Monday, March 30, 2009

Tetehnan Chapter Four

The first full draft of my dissertation was completed almost a month ago and in the time since I've been editing and fixing up my chapters in preparation for my defense in June.

As I've done with my previous chapters, I'm pasting in this post, all the tetehnan or leftovers from my writing of the fourth chapter of my dissertation.

To read the tetehnan of my other chapters, click the links below:

In this chapter I was discussing sovereignty and decolonization from a more local perspective, writing about and sometimes critiquing the ideas of sovereignty that Chamorros, activists or not, everyday use to articulate their existences, and how a lot of times they set themselves up for failure, dependency, non-existence or eternal colonization through their ideas. You might recognize some of the names in this chapter, and in fact, there might even be a chance that you might be mentioned in this chapter. Read through if you dare, its all over the place, but there's still some interesting thoughts in there.

Some of it though is copied and pasted from elsewhere and just so you know that I'm not the one who said those things (since some of them are screwed up), I've italicized those sections.

For those who aren't familiar with this tradition of mine, what you see below is what has been edited out of my chapter. So its a mixture of complete sections, sentences or words that I took out, random notes and reminders that I erased and finally sections which I didn't necessarly get rid of, but re-wrote but felt I should still keep the original wording just in case I missed something. You never know when you might need something you once wrote again, and so I find it helpful to keep everything.
Also, as part of my tradition now, I'll be interlacing the tetehnan ginnen iyo-ku dissertation with pictures of sunsets and skyscapes on Guam.


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

The impossibility is inadvertantly revealed to be contingent
encasement
that others decide their fate and the fate of their land.

I say that Howard realized this because by the end of his comments he had changed his tune completely. Gof matulaika i hinasso-na. Fine'nina ilek-na na hita i Chamoru la'mon todu put i kuttura gi isla-ta, lao by the time he finished, we Chamorros were not free at all on Guam. By the end of his statements Chamorros were not free to practice their cultural rights and heritage, the issue of independence was not simply finding what the colonizer hasn't touched, but rather would require, as Fanon notes in The Wretched of the Earth, a direct confrontation with the colonizer and the apparatus of desire that props up the colonial world.

End this section with the FANIHI!!!!!

When faced with this daunting and cruel framework, the majority of our energy which is dedicated to resistance and critique, never seems to actually directly confront the colonizer, but instead work to sidestep, predate or withdraw from such a fight, by retreating into claims about cultural superiority. This is why for so many, decolonization if it is not a dry and formal political process, it is then a purely cultural endeavor, in which one tries to find the point the colonizer hasn't tainted or destroyed yet. (Hunggan bei konfotme na maolekna i kutturan Chamoru kinu i kutturan Amerikanu, lao kao nahong ha' este na sinangan? Para Guahu, yanggen un atan i sisteman power giya Guahan, kalang taibali este, because it does not necessarily disrupt the authority or power of the United States over life and the future in Guam.)

The interesting part of this, is the way in which the introduction of a political dimension to the Chamorro, or a political claim made on behalf by Chamorros suddenly

which tasked that the Department of Agricultural

This is perhaps a fairly conservative act of de
taking on the need for what they called “native fishing rights”
Fishing rights issue
But this dynamic of multiple types of Chamorros existing at the same time, in the same discourse, but yet

The imagination that Chamorros use to think about processes such as decolonization or the sovereignty or existence of a Chamorro today are so narrow and so rigid, that the evacuation of Guam, the emptying of Guam that took place in the Wall Street Journal article, is something they themselves are absolutely willing to participate in.

This is the
It is because of letters like this and the logics it represents that there must be more education in everyday conversations which can break this commonsense about decolonization, since this conception of it, as being a time traveling trip into the past, is not just the belief of haoles such as Dave Davis, but rather the majority of Chamorros as well. Chamorros that I have interviewed in my research on decolonization have thought that decolonization would mean, running the island naked with barbeque tongs.

Decolonization in all of its diverse forms is not simply about the past, but about the future. It is about dealing with the political sins of the past and rectifying them, not ignoring or forgetting the injustices of the past, but rather creating a process to confront them and act in awareness of them in the name of the future of our island and our people. It is a process of making that future our own, rather than accepting an existence where others who are "whiter" and "more modern" control it for us. For both Chamorros and non-Chamorros we must make this point very very clear.

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

A ‘free and sovereign’ NMI?

WE note that Mr. Jose U. Garrido (a.k.a. Joe Garrido, chairman of Guam’s Decolonization Commission’s free association task force) is again clamoring to part company with the United States of America — espousing Chamorro sovereignty, as it were.

Dream on, Mr. Garrido. You may have difficulty convincing your Chamorro brethren to forfeit their expectations of those amenities, along with American citizenship for succeeding generations. As for your notion that changes to the CNMI Covenant would provide the opportunity for residents there to become “free and sovereign”: it would be interesting to learn just how many would embrace that option. Perhaps we’ll have the chance to find out.

By the way — how’s progress on the Guam “Chamorro Only” political status plebiscite?

DAVE DAVIS
Yigo, Guam


and a Guam military would be required to fight with “slingstones” and “spears.”

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.

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?

The latte marks the boundary, the limit. The other side is sovereignty, we’re stuck on this side.

Bringing in here “what has he found?” section.

The latte marks the
which he soon asks what his gra
(Bring in here ma’å’ñao. He investigates her, and discovers that in himself the only real Chamorro part is “ma’å’ñao”)

At the worst we are stuck with the idea that Chamorros only exist in the past, only exist in the time when there were nothing but Chamorros on Guam, prior to the arrival of intervention of anyone or anything else. At best this logic results in an unholy marriage of eras.

Mention your master’s thesis
Do you provide examples? Running a military with slingstones?

You are constantly pulled away from the present, told that decolonization is about past things, about bringing back the past, living in the past. It takes you away from present problems, makes your focus being on solving the problems of the past.
You need more about this past issue.

Decolonization in this context, in terms of autonomy is impossible, the conditions for existence only allow a few choices. 1st. You can turn back in time, to the moments before these modern problems. Return to a previous harmonious moment. 2. You can simply expel all traces of what is “modern.” (ti siguru yu’ put este na punta)

3. Developing a Chamorro response, but one that can be made only using that which is “authentically Chamorro.” Not necessarily playing with the terms or meaning, but operating with almost ludicrous assumptions as if the only thing which is Chamorro is that which has no trace of anything else, or predates the contact from Spain, Japan, America. (you can move from this section into the next one, the pointlessness of this version)

Joe Murphy and Dave Davis. Not meant for this world, wouldn’t know what to do with sov. if they got it.

12. The latte and the fanihi. Impossibility, how sovereignty is placed beyond the Chamorro. This can be used to indicate, how pointless this sovereignty is. The walling of it off, what is the purpose? What’s the point? If it can’t be touched, can’t be used?

Or perhaps, you can connect is by saying how out of place it is in today’s world. Its not meant to roam free, not meant to exist in the Guam of today.

The fanihi, Lamorena plays the game. The result is that
But this is the curious point about this version of sovereignty, in that it is supposed to be about providing a path to strength and security amongst Chamorros, it is meant to be a foundation for their lives, it actually appears to weaken and limit them. Both of them create almost impossible conditions for a sovereign Chamorro to exist, and therefore what the Chamorro is, is feeble, weak, dependent, has to rely upon the United States in order to survive.

Both of these texts provide an intriguing metaphor for the impossibility of decolonization from this version of sovereignty. The first inspiring, but still uncertain, unclear. The second tragic, yet comical.

The latte, both of them mention the latte. Also bring in Tony Brinkley
Then the fanihi provides the bridge to the next section. To the political part. This interaction with Lamorena provides a truth of decolonization and sovereignty that both texts completely elide or fail to mention, its political dimension. And that sovereignty and decoloniation are ultimately about the structure of life, not just meanings and artifacts, but the rules by which those artifacts are given or infused meaning. There is a relationship here, one’s powerlessness is America’s power.

The possibility for Chamorros exist in this world, but only when it is sealed off and trapped. The autonomy, the desire for it, the acceptance of a Chamorro essence and that its sovereignty must be inherent, untouched thus becomes a prohibition, manifests in metaphorical ways in the present as something which is thus cut off from even the very search of Chamorros, as something they themselves much be sealed away from, or risk tainting it as well.

At worst its impossible. In the Wall Street Journal article this impossibility is portrayed in a tragic comical metaphor, that of a fanihi, or a fruit bat.

(this section could go after the fanihi and latte section) What is the problem with this? Is this effective? What sort of foundation is this? How does this grounding influence the present?

13.
Bring in Howard Hemsing anecdote here. But introduce it somehow.
The locating of this sovereignty in the distant mafñas past,
This desire for a pure or inherent sovereignty
Actually the Fanihi and Latte metaphor can be part of the past and present section.

Impossibility and Pointlessness (you could combine these points into just a general discussion which then sets up the political part, since Joe Torres and the Chamorro Land Trust should actually go in the political section)

The other dimension of this type of sovereignty should be clear by now as well. Delicate or impossible.
It is so easily lost, destroyed. It is so pointless, so fragile.

The relationship between the present and the past of Chamorro is just the beginning. The next logical step is impresentability, and thus impossibility. So while this version leads away from the present, what happens when we remain in the present? When we give up on any desperate yearning voyage into the past and accept the present as our and therefore our sovereignty’s location?

Chamorro Land Trust (who is really Chamorro?)
Native Fishing Rights (Torres, Chamorro one moment, when it approaches the political however, it suddenly disappears. He’s Chamorro at home, to everyone else, but once it comes down to the Chamorro becoming a political creature its gone, it doesn’t exist.

(this could go after the explanation of multi-culturalism)
(you can bring in from your thesis, how discussions on decolonization force to the surface the structure of these hegemonic formations)
Bring in here the fanihi and latte section.

14.
The apolitical is next. Where does the delicate part go?
Maybe it can still be the second point. And the 3rd is stil the political as the ultimate meaning of what you’ve introduced so far.

The recycling issue can be the bridge, between the delicateness and the pointlessness and then the apolitical point. First you introduce the way the limited way in which Chamorros can act or interact. What you can and can’t do is limited by your culture. That which is authentic for you to embody or take on.

Then you enhance this point with the discussion on how the Chamorro disappears or is dismissed. Or how this leads us to the issues of the cultural and the political.
This type of sovereignty is the kind best designed for a multi-cultural world. It is the one which helps the Chamorro, whether they are conscious of it or not, fit snuggly within their colonial world, but still find or search for sovereignty, but always away from any possibility of affecting their present political life.
Multiculturalism section

he still doesn’t speak Chamorro.

Conf spoke of giving oneself to justice
Mencius spoke of sacrificing oneself for righteousness
Surrendering is not a matter of victory or defeat,
But rather one of virtue

(this goes in the apolitical section)
There is no “authentic” recourse here. The Chamorro who accepts or believes these rules traps themselves and requires that they be unable to affect the world around them.

has its own set of technological and historical accomplishments.
These stones attest to a Chamorro techno
The emphasis on food, one such potential artifact. But the quest for authenticity always leads somewhere else.

In both the landscape of Guam is torn up and sifted through to glean from all the potential signifiers, the composite existence of Chamorros today, as to what is actually Chamorro. Nothing is found. Although the plebiscite is still on, and the author while obviously finding the idea of the vote ridiculous, never actually formed any coherent political argument against it. Instead, he approached an island full of potential political subjects, Chamorros, with political claims, armed with a potential act of decolonization, and rather than contend with their argument, simply evacuated them.

(It is never stated in the article that only those who are pure deserve or are capable of self-determination or decolonization, by this is the implicit logic of the piece’s evolution. Or, only that which is pure deserve the label, everything else should be cast aside. Tydingco’s comment. It was fun, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Chamorro)

By operating under that simple, but never stated assumption that sovereignty in this context equals that which is pure, authentic, that which has survived untouched or unscathed, he is able to divide the island up, into small pieces and reveal each of them to belong somewhere else, or reveal each to be inauthentic and thus remove them from the island, remove them from the political picture.

By the article’s end, the question of Guam’s political status remains, the stench of colonialism is still present, but all the potential actors or agents, the beneficiaries of decolonization have been dismissed. There remains no one else save for the non-Chamorro, whose identity, unlike all others mentioned in the article is never questioned. Unlike those who possessed potential political claims, she asks for nothing, represents nothing save for the authentic observer, who can pronounce the death sentence upon the Chamorro. Who can pound the final nail into an empty coffin.

The second is a documentary named Chamoru Dreams, which chronicles the struggle of a young Chamorro who has lived much of his life in the states, who returns home to the island to “find his roots.”

Dozens of Chamorros interviewed struggled to name a food that is distinctly Chamorro. (why does it have to be distinctly Chamorro?)
Potential signifiers of Chamorro existence are again unloaded, but again signify other places and by default signify a Chamorro lack.

genuine Chamorro artifacts

On a steamy evening along the coast, the lights flicker on at Chamorro Village. A Spanish-style plaza of stalls and shops, Chamorro Village was born in the early 1990s to promote Chamorro arts and crafts and raise the profile of Chamorro culture. Tonight, only a few stalls are open -- and they're far from Chamorro. Most sell kimonos and T-shirts. Carmen's Mexican Restaurant is dark, and the Jamaican Grille is empty…"You have to come on Wednesday nights," says Tien Bin Wu, a 67-year-old owner of a Cantonese food stall. "Wednesday night is Chamorro night."

is of course a double strike, first attacking with “what culture?” and
Up until this point in the article Frank had yet to introduce a Chamorro, but had instead populated Guam with banalities on its former and current political and economic colonizers. Guam is described as a “small island containing a world of cultures,” and
And lists of signifiers that made clear the
this “suggestion” of yet another place where we might find some sort of authentic Chamorro existence or fragment is

After describing the landscape of Guam as a gaudy collage of consumeristic, corporate images and
This is the narrative thread of the piece, a sort of trial to see whether or not the
Leading the charge is the Chamorro Nation, a group of tattooed youths and tribal activists who seek to reclaim the country. Their methods are mild -- aside from staging the occasional sit-in, they give beach tours and fauna lessons.

The group has gained widespread popularity on an island searching for its precolonial roots. "We've had some tough times since Magellan landed" in 1521, says Eddie L.G. Benavente, leader of the Chamorro Nation, and a teacher at Guam's John F. Kennedy High School. "But now it's time to take control of our country and our culture."


Mention all the specific parts

The most annoying example which pops into my head is the Wall Street Journal article "Guam Struggles to Find its Roots Beneath Piles of Spam" from 2000 which discussed Chamorro non-existence. Such a search for pure signifiers took place, around food, where the article's brodie author, asks Tony Lamorena to show him what "real" Chamorro food is. A handful of food dishes are mentioned, each leading to somewhere else, not Guam. At last when a real Chamorro dish is found, fanihi, its mentioned to be illegal to hunt and eat. Thus making it clear in unclear, salient yet silent terms that whatever this Chamorro is (which is not this cruel diffusion), is inaccessible to us. There is a prohibition on it, which puts it beyond the reach of Chamorros today. The article ends in a way too painful perfect for proving my points, with this frightening empe' Real:

"Who's a Chamorro, and who's not?" asks 18-year-old Menchie Canlas, a Filipino ticket-taker at the cliff. "I don't think anybody knows any more."


Chamoru Dreams
(use this part earlier in the chapter, when you are discussing the importance of “location.”) Sovereignty is the problem of location and legitimacy. Where do violence and power become legitimate? Where are the points through which a community becomes stable, ordered, coherent? This type of sovereignty is no different, but from a different perspective. Here we see a community incomplete, impure, lost in time and history and searching for the artifacts, ideas and objects that can heal their colonial wounds, that can bring them back.

The artifacts used to show this sovereignty are meant to show a durability, a continuity, but in reality reveal an implicit weakness. This sovereignty is so fragile, so delicate, the mere “taint” of civilization transforms it into inauthentic, fake, not real, not really Chamorro. The defining of sovereignty through autonomy creates this weakness, whereby anything which could be invoked to prove the strength and durability of the Chamorro can easily be unraveled and turned to ash should any connection the colonizer or modern things be revealed.

This leads us away from the present in multiple ways.
First, the subtext of Frank’s article is that if you’re looking for a Chamorro its not here, indirectly and almost sarcastically calling into question those who are pushing for Chamorro rights today. The quote from the Filipina ticket taker is the nail in the coffin, who are these people struggling for identity, when they don’t exist anyways? All that they search for isn’t there’s, or is beyond their grasp.

The fanihi is an interesting choice, because it reveals that possibility is always beyond the Chamorro, the Chamorro is impossible.

Tydingco sits before his grandmother, a very accomplish Chamorro woman, but bypasses her, sees her as just a stop on the road, a bearer of incomplete, impure knowledge

Texts: Wall Street Journal Article, piles of Spam
Tony Brinkley, Guam Confronts Americanization
Chamoru Dreams
The logic of how it is filled. Looking for the root, the source, the tahdong, the authentic. That which is real. Lamorena and the fanihi.
(these are the problems with that view, is that the search is impossible from the start or that it leads you away from the present. Bring in the statement from the ticket taker at the Mall.
Native Fishin Rights,

This form of decolonization leads you away from the present, away from today. Away from the structures of power today, encouraging you to look far away, in whatever has not been touched.

Violet Castro, the one thing that Chamorros can contribute to the world.
People who refute decolonization or activist arguments by saying there aren’t any Chamorros in the world.
Joe Torres, the guy who said, whose a Chamorro?
Hemsing example shows the danger of futility of this version. We are sovereign, you aren’t really sovereign.

It places a massive, sweltering gap in the life and history of the colonized. Which is supposed to be there’s, which is meant to be theirs, which they are supposed to fill, but has been for a variety of reasons, kept from them. They have been pushed out of that sovereign place.

Even within the article itself, we can begin to perceive this.

Chamorro activists are spoken to and while they do not accept the ultimate conclusion of the article, that Chamorros don’t really exist and that their whole argument for self-determination is ridiculous, they do not resist the logic that leads the article there. But while they would resist this conclusion, the logic itself is not necessarily tampered with or critiqued. Both of the voices quoted meant to represent Chamorros and that political spirit, admit to their existence being a minimal one, a shaded, shadowed, tainted, corrupted one.

While this article could be easily dismissed as being written from an obviously “outsider” perspective, but as the discourse of these Chamorros hint at, the accept of this logic of Chamorro impossibility or minimality is something Chamorros often enthusiastically or grudgingly accept as well. We can see this in Chamoru Dreams.

the documentary represents his search for answers.
Authenticity is supposedly its own reward.
decided to reassert
My grandfather looked at this artist, gof lalalu, and responded that I AM YOUR ANCESTOR.

My grandfather has a store in the Chamorro Village, an tourist area on Guam created to showcase Chamorro culture

Even most of the Chamorro artists who represent themselves as producing indigenous works, recognize the importance that his machete and fosino symbolize in terms of Chamorro toughness and ability to survive and sustain itself.

The older generations respect my grandfather’s tools because they can recall using them and the quality of our family’s wares

Bring in here the KSN story.
I will end here with a story, which proves to me why people who argue for a pure Chamorro in the distant past are wrong. My grandfather is Tun Jack Lujan, the Chamorro Master Blacksmith. Because of his work he is respected by many many people. Manamko' remember his father and him and their tools that they depended upon to survive on the lancho and in particular during the war. Even most of the Chamorro artists who represent themselves as producing indigenous works, recognize the importance that his machete and fosino symbolize in terms of Chamorro toughness and ability to survive and sustain itself. At one arts festival on Guam, my grandfather was talking to a group of artists near one of their booths, where they had bone, shell and wood carvings. My grandfather is in his 80's and uses a cane when he walks around. He got tired of standing around while talking and looked for a place to sit, and saw a wooden latte carving, which he could use as a stool. After he sat on it, one of the artists yelled at him, that he couldn't sit there, that is for our ancestors.

The latte today is
message t
First that the Chamorro and Guam need the United States to survive
One Chamorro made clear

All of the things which fill its long history, all of the potential cultural forms it might possess, which might assist with the present

But all this changed when I started discussing decolonization,But all this changed when I started discussing decolonization,

It is understood that Chamorros are the indigenous people of Guam, and that he is one of them.

In 1974, the Guam Legislature passed the Guam Land Trust Act, which, modeled after the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, was designed to provide land to landless Chamorros. Although on the books, the law was dormant for decades, as questions over who legally qualified as Chamorro were debated. In the early 1990’s, the group Nasion Chamoru was formed, comprising of indigenous rights activists, families seeking the return of their ancestral lands, and a surprisingly large number of disillusioned former American military servicemen. In 1992, the Nasion Chamoru sued the Government of Guam for its failure to implement the Chamorro Land Trust Act, and eventually won, forcing the Governor of Guam to create the Chamorro Land Trust Commission. That same year, the United States Navy returned the land beneath Naval Air Station, in the island’s central area, to the Government of Guam.

During the Decolonizing Our Lives forum that Famoksaiyan helped organize last month in Guam, Howard Hemsing, an independence for Guam advocate, spoke for several minutes during the question and answer period about independence and cultural rights. Howard is often criticized for the radical stances he takes, most notoriously the holding of signs by the sides of Marine Drive that proclaim the importance of Independence for Guam, or that "Yankee Go Home."

Howard began his statement by telling all that we don't need anyones permission to be independent, we don't need anyone else's process of decolonization or Congressional approval. Este i isla-ta esta, ti guailayi i inapreban otro, hita la'mon! For him, what constituted this independence was clear, the ability to practice our culture, to enjoy our cultural rights.

Somewhere in the middle of his tirade, Howard no doubt realized that the purely cultural realm which he was telling all was the site for decolonization was actually insufficient. Again, as I often write on this blog, that isolated native and its space which is dictated negatively into existence by appearing to embody all the things the colonizer couldn't kill, is unfortunately one of the colonizers most potent spaces for continuing its control.
Chamorros in the states actively and excitedly accept and celebrate some of the most fundamental multicultural and colonial fantasies, that of the divisions of the colonized and the colonizer or those white and those non-white into binaries of culture vs. political and social vs. political. In both of these binaries, racialized or colonized groups are produced as the inferior and stagnant side of the spectrum.

In the United States, the position of Chamorros ensnared in the most base forms of multi-culturalism work in a similar way.
in the United States, for racial groups, the house still does not belong to you, but now you may choose what goes on your walls.

This type of sovereignty is the kind best designed for a multi-cultural world. It is the one which helps the Chamorro, whether they are conscious of it or not, fit snuggly within their colonial world, but still find or search for sovereignty, but always away from any possibility of affecting their present political life.
Multiculturalism section

Culture, is something which all Chamorro clubs in the United States, regardless of their type of mission profess to support. Culture in this context is often meant to refer to the language, history and ideals of the Chamorro people, but too often is reduced to “partying and food.” This limited and limiting notion of what is Chamorro culture is precisely what induces fear amongst Chamorros in the states, about engaging in political activities or decolonization. As mentioned in the previous section, there is a clear link between the way Chamorros on Guam conceive the United States’ place in their lives, and thus resist decolonization, and the ways Chamorros in the United States insist that they are social beings only.

There is something to this, there
The answer lies in the political, in moving int hat direction, moving towards it. Not retreating

(this could go second, as it leads us to the political question. Apolitical. Because it points us to who is responsible. That this impossibility is not neutral, not the fabric of reality, but can be traced to another somewhere who draws power from the acceptance of this limit.)

Guam and sovereignty. Because of the particular discursive specificities of Guam, in terms of how to talk about its political status, and the discursive and textual objects used in making its status possible today, the word sovereignty is not in common use.

which despite a patriotic veneer, is inundated with feelings of being marginalized or not respected or recognized by its colonial master, Guam regularly experiences pangs of desire towards more sovereignty
The two key terms for sovereignty in Guam are “self-determination” and “decolonization.”
These terms come from Guam’s long association with the United Nations and its presence on its list of remaining world colonies.

(the previous chapter already investigated the UN definitions)

Bush quote:
discussing the quote itself
(bring in here autonomy?)

Bring in here 4,000 year history (put this in the reaching back to before the colonizer)
hope for the feelings of authenticity and self-determination craved by people are sought. Yet
Where feelings of authenticity and self-determination are craved by people, yet the very

Bring in here the dubious distinction part
Bring in the filling part somewhere
How do you show this? Destiny’s Landfall reviews? Angel Santos written out of our own histories?
Actually you can show this later when you are discussing the filling
About telling the Chamorro side of things.

Thus decolonization is a process of filling in this gap. Or rectifying this unjust silence or void. It is about filling it with Chamorro culture, the Chamorro side of things, the Chamorro way, the Chamorro spirit.

These should be examples of that filling:
Angel Santos comment on being written out of our own history.

The canonical text for Guam history right now is Destiny’s Landfall: A History of Guam, by Guam historian Roger Rogers. This is the most comprehensive narrative of Guam’s history.

Examples of this filling:
1. Self-determination vote. A political status vote, an act meant to put Chamorros back in the driver’s seat.
2. Chamorro dance – bringing back a lost and dead tradition. Discourse that defends the break in continuity as being the end, and anything after that is deemed impure and fake.
3. Chamorro language (the most explicitly decolonial are the pre-Spanish, tahdong words)
4. Writing the Chamorro side of history, writing a Chamorro-centered history.

. In that this logic for sovereignty leads it to be extremely fragile and elusive.

Bring in here what these have in common.
About a self-determination plebiscite that was scheduled to take place that year but did not happen. It is a standard sort of text in terms of the way that political questions for indigenous people are dealt with in crude, overly simplistic cultural ways.

It is an article on political topics which devolves into cultural rambling. Based on the same logic or searching for sovereignty.
they are given a voice several paragraphs into the piece, through the quotations of a leader of a Chamorro sovereignty group.

Bring in quote, bring in the “distinctly Chamorro quote”
The lure of autonomy, that purity, which in this case is translated as “distinctiveness” “uniqueness” that your sovereign space is that which no one else shares or can claim.

friend who is committed to living a more traditional life, who is making sure his children speak Chamorro,
signifiers regularly betray the director.

Bring in here the transitional points.
No one mentioned that purity equals sovereignty, its just implied and accepted. Authenticity is its own reward
A lot of the stuff in this section can stay for now.

The two points you need to make before you move on to the fanihi and latte section are:

it is never mentioned that cultural purity equals sovereignty, nor is any argument tendered as to what makes a

(France, black people, slavery)
(the 4,000 year history is tied to this. Should you bring this in here?)
(this goes in the intro for Chamoru Dreams, or possibly in the impossible/pointless section)

(people snickering at his tools being “Chamorro.”)
Then the next section begins with a “sinembatgo” it is the present in which we act.
(should this section be moved to the “confinement” section) The texts agree however that the only place in which Chamorros are certain to find sovereignty is in their dreams.

Dreams are metaphor that binds these texts together. It speaks to the unrealistic, unreal sorts of expectations of Chamorros and also the only place it seems where what they are searching for can be found. Tydingco constantly dreams of his goal, and its unclear at the film’s end whether he has actually found them in Guam or is finding them in his dreams.

In the WSJ, dreams as aspirations. As in a scornful, decolonization and sovereignty, only in their dreams!

But this is, in a metaphor taken on by the film, only possible in his dreams. They only speak to him in his dreams. Although the film ends with him discovering them it is unclear what this means.
where as America began gearing up for its War on Terror, the Chamorro was argued as better confined to another world, an older world.
a group of roughly hundred Chamorros, from diverse backgrounds banded together to form the Taotaomo’na Native Rights Groups.

a diverse group of Chamorros calling themselves the Taotaomona Native Rights Group emerged as an activist group fighting for Chamorro rights

in order to add color and life to the island’s waters and make them
Bring in here Hemsing’s anecdote.
Given these tendencies, decolonization built upon this form of decolonization can itself be an impossibly difficult process. A confused, uncertain process. You can bring in what you’ve written in the next section.

As one of the orgnaizers made clear,
With death, doom and dire straits a plenty, the organizers for the conference,
America and its influence and impacts on Guam, s

The political activists article, KUAM, Johnny Sablan and Flora Baza Quan. All the dire issues that are brought up, there is death and dying everywhere. Culture, physical, linguistic, health wise, mind wise. Yet we are not political. Then what is the link? What can the link be between your problems and what you can do?

The false security of autonomy or pre-contact sovereignty.


Culture is the glue that holds this together and makes it possible.
But Fanon’s conceptions of culture and what should or should not be considered “culture” in a colonial situation are drastically different.

(this is a transition between the introduction to Fanon and then the section on his ideas about culture)
To keep the very ideas of sovereignty unchallenged.
Should you bring in Hemsing’s story after this point?
VIOLENCE: violence reveals that conflict and confrontation is the key to decolonization.

No comments:

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails