NO REST FOR THE AWAKE - MINAGAHET CHAMORRO

Worlds Within Worlds

2012-01-28T17:38:00.000+10:00

I don't follow sports much anymore, unless you include eSports as I am an avid spectator of professional Starcraft 2 gaming. I did catch this though earlier on MSN and so I thought to post it here. It isn't really about sports, but more so about politeness and respect for differing opinions and the role that Facebook and other social media plays in terms of creating the public identities of people. As people create a virtual world that is an overlay of their everyday lives, is something lost when they tend to favor their Facebook world instead of the world around them in terms of their expression and the meaning they find in their lives? For example, is something lost when you are sitting in a room with friends talking, but you are continually on your phone chatting with people on your Facebook? Or are both circles the same? Can they co-exist or does favoring one make you value less the other?

I always wonder about this as it is becoming increasingly difficult to get students to pay attention in my lectures without them constantly being distracted by their phones. You can't argue that being distracted only came into existence after smartphones or texting was created, but is there something different to the distraction now? Is it more pervasive? Are the abilities to simply spend 80 minutes on Tumblr during class more detrimental than someone simply daydreaming the same amount of time?

But for other more serious things such as activism, does the ease of Facebook make it tempting to take it as a version of the world and then model one's actions, expectations and celebrations off of what takes place there? I have written about this elsewhere on my blog, but is there a danger to take too seriously what you hear and what happens on Facebook, in the same way in which you can assume that what your friends tell you is also what everyone else says and thinks?

The article below is an example of that from the sports world. It deals with a hockey player who disagrees with President Obama, and how when he is scheduled to meet the President along with other players from his team, he decides not to go, but instead speaks out on Facebook. Rather than take the opportunity, that few get to question or challenge the President, he resorted to the oasis of Facebook in order to express himself.

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

Taking a Stand: Internet is Not the Place
Jen Floyd Engel
Fox News Sports
Updated Jan 27, 2012 9:03 PM ET

Hockey has this tradition of tapping sticks on the ice or against wood in moments of admiration — after a fight, during a pregame ceremony for a retiring legend or once, in my case, on my way into the locker room after I recently had become engaged. It is more raucous than clapping and therefore way more hockey. It says "I see you and appreciate what that took," or in my case "about time."

And upon first hearing that Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas had unleashed a little of his First Amendment rights, I tapped my stick for him.

Good for him, I thought.

Sports need more principled athletes.

Wait, he expressed himself how?

Yeah, Thomas lost me when he bailed on the Bruins' congratulatory trip to the White House — and his chance to say his piece in person — and instead posted on Facebook.

We have become a society that has confused a status update with a stand. And we wonder why nothing changes.

Athletes used to take risks for things that mattered. Black-power fists shoved into the Mexico City night sky and Bill Russell’s willingness to march on Washington with Martin Luther King Jr. Nor was it only athletes doing so. Rosa Parks sat down. The unknown man stood tall at Tiananmen Square. Countless Tea Party-ers refused to go away.

So I'm sorry if I do not buy Thomas’ status update as a principled stand. Yet it is pretty standard nowadays.

Internet balls are the new tequila balls. Everybody has a pair.

What do you do if you are a 49ers fan or a random gambler distraught over two muffed punts by Kyle Williams? Tweet him a death threat, of course. Or if you dislike a column? Log on under a fake name and drop all sorts of racist, sexist idiocy.

Does anybody think Death Threat Guy would say this to Williams' face? Of course not.

This is not another rant about the death of civility, which has been harped on a lot lately, what with Republican debates turning into a celebrity death match and that governor from Arizona wagging a finger in the face of the president of the United States.

This is more about the death of principled stands, of disagreeing respectfully and believing so much in your cause that you are willing to be a little uncomfortable standing up for it.

This is the chance Thomas had, and what he failed so miserably at by not going to the White House with his team.

Full disclosure: I am a political junkie. The debates are like crack for me. My favorite parts of sports are where they intersect with life, politics, the human experience and teach us something about ourselves.

Tim Thomas had a point — a good point actually.

I tend to agree with him when he says "the federal government has grown out of control, threatening the rights, liberties and property of the people."

What he also had, that I do not and most do not, was a chance for an audience with the president. I know, I know, somebody is going to say this was not the time. I disagree.

I do not know President Obama, but he seems like a good dude. He stood there while that governor of Arizona wagged a finger in his face. And whatever shade you are on the red-blue spectrum, can we all not agree that that kind of behavior is unacceptable? So I am guessing he is the kind of guy you could go up to and say, "Hey, I love America, but I’m kind of annoyed how this thing is going. I'd love to see you . . . "

Whatever your problem is — sports, political or otherwise — I guarantee it is unlikely to be solved with a Tweet or a Facebook post. The only way to solve anything is dig in, take a stand — and that almost always requires a little bit of courage. It requires believing in what you are saying so much that you are willing to say it to another face.

It is just complaining otherwise. And there is a long line of people doing that right now, a line that Thomas joined.

He was entitled to his opinion.

The Constitution allows, if not encourages, him to respectfully disagree and to voice his dissent.
What was disappointing about Thomas was that he did not do so in person. There is no valor in that, and no stick tap.

You can follow Jen Engel on Twitter, email her or like her on Facebook.

Addicted to Racism

2012-01-26T01:31:00.000+10:00

Check out this article below from KUAM. It deals with meetings that the Federated States of Micronesia Association of Guam had in order to draw up some plans on how to deal with violence and crimes that are being attributed to the Micronesian community of Guam, in particular the Chuukese. They even created an education plan with alot of ideas on how to alleviate the social problems within Micronesian communities and those which spill out into the general public.

I don't want to speak to the specific issue of Micronesians in Guam, as the available language and ideas makes it almost impossible to have a productive conversation. The "Micronesian problem" is what it is usually referred to as, and it is a textbook example of how a class or group of people become associated, in a way which becomes too commonsensically and too natural, with the ills of the world.

Every society has problems, and every ethnic group has problems or roles in creating those problems. The problem however is that in every society, usually a single group or a small set of groups become blamed for the majority of ills in that society. They come to signify too much wrong with things. They end up shouldering just about all the problems that you can find.

Part of the reason for this scapegoating is because of the way people in a society don't want to admit to their dependency. In every society, there are strong beliefs that those in the middle or those at the top are the ones who keep things moving. They are the job creators, they are the wealth holders, they are the ones who keep things ordered and work as a check to keep things on an even keel. Although the lowest classes are always the largest and actually do the most work, they never ever receive the most credit for what they do. Part of this might simply be logical, since it is easy to reward a few at the top, but how could you reward everyone at the bottom? There simply isn't enough to go around to reward everyone down there, so why not just give extra to the few at the top?

But it is cruel the way in which the assumption becomes that those at the top must be there for a reason. And while we could interpret their elevation to be due to trickery, greed, and other evil forms of social violence of taking from others and amassing so much for yourself, too often the assumption emerges that they are at the top because they serve a higher function. The notion that something is "too big to fail" is closely related to this. You are too high up to fall down. If you were to be dragged down, if you were to be stripped of everything, it wouldn't be you who loses out, but everyone else as well.

Those at the bottom get no such extra ideological meaning. They are cogs in the machine, not the master who runs the machine. This is also part of the reason why First World life is considered to be so much more valuable. They represent more embedded resources and power. There are less of them and they tend to die in smaller numbers and so it is easier to consume their tragedy. It is more "camera-ready" to use a completely inappropriate term. In a place where death and suffering are the norm, what is one more body on the pile? But in a place where the perception is that violence and terror are aberrations, the story is more dramatic and compelling since it is exceptional.

Part of the reason for this scapegoating is because it is selfish. No one wants to admit being dependent upon another, especially if the others are "other."There is a way that we can stomach needing people if fate has made us related to them or we see them as similar, but for those that fate has marked as other, and not just other, but someone that you see as inferior in their otherness, people go to great lengths in order to assign those people a particular subordinate meaning, so as to keep their dependency from bleeding all over everything and staining you.

One thing that students sometimes ask me about is why racism still exists. Why is it that even after people have "learned" not to oppress others or discriminate against others, that people still do it? Why is racism still around when just about everyone can publicly agree to it being bad and needing to vanish from human life? One answer deals with people not wanting to appear bad publicly and so saying things which will mesh well with prevailing opinion. So most people, even those who are racist will say less than racist sounding things since they don't want to stick out like a sore, racist, jerk-off of a thumb.

The other reason why, you can see clearly in the comments on KUAM that were attached to the article that I mentioned earlier about the Chuukese community. I've pasted them below and as you can see they are "racist" in the sense that they say horrible things that polite people aren't supposed to say. But this isn't really the best way to determine the racism of something. What stands out in nature of the comments below is not just that they say bad things, but the way in which they are said. There is a security in speaking that way. There is an assuredness, a safety in how they are attacking and who they are attacking. What you should notice in these comments is how comfortable people are in the way they say the things they say. They are not written as if they are being meekly put forth because they might not be true or might not be right, but they are written as if they are most certainly true.

You could chalk that up to simply the way people write on the internet, but there is another factor at play here. In his chapter "Of Our Spiritual Strivings" from The Souls of Black Folk WEB Du Bois discusses what it is like for him to be treated and discussed as "a problem." All forms of racism are such, they identify a people as "the problem." They are something to be figured out and something to be solved. If other groups, who are not identified as the problem have similar problems they are not treated with the same urgency, they are not afforded the same scrutiny. Racism is a lens that allows you to see the world where certain groups are magnetized with negativity. Much more than anyone else, those who you feel racism towards always attract your ire, your hate, your disgust. No matter what the issue is, you can always find someway of connecting it back to those you feel are the problem, and how they should fix themselves to spare everyone else.

Racism is a delicious experience that people become addicted to because of the intoxicating effect of truth beyond truth. Minagahet ni' mas ki magahet. As much as we may say that we are creatures of reason and intellect, racism is always appealing because it takes on the emotional appearance of truth, and can be in truth impervious to facts and truth. It is the way in which you can know something in sheer blinding ignorance that will resist anything and still stand tall and strong. Racism remains important to people because it can be something that is drilled into you as part of your upbringing or your community, but it is also something that you can cling do against all odds, like a desperate captain chaining himself to the mast of his fast sinking ship.

Racism is judgements about people and reality that are divorced from fact, but feel to people as if they are more real than facts. Why else would so many people for so long question the "Americaness" of Barack Obama, and then even when they are presented with copies of his birth certificate still refuse to accept it? Racism is a defense against everything. As Slavoj Zizek notes, that was the twisted genius of the Nazi victimization and scapegoating of Jews in Germany. You portrayed them as bloodsucking, evil fiends who were robbing the strength of great Germany, but when you actually looked at these terrible Jews, they seemed so normal. They didn't have fangs, wings, and were far from monstrous, they were just your neighbors, your friends, your fellow Germans. But that is where racism comes in to fill the gaps and provide a feeling of truth stronger than truth. People argued that the normalcy or banality of the Jews was the most insidious representation of their evil. They were so evil that they went so far as to mask their evil and make themselves appear normal. Such a mental juggling also took place around Obama's birth certificate. Once it was produced, those still mired in racism would constantly jump from new point to new point, fabricated in their mind, that felt so real. They argued that this birth certificate looked "different" and that everything from a smudge to a faded letter signified the "fakeness" of it.

Racism is a warm snuggie, that makes you feel like the narrow-minded and sometimes reptilian things that you feel about other human beings who may be a little different than you are eternal truths. Racism need not be spoken, it can be embedded and buried and kept from the public. But racism when it emerges it always does so with a confidence, that is why it is so attractive. Not only can it be articulated as a great truth, but since those you are speaking of are often marked as "a problem" by most of society, your articulation of your racist truth becomes an actual public service. By saying that Micronesians are the cause of so much misery on Guam you are not only speaking the truth, but calling attention to a great injustice being dealt to the people. No wonder racism doesn't go away. The most ignorant person can feel like the smarter person on the continent if they give in to their most base instincts. They can even feel like a great defender of their community by simply enjoying saying terrible things about people.

Read below from the comments to see what I mean.

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

From mitch: Here's an idea. Make Chuuk the landfill of Micronesia. Since the Chuukese do not seem to want to live there, we can let them all come here as long as all our trash gets shipped there for free.

From betterearth: It is a start; however, they really should emphasize the deportable clause. Also, they should periodically check out the homeless walking the streets and those found loitering in parks. Lastly, they should provide airline tickets to FSM citizens unable to survive here, or those who are jobless.

From Gary Chester: It is all talk, what can the FSM really do? The government of Chuuk does not provide proper education, medical assistance or Jobs for its people. What do you expect them to do? You can not blame them for wanting a better life. But the people of FSM need to do something more than just sit around and talk. I have seen Chuukese people come here after a typhoon just to get public assistance. We need to cut all public assistance. Better yet let the FSM government pay all the public assistance. How long do you think that would last? Then let us see who stays on Guam. We can not be a dumping ground for unwanted FMS people. I have not heard of anyone on the FMS side saying they will take back any of the bad breadfruit if they break the law.. I feel this situation will only get worse. The United States Government needs to be held accountable.. We need a deport clause. God help us..

From roland: My daughter's boyfriend is from Paluwat and we have a granddaughter 5 months old, his work ethics is good my wife and i didn't agree at first about our daughter being with a micronesian (chuuk) but when our granddaughter was born that totally change me about how we both feel. Now we both are enjoying the greatest gift that god has ever given is our granddaughter.

From Frank: I don't get what you mean mitch!? So using chuuk as a landfill!? That mean's bringing all of them here!! The biggest trash here on Guam is the chuukese! they alway's litter Guam with problem's!!

From Jane: This is no longer the Chamorros' island, Chuukese will one day rule this island. " God bless Guam the new Chuukese paradise". May they continue to use as much Chamorros and Filipinos tax money." Kinsou Chapur" that means thank you for all the welfare and quest card.

From Andrea: Send all the Chuukese back along with our trash. They live here like trash, and to the senators, if any of the outer islanders get in trouble, we should have a law that say they get sent back to were they came from and NEVER allowed back on our island again! And to you jane, like I said trash should be sent back!

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

Proposed FSM action plan up for discussion

Posted: Nov 12, 2011 5:09 PM
Updated: Nov 12, 2011 6:08 PM
Plan curbs crimes & violence committed by Micronesians
by Nick Delgado

Guam - A draft action plan will be presented to the FSM Association of Guam Board of Directors this week. The plan ultimately lays out the FSM Consul General's goals to put a stop to the crimes and violence being committed by those in the Micronesian community.

It's an action plan that most would say was sparked by the September triple-homicide in Harmon that involved two Chuukese gangs. According to the members of the special committee tasked with putting together ideas though, the plan has been in motion for several months prior to the fatal incident.
FSM Association of Guam and special committee member Koisumy Rudolph told KUAM News, "What we need to do now is work on a budget and some realistic outcome that we like to see happen, we are very optimistic that if we work together we can address the problems that we have and eventually the bottom line in all that we are intending to raise is that there is be less and less dependency of our people on public assistance."

Public assistance is what Foreign Service Officer Robson Romolow says is a key discussion in the plan, as the goal is to try to get more citizens from the Federated States of Micronesia to stray away from using government aide. "Under our compact with the U.S., you can be deported if you use public assistance for life or a long period of time it is deportable," he said.

The draft plan also highlights parenting and how FSM parents need better education on the laws of Guam as they relate to domestic violence and rehabilitation programs for those who spent time in jail. Also noted is the need to address social issues in prostitution, suicide and bullying as well as the use of drugs and alcohol by adults and teens. Additionally, the proposed plan hopes to provide better awareness on educating new FSM immigrants.

Until the Association approves and implements these plans, Rudolph says, "I think for the interim there still something that can be done for us, maybe have our people work closely with police or mayors in the village."

While the FSM consulate continues to push that FSM citizens should only be on the territory for three reasons - education, employment or medical care - the special committee will also be hosting separate meetings for the FSM citizens on Guam to get their input on the action plan. FSM Consul General Robert Ruecho says recent town meetings with the FSM president were well attended, but admits they need to branch out to those in the FSM community who are not getting the message about Guam's laws.

"That's why we want to have these pocket meetings so we can reach out to everybody," he said.

A Year of Decolonizing Cheaply

2012-01-23T01:09:00.000+10:00

Last year I was confirmed as the new Chairperson for the Independence Task Force for the Commission on Decolonization for Guam. The Decolonization Commission is tasked with guiding the process by which Chamorros will exercise their right to self-determination and select the next future status for the island. As part of the Commission there are three task forces, one for each of the three potential options: independence, statehood and free association.

There is pretty much taya' support nowadays for these task forces, but I'm trying to do my best to get things started without any budget. A temporary website will be up soon that myself and my girlfriend are working on. A meeting will hopefully be taking place before the end of the month of Task Force members to start work on creating a position paper on why independence is the best option for Guam. I'm also creating a listserv for events and news related to decolonization and independence.

I have also decided to start a irregular column or "Menashi ginnen i Gehilo'" where I will outline recent news or events from the decolonization commission. My first column titled "A Year of Decolonizing Cheaply" is pasted below. Hopefully in the next few days I'll have the link for the temporary website ready and so I'll be posting it there as well.

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

“A Year of Decolonizing Cheaply”

Message of the Chairperson for Independence Task Force for Guam

The last few meetings of the decolonization commission have been sobering ones, especially in terms of what sort of financial support the educational process will be receiving.

Although the Calvo-Tenorio administration started strong in terms of their rhetorical support for self-determination and decolonization, the results have been mixed thus far. We should applaud the Governor for getting this process started again, when his predecessor let it languish for so long. The decolonization commission board met twice in late 2011 and once so far in 2012 and these are good signs. The issue of when a self-determination plebiscite will take place is currently being addressed, but nothing official has been decided.

2012 looks however to be a very difficult year in terms of starting the educational process for conducting a self-determination vote. Funding battles between the Legislature and the Governor left the office unfunded for this past year and into the Fall of this current year. This means that the Task Forces for Independence, Statehood and Free Association, who are given the responsibility for advocating their particular statuses, will not receive any budgeted support until a new budget is created for 2013. During the last meeting of the Decolonization commission, 2012 was discussed as a year full of “happy labor,” or volunteer work amongst the task forces, on projects that require little to no resources to carry out.

Although there looks to be little financial support from the Government of Guam this year for education, the Independence Task Force will not be sitting around and just waiting. A temporary website with basic contact information and details about the self-determination process will be uploaded soon. As the Chairperson for the Independence Task Force I am working to confirm the members of the Task Force and one of our first major projects will be the updating of the official position paper that features detailed justification for why Independence would be an ideal status for Guam.

To those reading this, whether you be a supporter of Independence or just a supporter of the process of decolonization, I am interested in hearing your suggestions and thoughts on the following:

*What low cost ideas do you have on how the Independence Task Force can advocate its platform in 2012?

You can share your ideas with me by emailing me at mlbasquiat@hotmail.com. If you know of anyone else who would like to be added to the Independence for Guam email list and receive messages or info like this, you can forward me their email and I’ll be sure to add them. Si Yu’us Ma’ase.

Sahuma Minagahet ya Na’suha Dinagi

Michael Lujan Bevacqua

Think Lightly of Yourself

2012-01-21T23:16:00.000+10:00

“The World, Deeply” Michael Lujan Bevacqua
The Marianas Variety
12/28/11

Every once in a while I leaf through the pages of “The Book of Five Rings” by legendary 17th century samurai warrior Miyamoto Musashi. This text, famous for the way it brings together philosophy and strategy, is where I sometimes turn to when seeking some pidasun finayi, or fragments of wisdom. For example, when I find myself at a crossroads in terms of activism, or needing a hint of guidance on how to approach some aspect of community engagement, empowerment or consciousness raising, I find that Musashi sometimes has some great, profound, sometimes vague insights.

Last year during the ideologically turbulent DEIS comment period on the Guam military buildup, I found some solace through Musashi’s notion that you should (in Chamorro) "Tungo’ i enimigu-mu, tungo’ i sapblå-ña." Or, in English, “Know your enemy, know his sword.”

Part of the wisdom of this quote is that in order to defeat your enemy, in order to truly vanquish him, it is not enough to hate him. Ti nahong na un chatli'e' gui' ya ti ya-mu gui'. You have to know him, and his sword, which is another way of referring to his soul, his essence, in order to defeat him. The distaste for something can often act as a screen, making you feel like you know everything about it even when you actually know very little. Hate can bring you to a battle and it can convince you that you can win, but it will always make you misjudge things and miss key elements. If you rely on such superficial tactics when dealing with anything you are doomed to failure, since the situation itself, your position and your opponent’s lies far outside of your grasp of understanding.

In the ideological battle over the buildup, We Are Guahan was successful in part because of this notion. Their greatest strength was not “hating the buildup” or “hating the military.” Their greatest strength came in knowing their enemy’s sword, knowing what its own weapon was in the fight, and finding ways to use it against them. In this ideological battle, the weapon with which the Department of Defense was stuck using was the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for their proposed buildup.

Critics of the buildup could have simply countered pro-buildup (military moalek!) rhetoric with their own (military båba!), but instead chose to use the words of the DEIS to full effect. During public comment meetings, signs with quotes from the DEIS adorned the walls, showing people the truth of what the DOD held in their hands. The DEIS, while at first imposing in its sheer amount of pages and its multimillion dollar price tag, was clearly riddled with weaknesses when studied carefully. There was plenty of it cut and paste sections, parts of it plagiarized, so much of it rushed and inadequate and above all not tied to any real fundamental planning. From a distance the DEIS appeared like a imposing, impossible to stop sword. From up close, spider web like cracks were everywhere on its blade, just waiting to be exploited and used against the wielder.

The lawsuit over the selection of Pågat and Route 15 as the site for a firing range complex was a clear example for this. The decision by DOD to voluntarily provide a supplemental environmental impact statement over where to put their five firing ranges clearly demonstrates the flaws in the DEIS and the possibility that if taken to court over their justification, they would have lost.

Another sen fehman na sinangan that I’ve taken from Musashi is, “respect the Gods, but do not rely on them for help.” For me this means that those things that we assume exist out there to keep things ordered, to keep the world spinning and to keep the rest of the world that you don't immediately see around you safe, we should always respect them, but be careful how much faith you have in them. It is always nice and comforting to believe in a higher power, but how much life is lost and how much death is created in this world because of the assumption of something greater as catching and collecting up all the shattered and wasted souls. Or in another way, it is comforting to think of God in your corner, but you should never expect God to fight your fight for you.

With a new year and new challenges just around the corner, I came across this quote, which will be the one I carry with me in the coming year.

"Think lightly of yourself, and deeply of the world."

Reflect for a moment on this quote, and think how it might apply to your own life.

A Moment Without Facebook

2012-01-21T20:58:00.001+10:00

I love going to Anao in Yigo. I've only been there a few times, but I really enjoy it each time I go.

For those of you who haven't heard of Anao, it's north of Hanom, almost on the edge of Anderson. In order to get there you hike for about 20 mins through some jungle and then get to the cliff's edge where a trail will take you down several hundred feet to the rocky limestone shore. There are some pretty cool features once you reach the limestone shore for those who love natural beauty. There is a massive rock that some people call "the pinnacle" that sticks conspciously out of the rest of the fairly flat limestone.

When I took my History of Guam and World History 2 students to Anao last week, we explored to the north and found a pretty neat cove. There was a large rock, well over twenty feet high that stuck out past the shore, and was connected by a narrow land bridge. Several of my students and I climbed up it to take pictures.

I recommend visiting Anao, it is one of those locations on Guam where one can go and reflect on life, without what life has become nowadays getting in the way. There is no noise of cars, although there are sometimes helicopters flying overhead. There is no reception down there for phones or tablets, just the sound of the ocean crashing against the rocks.

For most of my students getting down there to that point is a strange, almost scary experience. The modern world, especially for those who enjoy as much of the comfort of the First World as possible, it is easy to feel like you are in charge of everything. Facebook is basically like being the God of your social life. You can know the intimate details of people, the stupid and boring things they are doing from day to day. With the inclusion of Four Square, it can even feel like you are omnipotent and know where all your friends are. The internet in general can give you this feeling of dominance and superiority. The answer to any question is just Google away. Communication appears to happen so fast, you'd never lose touch with anyone.

The advertising of the world we live in today is great. In times past, the advertising of the world was largely religious. You have this life because God gave it to you, so enjoy it! Nowadays, mankind seems to have created a world which is truly "the best of all possible worlds." With so much comfort, ease and prosperity at our fingertips! It is no wonder that first world countries like the United States are so pathetic and incapable of doing anything. They can obliterate a small country like Iraq or Afghanistan. They can use their power to oppress or exploit those smaller, but they have no ability to fix themselves or take any real leadership in changing the world. President Obama tried to invoke the specter of this in order to get Americans to support an "overhaul" of its health care system, but one of the rules of the world is that the more you consider your life to be the best, the more you will resist any attempts to improve it or change it.

When students who are born and breed in this world, where they cannot spend 30 seconds without looking at their phones or checking their Facebook updates, I find it fun to take them to a place divorced from that. For many of my students their relationship to the natural world is very simple. It is there primarily as an object of knowledge, and nothing more. It is there because they know it is there. They may even know some of the banal ways in which you are supposed to talk about it. So for example, during hikes, some students will say things like, "oh wow, how beautiful" or "wow, I'm so glad I got to see this and get out in nature!"

But within a few minutes, the platitudes dry up, and students often times don't know what else they are supposed to do or say. There is no Facebook on the cliffs. There is not Twitter in the jungle. There is no email to check. There are no texts to tell me what to think or feel or how to react to the world. It is a humbling and reflective experience for some, for others it is a bit frightening. All the things that made you feel like you were in charge, had a secure place in the world are gone and you are left with a completely different sense of being. One in which you are not the center of attention. One in which likes are not automatically collected for you and you are sent a note everyday reminding you when peoples' birthdays are. In this new world you have a space, but it is usually not one that your days of scrolling pages on the internet have prepared you for. It is still your world, but you have to relate to it differently.

Often times when we reach the halfway point of a hike, as we did at Anao, students look around, breathe the air, feel accomplished in how they conquered their aches and pains in order to get to this point, and then start to worry about what they are supposed to do next. Students always ask me once we reach the halfway point, "are we gonna start heading back?" They act eager to know what to do next, but you can tell it is an unease about not knowing what to do with so much nature and so little of the worldiness that they are used to that is irritating them.

At Anao I gave my students and their friends and family, 35 in all who had shown up, the option of turning back or staying down on the rocks for a while and exploring. Within a few minutes 27 of them were trekking back up the hill, back to civilization. Although I understand that people had places to go, people to see, jobs, lives, cellphone service and laptops waiting for them, it was disappointing. They had hiked for an hour and a half to get to that point, why not stay longer and explore? The fact that you don't hike much or don't get out much is even more so of a reason to stay longer, since the chances of you hiking like this again are slim.

Eight students remained behind, and they were a mix of those who wouldn't be hiking anytime soon and wanted to see as much as they could before they left, and those who hike regularly and simply like to explore. We found the land bridge together and even took a picture while standing on it.

All in all, despite the disappointment it was a good day. Check out the photos below:

Really and Not Really Existing Colonialism

2012-01-20T11:32:00.001+10:00

Last year anthropologist David Vine visited Guam as part of a research trip where he visited areas around the world where communities were protesting (in various ways) the presence of US bases near them. While this is his most current research project, he is best known for his work on chronicling the plight of the Chagos Islanders, who come from the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. If you are in the military you have most likely heard about the base there. If you are a fan of the live-action Transformers films then you might remember it being featured as a secure location where a sliver of the infamous all-spark is kept safe. If you are someone, who like me keeps lists of the not-so-great-things that have been done by the US over its history, than Diego Garcia is a particularly gross and recent atrocity.

Through postwar collusion between the US and British governments, the people living in Diego Garcia were first tricked into leaving their island and barred from returning, and eventually just forcibly removed from the island and all their homes destroyed. The British government did the dirty work so that the US could use the island to build a key military facility in the Indian Ocean. As of today, that base is one of the most important the US has in the world. It is a base that defines "strategic flexibility." Not only is it close to so many potential "future" or "current" targets of the US, but it also has no sovereignty. There is no "government" in Diego Garcia that can or will cause problems, protest or make demands. In Diego Garcia, it is a military commander's dream in the sense that there is no law except military law and strategic interests. Diego Garcia is so valuable, that it is often remarked that if it did not exist already, it would have to be invented.

A longtime activist amongst the Chagos people, Lisette Aurelie Talate died recently, here is an excerpt from an article detailing her legacy of fighting for her people's right to return to their island:

When in the 70's, Talate was dumped in Mauritius along with her children and other Chagossians, she immediately embarked on a relentless struggle to go back home to Diego Garcia. During her lifetime she undertook several hunger strikes to draw attention to the legitimacy of her cause and, in the process, became an icon of the Chagossian diaspora.

She was a frail woman in physical appearance but, like an iron fist in a velvet glove, she constantly told the authorities concerned that her land has been robbed. When finally she was “allowed” to visit Diego Garcia, everyone still cherishes the vivid image of how she kneeled down to kiss the soil and screamed “Diego, my land!” while the military who "occupy" the island, witnessed the scene unfazed. It was, sure, only a short visit, like being on transit -- not to say a humiliating way to be asked to come and look at your home from far and then politely be invited to sleep outdoors !

At the funeral service, Olivier Bancoult paid tribute to Talate in very emotional terms. He recalled how one day he was with Talate in London fighting for their case when she found herself with some British MP who sympathised with her cause, at the Cafetaria of the House of Commons. When invited by the MPs to have a coffee and eat a bite with them, she flatly refused. She would later tell Olivier how could she be eating and drinking in the very institution that had decided to deport her from her island home. For her, the Houses of Parliament represented a dramatic symbol. She was a woman of conviction, who always got her message across forcefully in the creole language.

When David Vine gave a presentation at the UOG Lecture Hall (alongside Leevin Camacho from We Are Guahan), I thought at first that people might have difficulty following the woeful saga of the Chagosians. I thought that people might respond not with their minds when considered this story of the terrible and unthinking displacement of so many people, but rather with their passports and their blind patriotism. Such is common on Guam. When you aren't really part of America, but are groomed to desperately want to be, you find your own inkind donations to the making and sustaining of America. You are often more willing to look the other way and to refuse to acknowledge the sins of the US. Since you don't get to enjoy a casual, comfortable Americaness, you find ways to make up the difference by proving you are even more American than real Americans. So on Guam, people are often times more conservative than you might imagine, and will chose to forget or even recognize the way the US has damaged the lives of Chamorros, since that is the price of admission to the cheap seats of American belonging.

I was impressed however when people seemed to absorb very well the story of Diego Garcia, and even ask some very provocative questions, which made connections between Guam and Diego Garcia. As a historian these connections are obvious to me, but I was excited to see students and community members considered them.

Guam and Diego Garcia is very alike, yet you could consider them to be very different as well. They both have a very recent history of serious displacement in order to build US military bases. In Diego Garcia is meant total dispossession and an attempt to deny even the right to return to their island. In Guam, it meant that more than half of the island was condemned, Chamorros removed from their lands in order to build the bases we know of today (and a few more which have since WWII been closed). Of course, there are still differences. The people in Diego Garcia were not even notified about their displacement, whereas Chamorros in the ashes of World War II often times celebrated, at least for a little while, their displacement since it was a way they could give back to the US military after it had expelled the Japanese in 1944.

In liberal discourse, which in this vein you could think of as commonly invoked antiwar or peace activist narratives, Guam and Diego Garcia are very very different, for almost hysterical reasons. Diego Garcia is something that while few know about, those who do in the US, cling to it very tightly. It is on the Right, a key base. Forget about the history, as the Right is so adept at doing, what matters is the role its existence plays today as keeping America and its interests safe. On the Left, Diego Garcia is another tragic example of America misbehaving. It is one of those "rare" examples where America unleashes its inner colonizer and it does something truly "colonial" in the old fashioned sense of the word. In most cases, this abuse is exceptional and not the norm. It is not something that you should perceive of as being central to what defines America, but an occasional mistake. The US seems to have quite a bit of these mistakes.

Guam is the opposite. While very few can look at the history of Diego Garcia and say that it is not an example of colonialism, it is the norm to look at Guam and say that it isn't an example of such. This is something which I have struggled with in both my activism and academic work; the ways in which Guam is clearly a colony today, something that cannot actually be disputed in any way shape or form, but yet it is a peculiar case of colonialism that most people would argue doesn't signify colonialism. While in the states I got into many arguments with people who refused to accept the idea that Guam was something that needed attention, that needed to be fixed, that required some sort of justice. It didn't matter what the history was, people could not accept either the history of it or the current reality as something that you could use to condemn the US as a colonizer. In my academic work, most prominently my dissertation, I tried to theorize what this might mean, having a place that is clearly a colony, but is refused to be accepted as such. What sort of power does the US get by having such a strategically important place, with a history of racism, displacement and discrimination, not signify any real negative associations?

A case in point was when the US was starting to collect "terrorists" from around the world after 9/11 and did not want to go through the painful process of giving them trials or giving them any basic rights as prisoners, it created a list of places where those newly christened "enemy combatants" could be held. The list was determined by a number of factors. Military facilities, since it would be ideal for the US government if these terrorists could be dealt with in terms of military justice, since it is much more flexible and pliable than other legal systems. Jurisdictional and juridical flexibility in order to limit the number of ways the detention could be challenged, and give the Federal government more ways to argue it had the right to hold people in what most would call illegal ways. Guam showed up on the list, alongside other places such as Diego Garcia and Guantanamo Bay, which as we all know was the eventually winner in this gruesome legal contest. In the minds of those who designed the US's detention rules for enemy combatants, Guam was a possibility because of the banality that I've mentioned above. Although US laws now apply to Guam, they do not apply in the same way they apply to states. There is more flexibility in being in Guam, since more than a century of legal precedents say that the US Federal government can do whatever it wants in Guam.

This sort of banality is the norm in life. We make hierarchies of struggles, or human meaning. A first world life is worth more than a third world life, even if just for the simple reason that there is less of it. For some, the comfort of animals is more important than the comfort of other people. For many, the missing of a favorite show is more traumatic than the things that are done in the name of the US around the world. On Guam the right to vote for So You Think You Can Dance? is more important than the the ability to vote for President or in Congress.

For some, what happens in Guam is banal. It is something you can glaze over. If you even notice Guam amidst all the clutter of the world, how can you even consider it a place that is being oppressed? They have so much of the US there, so much of what everyone else in the world is supposed to want. The US saved them, takes care of them, does everything for them. If anything, colonialism there is nothing more than whiny children, thinking too much of themselves, with the US as the adult who has to do everything for their overgrown, overweight, but completely useless on their own child.

This is why I found it so inspiring that people on Guam were able to make connections, even if people elsewhere refuse to or just can't seem to make the mental leap. At the event with David Vine I was the moderator and screened the questions people asked. So many people did not take the usual route that First World people take when hearing about the Chagosians; "those poor people, suffering, I will show compassion and how it pains me to see them like that."

The capacity to show pain in this way, to feel it, and to have this emotional response is the prototypical first world reaction. It is as some theorists argue, the different between suffering pain and experiencing trauma. For the Chagos people, like the majority of the people in the world, their lot is pain and suffering, but for those from the First World who gaze upon them, it is much more complex, it is trauma that they feel. Trauma, which could be defined as the feeling of something terrible that is not the norm. The crux of this definition is that those outside of the First World live lives determined primarily by suffering, where the exceptions are happy, safe, comfortable moments. Their lives are pain and tragedy, and so there is no room for trauma, no room to sit back and reflect on how bad things are. They feel tragedy, but have no time or place to sit back and reflect on how tragic or sad thing are. Such an ability is only reserved for those in the First World. And that is part of the hierarchy of human life, part of the ways in which people at the top of the world argue for their reproduction at the top of the world; in this case it is because of the way they can see more and can feel more.The Third Worlder suffers without understanding, whereas the First Worlder understands suffering, but does not suffer it.

Some people responded like this, since it is such a tragic story and often times all people know how to do in response to hearing something, is to feel terrible and just feel how lucky you are not those people. But so many of the questions dealt with what meaning their story might have for Guam. People in their handwritten barely legible questions scratched on scrap paper, didn't see Diego Garcia as this place of suffering that they needed to do their First World duty towards and look at and say how big that is and terrible. Instead they connected their histories together and saw that they shared certain things, those things I mentioned above. As such, so many of the questions focused on the ways Guam and Diego Garcia are the same, and many asked, in worried ways, whether or not the displacement in Diego Garcia could ever happen in Guam or the CNMI? Alot was mentioned about Tinian, but I'll save that discussion for another day.

Here are some of the questions that people asked. I've pasted them below:

Can you both speak to more examples or stories of successful resistance to military/colonial control and limiting their control in general?

Has Dr. Vine studied the plight of the Kurdish people in Iraq?

Mr. Vine, do you think that what happened to the Chagos Islanders could happen to Guam?

Dr. Vine mentioned UN mandates and resolutions on decolonization; could he elaborate on that with names and dates?

Can you talk about the role of art and cultural resistance in building a movement against military imperialism?

Since we have local leaders here, do you think they can petition the Federal Government to bring the UN Fourth Committee to conduct a seminar here on decolonization?

Can you please explain the similarities between Guam and the Diego Garcia Ocean Monuments?

What will Guam win through its current lawsuit against the US military?

How can we expect the military to take root on island and protect whatever it is they are supposed to protect if we protest them?

Given the economic hardship in Tinian and the fact that people are leaving the island in large numbers, do you think that the US may one day want to turn it into a base like Diego Garcia?

A New Semester

2012-01-19T12:15:00.000+10:00

Not sure when I'll be able to blog something, this week is crazy.

I taught two winter intersession courses at UOG that finished last week, and now this week I start teaching six classes at UOG for the Spring 2012 semester. Six classes is quite a load, and they are four different classes, meaning that I have to prepare for four different lectures, discussions each week, and then without any TAs or any other support, have to grade the work of 150 students.

I have so many thoughts swirling around my head, but just not enough time to type it into this blog.

I hope that once things calm down this semester, maybe next week I'll be back.

Gotta Catch 'Em All!

2012-01-17T15:58:00.000+10:00

“Gotta Catch ‘Em All!”
Michael Lujan Bevacqua
Marianas Variety
12/21/11

It is interesting to contrast the 2012 Republican primary with the 2008 Democratic primary. In 2008, Democrats were overcome with stressful joy at the prospect of having so many great candidates, two of whom (Clinton and Obama) would be historic and nation-changing figures if elected. Fast forward to the Republican’s 2012 and we see a huge array of candidates, but little consistent enthusiasm.

In the last half of this year, Republicans have flirted with more “frontrunners” than Newt Gingrich has marriages. It will all be coming to a close soon, as the endless string of debates about who loves troops, tax cuts and Ronnie Reagan more will be eclipsed by the actual primary contests. Just as with the Democratic debates of 2008, little was yielded from them, as candidates are often more in agreement than disagreement, and did their best to score points by hitting each other with meaningless, witty one-liners. Before this great season of Republican tomfoolery comes to an end, I thought we’d look back at the Pokemon-like line-up that they’ve assembled so far.

Mitt Romney: The drama however where Romney seems unable to secure the first position in polling, and always seems to come in second to some temporarily insurgent flavor-or-the-week candidacy has been very interesting to watch. Romney always being a bridge groom and never a groom seems to be some friendly hazing. Republicans must really enjoy watching Romney pandering himself into knots in attempts to erase the memory of his liberal Massachusetts past. Still, his numbers have been consistent and he looks to be the likely nominee.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul is no longer supposed to exist. He and his kind were forced out of the party and into the wilderness in the 1980’s. When Republicans hear Ron Paul speak that are both enchanted and disgusted, in the same way you might react when you see pictures of yourself in high school. Ron Paul is a previous incarnation of an American Republican, and has such, something they respond to with great nostalgia, but also revulsion and embarrassment.

Donald Trump: He is the 1% and he is not ashamed of it. He is so rich he doesn’t have the ability to even consider what other people think, which is why his rhetoric as a politician is self-centered and childish. He is like much of the real estate and speculative projects he peddles; flashy and attractive from a distance, but up close, a terrible investment. In cartoonish fashion he is threatening to run if Republican voters nominate the wrong candidate.

Michelle Bachmann: Bachmann’s inability to admit that she is wrong, even about historical facts, would mean that she would be great at leading the party on time traveling adventures to change her mistakes into facts, and the lies Republicans tell themselves into truths. She is the type of candidate that you would most likely never want to actually have elected president, but you always want around because you never know what she is going to say next.

Rick Perry: If Rick Perry would lose his ability to speak, than he would immediately be the party’s nominee. Until then, he’ll just be great fodder for late night comedy shows.

Newt Gingrich: Since Rick Perry has thus far panned out as a candidate, the idea of nominating another type of George W. Bush “I think that candidate is dumb as a brick, but dammit I’d love to have a beer with that brick” is looking less and less appetizing. Gingrich is articulate, intelligent and therefore a nice conservative counter to Obama. The only problem with him is that if you know anything about Newt Gingrich, and what he has done or what he stands for, then you probably know enough about why he should never be President.

Herman Cain: The greatest candidate of them all. He argued that his appeal as a candidate was akin to a flavor of ice cream (black walnut). He reduced the intricacy of the economy to the number 9, written three times. He dealt with sex scandals the way a karabao swats away flies with its tail. His masterstroke unfortunately came, as his campaign imploded. During his speech where he officially suspended his campaign, Herman Cain uttered what The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart has argued are the greatest 9 words ever spoken by an American politician, “I believe these words came from the Pokemon movie,” and he proceeded to then quote a Donna Summer song from the film Pokemon 2000.

Herman Cain is a rare treasure of a candidate. To continue the metaphor he invoked, he is like a rare, impossible to catch species in the field of so many colorful, barely electable, but simply irresistible political Pokemon. This great season of Republican indecision is almost over, enjoy it while it lasts.

What Next for #OWS?

2012-01-16T15:32:00.000+10:00

Published on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
by The Nation
"Occupy Wall Street: Why Now? What's Next?"
Naomi Klein and Yotam Marom in Conversation About Occupy Wall Street

by Naomi Klein and Yotam Marom

The following conversation was recorded recently in New York City:

Naomi Klein: One of the things that’s most mysterious about this moment is “Why now?” People have been fighting austerity measures and calling out abuses by the banks for a couple of years, with basically the same analysis: “We won’t pay for your crisis.” But it just didn’t seem to take off, at least in the US. There were marches and there were political projects and there were protests like Bloombergville, but they were largely ignored. There really was not anything on a mass scale, nothing that really struck a nerve. And now suddenly, this group of people in a park set off something extraordinary. So how do you account for that, having been involved in Occupy Wall Street since the beginning, but also in earlier anti-austerity actions?

Yotam Marom: Okay, so the first answer is, I have no idea, no one does. But I can offer some guesses. I think there are a few things you have to pay attention to when you see moments like these. One is conditions—unemployment, debt, foreclosure, the many other issues people are facing. Conditions are real, they’re bad, and you can’t fake them. Another sort of base for this kind of thing is the organizing people do to prepare for moments like these. We like to fantasize about these uprisings and big political moments—and we like to imagine that they erupt out of nowhere and that that’s all it takes—but those things come on the back of an enormous amount of organizing that happens every day, all over the world, in communities that are really marginalized and facing the worst attacks.

So those are the two kind of prerequisites for a moment like this to take place. And then you have to ask, What’s the third element that makes it all come together, what’s the trigger, the magic dust? Well, I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know what it feels like. It feels like something has been opened up, a kind of space nobody knew existed, and so all sorts of things that were impossible before are possible now. Something just got kind of unclogged. All sorts of people just started to see their struggles in this, started being able to identify with it, started feeling like winning is possible, there is an alternative, it doesn’t have to be this way. I think that’s the special thing here.

NK: Do you feel that there is an organic discussion happening about fundamentally changing the economic system? I mean we know that there is a strong, radical, angry critique of corruption, and of the corporate takeover of the political process. There’s a really powerful calling out happening. What’s less clear is the extent to which people are getting ready to actually build something else.

YM: Yeah, I definitely think we’re in a unique moment in the development of a movement that’s not only a protest movement against something but also an attempt to build something in its place. It is potentially a very early version of what I would call a dual-power movement, which is a movement that’s—on the one hand—trying to form the values and institutions that we want to see in a free society, while at the same time creating the space for that world by resisting and dismantling the institutions that keep us from having it. Occupation in general, as a tactic, is a really brilliant form of a dual-power struggle because the occupation is both a home where we get to practice the alternative—by practicing a participatory democracy, by having our radical libraries, by having a medical tent where anybody can get treatment, that kind of thing on a small level—and it’s also a staging ground for struggle outwards. It’s where we generate our fight against the institutions that keep us from the things that we need, against the banks as a representative of finance capitalism, against the state that protects and propels those interests.

It’s surprising and it’s really encouraging because that’s something that has been missing in a lot of struggles in the past. You usually have one or the other. You have alternative institutions, like eco-villages and food coops and so on—and then you have protest movements and other counter-institutions, like anti-war groups or labor unions. But they very rarely merge or see their struggle as shared. And we very rarely have movements that want to do both of those things, that see them as inseparable—that understand that the alternatives have to be fighting, and that fighting has to be done in a way that represents the values of the world we want to create. So I do think there’s something really radical and fundamental in that, and an enormous amount of potential.

NK: I absolutely agree that the key is in the combination of resistance and alternatives. A friend, the British eco-and arts activist John Jordan, talks about utopias and resistance being the double helix of activist DNA, and that when people drop out and just try to build their utopia and don’t engage with the systems of power, that’s when they become irrelevant and also when they are extremely vulnerable to state power and will often get smashed. And at the same time if you’re just protesting, just resisting and you don’t have those alternatives, I think that that becomes poisonous for movements.

But I’m still wondering about the question of policy—of making the leap from small-scale alternatives to the big policy changes that allow them to change the culture. A lot of people have come to the realization that the system is so busted that it really isn’t about who you get into office. But one of the ways of responding to that is to say, “Okay, we’re not going to form a political party and try to take power, but we are going to look at this system and try to identify the structural barriers to real change, and advocate for political goals that might begin to mend those structural flaws.” So that means things like the way corporations are able to fund elections and the role of corporate media and the whole issue of corporate personhood in this country. It is possible to find a few key policy fights that could conceivably create a situation where, ten years down the road, people might not feel so completely cynical about the idea of change within the political system. What do you think about that?

YM: Well, I think you’re right that we have to find ways to do that, but ways that don’t compromise what’s been so successful about this movement and this moment so far, which is that it’s so broad that so many different people can find themselves in it.

I think that within the broader movement, we do have different roles, and there is a particular role for Occupy Wall Street. I personally don’t want to have anything to do with people lobbying or running for office right now, nor do I want to focus all of my time winning small policy changes, and I don’t think that’s the role of Occupy Wall Street. But I sure as hell hope the people whose terrain that is do go and do it. I hope that they can recognize that what’s happening now is the creation of a climate where it’s possible for them to push left and win more. I’m not going to be happy with all the compromises those people have to make, and I don’t think we’re going to survive on reforms alone, but we need that too. If we want a real, meaningful social transformation, we need to win things along the way, because that’s how we provides people the foundations on top of which they can continue to struggle for the long haul, and it’s how we grow to become a critical mass that can ultimately make a fundamental break with this system.

And in the meantime, our role as Occupy Wall Street should be to dream bigger than that. I think it’s our job to look far ahead, to assert vision, to create alternatives and to intervene in the political and economic processes that govern people’s lives. We need to recognize that the institutions that govern our lives really do have power, but we don’t necessarily need to participate in them according to their rules. I think Occupy Wall Street’s role is to step in the way of those processes to prevent them from using that power, and to create openings for the alternatives we are trying to build. And then if politicians or others who consider themselves in solidarity with this movement want to go get on that, then they should use this moment to win the things that will help make us stronger in the long run, and they have a chance now to do that.

NK: You know, I’m torn about this. On one hand, OWS is so broad that a huge range of people has found a place in the tent. And there is certainly value in just having a very broad movement that is able to intervene in the political narrative at key junctures. Particularly because, looking at what is happening in Europe at the moment, I think we have to brace for the next economic shock. It’s a very big deal that when the next round of austerity measures comes down in the US, there will be a mass movement ready to say: “No way. We won’t pay—if you need money, tax the 1 percent and cut military spending, don’t cut education and food stamps.”

But we should be clear: that’s not making things better, it’s just trying to keep things from getting a whole lot worse. To make things better, there has to be a positive demand.

Look at the Chilean student protests, for instance. That’s a remarkable movement, and it’s historically hugely significant, because this is really the end of the Chilean dictatorship more than twenty years after it actually ended. Pinochet was in power for so long, and so many of his policies were locked in during the negotiated transition, that the left in Chile really did not recover until this generation of young people took to the streets. And they took to the streets sparked by austerity measures that were hitting education hard. But rather than just say, “Okay, we’re against these latest austerity cuts,” they said, “We are for free public education and we want to reverse the entire privatization agenda.” And that may seem like a narrow demand, but they were able to make it about inequality much more broadly. They did it by showing how the privatization of education in Chile, and the creation of a brutal two-tiered education system, deepened and locked in inequality, giving poor students no way out of poverty. The protests lit the country up, and now it’s not just a student movement. So that’s a completely different circumstance from OWS because it started with a demand. But it shows how, if the demand is radical enough, it can open up a much broader debate about what kind of society we want.

I think it’s more about vision than it is about demands. My worry is that there are so many groups trying to co-opt this movement, and trying to raise money off of its efforts, that the movement risks defining itself by what is not, rather by what it is or, more importantly, might become. If the movement is constantly put in a position of saying, “No, we’re not your pawn. We’re not this. We’re not that,” the danger is getting boxed into a defensive identity that was really imposed from the outside. I think some of that happened to the movement opposing corporate globalization post-Seattle, and I’d hate to see those mistakes repeated.

YM: I think you’re right about that. And you’re right about the question of demands versus vision. We don’t have demands in the way that other people want to hear them. But of course we have demands, of course we want things. When we reclaim a foreclosed home for a foreclosed-on family, or organize students to do flash mobs at the banks keeping them in debt, or environmental activists to do die-ins at banks that invest in coal, these are ways of speaking our demands in a new language of resistance. Occupy Wall Street is a really big tent that doesn’t have one voice, but that doesn’t mean all of our other groupings disappear when we enter it. There are still housing rights groups demanding an end to foreclosure, or labor unions demanding good jobs, and so on. We are trying to build a movement where individuals and groups have the autonomy to do what they need to do and pick the battles they need to pick, while being in solidarity with something much broader and far-reaching, something radical and visionary. And that’s part of the reason vision is so important, since it connects all those struggles.

But I do think we have to win things, you’re absolutely right about that. I guess the way I look at it is that we’re now about to make a transition, hopefully, from the symbolic to the real, both in the realms of creating the alternatives and fighting back. We need to reclaim homes, not just as symbols, but for people to live in them. Open the shut-down hospitals and put doctors in them. And same with the fighting: to actually disrupt business as usual, to move from protest to resistance. We’ll have an actual impact when Congress cannot pass those bills because there’s too much resistance, because there are people in the streets. We’ll have a real impact when it’s not only bank branch lobbies that we’re dancing around in but when we’ve blockaded the doors of the headquarters where they make their policies. We need to force policy-makers to re-evaluate their decisions, and we need to build power to eventually replace them altogether, not only in content but in form. If this is just about changing the narrative and it stops there, then we’re going to end up having missed an incredible opportunity to really affect people’s lives in a meaningful ways. This is not a game. A society where there are empty homes but people who don’t have homes is a fundamentally revolting thing and it’s unacceptable, can’t be allowed. You can say that for all the other things: for war, or for patriarchy, racism. We have an incredible responsibility.

NK: And nobody knows how to do what we’re trying to do. You can point to Iceland or something that happened in Argentina. But these are national struggles, somewhat on the economic periphery. No movement has ever successfully challenged hyper-mobile global capital at its source. So what we’re talking about is so new that it’s terrifying. I think people should admit that they’re terrified and that they don’t know how to do what they dream of doing, because if they don’t, then their fear—or rather our fear—will subconsciously shape our politics and you can end up in a situation where you’re saying, “No, I don’t want any structure,” or, “No, I don’t want to be making any kind of policy demands or have anything to do with politics,” when really it’s that you’re just completely scared shitless of the fact that you have no idea how to do this. So maybe if we all admit we are on unmapped territory, that fear loses some of its power.

YM: Yeah, that’s really important. We’re all just making it up. What you just said kind of reminded me of this moment that we had that was really a turning point for me. About three weeks in, sitting and talking with a bunch of people I had only just met, we were thinking about the movement and where it might be headed, and I remember this crazy moment when it hit me: “Oh, we’re winning.” It was surreal. And then that thought was immediately followed by the question: “So what do we want?” You know, we hadn’t won much, and we still haven’t, and we’re nowhere near the society we want to live in, but it was still that feeling—that the narrative was shifting, that the whole world was watching, that there was a lot of possibility before us. It was the first time that I’ve ever experienced that and I think probably the first time that a lot of people who are alive today have. And that was an incredibly empowering moment, really changed my life, but it was also an unbelievably terrifying moment, because, holy shit, that means it’s real, this is high stakes, this is no joke.
So, then, following that thread of what’s possible: all of this was impossible a few months ago. All of this was inconceivable. And I felt that very personally and I was cynical and I learned a lot from that. Turns out we know very little about what is possible. And that’s really humbling and important and it opens a lot of doors. What do you think is possible?

NK: First of all, it’s a moment of possibility like I’ve never seen because we never had as many people on our side as this moment does. I mean in the Seattle moment, we didn’t. We were marginal. We always were because we were in an economic boom. Now, the system has been breaking its own rules so defiantly that its credibility is shot. And there’s a vacuum. There’s a vacuum for other credible voices to fill that, and it’s very exciting.

Personally, I think the greatest possibility lies in bringing together the ecological crisis and the economic crisis. I see climate change as the ultimate expression of the violence of capitalism: this economic model that fetishizes greed above all else is not just making lives miserable in the short term, it is on the road to making the planet uninhabitable in the medium term. And we know, scientifically, that if we continue with business as usual, that is the future we are heading towards. I think climate change is the strongest argument we’ve ever had against corporate capitalism, as well as the strongest argument we’ve ever had for the need for alternatives to it. And the science puts us on a deadline: we need to have begun to radically reduce our emissions by the end of the decade, and that means starting now. I think that this science-based deadline has to be part of every discussion about what we’re going to do next, because we actually don’t have all the time in the world.

We should also be aware that this kind of existential urgency could be a very regressive force if the wrong people harness it. It’s easy to imagine autocrats using the climate emergency to sa, “We don’t have time for democracy or participation, we need to impose it all from the top.” Right now, the way the urgency is used within the mainstream environmental movement is to say, “This problem is so urgent that we can only ask for these compromised cap-and-trade deals, since that’s all we can hope to achieve politically.” Talking about the links between economic growth and climate change is pretty much off the table because, supposedly, we don’t have time to make those kinds of deep changes.

But that was a pre-OWS political calculation. And as you pointed out, OWS is in the business of changing what is possible. So what I’ve been saying when I speak to environmental groups is: start to imagine what would be possible if the climate movement were not out there on its own but part of a much broader political uprising fighting a greed-based economic model. Because in that context, it is practical to talk about changing this system. It’s much more practical, in fact, than pushing corrupt plans like cap-and-trade, which we know don’t stand a chance of getting us where science tells us we need to go.

I’m also excited about the fact that, over the past ten years since the peak of the so-called anti-globalization movement, a lot of work has been done that proves that economic re-localization and economic democracy are both feasible and desirable. Look at the explosion of the local food movement, of community-supported agriculture and farmers markets. Or the green co-op movement. Or community-based wind and solar energy projects. And then you have cities like Detroit, Portland or Bellingham, which are working on multiple fronts to re-localize their economies. The point is that there are living examples that we can point to now of communities that have weathered the economic crisis better than those places that are still dependent on a few large multinational corporations, and could just be leveled overnight when those corporations shut their doors. Most importantly: many of these models address both the economic and ecological crises simultaneously, creating work, rebuilding community, while lowering emissions and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

Coming back to the idea of resistance and alternatives being the twin strands of DNA, I see a possible future where the resistance side of OWS could start to support the policies these economic alternatives need to get to the next level.

So, yeah, that’s where I see a lot of potential—both potential strength and also potential loss, lost opportunities. You?

YM: I think there is more possibility right now than I could have ever imagined. I think in the not-so-distant future, we can win a lot of things that actually improve people’s lives, we can continue to change the political landscape, and we can grow into a mass movement with the strength to propose another kind of world and also fight for it. I think we’re only in the beginning of that, and I think there is a ton of potential. And I also see that kind of possibility in the long term. I think we can win a truly free society. I think it’s totally possible to have a political and economic system that we have a genuine say in, that we democratically control, that we participate in, that is equitable and liberating, where we have autonomy for ourselves and our communities and our families, but are also in solidarity with one another. I think it’s possible, and necessary. That’s kind of the amazing thing about this moment and this movement, I guess. Right now, sitting here, I can’t even imagine the limits of possibility.

© 2012 The Nation

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, now out in paperback. Her earlier books include the international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (which has just been re-published in a special 10th Anniversary Edition); and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002). To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org. You can follow her on Twitter: @NaomiAKlein.

Yotam Marom is a political organizer, educator, and writer based in New York. He has been active in the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and is a member of the Organization for a Free Society.

Politics

2012-01-15T02:28:00.000+10:00

Everyone hates "politics." It is almost funny how it works. How people sneer, and jeer and frown when something happens and its "political." On Guam for example people say or think these things so much and so often it makes you wonder what they expect?

In an ideal world, government is supposed to work for the good of all and run based on strong principles. The same goes for those elected into the government or working in it. But we don't live in an ideal world. We may pine for it, dream about it. But in truth, the ideal world only exists to make us feel crappy about the world that we have. The ideal world also exists to be an excuse to keep us from acting in this world. No one has the ideal form of government, but for the majority of people, if their government is found wanting, they fill the void of inadequacy or mediocrity not with engagement, hardwork and a determination to fix things. Instead, they fill the gap with complaints that make them feel like they are accomplishing something while actually doing nothing.

Politics is one of the main ways in which you don't just provide some critique or comment on the state of your government, but condemn its soul as well. It is one thing to look things and talk about how the weather affects how people act, or how the limited funds make it so you can only do so much. But when you draw out the politics card you are blaming things internally, not externally. Some people might say the problem with education on Guam is lack of funds (external). Others would say the problems are teachers, administrators, Senators, Governors and so on (internal).

While the stigma of politics is always around, so is the irritating question of why people expect anything else? Politics at its worst is when people obstruct things for no real reason. When they block any discussion, any progress or any change for some ridiculous and pointless reason. But what about politics in the form where someone does something but for the wrong reasons? In 2010 in his last year of office Felix Camacho, then Governor of Guam called upon the people of the island to help him change the name of this island from Guam to Guahan. It was something that could have been profound and powerful. It was something that I would absolutely support, but his gesture was one of those things that defined political in the poorest sense. It was an empty gesture, with very little thought put into it, something meant to help create his legacy, with very little though about how to lead on the issue and make it truly mean something. This was a good thing to do, but for the wrong reasons, or carried out in a way that had no principles.

Politics can be worse than this of course. Bribes. Nepotism. A certain Senator makes a little extra for that project. The bid goes to the person worst for the job because some favors are exchanged in the background. Principles are sacrificed for money, power, re-election and who knows what else. In this post I'm not excusing politics in the sense that I'm saying that what people call politics is justified or acceptable. What I find interesting is the way people respond to politics as if it isn't always there, when it is always there. It doesn't matter where you live or what fantasy you have of somewhere else, there are politics in your government and whatever idealized vision you have of the other government as well.

One of the most hysterical paradoxes of human life is that the more people say there is politics in something, the more by definition that they should become involved to help keep such self-interest or greed out of the equation. Such is not the case, as people use the naming of things as "political" or "politics" as an "ideal" reason to stay out of something. Or to argue that there is no reason to be do anything more about it. The problem is internal and what can you do about something like that?

The thing which is most political right now on island is the closing of Untalan Middle School in Barrigada. The school was closed last week for not passing a safety inspection. I asked a teacher what had happened in the past week? Did the library cave in killing a student, why was the school suddenly shut down? The response was that everything was exactly the same, the school was just as terrible as always, it's just that the politics changed. For years, no one wanted to close down Untalan since it would be too much paperwork and too much of a hassle for everyone. Now there are reasons to close down the school and so in comes the pressure to get things done.

Below are two perspectives on the Untalan issue. The first is a video from the Governor of Guam from his Youtube page. The second is a message from the Guam Federation of Teachers to a link on Pacific News Center to an interview between GFT President Matt Rector on the same issue.

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

From GFT:

We have less students now than we had 10 years ago. If we need to clear a school out, we can rearrange and redistrict. That’s the Board’s job to solve these problems and use that $4.5M a year to fix the schools,” stated President Matt Rector in an interview with Ray Gibson last week. GovGuam has already implemented several cost-cutting measures hurting public workers and the services they provide. Giving a private corporation $4.5M is not a bright idea when we need as much money coming into our island to improve our public structure. Although the $4.5M is in the form of tax credits, it’s even worse than actually handing out money because there is very little accountability. President Rector further explains, “The OPA has issued a number of reports on tax credits explaining how bad this is for the people of Guam…I think that money is better spent investing on the children of Guam and the people of Guam as opposed to investing into the profits of corporations.” CLICK HERE FOR INTERVIEW LINK

Gupot Fanha'aniyan Pulan Chamoru

2012-01-14T07:56:00.000+10:00

From John Calvo:

The moon has always held much significance for the Chamorro people who have inhabited Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands for approximately 4,000 years. The lunar movement synchronizes the life cycles of the flora and fauna of the islands and ocean. The ancient Chamorro, being a seafaring people, relied on the moon phases to guide daily activities. Modern Chamorro traditions and cultural values have evolved from these practices that encourage living in respect and harmony with the island environment.

The Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association, with support from the Dept. of Chamorro Affairs, Farmers Cooperative Association of Guam, Guam Hotel & Restaurant Association, Guam Visitors Bureau, Mayor’s Council of Guam, and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, is celebrating the 4th Annual Gupot Fanha’aniyan Pulan CHamoru (Chamorro Lunar Calendar Festival) from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday, January 22, 2012, the day before the beginning of the New Moon and Lunar New Year on January 23. It will be held on the grounds of the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association along the stretch of the Marina and Boat Basin next to the Chamorro Village in Hagåtña. Our event sponsors include our GUALÅFFON level sponsors Ambros Inc., Atkins Kroll/AC Delco and Pacific Daily News; and our PULAN level sponsors BankPacific, Docomo Pacific and Southern Pacific Petroleum Corporation (76).

The Chamorro Lunar Calendar Committee under the auspices of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council will be distributing (1 per family) the 2012 Fanha’aniyan Pulan CHamoru (Chamorro Lunar Calendar) which features the moon phases in the Chamorro language, the Guam tide charts and fishing seasons. The calendar showcases beautiful art work from our local students who will be recognized at the opening ceremony at 10 a.m. The art contest prizes were provided by Fish Eye Marine Park, Guam Tropical Dive Station, McDonalds of Guam and Under Water World.

The theme of the calendar and festival is "Fino’ Gualåffon: Espiriton Lina'la' gi Tinilaikan Klema ginen i Kutturat Kustombre yan Maneran i ManChamorro Siha” (Moonlight Talk: Surviving Climate Change through Chamorro Cultural Traditions &Values)." This theme encourages discussion on how traditional knowledge and practices has and can prepare the community to adapt/survive the impacts of climate change. Climate Change can have catastrophic impacts to the resources and the people of the Marianas. The practice of Chamorro culture and traditions has provided the people of the Marianas resiliency in the face of such challenges.

New to the festival will be the presentation of the Little Miss Sirena and Mr. Peskadot winners under the direction of Lani White. The festival will also feature exhibits, displays, demonstrations and entertainment utilizing the Chamorro language. Local artisans will provide demonstrations of their crafts; provide learning opportunities and have culturally crafted items for sale. Cultural dance groups will provide continuous visual stimulation and entertainment through chants, song and movement. Local farmers and fishermen will showcase their talents with produce and foods for taste and sale. We are promoting the “Buy Local” program.

This year, in line with the Chamorro value of respect for our island, AK Guam and AC Delco are paying you to keep Guam green! Bring in your old car or boat battery to the 4th Annual Chamorro Lunar Festival and receive $5! And get $1 for your old motorcycle battery! Damaged, cracked, leaking or alkaline batteries excluded. The drop off area for the batteries will be the festival entrance at the GFCA parking lot.

A major highlight of the event will be the chinahan, an ancient Chamorro method of cooking underground. The public is invited to observe the preparation of the CHåhan (underground oven) when fish and starch crops such as taro, yams, breadfruit, tapioca and sweet potatoes will be placed in the earthen oven and at 4:00 p.m., it will be ceremoniously opened with a procession of food to the feast tables. The procession will include representation from each of the island’s villages led by their Village Mayor with their contribution for the feast. Once done, in the spirit of the Chamorro culture, the feast will be shared with those in attendance. The event is free and open to the general public.

Come Celebrate the Lunar New Year - Chamorro Style
Biba Chamorro!!! Biba CHamoru!!! Biba Guahan!!! Biba Guam!!!

A Far Country

2012-01-12T00:54:00.000+10:00

One thing that I truly miss about graduate school is that I don't get to read as many books as I used to.

At various points in graduate school I was reading several books a week. At least 3 or 4 for classes, one or two more for my own research and interests, and then usually another one or two for just fun. I was processing information constantly and my brain brimming with ideas, and so my blog posts in those days were longer and sometimes crazier, deeper, more convoluted to say the least. Since I started teaching my amount of reading as diminished. I still read for research and to prepare for classes, but the amount of reading that I do for simply fun dropped so much in 2009 and 2010. Last year I tried my best to start up reading a little bit here and there just for fun, but still failed miserably.

I did read a few books here and there, and some of them really made an impact on me. A case in point is the book a far country by Daniel Mason, which was given to me as a birthday present by my girlfriend's mom (an avid reader herself). Most of the books that I read are sci-fi, fantasy or popular mainstream fiction and so this book was different for me. Although you could call me "intellectual" my preferences for reading are far from the usual "intellectual" "great writing choices." I don't keep up with winner's of prizes, whether they be Pulitzer, Booker or even Hugo. But that being said, I do enjoy good writing, although my idea of good writing is always a mixture of high and low culture.

I did enjoy a far country, far more than I thought I would. The story itself isn't very interesting. It is about an ambiguous world, where people in the country suffer with drought and poverty, and the cities are potential paradises with modern inventions, plenty of jobs and opportunities. A young girl, with some sort of vague intuition or latent psychic ability is sent to the city to help an aunt care for her child. She hopes to run into her brother who left for the city earlier to work as a musician. In the city she finds a fantastic new world, which is full of misery and division. She lives with her aunt and cousin in the slums that surround the city and are regularly filled with people coming from the country. Those in the Settlements as they are called bus in and out of the city giving it life by working the jobs that few would want, by being the cheap, invisible and disposable bodies that any high functioning society needs, but pretends largely to not exist.

As I said, the story is gi minagahet, boring. The young girl goes looking for her brother and at the end of the book finds him. There are not great and even interesting revelations along the way. The girl is born with a latent power, which plays almost no purpose in the book, even though it is mentioned on the back cover in the description as if she'll be using her powers to do jedi mind tricks.

The power of the book is the way it is written. The way that the author presents to you, what by virtue of the story is a very boring, drab, dull, and sad world, actually gives us an uneasy and intriguing life. The struggle of farmers, trying to get by, to ekk out an existence with a savage surrounding world of fickle weather, greedy landlords, malicious illnesses, and always far too much misery for any person or family to seemingly handle. It could belong to any country and many different times. That was something that made the story of The Seven Samurai translate so well into The Magnificent Seven. It was not the similarities between warrior classes, but rather the fact that the Japanese and Mexican peasants is actually a much more universal tale that provides the perfect depressing backdrop. At the end when the peasants are celebrating, and someone remarks that it is actually they who are the real winners, it is a celebration of the universally rough and weatherworn life of the small-scale farmer, and how they embody an element of human suffering and dignity.

We are given this bleak life, but not any real directions as to where it exists in our world. It feels like out world, but where would it be? It feels like the South at times, sometimes the Southwest. Sometimes the Midwest. Sometimes it could be somewhere else. The author keeps things very vague and as a result, the world which is so lacking in color and so faded, actually becomes infused with the life that we paint into it. The struggle to locate it, means that we give it life in our attempt to mark it on familiar terrain, to drag it, sometimes kicking and screaming, onto our a set meaning on our cognitive map.

The city has the same effect. It feels like it is from the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, it could even be today. There are ways in which so many potential times are overlapped that it becomes a sort of literary magic eye puzzle. You pick a time and certain elements vanish, pick another and they reappear, but something else is lost.

I found this refusal to name names and give the audience a clear and precise sense of the landscape and the location very interesting. While for part of me it made the reading frustrating, I soon realized that the frustration was not because of the writing or the writer, but rather myself and the way in which the writing was depriving me of a common shortcut for reading. We already have mental maps of times, places, ideas, and so when we read we drag those out and they fill the spaces in for us. If a book doesn't say it, we can imagine it, we already have a general idea stored in there for us. As I read through the book I kept wanting that shortcut. I wanted the author to write, Mobile, Alabama, 1955 or Juarez, Mexico, 1887, or anything like that, to give my mind a break and just let me lazily fill in the gaps with some already known details. The author stubbornly refused and it made me constantly have to re-read, reimagine and recreate the world of his novel.

This is why I came to eventually truly appreciate this story. The unassuming, almost quietly drab way of creating this world, almost seemed to imply a universality to this tale. As if it could take place in so many places, with so many possible languages used to string it together, in several different recent time periods. There was a way in which, while you could argue the author created something very personal and unique, he was still trying to create universal moments and images that would resonate with so many, that would feel real and feel textured regardless of how you read it, or whether you were like me and hoping to get a Proper noun or an exact date for what and where the story was unfolding. That's why for me the world of the story started to feel very real and very true. By not relying on what the reader already knows, the author starts from blank life and gives you a bare set of details, but gives them to you in such a sincere way that they stick. The simplicity and the almost pure way that they appear on the page makes them feel more real, gives them an aura of truth.

A case in point was my favorite passage from the book, which I have typed up below. In it, the author describes the people who make their way from the poor, always swelling settlements around the city, into the city to work. His descriptions of the women, those who work in the factories, as maids and as prostitutes are so vivid and capture so much emotion and tension in such a cramped space was a sight to behold.

If you are looking for an interesting read this year, I encourage you to check out a far country. In the meantime, check out the passage below:

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

In the morning, sitting on the doorstep with Hugo on her lap, she watched the people descend from the Settlements and crowd the buses to the city. They were day maids and factory day-shifters and construction men. At night, others came down: the cleaners of factory plants and the girls who said they were waitresses, the night-shifters and the night guards.

The buses were full in the morning. There were long lines, and the fare collectors packed the aisles as tight as possible. The buses lurched through the city, rumbled forward in traffic, swung tight curves, dove into tunnels, shook until they seemed ready to fall apart. Sometimes they broke down, abandoned their fares in worried crowds that set off walking for the nearest stop.

In the industrial neighborhoods, the factory day-shifters got off first, filing into looming steel amphitheaters. They donned light blue bonnets and face masks, and took up their places on the factory lines, where they welded in showers of sparks, turned, clamped, cut, twisted, dipped, sprayed, bolted, hammered, lathed, until the end-of-shit bell rang, stopping only for lunch on the cold aluminum tables of company cafeterias.

The construction workers got off at crowded street corners, boarding unmarked vans trawling for day labor. On the tops of skeletal towers, they touched talismans of Saint Barbara and wrapped shirts around their heads to protect themselves against the sun.

The maids role all the way to the Center, where they changed for buses to leafy districts with electrified fences. They stood before cameras and let guards buzz them in. The guards were there brothers or their cousins or neighbors in the city or from the towns they had fled during the droughts. They rode service elevators up terraced apartments called Villa Italia, Le Beaumont and Edificio Cezanna, and learned to shadow the movements of gilded women in dark sunglasses. They mopped the same floors they had mopped the day before, and washed lipstick from Danish crystal. At lunch, they carried silver trays and smiled politely, and listened from the kitchen door to stories of Parisian parfumeries and tans in Miami. When they bosses left in chauffeured cars, they went to the balcony and watched the distant airplanes, smoked and flicked the ash with secret pleasure toward the sapphire blue of the swimming pools below.

Then the maids folded their aprons and took the elevators back down. The construction men lay down their tools, and the factory workers shook out their hair from the light blue bonnets, removed their gloves and masks, and filed out of the great buildings, where they caught the buses back to the periphery, shouldering their way out through the night workers waiting to get in.

The buses went back. Now the watchmen crowded in with the cleaning women, factory night-shifters and the girls who said they were waitresses. The women who were old and free from the tyranny of once being beautiful watched the girls tug on their short skirts with a mixture of sadness and anger. The night guards also watched the waitresses, inhaling their heavy perfume as the bus swayed. They also felt sadness and anger, but also felt desire, too, which made the sadness and anger stronger. The girls who were the shift workers in the factories and still not freed from beauty's tyranny watched the waitresses and saw the necklaces, nail polish, pumps and the men's eyes travel to the edges of their skirts.

The girls who were shift workers in the factories remembered the first time a friend whispered, They aren't waitresses, and learned how much they made. Time and again, they considered the possibilities but said No, which they told themselves was a final No, but each night they reconsidered as they rode into the Center. They told themselves with pride, I would never do that, They make more by suffering more, and they rubbed their elbows and wrists swollen from turning and clamping and cutting and twisting, and their rashes from dipping and spraying, and their wondered if this was true. Then they told themselves, It is a different suffering, a soul suffering, and they thought of the great cold rooms and the whir of motors that made all conversation impossible, the masks that kept the dust out but also kept them from smiling to one another or mouthing words. They told themselves, But it is dangerous, and they thought of the gears and belts and flying metal shards, and friends who lost eyes and hands to mechanical things that couldn't hear them scream.

The girls in the short dresses saw the girls in their factory clothes and remember the first time they heard of the grinding monotony of the plants. They thought, I won't do that, I won't slave for a month for what I make in a week, and they thought of their faces pushed into the rotten carpets of cheap motels and minutes that seemed like hours. They told themselves, I would die of boredom, and thought of the same foul words from the same men, the same musty smell below the same bellies, the same haggling, the same damp beds, the same sharp edges of broken floor tiles, the same mildewed ceilings. They told themselves, Poverty is worse, Minimum wage is worse, and they thought of the cost of lipstick and stockings that the stupid men tore in fits of false passion, the price of contraception and injections of penicillin. Then they thought in the end, But I am beautiful and shouldn't work in a factory, and stared at their reflections in the vibrations of the glass.

They joined buses from other corners of the periphery as they descended on the Center. Now it was the cleaners of the industrial plants who got out first, on the corners of empty blocks with graffitied walls and barbed wire. They watched for shadows as they walked to the gates, waiting as the guards fumbled with the locks. In the black and echo of empty corridors they mopped and sang childhood songs from the north, thought of home and watched the rectangles of sky for dawn to come.

Then the night-shifters got off and took up spots on the factory lines and turned and clamped and cut and twisted and dipped and sprayed until the end-of-shit bell rang. stopping only for midnight lunches on the cold aluminum tables of the company cafeterias.

Next were the guards, who left meal tins in supply closets and checked the chambers of their guns. They waited in the empty lobbies of the black-marble banks and watched the entrances. They imagined figures moving through the dark. They learned that if you stare long enough, you see men where there aren't men, that in the darkness of the empty lobbies of black-marble banks, that night-men emerge from the artificial palms, the swirls in the marble, the reflections in the floor. They knew that some guards never learned to tell the different between real men and the night-men who appeared and disappeared and would never rob anything. They laughed at stories of friends who broke the glass on alarms or fired rounds into the marble, who trembling, tried to explain what they had seen. They said they would never do this, and fantasized at night of gallant rescues, newspaper headlines and thankful executives who emptied coffers of gratitude into their hands.

The last to get off were the girls, who walked until they were beyond the lights and then stopped, to tug their skirts above the white triangle of their underpants and pace the shadows of the overpasses, to smoke anxiously as they walked towards cars idling at the edges of the dark sidewalks, where in the morning they caught the buses once again for home.

An Eventful Year for We Are Guahan

2012-01-09T00:00:00.000+10:00

From We Are Guahan:

This year was an eventful year for We Are Guahan. The organization helped organize over 11 hikes to historic sites on Guam, announced a high school scholarship program and enjoyed a historic legal victory against DOD in the lawsuit to save Pagat Village. We Are Guahan would like to extend a dangkulu na Si Yu’us Ma’ase for your continued support of our efforts. Special thanks to Dr. Miget Lujan Bevacqua for coordinating and assisting in the organizing of the Heritage Hikes, Alissa Eclavea for her efforts to raise funds for the GAPSS scholarship program, all of the artists who have volunteered their time and creativity for the Prutehi yan Difendi campaign and everyone else who supported us this year. We look forward to being involved in more things in the year to come. Below is a chronological summary of just some of the activities We Are Guahan was a part of in 2011:

February 2011

•2/14: Sticker-up day to spread awareness about Pagat Lawsuit.

•2/25: Release of Grey Paper on Traffic

March 2011

•3/12: Hike to Tumon Bay (Part of “Un Nuena Na Inatan” Heritage Hike Series)

•3/15: Presentation given to Rotary Club of Guam Sunrise

•3/19: Hike to Pagat Village

•3/26: Hike to Cetti Bay and Sella Bay

April 2011

•4/13: Release of Grey Paper on Jungle

May 2011

•Launch of “Prutehi yan Difendi” bus stop painting campaign. To date, volunteers have painted 4 bus stops in 3 villages and a mural in Piti

June 2011

•6/12: Hike to Hila’an Village (Part of “I Kantan i Latte Siha” Heritage Hike Series)

•6/18: Hike to Haputo Village

•6/25: Hike to Pagat Village

July 2011

•7/2: Hike to Almagosa Springs / Falls

August 2011

•Launch of Guam Alumni of the Public School System (“GAPSS”) scholarship program

September 2011

•9/22: Scoping meeting on MITT-EIS

•9/28: Present at UOG forum hosted by Guam Coalition for Peace and Justice regarding Pagat Lawsuit

October 2011

•10/13: Scoping meeting on “divert” facilities

•10/22: Hike to Ague Cove (Part of “Na’i’ Tatte, Chule’ Tatte” Heritage Hike Series)

•10/24: Provide comments on Public Access Plan to historic sites controlled by DOD

•10/30: Hike to Hila’an Village

November 2011

•11/1: Present to Rotary Club of Tumon Bay

•11/5: Hike to Pagat Point

•11/16: Village meeting to discuss Compatibility Sustainability Study

•11/16: DOD files declaration agreeing to relief requested

•11/18: Press conference to discuss Pagat Lawsuit

December 2011
•12/6: Fundraiser celebrating 2 years of WAG

•12/12: Hearing scheduled for Pagat Lawsuit

•12/17: Hike to Haputo Village

A Peaceful Year in Jeju

2012-01-08T12:53:00.000+10:00

Throughout 2011 I was usually pretty good at blogging about the latest news out of Gangjeong in Jeju Island, South Korea. Things were pretty heated there throughout the entire year, with plenty of protests, arrests and international calls for solidarity. A friend of mine was arrested, as was the mayor of the village, whom I had met when I was there the year before. Both were eventually freed after spending months in prison. The central conflict is over the fate of Gangjeong Village and its beautiful environment. As a small village in Southern Jeju, it was identified as the site for a new joint US-ROK Naval facility. The majority of the people there, not wanting to see their land and their sea life damaged, have decided to protest this action. Incidentally and ironically, Jeju was named several years ago as "an island of peace." The protesters are attempting to ensure that their island lives up to its name.

I haven't posted much on my blog, but emails and the reading of other blogs such as Bruce Gagnon's Organizing Notes and the website Save Jeju had still kept me up to date. I thought I would post below the video of an artist who has been regularly chronicling the struggle in Gangjeong in various media. It is by Dunguree and it is titled "Our Life, Our Love and Our Struggle."

Painting on the Moon

2012-01-08T00:28:00.000+10:00

I have not painted for a while. Apmam desde mamenta yu’. Halacha’ gof tinane’ yu’ ni’ i che’cho’-hu, ya sesso gof machalpon i hinasso-ku siha yan ti nahong i semnak gi i ha’åni.

The other day, as if to start the new year fresh, my daughter Sumåhi pressured me to paint with her and her brother. They had received a brand new set of paints for Christmas and had been eager to use them. So even though I had plenty of things to do, I relented and got out several sheets of paper for us to paint with. When Akli’e’ paints, he primarily uses his fingers. Dipping the tips into the paint cups and then smearing them on his arms and occasionally on the waiting paper in front of him. Sumåhi is much more controlled when she paints, and sometimes appears stoic and almost pained as she attempts to force the paints to form familiar animal shapes. She ended the night with an impressive painting of two afula’ or manta rays. The manta rays were pink, while the ocean around them was a color-coordinated grey-blue.

For me, I decided to try out some monotypes.

I found myself trying to create painterly images from favorite song lyrics of mine. I usually begin the new year by listening to favorite songs of mine and reflecting on certain meanings they contain, and so I decided to try and paint, in an abstract and expressive rather than literal way, what those lyrics might symbolize. For example, take this lyrics “and in the end / the love you take / is equal to the love / you make” which is from the song “The End” from The Beatles.

Rather than draw hearts that people were making and taking all in the style of a Peter Max Yellow Submarine dreamscape, I draw a horizon line down the middle of the painting, and divided the lyrics into the sky and the earth. In the sky, I created an image akin to love being created. On the earth I tried to symbolize love being taken. The result was tumultuous. It is something that if I were to title it “The End” most might think it is a reference to the apocalypse since the sky appears to be an explosion, while the land more of a shockwave. But art is all about treading that fun and frustrating line between creating something that feels special and expressive to you as the artist and creating something that will appeal to others, or something that they might feel some sort of special connection to.

I will always remember the story of the man who bought the painting “Red” from me. This was more than 10 years ago when I first starting out in Guam as an artist. I had signed up for a table at the Guam Micronesian Island Fair, and even though I was selling abstract work that people usually grimaced when they would see it, I actually ended up selling close to a thousand dollars worth of paintings. One man in particular, whose name I don’t know and can’t even really remember what he looked like, made a particularly strong impact on me. He was glancing through my stacks of matted and shrink wrapped paintings. He didn’t seem interested in any of them, and seemed like he was about to move on and buy a sarong from the woman selling next to me, when he seemed to freeze in place holding one of my paintings.

I asked him if he needed help, had any questions, and was about to ask him if I needed to call a doctor to help him with his sudden paralysis, when he asked me how much the painting he was holding was. He had chosen one of my favorites that I had created up until that point, it was titled “Red.” I was selling it for $60, which is a lot of my paintings, since I usually sell them at around $20-$30, since they are small. He agreed to my price and handed over the money. I asked him what struck him about the painting that made him want to buy it. He said, he wasn’t sure, but the image just seemed to fit his life. He looked at the red and black slashes and he felt like this was a perfect image of his life. He wasn’t a fan of abstract art he admitted, and he really didn’t like most of my paintings, but when he looked at this one, it just felt like I had summed him up so well with this single image.

He thanked him for his money, he appreciation and even his honesty (na ti ya-ña i otro pinenta-ku siha), and watched him continue touring the tables of vendors. I didn’t expect to see him again, but he ended up coming back hours later during the evening, because he had apparently found the reason for the seemingly random connection between him and my painting. When he returned he was even more excited than when he left. He stood next to me and he held my painting up to me and pointed down to the bottom right hand corner, where next to my signature was the date that I painted it on. He asked me if I knew what the significance of that date was. I replied that as I far as I knew, it was the day I painted the painting and nothing more. He slapped a hand on my shoulder and told me, “this is my birthday. You painted this on my birthday.” Apparently he hadn’t even noticed this when he had purchased it, but seen it later when showing it to a friend.

This was a truly unique, but important moment for me. I had not created that image for anyone other than myself, yet someone had seen themselves in such a deep and intimate in that painting. I treasure any moment where something like that takes place. It reminds me of why I love being an artist, even if I don’t get to create as much art as I used to.

One of the songs that I was thinking of as I was painting was the standard “Fly Me to the Moon” which has apparently been covered by everything on their cousin, but I known best from the ending credits of the anime Evangelion. I’ve pasted below my Chamorro version of the song. If I ever am, for whatever crazy reason, offered a recording deal one day, this will be for sure on my first album.

Konne yu’ guatu
Asta i pilan yan estreyas
Na’li’e’ yu’ hafa i lina’la’ guihi guatu giya Jupiter yan Mars
Otro fino’-ta, toktok yu’
Otro fino’-ta, nene, chiku yu’
Na’bula i korason-hu
Ni’ i taifinakpo’ na kanta-mu
Hagu ha’ i malago-hu, todu ni’ hu adora
Otro fino’-ta, na’tininas hao
Otro fino’-ta, hu guaiya hao!
While this song was in my head I found myself painting over and over images of the moon. In one painting I put a sprawling city over the face of the moon. In another I tried to blend a quiet face onto its surface. In some the moon floats proudly before a lovely, mood-lightening pastel sunset. For others, it cowers, about to be swallowed up by a menacing darkness.

This is one of my favorites that I was able to paint, I eventually titled it, "The Colonization of the Moon."

I hope that in 2012 I get to paint more than I was able to in 2011.

The Decline of US Power

2012-01-02T07:50:00.000+10:00

An editorial from the Guardian/UK to start the new year. It is true in a way. There is still no other country in the world that can challenge the US militarily (although China seems to want to try for that soon). But in terms of the interests of the US dictating the way regions see or arrange themselves, or the way people on the ground aspire for their own liberty, the fantasies that of the US as that shining beacon of light on the hill are a bit out of date. That was part of the imperialist messaging of the Cold War. This idea that the rest of the world did not only want what America had, but also were willing to trade their own interests or their resources, their sovereignty in order to get it. People have learned that freedom does not belong to any particular power or country, and that the definition of freedom is that even if someone inspires you or helps you achieve it, is that you should have the right to turn your back on them and choose a life that conflicts with what they might want.

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

United States as a Global Power: New World Disorder
The Guardian Editorial
Published on Thursday, December 29, 2011
by The Guardian/UK

The time has long since past when it became fashionable to talk about a new world order. The collapse of the Soviet Union provided an opportunity to fashion one. But instead of using that opportunity to create a new security architecture in Europe, Nato expanded eastwards as the military anchor for democracy promotion. Not content to have seen off one global military competitor in the Soviet Union, the western military industrial complex and the think-tanks they funded scurried around for a worthy replacement. When 11 September happened, they thought they were in business again. For a brief moment, al-Qaida seemed to fulfil some of the characteristics of communism: it could pop up anywhere in the world; it was an existential enemy, driven ideologically and uncontainable through negotiation; and it was potentially voluminous. Neither the doctrines of the pre-emptive strike, nor attacking a foreign country abroad to ensure security at home, were new. Swap the domino theory of the Vietnam era for the crescent of crisis of the Bush and Obama eras, and you had the same formula for a foe that hopscotched across the globe.

But here's the curious thing. Al-Qaida failed, not by being bombed out of the tribal areas of Pakistan or by losing its video-hugging leader. It failed as an ideological alternative, in its own terms and for its own people. It failed in Egypt, the country that mattered most to its chief thinker, the Egyptian-born doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri. When the opportunity arose for millions of Muslims to shed their brutal Arab yoke (this was supposed to be the fourth phase in the construction of the Caliphate, to be accompanied by physical attacks against oil suppliers and cyber ones on the US economy), nothing of the sort happened. Islam is indeed winning the day, but it is political rather than military. It seeks alliances with the apostate and says it is committed to democratic partnership and the rule of law.

Al-Qaida's failure was all the more significant because the western response, the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, also failed. Not because the enemy was especially daunting, but because the mission was impossible to start with. Mission creep started with democracy promotion, continued as state-building, and ended with withdrawal at any cost, by the appointed date. The quality of life in the country US combat troops left behind – most likely one that in Iraq will break up into a loose federation on sectarian lines – became less important than the fact of departure itself. Military ceremonies proclaiming victory in the war in Iraq had as much sense of reality as Kim Jong-il's funeral. This is the next feature of the world we live in. It is an age of the self-defeating intervention. The quests through military means to build stable states out of a dictatorship in Iraq or a failed state in Afghanistan did not and are not failing at the hands of a conventional enemy. They implode. They self-destruct.

Military overreach and serial economic crises have bequeathed us a generation of small leaders who battle with events that outsize them. They have stopped trying to fashion them, but appeal instead to a defensive desire. Protectionism not internationalism rules the day. The Middle East has been transformed from a zone of allies to one in which Washington has been reduced to the role of spectator. It is now largely a taker of Middle Eastern policy, not one of its makers. There are other parts of the globe where US power projection finds natural allies, such as the Pacific, where China's rise is feared. So the paradox is that while US military power retains global reach (it is working on supersonic cruise missiles, and long-range drones) its stewardship as world leader, as a generator of the next big idea, is gradually ending. There may come a time when international institutions are rebuilt to fill this vacuum. But that time is not yet. Until then, a new world disorder would be nearer the mark.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2011.

200

2011-12-31T23:55:00.000+10:00

I made a silent resolution at some point this year that I would post 200 times on this blog over the course of 2011. My blogging has its ups and downs, as I chronicled earlier this fall in my post "300,000." I don't find as much time to post because of teaching, parenting, activism and writing for other things.

I was determined though to reach the 200 post plateau this year, and with this post I have done it.

It's a great way to end one year and welcome in a new one.

Adios 2011!

Hafa Adai 2012!

Dandan i Panderetas

2011-12-31T18:23:00.000+10:00

Here is Sumahi performing "Dandan i Panderetas" at her Christmas concernt for her daycare.

The lyrics are below if you would like to learn to sing this traditional Chamorro Christmas song too.

Lyrics:

Dandan i panderetas, na'fampalangpang
Todu i profesia, esta munhayan

Popble i patgon-ta, gi liyang Bilen
Ngasan i asson-na, kulan ga'ga' gui'

Dandan i panderetas, na'fampalangpang
Todu i profesia, esta munhayan

Popble i patgon-ta, nina'fotgon gui'
Nu i lago' nana-na, sa' tinangse gui'

Dandan i panderetas, na'fampalangpang
Todu i profesia, esta munhayan

Updates on Ethnic Studies in Arizona

2011-12-31T11:58:00.000+10:00

Published on Friday, December 30, 2011 by CultureStrike

Ethnic Studies Ruling Escalates Arizona Schools Struggle

by Michelle Chen

While students were on their holiday break, Arizona issued a disturbing wake-up call to anyone who thought the education system had evolved to reflect America’s diversity. In a legal challenge to a controversial law passed in 2010, an administrative law judge pummeled a flagship educational initiative by supporting restrictions on programs based on Latino history and culture.Tucson students occupy a school board meeting

The judge decided that the curriculum used in Tucson’s Mexican American studies programs was biased against white people, apparently because it advocates critical historical perspectives and emphasizes struggles of indigenous and Latino communities, as well as the links between that legacy and contemporary politics. The ruling comes as no surprise, as the struggle between the school district and school superintendent John Huppenthal has been dragging on for months. The focus now is on a pending federal lawsuit aimed at halting the law.

CNN quotes from ruling:

In Tuesday’s ruling, administrative law judge Lewis Kowal said the auditors observed only a limited number of classes. He added, “Teaching oppression objectively is quite different than actively presenting material in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner.”

“Teaching in such a manner promotes social or political activism against the white people, promotes racial resentment, and advocates ethnic solidarity, instead of treating pupils as individuals,” Kowal wrote. He cited a lesson that taught students that the historic treatment of Mexican-Americans was “marked by the use of force, fraud and exploitation,” and a parent’s complaint that one of her daughters, who was white, was shunned by Latino classmates after a government course was taught “in an extremely biased manner.”

So to sum up, it is “extremely biased” to teach critical viewpoints of the oppression, displacement and systematic discrimination that Mexicans and other groups have encountered throughout U.S. history. Because for students to learn about the many atrocities strewn along the path of Manifest Destiny would upset the national narrative of continual social progress, rugged individualism, and free enterprise. And once the veneer of triumphalism begins to crack, students might start to use their often-neglected critical intellect to unravel myths of “personal responsibility” and “equal opportunity” that have propped up neoliberal dreams for the past few generations.

The ruling’s ideological rationale encapsulates the political fictions fueling ethnocentrism in public schools. That’s precisely why many students yearn for education that pushes past negative media portrayals and stereotypes of people of color (and they’re willing to agitate for it). Tucson high school student Korina Lopez, whose father teachers in the district, told Democracy Now!, “It’s very important to me because I know that it teaches a deeper understanding of history and the things you learn. And it just gives you a whole new appreciation of your community and society.”

Ethnic studies in public schools has long been under siege. Though the programs have flourished, enrolling hundreds of elementary, middle and high school students, the law, HB 2281, aimed explicitly to penalize educators that have fought to introduce more critical pedagogy.

According to the federal legal complaint filed by ethnic studies advocates and teachers this fall, the state’s then-school superintendent Tom Horne declared that the Mexican-American Studies Department of Tucson’s No. 1 unified school district “[p]romotes the overthrow of the United States Government.”

The witchhunt rhetoric surrounding the program reflects the overarching paradox of the state’s charge of “bias” in ethnic studies. A glance at the demographic structure of Tucson’s school system shows that individual opportunity doesn’t exactly thrive in communities riven by deeply rooted racial and economic segregation.

The Arizona government’s preference for “teaching oppression objectively” certainly plays out in ironic ways. Authorities have no qualms displaying their own biases when it comes to policing schools and communities. The most glaring example is SB 1070, the law that would encourage the profiling and detention of suspected undocumented immigrants. The state has also marginalized teachers who fell short of “fluency” standards–i.e. people with Spanish accents who teach kids with limited English. At one school in Phoenix, reported the Wall Street Journal last year, “State auditors have reported to the district that some teachers pronounce words such as violet as ‘biolet,’ think as ‘tink’ and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.”

If only more Arizona officials had been schooled in the very programs that they seek to outlaw. According to the Save Ethnic Studies campaign, the programs have proven effective not only at supporting academic performance in the conventional sense–higher graduation rates and test scores–but helping close the profound “achievement gaps” that plague low-income communities of color. The campaign stresses that the ethnic studies model incubated in Tucson has become a national model:

98 percent of the students say they do homework at night to keep up with the next day’s class. 95 percent discuss what their learning with their parents. Students have given reports to the TUSD board, Pima County Board of Supervisors, the Arizona state legislature, the Black Congressional Caucus and the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.

“There’s a big myth up there that these classes are about immigration”, says Augustine Romero, Director of Student Equity at TUSD. “It’s actually about analyzing problems in the real world and addressing those problems by coming up with solutions.”

Analyzing problems in the real world and coming up with solutions. If officials think that’s anathema to a sound education, then they’ve given civil rights advocates the most principled argument yet for why ethnic studies is so vital for the next generation of community leaders.

Michelle Chen is a contributing editor at In These Times. She is a regular contributor to the labor rights blog Working In These Times, Colorlines.com, and Pacifica's WBAI. Her work has also appeared in Common Dreams, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, Newsday, and her old zine, cain.

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

Mexican American Studies in Arizona Needs No Defense: It Needs More Defenders
by Jeff Biggers
11/17/11
Huffington Post

In a must read cover story in the most recent Tucson Weekly, acclaimed journalist and fifth-generation Tucsonan Mari Herreras expertly sorts fact from fiction in the controversial Ethnic Studies ban in Arizona.
Yet, underscoring Herreras' debunking of 10 myths -- that "stories of mythical proportions have surrounded the fight for Mexican-American studies -- with some truths sprinkled in between the lines" -- is one of the most tragic, if not obscene, realities in Arizona's education showdown: As the state inches toward its centennial in 2012, Mexican Americans -- including the 60 percent of the students that make up Tucson Unified School District -- still have to defend and justify the teaching of Mexican American history and literature, as if Mexican Americans are not part of the greater American experience.

The final showdown over the extremist witch hunt to outlaw Ethnic Studies in Tucson is only days away; but, the supremely American struggle for democratic education, justice and local control of schools has been playing out in the state's segregated minds for over a century.

Five years ago, long-time educator Salomon Baldenegro nailed Tucson's and the state of Arizona's enduring and shameful problem: "...history is cyclical, and the Mexican haters have resurfaced. We again find ourselves having to prove our legitimacy in our own country."

Or, at least in the legislative narrative of a modern-day Arizona framed by recalled Tea Party President Russell Pearce and his friends, Canadian-immigrant and violence-invoking Attorney General Tom Horne, and Tea Party extremist John Huppenthal, the embarrassingly incompetent Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Or, in the silence and ineptitude of a school district overseen by a demoralizing figure like TUSD

Superintendent John Pedicone, who reneged on his promise to join the Mexican American Studies program in their federal court battle for constitutional rights, unleashed unforgivable and excessive police brutality on the city's youth and elderly icons last spring, placed obstacles on the program, referred to college-bound students as "pawns," refused to participate in public forums to heal the divide in the city, and dismissively concluded the historic legacy of Mexican American Studies as a "distraction" in his overwhelmingly Mexican American district.

In a chilling reminder of his acquiescence to the hateful narrative of Horne and Huppenthal, Pedicone refused to publicly rebuke, despite numerous pleas, Huppenthal's vicious charge in September that his district's own Mexican American youth could be compared to Hitler's paramilitary Jugend.

Let's be clear: No other high school program in Arizona -- perhaps even the nation -- has gone through such scrutiny, investigation and media abuse and disinformation, as the Mexican American Studies program in Tucson.

And yet, no other high school program among low-income students in the state of Arizona -- or perhaps the nation -- has proved its undeniable success in alleviating the achievement gap, graduating college-bound students, inspiring community-engaged young citizens, and garnering unprecedented praise from national education experts and an independent audit. No other program has sponsored as many public forums to heal and bring together the city on issues concerning its youth.

Bottom line: Mexican American Studies Needs No Defense: It Needs More Defenders.
In 2006, Baldenegro wrote:

We grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s, when American society viewed Americans of Mexican descent as foreigners and there was a concerted campaign by society, particularly the schools, to make us feel inferior and treat us as interlopers in our own land.
We had two choices. We could acquiesce and shuffle through life, hat in hand, picking up society's crumbs. Or we could resist and assert our humanity. We resisted.
In coalition with barrio activists and some Mexican-American professionals, we fundamentally changed the educational, political, cultural and social landscape of Tucson and Arizona.

Years later, few Tucsonans have had the vantage point and experience as youth advocate and educator Sarah Gonzales. Unlike many entrenched and highly paid administrators or politicians who have failed to take on the Tea Party extremists or defend Tucson's children on the frontlines, Gonzales has spent the last decade organizing arts, education and social justice projects in schools and youth communities throughout Arizona.
She writes:

The voices of the community most central to Ethnic Studies have been ignored, refuted and disrespected. The treatment of our youth, respected elders, MAS teachers and community supporters has been egregious. Unfortunately, in many social movements the leadership oppresses the voice of the community instead of seeking the community's knowledge.
I think the community is seeking to hold Pedicone responsible for the hostile climate that his leadership or lack thereof created at the school board meetings around this topic. It is quite understandable that a community who has been beaten, arrested and devalued would not trust or support the leadership. The community has a right to seek accountability for these transgressions.

Ethnic Studies is a placeholder in the long line of anti-immigrant and anti-Latino/a legislation in Arizona recently. To view it as somehow different from the rest of the legislation is to be ignorant to structural inequality.

Arguments over curriculum or programmatic changes for the "best interest" of the students by people who have no education, participation or background in Ethnic Studies serve only to distract from the unity needed to refute an unjust piece of legislation that has no business in Tucson.

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

Ethnic Studies Myths
by Mari Herreras
Tuscon Weekly

In Arizona, we have firsthand experience with the power of myth—for example, think of Gov. Jan Brewer's claim of an endless stream of headless corpses in the desert.

It's that kind of storytelling that has helped our state become a top exporter of anti-Mexican sentiment, first with SB 1070, and then with HB 2281, Arizona's anti-ethnic-studies law.

The myths surrounding the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American studies classes—which HB 2281 was written specifically to deal with—begin with state Attorney General Tom Horne, back when he was state superintendent of public instruction.

In 2006, labor-rights activist Dolores Huerta addressed Tucson High Magnet School students and uttered these words: "Republicans hate Latinos."

Horne reacted by dispatching his deputy superintendent, Margaret Dugan, to explain to students why Huerta was wrong. Horne wanted students to know that Republicans do not hate Latinos. However, many students—frustrated that they were not allowed to ask Dugan questions—stood up in unison with tape across their mouths. More than 200 walked out during her speech.

Horne investigated where these students learned about free speech and civil disobedience, and determined they gained their knowledge in a series of Mexican-American studies classes. The best solution to Horne, apparently, was to get rid of these classes, as he soon spearheaded HB 2281.

Since Huerta's statement and the beginning of Horne's crusade, stories of mythical proportions have surrounded the fight for Mexican-American studies—with some truths sprinkled in between the lines.
It's time to sort things out.

Myth No. 1: Republicans love Mexicans.

Around the time when Huerta spoke at Tucson High, a series of bills was being passed by Arizona's Republican-majority Legislature—including earlier versions of SB 1070, border-security bills, a bill requiring employers to use a work-eligibility-verification system, and bills to deny in-state tuition and financial aid to noncitizen students. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed most of the bills.

There were also four state ballot proposals that targeted immigrants, including an English-only law, which voters passed. Nationally, a controversial federal immigration-reform proposal led to a series of immigration-related protests across the country, including in Tucson.

Huerta's statement was part of an appeal to students, as she was asking them to look at the legislation and challenging them to start a campaign to address why "Republicans hate Latinos."

This led to the aforementioned speech by Dugan, and the walkout by students, which infuriated Horne. In an open letter in 2007, he wrote that TUSD's program should be terminated. Next, in 2008, he worked with lawmakers on SB 1108, the first anti-ethnic-studies bill. He tried again in 2009 with SB 1069, but both bills failed to become law.

But then Barack Obama was elected president, and Napolitano went with him to Washington, D.C., to head up the Department of Homeland Security. Jan Brewer, Arizona's Republican secretary of state, became governor, and with a Republican majority in the Legislature passing SB 1070 and HB 2281, she signed them into law in 2010.

Truth: When it comes to most Arizona Republicans, Huerta has a gift for stating the obvious.

Myth No. 2: Horne's anti-ethnic studies law isn't anti-Mexican.

HB 2281 was written to focus on only one school district in the state, and on only one program.

TUSD has other ethnic-studies programs that focus on African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific islanders and Asian Americans. But only Mexican-American studies classes—and their teachers—are under attack. When former state Sen. John Huppenthal successfully ran for state superintendent (while Horne ran successfully for attorney general), part of his platform was to get rid of la raza, a term from the Chicano movement that means "the people."

He didn't say black studies, or Indian studies. He said la raza.

From Nolan Cabrera's perspective, fear and politics are the real reasons behind laws like SB 1070 and HB 2281. Cabrera, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona's College of Education, has been a vocal supporter of the TUSD program.

"Social-science research shows us that the Latino population is the largest-growing in this country right now, and that's what makes it very easy to play upon those fears," Cabrera says.

"They've been doing it for years. It plays on your fears and increases turnout on the conservative right. The other timing (factor) is the recession: When people are pinched, they react. Look at our past with Operation Wetback, and then the Chinese Exclusion Act—'throw out the foreigners.'"

Truth: Hatred of all things Mexican can help you get elected in much of Arizona.

Myth No. 3: These classes are teaching a form of Mayan religion.

Some, but not all, of the Mexican-American studies classes in TUSD open with a poem written by Luis Valdez, of Zoot Suit and La Bamba fame. The poem is called "In Lak Ech," a Mayan phrase that was used as a greeting; the poem in some ways mirrors the golden rule.

Here's Valdez's poem:
In Lak Ech
Tú Eres mi otro yo / You are my other me.
Si te hago daño a ti / If I do harm to you,
Me hago daño a mí mismo / I do harm to myself;
Si te amo y respeto / If I love and respect you,
Me amo y respeto yo / I love and respect myself.

After reciting the poem, students sometimes participate in what is called the unity clap. The unity clap originated with the United Farm Workers as a way to bridge the communication gap between Latino and Filipino workers who did not share the same language; the idea was to create unity. The clap starts off slowly, then gets faster and faster.

In the movie Stand and Deliver, East Los Angeles math teacher Jaime Escalante is depicted using a form of clapping to get students revved up, and he even throws in a bit of Mayan math history. However, no one accused Escalante of teaching students Mayan religious practices, or of being in a cult.

Pueblo High School teacher Sally Rusk, who teaches Chicano history, explains that when the classes recite "In Lak Ech" and other Mayan writings, "What we're doing is a paradigm of reflection—to engage the students to reflect on actions and their history. The whole reason we study history is to learn from the past. As we learn, we need to share with others, and this is where it is scary for critics, because it is about transforming society.

"We open the week and end the week saying we want a revolutionary state of mind, but that's not about the violent overthrow of our country. We're (telling) our students that we can no longer accept the high dropout rate for Chicanos."

Truth: Ethnic-studies classes keep some Latino high school students from dropping out—a fact that doesn't impress Mexican-American studies opponents.

Myth No. 4: John Pedicone is against ethnic studies because of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.

As soon as John Pedicone became TUSD's superintendent, local activists said his appointment was an attempt by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council—of which Pedicone was once a member—to take over the direction of Tucson's largest school district.

SALC has had its share of criticism as an organization with a political agenda. Members include car-dealer Jim Click (a conservative Republican) and many area corporation representatives. The council has been accused of being overly Anglo and not doing a good job of representing a wide spectrum of Tucsonans.

"The fact that people try to generalize SALC and my affiliation is misguided," says Pedicone.

Pedicone describes SALC as a group of "effective community leaders" who want to improve Tucson and its economy. He says he looks at working with members of SALC as a way to bring education and business together.

"The fact that people talk about bigotry, but then generalize or make assumptions and create fear based on my affiliation with SALC, is wrong," Pedicone says, "because it just isn't true."

Truth: While it's probably a good idea to keep an eye on SALC, repeating over and over that Pedicone is a SALC operative doesn't make it true.

Myth No. 5: John Pedicone is working to dismantle Mexican-American Studies.

Pedicone says he's aware of the claim that he doesn't support ethnic studies, and that it's hearsay. He calls the attack on ethnic studies part of a specific political agenda that he is not involved in.

"Unfortunately, people are on edge on both sides," Pedicone says.

Janet Marcotte, executive director of the YWCA Tucson, describes herself as a Pedicone supporter, and says she also continues to support ethnic studies.

"I've also been characterized as a great friend of John, but when I first reached out to him, I'd never met him face to face. I've been following everything he said, and following it closely, because it is an issue I care a lot about," Marcotte says. "... We would not be appealing (Huppenthal's finding that TUSD violated HB 2281) if it wasn't for John. I don't know why that keeps getting overlooked."

However, teachers and others who support the program disagree. Rusk says changes made to the Mexican-American Studies Department that were championed by Pedicone have had a negative impact on the program. The director, Sean Arce, was essentially demoted when Assistant TUSD Superintendent Lupita Cavazos-Garcia was placed in charge of the program (as well as other district-wide programs).

Rusk says that this year, all of the Mexican-American studies teachers were forced to work full-time, which prevented some of them from doing effective outreach for their classes, like working on dropout-prevention programs and participating in community events.

The district also changed the way the classes were offered and how students registered for them. With little time for outreach by teachers, enrollment dropped, Rusk says.

Although district officials claim to support the program, the end result of the changes is "that our enrollment is down by more than half this year," Rusk says. Instead of supporting the program, they're dismantling it, she charges.

Truth: It's difficult to publicly criticize a program that has been proven to help students—and what happens behind the scenes is what matters to its survival.

Myth No. 6: Isn't it time to move on?

With State Sen. Russell Pearce—an author of SB 1070—having been recalled, ethnic-studies activists say now is the best time to take advantage of a newfound energy and interest in changing the state.

However, both Marcotte and Pedicone say the district faces more-important problems than ethnic studies.
UA's Cabrera says he'll be happy to move beyond ethnic studies "when we no longer live in a racist society."
Cabrera says Pedicone and school-board member Mark Stegeman brought criticism by ethnic-studies supporters upon themselves. For example, after the student-led group UNIDOS took over the TUSD governing-board meeting on April 26—when Stegeman planned on introducing a resolution to make Mexican-American studies classes only available as electives, and not requirement-fulfilling classes—Pedicone and others criticized the students rather than accepting some of the blame for the students' frustration, Cabrera says.

"When you start vilifying the students, you are almost parodying Huppenthal and Horne," he says. "Why demonize these kids if they are fundamentally interested in having this conversation? UNIDOS' actions stemmed from the students being ignored and not having their voice listened to. So right now, (with the late Judy Burns' seat on the school board open), why not have a youth voice present?"

Truth: No, it's not time to move on.

Myth No. 7: MECHA is anti-Semitic and un-American.

During the state Administrative Court hearings, the state presented an e-mail to Pedicone from assistant superintendent Lupita Cavazos-Garcia regarding her concerns that MEChA, a national cultural and academic organization for students, was described as anti-Semitic, and that it could potentially indoctrinate children.
Questioning MEChA in this manner was surprising to local activists, who pointed out that U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva was a member of MEChA, as was Tucson City Councilwoman Regina Romero.

The Community Advisory Board for TUSD's Mexican-American studies program called for Cavazos-Garcia to be removed from her administrative position, but she remains in place.

"Her comments clearly illustrate a profound misunderstanding of the organization and a general lack of support for groups dedicated to the educational advancement of Latino youth," reads the advisory board's press release.

"Despite Garcia's personally held beliefs, TUSD has placed her in charge of the district's Mexican-American studies program, which similarly prepares students for advancement in higher education and teaches American history and literature through the Mexican-American perspective. Despite the program's proven efficacy in increasing student achievement, under Garcia's direction, the department has seen a dramatic internal restructuring and a damaging decentralization of program staff."

Pedicone's response is that he can't determine who he employs based on complaints from the community, or based on complaints from people who don't like her as their supervisor.

"The fact that she is in charge is not the issue. Where in any organizational structure does someone who doesn't like their supervisor get to change that?" Pedicone asks.

Truth: When people complain about MEChA, they usually describe a Mexican plot to re-create Aztlan. No one seems to have the ability anymore to understand symbols and metaphors.

Myth No. 8: Anyone who offers criticism of ethnic studies is a racist.

As discussions heated up regarding what Pedicone and TUSD would do regarding the state's finding that the district was in violation of HB 2281, Marcotte says she reached out to the superintendent to devise a strategy for the school district. It was at this meeting that a local activist and ethnic-studies supporter who showed up was told to leave. Accusations flew, and Marcotte was called a racist.

On the contrary, she says. "I think that my corner is being in support of ethnic studies, and I think I've been unfairly characterized."

The passion of those who fight on behalf of ethnic studies, she says, is understandable, especially in the context of SB 1070. Given the anti-immigrant mood in the state, "I think it's been very difficult to focus on how we make things better," Marcotte says. "It happens in this (kind of) situation—'you're not totally with me, so you're against me.'"

Marcotte acknowledges she hasn't always agreed with the tactics of program supporters. "Because of that, it's been very difficult to localize a broad-based group to be supportive of ethnic studies. It would be nice if it was different, so that we could show a unified voice."

Marcotte also says that calls for Pedicone's resignation were absurd. "When that happened, it was hard for me to believe (people calling for Pedicone's resignation) have the best interest of the district in mind."

Truth: At some point, everyone who supports ethnic studies will need to sit down and work with each other. Check egos at the door, please.

Myth No. 9: There's no way to heal wounds and work together.

People who identify themselves as progressive yet have offered criticism of ethnic studies have been called racists, while elders in the Chicano community were escorted from the governing board room on May 3 by Tucson police in riot gear. Other ethnic-studies supporters who surrounded the TUSD administration building that night were stomped on, pushed and bruised by police while they peacefully protested.

Where does the community go from here, as it waits for news from the state Administrative Court judge on whether TUSD's Mexican-American studies program violates state law?

"We need to work together," Rusk says. "This is what we keep saying as teachers—that we need to look at what we teach" and "our wants and goals."

She says, "I'd like us all to have a huge meeting and figure out this division, the escalations and our framework."

Marcotte says opportunities remain for everyone to come together around this issue.

"I've done all kinds of programs, some that are over 20 years old, but that doesn't mean I don't believe there could be improvements," she says. "It's the same with ethnic studies. There probably can be improvements in the curriculum. And right now, it sometimes feels like a battle over the status quo. Frankly, the status quo is not good enough for our students."

The division among people who are on the same side "has been such a horrible thing for our community," she says. "We have just made Horne and Huppenthal very happy. We've been fighting with each other and not fighting for the best interests of students."

Truth: If making Horne and Huppenthal unhappy is a goal all ethnic-studies supporters can agree on, it should be easy to heal wounds and work together.

Myth No. 10: Huppenthal is right: Cambium Learning Group didn't do the audit correctly.

Huppenthal and his team at the state Department of Education testified during the Administrative Court hearings that Cambium Learning—the company and its subcontractor hired by the department to do an audit of the TUSD's Mexican-American studies program—didn't do a satisfactory job.

The audit, which offered some criticism of curriculum and other issues, stated the district and its classes were not in violation of state law, and auditors offered positive comments about the program and its teachers. The audit confirmed that the classes helped students do better in school and increased the likelihood of them graduating and going on to college.

However, TUSD had already heard this news in May when Cabrera presented his own analysis of TUSD statistics on the program.

"There are massive gaps in graduation (rates), but for the (Mexican-American studies) kids, that gap is eliminated," Cabrera says. "It should be profound headline news. ... I have yet to see a program in TUSD that has such a profound impact."

Cabrera says students in the program also began to perform better in classes outside of the program, such as math classes. "There is no Chicano-studies math, but those gaps began to close, too," he says. "That tells me it's not just about teaching the student, but changing their orientation to school in general."

Truth: Teaching kids their history in a way that's supportive helps them do better in school.

Hey Obama, Come Meet Me Nana!

2011-12-31T02:05:00.000+10:00

These pictures were taken at the “Guam: Where America’s President Refuels” Protest held outside the frontgate of Anderson Air Force Base, November 19-20, 2011.
President Obama stopped in Guam for less than 2 hours in order to refuel as part of his most recent trip to Asia. Since the President did not leave the base to meet with the people, 50 community members came to hold a demonstration, even waving signs and lights at his plane as it flew overhead.

Kids at Christmas

2011-12-31T00:53:00.000+10:00

Este na videos siha ginnen i Dinana' Christmas para i sagan famagu'on para i dos famagu'on-hu.

Todu i famagu'on dipotsi mangahulo' guatu gi me'nan todu i manaina, ya mambaila yan manganta.

Egga' na'ya este na video siha. Annok na mungga siha i dos famagu'on-hu.

Obama's Paths to Victory

2011-12-30T01:20:00.000+10:00

Next month the primaries start for Republicans and so that means that the Presidential race will be starting soon. With so much of my focus on local politics, especially those dealing with decolonization, I'm not sure how much I'll be able to devote to following and covering Obama versus whoever the Republicans pick.

One video I just came across on Youtube picked my interest. In it the campaign manager for Obama, Jim Messina lays out the five main paths in terms of electoral math and victories, that would give Obama the Presidency. Given the rough ride that Democrats had in the last election, and Obama's poor poll numbers, their projections have the aura of being both lean and sober, but also optimistic and wishful. I'm hoping for an Obama victory, despite my disappointment in his record thus far.

To see the maps that Team Obama is working with, check out the video below:

Presidential Visit Calculus

2011-12-29T23:39:00.000+10:00

“Presidential Visit Calculus” by Michael Lujan Bevacqua
11/30/2011
The Marianas Variety

The recent visit, but not really a visit by President Barack Obama to the World’s Largest Gas State Where America’s Day Begins caused a bit of a stir. There was a demonstration of more than 50 people at the front gates of Anderson while his plane was refueling. There have been debates about whether this counts as a visit or not. Furthermore, is Guam right to expect the “most powerful” man in the world to give it the time of day? Or is it just being selfish and trying to steal away the time of the busiest man in the world? At a time like this, it is probably important to reflect on the calculus of Presidential visits.

Presidential stops are meant to enhance a Commander and Chief’s reputation. They are meant to give him a little boost, some extra political capital each time he leaves Washington and gets out to eat apple pie with Joe and Jane Six Pack. The calculus could be reduced to a handful of possible equations. For example: Want a shot in the arm for sagging poll numbers? Try going to a safe state and have a huge self-love rally! Worried about 2012? Go to a battleground state and act moderate and down-to-earth to reach out to the independent voter! Want to increase polling support for a particular issue? Go to a place that symbolizes that issue and give a fiery speech about it!

There are also negative dimensions to this calculus, as there is a list of places where the President can visit and the journey would actually work against him and hurt him, in and of itself. By this I don’t mean that the gaffes there might be brutal, but rather that what the President actually says or does there is beside the point. Even if the President has an excellent photo-op there, and shakes plenty of hands and kisses plenty of babies, the problem is simply that he went there in the first place.

The last two states in the union, when they are visited it can create some small grumbles. When the President returns “home” to Hawai’i, the Conservative echo chamber reliably insinuates that he is relaxing too much and wasting tax payer time by being in this faraway island that is not really America. But, the visiting of an island territory, a colony, can potentially cause a lot of problems. Wherever the President goes within the 50 states his visit can be explained through pandering and vote-gathering. He is shoring up support from blue states, reaching out to voters in purple or red states. Even Puerto Rico, a fellow US colony, who does not have votes, can nonetheless be justified as an important site to visit. The island is full of Puerto Ricans, who have connections to the millions of Puerto Ricans living throughout the US, and frankly everyone, Democrat and Republican wants more Latino votes.

But a Presidential visit to Guam serves no political purpose. The people there don’t vote, can’t vote. There are no important minorities there that need to be reached out to in order to get out their votes. There are bases and strategic interests there, but that means that Defense secretaries come to Guam and have photo-ops, not Presidents.

If you recall the 2008 Democratic primary, it was a very tight race, where a huge number of races and places that normally don’t matter, were suddenly important. Hillary Clinton and Obama were very close in terms of delegate numbers, and so every single delegate, no matter where they came from, seemed to count. This resulted in Guam getting phone calls from candidates and Obama’s campaign even opening up an office in Hagåtña. Obama won by a slim margin, and although everyone did celebrate how wonderful it was that Guam got to participate in the process, there were some reservations. They were quiet for the most part, but are instructive of the place that Guam has in the US.

For example, on the liberal blog The Daily Kos, the owner remarked on the participations of territories in the selecting of a President, that it is nice, but “…there's no reason why in future nominating contests, any state in our union should take a back seat to a territory.” There were other murmurs of discontent as well, as people questioned whether those who are not really states and can’t really vote for President, should have a role in deciding who gets to run for President or who becomes President?

Even if we may not like these points, they are nonetheless true. This is part of Presidential visit calculus and part of our colonial status. The President exists to visit those who “elect” him and those who are actually “American” first, and we, like the status that we get from being a colony, will eternally be second.

Thank You Fox News

2011-12-29T01:07:00.000+10:00

From Media Matters:

How Do You Like America?

2011-12-27T02:30:00.000+10:00

"How Do You Like America?"
Keiko Matsui Gibson
1994

Taking off from Osaka
I saw my mother standing
with a handkerchief over her eyes
and my father trying to hide
a hole in his heart-mind.
Then my country blurred.

For seven years I have heard:
"Where do you come from?
China? Korea? Japan?
How long have you been in America?
Is your family still in Japan?
I sure bet they miss you!
Did you meet your husband there?
Does he speak Japanese?
You speak English very well!
Where did you learn to speak it?
How do you like America?"

I pity, fear, and love it.
America is huge and sick
optimistic and terrifying
immature but lovable.

Americans' friendly questions
dislocated my Japanese bones.
I automatically answered
like a dog watering its mouth:
"I was born in Kyoto, Japan.
It is a modern ancient city.
I've been in America since
Jimmy Carter was President.
My parents are still in Osaka.
Because I'm an only child
we miss each other a lot.
I met my husband at a bus stop
near Osaka University
where he taught.
He has been learning Japanese
ever since.
I have studied English
since I was 14.
Though I am working on a Ph.D.
English is still very strange."

"How do I like America?
I like America very much!
It's a beautiful country!
People are kind and friendly!
Life is so comfortable here!
Furnaces keep us warm!
Public places are clean!
Not so many people smoke
here as in Japan."

"So you are from Japan!
My son married a Korean
who eats kim chi on pancakes.
It's unbelievably hot!
Do you like it too?
My husband was in Japan after the War and loved it!
I used to know a Japanese girl in Hawaii.
She invited me for sushi and tea-ceremony.
Her name was Keeko too.
Her hair was so straight and black.
Such a cute little thing.
Japan is one of the places I'd love to visit some time.
It must be very beautiful.
My mother does flower-arranging in Traverse City.
How do you like America?"

How do I like America?
These cheerful Americans
much better at talking than listening
throw balls persistently without receiving any
and flash commercials of their lives.
Life goes on in many entangling circles.
Americans are hectic and confusing.
When do they calm down?
The land is airy, spacious, masculine.
No canes to hold to here, to stick to:
you can draw your own road where you wish.
It's a country of gushing power
uncontrollable.

Suspended between Japan and America
a stranger in both lands
alienating every being
I have stayed awake all night
hearing drips of
Japan America
Japan America
Japan America

I have lost myself many times
eroded by changing dogmas.
My friend A, becoming a separatist-lesbian
left me
like an old towel under the sink.
My friend B, a conservative pro-family housewife
insists only womanly virtues
are pleasing to her husband
producing many children.
My friend C cannot find a steady job
because he has long hair, like a little girl
and really believes in his poetry.
My friend D, always frustrated
about her health and family,
worries in a suffocating room
with no windows.
My friend E, embittered
by the political impasse
arrogantly retires to nature
to be a weekend hermit.
My friend F, still plays like a kid,
dreaming of making money
to buy perpetual comfort.

Divorce has forced many children
to fly through the air
helpless and resentful
their hearts beating in vain.
The word _Marriage_ rings hollow
The family is replaced by therapists.
As more people consume their energy
in jogging, aerobics, and health clubs
where is the food where it's needed
on the other side of the world?
People dread fat more than
nuclear bombs.

In Japan I was suffocated
panting for sheer freedom
but there I suffer from too much air
too chaotic to feel free.

My honeymoon with America
has ended
something has ended
I am ready for a separation.
America is blurring.
Just as we cannot count snowflakes
my karma piles up across the Pacific Ocean.

My parents are opening their eyes.
They see me winging to them.
In Japan I will speak again
transparently, as I wish
to mother, father, and strangers.
I simply want warmth of hands

I want tears turning me into a river.

Stop the War, on Christmas

2011-12-26T16:57:00.000+10:00

I haven't posted anything about it yet, but the war on the war on Christmas, that fantastical past time of people who have way too much time on their hands and are angry about things they aren't allowed to openly hate or discriminate against anymore (women, minorities, foreigners), has long since begun. Talking Points Memo put up a nice video that I've embedded above.

This is such a pathetic thing it almost defies explanation. That people could devote so much time and energy into attacking the phrase "Happy Holidays" and constantly seek out any potential omission of the phrase "Merry Christmas." It is a cruel and sick joke that somehow this issue is taken seriously by people.

The real way on Christmas should be about how greedy Christmas has become and how corporate it has become.The essence of Christmas shouldn't be in the browbeating of people to yell out "Merry Christmas" but rather in reflecting on things such as charity, family closeness and gratitude. If people want to truly celebrate Christmas, they should probably not buy anything at all, and make gifts for each other instead.

A further point is that while this war on the war on Christmas is going on, it is important to remember that wars around the world on Christmas continue, as you can see from this article below from Truthout.

******************************
Stop the War on Christmas: Cease Fire in Afghanistan
Saturday 24 December 2011
by: Robert Naiman, Truthout
Op-Ed

Shouldn't Americans of every faith tradition band together to stop the war on Christmas? Let us call on President Obama to announce that on December 24 and 25, the United States will observe an offensive cease-fire in Afghanistan and urge others to join the cease-fire as a goodwill gesture to promote peace talks.

This proposal is far from utopian. I claim that it is a pragmatic political proposal, with little cost and significant potential benefits; indeed, according to recent press reports, a US-initiated Christmas truce would complement peace efforts that the Obama administration is already pursuing.

The political cost would be negligible. Would Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and John McCain denounce President Obama for announcing that US forces in Afghanistan will stand down to mark the birth of the Prince of Peace? If they did, would anyone take them seriously?

This is a decision that President Obama can make unilaterally as commander in chief. He does not need the permission of Lindsay Graham, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, or the Washington Post editorial board. If President Obama decides that US forces in Afghanistan will not take offensive military actions on Christmas, so shall it be.

Already, Reuters reports, the Obama administration is contemplating confidence-building measures to promote peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, including transferring Afghan prisoners at Guantanamo to Afghan government custody and supporting the establishment by the Afghan Taliban of a political office in Qatar for the purpose of participating in peace talks.

Therefore, a Christmas truce would be totally consistent with measures that the administration is already pursuing. However, it would have the advantage that a cease-fire wouldn't just be an olive branch to the Afghan Taliban; it would also be an olive branch to the Afghan people. In particular, an offensive cease-fire would mean a pause in US Special Forces night raids into Afghan homes, night raids that kill civilians and violate the most basic tenets of human decency, night raids which are the object of universal loathing in Afghanistan.

Consider what we just learned from the US military withdrawal in Iraq. According to the reporting of The New York Times and The Washington Post, the key reason that the Pentagon could not win permission to stay in Iraq was: 1) The Pentagon killed too many Iraqi civilians; and 2) no one was held accountable for the killings.

Liz Sly reported in The Washington Post:

In the accounting of what was won and lost in America's Iraq war, [Haditha] will rank as a place where

almost everything was lost ... in dueling [Iraqi and American] perceptions, over the killings in Haditha and others nationwide, lay the undoing of the U.S. military's hopes of maintaining a long-term presence here. When it came to deciding the future of American troops in Iraq, the irreconcilable difference that stood in the way of an agreement was a demand by Iraqi politicians for an end to the grant of immunity that has protected on-duty U.S. soldiers from Iraqi courts.

"The image of the American soldier is as a killer, not a defender. And how can you give a killer immunity?" said Sami al-Askari, a lawmaker who is also a close aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Michael Schmidt reported in The New York Times:

Charges were dropped against six of the accused Marines in the Haditha episode, one was acquitted and the last remaining case against one Marine is scheduled to go to trial next year.

That sense of American impunity ultimately poisoned any chance for American forces to remain in Iraq, because the Iraqis would not let them stay without being subject to Iraqi laws and courts, a condition the White House could not accept.

The significance of these reports for the war in Afghanistan cannot be overemphasized. A key objective of the Pentagon in the invasion of Iraq was to establish a permanent military garrison in Iraq. But the Pentagon failed in this objective because of the Pentagon's own failure characterized by the killing of Iraqi civilians, as well as its failure to take responsibility for those killings.

Now the Pentagon is pursuing in Afghanistan the same objective that it was pursuing in Iraq: trying to establish a permanent military garrison. In the long run, the Pentagon is likely to face the same paradox in Afghanistan that it faced in Iraq: the Pentagon is intervening in a civil war, and it's the intervention in the civil war that creates the opportunity for the Pentagon to be in Afghanistan; meanwhile, it is US policy to try to end the civil war, but as soon as the civil war ends and the current government is replaced by a government that includes representation for all the people now fighting, it is extremely likely that that government will kick the Pentagon out, just as happened in Iraq. Meanwhile, the more civilians the Pentagon kills, injures and abuses as long as the war continues, the more certain it is that an Afghan government that ends the war will kick the Pentagon out.

Since this is the likely future, why dally? The sooner we can get the Pentagon kicked out of Afghanistan, the more American and Afghan lives will be saved and the fewer tax dollars we'll have to waste on a doomed enterprise that isn't supported by the majority of Americans and isn't in the interests of the majority of Americans.

A Christmas cease-fire will be the camel's nose under the tent. It will introduce the concept of "cease-fire" into the center of discourse on Afghanistan, where it belongs. After ten years of Rube Goldberg efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan by the acquisition of some other objective have failed, it is time to work towards peace directly, by silencing the guns.

There are precedents in Afghanistan for a cease-fire. The United Nations (UN) has successfully negotiated cease-fires to conduct vaccinations. There were cease-fires in the past for elections.

Some will object that Christmas is a Christian holiday and Afghanistan is a Muslim country, and what do the Afghan Taliban know from Christmas?

But we have to start somewhere, and the principal political obstacle to a cease-fire is the Pentagon, and the best way to intimidate the Pentagon from resisting a cease-fire is to announce one on Christmas. If we can get a cease-fire on Christmas, then a cease-fire on a Muslim holiday will surely be next.

The Christmas truce has a rich history, one that we should seek to revive. In December 1914, as war raged in Europe, Pope Benedict XV called for a Christmas cease-fire. The pope's initiative was rebuffed by political leaders, but in one of the most compelling acts of mass civil disobedience in the 20th century, rank-and-file troops carried out the action that the Pope had called for, negotiating local Christmas cease-fires on the Western Front. Christmas 2014 will mark the hundred-year anniversary of the Christmas truce of 1914. Maybe, if we get busy, by Christmas 2014, the guns in Afghanistan will be silenced for good.

The Life and Death of Chamorro Nationalism

2011-12-24T21:07:00.000+10:00

In all my classes that I teach at the University of Guam, the issue of decolonization and independence for Guam always arises. Part of it is because of who I am and what I believe in. Part of it is because of what I teach and how I teach. But regardless of why, it is something that I always end have addressing either in response to students and their questions, or as a matter of wanting to open their minds up to something they have yet to consider. Part of the difficulty though in discussing these two topics is that while Guam is a colony and has been such for more than a century, the Chamorro experience of colonialism has changed so much since 1898, 1941, even 1968. The colonial difference between Guam and the United States is not as wide or as daunting or as disgusting as it used to be. In Guam in 1898, 1941, 1944 and even 1968 you could see where America ended and Chamorros and Guam began. You could see that America engaged with Chamorros only up to a certain point as human beings or as subjects worth anything, and then after that dismissed them.

Our history would be very different if World War II had not taken place, or if it had happened even just a little bit differently. In the period between World War I and World War II, the US government knew that Guam was a target and would no doubt be dragged rather violently into any conflict with Japan. The government however became deadlocked over what to do with Guam. Small attempts were made to fortify Guam in anticipation for the conflict the War Department knew was coming, but all serious moves to defend Guam or prepare Guam were abandoned. As a result Guam was "sacrificed" in the words of historian Don Farrell to the Japanese. When the Japanese invade, their tactics in dominating Guam are much more brutal and aggressive than those used by the US and so Chamorros pray for the US return and eagerly welcome them when they come back in 1944. Chamorros emerge from the war drastically different than in prior years. In 1944, they cannot imagine a world without the US at the center of it, whereas before, it really didn't matter to them if the US was at the center or not.

But what if history had happened differently. One of the things which has kept the colonial difference stark and real for some Chamorro families is the illegal land takings in postwar Guam for strategic military purposes. In the generations of Chamorro activists or fierce critics of US policy since World War II, their ranks have been filled primarily with those who lost pieces of land (maseha dikike' pat dangkolu) in order to create the many US military facilities that Guam hosts today.

What if, instead of abandoning Guam for the 20 years prior to World War II, what if the US had instead militarized it? And not just a tiny bit, but went full out and transformed Guam into the fortress some analysts imagine it could be? Strategists in the era between world wars claimed that Guam was indefensible and that it would cost far too much to attempt to defend it. What if Congressmen and Senators ignored these recommendations and instead pumped a huge amount of money and effort into Guam? What if the US used the powers they had at that time (and still have today) to take large tracts of land and build their bases and dredge the reefs and so on? What if the period of displacement had happened before war took place?

Things would be very different to say the least.

When Chamorros lose large pieces of land in postwar Guam, the loss of the land is explained and integrated into the logic of chenchule' and a great debt owed to the US for saving people from the Japanese. Chamorros felt indebted to the US for its return, and so when the prospect of giving up their land in order to help the US came up, most were grateful for the chance to give back, to do something to repay their debt. The land takings were seen as traumatic and terrible, especially by 1948 and 1949, when the war was long over and Chamorros could not understand why lands were not being returned or why lands were still being taken. But, they were not seen as something foreign. It was not something that arose in Chamorros such indignity or displeasure at how they were being mistreated that they organically created an oppositional consciousness in challenging it or explaining it. The logic of chenchule' held strong, and Chamorro understood the land takings as a greedy move on the part of the US, in the same way someone who once brought binadu to a fiesta, later assumes that this means he can borrow your car whenever he wants. Chamorros did not use the land takings as a reason to push away from the US, as others might have, because they already felt bound to them through this relationship, and so rather than breaking away, they instead sought to move closer and to hopefully cause the US to change its behavior and treat Chamorros better.

It was funny in 2009 when the dump issue (both Ordot's closing and the Layon opening) was all over the papers, and Federal judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood was wielding much power in the name of the Federal government, a possible walkout of the Guam Legislature was discussed. For those who don't know, an infamous walkout was held in 1949 by the Guam Congress in response to the US Navy's actions in Guam. It received international attention and was a small part of why the US policies towards Guam changed and the US Navy was replaced with the civilian Government of Guam in 1950.

As the Feds were again seen as acting unfairly towards Guam, different activists (myself included) and local leaders were discussing holding another symbolic walkout in 2009. Nothing came from this, except for lots of discussion and several posts on this blog included one of my favorites "A Guam Legislature Walkout?" The Legislature, under the leadership of Speaker Judi Won Pat (whose father was speaker during the Guam Congress Walkout), held a laughable and very embarrassingly small "forum" in front of the Federal Courthouse in Anigua where they discussed the walkout and other issues of Federal Territorial Relations. The rhetoric for that forum were far more interesting than the event itself, which was planned at the very last minute with almost no one who didn't work at the Legislature knowing it was taking place.

The coverage for the event, claimed that there might be on Guam a "rise in nationalism." Government rhetoric, especially from the Legislature seemed to be more openly critical of the US government, and so one article from the Marianas Variety identified that as a sign of an emerging nationalism. I found this analysis cute but woefully incorrect. The expression of discontent in both 1949 and 2009 are not nationalistic in nature. They do not argue the primacy of a local nation or a Chamorro nation. They do not seek to establish the alterity of said nation. In both cases, if you pay attention to the rhetoric it is still very much caught in the chenchule' dynamic. It is discontent that seeks a better deal from someone or something that it recognizes as being in charge or being better. Their discontent is expressed in terms of not being fairly, but as to what they invoke as the proper treatment, it is not human rights, it is not the rights of a people of Guam, but as people attached to the United States. They are not being treated the way people who are Americans or part of an American dependency is being treated. That is not nationalism. You can call it anti-Federalism or local antagonism, but not nationalism.

Part of the frustration of trying to push for decolonization in Guam today is that way that what should be nationalism is always entangled in Americanization. That even those who critique and challenge the US often do so from the stance of being American or not being treated as proper Americans. This means that seeing the truth of the relationship that Guam has with the US is always problematic, because even those who appear to be critical, may in many ways only be able to see the situation within an American context and nothing else. That means so many things, but in a fundamental sense it means that people on Guam will always have trouble dealing with the US, and never be able to see the relationship for what it is because of how they take their presence in the US as the basis for their ability to speak, to think, to exist and to have rights and be a possible subject.

You could say that a Chamorro nationalism was formed in postwar Guam, but it is a minor and dependent nationalism. It is one that relies on the US for existence. This would have been very different however if the counterfactual that I mentioned above had taken place.

If the US had built up Guam prior to World War II with the same intensity that it did after the war, then Chamorros would have been given a less appetizing view of US militarization. They would have seen the negative aspects first, prior to seeing its liberating potential. They would have seen these acts of land taking and dispossession in a radically different light. They would have felt the sting of losing land not as something that they are doing to pay back the US, but something is unfair and unjust in their own light. It would be something that they would not make excuses for, but struggle to find a way to rationalize politely in their minds. They would look and think about what the US has and hasn't given them, and how the US has treated them up to that point. They would feel the colonial difference as a massive gulf between them and those who are not displacing them, and it would play a huge role in whether or not they can justify this as being something alright since the US is defending us and helping us, or that the US is taking advantage of us and oppressing us.

The key point here is that the suffering of World War II and the Americanizing aspects of it would not exist yet and so all the reasons that Chamorros used to justify that them being treatment with such disrespect in post war Guam couldn't easily be invoked here. As a result, the seeds of a Chamorro nationalism might have been sown. The loss of so much land and the bringing of so much military to Guam might have created a deeper rift between Chamorros and the US, and that rift would have then changed how they interpreted their occupation by the Japanese. It could have made them become more attached to the United States, it could have made them less attached.

I often wonder how my life and how Guam would be different if an strong nationalist spirit existed. As a historian it is an interesting exercise to consider and imagine how things might have happened differently, but ultimately we are still stuck with the way in which history ran its course. But thinking about those counterfactuals can still be helpful in giving you an insight into the way things did turn out, and what factors brought things there.

The Ideological Adjustment Bureau

2011-12-24T17:29:00.000+10:00

For my Marianas Variety column this week I wrote about the current Republican pack of candidates as a colorful collection of barely electable political Pokemon (in homage of Herman Cain's suspension speech). It was a naturally partisan piece, meant to draw attention to how crazy the Republicans are this time around. No doubt some who read it and lean to the right will be offended by it and would love to remind me about all the craziness of the Obama Administration and the terrible things that he has done or that they feel he is doing in the darkest most. Perhaps a few months ago or a few years ago, I would have responded in true partisan form, downplaying all and making excuses for all, except for the racist fantasies which require no response.

But watching Obama and his rise and fall as a Democratic figure, leader and symbol, I am fine nowadays with talking about his limitations. He has become a true Democrat, a model of caving in, compromising and disappointing people. Some say he is the President of everyone, even those who he doesn't agree with, but every President still has some ideological foundation, and Obama seems too willing to give away his end of the debate or the negotiation. We'll see if his centrist game will win him broader support next year.

In the meantime, here are some statements of criticism by an early Obama supporter, actor Matt Damon. He isn't impressed with Obama's performance over the past year either.

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

Matt Damon Slams Obama, Democrats
Huffington Post
12/21/11

Matt Damon, one of Barack Obama's earliest supporters and once one of his most staunch advocates, slammed the President in the new issue of Elle Magazine.

"I've talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, 'Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician,'" Damon tells the magazine. "You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better."

Referring to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Damon continued: "If the Democrats think that they didn't have a mandate -- people are literally without any focus or leadership, just wandering out into the streets to yell right now because they are so pissed off ... Imagine if they had a leader."

That echoes the President's own words to Diane Sawyer in March of 2010 when he said, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president... There's a tendency in Washington to think that our job description, of elected officials, is to get reelected. That's not our job description. Our job description is to solve problems and to help people."

The slam follows in the same vein as a number of other criticisms Damon has made of the President and the Democrats, including in March, when he criticized Obama's education policy.

"I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon told CNN host Piers Morgan. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them."

Later that month, he hit Obama on his handling of the economic crisis.

"I think he's rolled over to Wall Street completely. The economy has huge problems. We still have all these banks that are too big to fail. They're bigger and making more money than ever. Unemployment at 10 percent? It's terrible," he told the Independent. Damon also criticized the President's inability to get transformative things done, saying, "They had a chance that they don't have any more to stand up for things. They've probably squandered that at this point. They'll probably just make whatever deals they can to try to get elected again."

Currently, Obama and the Democrats are fighting with the House GOP over passing a compromise two month extension of the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, amongst other things; they've already removed increased taxes on the wealthy from the deal.

Damon's criticism rings with disappointment after he so publicly lent his support to the then-Senator Obama during the 2008 election. He spent time campaigning for the then-candidate at rallies, promoting him through a MoveOn video contest and attending fundraisers for the man who would become the 44th President.

In August, the star ripped a cameraman and reporter from a conservative publication who challenged his stance on education at a Save Our Schools event in Washington, DC. He then moved on to economic policy criticism.

"The wealthy are paying less than they paid at any time else, certainly in my lifetime, and probably in the last century," Damon told a reporter at the same event. "I don't know what we were paying in the Roaring '20s; it's criminal that so little is asked of people who are getting so much. I don't mind paying more. I really don't mind paying more taxes. I'd rather pay for taxes than cut 'Reading is Fundamental' or Head Start or some of these programs that are really helping kids. This is the greatest country in the world; is it really that much worse if you pay 6% more in taxes? Give me a break. Look at what you get for it: you get to be American."
Speaking of the then-protracted negotiations over the debt ceiling, he did show some sympathy for Obama.

"I'm so disgusted," he said. "I mean, no, I don't know what you do in the face of that kind of intransigence. So, my heart does go out to the President. He is dealing with a lot."

Scarlett Johansson, Damon's co-star in the upcoming film "We Bought A Zoo," recently said that she wanted Obama elected to another four year term. The President still enjoys support in Hollywood, having recently attended fundraisers in Los Angeles filled with stars.

Obama responded jokingly to Damon's criticism at his White House Press Correspondents Dinner in late April, saying, "It's fair to say that when it comes to my presidency, the honeymoon is over ... Matt Damon said he [has been] disappointed in my performance. Well Matt, I just saw the 'Adjustment Bureau,' so ... right back atcha buddy."

Earlier this month, Damon said he found the dig, which referenced his poorly reviewed sci-fi action film that came out last winter, pretty funny.

For more, click over to Elle.

Racist Ron

2011-12-24T07:52:00.000+10:00

This is a very concise but still very insightful overview of Texas Congressman Ron Paul and his politics from Talking Points Memo. I have always liked Ron Paul as a Republican, because of the way he reflects a more consistent set of ideological stances as opposed to most of the other party who pander to various factions and thus use powerful drugs in order to rationalize that you can massively cut taxes and continually increase the defense budget. But in general, Paul has always been a racist and if he was running as a Democrat, that fact would never be forgotten. But in the Republican "great white hope" style of politics, it is still too early to tell whether or not being racist hurts you as a candidate or helps you.

Check out the video below:

Charlotte 2012

2011-12-20T20:49:00.000+10:00

In 2008 I was able to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver because of something called "The State Blogger Corps." This was a grassroots effort by the party to bring to the convention local blogs and progressive groups from all 50 states and even the territories to join the conversation and get access that they would surely not be able to get otherwise. With my press credentials from the State Blogger Corps, I was basically a member of Guam's delegation and also a member of the press. I got to go almost anywhere, even in places that normal member of the press weren't allowed to.

I want to attend the 2012 convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. I don't see any mention of the State Blogger Corps this time around on the Democratic Convention website. I don't know if I just can't find it, or if they aren't offering it this time around. The 2008 campaign appropriated alot of grassroots elements in order to symbolize that Obama was riding a true populist tide. 2012 will be different as Obama is no longer on the "oustide" pushing in, but now inside, sometimes appearing to keep the people who voted him in, out.

If anyone reading this has any information on the State Blogger Corps please let me know! If I don't find anything, then I'll just apply through the normal channels and hope for the best.

Okinawa Dreams #12: International Statement

2011-12-20T16:14:00.001+10:00

Below is the joint statement from all the delegates who attending the International Forum during the 2011 Japan Peace Conference last month in Okinawa.As delegates came from around the Pacific and Asia, each area has a separate paragraph which deals with their particular issues. You can see some of the concerns that I raised in my earlier Okinawa Dreams post on Nationalism and Solidarity however. While this statement lays out a clear map of solidarity, the question always remains, how do these ties become more than strands of knowledge or awareness of things? When do they become imbued with power?

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

International Forum

Joint Communique
For a US-Base-Free, Nuclear-Free and Peaceful Asia-Pacific
without Military Bases
Japan Peace Conference
Okinawa
Nov. 24-25, 2011

The International Forum “For a Nuclear Weapon-Free Peaceful Asia-Pacific without Military Bases - Solidarity among Okinawa, Guam and Asia-Pacific” was sponsored jointly by Japan Peace Committee and Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice in Naha City, Okinawa on 24 and 25 November, 2011, bringing together 150 representatives from seven countries:　Guam, Japan, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, Republic of Belau, the Philippines and the U.S. (Hawaii). Gathering in Okinawa, we mutually strengthened our resolve to develop both movements in our respective countries and international solidarity, particularly to Okinawa and Guam. We call on you to join your hands to achieve a U.S.-base-free and nuclear-weapon-free peaceful Asia-Pacific, from Okinawa where people have continuously suffered from the massive presence of U.S. bases since their lands were confiscated with “bayonets and bulldozers” after the end of WW II.

As demonstrated by the struggle of Arab people for democracy and dignity, the mounting protests staged in the Wall Street and elsewhere against the tyranny of big capital that is widening the social gap as well as the global spread of the opinion and movement calling for a “world without nuclear weapons,” the voice and actions of the citizens are changing the world. Now is the time to spread and develop this tide widely in the Asia-Pacific region.

The U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific not only poses a threat to peace and security of this region, but infringes on the sovereignty and human rights of the host countries and undermines the living and security of the people of these countries as well as their economy, community bonds and natural environment. These military bases that tramples upon the human dignity must be removed without delay.

In Japan, there are over 130 U.S. bases stationed, and 75% of them are concentrated in Okinawa. Now the opposition of Okinawan people against the relocation of Futenma base of the U.S. Marines, the “most dangerous base in the world”, within Okinawa prefecture and against the construction of a new base at Henoko, Nago City is growing as a firm will of whole residents, and it’s driving the governments of Japan and the U.S. into a corner. There is no way but to immediately close Futenma base. Nation-wide solidarity with Okinawa is developing, and it’s a key to the victory. Yokosuka base where U.S. nuclear aircraft-carrier is deployed and those bases in the metropolitan Tokyo, Iwakuni, and other parts of Japan are also increasingly becoming areas of grave concern. The damage caused by the bases such as crimes and accidents involving U.S. servicemen, stems from the violation of Japan’s sovereignty and humiliating subordination of Japan to the US under the Japan-U.S. alliance. That alliance hinders Japan’s rejection to U.S. “nuclear umbrella” and its diplomacy based on the peaceful provisions of Japanese constitution. Thus the abrogation of their security treaty has become more important to make a Japan of nuclear weapons free and peace.

In Guahan (Guam), the transfer of Marines from Okinawa to the island poses great concern to the island’s people and the native Chamorro inhabitants. The United States has denied native Chamorros their right to self-determination and political decolonization. The United States currently occupies about 29% of the island. Part of the Guam Build-Up also includes the construction of a Ballistic Missile Defense System and the berthing for a nuclear aircraft carrier. Roughly 60% of the Guam Build-Up is being funded by the government of Japan and direct cash payments have already been made to the U.S. Treasury to subsidize it. The island has been contaminated by military activities that include exposure to radiation, PCBs, dioxins, agent orange, and agent purple. This has resulted in high cases of cancer for Chamorros and other indicators of ill health. Many acts of protest has been developed against these acts. .

In South Korea, We have a deep concern on the construction of Jeju naval base. The Gangjeong villagers in the Jeju Island have been opposing the construction of the Jeju naval base in our village since 2007. Many people say the base would be used as part of the U.S.'s containment against China, triggering arms race and intensifying the possibility of war against China, at the sacrifice of the peace of the people in the Jeju Island that has been designated as the Peace Island in 2005. The destruction of beautiful nature by using undemocratic methods in disregard of the will of the people is not acceptable. We sincerely hope that the beautiful nature and peaceful community of the Jeju Island will be preserved.

In the Philippines, the United States has put in place a new basing and global deployment strategy that avoids the problems of traditional basing. The new form is less visible, more numerous and scattered, in small teams, flexible and mobile and more involved in rescue and reconstruction civilian activities meant to win the hearts and minds of the people. There is now a US facility within a Philippine military base in Mindanao. Renewed interest on the Philippines and the promise by the United States for more military aid and assistance and affirmation of the existing Mutual Defense Treaty indicates the possibility of the establishment of US presence beyond the Visiting Forces Agreement and in violation of the Philippine Constitution. The United States continues to deny any responsibility to clean up the former US bases as communities continue to suffer the impact of toxic and hazardous wastes left behind.

In Hawai’i, the U.S. military-backed overthrow of the independent Hawaiian Kingdom caused environmental ruin and negative economic, cultural and social impacts for Kanaka Maoli people. Hawaii is both a victim of U.S. empire and a weapon of that empire. Yet many people in Hawaii continue to resist U.S. militarization. In Makua, the community is at a turning point to push for a complete end to the military occupation of that valley. But the burden of military activities are now shifting to Pohakuloa, Mokapu and Waimanalo. And offensive missile programs on Kauai contribute to rising nuclear tensions in the region. So Hawaii groups are intensifying resistance in these locations.

In Palau, We will continue to fight for our nation to be a nuclear free nation. Our Constitution is still nuclear free in the world. The people of Palau stand with other Asia-Pacific people to turn the region into a nuclear free and peaceful place on the earth.

In the Marshall Islands, Although the problems occurring on Ronald Reagan Missile test base on Kwajalein differ from those facing other bases within the region, injustices including social problems exists regardless. On a small base like Kwajalein harbors the problems of discrimination against and mistreatment of local employees and families not to mention wide varieties of social problems due to high density population and breaking down of traditional culture caused by westernization of lifestyle influenced by the heavy American presence.

The forces that are aiming to maintain and strengthen the U.S. military presence and alliances try to justify their position by claiming that it is to “deter” potential foreign threats. However, the “deterrence” policy supposes threats by military force and only leads to heightening international tension, increasing the risk of military collision and seriously endangering peoples’ lives and livelihoods. The “nuclear deterrence” policy in particular totally runs counter to the internationally affirmed objective of a “world without nuclear weapons”, not only causing enormous catastrophe by the use of nuclear weapons, but also inducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Although there are still problems that may develop into tension, the dominant trend in this region is to try to resolve these problems through diplomacy as represented by the effort of ASEAN working for the resolution of conflicts by peaceful and diplomatic means and the Six Party Talks to deal collectively with North Korean nuclear issues. Many governments of the region are also playing an active role in achieving the elimination of nuclear weapons and a convention banning these weapons. In order to promote this mounting tide for peace, it is crucial that we the civil society oppose any action threatening peace and security and strengthen international joint initiatives and cooperation.

The realization of a U.S. base-free, nuclear-free and peaceful Asia-Pacific is essential for all the people living in the region to gain respect for their dignity and enjoy the right to live in peace without any fear and want. Hence, we call on all movements and campaigns for human rights, justice, peace, protection of natural environment and better living conditions to work together in solidarity to achieve this goal.

Let us develop our actions especially around the initiatives set out below:

--March 1 Bikini Day, 2012 World Conference against A and H Bombs, 2012 Japan Peace Conference;

--Provide support for the exercise of the Chamorro right to Self-Determination to resolve Guahan (Guam’s) political status issue as an unincorporated territory of the United States;

--February 19-24, 2012, bi-annual meeting of the International Network of Women Against Militarism in San Juan, Puerto Rico;

-- An international week of actions in Asia and the Pacific against foreign military bases called by the Moana Nui Conference in Honolulu.

We extend our sincere gratitude to the members of the Organizing Committee of Japan Peace Conference who worked hard to make this Forum a success while engaging in the campaigns to support the rehabilitation of victimized people and areas by the East Japan Great Earthquake and to bring the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant under control and to reduce nuclear power plants to zero. We also thank our friends of Guahan and other overseas friends who helped us to organize this Forum. Let us pledge that we will continue to work harder together and back in our respective countries.

Seeking Independence Supporters

2011-12-20T00:18:00.000+10:00

I sent this email out over the weekend. If you are interested in joining the conversation or helping in other ways, please contact me at mlbasquiat@hotmail.com.

Please forward the info below to anyone you might think is interested.

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

December 17, 2011

Hafa Adai Todus Hamyo,
As some of you may or may not heard, I recently became the Chairman of the Independence Task Force on the Decolonization Commission. Over the past year, since the change in Governor, there has been much more debate and discussion about political status, and so it is possible that we will be holding a self-determination plebiscite in the next few years.
As the Chair of Independence I'm looking for anyone and everyone who is interested in helping get the message out about decolonization and Chamorro self-determination in general, but also independence as a political status option in particular. Please read below and see if you are interested in helping out.
I am looking for:
1. Independence Task Force Members- Each political status has their own task force comprised of 7 members. These members are responsible for officially representing their political status option to the rest of the island and to those who are eligible to vote in the self-determination plebiscite. If you are a task force member there will be responsibilities for researching and writing about independence and possibly speaking in public about it.

2. Volunteers for Independence - Those who would want to help independence, but more in the sense of attending events, helping organize things in a more volunteer basis. Anyone with any skill set is encouraged to help out. There are plenty of things to do.

If you are interested in either of these please let me know as soon as possible. I would like to have a meeting for the Independence Task Force this month or early next month. I am also working on a website and a email list, and so if you would just like to be added to an email list, please let me know.

Si Yu'us Ma'ase para i tiempon-miyu.

Sahuma Minagahet ya Na'suha Dinagi

Michael Lujan Bevacqua

The Meaning of Pagat

2011-12-19T01:57:00.000+10:00

“The Meaning of Pågat”
Michael Lujan Bevacqua
11/23/11
The Marianas Variety
The social and political meaning of the word “Pågat” has changed so dramatically over the past two years, it has been truly inspiring to behold. Before the military buildup Pågat was a place for select families to fish and to gather plants for natural remedies, and although it has always been a beautiful hike, it was known to most people as a dumpsite. The first few hundred yards of the hike was littered with all imaginable and some unimaginable forms of human refuse. At one point I remember seeing an entire set of front yard Christmas decorations dumped there.

When it first became apparent that Pågat was in the (pun intended) crosshairs of DOD as a site for them to put five live firing ranges, the meaning of Pågat started to change dramatically. When I first began teaching at UOG prior to the whole DEIS comment period, if I had told my students I was taking them on a hike to Pågat, I would have most likely gotten a lot of moaning and groaning. Since the DEIS comment period however, there has always been an interest in going to visit Pågat. Not just students, but people in general have come to see Pågat as being important and should be protected.

Proponents of the buildup used to try to argue against this newfound interest and desire to see Pågat or protect it. They argued that it was inauthentic, since it was new. For so long people hadn’t cared at all about Pågat they argued, and so it is disingenuous to think that somehow they should care now. This was something that die-hard buildup supporters could only mention in public at their peril however.

People wanting to protect the environment, preserve cultural heritage and becoming more active in their community are all things Guam needs more of. And those who argued that someone these things were bad simply because people hadn’t care before, missed the point that so many came to appreciate; namely, isn’t it wonderful that people care now?! Isn’t it good to see people of all ages and ethnicities on Guam care more about preserving precious resources and taking an interest in what is happening to their island?

This is one of the many reasons why public opinion with regards to the buildup has slowly soured or become more cautious. While supportive arguments for the buildup are filled with candy cane and sugar plum dreams of billions of potential more dollars coming into Guam’s economy and tens of thousands of possible new spenders on island, a lot of the ideological nuts and bolts of buildup support came from ideas not very flattering to Guam. Faith in the buildup meant putting faith in outside companies, in the Federal Government, in outside workers. Faith in the buildup meant putting your faith in everyone else and everywhere else except Guam. So many arguments for the buildup were tinged with ideas that Guam needs this since it would perish otherwise. Guam needs this because it can’t take care of things on its own. Supporting the buildup meant accepting a lot of negative assumptions about Guam. This was true even to the point where people felt that it was right that Guam not have a say in the process, since it would simply screw things up if it did.

Opponents or critics of the buildup were able to get their message out and give it consistency by focusing on empowering people. Not only did they highlight the potential damages of the buildup, but they also paid special attention to the lack of input Guam had in the entire process. They focused on the idea that Guam should not just have a say in what the buildup is, but what the buildup might cost or might take.

While supporters focused on the need to take things people offer you and giving up things in exchange, critics focused on the need for people on Guam to take care of themselves, whether it meant changing the buildup so that it would benefit Guam, or saying no to it completely. Despite what people might say on the surface, the argument against the buildup was fundamentally more positive for Guam and therefore resonated with people more effectively, giving them the idea that Guam is not simply a place where the US should be able to dictate policy unilaterally, but that it should be able to make its own decisions as well.

Last week, DOD implicitly admitted that they had not done enough research and therefore not followed Federal law when they placed Pågat as the only suitable location for their firing ranges. Because of the challenge by organizations such as We Are Guahan, the National Trust and the Guam Preservation Trust, they are starting over and will have to conduct a brand new, more rigorous study to make their case. This is a stirring vindication for everyone who protested publicly or privately that Pågat should be protected.

Rising Housing Costs

2011-12-18T20:50:00.000+10:00

When the military buildup was first announced, I remember people speaking so positively about the idea that "Guam could be just like Hawai'i." That the buildup would usher in such a period of fantastic ti hongge'on na economic prosperity that we would move to the next level of our island existence, becoming Hawai'i!

Guam has long imagined Hawai'i as a greater, better, more American and more prosperous version of itself. People from Guam have long passed through or visited Hawai'i and understood it not through the lens of a fellow Pacific Island, and a fellow occupied island, but rather as that fantasy American space. Hawai'i is rich because America has fantasies about it, and because it has such a large, famous tourist industry. People imagined that Guam becoming like Hawai'i, would mean that all the superficial and largely meaningless things that you see when you visit a place as a tourist, or as a clueless subject of American empire would manifest on Guam.

People thought nothing of the conflicts and everyday contradiction of life in Hawai'i. The way in which its history of tragic history of occupation and overthrow has been casually covered over by Hawaiian print shirts and macadamia nuts. They did not see how the facde of being a welcoming tourist paradise obscures the regular forms of economic violence and dispossession. They did not see for example, the topic of the article below by Kyle Kajihiro from DMZ Hawai'i Aloha Aina, about how the presence of the military can affect housing prices:

*****************
How the Military Contributes to Hawai'i's High Housing Costs
by Kyle
12/16/11

Despite the best efforts of City officials to sweep the homeless out of sight, the APEC summit in Honolulu in November shined a spotlight on Hawai’i's cruel inequalities and vast homelessness problem. A recent Honolulu Star Advertiser article gives one of the main reasons for it: Honolulu has some of the highest housing costs in the U.S.:

Honolulu is tied for being the least affordable city for renters nationwide, with only 8 percent of middle-class jobs paying enough to afford a two-bedroom apartment.

The city also is tied for second with nearly two dozen others as least affordable for homeownership, behind only San Francisco, with just 1 of 74 service positions earning enough to afford a median-price home, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Housing Policy, which released a report today on the housing market in 200 metropolitan areas.

“Hawaii faces a lot of unique challenges because it’s an island (state), it’s a tourism-driven economy and a lot of those jobs tend to be service jobs that don’t necessarily pay very well,” said Laura Williams, author of the report. “There’s just not space to develop further so that creates a lot of demand for a small supply of housing.”

The article reports that “Despite Honolulu’s median home price falling to $425,000 in the third quarter from $450,000 at the end of 2009, it still is the fourth most expensive market for homeownership.”

But local blogger/activist Doug Matsuoka, who knows the real estate market in Hawai’i, says that “it’s even worse than they say in the article. They use a figure of $450k for a house at the end of ’09. It is currently $580k.”

Instead of criminalizing the meager survival materials and possessions of the homeless left on public property, as the City Council has just done with Bill 54, why is the City not controlling rents and developing more truly affordable housing?

Yesterday, the Pacific Business News reported that military housing allowances will increase by an average of 2% in 2012:

In Hawaii, a typical E-6 with dependents based at one of the military installations on Oahu will see the BAH rise by $102 to $2,487, from the 2011 rate of $2,385.

However, many other members in Hawaii will see their rates decrease, particularly for E-1s through E-4s based on Oahu, whose BAH will drop by $156 per month to $1,860 from $2,016.

The decrease will apply only to service members who are new to locations in 2012, the Defense Department said. Service members already stationed in the area won’t see a decrease, and they will get any increases they are entitled to, the Defense Department said.

An E6 is the equivalent of a Staff Sergeant. The military housing allowance tables can be found here.

According to these tables, an O1 with dependents, the equivalent of a Second Lieutenant, can get $1965/month, while an O7 with dependents, the equivalent of a one-star general, can get $3423/month. This is sufficient to pay for a mortgage. Many military personnel use their housing allowance to invest in homes while they are stationed in Hawai’i. They can sell these for a profit when they are relocated.

In this way Military housing allowances can exert inflationary pressure on the cost of housing. But where are the economic studies on the military’s impact on the cost of housing and its effects on average local families?
Just look to the line of tents on King St. near the Old Stadium Park and the ‘blue tarp cities’ in Kea’au and Ohikilolo in Wai’anae.

Meanwhile the construction and renovation of military housing has been booming. If some of these bases
were reduced due to budget cuts, these homes, many of them fitted with energy efficient technologies, could become available for affordable housing. Wouldn’t that be a stimulus for local families?

In Love

2011-12-17T23:51:00.000+10:00

Mangguaiya yu' ta'lo.

Gof kinenne' yu' as Guiya.

Ti apmam para bei in ali'e' gi guinife-hu.

Este un betsu para Guiya.

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

Mad Girl's Love Song

by Sylvia Plath
"I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;

I lift my lids and all is born again.

(I think I made you up inside my head.)

The stars go waltzing out in blue and red,

And arbitrary blackness gallops in:

I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I dreamed that you bewitched me into bed

And sung me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane.

(I think I made you up inside my head.)

God topples from the sky, hell's fires fade:

Exit seraphim and Satan's men:

I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I fancied you'd return the way you said,

But I grow old and I forget your name.

(I think I made you up inside my head.)

I should have loved a thunderbird instead;

At least when spring comes they roar back again.

I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

(I think I made you up inside my head.)"

Japan Peace Conference Pics

2011-12-17T22:10:00.000+10:00

I've been posting for the past few weeks about my trip to Okinawa last month where I participated in the 2011 Japan Peace Conference. The posts can be found under the tag O Dreams.

For the next week I'll be posting pics on my tumblr as well. Head over there to I Pilan Yanggen Sumahi... in order to check them out.

Okinawa Dreams #11: Nationalism and Solidarity

2011-12-15T15:49:00.000+10:00

After attending two international conferences in Japan, the initial luster has faded a little bit. The conferences are still impressive, but I am starting to see their limitations, but also the ways the organizers are attempting to overcome them.

When I attended the 2010 World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, I was completely blown away. Nina'manman yu' ni' i lini'e'-hu guihi. Compared to conferences that I have organized in both Guam and California around similar issues, the level of attention and precision at this conference, (which by the way lasted for more than a week) was incomparable. Kalang taiparehu este. There were more than 100 overseas delegates, and in Hiroshima over 7,000 conference attendees (more than 2,000 in Nagasaki). And despite this logistical nightmare, almost everything started on time and finished on time.

Compare this to the three Famoksaiyan conferences that I helped organize in San Diego and the Bay Area California in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The amount of people attending these conferences ranged from 70 the first year, 350 the next, and 50 the final year, but the logistics were all over the place. Each conference day started two hours later than they were supposed to, and while each day was filled with energy and excitement, things were completely and openly all over the place all the time. This made them chaotically priceless moments and memories.

So naturally when I attended these massive conferences in Japan, and everything at least on the surface appeared to run smoothly and efficiently, I was blown away. Coming from Guam where we can't get a meeting with 10 people to start on time, I felt so inefficient and incompetent, like we had such a long way to go until we could really organize ourselves and our time effectively. It seemed at first that the Japanese had everything together, and that I needed to learn from them and emulate them in order for Guam to gain a similarly well-put-together peace movement.

This is the type of feeling that I always want to resist. I have called it in other posts the idea of "future fighting," and resisting the notion that in order to improve you don't borrow or adapt based on the examples of others, but you in fact have to transform and submit yourself until you become a minor and reflected version of that other who is greater than you. The problem with this idea is of course that the figure of the successful and prosperous other who you are supposed to follow and become is never real, and you end up submitting yourself and offering up your very future and the rules you will play by for something which is never meant to pay off.

The infamous Washington Consensus was and is a perfect example of this. It is a rulebook where developing countries are supposed to follow which will make them rich like first world countries. But as Noam Chomsky has pointed out many times, no country in human history, not even the currently rich countries, have ever gotten rich by following these rules. It is for that reason, that even in contexts like this where we are discussing progressive advancement, it is important to not assume that improvement means giving up who you are in order to be someone else.

Although I enjoyed a great deal this past conference I attended in Okinawa (The Japan Peace Conference) part of the learning experience for me, was seeing the limits of the Japanese in their organizing for peace. Their peace movement as I wrote about earlier on this blog is robust compared to many other countries, but one of its weaknesses (which is not unique) is the nationalist core of it. So much of their demilitarization activism stems from the idea that Japan, as a nation has been taken advantage of and politely subjugated by the US since World War II through their network of bases through the Japanese islands, as well as the crimes their servicemen commit and sometimes get away with.

Japan's rehabilitation as a nation after World War II required a massive, almost unbelievable dosage of amnesia. They had not only been an blatant aggressor (as opposed to others who were passive aggressors), but had committed atrocities in China, that could be considered on par with those that the Nazis are famous for. If Japan won the war in Asia and the Pacific, and their allies won their wars in Europe, then their imperialist adventure would have been worth it. All that they had done and suffered through would have been worth it. But since they lost, the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bases they were forced to host, and the millions of lives that were sacrificed, all became central in building an identity that made Japan an unquestioned victim in the postwar world.

This amnesia and feelings of victimization have helped to create this peace and demilitarization movement in Japan. On the one hand, this movement was formed from the idea that what happened to Japan should never again happen anywhere, and so Japan becomes the leader in ensuring that there are "No More Hiroshimas." But when you look at much of the discontent at the more local levels, it is riddled with nationalist victimization. It is about how Japan is oppressed by the US, how local communities suffer at the hands of the US. This is a normal reaction, I am not saying that it is wrong, but the way these two dynamics interact becomes the limitation of the Japanese peace movement.

At the International Forum, so many speakers argued the need for Japan to be a global leader for peace. That it needs to pave the way in promoting peace and not war. From Article 9 of their Constitution to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, everyone had their own way of mixing in their local concerns about noise pollution and military contamination with a global idea of peace, at which Japan should be at the forefront. But this aspiration always had a very perfunctory quality to it. It was not something that people truly organized or acted around, but was something that the forum required. It was something that either Japan has the obligation to do, even if people don't really expect it to, or know how it would do it, or it is just something that you are supposed to say at an International Forum. You are supposed to speak to issues outside of your borders.

Japan has been slow on how to actually do this work of international solidarity. It has made great efforts through various international conferences to bring people from around the world, who are struggling against nuclear weapons, power, US bases, in order to inform the Japanese about what is going on elsewhere, and inform others what is going on in Japan. This is admirable since no other country in the Asia-Pacific region has a peace movement that is doing anything comparable. But, given the rhetoric of Japan possibly being a leader, what are we supposed to expect? Japan has already created a solid infrastructure for itself in terms of peace, but this is also its current limits. How can it take that next step to being not just a model, but also something that sets that pace? Something that creates the dialogue and leads the charge for peace and demilitarization?

The problem is always that the nationalist sentiment can always stunt this evolution and inhibit this drive. Every community always struggles with the notion of attending to itself before moving on to others. At the same time, there is also a drive to attend to others to keep from having to deal with yourself or your own. The move to international solidarity is always difficult because the lure of the local. It can make it seem like you are never ready to make that move. It can make it feel like you have too many problems locally to try and address what is going on elsewhere.

Akli'e' in the Sand

2011-12-15T13:15:00.000+10:00

Gof ya-na i lahi-hu Si Akli'e' ni' kanton tasi.

Estaba ya-na umatan i kanton tasi, ya-na matto gi i kanton tasi, ya-na tumancho i kanton tasi, lao ti ya-na mamokkat gi i kanton tasi. Estaba taiguihi lokkue' i che'lu-na Si Sumahi. Achokka' gof ya-na matto gi i kanton tasi, ya-na mahoggue ha'. Ya-na kumuentos put i inai, lao sen mungga gui' pinacha'.

Nigap annai hu konne' i dos famagu'on-hu para i kanton tasi Ypao sen na'chalek. I hagga'-hu esta payon gui' nu i inai gi i tasi. Pues gigon ha ripara i tasin unai gi i kanton tasi, malalalgu gui' ensigidas, ya ti apmam mamatiti'nas gui' kasityun unai.

Lao i lahi-hu, ahe'. Ha essalaogue i inai. Ha chatge i inai lokkue'. Lao annai hu kena'tohge gui' ilek, "Mungga!!!!!" "Nooooooo!"

Pues mata'chong yu', ya hu na'fata'chong i lahi-hu gi i tiyan-hu. Ya kalang un batko gi hilo' i tasi, ma'u'dai gui' giya Guahu, ya ha atalaki i taihinekkok na tasin unai gi pappa'-na.

Manespiha yu' empenu put i mungga-na Si Akli'e'. Hu lassas i addeng-na ni' i inai. Ya fine'nina ti ya-na, ya ha safe' insigidas. Lao ti apmam, pumayon gui', ya ha chule' i inai gi kannai-na, ya ha tutuhon mamumuhot gui'.

Annai hu sangani siha na makpo' ya debi di bei in fanhanao. Este kinenne' i lahi-hu ni' i inai. Mungga gui' humanao.

Magof ayu na ha'ani. Para i famagu'on-hu, yan para Guahu lokkue'.

Okinawa Dreams #10: Save Takae!

2011-12-13T07:16:00.000+10:00

Not many people on Guam know about Okinawa, with the exception of the major bases involved in the transfer of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. I've discussed it earlier in my posts from Okinawa, the situation in Takae Village in the Yanbaru Forest in Northern Okinawa. I thought that it would be a good idea to post the following below from the website Okinawa Outreach. It gives a very good overview of the stakes involved with the protests in Takae Village.

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

Save Takae ! Voice your opposition to the resumed US helipad construction !

On November 15, the Okinawa Defense Bureau (ODB) returned to Takae in the Yanbaru forest to resume the construction of six new helipads for US military for the first time in 8 months.

According to Yamashiro Hiroji, a sit-in protester, about 70 people including 30 OBD staff members and 30 security guards showed up around 10:18 am in front of the Gate of N-4 Point with heavy machinery, demanding that the local residents and their supporters make way for them to resume the construction work.

Shortly after arrival of the ODB, about 40 people from various parts of Okinawa came to join the local residents and their supports to stage a larger sit-in protest against the ODB’s move.

The stand-off between the two sides became intensified as several construction crew members sneaked into the construction site. With the machinery kept outside the construction site, however, the ODB was unable to do much work.

On November 16 and 17, ignoring the local residents and supporters’ protest and call for dialogue, the ODB again returned to Takae in attempts to resume the construction work with force. They were however kept outside the construction site by the local residents and their supporters and were not able to conduct much work.

Isa Masatsugu, one of the members of No Helipad Takae Resident Society, said, “It is unacceptable that ODB resumed the construction work while the [Takae] lawsuit is still pending”[About Takae lawsuit, see the information pasted below] (Okinawa Times, Nov.16, 2011). He also said, ” I can’t understand why it is now that they came to resume the construction. I assume that they want to demonstrate to the US and Japanese governments that they are proceeding with their work” (Ryukyu Shimpo, Nov. 16, 2011).

In the background of Isa’s comment is a political context that the Japanese government is now facing deadlock in implementing the SACO agreement. In particular, while Tokyo wants to push forward the new US base construction plan at Henoko/Oura Bay by submitting Environment Impact Statement by the end of this year, Okinawa Govenor, Okinawa Assembly, Diet members from Okinawa and peace and environmental groups all strongly oppose the construction plan.

Since it is unlikely that the Japanese government can get Okinawan people’s acceptance, they are now placed under increasing pressure to show Washington they are moving forward steadily in implementing SACO. (Regarding EIS, please see this article from The Japan Times: “Ichikawa adds new Futenma hurdle:Defense chief now says Okinawa must approve base move before getting environmental report”)

Meanwhile, on November 16, to protest against the Japanese government’s treatment of Okinawa and to show solidarity with Takae, supporters, including members of Committee against Construction of US Military Base in Henoko, Yuntaku Takae and Citizens’ Network for Biodiversity in Okinawa, held a demonstration in front of the building of the Ministry of Defense in Tokyo.

We would like to call for your attention and action to support Takae people. Here are what you can do:

・Check Takae blog (in Japanese) and Okinawa Outreach Facebook Group for update on Helipad construction in Takae.

・Spread update on Takae to make the issue known to the world.

・Express your objection to the construction of helipads in Takae by writing to the Okinawa Defense Bureau and the Japanese government.

- Japan Ministry of Defense

infomod[at mark]mod.go.jp
-Okinawa Defense Bureau

Fax: 81-(0)98-921-8168

・Write to Takae people. Your words will encourage Takae people to keep on with their struggle to protect Yanbaru forest and their life. You can leave your comment on their blog.

[Information on Takae]

- Here is the youtube video clip of “Message from Yanbaru” with English subtitles (about 10 minutes). It is a short documentary on Takae’s nature, people’s life, and their struggle to stop US helipad construction.

- As for details of helipad construction and Yanbaru forest, please see the excerpt pasted below from the website of Citizens’ Network for Biodiversity in Okinawa (Feb.12, 2011)

[Yanbaru Forest]Located in the northern area of Okinawa Island, the Yanbaru forest (about 26, 000 ha) is one of the richest areas of biodiversity in Japan. It is home to over 1,000 species of highplants and 5,000 species of animals, including numerous indigenous and endemic species such as the endangered Okinawa Woodpecker and Okinawa Rail. It is also home to people who live in small and isolated communities. Takae is one of these communities.

The Okinawa prefectural government promotes the Yanbaru forest as a key areain its efforts to get the Ryukyu Islands designated as a UNESCO World Natural Heritage Site. The Japanese government announced its intentions to designatethe Yanbaru forest as a national park during the 10th Conference of Parties to the Convention for Biological Diversity (COP10) held recently in Nagoya, Japan.

[Helipad Construction] Since 1957, the US military has been using a large part of the Yanbaru forest for training. Today, 30% of the Yanbaru forest is a US military training area. In this training area, there are already 22 frequently used US helipads, causing various problems to the environment and the nearby local communities. Thus, since the construction plan was revealed in 1999, local people, NGOs, and expertshave been opposing to the plan and expressing their concerns that the construction of new helipads in the Takae area will certainly further impact the Yanbaru forest and the Takae community.

After conducting its Environment Impact Assessment for the helipad construction plan, the Okinawa Defense Bureau has concluded that the construction and use of the helipads would have no impact on the environment and the community. While local people, NGOs, and scientific/experts have criticized theEIA for its lack of transparency, accuracy, and reliability, the Okinawa Defense Bureau has beenproceeding with the construction plan, based on the EIA’s “no-impact” conclusion.

International voices, meanwhile, have been loud and clear. The International Unionof Conservation for Nature (IUCN) has twice called for conservation of the endangered Okinawa Woodpaker and Okinawa Rail in the forest. On the occasion of COP10 in Nagoya, the Guardian newspaper urged the Okinawa Defense Bureau to “consider alternative sites [for helipad construction] that will not impact Okinawa’s unique biodiversity.”

This is why the residents of the Takae community and many others have beenopposing the construction plan and calling for explanation and dialogue with the Okinawa Defense Bureau.（For info on actions taken by local communities, NGOs, and scientific communities, please see the list below).

[Okinawa Defense Bureau Filed Lawsuit] So far, the Okinawa Defense Bureau has shown no willingness to resolve the criticism and concerns. Instead, it has reacted to the local opposition by filing a lawsuit against residents of the Takae community for obstruction of traffic in November 2008, who were engaged in a peaceful sit in protestagainst the helipad construction.

In what many consider a “SLAPP lawsuit,” the court has ordered both the Okinawa Defense Bureau and the local residents to enter negotiation outside of court. Negotiation has not, however, has taken place as the Okinawa Defense Bureau keeps declining to negotiate.

It is in light of these developments that the Okinawa Defense Bureau marched in and began felling trees in the Takae area of the Yambaruforest and the stand off between the Okinawa Defense Bureau and the protesters has intensified.

-For more English information on Takae is available on:

Voice of Takae (No Helipad Takae Resident Society)

No Military Helipads in Yanbaru Forest (WWF-Japan)

Yanbaru Forest Under Attack ECO vol.36-1. p.13 (Hideki Yoshikawa, Chief Secretariat, Citizens’ Network for Biological Diversity in Okinawa)

Matainalang

2011-12-11T09:59:00.000+10:00

Published on Friday, December 9, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

Land of the Free, Home of the Hungry

Nowhere is the chasm between America's political class and its working poor more vast than in the demand to cut food stamps

by Gary Younge

On Monday afternoon this week, Rachelle Grimmer went into a Department of Health and Human Services in Texas with her two children, Timothy, aged 10, and Ramie, aged 12, and asked for a new case worker who could assist her application for food stamps. She had first applied in July but had been told she hadn't provided enough information and, by most accounts, had been struggling to get by and get help since she moved from Ohio. US food stamps: Republican lawmakers want to cut the Department of Agriculture's budget for food stamps by 20%

She was taken to a small room, where she pulled a gun, sparking a seven-hour standoff with police. Shortly before midnight, three shots were heard. Rachelle had shot both herself and her kids. Police rushed in to find the mother dead and Ramie and Timothy in critical condition. Earlier that morning, Ramie had posted a Facebook message, saying: "may die 2day". She actually hung on until Wednesday. Timothy's condition remains critical.

The tragic unraveling of this particular episode is hardly typical. But the desperation that underpins it is. For, in this period between Thanksgiving and Christmas (when many Americans are worrying about what overindulging will do to their waistline), a significant number is wracked with an entirely different concern: not having enough to eat.

This is no marginal group, no handful of unfortunates and ne'er-do-wells in a time of crisis. Indeed, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, food insecurity is a common, growing and enduring problem. According to Gallup polling, one in five Americans reported not having enough money to buy food in the past 12 months – the highest level since the month Barack Obama was elected. Around the country, food banks are feeling the pinch of market forces: as poverty climbs, demand is rising and supply is falling as people who would have donated have less left to spare.

An analysis by the New York Times revealed a 17% increase in the number of school students receiving free and reduced lunches across the country between 2006/07 and now. In Rockdale County, east of Atlanta, 63% of students now have subsidized food – up from 46% four years ago.

Between 2008 and 2011, the number of those living on food stamps, assistance to those who lack sufficient money to feed themselves and their families, soared by 50%, putting one American in seven in the program. Catholic Charities recently revealed that requests for the working poor were up 80% over the second quarter, and up 59% for the middle class.

Similarly, Operation Homefront, a national organization that feeds the families of military personnel, has seen demand for help double over the last two years. The Washington Post reported that in Fort Hood, Texas, military families stayed up after midnight to register for a free turkey online for Thanksgiving. The 450 birds were gone within an hour. Even as soldiers fight for empire abroad, their families struggle for food at home.
You would think this would be a national disgrace. The land of the free – and the home of the hungry. The sheer scale and intensity of the problem refutes any suggestions of the undeserving poor.

But want has become a term of political abuse, with Newt Gingrich launching his campaign earlier this year by branding Obama "the food stamp president" and continues to berate him as such. Indeed, behind the partisan posturing over deficit reduction, it is rarely noted that rather than impose taxes on millionaires, Republicans are eager to balance the budget on the stomachs of the hungry.

As editor of the Left Business Observer, Doug Henwood, points out in a recent blog posting, these benefits are not particularly generous. "The average [food stamp] recipient gets $134 a month in assistance, which works out to $4.40 a day. That's 10% less than the US Department of Agriculture's "thrifty" meal budget, and about half its "moderate" budget. For your average well-fed American, living on a daily ration of less than $5 for food prepared at home would be hard to imagine. But without SNAP benefits, 46 million people would be in a state of anguish rather than just scraping by."

Yet, this is one area the Republicans are keen to target for cuts. They want to reduce spending on food stamps by around 20%, and in June, voted to slash a different health and nutrition scheme (WIC) for poor pregnant women and children by 10%, which would have denied assistance to around a quarter of a million people.

This will be the primary terrain on which the forthcoming elections will be fought: the needs and aspirations of the working poor. Not so much the destitute – America is always forgetting about them – but the working poor and those who fear descending among them. But for the Democrats to capitalize on these anxieties, they will have to shift the country's sense of what it takes to be poor and convince them that government has a role in alleviating that condition before desperation kicks in.

You'd think that would be straightforward. But illusions of meritocracy, equal opportunity, class fluidity and social mobility die hard. This a country where, according to a Pew survey in 2008, 91% believe they are either middle-class, upper middle-class or lower middle-class, and a Gallup poll in 2005 showed that while only 2% of Americans described themselves as "rich", 31% thought it very likely or somewhat likely they would "ever be rich". Sooner or later, though, reality tends to intrude.

As thousands of people gathered at New Orleans convention center following Hurricane Katrina, Michael Brown, the hapless head of the disaster relief agency, FEMA, was asked why he was not tending to them with shelter and water.

"We're seeing people that we didn't know exist," he said. This has been the official policy of America's political class for some time. "This is a special interest group that not many people talk about because they don't have the wealth to lift a candidate to be president of the United States," explained D Jermaine Husser, the former executive director of South Carolina's Low Country Food Bank.

But there is only so long you can pretend that such a large group of people doesn't exist, and as the poverty rates grow, more and more people who are likely to vote become ensnared in it. Gallup's Basic Access Index, which tracks access to basic needs like food, shelter and healthcare or medicines, is at the lowest it's been since its inception in January 2008. A new measurement of poverty by the Census Bureau, which takes regional cost of living, medical payments and other expenses that do not intrude on the official poverty count, found a third of Americans are either in poverty or desperately close to it.

"These numbers are higher than we anticipated," Trudi Renwick, the bureau's head poverty statistician, told the New York Times recently. "There are more people struggling than the official numbers show."

Poverty may be relative but hunger is absolute. The third world is alive and struggling in the heart of the first. No one can deny it exists. And those who claim they can't see it, either refuse to see it for what it is or simply do not want to look.

Gary Younge is a Guardian columnist and feature writer based in the US

The World Deeply

2011-12-09T02:11:00.000+10:00

Every once in a while I leaf through The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi to see what sort of pidasun finayi or fragments of wisdom I might find there. When I find myself at a crossroads in terms of activism, or needing a hint of guidance on how to approach some aspect of community engagement, empowerment or consciousness raising, I find that Musashi sometimes has some great, profound, sometimes vague insights. For example, last year after the end of the ideologically turbulent DEIS comment period on the Guam military buildup, I wrote a post titled "Know Your Enemy, Know His Sword," or in Chamorro, "Tungo’ i enimigu-mu, tungo’ i sapblå-ña."

Part of the wisdom of this quote is that in order to defeat your enemy, in order to truly vanquish him, it is not enough to hate him. Ti nahong na un chatli'e' gui' ya ti ya-mu gui'. You have to know him, and his sword, which is another way of referring to his soul, in order to defeat him. That means that hate may give you the motivation to destroy someone else, but it can cloud your judgement and consciousness and make you miss key elements about them, and it may actually make it so that you cannot defeat them.

Another sen fehman na sinangan is "Respect the Gods, but do not rely on them for help." It means that those things that we assume exist out there to keep things ordered, to keep the world spinning and to keep the rest of the world that you don't immediately see around you safe, we should always respect them, but be careful how much faith you have in them. It is nice to believe in a higher power, but how much life is lost and how much death is created in this world because of the assumption of something greater as catching the souls and collecting up all the shattered and wasted souls. Or in another way, it is comforting to think of God in your corner, but you should never expect God to fight your fight for you.

While posting on my Tumblr earlier today, I thumbed through my copy of The Book of Five Rings to finding a nice, shiny quote to combine with a watercolor painting. I came across this quote below, which is another one I think of as being very tahdong in potential meaning.

"Think lightly of yourself, and deeply of the world."

This sounds especially important for those doing work in terms of changing the world.

Okinawa Dreams #9: Understanding Militarization

2011-12-07T23:56:00.001+10:00

I have been writing all week about how we can see similarities or connections between Guam and Okinawa, some of which have nothing to do with the transfer of US Marines from one island to the other. While visiting the protest camp for those opposing the construction of new US helipad facilities in Takae Forest in Northern Okinawa, I found yet another connection.

The image above comes from a protest painting that was at the campsite in Takae. Even prior to visiting this area, I had seen this bird all over the place. It was featured in tourist literature, in advertising, and in posters for activist material or protests. For those on Guam, this bird should look somewhat familiar. On Guam we call this type of bird ko'ko, which in English is known as a rail. Ti gekpu este na klasin paluma, ya achokka' estaba meggai na paluma giya Guahan, i trahi-na uniku. Manggekpu i meggaina na klasin paluma guini, lao i ke'ko yan i sasangat i dos mas annok na ti gekpu.

In Okinawa they refer to this bird as Yambaru Kuina or the Okinawa Rail.

The rails have a very intriguing history across the Asia-Pacific region. In one sense, their flightlessness is part of their evolution in response to the fact that by living on islands they had very few natural predators and could sometimes run low on food. Although a bird with flight can move around faster and easier, it also requires more energy. Living on islands meant that while your ecosystem was familiar and pretty stable, in times when there was some natural catastrophe like a typhoon or a drought, resources could become very limited and finding new ones very difficult. Some birds evolved into flightlessness since they did not need to be able to fly since there were very few predators, and not flying made them leaner and more easily adaptable when food became scarce.

At the same time, the rails have a very sad history because of their flightlessness. Whereas other birds had natural abilities to escape animal predators and human hunters, the rails suffered. Their only ability to resist is to run fast and hide well. Hundreds of species of rail have gone extinct in the past few centuries. For example, the Wake Island Rail, went extinct during World War II, when Japanese soldiers stranded there turned to hunting the bird for food, eventually hunting it into oblivion. The ko'ko' faced a similar fate. Introduction of new predators such as humans or snakes made it difficult for the rails to survive.

Spending some time in Okinawa and learning about their endemic species of rail was interesting because of the way it contrasted with how the rail is understood on Guam. In one place, the US military is seen as a destroyer of nature, as something that will cause irreparable harm and damage. While in the other, the same possibility is there, but the US military is instead seen as something that protects and nurtures life and protects delicate species such as the ko'ko.

From Henoko to Takae in Okinawa, the US military was seen as something which damages things. In Henoko, the expansion of Camp Schwab will destroy the reef, the habitat for the dugong and the precious coral in the bay. In Takae the forest will be damaged with the training and the construction of these helipads, and so naturally the habitat for the Okinawan rail will suffer. As a result, so many of the protests and the rallying cry from local residents deal with how much of their natural beauty will be sacrificed on the altar of militarization and Japan-US relations appeasement.

This is of course contrary to the way the US military portrays itself in Okinawa. They do not create posters that argue that the US military defends peace and justice and has to sacrifice birds and sea mammals in order to do so. They do not have ads on the radio or TV that say that in order for us to do our job we have to take away your environment and poison and destroy it. The US military, in Okinawa and around the world argues the exact opposite. They argue that they are fantastic stewards of the environment. In Okinawa however, a large number of people don't really believe them.

In Guam, it is the other way around. In Guam, the US military is seen as being clean, being a great caretaker for the environment. The US military is seen as being ahead in all of these things, and much better at them than local people. The ko'ko' plays a huge role in making this feel consistent. The Navy is seen as protecting the ko’ko’ and also protecting the environment. They are fighting against the brown tree snakes, and helping keep the habitat safe and secure for endangered native species to be repopulated.

People contrast the trash you can sometimes find at public beaches and the trash you find less frequently at beaches on base and assume that there must be something wrong with people who live outside the fence and something right with those who live inside. This requires forgetting for a moment that beaches on base get much much less traffic, and thus the military unfairly receives a reputation for being clearer and greener than everyone else. People do not see that while the military brings certain benefits and provides some important services, also poisons, destroys and sucks away resources.

A case in point is the struggle over the past few years to get indigenous fishing rights for Chamorros. I have written about this before on my blog, and so I won’t get into the particulars here, but so much of the resistance to this idea deals with #1 it being perceived as racist, and #2 it being perceived as possibly leading to the overfishing and destruction of our aquatic life. I won’t deal with the first point here, but I always found it interesting the ways in which individual fisherman on Guam can somehow take the blame for destroying all of our fish, when in the truth of things, they are only one potential strain on the environment. Fisherman naturally do contribute to the depletion of fish stocks, but so do so many other factors, and some of those other obvious but unseen factors are far more damaging. Simple runoff from roadways or the heavy use of waterways by civilian or military craft can be just as, if not more damaging, but you do not see people wanting to boil in oil or tar and feather drivers or the military.

If you told people on Guam that some of the most toxic places in the world are current or former military bases, they probably wouldn’t believe you. They see the military as being green and good for the planet in the most superficial way possible, because of the betde or green of the grass in their lawns. The base has such nice green grass, it must be that fabled grass, that meggai maimahina na cha’guan, that everyone is always talking about. It looks so nice, it cannot be bad, and so it must be great for the planet.

So in an intriguing way the people of Okinawa have a much deeper understanding of the US military in their island, than the people on Guam do. The people on Guam may have a more intimate relationship with it, but that does not mean they have one built upon understanding. Nangga un ratu, hu gof attende taimanu hu ayek i fino’-hu gi i otro na sinangån-hu. I chose my words very carefully. I said that the people of Okinawa have a much deeper “understanding.”

This does not mean that they love the military. This does not mean that they agree with the military and what it is doing. It means that they have a deeper understanding of what the military can and can’t do, what it does and doesn’t do, and how that may positively or negatively affect their island. While Guam is mired in mythology as to what the military is and what it does, Okinawa has less illusions. It is important to note that understanding can come from all possible sectors, and even from those who seem to be your enemies or seem to oppose you so much. Your friends often times have trouble seeing your flaws, and so while they may be eager to please you or help you, they may not really understand you. They don’t necessarily understand you, since they only accept or allow themselves to see part of you. That is why the strongest friends of course accept “all of you” in the most cliché way possible. Because they don’t rely on an idealized image of you in order to take your phone calls or help you move, but they accept that you are both good and bad, great and sucky, yet still accept you as important in their lives.

This understanding that the Okinawans have isn’t part of some great community educational program. Much of it stems from simple nationalism. They feel the US military as Other, and so they feel like what it does in their land is more vile and more traumatic than if they felt like Japan was doing it to them or they were doing it to themselves. So that leads them to have such an ambivalent relationship to the US. They can see the bases as providing economic stimulus, in both polite and more lurid forms. They can see them as providing some defense and being important. But at the same time, they can see how the bases poison the land. They can see how it might make them a target for more war, but helping the US dominate others and creating more tension. They can also see that economy based on sympathy from the central government and military bases only goes so far, as Okinawa is still the poorest prefecture in Japan. The US military is already vile in a foreign sense before it is even thought of, and as such it becomes far easier to see potential flaws, as well as possible positives.

Guam is the opposite. Guam, becauses it belongs to the United States in an emotionational sense more than a political sense, is flooded with American nationalism, that helps it see the military in the reverse way. Although you could argue the mission in Guam is similar and the way the US acts in Guam is similar, the reaction to the military in specific instances and in totality is drastically different. Despite the way public opinion has soured on the military buildup, the military is for the most part viewed positively, and the things that it does for the community, the ways it affects Guam are primarily positive as well. But the reason why support for the buildup was at such phenomenal levels in a few years back, was because of this perception. People did not actually understand what the buildup would entail or how a massive increase in either civilian or military populations might negatively affect the island. People did not think that the presence of more military might cause prices to increases. They did not think of how more military facilities and training might cause more damage to the environment. Instead they viewed the proposition of more military, as meaning more great and wonderful things.

Part of the reason this is so is because of the craving of people on Guam, and not just Chamorros, to be Americans, and to at some point be real, full-fledged Americans. Since there is little chance of actually achieving that desire in practical terms, what happens instead is a sort of patriotic underground economy. Instead of being able to call themselves real Americans or Americans just like everyone else, they become sometimes obscenely American. American in ways which are more American than real Americans. They serve in high numbers in the military, despite their colonial history and the damage that wars in the past have caused to Chamorro culture and the Mariana Islands. They accept the idea that close to 30% of their island should be military bases, something most people American or not would have some problems with. Because their Americaness is always in question, people on Guam find ways to overcompensate for the gap in their belonging, which usually manifests as them heroically accepting inequality or coloniazation in order to prove that they are more American than regular Americans. In a sense, the dreamy, idealized and clueless lack of understanding that people on Guam have about the military and what it represents is part of this equation. This is how they show their patriotism, but not thinking for themselves, by not questioning things and by just hoping that whatever happens is for the best, since that is their more American than American loyalty. It is the sad way in which they can hope to belong.

Okinawa Dreams To Be Continued

2011-12-05T17:21:00.001+10:00

Although our writing is meant to reflect our lives and meant to be an extension of our lives, life regularly has its own agenda and gets in the way of our writing. I still have plenty more to say about my trip to Okinawa last week to attend the 2011 Japan Peace Conference. I have plenty of notes and plenty of pictures. I've uploaded so far 8 sometimes long and sometimes short posts about the trip, but I have much more, I just can't get to finishing them up yet. The semester is winding down now and so the stacks of papers that have been piling up all semester, are close to overwhelming me, and so I might need to take a break from writing about my trip to focus on other things.

But don't worry, Okinawa Dreams will be back hopefully next week.

Submit to Storyboard 12

2011-12-04T12:19:00.000+10:00

Local Artists Wanted:
UOG searching for submissions for Storyboard 12
3:00 PM, Dec. 2, 2011
by Storm Roberts
Pacific Daily News

Perk up, Pacific island artists, it is time yet again to submit your pieces of art to the University of Guam's division of English and Applied Linguistics to be showcased in the 12th issue of Storyboard, a community literary journal.
"Storyboard is a wonderful space to print local literature and art," says Victoria Leon Guerrero, editor of Storyboard.
"It's a good place to publish things from discussing personal issues and (tying into this year's theme) describing community crossings encountered on Guam."
Theme

The theme of this edition of Storyboard is "Crossings" which, according to the contest informational poster, can be any of the following: crossing of water or borders; crossing and intermingling of cultures, stories and beliefs; Guam and its neighbors as historical, political, and social crossroads of the Pacific; the many meanings of "crossing;" and other ideas.

What makes Storyboard an interesting opportunity is the journal isn't looking for submissions from any particular age group or social demographic, but rather prefers various points of view from all over Micronesia.

"Being published in Storyboard feels very good because locally there are very few opportunities to be published in a public format," says Michael Lujan Bevacqua, an artist who has been published in Storyboard twice over the last 10 years.

"You can always put your work out on a blog or Facebook but Storyboard is a book that gets used in classrooms and looked back on for a long time."
Limited opportunities

Bevacqua says it's easy for creativity to languish here because Guam is so isolated and opportunities for writers can be limited. He thinks it's important for those interested in the project to take the opportunity to help create a community of writers and artists on Guam. Leon Guerrero agrees.

"We hope to attract submissions from the entire community," says Leon Guerrero. "Having an intertwinement of submissions from all different types of people is important, especially with this year's theme."

Leon Guerrero says getting published in Storyboard is good for young artists because it not only captures their work forever, but makes them a part of Guam history; Storyboard is a good place to record public opinion, thought and feelings at this particular moment in time, she says.

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

•Submissions can come from the following genres: poetry; fiction; creative non-fiction; drama; scholarly works; book reviews; visual and graphic art; and photography.
•Submissions should be emailed to storyboardjournal@gmail.com, as well as any inquisitions regarding submission guidelines. All submissions are due before midnight Dec. 8.

Okinawa Dreams #8: Young and Dangerous

2011-12-02T03:29:00.000+10:00

Kao hoben yu’? Hekkua’. Anggen un kompara ham yan i manestudiante-ku siha, ahe’. Esta bihu yu’.

Lao kao hohoben ha’ yu’? Lao yanggen un kompara ham yan i otro na manactivists siha giya Guahan, hunggan hohoben ha’ yu’.

The conference in Okinawa is an Asia-Pacific conference, but in the International Forum, 10% of the delegates come from the Pacific. In the general Japan Peace Conference around 0.01% of the delegates come from the Pacific. We were incredibly small in terms of presence, yet we had a huge impact on the proceedings. Part of the reason why the Japanese were impressed and enamored with us is because or our youth.

Looking around the conference, you might imagine that the average age of a peace-activist in Japan is somewhere around 50. This conference many many times felt like a Japanese version of the movie Cocoon. It was surreal to see so many friendly old Japanese men, talking about peace and love in such ways that you might expect them to be a hippie girl working for Kucinich for President.

This was a huge contrast to Guam’s delegation which comprised eleven people, where the average age was 28. A further contrast was that for Guam our delegation was seven women and four men, and women were at the forefront of everything. The leadership of most Japanese peace organizations is older men. Our youthful energy ended up infecting so many situations. On many occasions, meetings would descend into laughter. There was singing everywhere and a dash of dancing. Although we often times stressed out the organizers of the conference, no one could deny that having young delegates in charge, young activists at the front was a very different experience.

More than once, speakers from all over Japan went out of their way to talk about how impressed they were with the youthfulness of the Guam activists. Some spoke about fighting their own fights for so long and feeling so tired and saddened to not see more young Japanese people becoming more conscious and joining the fight. When delegations of peace and anti-base groups from different prefectures would present themselves as part of the conference it was surreal to see their makeup. Part of the excitement of the conference is seeing each delegation come before the gathering as a whole and carrying large banners, signs and artwork they inform everyone else about the status of the struggle for peace or against US bases in their corner of Japan.

With the exception of the Kanagawa delegation, which boasted being the unlucky host of the second highest amount of US military installations of all Japanese prefectures, the activists that represented their communities were fairly old. But in most groups there would be a token young person who would sheepishly hold a sign or part of a banner. I imagined that so many of these young men and women would look back and forth at the elders to their sides, most likely pondering, “Hafa hinangai-hu guini?”

This seeing of Guam and its movement for peace through the eyes of someone else was interesting. I have written elsewhere on this blog about how we on Guam feel that we have such terrible decolonization movement and that our level of discourse and consciousness is so miniscule it’s almost embarrassing. But if we were to look at the level of discussion in Guam today and other non-self-governing territories, we see that Guam is actually mature and much further along than other places in terms of recognizing its subordinate position. It is similar in terms of our movement being young. We may not realize it on a day to day basis, but in terms of activism around the military buildup and for peace, it is primarily young people, or at least younger people leading today. When I was asked by a number of Japanese activists as to what the secret was to our Guam movement that we could entice so many young people, something the Japanese progressive community has not succeeded in doing, it was actually a very sobering moment. When I looked at the state of affairs in Guam and also what I knew about the state of things in Japan, I came up with some possible answers as to why Guam’s movement is so young.

When you look at the Japanese peace movement, several words come to mind. It can be called formal. It could be called boring. One of the main words I might use to describe it though is established. Some of the conferences that I’ve attended in Japan have been around for decades. Japan has peace groups that have hundreds of thousands of members. When Japan sent a petition to the NPT or Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting in New York, they sent millions of signatures with them hoping for nuclear abolition. When you attend their conferences things are tightly organized and scheduled, even to the point of things feeling dry and oppressive. Since many of the leading groups are fairly large and have been around for many years, they have their ways of doing things, and they try to not deviate since it has worked so well for so long.

The success of the Japanese peace movement ends up becoming a significant part of its failure or potential undoing. They have an ordered process. They have groups. They have leaders. They have been doing this for decades. Their peace movement runs like a well-oiled machine compared to other countries. They are so successful at this, what is the need really for young people? If all of the old people, the existing leaders can run things just fine, what is the value of bringing in young people? It is always nice to have young people involved or participating, but in terms of making the peace movement happen, they aren’t really needed. You can have all the conferences and forums without them. In fact, the including of large numbers of uninitiated, new people could be a catastrophe, it could make the trains run late, it could make the conference format go awry. The fact that things work so well, means that the inclusion of new people, especially those who come from a different generation and may see things very differently becomes something that is both necessary but also uncomfortable. It is something you desire and strive for, but never too much since it could mean the end of things as you know it. Your success works against you, but it restricts your ability to change and grow.

Guam is in the opposite position. Guam’s own decolonization and demilitarization movement has been in hibernation for many years. People still protested, kept the fight and conversation alive, but there was a clear decade long period where Chamorro activism was almost completely absent. After reaching such a high point in the 1990’s and changing the ideological landscape of Guam, the group responsible for this shift, Nasion Chamoru seemed to lose all its effectiveness. After scoring two huge victories for land rights, they fell to pieces, and for years there was a huge void. The military buildup was announced and there was no consistent response to it, there was no real coordination in how to counter it or critique it. By this time there was dozens of different groups, and some of them existed in name only, others with just a handful of members. The previous generations of activists didn’t seem able to either organize themselves or mentor the younger generations into taking their places. It was during this period that historic events such as the Famoksaiyan conference in 2006 took place in response to desires by young Chamorros to learn more about decolonization, as well as the formation of We Are Guahan in response to the release of the DEIS by DOD. All of these events were led by relatively young Chamorros, in their 20s or 30s.

Guam is thus the opposite of Japan in terms of activism. The previous generations proved their effectiveness, but could not maintain their relevance and quickly lost their ability to adapt or be effective. They could not even keep up the appearance of appearances and as such a massive vacuum was formed. Younger Chamorros looking to get involved would be tossed into that void, with little mentoring or guidance and find only remnants of a movement that once was, and not one that they could readily join. Lacking a strong cadre of elders who have been keeping things going, younger activists were forced to get creative, and hence the faces of Chamorro activism are no longer working class middle aged Chamorros protesting by the roadside, but instead young college professors professionals.

A lesson for Japan, might be to loosen up a bit, and make things a bit more chaotic and frayed around the edges. If they do, that might create the space for younger activists to feel that they are needed and to rise up the ranks in order to fill that perceived gap.

Okinawa Dreams #7: Fights Not Worth Fighting

2011-11-30T15:25:00.000+10:00

Veteran’s Day passed recently, and that is always a frustrating time of the year for people interested in peace. Veteran’s Day as it is celebrated nowadays in the US and its empire is a blind sort of celebration of militarization. Through the auras of the troops, we are expected to support whatever the military means or is or represents. We are supposed to be teary-eyed and all choked full of emotion at the sacrifice of so many, that we should suddenly forget everything else and just pick up a flag, wave it, and give the screaming eagles of militarization soaring above, a hearty thumbs up!

It is easy to forget that Veteran’s Day began as Armistice Day. It was not a celebration of living troops or military might, but a holiday meant to provide the country a time to reflect on how terrible war was, through the lives lost and how it should not happen again. Over time, it has moved to becoming the exact opposite, becoming a place where you should support any and every way the US enters into, simply because proud, fine, young men and women are fighting in it!

Almost completely lost is the argument that the best way to support troops is to not send them into war blindly, not to crassly take for granted their willingness to sacrifice their lives, and to actively work to lessen the threat of war in the world, not increase it. The best way to support troops might be to argue against war, to argue against the system that treats them like cogs in a machine and actively seeks to expand its grasp around the world, and uses them as the pawns to secure it. How pathetic a country is the United States, that it would treat its veteran’s so terribly, that on a day when you should really reflect on what it would mean to take care of them, you insist that half of the conversation be ignored or remain unspoken?

For me, the lost spirit of Veteran’s Day is captured well in the song “The General” by the band Dispatch. For those unfamiliar with the song, it talks about a ancient hold military general, who is scarred and decorated from a life of war. One night before a big battle, he has as dream that shakes him to his core. The next morning before his troops, he shocks them by ordering them all to go home.

He says that in his dream he saw the spirits of those who have already died in battle, and even seen specters of their grieving mother, and that they reveal to him that the fight is not worth fighting. He says that he will continue the fight, but that everyone else should go home. At first the men stand fast, unsure of what they are supposed to do, but eventually, one by one, they melt away. The General, left alone prepares to fight the battle alone.

Some of the most hardened and firmest proponents of peace and opponents of war, are former veterans. They are people like the General of this song, who have fought enough war, and maybe they excelled at it, maybe they were terrible at it. But the life and death struggle, the pointless loss and suffering made clear to them, that the point of war should always be to end wars. That the points of war should never be to create more conflict or to cause more problems, but that war, because it is such a failure of human reason, a failure of everything that is good in humans, is not something that should be treated like it is normal. In the context of the song, the General tells the boys to go home and not die on this battlefield because they are young and they must be living.

War sucks away life. It sucks it away in the actual destruction of lands, lives, bodies etc. War kills life in a very literally and visceral sense. It also sucks it away in a more indirect sense. The US war budget sucks resources away from everything else that is meant to keep people alive, healthy, educated and safe. By pooling too much of your resources into machines and means of war, you not alone cannibalize yourself and your society, but you also run of risk of simply exporting violence and waging war simply because you have the means to do so. Part of the causes of World War I was that the dominant European nations had built up their armies and had modernized them until the point that they were glorious, shiny and deadly, and that they itched to use them. Un nota na tentashon, nahong na rason, as they say in Chamorro. In the time since, while it is rarely ever publicly spoken, most of the US large wars against puny opponents are far more public relations stunts as opposed to strategically important battles. The post-Cold War and post-Vietnam battles of the US are all to be just as much about showing off, testing out your expensive gadgets as they are about defeating avowed enemies.

World War II for Japan and Vietnam for the United States both produced a large number of peaceful veterans. These were people who had fought in wars, but come back convinced that it was not the right way to live, that it was in so many ways the opposite of how life should be. In the minds of many of these veterans, while their rhetoric is “no war” or that they are “against war,” this does not mean that war is never necessary. There are wars of liberation, there are actual wars of national defense, in which you could argue fighting is justified. The problem though is that every country who wants a war, always says it is justified. They always say it is in some national defense, that it is not some callous aggressive act, but rather something that is sadly necessary because of the circumstances. Afghanistan and Iraq were both nations that the US invaded with incredible force, on some flimsy logic of defending itself, when neither nation held any actual military threat to the US.

What is important about peace activists and especially former veterans is that they are determined to not allow their country to war and by doing so, make it more difficult for wars of convenience or wars based on lies to take place. Most people will say that war is terrible and that it should always be the last resort, but then simply follow whatever they hear from the government or the media. They may not instinctively like way since it is tragic and violent, but they have no critique, don’t really think about it, and simply accept very easily the idea of war through a narrow self-serving and absolving nationalistic framework. They accept the war since it is my country doing it, and my proud and women serving in it, so it must be ok, since it is ours and not someone else’s.

In Japan, I met several veterans from World War II who argued the same position as the General in the song mentioned above. One elderly man protesting in Henoko had fought in Japan’s imperial wars, and said that he was fighting against the expanding of the base in Henoko since it would help lead to more wars. He argued that since he was old and crippled and couldn’t fight, no one, especially a young person with their life ahead of them should have to fight for him. Instead, we should build the world through peace so that no one has to leave their families to fight against their neighbors. It is an idealistic position, but a beautiful and ethical one nonetheless. It is a one that I wish more veteran’s had, after seeing how terrible war can be, they not then celebrate the signing up of more bodies to fight and kill or oppress more people, but rather make it so that less and less people have to experience what they went through. The true message of Veteran’s Day should not be that we should unconditionally support the troops, because that makes them the perfect pawns, the perfect tools for perpetual war. You should instead support them in terms of peace, and in terms of opposing wars and keeping them from being forced to give up their lives, or take the lives of others in fights that are most likely not worth fighting.

Okinawa Dreams #6: Asia Pacific Without Bases and Nukes

2011-11-30T13:48:00.000+10:00

Just for clarification, there are two components to the conference that I attended in Okinawa last week.

The first component is an international forum on the topic of how to create an Asia Pacific region that is free of military bases and nuclear weapons. For this forum, there are roughly a 100 or so people in attendance, all of whom are the leaders of various anti-base, peace or anti-nuclear civil society groups throughout Japan. The title of this forum is “For a Nuclear Weapon-Free Peaceful Asia-Pacific without Military Bases – Solidarity among Okinawa, Guam and Asia-Pacific.”

The second part is the yearly Japan Peace Conference, which is always held in a part of Japan where the local community hosts US bases. Last year’s gathering was in Sasebo, in Nagasaki. This part of the conference is massive compared to the forum. The International Forum takes place in small hotel in Naha. The full-fledged peace conference takes place in a large amphitheater, that seats 2,000 people. The organizers for this part of the Okinawa meeting are expecting at least 1400 people to attend. 900 will be from mainland Japan peace groups, the remainder from Okinawan anti-base and peace-focused organizations.