to end the fossil fuel infrastructure. I mean, these people on this reservation, they don’t have adequate infrastructure for their houses. They don’t have adequate energy infrastructure. They don’t have adequate highway infrastructure. And yet they’re looking at a $3.9 billion pipeline that will not help them. It will only help oil companies. And so that’s why we’re here. You know, we’re here to protect this land.
AMYGOODMAN: Explain what happened to the Sandpiper pipeline, the one that you protested, the one that you opposed.
WINONALADUKE: What we opposed, yeah. So, for four years, the Enbridge company said that they absolutely needed a pipeline that would go from Clearbrook, Minnesota, to Superior, Wisconsin. That was the critical and only possible route. They proposed a brand-new route that would go through the heart of our best wild rice lakes and territory, skirting the reservations, but within our treaty territory. They did not consult with us, and they made some serious errors in their process. They underestimated what was going to happen there.
And so, for four years, we battled them in the Minnesota regulatory process, which is a process which is more advanced and slightly more functional than North Dakota’s regulatory process, which, from what I can see, is largely nonexistent. And in that process, we attended every hearing. We intervened legally. We rode our horses against the current of the oil. We had ceremonies. And they cancelled the pipeline. That’s what they did, after four years’ very, very ardent opposition by Minnesota citizens, tribal governments, tribal people, you know, on that line.
And that pipeline, you know, big problem—we still have six pipelines in northern Minnesota to go to Superior, the furthest-inland port. But their new proposals are not going to happen there. Enbridge has said that they still want to continue with their proposals for line three. The first pipeline they want, they want to abandon. The beginning of a whole new set of problems in North America, the abandoning of 50-year-old pipelines, with no regulatory clarity as to who is responsible. And so we are opposing them on that, that they cannot abandon, and they cannot—they still cannot get a new route.
But when they announced that, you know, in my area, I could have said, "Hey, good luck, y’all. We beat it here. Good luck." You know? But, no, we said we’re going to follow them out here, too, because we believe that—you know, we could spend our lives fighting one pipeline after another after another, but someone needs to challenge the problem and say, "This is not the way to go, America. This is not the way to go for any of us." So, we came out here to support these people.
AMYGOODMAN: So talk about everyone who’s out here.
WINONALADUKE: There are a lot of people out here, you know? It’s very funny, because I feel like I’ve been like the Standing Rock switchboard, the travel guide, for the past two weeks. You know, everybody hits me up on Facebook, calls me up: "Hey, LaDuke, I want to bring out this. I got some winter coats. You know, what should I do?" I was like, "Oh, my gosh!" You know?
So, a lot of people are coming here, united. You know, so what I know is out here is like—you know, I go walk in here, and I’ve seen people from the—you know, from Wounded Knee in 1973. I’ve seen people I worked with in opposing uranium mining in the Black Hills in the 1970s and '80s, you know, out here. I mean, I've been at this a while. You know, it’s like Old Home Week out here. I’ve seen people from Oklahoma that opposed the Keystone XL pipeline, and Nebraska. And I’ve seen people from, you know, out in our territory that are opposing the pipelines here. The tribal chairman of Fond du Lac is here, and, you know, a whole host of Native and non-Native people. And there are a lot of people that just do not believe that this should happen anymore in this country, that are very willing to put themselves on the line, non-Indian people, you know, as well as tribal members, and they are here. And it is a beautiful place to defend.
AMYGOODMAN: For people who are watching in New York and Louisiana, in California and India, China and South Africa, why does this matter to them?
WINONALADUKE: This matters because it’s time to move on from fossil fuels. You know, this is the same battle that they have everywhere else. You know, each day or each week, there’s some new leak, there’s some new catastrophe in the fossil fuel industry, as well as the ongoing and growing catastrophe of climate change. The fact that there is no rain in Syria has directly to do with these fossil fuel companies. You know, all of the catastrophes that are happening elsewhere in the world has to do with the fact that North America is retooling its infrastructure and going after the dirtiest oil in the world—the tar sands oil and the oil out of North Dakota, the fracked oil—rather than—you know, they were working with Venezuela’s—it also has to do with crushing Venezuela, because Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. And rather than do business with Venezuela, they were bound and determined to take oil from places that did not want to give it up, and create this filthy infrastructure. So, this carbon—this oil is very heavy in carbon and will add hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 to the environment, if these pipelines are allowed through. So, that is—you know, it affects everybody.
AMYGOODMAN: Now, some tribes are for the pipeline. Can you describe the division?
WINONALADUKE: You know, I don’t know that I would say some tribes are for it. I would say some interests in Indian country have been for the pipeline. I mean, historically, the Three Affiliated Tribes is an oil-producing tribe, but they came down here to support the opposition to the pipeline. They came down there. Their whole tribal council came down here a couple of days ago. You know, but the fact is, is that, you know, some tribes have been forced into production of fossil fuels. Eighty-five percent of the Navajo economy, for instance, is fossil fuel-based. About the same percentage of the Fort Berthold economy is fossil fuel-based.
So, you know, just to give a little historic picture: You come out here with your smallpox, and you wipe out 95 percent of the people, the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara people, in the early 1800s. They live along these villages, you know, just trying to hang in there. Then you come out here, and you flood their lands. And the agricultural crops that they produced are now owned by Monsanto and Syngenta as trademarked varieties that they created. Right? And then you’re out here in North Dakota, and everybody in the country flies over North Dakota and looks down and says, "Well, that’s North Dakota." Nobody comes out here. And so stuff continues out here for a hundred years, where these people are treated like third-class citizens, you know, where they have no running water in their houses, and they have oil companies coming out here. And you have high rates of abuse and violence against women and children, and it accelerates and increases in the oil fields, until you have an epidemic of drugs, which now hits this community. This community doesn’t get any benefit from oil, but the meth and heroin that came out of those fields is here, you know? Because those dealers came up here, and then they saw these Indian people, and they said, "Well, we’ll just go there." And so these reservations are full of it. You know? And then you say, you know, to that tribe up there, the BIA cuts some backyard deals and starts oil extraction. And so, then you—
AMYGOODMAN: The Bureau of Indian Affairs.
WINONALADUKE: Bureau of Indian Affairs. And then you end up with oil—you end up with haves and have-nots in the oil fields. And you end up with a tribe that now has oil revenues that are coming in. And they look out there, frankly, and they say, "You know? Things haven’t been going too well for us, so we’re going to sign a few more of these leases, because, after all, you know, nothing has ever worked out well for us. And so, we’re going to get a little bit of money." And that’s how you get—you know, you force people into that, with a gun to their head, and then they end up destroying their land, you know, which is what is happening up there on that reservation. And they’ve had huge investigations into corruption at the leadership. But, you know, you force poor people. You force people into that situation, and that’s a perfect storm.
AMYGOODMAN: You’ve talked and written about Native Americans having PTSD, post-traumatic stress syndrome.
WINONALADUKE: Yeah, we have ongoing; I didn’t finish it, I still have it. You know, you say "Enbridge," and I get this little like quirk, you know, and because the Indian wars are far from over out here. But, you know, what you get is intergenerational trauma, is what it is known as, historic trauma. And other people have it. But you have a genetic memory, and you look out there, and you see—every day you wake up, and you see that your land was flooded. And that big power line that runs through this land, that doesn’t benefit you. You still have to—you know, everything that is out here was done at your expense, but you still have to pay for it. And every day you go out there, and some—you know, you got a roadblock, that the white people put up, coming into your reservation. And every day you go out there, and you look at your houses, and you see that you’ve got crumbling infrastructure, and nobody cares about it. And you’ve got a meth epidemic, and you’ve got the highest suicide rates in the country, but nobody pays attention. You know, and so you just try to survive. That’s what you’re trying to do. Like 90 percent of my community, generally, I would say, is just trying to survive.
You know, I mean, in my community, we have rice. We still have our wild rice. And we can go, and we can harvest wild rice. And we can be Anishinaabe people. You know, we can still live off of our land. You know, these people have a much tougher time living off of their land. The buffalo were wiped out, you know? But this year is their stand. This is their stand. They’ve got a chance to not have one more bad thing happen to them. And from my perspective, my perspective is, is that $3.9 billion pipeline, these guys don’t need a pipeline. What they need is solar. What they need is wind. Look at this wind. You know, what they need—they have like class 7 wind out here. What they need is solar on all their houses, solar thermal. They need housing that works for people. They need energy justice. This is this chance, America, to say, "Look, this community does not need a pipeline. What this community needs is real energy independence." They call this energy independence, you know, shoving a pipeline down people’s throats, so that Canadian oil companies can benefit, and, you know, a bunch of people can—the world can worsen. That is not energy independence. Energy independence is when you have solar. Energy independence is when you have wind. Energy independence is when you have some control over your future. That’s what these people want.
AMYGOODMAN: That was Winona LaDuke, longtime Anishinaabe activist from White Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota.

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

North Dakota v. Amy Goodman
Journalism is not a crime
By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan
Democracy Now!
9/15/2016

Last Thursday, an arrest warrant was issued under the header “North Dakota versus Amy Goodman.” The charge was for criminal trespass. The actual crime? Journalism. We went to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to cover the growing opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Global attention has become focused on the struggle since Labor Day weekend, after pipeline guards unleashed attack dogs and pepper spray on Native American protesters. On that Saturday, at least six bulldozers were carving up the land along the pipeline route, where archeological and sacred sites had been discovered by the tribe. The Dakota Access Pipeline company obtained the locations of these sites just the day before, in a court filing made by the tribe. Many feel that the company razed the area, destroying the sites, before an injunction could be issued to study them.

Scores of people, mostly Native American, raced to the scene, demanding the bulldozers leave. The guards pepper-sprayed, punched and tackled the land defenders. Attack dogs were unleashed, biting at least six people and one horse.

We were there, filming the guards’ violence. When we released our video of the standoff, it went viral, attracting more than 13 million views on Facebook alone. CNN, CBS, MSNBC and scores of outlets around the world broadcast our footage of one of the attack dogs with blood dripping from its nose and mouth.

Five days after the attack, North Dakota issued the arrest warrant. North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Lindsey Wohl, referencing the “Democracy Now!” video report in a sworn affidavit, states, “Amy Goodman can be seen on the video identifying herself and interviewing protestors about their involvement in the protest.” Precisely the point: doing the constitutionally protected work of a reporter.

“Charging a journalist with criminal trespassing for covering an important environmental story of significant public interest is a direct threat to freedom of the press and is absolutely unacceptable in the country of the First Amendment,” said Delphine Halgand, U.S. director of the global press freedom watchdog group Reporters Without Borders. Carlos Lauria of the Committee to Protect Journalists added: “This arrest warrant is a transparent attempt to intimidate reporters from covering protests of significant public interest. Authorities in North Dakota should stop embarrassing themselves, drop the charges against Amy Goodman and ensure that all reporters are free to do their jobs.”

Steve Andrist, executive director of the North Dakota Newspaper Association, told The Bismarck Tribune, “It’s regrettable that authorities chose to charge a reporter who was just doing her job,” adding that it “creates the impression that the authorities were attempting to silence a journalist and prevent her from telling an important story.”

This is a story that is critical to the fate of the planet. It’s about climate change, and indigenous rights versus corporate and government power.

The arrest warrant was issued on the same day that North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple called out the National Guard in preparation for a court decision due out the next day. On Friday, the judge ruled against the tribe, allowing construction to continue. Fifteen minutes later, in an unprecedented move, the departments of Justice, the Interior and the Army issued a joint letter announcing that permission to build the pipeline on land controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers would be denied until after “formal, government-to-government consultations” with impacted tribes about “the protection of tribal lands, resources and treaty rights.” Construction and nonviolent blockades continue along nonfederal lands, despite the government’s request that Dakota Access halt construction voluntarily.
Many have said that journalism is the first draft of history. In the past 20 years, a hallmark of the “Democracy Now!” news hour has been our coverage of movements, because movements make history. The standoff at Standing Rock is a historic gathering of thousands of people from over 200 tribes from the U.S., Canada and Latin America who call themselves “protectors, not protesters.” It marks the largest unification of tribes in decades.

To date, none of the pipeline security guards have been charged, despite being clearly shown in the video assaulting protesters with dogs and pepper spray. Now, the North Dakota Private Investigation and Security Board is investigating the pipeline security guards’ use of force and their use of dogs.
In the meantime, we will fight this charge. Freedom of the press is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. North Dakota, muzzle the dogs, not the press.

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

 Lakota Activist Debra White Plume from Pine Ridge: Why I am a Water Protector at Standing Rock
Democracy Now!
September 12, 2016

While Democracy Now! was covering the standoff at Standing Rock earlier this month, we spoke to longtime Lakota water and land rights activist Debra White Plume, who was born and raised on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and lives along the banks of Wounded Knee Creek. She described what the Dakota Access pipeline means to her.


AMYGOODMAN: That same day, though, right next to the Red Warrior Camp protesting the pipeline, we spoke to longtime Lakota water and land rights activist Debra White Plume, born and raised on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, living along the banks of Wounded Knee Creek. I asked her to talk about what the Dakota Access pipeline means to her.
DEBRAWHITEPLUME: What it means to me is that it pushes us further over the tipping point of not only fossil fuel extraction, but the desecration of Mother Earth and the exploitation of Native peoples in the area, as well as the threat to drinking water. Where I live, six hours from here, when I turn on my tap, the water that comes out is from the Missouri River. It’s a 50-50 mix with the Ogallala Aquifer and the Missouri River, because at home our aquifer is badly contaminated by decades of uranium mining. So, there’s only portions of the aquifer on the Pine Ridge Reservation that pass the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level for alpha emitters. So we have to mix half and half with the Missouri River water.
AMYGOODMAN: And what would happen to the Missouri River water?
DEBRAWHITEPLUME: Well, if the pipeline is put in, it’s going to leak or spill or burst or explode, and that oil is going to get into the water. And Dakota Access pipeline says they’re going to bury it 30 feet under, and they’re assuring everybody that it’s going to be safe. But I think Western science doesn’t really know everything it thinks it knows. And we need to make our decisions based on what’s best for Mother Earth and our coming generations. And that includes protecting our water. Water is under threat all over the world. Right now, there are people who have no access to clean drinking water.
AMYGOODMAN: Do you call yourself a protester?
DEBRAWHITEPLUME: No, I call myself—first and foremost, I’m just a regular human being. I’m a mother and a grandmother, a great-grandmother. I’m Lakota. I’m a woman. And it’s—water is the domain of the women in our nation. And so, it’s our privilege and our obligation to protect water. So, you know, if somebody wants to label me, I guess it would be water protector.
AMYGOODMAN: You go way back to the Pine Ridge Reservation, where you live today, 1973. Could you describe what happened then?
DEBRAWHITEPLUME: Sure. What happened then was the Indian Reorganization Act government, which is an act of Congress, in place in 1934, governs most Native nations in the United States. Well, our IRA government at that time was very oppressive to Lakota people. They were keeping us from having jobs or homes or whatever few services the federal government provided, because we held onto the Lakota way of life, and we also wanted to reclaim not only our identity, but our lands and the care of our land and the responsibility of caring for our land.
And at that time, the tribal president was Dick Wilson, and he had been working with the federal government to sign away one-eighth of our homeland to the federal government. And it just happened to be where there was a lot of what the fat taker calls resources, and they want to mine it—you know, coal, gas, oil, uranium, whatever it may be, water. And so, we put up a ruckus, and we said, "No, you’re not going to do that, because our coming generations need that."
And so, there were a lot of shootouts and armed struggle going on in those days. And in the so-called border towns around us, which we call occupied territory, Indians were getting killed, and their murderers were not being held for justice. They were like charged with the lowest felony there could be, doing two years of probation. And it was just enough was enough. You know, it was a moment in time there was the women’s movement, there was the civil rights movement, there was the Vietnam War stuff going on. And we just said, "That’s enough for us, too. We’re not going to take this anymore." And we stood up, and we fought. You know, we had to fight our own government, and they called in the FBI and the Marshals and the Army. Basically, it was a military occupation of our homeland.
AMYGOODMAN: And what happened then?
DEBRAWHITEPLUME: Well, Wounded Knee was liberated by relatives from the Four Directions. And the military came in and surrounded the little tiny village of Wounded Knee. And the rest is history. But we were able to get our spiritual way of life removed as a criminal act in American law. Prior to that, it had been a crime to practice our way of life. We have many people that went to prison in those days or were committed to, held in and died at state mental institutions for having a sacred pipe or conducting any of our ceremonies.
AMYGOODMAN: Lakota leader Debra White Plume of the Pine Ridge Reservation, speaking from Red Warrior. Special thanks to Laura Gottesdiener, John Hamilton, Denis Moynihan.

Banning English to Preserve Culture

$
0
0
Todu i Chamorro siha ni' mañathinanasso put i kotturå-ta yan i minalingu i lenguahi-ta, debi di u ma tatai este. Anggen ta cho'gue mas kinu manggongongong siña ta na'lå'la' mo'na i lenguahi-ta. Atan este na familia. Manu na gaige i Chamorro siha ni' siña tumattiyi este na hemplo?

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

Indigenous family bans English to preserve culture
by Lynn Desjardins
english@rcinet.ca
Radio Canada International
September 5, 2016

Like many parents, Nancy Mike and Andrew Morrison have to work hard if they want to preserve their aboriginal language. Because so much English is spoken in Iqaluit in the northern territory of Nunavut, they have decided to ban English at home and oblige their two daughters to speak their native language of Inuktitut, reports CBC.

“Language is not just language; it’s the way you transmit culture,” said Mike to CBC reporter Sima Sahar Zerehi. Mike said she wanted to be certain the girls were able to speak to her unilingual grandfather and great-grandfather and to be close with the extended family.

English is everywhere

Preserving the language is difficult because English in books, movies, toys and movies is ubiquitous. Although the school system has an Inuktitut stream, materials are most often in English.
When Mike reads English books to her children she translates on the spot.

Total immersion with extended family

Four or five times a year she and her partner send their children to visit relatives in the more remote town of Pangnirtung where they can spend time with family and be totally immersed in their native language.

They also enjoy the lifestyle which includes spending more time on the land and eating what’s called country food—food hunted or gathered locally.

Target Shaped Island of Guam

$
0
0

The Independence for Guahan Task Force held their second monthly general meeting last week and it was a significant success, with 70 members of the community coming to listen to educational presentations and provide feedback. Here are some media reports on the meeting, both before and after. As you'll read below the educational portion of the evening focused first on security threats to Guam due to it being a strategically important unincorporated territory of the United States. Second, it contained a presentation on Singapore, the first model of an independent nation that Guam can look to in terms of inspiration as it pursues independence itself. Each monthly meeting will feature a new independent nation to analyze and compare.

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

Does the US military turn Guam into a regional target?

By Timothy Mchenry

Pacific News Center

September 20, 2016



The topic was chosen after audience members at the first general assembly continually asked about how Guam should handle recent threats from North Korea. 


Guam - Does the American military presence on Guam make the island safer, or a target for countries like Russia, China and North Korea. These questions will be explored by the independence for Guahan task force at their second general assembly.

The topic was chosen after audience members at the first general assembly continually asked about how Guam should handle recent threats from North Korea. Independence for Guahan co-chair Dr. Michael Bevacqua says Thursday’s meeting will focus on Guam’s current security risks or issues. Bevacqua says this conversation will naturally center around Guam’s relationship with North Korea, Russia and China; specifically, if affiliation with the United States and housing U.S. military bases has made those countries Guam’s enemies by proxy. Additionally, Bevacqua says audience members asked about other small, successful independent nations Guam can mirror, if indeed the people choose independence. Task force members point to Singapore, one of the richest nations in the world and has a similar land mass to Guam.


“What the task force is really trying to remind people is that Independence is not a scary, weird abnormal thing. More than 80 former colonies chose to become independent. And so it’s the natural course for people in Guam’s position to seek more basic control over their lives. There is nothing strange or weird about this and so at each meeting what we would like to do is present a different model for what Guam can be like as an independent country,“ said Bevacqua.


According to an Independence for Guahan press release, each general assembly pays tribute to a Chamoru hero who believed in Independence for Guahan. This meeting will honor Dr. Bernadita Camacho- Dungca, who passed away earlier this year. Dr. Duncga was a pioneer in Chamorro linguistics and education. 




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

Independence for Guahan Task Force honoring Chamorro pioneers
by Ken Quintanilla
KUAM News
September 20, 2016

While community conversations will continue next week to educate on Guam's political status options, the Independence for Guahan Task Force will be holding its second general assembly this Thursday. Because the group's last assembly had many questions regarding Guam's handling of threats from North Korea, this week's presentation will focus on the limitations and vulnerabilities that come with being an unincorporated territory that host US bases, such as Guam.

Other areas of discussion will include information about successful independent nations along with a tribute to a Chamorro hero who believed in independence. This week's Chamorro hero tribute will be Dr. Bernadita Camacho-Dungca, who was considered a pioneer in Chamorro linguistics and education and wrote Inifresi (The Chamorro Pledge).

The assembly begins Thursday at 6pm at the Chamorro Village main pavilion.

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

Independence Task Force discusses militarization on Guam
By Shawn Raymundo
Pacific Daily News
9/24/16

While Guam’s location in the northern Pacific has played a key role for the U.S. armed forces for decades, members of a decolonization task force advocating for the island's independence question whether or not the military presence makes the island a target for regional threats.

During their second general assembly meeting at the Chamorro Village on Thursday night, the Independence for Guahan Task Force conducted a presentation to answer the question: "What can Guam do to protect itself from threats like North Korea and China?" The presentation was attended by about two dozen residents.

The Decolonization Commission's independence task force represents one of the three political status options Guam’s native inhabitants could choose, should the island hold a plebiscite – a non-binding referendum that would measure the preferred political status in regards to island’s future relationship with the U.S.
The three options are statehood, independence or free association.

Gov. Eddie Calvo has proposed holding the plebiscite during the 2018 General Election, but nothing is official.

Citing the Chinese missile that’s been recently dubbed the “Guam Killer,” independence co-chairwoman Victoria Leon Guerrero noted news publications that have reported both North Korean and Chinese militaries have been conducting missile testing with the purpose of possibly striking Guam and the U.S. military bases here.

“We always hear that China and Korea want to attack Guam, and that’s why we need America,” Leon Guerrero said. "(We’re told that U.S. military exercises are) happening to protect us. But actually in the world, (other countries) don’t see themselves as a threat to us, they look at (the exercises) as a threat to them.”
Recent exercises, like bomber training at Andersen Air Force Base and the launch of the joint-operations training known as Valiant Shield, have likely perpetuated the idea that the U.S. is militarizing Guam for the purpose of attacking its regional enemies, she said.

“So all of this is a tit-for -tat that we’re caught in the middle of,” Leon Guerrero said. “‘I’m going to do this and you’re going to do that’ … What we want to ask ourselves is: Are we a threat because Guam is what they desire or because the U.S. is here?”
After the U.S. Air Force’s announcement that Andersen would be hosting a rare training exercise with the military’s three bomber aircraft, international news sites reported the North Korean government's response.

“The introduction of the nuclear strategic bombers to Guam by the U.S. … proves that the U.S. plan for a preemptive nuclear strike at the (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) has entered a reckless phase of implementation,” North Korea’s foreign ministry said.

Guam’s identity around the world, Leon Guerrero said, isn’t being seen for the island that it is, with a culture and people, but rather as a U.S. military installation and base.

“That’s why Guam is how the world sees it today, as a place that could be attacked, because there’s so much testing,” Leon Guerrero said. “We’re offending everyone around ... do we really need it? Do we really need a third of the island being used this way?”

Using the island nation of Singapore as an example, the independence task force noted that there are once-colonized lands that gained independence and became financially sufficient and successful.

Except for a brief period during World War II when Singapore endured Japanese occupation similar to Guam, the small island was a British colony since 1819 up until 1965.

Since it gained independence, Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product had increased by 3,700 percent as of 2014. That same year, the country’s GDP reached an all-time high of $306.34 billion, according to the World Bank.

Ana Won Pat-Borja, a member of the task force and the researcher for the Guam Legislature’s legal counsel, said Singapore didn’t have any natural resources to profit from, but acknowledged that for the past two centuries it has been a prime hub for trading, with its port.

The country, she noted, capitalized on its best asset by investing heavily into the port and opening up foreign investments into free trade, thus making it one of the largest and most visited ports in the world.

Singapore, Borja continued, isn’t without its problems, as human rights concerns have been an issue, specifically the country’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Borja said choosing independence isn’t a path to doom.

In an effort to educate the island as much as possible before the proposed plebiscite, the Independence for Guahan task force launched its monthly general assembly meetings in August.

Melvin Won Pat Borja, a member of the task force, acknowledged that the independence option is the “underdog,” adding that if the plebiscite were to happen today the likely outcome would be statehood.

“If we’re going to be successful in winning the hearts and minds that this is the right path for our people, we have to take responsibility for it,” Melvin Borja said, advocating for more outreach.

The task force will hold its third general assembly meeting on Oct. 27.

Todu Dipende gi Hafa Ta Hahasso

$
0
0
I first wrote this article 13 years ago while I was applying for graduate school in the states and working part-time at the Guam Communications Network in Long Beach, California. My auntie Fran Lujan was working there as well and they had an irregular publication called Galaide'. Prior to my leaving Guam, I had photocopied hundreds of articles from the Pacific Daily News around the time of the the 9/11 attacks, and I had spent more than a year trying to organize my thoughts on it. It seemed so strange in that moment, how everyone was reaching out to the United States, trying to find a way to patriotically or tragically feel included in its embrace. But the more that people asserted their inclusion and their belonging, the more the structure of their exclusion became pronounced and obvious. I used the article below as my attempt. It remains my first all-out attempt at a critical intervention. I still find myself making some of these arguments, whereas others I have moved on from or evolved in certain ways.

I used to have a tradition on this blog of posting an article I wrote titled "Happy US Imperialism Day Guam!" each 8th of December in order to commemorate Chamorros being dragged into World War II by the United States and Japan. I start a similar tradition with this article for each September 11th.

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

Todu Dipende gi håfa ta hahasso
Chamorros on Guam and 9/11
by Michael Lujan Bevacqua
Published in Minagahet Zine
Fulu'Hugua: Volume 2 Issue 10
September 13, 2004


On September 9th  2001, the Pacific Daily Newspublished a perspective piece by Benigno Palomo titled “Landmark Legislation, major events happened in Guam in September.” It contained of events in Guam’s history, all taking place in September, the majority of which focused on Guam’s political relationship with the United States. A few days later, the article would seem almost prophetic.

September 11th, 2001: Depending on what channel you were watching it was either an end to irony, the start of a new world, or a second day which will live in infamy. The attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. was indeed a horrific tragedy. A defining moment in which illusions are dispelled and ideals are thrown aside and only a harsh reality meets the eye.
             
In his examination of the global and American response (some people think they’re the same for some reason) to 9/11, Slavoj Zizek in his book Welcome to the Desert of the Real, comments on America and how it dealt with the tragedy. “On September 11th, the USA was given the opportunity to realize what kind of a world it was part of. It might have taken this opportunity – but it did not; instead it opted to reassert its traditional ideological commitments: out with feelings of responsibility and guilt towards the impoverished Third World, we are [all] the victims now!” 

Makkat este, lao debi di hu konfotme na minagahet.

I awoke that morning to the TV, frantically showing over and over what film they had of the attack and the aftermath. Speculations abounded, as to who had done this and why. Everyone was frightened and scared, confused. What was happening? How could this happen to us? I found myself like most people, unable to pull away from the coverage, hanging on every new bit of info, no matter how insignificant.

For a few hours I was lost in that mindless world, which drives people to instinctively reach for something patriotic to wave, or something anti-American to beat the snot out of, without thinking of what they are doing. Biba AMERIKA! For a while I was mad as hell. For a while I wanted to yell to the island and the world that without justice there can be no peace! And those who dare shatter our peace must be brought to justice. A UOG student more than a week later would be quoted in the PDN saying “Kill them all. Turn Afghanistan into a parking lot.” I admit for a few moments the morning of the attack, I felt the same. Kill them all, and let their God sort them out.
But, soon realization formed somewhere behind the unthinking anger swelling within my mind. I began to listen to my own thoughts, my own statements and I began to realize that I was not speaking/thinking in a vacuum. That I was not alone. So many others were feeling the same, feeling so mortally different and confused as we were being pushed into this new world, built upon the charred remains of more than 3,000 people.

It was at that moment that I stopped listening to the media, that I refused to give in to the propaganda. The world was not truly any different, and if a new world was too be formed out of this, it was not the terrorists who would be doing the construction, but us. It would be us remodeling our world. And if everyone felt this intense anxiety and unreasonable anger, then the new world we were making would be one rooted in paranoia, worry and therefore the unreason of hatred.

For Chamorros, and for those linked to America, but not fully a part of the fold, the
confusion would be even greater. How were we to act with this? The circle of belonging for Chamorros is far from complete, and the relationship will most likely never be satisfactorily resolved for those who remain on Guam. Such is the nature of a colonial relationship, it is always fraught with confusion, as issues of belonging and identity, overlap, blend and mend, leaving no clear pictures.

With patriotism rushing about all, blinding and binding all with its producing propaganda and its oppressive prohibition of any dissent, I wondered what was being hidden by all this? The September 15th edition of the Pacific Daily News compounded my concern. In huge font across the front page were the words, LET FREEDOM ROAR. Nation embraces a surge of patriotism. Shaking my head in sad reservation I recalled a song lyric from the musical Chicago. In the musical while the players discuss how hype easily replaces truth in courts and in life, the lawyer Billy Flynn sings, How can they hear the truth above the roar?

Fehman magåhet

In the September 14th PDN, Kongresu Robert Underwood prevailed upon the floor of Congress to “remember who we are a people.” But is exactly this point which must be questioned, this point which is obscured. After September 11th, the calls for unity, the calls for all to pull together as a people is the kind of bland rhetoric which must be resisted and critiqued.  Because it dismisses and puts aside vital questions, such as “are we the same people?”

Para todu I Chamorro siha, Gefhasso pot este. Gi 9/11, kao mismo ma håtme hao, i manterrorists? Pat kao ma håhatme i passport-mu?

Are we the same? Culturally? Maybe, depends on who you ask. Historically? Perhaps, but only in a very dubious way. Politically? This is one that Chamorros always seem to get hung up on. People are always quick to pull their passports on this one, quick to quote history and deny reality. But all arguments fall because of one simple reason. Despite all the rhetoric anyone can muster in defense of the American blah blah blah way of life, rooted in yada yada yada democracy, Guam is still a colony. Military construction or cash infusion cannot destroy that. Citizenship cannot and has not destroyed that.

A little history lesson for all, Chamorros especially, is that the Chamorros under Spain, towards the end of their reign were considered Spanish citizens, with all the subsequent rights. And in an eerie parallel, they didn’t have to pay income taxes either. Also, any funding that went into Guam was primarily through the military, as Guam was nothing more to the Spanish than an outpost (which is the same as now with America) (By the way, this relationship, this continual exploitative aspect is drawn out in clear and concise form for all to see in the September 20th PDN article, “Guam’s Military role endures). One last thing that everyone should know is that in the last half of the 19th century, under Spain, Chamorros were allowed to elect their local leaders, just like we are able to do now.

So long as another country controls our destiny, politically or culturally, we are colonized in mind, body and soul. John Adams, one of the “founding dead white males” of America, was quoted this regarding British control of the colonies, “there is something very odious and unnatural about a government a thousand leagues off.” I bet he never envisioned his words would be used against the government he helped to spawn.

A significant problem with Chamorro perceptions is that much of what we think is colonialism derives from our history under Spain. But times change, and so must our ideas. Those modes of colonial control are outdates, and only work today if you have tacit US support, like in East Timor. Today’s new colonial missions are benevolent and chalked full of lip service regarding concern for human rights, self-determination and democracy. But the bottom line for colonialism has never changed.

Manmagofli’e yanggen manmano’osge’ hit, lao malamåña siha nu hita yanggen mananachu!

We are still a possession as long as we remain on Guam. We are not equals. We are not really Americans. And aside from the rhetoric that occasionally comes by the slow boat to China from the states, or that which we disperse ourselves, we are constantly reminded through our own wishful forgetfulness and the US’s convenient ignorance that we are not truly part of that big gaudy American dream.

In the months following September 11th, dozens of examples pop up here and there which intimate to Guam’s being outside the circle of belonging, outside the very scope of the United States. When the PDN would run photo pieces about the aftermath of the attack, with titles such as A NATION’S TRAGEDY. A NATION’S RESOVLE. There would always be an added page, an almost “oops” afterthought, which would include Guam, constantly created as separate, as different. AN ISLAND’S RESOVLE. When America would pray a local headline would read “Guam joins America in prayer,” As if somehow when America prays, it needs to be reminded that we are supposed to be a part of that prayer group.

Less than a month after September 11th, Guam had been left out of an economic stimulus package, as well as a new series of states entitled “Greetings from America.” The impetus behind the stamps was to boost patriotism as well as the national economy. Incidentally not just Guam was left out, but also the other Insular areas and territories such as Puerto Rico, CNMI, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and others. Earlier Guam and the other territories had also been left out of the national coin program, which issued a special quarter for each of the 50 states.

In response to the federal snub, Guam’s Delegate Robert Underwood said that “this is a direct slap in the face at a time when we are trying to show national unity.” A Dededo resident added, “Guam is a part of the US. We can’t let them just forget us.”

Kao maolek ha’ este? Na i guatdia para demokrasia yan linibre taiguini? Hamaleffa?

Aside from the obvious colonial entrapments attached to the military and its presence and its conceptualization of Guam’s essence (perfect strategic location, too bad people live there), the primary colonial force we must deal with, ko’lo’lo’ña på’go despues di i hinatmen 9/11, is American patriotism.

Chamorros on Guam are caught in that terrible colonial contradiction, insisting that we are both the same and different, at the same time. For years Guam and Chamorros have been moving closer to and further away from the US. The jingoism and unthinking patriotism which has been wrenched from within or freely volunteered from every able-bodied citizen is dangerous enough in a country with the potential firepower and ability to wipe human existence from the face of this planet. But on Guam, it becomes the drug that every Chamorro longs for and secretly hates at the same time.

For every American, the tragedy of 9/11 gives each person a chance to feel new value. The attack was most likely caused because of meddling American imperial interventions in the Middle East, and their support of regimes that many Muslims feel are corrupt such as Saudi Arabia, but the media response and the political discourse which will be presented to the public will be something further from the truth and more propagandistic in nature.

In the first edition of the PDN following the attacks, an editorial was published covering what was known at that point. “Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward,” were the words of the president. The day after the attack, Senådot Frank Aguon Jr. was quoted saying, “There are times when being the greatest and most powerful nation in the world has its risks.” In the September 16th issue of the New York Times, the lead analysis of the 9/11 crimes was that “the perpetrators acted out of hatred for the values cherished in the West, such as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage.”
 
Ultimately the consensus in the media and in your everyday discourse was that we had been attacked because we are democratic, we are free, and they hate our way of life. It suddenly gives new life to lives around the country, as the way we live is something people are willing to die for, willing to kill for. The discourse of danger also is created. All of a sudden people want to kill me, kill us. All these thoughts, while rarely spoken out loud work inside each individual, feeding into their ego.

Yanggen un aksepta este na hinasso, pues insigidas gumof impottånte hao. Sa’ på’go malago-ña Si Osama Bin Laden pumuno’ hao. Hågu i enimigu-ña. Sa’ hågu rumepresesenta håfa mas ti ya-ña, freedom, liberty, justice, capitalism, modernism.

AI NANALAO!!

All this works within the Chamorro psyche, and the local bonus is that through the participation in the fervor of patriotism unfettered for the time being, we get to be part of the American fold. Through our empathy, our sympathy our unasked for support, our placing of the American flag in our front yards or on our cars, we get to be Americans, regardless of what history, what politics have kept us from reaching that point. In a September 15th PDN article, “Residents rally behind Old Glory,” A sales associate at a radio station comments on how “even though Guam is so far away from the sites [of the attack], they had much impact…the outpouring of people displaying flags here shows “how personal it is.”

In the September 22nd PDN, in an article entitled “Schools shine with patriotic pride,” school officials and students discuss their patriotic responses to the World Trade Center attacks. The principal of George Washington High School stated “It seemed like a good idea for the students…to give them a chance to be part of something big like this. Part of a whole.”

By wrapping ourselves up with the American flag, covering our eyes and mouths, we can suspend, not the colonial relationship, but our belief in that relationship. We can blind ourselves to the fact that we belong to a country that doesn’t care about us, that wants only our land and its strategic presence, that tried to destroy our culture and language, that says that democracy, freedom and justice are so vitally important but has denied us for so long, in large and small ways, those very things.

In a time of crisis these are exactly the things that must be questioned, before we react, before we reach for the flag we must remember, that that flag represents much more than freedom, liberty and justice. It represents colonialism, imperialism, militarism and ignorance. But Chamorro identity is so complex, that it is easily overwhelmed. The benevolence of the US, the fact that we are rarely confronted at gunpoint with American demands, or that the association with the colonizer has reaped us huge short term gains, make critiques of the US/Guam and Chamorro relationship difficult in the best of times, and impossible in the worst of times.

Former KongresuRobert Underwood, speaking to a University of Guam class said that Guam is somewhat unique in the world because of the way it reacts to a crisis, such as the current economic one. In most places around the world, when things are as bad as they are on Guam right now in 2003, people begin to grumble, they being to mumble. They start to talk about the leadership, the government, the politics of their particular place and they probably start to demand change. Well, on Guam, ideas of culture, identity, political status, they can only be dealt with when things are fantastic, when the economy is wonderful. Only then can we afford to deal with issues such as our relationship to the United States. But when things are bad, then everyone screams and shouts, “DON’T TOUCH THE POLITICAL STATUS! We can’t afford to mess with that now!”

Enao i kustumbre-ña i gof makolonisa na tintanos. Yanggen todu maolek munga mafa’maolek. Yanggen todu dimalas, CHA-MU fafa’maolek! Mappot maeskapa este.

Anyone who wishes a more concrete analysis of my point need only look to the November 5th, 2001 PDN, and the revoltingly revealing editorial by Joe Murphy. Murphy, rambles about nostalgia, and how the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is still living in the past, and creates an odd almost baffling local connection to his thoughts. “Sometimes I think that the Chamorro activists yearn for those days of continuous fishing, sailing and fiestas. When everyone spoke the same language. That was before terrorists and airplanes and computers and television and shopping at Kmart and Gov Guam Layoffs.” How can we afford to be Chamorro when there are terrorists in the PI? Or how can we afford to be Chamorro when there is a K-Mart on the island and the Taliban oppresses women? When did Chamorro culture become a crime or a sin? When did finding value in simpler things become, or even in identifying with your culture and family become something we don’t have time for, or can’t safely do in this post 9/11 world?

After reading this I recalled during the 2002 races for the Legislature how candidates had been invited to come to my Chamorro class at UOG, and each pitch to us in Chamorro as best they could, the plans they had for Guam. It was for the most part an enlightening and inspiring experience, save for the speeches given by one candidate (who I shall leave nameless. But I’ll tell you his name if you ask). The candidate responding to a question about Chamorro culture and language responded oddly that “if you want to be a Chamorro then start wearing a g-string (I think he meant loin-cloth).” He also stated that people who want to speak Chamorro should go back to Inalåhan (I think he meant Humåtak). And as if he hadn’t dug a deep enough hole for himself, he said that his children were not Chamorro, because being Chamorro meant them living at the lancho and using outhouses.

I bring up these statements because they exhibit a fundamental symptom of many Chamorros today. And that is, an unforgiving discourse of self-depreciation, the constant marginalization of everything Chamorro, and attributing of most if not all progress, all intelligence, all positive notions to outside influences, in particular American influences. Where do the politicians statements above come from? They come from a psyche that feels that his own culture has nothing to offer the world. His ideas about Chamorro culture are so skewed that he can’t conceive of Chamorro language and culture as anything but antiquated, anachronistic or dead. His racist statements allude to an identity in which all he values, he believes comes from outside of Guam, outside of Chamorro.

I am reminded here of the words of South African activist Steve Biko, when he discussed ideas of inferiority and colonization for Africans in white controlled South Africa: [when studying to be accepted for a black job in South Africa] he suddenly realized that it wasn’t just all the good jobs that were white, but all the history everywhere, was the history of the white man, written by the white man. Television, cars, medicine all invented by the white man…In a world like that, it’s not hard to believe there’s something inferior about being black.

 Where Chamorros, as a people find value for their existence needs to be redirected. At present, we derive most of our value from our relationship with United States, with its ideologies and institutions. We find self-merit from our strategic presence in the pacific, from our strange heritage of patriotism and loyalty. From our hospitality to tourists, to the way our education and economic systems are run, we derive most of our value from outsiders, from outside of us. Aside from the vast and fortunate resources of the US, what makes them an effective, even though fragmented people is that they are extremely self-centered, and obtain nearly all their value from themselves; the elementary school rhetoric taking myriad sound bytes from the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, though eventually meaningless later in life and in terms of US foreign policy, is constantly invoked to justify the United States as the greatest country in the world.

It is also impossible for colonized peoples to attain this level of taimamahlao as the term self-centered within this framework means the “focus on the Center” which means a focus on the colonizing body, in this case the United States. Even if colonies are self-centered, the term reveals literally, who is in control of the situation.

And if you don’t agree with the above paragraphs or even with the entire tone of this paper, then I congratulate you. Prove me wrong. Discussion, competition, disagreement and dissent are at the core of the vitality of any culture. Discussion of these issues should not be left to professors, anthropologists, psychologists, historians or would-be academics like me. We ultimately control where we get our worth from. When we speak of privatization of the Government, we need to think about why we want it so bad, why it seems so right, why it seems to necessary. When we conceive the military presence on island, we need to think about our responses to wars, to armed conflicts, to increased military presence. Think hard about the way we think about our economy and our culture in relation to that. All these issues are intertwined with our perceptions of the US and more importantly our perceptions of ourselves.

The energy of our culture must not be attached to military spending or construction projects for the National Guard. Our dreams should not be imported, especially not from America. Every time a Chamorro thinks about settling down, buying land, and building a house, raising a family, he or she should know that that dream is not solely an American one. For Chamorros it was a reality for generations, to own and work your land, raise a family and so on. It was American intervention which disrupted all that, their intrusion which suddenly made the life my grandparents speak of in pre-war Guam not just a fading memory, but a distant impossibility.

Returning at last to 9/11, I am not proposing that a Chamorro reaction to the 9/11 would be any different from an American one or indifferent to the tragedy. Notions of identity do not mean absolute or even limited uniqueness. America seems to feel that hard-working behavior is their traditional domain. Lao esta ta tungo’ na manmampos butmuchachu i mañainå-ta siha lokkue’, and so do many other cultures.

I am not saying that a Chamorro response to the attack would be radically different. I am not focusing on the anthropological or socio-political aspects. But I do know this; to respond to 9/11 as a Chamorro means to find value in your own response, in what your culture, the Chamorro culture recommends. And of course that response is one of sadness, of compassion or empathy, all the right things. But if you are to respond as an American, you just continue the terrible colonial cycle of abuse and exploitation which has been in effect for more than a century. Responding as an American means you have been duped, you have been fooled by the propaganda, taken in by the stirring orations and speeches designed to illicit an instinctive response for unity and acceptance.

You can see the cost of this “duping” or “responding as Americans,” in the way the Pearl Harbor analogy was articulated in discourse on Guam. The media in the United States used Pearl Harbor as an emotional parallel, calling the September 11th attack, “another day of infamy,” both attacks threatening the US homefront (even though Hawaii was a colony then, not really a part of the US). On Guam the response was no different, the analogy met with no criticism, qualification or exception, despite the fact that Guam should of responded differently. Pearl Harbor, and the entire World War II experience are vastly different for a Chamorro, then for your average statesider. For a Chamorro on Guam, Pearl Harbor was the prelude for two and a half years of Japanese oppression and then American destruction. A Chamorro representation of destruction, bombing, of Pearl Harbor itself, must be different, then your typical flag waving, Never Forget bumper sticker using, American disposable rhetoric patriot.

There are those who would say that Chamorro and American are the same thing. Or that one is political the other ethnic. All I can respond to that is that you must of left a lot behind, forgotten much to have successfully reconciled that in your mind.

Para I mamamaila, guaha chathinasso-ku, lao guaha esperansa lokkue’. 

Despite the tone of my paper, I am not as depressed or as worried as it may seem. History can be a depressing and enraging thing, yet it can also be enlightening at the same time. For me, after reading, knowing and internalizing a history of the Chamorro people from 4,000 years to the present, I cannot see how anyone could doubt the authenticity, tenacity and vitality of our culture (myself included). Chamorros have gone through so much and someone maintained a sense of identity, of sense of themselves.  It boggles my mind how much credit we give to the US in our daily lives. How much credit we give to others when we are deserving of so much more!

In the September 15th PDN, Tony Sanchez writes a very moving and yet puzzling editorial,  “Tuesday, Sept. 11th, changed our world, won’t be forgotten.” The gist is typical patriotic propaganda, irrational calls for unity, inspiring speeches in order to dispel dissent. “So what do we do? We do what America and Guam have always done. We pull together. We do our jobs better. We raise our children better. We help our neighbor more. We argue less; we compromise more. We face the stark reality of the world we live in with eyes wide open. We cannot afford to be divisive. Not today.” And later Sanchez goes on to say that although we do not vote in national elections are governments and our people (us and the Americans) are one and the same. The disconcerting part for me of this article is the fact that America or our relationship with America is a vital part of us raising our children better, doing our jobs better. For Sanchez the whole of our improvement and progress is attached to America and our unity with them.

Who survived near extinction at the hands of Spanish guns and disease? Who maintained a semblance of continuity in the face of cultural vaporization by Spanish colonialism? Who survived the horrors of Japanese occupation and brutality? Why does America receive so much credit for our survival and endurance? Why is altruism, compassion, caring and kindness attributed to a country which could have cared less about our fates? All the value, all the inspiration you need can be found within these shores, or within the relative who has left it behind. Within our own families lie all the worth any Chamorro should want or need.

As I write this American imperialism is at “war” with the world around it. I am constantly reminded of our parents’ and grandparents’ war not too long ago. I think of Liberation Day, and what it celebrates, the re-occupation of Guam in 1944 by American troops. I think of all the patriotism, mixed and confused messages associated with that holiday. I hope the next time a Chamorro gets a sudden burst of patriotism and feels the urge to grab an American flag they think first, about what it truly represents. Liberation Day is where I think a re-focusing of Chamorro identity must begin, so much of what we feel and how we think today depends on how we interpret that event.

The PDN often places on its front page, a small American flag and beneath it the foreboding proclamation that “THESE COLORS DON’T RUN.”

Put fåbot, todu i Chamorro siha, fanhassuyi este…

Those colors ran like little school girls in 1941. Those colors made sure that all their relatives and military were evacuated before the Japanese attacked. They also made sure that only white dependents were evacuated, any non-white though still military dependents had to stay behind. They were also very careful not prepare the Chamorros for an invasion or an attack. And when they finally ran back to Guam, on their way to Tokyo, they made sure to bomb it continuously for three weeks, not really caring what they hit, and pleasantly surprised to find later that there were still people alive on the island after that barrage.

After September 11th, across the country people called for us all never to forget. Never forget this grave injustice which had been committed against the greatest nation in the world. I call on Chamorros as well, never forget the grave injustices which have been committed against us and this culture, that I feel is the greatest culture in the world (I admit, I’m biased). No matter how much money the Federal Government gives us, no matter how many times people say “my fellow Americans,” or how many free miniature American flags are distributed, Never forget.

Munga maleffa.  Para i mamamaila na tiempo gi lina’la’-ta, todu dipende gi håfa ta hahasso, håfa ta kåkatga mo’na gi tiempo, minetgot pat minapedde’.

2016 Guam Primary Election Results

$
0
0
Estague i ofisiat na tinifong para i "primary" na botasion, ni' masusedi gi diha bente siete, Agusto, Dos Mit Diesi Sais. Manmakuenta gi este na tinifong, i botu siha ginen todu i sasenta saia na distritu.

Delegate (Democrats) 
  • Bordallo, Madeleine (i): 8,028
  • Babauta, Anthony: 4,698
Delegate (Republicans) 
  • Camacho, Felix: 4,627
  • Metcalfe, Margaret: 3,025
Legislature (Democrats) 
  • Aguon Jr., Frank (i): 9,381 
  • San Nicolas, Michael (i): 9,381 
  • Terlaje, Therese: 9,149
  • Cruz, Benjamin J. (i): 8,221
  • Nelson, Telena: 7,985
  • Rodriguez Jr., Dennis G. (i): 7,736
  • Ada, Thomas C. (i): 7,270
  • San Agustin, Joe S.: 7,217
  • Underwood, Nerissa (i): 7,022 
  • Muna Barnes, Tina (i): 6,869 
  • Won Pat, Judith (i): 6,526
  • Lee, Regine: 6,281
  • Respicio, Rory J. (i): 6,278 
  • Bordallo Jr., Fred: 6,014 
  • Alerta, Jermaine: 5,562
  • Gaza, Victor: 4,462
  • Dominguez, Armando: 3,649
Legislature (Republicans) 
  • Blas Jr., Frank (i): 5,315
  • Castro, William : 5,266
  • Morrison, Thomas (i): 5,248
  • Ada, Vicente A. (i): 5,185
  • Muna, Louisa B.: 5,036
  • Espaldon, James (i): 4,996
  • Duenas, Christopher: 4,796
  • Torres, Mary C. (i): 4,543
  • Palacios, Eric: 3,970
  • Esteves, Fernando: 3,875
  • San Agustin, Jose A.: 3,806
  • McCreadie, Brant (i): 3,795
  • Blas, Amanda : 3,748
  • Balajadia, Albert J.: 3,478
  • Servino, Benito S.: 3,387
  • Mead, Barry: 2,680
  • Paz, Ellery: 2,150
Auditor 
  • Brooks, Doris F. (i): 14,162 
  • Crisostomo, Doreen: 7,311 
  • Asuncion, Zenaida: 1,745

Setbisio Para i Publiko #33: The Question of Guam (2010)

$
0
0
The United Nations is a strange beast in Guam in turns of its place in the movement for decolonization. Prior to the failure of Commonwealth in 1997, the UN was always a quiet force in the background, but held little authority or played a very minor role in the consistency of arguments or political positions. Even when Chamorro activists were successful in getting people on Guam to recognize the Chamorro people as being indigenous, even though activists were successful in defeating a Constitutional movement on Guam, which would have trapped the island within an American framework, and both of these things rely heavily on discourses which find great potency in the UN and its history, they were not strongly international movements. The UN itself, although still a quiet presence on Guam, is still interpreted in a very American framework, and so regardless of how Guam's relationship to the UN is fundamentally different (it is a non-self-governing territory), people here tend to see it through a generic American, isolationist and anti-internationalism, Fox News lens. In this way, the UN is both something that is nefarious and far-reaching, which possesses so much insidious power, but also something that is useless and pointless and is stagnant and unequipped to deal with any problems today. The first point has little to do with reality and is a common fantasy that is tied to people feeling the sovereignty of their nation threatened by international law or agreements. The second is inaccurate, since the UN has little life of its own, but is successful or unsuccessful largely dependent upon whether the powerful nations of the world allow it to be. If the UN isn't successful at something, isn't moving on something, it is scarcely because of its own inability, but it is usually tied to certain key countries blocking any action since they feel it interferes with their interests in the world.

Because of this, it is common to hear a chorus of shots on Guam that the UN is useless and that we should just work with the US and do whatever they want. It is for this reason that we should hold onto the UN, even if it seems ineffective in the moment. Just letting the US do whatever it wants or playing by their rules doesn't lead to decolonization, it reinforces colonization. It ensures that even if whatever we become has a new fancy name, it will probably be the exact same status, perhaps with more American flags, stripes or stars. The UN is important, symbolically because it represents the link to the rest of the world, which due to colonization, Chamorros and others on Guam have trouble perceiving and relating to. We have become so accustomed to seeing the world through the United States, we forget that the US is just a fraction of the world and all that it holds. That as we look to the future, that simple ability to see the world, from our own location, from our own perspective is crucial so that we no longer nurture ourselves on the colonial Kool-Aid, but see the necessity or positive possibility in seeking a more self-determined future.

Another reason why we should continue to travel to the UN and make use of it, is because it is one of the few international outlets that is available to a colony such as Guam. Each year, representatives from Guam are invited to testify before various committees on what is happening in Guam. In the past, Guam has been able to use this more effectively in terms of negotiating and leveraging, however not in the past two decades. Here is a summary of the representatives who traveled to the UN on behalf of Guam in 2010.

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

HEARING PETITIONERS ON THE QUESTION OF GUAM,
UN FOURTH COMMITTEE: SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION MEETING

OCTOBER 5-6, 2010
NEW YORK CITY, NY

On Tuesday October 5, 2010, the United Nations Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) continued their annual consideration of decolonization items. The General Assembly heard testimony from 22 petitioners on the questions of the 16 NON-SELF GOVERNING TERRITORIES, with special delegations from Guam and America Samoa.

On the question of Guam, several petitioners expressed concern about the United States planned military expansion on the island. Guam's Delegation also included teachers, researchers, social workers and business professionals. Michael Tuncap, Ph.D candidate  and researcher from the Pacific Islands Studies group at the University of California Berkeley. David Roberts, Researcher and Ph.D candidate from the Department of Geography at the University of Toronto. Maria Roberts, Graduate Student from the City University of New York School of Business. Healthcare professional and Masters candidate Josette Marie Quinata represented the University of Southern California School of Social Work. Mylin Nguyen, a Graduate of UC Riverside and elementary public school teacher. Alfred Flores Perez, Doctoral researcher from the Department of History at the University of California Los Angeles.

Background

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met October 5 & 6, 2010 to continue its consideration of all decolonization issues. The Fourth Committee hears from the non-self governing petitioners including: Western Sahara, Turks and Caicos, U.S Virgin Islands and Guam. (Reports before the Committee are summarized in Press Release GA/SPD/422.) Statements from the Petitioners on Question of Guam

MICHAEL TUNCAP presented his research from the Pacific Islands Studies Institute of the University of California, Berkeley.  Tuncaps work looks at the impact of colonialism on the environment and indigenous health in the Marianas Islands. His testimony called upon the General Assembly to recognize the inalienable right to self-determination of Guam. According to Tuncap, the continued occupation of United States military forces in Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands represents a system of racial inequality between European Americans, Asian and Pacific settlers and the indigenous Chamorro people. Tuncap noted the existence of over one hundred toxic sites on the island which have had an impact on Guam's public health. He noted that modern colonialism prevents the people of Guam from exercising their inalienable right to self-determination.

Tuncap noted that colonial ideas of racial and gender superiority have shaped a long history of military violence and US economic security. The United States claims that its citizens in Guam (military personnel) have a human right to vote in the people's decolonization plebiscite. However, he said, the indigenous Chamorro people in the Marianas and the rest of Guam residents are denied the right to vote in United States elections. The United States also continued to deprive the people of Guam their right to land, even as they caused the toxic pollution that was irreparably damaging the environment. The United States military also threatened the integrity of the land through economic colonization, and colonialism had also caused irreparable harm to bodies of land and water. For those and other reasons, the Fourth Committee must immediately enact the process of decolonization for Guam in lieu of the severe, irreversible impacts of United States militarization. The process must include the maximum funding allowed to achieve a far-reaching education campaign informing all Chamorus from Guam of their right to self-determination and decolonization options, he said.

Historian ALFRED PEREDO FLORES, speaking on behalf of the Chamoru Nation chapter of the University of California Los Angeles, said instead of advancing the decolonization mandate of Guam, the United States was engaged in the largest military build-up in recent history, with plans that would bring, among other things, 50,000 people and six nuclear submarines. The United States pledge in 1946 to ensure its decolonization mandate on Guam remains on the margins half a century later. Flores noted that the Chamorro people continued to live in colonial conditions. That was why his delegation had come to New York, for over two decades, in effect, to speak against the violence and public health crisis in the Pacific Islands.

MYLIN NGUYEN, a second grade teacher from Whittier noted that self-determination, as outlined in the United Nations Charter and international conventions, was an inalienable right. As a Member State, the United States was bound to protect and advance the human rights articulated within the United Nations system.  Nguyen argued that Guam's residents need United Nations intervention that will address the increasingly poor human rights situation in Guam. She cited former Senator Hope Cristobal and noted that the hyper-militarization of Guam is illegal under any principled construction of international law. Nguyen said that as we end the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Guam unfortunately still remained a Non-Self-Governing Territory under the United States. Guam continued to be a possession of its colonizers, and the Chamorro people were still being denied their rights to land and political destiny.

Nguyen discussed the devastation wrought on the island and its people created an uphill climb for self-determination. Yet, with the impending military build-up on Guam that was to start in 2010, she asked that the United Nations uphold the promise and "sacred trust" set forth in General Assembly resolutions 1514 and 1542, and ultimately hold accountable Guam's administering Power in recognizing and respecting its quest for self-determination.

DAVID ROBERTS, PhD candidate in the Department of Geography of the University of Toronto, said that the United Nations must work for a just solution in Guam, based on the understanding that Guam's status as a non-self-governing entity effected the ability of the Chamorro people to make crucial decisions about their lives and where they lived. He maintained that Guam's virtual status as a colony should be abhorrent to those who champion democracy around the world.

Roberts urged the Committee to give top priority to the fulfillment of the right of Chamorro to self-determination through a decolonization process that included a fully-funded campaign informing all Chamorro from Guam of their rights and options. The Committee, with United Nations funding, must investigate the United States non-compliance with its international obligation to promote the economic, social and cultural well-being of Guam, and must send a team within the next six months to assess the effects of the past and future militarization of the island. Finally, he said the Committee must comply with the Indigenous Forum's request for an expert seminar to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonization process on indigenous peoples.

Continuing, Tuncap's testimony notes the physical and emotional consequences that colonization had had on the remaining Chamorro who lived on Guahan pointed to a positive answer. Among other things, Chamorro people had been exposed to radiation, Agent Orange and Agent Purple as a result of the island being a decontamination site for the United States in the 1970s. He stated that the indigenous community was also deprived of their cultural and natural resources. The effects of colonialism on the Chamorro people had travelled along with them in the forced migration and assimilation. He noted that forced migration was not self-determination.

Tuncap and Roberts agree that the Committee should give top priority to the fulfillment of her people's inalienable right to self-determination and immediately enact the process of decolonization of Guahan in lieu of severe, irreversible impacts of United States militarization. The process must include a fully-funded and far-reaching education campaign informing all Chamorro from Guahan of their right to self-determination and decolonization options.

MARIA ROBERTS recommended that the committee send United Nations representatives to the island within the next six months to assess the impacts of United States military plans on the decolonization of Guahan and the human rights implications of the United States military presence. She noted that the Fourth Committee must comply with the recommendations of other United Nations agencies, especially the Permanent Forum in Indigenous Issues, which had recently requested an expert seminar to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonization process on indigenous peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

JOSETTE MARIE QUINATA, Southern California Chapter of Famoksaiyan, said her homeland was threatened by the impending United States military build-up on Guam that was scheduled to begin in 2010. Yet Guam continued to be excluded from decisions that would affect the very people whose environment would be destroyed, and whose concerns were second to militarization and colonialism. The question of Guam was not solely based on political turmoil and chaos among those who claimed Guam as a United States possession, but also a reflection of Guam's identity, which continued to suffer from political hegemony and an administering Power that failed to recognize and respect political rights. Quinata recounted a dream in which she saw her ancestors, and spoke about revitalizing the Chamorro people and preserving their language and culture. She said that a powerful calling had kept her passion alive in understanding Guam's heritage and struggle for self-determination. She looked forward to creating a future moved by education, healthcare, and social programs to reaffirm that the question of Guam was a question of decolonization and the eradication of militarism and colonialism. MARIA ROBERTS noted that the people of Guam were strong, and had a resilient culture that had continued to prevail amidst agonies of political disarray, militarism and colonial dominance. Yet, the people's voices for choosing their own political destiny had been silenced, ignore and marginalized from democratic participation.

This year's Guam Delegation continues the work and legacy of former senator HOPE ALVAREZ CRISTOBAL, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice. Each Guam delegate provided citations from Cristobal's human rights scholarship. In her last UN testimony in 2008, Cristobal noted that the Chamorro people of Guam had a long history as a free and independent people, interrupted by over 450 years of colonization by outside nations beginning in the sixteenth century. She said that earlier United Nations resolutions had addressed military issues in the operative clause calling on the administering Power to ensure that the presence of military bases and installations would not constitute an obstacle to decolonization. However, she said the United Nations today seemed satisfied with obscure reference to the military -- the single most serious impediment to decolonization. Those types of changes undermined the intent and purpose of the United Nations Charter, especially Chapter 11, devoted to the territories whose people had not attained a full measure of self-government.

The administering Power of Guam had in the past cited the issue of its military activities as one of the reasons why that Power would no longer cooperate with the Committee. She noted the positive light used to describe the massive militarization of Guam in the working paper, which said its inhabitants generally welcomed the build-up, and the Guam Delegation said nothing could be further from the truth. The colonization of the Chamorro people through the militarization of Guam, combined with over a century of United States immigration policies, was a flagrant violation by the administering Power of accepted standards in its fiduciary responsibilities. Guam's administering Power had neglected the people's right as an indigenous people, and the people had long suffered at the hands of outside influences and decisions that neglected their voices and interests.

The 2010 Guam delegation to the United Nations will participate in a series of Pacific Islands Studies events (November-January) to share their research findings. Guam United Nations events will take place at the University of California Berkeley, the University of Toronto, the University of Washington, the University of Washington Seattle and the University of California Los Angeles and the University of Southern California.


By Benen

$
0
0
Esta hu sangani hamyo na gof ya-hu i bidada-na si Steven Benen. Kada diha ha na'huhuyong meggai na tinige' put hafa masusesedi gi botasion Amerikånu para presidente. Fihu gof tinanane' yu' guini giya Guahan, ya mappot para bei taitai todu ya tattiyi todu gi sanlagu. Lao sesso inayuda yu' as Steve Bene. Estague noskuantos na tinige'-na ginen pa'go ha' na diha.

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

Team Trump Wants Credit for all the wrong reasons
by Steve Benen
9/29/16
MSNBC

During this week’s presidential debate, when the discussion turned to race relations, Donald Trump explained that he opened a golf resort in Palm Beach that doesn’t discriminate against racial or religious minorities. “I have been given great credit for what I did,” the Republican boasted, adding, “I’m very, very proud of it…. That is the true way I feel.”

It was a reminder of one of Trump’s worst habits: he wants credit for doing the things he’s supposed to do anyway. In July, for example, the GOP nominee bragged about complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act in the construction of his buildings – failing to note that he didn’t have a choice.

It’s as if Trump effectively likes to tell voters, “Look at me! I routinely do what laws and basic human decency require of me!”

The same dynamic applies to the Trump campaign’s post-debate boasts. The Republican and his aides are incredibly impressed by the fact that Trump didn’t bring up Bill Clinton’s infidelities – as if attacking a woman over her husband’s affairs is a perfectly normal thing to do, but Trump is too nice and chivalrous for such boorish behavior.
Donald Trump doesn’t think he’s gotten enough credit for not talking about Bill Clinton’s history of sexual misconduct in Monday’s debate.

Just ask his son, Eric Trump, who said it took “a lot of courage” for the Republican nominee not to attack the former president. Or his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who told MSNBC on Tuesday that Trump showed “presidential virtue” by not talking about the Clinton scandals.
Eric Trump couldn’t stop raving about this, characterizing it as some kind of moral triumph. “That was a big moment for me,” he told an Iowa radio station yesterday, adding his father’s reluctance to attack a woman over her husband’s adulterous past “will be something I’ll always remember.”

This is more than a little bizarre.

Right off the bat, let’s note that a candidate doesn’t get credit for refraining from making an attack on Monday if his campaign proceeds to make that same attack, over and over again, on Tuesday and Wednesday. “Let’s talk all about Bill Clinton’s affairs while bragging about remaining silent on Bill Clinton’s affairs” is an inherently nonsensical sentiment.

For that matter, there’s nothing especially virtuous about failing to condemn Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton’s personal misconduct. The very idea that the public should blame a wife if a husband strays is absurd.

As for Eric Trump, if the candidate’s son seriously believes this is a great example of his father’s “courage,” that doesn’t exactly make Donald Trump look good.

But even if we put all of that aside, perhaps the strangest thing of all is the fact that Donald Trump is himself an admitted adulterer. The Republican nominee doesn’t exactly have the moral high ground when it comes to extra-marital affairs – and he’s on especially shaky footing when trying to go after Bill Clinton’s wife, rather than Bill Clinton himself.

Indeed, here’s the question Team Trump may want to consider while launching this coordinated attack about ’90s-era sex scandals: Hillary Clinton could have brought up Trump’s adulterous past during the debate, but she didn’t. Did that take “a lot of courage,” too? Is Clinton also getting too little credit for her generous graciousness?

Was Clinton’s reluctance to bring up Trump’s affairs a moment her daughter should “always remember” as a classic example of Clinton’s towering magnanimity?

Postscript: Rep. Marsha Blackburn told MSNBC yesterday. “I find it so interesting that there continues to be this conversation about what [Trump] has said when you look at what [Hilllary Clinton] has done: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky. My goodness.”

My goodness, indeed. Could the far-right rhetoric on this issue become any more ridiculous?

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

 Has Donald Trump paid Federal Taxes or Not?
by Steve Benen
9/29/16
MSNBC

It was arguably one of the most important moments of this week’s presidential debate. Hillary Clinton was speculating about why Donald Trump would choose to be the first modern American presidential candidate to refuse to release his tax returns. “Maybe,” she said, “he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes.”

Unprompted, Trump interrupted to say, “That makes me smart.”

A Washington Post reporter, watching the debate with undecided voters in North Carolina, noted there were “gasps” in the room after the exchange. “That’s offensive. I pay taxes,” one said. “Another person would be in jail for that,” another voter added.

With Clinton eager to let voters know about Trump’s comments, the GOP nominee made yet another Fox News appearance last night, where Bill O’Reilly brought up the issue. From the transcript via Lexis Nexis:
O’REILLY: Now, they are going to come after you, they being the Clinton campaign, on the statement that you made that you were as smart for paying as few taxes as you could possibly pay. You know it’s going to be in the next debate, it’s going to be on campaign ads. Do you have any defense for that right now?

TRUMP: No, I didn’t say that. What she said is maybe you paid no taxes. I said, “Well, that would make me very smart.” … I never said I didn’t pay taxes. She said maybe you didn’t pay taxes and I said, “Well, that would make me smart because tax is a big payment.” But I think a lot of people say, “That’s the kind of thinking that I want running this nation.”
Perhaps now would be a good time to note that “That makes me smart” and “That would make me smart” are not the same sentences.

Indeed, let’s also not forget that in the same debate, Trump talked about how the government doesn’t have the necessary resources for public needs. “Maybe because you haven’t paid any federal income tax for a lot of years,” Clinton interjected. Trump fired back, “It would be squandered, too.”

As we discussed the other day, comment was striking because of its apparent acceptance of the underlying premise. By saying his tax money would have been “squandered,” Trump seemed to be conceding that Clinton’s argument was correct: he hasn’t paid taxes.

What’s more, the Washington Postreported, “One big problem with Trump’s comments Wednesday is that there is a record of him paying no or very little income taxes. Of the five years for which we have a record of Trump’s taxes, he didn’t pay any or nearly any. So for Trump to suggest that he hasn’t avoided paying income taxes at some point is disingenuous, at best.”

Of course, Trump could clear up a lot of this by doing what every major-party presidential candidate has done for decades: release his tax returns. So far, he continues to refuse, for reasons that have failed to stand up to any scrutiny.

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

Why the Nuclear First Use Debate Matters in the 2016 Race
by Steven Benen
9/29/16
MSNBC

It’s difficult to choose the single most alarming thing Donald Trump said about foreign policy and national security at this week’s presidential debate, in part because there are so many unsettling comments to choose from.

The Republican seemed to believe ISIS has been around for much of Hillary Clinton’s adult life, which isn’t even close to being true. Trump suggested China should invade North Korea. He took credit for NATO policies that he had nothing to do with, while suggesting the NATO alliance itself should be considered as some kind of protection racket.

Trump also insisted, as he has before, that the United States should have stolen Iraq’s oil – which would have been illegal – in order to deny ISIS the resources it’s actually getting from Syria.

But as Rachel noted on the show the other day, the real gem has to be Trump’s woeful understanding of nuclear policy. Moderator Lester Holt asked an excellent question: “On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?”

Trump rambled a bit before eventually saying:
“I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike.

“I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table.”
He then rambled some more, straying between a variety of loosely related topics, including his opposition to the international nuclear agreement with Iran.

But for those paying attention, the real problem was with Trump’s obvious contradiction. Policymakers can adopt a “no-first-use” policy or they can endorse a “nothing-is-off-the-table” position, but Donald Trump is one of those rare politicians who wants to take both sides simultaneously.

This followed a GOP primary debate in December at which Trump appeared to have no idea what the nuclear triad referred to. The Republican could have taken advantage of that opportunity, recognizing the importance of getting up to speed on the nuclear basics, but instead Trump seems to have done no homework on the issue at all.

That remained true in the intervening months.
In May, Trump even suggested he could support South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia, who are not currently nuclear powers, arming themselves with nuclear weapons for their own defense.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked the Republican presidential nominee, “So if you said, Japan, yes, it’s fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?”

Trump agreed.

“Can I be honest with you? It’s going to happen, anyway. It’s going to happen anyway. It’s only a question of time,” Trump insisted, despite a 25-year trend in which numerous nations – Libya, South Africa, Iraq, and former Soviet republics – have been denuclearized.
The New York Times’ David Sanger added this week that, during the debate, Trump “appeared somewhere between contradictory and confused” on the nuclear issue.

Given the importance of the issue, that’s not at all reassuring.
****************

 Trump campaign defends its rejection of substance, policy details
by Steve Benen
9/29/16
MSBNC

If anyone on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign should be willing to defend the importance of substantive details, it’s Sam Clovis. He is, after all, one of the Republican candidate’s top policy advisers.

And yet, as BuzzFeed noted yesterday, even Clovis doesn’t want to bother stressing the importance of governing details in the campaign.
Sam Clovis, Donald Trump’s national policy adviser and campaign co-chair, said Monday before the debate that voters don’t care about policy specifics and would be “bored to tears” by them.

“Our approach has been to provide outlook and constructs for policy because if we go into the specific details, we just get murdered in the press. What we’re dealing with [is] we’re chasing minutia around,” Clovis said on the Alan Colmes Show on Fox News’ radio network.
In fairness, Clovis added that he cares about “specificity,” but the campaign has chosen not to get into policy details because these kinds of campaign debates are of no interest to the electorate.

“I think the American people, the American voter, will be bored to tears if that is in fact the way this thing goes,” he said.

It’s a valuable insight, if for no other reason because Clovis’ comments make clear that Team Trump is deliberately avoiding a substantive campaign debate over the issues. For the Republican candidate and his team, it’s a feature, not a bug.

In May, Politicoquoted a campaign insider saying Trump didn’t want to “waste time on policy.” The Trump source added at the time, “It won’t be until after he is elected … that he will figure out exactly what he is going to do.”

A month later, the candidate himself added that “the public doesn’t care” about public policy.

Hillary Clinton, obviously, had adopted a very different approach, recently telling voters, “I’ve laid out the best I could, the specific plans and ideas that I want to pursue as your president because I have this old-fashioned idea. When you run for president, you ought to tell people what you want to do as their president.”

As we discussed several weeks ago, according to her Republican rival, this is an antiquated model to be avoided. Indeed, circling back to our previous coverage, I’m reminded of something MSNBC’s Chris Hayes wrote nearly a month ago, noting a fairly routine profile in Politico on Clinton’s tech policy advisers. It stood out largely because there is no comparable group on Team Trump, which has made a deliberate decision not to build any intellectual infrastructure.

“[U]ltimately a Trump Presidency is a complete and total black box,” Chris concluded. “No one, probably not even Trump, knows what the hell it looks like.”

And that’s not how national campaigns in mature democracies are supposed to work. Candidates for the nation’s highest office are not supposed to mock the very idea of pre-election governing details, vowing instead to figure stuff out after taking office.

It’s a problem exacerbated in Trump’s case because he’s never held elected office; he has no background in public service; and he’s never demonstrated any real interest in government or public policy. What we’re left with is an odd set of circumstances in which voters are apparently supposed to support the least-experienced, least-prepared presidential candidate of the modern era first, and then he’ll let the public know how he intends to govern.

The alternative, according to Trump’s national policy adviser, is a bunch of boring details that are only of interest to nerdy egg-heads. Why bore the electorate “to tears” with detailed information about the direction of their country after the election?

Stick it in a time capsule. Future generations won’t believe it.
********************

Gary Johnson hurts himself with another "Aleppo moment"
by Steven Benen
9/29/16
MSNBC

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, recently appeared on MSNBC and was asked to reflect on the crisis in the Syrian city of Aleppo. He replied, “What is Aleppo?”

Yesterday, Johnson, a former Republican, appeared on MSNBC again, and as Rachel noted on the show last night, he made matters much worse for himself.
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson struggled to name a single foreign leader when asked who his favorite was during an MSNBC town hall Wednesday night.

“Any one of the continents, any country. Name one foreign leader that your respect and look up to. Anybody,” host Chris Matthews pushed during the event, causing Johnson to sigh loudly as his VP pick Bill Weld tried to jump in.

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson finally said.
Note, Chris Matthews started naming specific countries and continents, apparently hoping to help Johnson focus. The Libertarian nevertheless came up empty. Johnson said he was having a “brain freeze.”

As recently as Monday, Johnson told reporters how concerned he is about current U.S. foreign policy, which he described as “horrible,” and how eager he would have been to discuss the issue with the major-party nominees had he qualified for this week’s official debate. Of course, presidential hopefuls who care deeply about foreign policy can usually name one foreign leader they like.

The broader problem, meanwhile, is Johnson failing to take advantage of the opportunity that’s been presented to him on a silver platter.

There’s ample polling that suggests a sizable number of American voters are open to supporting a credible third-party candidate this year, and on paper, Johnson – a former governor who’s sought national office before – appears well positioned to appeal to those looking for an alternative to the major-party nominee.

This is especially true for Republican-friendly newspaper editorial boards that can’t endorse Hillary Clinton, but don’t want to support Donald Trump.

But in practice, Johnson can’t seem to get out of his own way. His campaign antics are often clownish and confusing; his campaign platform is radical in a way that alienates potential progressive allies; and when given the opportunity to make a good impression before national television audiences, the Libertarian has “Aleppo moments” that suggest Johnson’s presidential candidacy isn’t altogether real.

Yesterday’s “brain freeze” display was just embarrassing, and represented the latest in a series of missed opportunities.

Mapuno' si Lumuba

$
0
0
Throughout my interviews that I conducted for my graduate school research, when the issue of decolonization would emerge in the discussion, regardless of the demographic intersections of the interview subject, regardless of their life experiences or their level of education, all of them would find some way of saying that on the topic of political status change, mungga ma'åkka' i kannai ni' muna'boboka hao, don't bite the hand that feeds you. This narrative, while understandable for an island stuck in what I refer to as the decolonial deadlock, it was frustrating for someone who was seeking to study decolonization and convince other Chamorros of the need for it. Eventually, at some point amidst the interview conducting, the critical theory reading and the online ranting, I ended up watching the 200 movie Lumumba directed by Raoul Peck. It tells the story of the final months of Patrice Lumumba, an inspirational figure in African and global decolonization, who was the first Prime Minister of the Congo after it became independent. I had read the works of Fanon, Biko and Mandela up to that point, and knew the name Lumumba and the basic story of his life, but there was one part of it, a line, which stayed with me and eventually helped me write my Masters Thesis in Ethnic Studies at UCSD. The line was allegedly a Bantu proverb "the hand that gives, rules." For me, it aligned perfectly, in a very obvious, but nonetheless poetic way, with so much of the resistance that I had encountered in my oral history research.

Below is an article about Patrice Lumumba, looking back at this legacy and his assassination 50 years later.

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

Patrice Lumuba: the most important assassination of the 20th century
The US-sponsored plot to kill Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congolese independence, took place 50 years ago today
by
The Guardian/UK
January 17, 2011

Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), was assassinated 50 years ago today, on 17 January, 1961. This heinous crime was a culmination of two inter-related assassination plots by American and Belgian governments, which used Congolese accomplices and a Belgian execution squad to carry out the deed.

Ludo De Witte, the Belgian author of the best book on this crime, qualifies it as "the most important assassination of the 20th century". The assassination's historical importance lies in a multitude of factors, the most pertinent being the global context in which it took place, its impact on Congolese politics since then and Lumumba's overall legacy as a nationalist leader.

For 126 years, the US and Belgium have played key roles in shaping Congo's destiny. In April 1884, seven months before the Berlin Congress, the US became the first country in the world to recognise the claims of King Leopold II of the Belgians to the territories of the Congo Basin.

When the atrocities related to brutal economic exploitation in Leopold's Congo Free State resulted in millions of fatalities, the US joined other world powers to force Belgium to take over the country as a regular colony. And it was during the colonial period that the US acquired a strategic stake in the enormous natural wealth of the Congo, following its use of the uranium from Congolese mines to manufacture the first atomic weapons, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

With the outbreak of the cold war, it was inevitable that the US and its western allies would not be prepared to let Africans have effective control over strategic raw materials, lest these fall in the hands of their enemies in the Soviet camp. It is in this regard that Patrice Lumumba's determination to achieve genuine independence and to have full control over Congo's resources in order to utilise them to improve the living conditions of our people was perceived as a threat to western interests. To fight him, the US and Belgium used all the tools and resources at their disposal, including the United Nations secretariat, under Dag Hammarskjöld and Ralph Bunche, to buy the support of Lumumba's Congolese rivals , and hired killers.

In Congo, Lumumba's assassination is rightly viewed as the country's original sin. Coming less than seven months after independence (on 30 June, 1960), it was a stumbling block to the ideals of national unity, economic independence and pan-African solidarity that Lumumba had championed, as well as a shattering blow to the hopes of millions of Congolese for freedom and material prosperity.
The assassination took place at a time when the country had fallen under four separate governments: the central government in Kinshasa (then Léopoldville); a rival central government by Lumumba's followers in Kisangani (then Stanleyville); and the secessionist regimes in the mineral-rich provinces of Katanga and South Kasai. Since Lumumba's physical elimination had removed what the west saw as the major threat to their interests in the Congo, internationally-led efforts were undertaken to restore the authority of the moderate and pro-western regime in Kinshasa over the entire country. These resulted in ending the Lumumbist regime in Kisangani in August 1961, the secession of South Kasai in September 1962, and the Katanga secession in January 1963.

No sooner did this unification process end than a radical social movement for a "second independence" arose to challenge the neocolonial state and its pro-western leadership. This mass movement of peasants, workers, the urban unemployed, students and lower civil servants found an eager leadership among Lumumba's lieutenants, most of whom had regrouped to establish a National Liberation Council (CNL) in October 1963 in Brazzaville, across the Congo river from Kinshasa. The strengths and weaknesses of this movement may serve as a way of gauging the overall legacy of Patrice Lumumba for Congo and Africa as a whole.

The most positive aspect of this legacy was manifest in the selfless devotion of Pierre Mulele to radical change for purposes of meeting the deepest aspirations of the Congolese people for democracy and social progress. On the other hand, the CNL leadership, which included Christophe Gbenye and Laurent-Désiré Kabila, was more interested in power and its attendant privileges than in the people's welfare. This is Lumumbism in words rather than in deeds. As president three decades later, Laurent Kabila did little to move from words to deeds.

More importantly, the greatest legacy that Lumumba left for Congo is the ideal of national unity. Recently, a Congolese radio station asked me whether the independence of South Sudan should be a matter of concern with respect to national unity in the Congo. I responded that since Patrice Lumumba has died for Congo's unity, our people will remain utterly steadfast in their defence of our national unity.

Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja is professor of African and Afro-American studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of The Congo from Leopold to Kabila: A People's History

Inadaggao Lengguahen Chamorro

$
0
0
Six years ago under the guidance of Peter Onedera, the Chamorro language program at UOG held a Chamorro Language Forum, in which senatorial and gubernatorial candidates were asked questions in Chamorro about pertinent island issues. It was on one hand a great success. Students asked hundreds of questions to the candidates in the Chamorro language. But on the other hand, the format of the forum made it so that candidates didn't have to speak in Chamorro, they could just respond in English. I assisted Peter Onedera with these forums both as a student and a professor at UOG, and so I found it on the one hand inspiring to see a place where the Chamorro language was the focus for political discourse. But it was also so depressing to see so many leaders and would-be leaders not even trying to speak Chamorro, even though they were given the questions ahead of time and could have prepared answers.

Fast forward six years and through my Chamoru Culture class at UOG, we have decided to bring the Chamorro Language Forum back, albeit with a new focus. This time around, we've limited the number of people invited, to only those who will commit to speaking Chamorro during the forum, whether off the top of their heads or through prepared remarks. As a result, we'll only have eight participants, four from each island political party. This year's Inadaggao Lengguahen Chamoru will take place October 10, 2016 from 6 - 8 pm at the UOG CLASS Lecture Hall.

I'll be posting more about it, and possibly writing about it for my PDN column next week. In the meantime, enjoy these articles, which are all about the last time we organized this forum.

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

UOG's Chamorro Language Program, We Are Guahan, Peace Coalition host gubernatorial, senatorial forums

from PACIFIC DAILY NEWS
NEWS@GUAMPDN.COM
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

The University of Guam Chamoru Language program, We are Guahan, and the Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice will co-sponsor a series of Chamorro language senatorial forums on Oct. 19-21 and a gubernatorial Chamorro language forum featuring Sens. Eddie Baza Calvo and Ray Tenorio, discussing issues with former Gov. Carl T. C. Gutierrez and Sen. Frank Blas Aguon Jr. on Oct. 25.

All forums begin at 7p.m. and will be held in the University of Guam’s College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Lecture Hall.

The October 19 forum features:
• Sen. Judith Won Pat
• Sen. Tom Ada
• Sen. Benjamin Cruz
• Sen. Adolpho Palacios
• Steve Dierking
• Sen. Frank Blas Jr.,
• Chris Duenas
• Ray Cruz Haddock
• William Q. Sarmiento
• Vic Gaza

The Oct. 20 forum features:
• Sen. Tina R. Muna Barnes
• Corinna Gutierrez-Ludwig
• Joe S. San Agustin
• Trini Torres
• Sen. Ben Pangelinan
• Sen. Tony Ada
• Mana Silva Taijeron
• Douglas Moylan
• Steve Guerrero
• William U. Taitague

The Oct. 21 forum features:
• Jonathan Diaz,
• Sarah Thomas-Nededog,
• Dennis Rodriguez Jr.
• Sen. Rory Respicio
• Sen. Judith Guthertz
• Sen. Telo Taitague
• Aline Yamashita
• John Benavente
• Shirley “Sam” Mabini
• Velma Harper

Chamoru Language Students enrolled in the fall semester classes at the University of Guam helped organize the event. Emcees for the forums are Ronald T. Laguana, Hope Alvarez Cristobal, Jose Q. Cruz, Miget Bevacqua, Ann Marie Arceo, Rufina Mendiola, Anthony “Malia” Ramirez, Irene Santos Quidachay, and Teresita Flores.

At the end of each forum, the audience will vote for their favorite candidates. All the candidates are being encouraged to have their supporters, family, friends, and party leaders in attendance as well as to post party banners in the lobby of the lecture hall.

Questions from the general public are being solicited and will be asked during the forums. All questions will be translated into Chamorro. Candidates are encouraged to speak in Chamorro, but will be allowed an interpreter/translator for the evening. “

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

Professor: students' freedom of speech violated
Posted: Oct 22, 2010 4:22 PM
KUAM
by Lannie Walker

Guam - A professor at the University of Guam is saying students' rights to free speech may have been violated. Professor of Chamorro Studies Peter Onedera says he has held Chamorro language senatorial and gubernatorial forums since 1998, inviting candidates from all parties to participate.

As part of the exercise students are asked to acquire political signs and posters of the participants to be displayed in the hall way of the lecture hall where the forums are held. "For the first time ever during this forum our acting associate dean on Wednesday - mind you, this is Wednesday after the forum had taken place on Tuesday - told me that the posters had to come down because it is in violation of the Mini-Hatch Act," he said.

The Mini-Hatch Act prohibits the solicitation of political candidates by government employees. Onedera says no candidates were being endorsed and says he feels he is being singled out.

KUAM News spoke with dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Dr. James Sellman, who ordered the signs be taken down. He says he was erring on the side of caution and that the signs were left up when the forums were not in process. Sellman adds he does encourage the political debates.

Onedera tells us he has written to UOG president Dr. Robert Underwood about the matter but has not yet received a reply. 

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

"Maolek na Finaisen"
Michael Bevacqua
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Marianas Variety

As I wrote about in my last column, the Chamorro Language Program at UOG is organizing a “Fino’ Chamoru na Inadaggao,” or Chamorro Language Forum, where political candidates will respond to questions asked in the Chamorro language (hopefully in the Chamorro language).

This week there are three forums for the senatorial candidates, and next Monday on the 25th, the gubernatorial teams will face off.

I took some time recently in my classes at UOG to discuss with my students the importance of the forum and give them all the opportunity to write down some possible questions to be asked, which would then be translated into Chamorro. The discussion was very spirited, because I pushed my students to be very intentional about what they were going to ask. I asked them not to fall into the usual traps that these events or these questions take, where politicians are asked the most generic and pointless questions, which don’t challenge them, don’t reveal anything important about them or the issue, and allow them to merely regurgitate something they’ve already said 8,000 times that same week.

I told my students to not be chained to what the “big” and “important” issues are usually thought to be, but to instead focus on something they felt was real in their lives. I knew that the following two questions, “What are your plans to fix the economy?” and “What are your plans to fix education?” were most likely the ones they felt were the most important, but I urged them to resist simply asking what they were supposed to ask, and focus on what they felt needed to be asked.

My students naturally asked, what kind of questions are the ones that “need to be asked?” I gave a number of different examples, such as the following after one student asked whether it would be okay to ask how she might phrase a question about whether or not the candidate could be trusted. Because in my World History class we were covering the origins of Christianity, I decided to give it a bit of Biblical flavor: “Jesus Christ said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the needle of an eye than for a rich man to get to heaven. Is this something that we should take seriously when choosing our leaders? If you are a person of financial means running for office, how can people trust you to make sure that you do not govern to promote yourself or your class, but are truly interested in helping everyone else on the island?” This is something that not only the wealthy should deal with, but all leaders as well. How can you ensure that you are acting for the benefit of all or most and not just for the few who are closest to you?

Some students found this and other similar questions too confrontational, and didn’t feel that this sort of thing was appropriate and that we should be more respectful to those who are our leaders, or wish to be our leaders. I didn’t criticize them, especially on Guam, where it’s very natural to think such a thing. Others found the bluntness refreshing and liberating, and in truth, that was how I was hoping they’d respond. That is after all the feeling of not just enjoying democracy, but actually participating in it. It stems from going beyond that abstract feeling of simply being part of a democracy, but being a part of it which can make intelligent decisions your society, and does not just cast a mindless vote, but actually attempts to educate oneself and find out what is the best choice.

I received several hundred questions from my students, and wanted to share in this column some of my favorites. By far the most blunt, honest and critical question is the last one. The questions:

1) Trash is a very important issue for any island, since your space is very limited. But Guam has very little recycling. We are living in a fantasy world and not facing the fact that if we don’t truly start to recycle and stop importing more trash into this island. We might just end up capsizing! How would you propose to help wake up Guam and start making recycling a big part of our lives?

2) Do you think that we should make it required that all of our leaders in the Executive and Legislative Branches should be able to understand or speak Chamorro since it is an official language of Guam and they are the representatives of the island? Even if we don’t all speak Chamorro now, this could be a great chance to help encourage people to learn!

3) The US military has promised that new troops will be given cultural sensitivity training to help them adapt to living here in respectful ways. What kind of programs do you propose we can develop to help teach them about real Chamorro culture and real Chamorro history?

4) If aliens landed on Guam the day you are sworn into office, what would your first official act in response to their arrival?

5) Senator Frank Aguon submitted a bill last year which would increase the number of senators in the Guam Legislature from 15 back up to 21. With the rapid increase of Guam’s population, do you support an increase of senators in the legislature? Why or why not?

6) So many of Guam’s current and possible leaders have claimed that there is nothing that we can do about the US military buildup and that it is a done deal or not in our power to change. If the power was in your hands, if you were in charge of the buildup, would you stop it? How would you change it? Please do not say that it will happen no matter what, because then frankly you shouldn’t be anyone’s leader.


Pacifist Voices from Japan

$
0
0

Two of Japan's pacifist voices go silent
by Phillip Brasor
Special To The Japan Times
September 3, 2016

Rokusuke Ei — writer, broadcaster, raconteur — died on July 7 at the age of 83, roughly two decades after publishing a best-seller called “Daiojo,” which means “Dying Peacefully.” Several media outlets reported that Ei passed peacefully. He’d had Parkinson’s disease for a number of years before he died and yet continued to present his long-running show on TBS Radio until this spring — though he often did so over the phone. He also had to rely more on his female announcing partner, which in a way was the saddest aspect of his decline. Ei was, more than anything, a man of words, someone who understood the power of simple, clear language. His gift was instinctual — he didn’t need to choose his words carefully.

In a series of memorial interviews in the Asahi Shimbun with some of Ei’s professional acquaintances, veteran comedian Kinichi Hagimoto said of his friend, “It was almost depressing to meet someone who could express himself that well.”

Ei’s most famous accomplishment was the lyrics to “Ue wo Muite Aruko,” the only Japanese-language song ever to reach the top of the U.S. pop charts. Americans in the early 1960s loved the song — redubbed “Sukiyaki” — for its irresistible melody and singer Kyu Sakamoto’s yearning delivery. They had no idea what the song was about, but in Japan, where it was even more popular, the appeal was its words, which describe a person holding back tears as he walks. What caused those tears isn’t revealed in the song, though it is believed Ei was lamenting the Japanese government’s capitulation to the U.S. by signing a security treaty extending the status of American bases in Japan.

The irony that a song about despair over American military hegemony became a hit on American radio is almost too rich. Ei was a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist, a child of the Showa Era (1926-89) in the most fundamental sense. Old enough to remember the war and its horrors, he grew up on the grounds of a temple in Tokyo’s Asakusa district before being evacuated to the countryside. Recognized as a prodigy at a young age, he started writing for public broadcaster NHK even before attending Waseda University. Though he wrote scripts for television, he never seemed to trust its power over people. Radio was his passion, as it was a more active, participatory medium.

In the thousands of hours he spent on the air the war informed everything he discussed, even if he didn’t mention it overtly. He advocated for the military-renouncing Article 9 of the postwar Constitution, and condemned the recent campaign to revise it so as to place the burden of duty on citizens rather than the government.

“The Constitution is a set of rules to protect the people,” he wrote in the Mainichi Shimbun in 2013, believing that the current administration, whose members did not experience the war directly, failed to appreciate the Constitution’s central role in the prosperity that Japan has enjoyed since 1945.
Ei was the last of his kind — unless you count Kyosen Ohashi, another media giant who died less than a week after Ei, at the age of 82. The one-time jazz critic was just as articulate as Ei, though more assertive. Ohashi had no problem with TV, and was responsible for some of the most influential programs in the annals of Japanese broadcasting, in particular the scandalous late-night talk show “11 PM.” He was a showman, and enjoyed making people uncomfortable with his wry, informed candor.
Like Ei, he grew up in the working class shitamachi (downtown) area of Tokyo during the war and emerged from it with a special regard for the value of the individual. He hated the idea of unmediated loyalty to a cause or group, which is why he loved the spontaneity and freedom of American jazz.
And yet, like Ei, he also loved what made Japan unique: its culture and language. He adopted his first name, Kyosen, when he wrote and published haiku during his college days at Waseda (before dropping out). But he didn’t distinguish between his love for his country and his desire to be a part of the world, and retired in the early ’90s to live abroad, with residences in Canada and New Zealand.
Some of his wanderlust was political in nature. Ohashi was acutely sensitive to anything that smacked of the old, prewar idea of Japan as a sacred land. He freely spoke out against demagoguery in the name of national security.

In 2001, he was asked by the opposition Democratic Party of Japan to run for a proportional seat in the Upper House, and he won. But when the DPJ voted to support the U.S.-led war on terror following 9/11, he was the only member to vote against the resolution, effectively alienating him from the party. He quit within six months. In his last regular column for the weekly magazine Shukan Gendai last July, he called on readers to cast their ballots against the ruling party in the upcoming Upper House election. Like Ei, he found the government’s ambitions with regard to military expansion “frightening.”

Some claim Ohashi’s anti-government sentiments were the reason his death was underreported. Similarly, the critic and TV personality Piiko, in another Asahi tribute, said he appeared on an NHK memorial to Ei and stressed at one point his mentor’s antiwar stance, but the producers edited it out. Ohashi’s pronouncements, like those of two other Showa Era celebrities who died in recent years — actor-emcee Kinya Aikawa and writer Akiyuki Nosaka — could come across as overly dramatic and self-serving, but as Piiko points out, they still deserved attention, because when witnesses to history die, “you lose something invaluable.”

Ei was humbler and more measured in his disdain for the arrogance of authority, but it didn’t make him any less effective in conveying the harm those attitudes cause. He leavened his indignation with an incisive wit that added to its power.

“He was the master of nuance, which some people didn’t get,” comedian Hagimoto told the Asahi. “But often such small details can change a whole society.”

Håfa na Klasen Liberation? #25: The True Meaning of Liberation

$
0
0
It is so intriguing the way in which local media covers Liberation Day in Guam, the holiday meant to commemorate the American re-taking of the island from Japanese forces during World War II. Objectively, the American reoccupying of the island in 1944 was not a liberation, at least not in most senses of the word. It's level of "liberation" depends largely on whether or not you exclude the Chamorros, the indigenous people of Guam, who have called this island home for possible thousands of years. It is very bewildering how we predicate the idea of Liberation Day being a liberation on the experiences of the Chamorro people, because so many of them express it as being a liberation, but calling it a liberation requires suspending their human rights and reducing their to a mere colonial effect of the United States. You can refer to July 21st as a liberation from Japanese occupation, as a liberation of US territory from foreign clutches. Even if Chamorros themselves may call it a liberation, because of the joy and relief they felt by having the Japanese and the myriad of daily horrors they represented gone from their lives. But how can it be a liberation in an full formed or true sense if it meant a return to colonial control? If the Chamorro people were liberated from one master and then returned to the control of another? If you don't believe me and think I am just an ungrateful young person who didn't experience the horrors of Japanese occupation and don't understand why we must refer to it as a liberation, don't take my word for it. Take the words of one of the US soldiers who did the liberating, who hits the beaches and expelled the Japanese and partially freed the Chamorro people. Here are the words of Darrell Doss in 2003:
"Fifty-nine years ago, on July 21, 1944, I and more than 57,000 Marines, soldiers and sailors came ashore on the beaches of Asan and Agat, and were honored to be referred to as 'liberators.' But in the end, we failed to accomplish what we had come to do -- liberate you. More correctly, our government failed both of us by not granting the people of Guam full citizenship. Another injustice is not allowing Guam to have equal say, as we in the states do, in governing your island home. Please remember, we men who landed on your shores July 21, 1944, shall never be fully satisfied until you are fully liberated."
That is why it is so interesting when the media attempts to grapple or explore what the true meaning of the day is. Patriotism is constantly mentioned as being what the root of the event is meant to be. Patriotism to the United States and gratitude for what they did in freeing us from Japanese oppression. The problem though, as we look to the future and look to our postwar history, is that this traps us in a particular subservient relationship to the United States, and becomes a way of enthusiastically and patriotically explaining away our colonial present. The most common way in which patriotism or our potential attachment to the United States is articulated is not critical, does not move us forward, but pushes us to accept what we currently have, and that we should appreciate everything Uncle Sam is kind and generous enough to gift us.

Instead, we should re-imagine Liberation Day in a way that benefits us, provides the lessons for us looking to the future. Gratitude to the United States can be a part of this, but not patriotism to a country which is our colonizer and our most formal and fundamental connection is that they own our island and our rights. We can commemorate this event as it is so important in our recent history, but we should organize it in such a way that it pushes us forward, towards true liberation, self-determination or decolonization.

Below are some articles where the "true meaning" of Liberation Day are broached.

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

Remembering the true meaning of Liberation Day
by Sue Lee
Pacific Daily News
July 19, 2016

This year marks the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of Guam.

With more than seven decades passed, the significance of Liberation Day has been buried for some. For those like John Gerber, a former Marine sergeant and founder of Pacific War Museum, they strive to remind future generations of the meaning behind July 21, says Mel Gerber, president and managing director of Pacific War Museum Foundation.

The idea for the museum came when Mel Gerber’s late husband, John, was watching the news. When asked what Liberation Day meant to them, for the most part people said it was a day off or it was a day to go down and watch the parade with the family.

“He thought, ‘Wow, everyone is losing sight of what this day actually means,” Mel Gerber says.
Spurred by those comments, John Gerber made it a mission to remind others of what really happened on Liberation Day, and honor those that fought for the island in 1944. John Gerber had already collected a significant amount of artifacts and memorabilia to display in the Pacific War Museum. The rest came from military surplus and donated items. The museum officially opened right along with Liberation Day in 2008.

“Just this morning, we had a guy come in from the States to drop off a framed photo of his friend. The friend passed away 2015. He earned a purple heart from getting wounded in Guam back in 1944. He believes that was what also saved him. He would have moved on to the Battle of Iwo Jima, which also means he would have been in Japan when they dropped the nuclear bomb,” Gerber says.
Although it’s summertime, teachers still bring their students to the museum to supplement their lessons on Liberation Day.

In public schools, Guam history is emphasized at the fourth-grade level and is also a high school graduation requirement, says Jon Fernandez, Guam Department of Education superintendent.
“I remember being taught about it during Chamorro class, but we learn about it during Guam History classes in high school,” says Lovely Sejalbo, an incoming senior at Okkodo High School.

“In the district’s K-12 level … students learn about the systems of beliefs, knowledge, values and traditions of various cultures and how those aspects influence human behavior,” Fernandez says.
This leads up to the fourth-grade level Guam History, which includes the origins and significance of local celebrations, including Independence Day, Liberation Day and the Feast of Santa Marian Kamalen.

Fernandez says he wants to teach students about how historical events like Liberation Day have changed and affected lives. “We need to remind our young generation not only during our annual Liberation Day festivities, but every day by continuing to practice our cultural values,” he says.
However for some students that are not part of the Guam DOE system, they have to be proactive in order to learn the history behind July 21.

“We don’t touch on it because it’s not a requirement in the test that we do for home schooling,” says Stephanie Kohn, 17, who will be a senior this Fall. “We learn about world history and American history. They don’t really mention (Guam). I feel like it should be a requirement because we live here, but I do know about it and that the Japanese occupation was terrible. I learned about it at the Pacific Heritage Youth Summit that my mom sent me to.”

Exploring the history

The Pacific War Museum is another way kids and adults can learn about Guam history. At the entrance of the museum, visitors can sign a guestbook before touring the exterior, or walk into either of the two enclosed sections filled with photographs, memorabilia and artifacts – to the left is the American wing and to the right is the Japanese.

Included in the American wing is a red plaque listing the names of the 1,548 Marines, 226 Army and 110 Navy soldiers killed while liberating Guam from Japan in July 1944.

In the Japanese wing, among the weapons used during that time are stories of Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungle, even beyond the liberation. One of the most well known is Shoichi Yokoi, a Japanese sergeant who hid in the jungle from 1944 to 1972 before he was captured.

A Japanese flag and a plastic bag with a Japanese newspaper found in a cave by John Camacho in 1972 hang on the wall.

Outside, you will find over a dozen war vehicles, including one each from the Vietnam War and Korean War. A machine gun and the tail end of a Japanese bomber are also on display to remind visitors of tragedy.

Although Liberation Day is a time to celebrate, it’s a day of remembrance, Mel Gerber says. The right education and organizations such as the museum help ensure the significance of July 21 won’t be forgotten.

Content Coach Hannah Cho Iriarte contributed to this story.

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

Liberation Parade Changes Direction
by Allyson Chu
KUAM
July 19, 2014
 
Guam - Liberation Day paradegoers will be treated to something a little different this year. Here's what you need to know when you head down to the annual celebration in the island's capitol.

Several changes are in store for this year's Liberation Parade. One, for instance, is the fact that it will now travel north to south. The parade will now start from the Paseo Loop and end at Adelup.  Liberation Parade chairperson, Dededo mayor Melissa Savares, told KUAM News, "If you're coming from the north and parts of central, you'll see that it's congested and most of those areas will be closed off. The main road from Routes 1 and 4 through Adelup will be open until 7am. The back streets in Hagatna are open. Another change that they will see different this year is that skinner plaza there's more vehicle flow or traffic flow at that place because the grandstand is not right in front of skinner's plaza. It's going to be in the front parking lot of Chamorro Village, so there'll be a little more space to move around that area, not to put up any canopies but for people to watch the parade."

As for the grandstand it will be now located in front of Chamorro Village, so instead of liberators and survivors of the Japanese occupation viewing the parade last - they will be first. "We're celebrating 70 years and one of the things I thought really hard in the committee, we brainstormed about this. We talked to many groups, especially public safety because you know it's going to be a safe area and a safe thing to do," the mayor added. "We have seven liberators who are 88 and 90, we want to let them see everything first. They usually see everything at the end when everything's melted down, the makeup's all smeared. This is our way of thanking the liberators but also honoring the survivors because we also have a survivors tent that is attached to the reviewing stand and the man'amkos are more than welcome to come and join and watch the parade from there."

Although the route changed, all other aspects of the Liberation Day festivities will remain the same. An early fireworks display will be set off Sunday night at 8 o'clock for the campers along the parade route in addition to the evening of liberation day at the Tiyan carnival grounds.  The Liberation Fireworks Family Show lights up at 7pm while the big show - the Platinum Fireworks Spectacular - kicks off at 10pm.

The theme of this year's liberation is generations of service and sacrifice. According to Savares it's exactly why we celebrate and commemorate this special day. "The people coming together and seeing our survivors that are still able to come out and participate because that's why we're celebrating liberation because of the hardship they went through during the hardship that they went through during the occupation of Japanese forces," she said. "But also the stories that they share, they don't only share it with their families but when they're all together you can hear the stories and that's the memorable part that's really the true meaning of our celebration."

Happy Liberation Day, Guam!


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

Guam Celebrates 69th Anniversary Of Liberation Day
Parades honor day the American military landed on Guam
By Frank Whitman 
Marianas Variety
July 22, 2013
 
HAGÅTÑA, Guam, Liberation Day – the celebration of the 21st of July 69 years ago when the American military landed on Guam to end two and a half years of brutal occupation by Japanese forces during World War II – has become a celebration of the island, its people and its heritage, and a day to honor those who suffered, sacrificed and died during that dark period of the island’s history. Like celebrations of similar days of national celebration elsewhere, Liberation Day festivities have special meaning for participants.

Yesterday, as usual, thousands of island residents and visitors lined the parade route from the Governor’s Complex at Adelup to the grandstand just past Skinner Plaza. Many who had reserved spots spent Saturday putting up canopies, preparing food and then spending the night to keep an eye on their site.

The parade was successful thanks to the hard work of the Mayors' Council of Guam and countless others who built floats, cleaned up along the parade route before and after the event, organized recycling bins, and maintained order. A fireworks show entertained those in Hagåtña on Saturday night and another was provided in the Liberation Carnival in Tiyan on Sunday night.

And while residents have come to expect rain as part of the Liberation Day tradition, yesterday’s parade took place under blue skies, though the temperature made the route uncomfortable at times.

Santos

Marching in the parade this year, as he has done for the past 32 years, was Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Santos of the Guam Army National Guard’s 1224th Engineer Company. Santos is the last active member of the Guard from the original group 32 years ago. "On July 21, 1981 there were 32 of us swearing in right in front of this grand stand," he said. "Gov. Paul Calvo was our governor at the time, and 30 years later I re-enlisted into the Guam National Guard."

Santos was deployed to Afghanistan for 18 months and to Arizona twice to participate in the construction of the border fence. He said being in the Liberation Day Parade is an honor. 

"[When I first joined] I never thought I’d still be here," he said. "I enjoy it and I challenge everybody in the Guam Guard to stay in as long as I did." He said he intends to stay in until he is forced out by age – on March 31, 2017. 

The parade was a not-common-enough family get-together for Larry Cruz, his wife Elaine, son Jeff and daughter Lauren. Larry Cruz is a civilian Navy employee who grew up in Barrigada but took federal employment elsewhere during the Navy downsizing of the 1990s. He currently works and lives in Okinawa. Elaine, also a Navy employee, was on Guam after recently relocating to a job in Italy, and Jeff, who has lived in San Diego since the 1990s, had extended a visit so he would be on island for yesterday’s celebration. 

Larry Cruz had arrived Saturday afternoon and is to return to Okinawa today. "I was in Okinawa and I was watching a DVD of a Jesse and Ruby concert," he said. "It made me think so much of the island. I knew that my son was here and I thought, ‘Even if it’s just for the weekend, I want to be here with family.'"

The family – Larry Cruz’s brothers, sisters and cousins – had a canopy on the parade route as they have done as long as he can remember, and several of the relatives had spent the previous night there. "We’re second and third cousins, but we’re still so close," he said "It’s just a good feeling – having family here – and these guys do this every year."

Duenas

Alyssa Duenas, 23, also has personal tradition associated with the Liberation Day Parade since it falls on her birthday. "We try to come down here every year," she said. "My sister is here visiting, so this year we decided to do it big. ... It’s been on and off over the years, but we always have a sign [on our canopy] so people will know."

She remembers being told that the festivities were being held in her honor. "They tricked me," she laughed, "They even told me the fireworks and the whole island coming out was to celebrate my birthday."

The Aguon-Crisostomo family’s spot on the beach side of the route was particularly well-decorated with coconuts, leaves and other adornments, including a Guam Seal quilt made especially for the occasion. "We come to the parade every year, but this is the first year we got our own spot," said Abby Aguon Cruz. "It’s hard to get a spot by lining up [at the Department of Parks and Recreation to reserve a spot]. So we got a spot and we decorated."

While the quilt took a week to complete, the rest of the work was started the day before. "We had plans [to put up more items]," Cruz said. "But by 2 this morning, we were just tired. It was hard work, but this is for family."

A group of visiting students from Osaka Business Frontier High School enjoyed their first Liberation Day Parade. They are participants in the University of Guam’s English Adventure Program, in which they stay with local families, study English, and take part in business internships during their stay. The parade was a good opportunity for the students to experience a different aspect of culture and life on the island, said Carlos Taitano, program outreach coordinator. "The timing couldn’t have been better," he said.

Marianas Variety Guam: www.mvguam.com

Copyright © 2013 Marianas Variety. All Rights Reserved

 

Third Parties in a Two Party System

$
0
0
Third parties or alternative political parties are such strange creatures in the United States. I have identified as a Democrat for much of my life, although a very progressive Democrat in almost every way, to the point where often times somebody such as Ralph Nader or Jill Stein seems to speak for me more clearer than a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton. Part of my weirdness for them is simply the fact that I live in a colony of the United States, and my affinity for one party over the other is pretty irrelevant. Although we can participate in the primary process for Democrats and Republicans, we are barred, like other territories from participating in the general election. So, while I may want a certain candidate to win, may feel "este i gayu-hu hunggan, ha gof kuentusiyi yu'"a lot of it is made pointless by the colonial difference, the political gap between Guam and its colonizer.

But each time there is an election in the United States for President, I always feel like I am going back and forth between Democrats and third party options. I liked so many things about Barack Obama, but I knew full well that he could perpetuate the structures of American imperialism and exceptionalism just like a Republican would. He wouldn't challenge most of the structures of power that set up systems of inequality in the United States, whether they be racially, economic, social or political. Third party candidates would offer me so much more ideological consistency, but at the same time feel so strange, since it never seemed likely that a third party candidate for president could have any effect except to "spoil" the election for someone who is their partial ideological familiar.

I support and believe in third party politics, but sometimes it feels that they live in an alternate reality. Each year, hundreds of people run for president of the United States, Most of them only on the ballot in a single state. Certain major minor parties like the Green Party of the Libertarian party can find their way onto ballots in almost every state, but still rarely gather a significant share of the overall vote. In other similar systems, the purpose of the insurgent or alternative party is not necessarily to take power, since it lacks the popular support or infrastructure to do so, but rather force the parties closer to the middle to change and adopt either more conservative or more progressive positions. That is why in countries that have parliamentary systems, sometimes small parties can have a significant impact, as they can form coalitions with others and demand some concessions for their support. This happens in the US within parties, such as Hillary Clinton adopting portions of Bernie Sander's proposals for remaking the United States, but it is not something that necessarily happens between major parties and third parties. In some cases a major party can shift their platform or approach if they see a third party potentially eating away at part of their base.

But as the political system in the United States is designed in a way to keep out third party candidates, it is curious what the approach is for running national campaigns that do not have much of a national infrastructure. I've heard Noam Chomsky, who is a clear progressive and supporter of alternative politics, discuss the need to build more local and regional powerbases and move up from there. A national candidate can be a voice, can try to put certain issues or ideas out there, but it is ultimately politically useless without any sort of basic structure of political power, whether it be a state where they are consistently strong, or a city, a series of cities, a region. Right now no third party has that level of power, and a national candidate, who gets lost in the static of Democrats and Republicans doesn't do much to help you build that power.

I've thinking of this now because of the post below, which is meant to be a brutal take down on people who are saying they will vote for Jill Stein and refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton in this election. Despite my desire to see third party candidates grow and flourish, I still have to agree with much of what the author says.

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

If You Are Voting for Jill Stein, Here is What I know About You
by Sasha Stone
Medium
9/15/16


1. I know you are selfish. It’s easy to pretend to care about other people and that somehow protesting the two-party system means you are doing the moral and ethical thing. You think that “what you believe in” matters more than what might happen to other people. Don’t pretend like you care about anyone other than yourself and your image and your brand. Selfishness is the only trait you display in this silly, pointless vote. Just stay home. Don’t bother revealing this ugly trait to the world.

2. You don’t really care about the environment. Whether you’re Greenpeace activists attacking Hillary Clinton, or you’re shrieking about the TPP, or you’re taping your mouth shut and pretending climate change matters to you, or more likely, you’re pushing fracking to the top of your agenda because that is the only way you can adequately target Hillary Clinton, because she has not 100% opposed fracking the way Bernie Sanders has. Never mind that Bernie Sanders 1) could not get the nomination, 2) could not get elected, 3) could do nothing if elected because his policies are too extreme for the American people, let alone Democrats, let alone Republicans in Congress. No, you don’t care about the environment AND STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU DO. You, like the Nader supporters in 2000, DO NOT CARE ABOUT IT. You are willing to risk giving the presidency to someone who not only believes climate change is a “hoax” but who is ready and willing to drill baby drill, anywhere and everywhere. To “take the oil” from war torn regions and to lift all environmental regulations put in place by Obama. If you knew anything about climate change, if you cared AT ALL about what was happening to the planet you would vote for the only Democrat who can win. If you vote for Jill Stein you are a fraud and no one should ever take anything you say seriously and you should stop telling other people the environment is your number one concern. It is not. Your ego is. Your ego is all that matters because you are so wrapped up in being that person who doesn’t vote for Hillary that you are willing to sacrifice the environment — yes, you are and don’t pretend otherwise. At least admit you are selfish and that your ego is all that matters.

3. Stop pretending you care about LGBT rights, women’s rights, black lives, Muslim American citizens in jeopardy. Stop pretending you care because you don’t. Your ego stands in the way of your caring. You are attempting to sabotage yet another US election just so that you can posture and peacock and pretend like your flaccid, pointless, embarrassing throw-away vote matters. You are helping the Republicans win and that means you do not care about the above mentioned people. STOP PRETENDING YOU DO. Just admit who you are — part of the establishment as a valuable tool is preventing any kind of real reform. Face it. You would prefer Donald Trump to get elected because then you can bathe in forever victimhood. Then you can whine and grouse about the government because you have no real way of making any kind of real change happen. You’d rather look cool pretending like there’s a chance in hell our government would “ban fracking.” What Hillary Clinton is offering isn’t good enough for purists like you so let’s just bring on Trump. You should admit this about yourself because you’re LYING IF YOU DON’T.

4. You really don’t care about putting a decent person on the Supreme Court. How else are you going to fill your life with meaning if you don’t have a conservative Supreme Court to blame for everything? God forbid Democrats should mobilize to change the court. Because then what? How will you be cool and edgy with your CSA box and your tats and your pretend-hybrid car and your tiny house and all of the other ways you brand yourself to look like you are the only one who cares when in fact YOU DON’T. You are ruled by a selfish desire to be cool. So guess what that makes you? FOREVER UNCOOL.

5. You desperately need attention. You desperately need other people to notice you. The last thing you care about is what happens to anyone else. You don’t care about the environment. You don’t care about the future of the already endangered animals. You don’t care about the Supreme Court because all you really care about is yourself. Your coolness matters more than the welfare of others. You know that people pay attention to you when you say you’re voting Jill Stein because it means you’re edgy and not a sheep and not a mainstreamer. You’re the target for Starbucks and American Apparel because you think you’re unique and thus, you’re easily manipulated. If your need for attention trumps your concern about the welfare of others that makes you a narcissist. Good luck with that.

Stray Thoughts on Reunification

$
0
0
If you ask just about any Chamorro about their thoughts on reunification or the unification of the Marianas Islands, they would most likely all say "Hunggan, gof maolek enao. Hu gof sapotte enao."In the past, differences between the islands due to colonial divisions and anger over treatment during World War II may have kept Chamorros from the north and the south apart, but that isn't really the case anymore. There maystill  be some latent feelings of superiority that people of one island may have over another, because they feel culturally, linguistically or technologically superior, but even that is started to fade at the political level as all the Marianas Islands are basically territories of the United States now, one with more power than the other.

So while common sense has changed on this issue, there has been little substantive efforts. All governors of Guam that I can remember have at some point expressed interest in unifying the Marianas Islands. They have said so because of culturally similarities, nationalist interests, looking to a decolonized and united future. But what always surprises me is how the leaders who express these things forget that they are the island's leaders, not some random person gi kanton chalan. When leaders express things that they think are good for the island, they have the responsibility to try to make them happen.

Imagine what it would look like if these thoughts, these aspirations were focused? Had a more formal form, rather than simply being pleasant statements of unity that deny realities?

Reunification of the Marianas Islands is very possible, but it would take a great deal of work and require some difficult decisions. But as Guam is pushing stronger than every for the first time in more than a decade for decolonization, and as the CNMI itself has approved the forming of a commission to study the possibility of revisiting their covenant with the United States, no time would be better to try to push seriously for this.

I mina'tuge' yu' nu este, annai hu sodda' este na kattan gaseta ginen 2006.

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

Some stray thoughts on reunification
by Felix Aguon
Special to the Saipan Tribune
May 15, 2006

Have you ever asked yourself the question as to why Guam is separated from the rest of the Mariana Islands? Geographically, Guam is about 50 miles south of the island of Rota, about 110 miles south of the island of Tinian and about 128 miles south of the island of Saipan. Since those three islands constitute what has recently been called the Northern Mariana Islands, does that make Guam, the Southern Marianas? Hmmm.

I believe that if you ask any Chamorro living on the island of Guam if we consider ourselves the people of the Southern Mariana Island of Guam you may get a cold stare right back. In fact you will probably get a lot of resistance from the Guam people if you refer to them as Micronesians. To Guam people, Micronesians are those from the islands south or southeast of Guam.

I can recall when the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the 1970s made a remark something to the affect of “who cares about 100,000 Micronesians anyway.” In retrospect, I believe he may have been referring to the people of Guam rather than the people of Micronesia. This was about the time when then President Gerald Ford gave permission for Guam to begin talks for a possible commonwealth status that was eventually afforded to the CNMI. History tells us that the leadership of Guam lacked the insight to get this on our plate and we may have lost the opportunity forever. After all Guam had a Democratic governor at the time.

Although many of us share a common past in the area, there have been many events that have happened over the past century that have brought us to where we are today. For instance, Guam became a possession of the United States as part of an agreement with Spain by conquest following the Spanish-American War in 1898. As a possession of the United States because of the events of World War II, Guam came under the control of the Empire of Japan from December 1941 to about August 1944. In July 1944, a large contingent of U.S. forces stormed the shores of western Guam to liberate the island and bring it back into U.S. control.

All in all, we do have a common past and you’d think that the common past we have would make a difference in efforts to try to unify. Together, Guam and the CNMI can form a strong alliance. With this, we could gain a little influence on the worldwide scheme of things rather than be divided, with only a portion of the strength we would have otherwise. As a youth I knew that the CNMI existed because I had some friends who were born and raised on Saipan. In fact, one of my best friends is from there and has offered me a better insight into what the people of the CNMI were like before I eventually ventured into the area.

For whatever the reason, many Guam people disliked the people of Saipan in the past and were never fearful of saying so in public to other people in Guam. Believe it or not there were always a choice few who were not afraid to say this in front of people from Saipan and as embarrassing as it was, this would be uttered time and again. I am not exactly sure if this sentiment still exists in our younger generation but I will not be surprised to hear that it has been passed from parent to child, just as every ill and fault of the world often is.

Power in politics is prevalent throughout the region, where we elect our leaders based on some kind of feeling we think they have about us. Each and every leader in both Guam and the CNMI knows that what power they have is something that they are very reluctant to give up or hand over to another. This is probably one of the reasons why many of the leaders in the CNMI do not look forward to meeting with leaders from Guam to discuss the possible reunification of the entire Marianas. Think about it? Would you be willing to give up control over territory you have jurisdiction over to someone else who may exclude you from any involvement in a leadership role? I really wonder.

In the CNMI, each of the islands—Saipan, Tinian and Rota—have two Senate representatives. If Rota and Tinian work together they could overpower efforts by Saipan to impose its will on either of them if an issue were to come up where it could only benefit Saipan and not Rota or Tinian. Truly, that is indeed strength and power and something difficult to just unload on an entity with a greater population than the entire NMI, which is what Guam has.

Do you think that Guam politicians are above those types of antics and would allow fair play and logic to rule the way they do things with regard to the possible and eventual reunification of the entire Marianas? I guess we can only hope for the best.

(Felix Aguon is a writer based in Guam.)

Breathe Life into the Chamorro Language

$
0
0
Tomorrow is the Inadaggao Lengguahen Chamoru at UOG. The forum for senatorial candidates in the Chamorro language will begin at 6 pm in the CLASS Lecture Hall. See my column below for more information on why it is important.
 
**************

Breathe life in the Chamorro language

From 6 to 8 p.m. Oct. 10 at the University of Guam CLASS Lecture Hall, students in the Chamorro Studies program will organize an “Inadaggao Lengguahen Chamoru” or a Chamorro Language Forum. For this event, four senatorial candidates from each political party will be asked questions in the Chamorro language about pertinent island issues, and respond in the Chamorro language. The event is open to the public and refreshments will be provided.

Nowadays it is easy to forget that there are two official languages for this island, Chamorro and English. One of them has been here for a little over a century, the other for thousands of years. Despite changes that have taken place, the Chamorro language has probably been a part of this land, as long as it has hosted people. It is intimately tied to the natural world and it is the tongue that Chamorros have used to describe everything from typhoons to foreign invaders. In recent memory, one language has become dominant, while the other is increasingly quiet.

Due to overt efforts by the U.S. Navy prior to World War II to prohibit and discourage the use of the Chamorro language and postwar choices made by Chamorros to Americanize, the Chamorro language has been steadily declining. After surviving innumerable trials and tribulations, we can almost hear the end of the language on the horizon. Although the 20,000-plus speakers of Chamorro in the world today is positive compared to many smaller languages with just a handful of fluent speakers. Each successive census indicates that rather than stemming the tide of language death, we continue to lose tens of thousands of speakers.

The Chamorro renaissance, which has reversed so many formerly negative self-perceptions that Chamorros have of themselves, has done little to slow the decline of the Chamorro language. Chamorros no longer eagerly accept the idea that the primary value of their language and culture is that it can be sacrificed on the altar of American assimilation, but sadly this has not led to an increase of the number of Chamorro language speakers.

There are many factors that are affecting the decline of the Chamorro language, but the usual reasons that you will hear discussed around your average fiesta table aren’t the real villains. The Chamorro language isn’t being killed by Facebook, iPads, Netflix or anything of the sort. The Chamorro language isn’t dying because of a terrible laziness that afflicts the youth of today or a saddening unwillingness to learn their native tongue. The Chamorro language is declining because those who can speak Chamorro do not speak it to those who don’t, especially if they are younger than them. And furthermore, that who can speak Chamorro tend not to use it around those who can’t.

Observe your average Chamorro speaker and you’ll see this is true. Chances are good they will use Chamorro among those in their age group, especially if they are above the age of 60. But when it comes to interacting with those younger than them, even within their own family, you’ll see the amount of Chamorro drop dramatically.

Languages remain alive for a single reason; it has nothing to do with status, practicality or speaker community size. They are alive because they are passed on to the next generation.

There are still spaces in Guam where the Chamorro language remains strong and audible. There are still families where it is being passed on to the younger generations. But these spaces and instances are becoming fewer and fewer. As a result, the language becomes quieter and quieter.

Despite the dire state of the Chamorro language today, it is important to recognize that the language does not have to die. It is not destined for linguistic oblivion, existing only in recordings in the Guam Museum. It can be brought back to a healthy state again, but doing so requires far more than current efforts within families and within communities. As UOG President Robert Underwood argued during his keynote address at the Indigenous Language Conference during the Festival of Pacific Arts, you cannot just “håfa adai” your way to language revitalization. Given the deep tissue forms of colonization that convinced Chamorros that their language was useless in the first place, serious interventions are required to re-infuse value and reestablish a sense of linguistic integrity and practical flexibility.

It is common to see the decline of the Chamorro language as tied to technological or cultural changes, but that isn’t how languages work. Languages are adaptive, they can survive just about anything, so long as people continue to use them and pass them on to the next generation. The Chamorro language is disappearing because rather than adapting the language to the world around us, we have reduced the places where it has spoken, ceding more and more territory of everyday life to the realm of English, leaving Chamorro to feel stagnant and static in comparison. In addition to simply using it with our children and grandchildren, we have to expand the things we use Chamorro for and the places where it is natural to use it. This can mean pushing the Chamorro language to evolve in order to be able to accommodate shifts in technology or popular culture, but also use community outreach or public mandates in order to increase the number of places where Chamorro can be used or heard.

Electoral politics was once a place, in the 20th century where the Chamorro language thrived. From pocket meetings to the speeches on the floor of the Guam Legislature, whereas English was the formal language of politics, Chamorro was a necessary companion, feeding a vitality into campaigns. Take, for example, this passage from Pedro C. Sanchez’s "Guahan/Guam: The History of Our Island":
The 1956 election was the first tie that a real contest for legislative seats was experienced on Guam … Popular Party meetings went into the wee hours of the morning. They stayed until they heard Senator James T. Sablan of Agana Heights deliver his nightly “bombshell” blasting the leaders of the Territorial Party slate. His attacks ranged from hilarious uses of the Chamorro and English languages to malicious attacks on his opponents. But the crowd loved it and would disperse only after he finished at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning.
As the number of Chamorro speakers has declined, the number of fluent speakers among our elected leaders has dropped as well. Pocket meetings used to be filled with speakers who would politick in the Chamorro language, but even their numbers are dwindling. Political events will feature common Chamorro phrases, perhaps a single speaker who will emphasis the use of Chamorro, but other than that, politics are now English with local flavor.

The Inadaggao Lengguahen Chamoru is an attempt to push back against this Chamorro decline and stagnation. It is a symbolic intervention aimed at expanding the borders of what we’ve come to commonly associate with the Chamorro language. To help Chamorros of all ages see that the language is so much more than tattoos, T-shirts or food words. But that it will only have as much value, as much life as we breathe into it through our use of it.

Michael Lujan Bevacqua is an author, artist, activist and assistant professor of Chamorro studies at the University of Guam.
Viewing all 863 articles
Browse latest View live