New Ways of Having Old Conversations
I use this to refer to the wider public discussion and sometimes debate about Guam's future in terms of its political status.
There are three main options that are to be considered when thinking about Guam's future status.
Each of them provides a higher level of self-governance than remaining an unincorporated territory, although they can be slightly to very different.
This conversation around Guam's political status has been around for more than a hundred years, although we often don't think about it that way.
During the late Spanish period, Chamorus chafed under colonial rule, especially after the rest of the Spanish Empire had achieved independence or was actively rebelling or forming nationalist movements.
Nowadays we don't know much about this, because we don't teach our own history very well. If we did take seriously the teaching of our history, we would have a general sense of the efforts of people like Luis Baza and Jose Salas. They are symbols of the Chamoru desire for a change in their colonial status, and also represent the growing nationalist consciousness at the time.
At the start of the US prewar colonial period, the conversation was still going on. There were new potential possibilities under the US and Chamorus were intrigued at this, but were not deceived in such a way to be blinded from the obvious.
A petition in 1901 makes clear that despite the pronouncements of the US as being a great and potent symbol of freedom and liberty, this was not the case in Guam. That petition, while respectful in its tone, nonetheless makes clear that the military government the US had created to govern Guam - was against the very principles that supposedly made the US a great nation.
Throughout the prewar period there is a regular discussion within the Chamoru community, especially those who were political, cultural and educational elites about Guam's status and the rights, or lack there of rights for the Chamoru people.
No Chamoru would have used the word "decolonize" in that era, since it wasn't a commonly used term anywhere really. While there was a sense of national identity, they didn't see much possibility in asserting that and articulated their desires in terms of political and civil rights, meaning to see recognition within the US to improve their lives.
Although the conversation has evolved, it was still present back then. At a time when were think of Chamorus as being intensely loyal to the US and wouldn't dare to speak out or be critical of the US, they clearly were. They may have muted their voices at times, they may have couched their arguments in such a way to appeal to the benevolence of the colonizer, seeing no other viable option or strategy. But it doesn't change the fact that the conversation was there. Pursuing a change in Guam's status is not something new.
After World War II, the postwar, pre-Organic Act years saw a shift in the Chamoru perspective, a clear shift in how they perceived themselves in relation to the United States. There were intense and very personal experiences that had come to bind Chamorus with the US, to sear a place for it in their cognitive map. The US had professed itself as the champion of a great deal of wonderful things. Most of these things weren't allowed to exist in Guam. The Chamorus saw the US in more colonizer mode than democracy and liberty mode.
But the war gave Chamorus new possibilities in terms of how they saw the rhetoric of the US. Whereas your average Chamoru was likely to find the soaring rhetoric of the US, worth about the paper it was printed on, meaning pretty flimsy and worthless when stacked up against the reality of their treatment of the people of Guam, they now, in the wake of the war, had new reasons to believe.
But also new reasons to feel like they were owed something by the US. The war did not only make Chamorus feel indebted to the US, but it also gave them new reason to feel like they could make demands or expect certain treatment from their colonizer. Although they may never articulate it in an aggressive or assertive way at the time, they nonetheless felt more comfortable than ever expecting to be treated better. Expected to be treated with a great sense of decency and humanity.
This is why the old colonial lie about Chamorus, that they had no desire for progress or change, is simply not true. Even if Chamorus wouldn't go about it in expected ways, there was always an understanding of their positions and a desire to improve it. Such is a normal human things, but it is fascinating how colonialism becomes a way of trying to stifle or obscure such drives in particular peoples. Colonialism cuts off people from the world. It develops excuses for why they should be treated differently. Why they can't have all the nice normal things other people get. Colonialism can even be a lens so that the normal problems that a community faces become grossly exaggerated, as if they are terrifying in scope and would need the intervention of a more powerful and superior race or country in order to address.
Does any of this sound familiar?
One of the ways in which the decolonization conversation gets quieted or killed is when we assume that it has no roots, that there is no depth to it, but it is just the senseless rambling of mad peoples. The notion that is has no basis, no foundation, no history is a key way in which people prevent it from taking place. They cast it as something ephemeral, small, not tied to real things, not tied to the history of a place, but just an irrational response.
This is why I always think it is important to reflect on this history. To cast it in a more objective form. It is something not born out of the irrationality of the present moment, but something that has been there for quite a long time and has evolved as Chamorus have evolved. It is part of the life of the island and the people who love it. A desire to improve and seek a different path.
Below I have some quotes that show that this desire was there in the 1960s and 1970s. A time before many people feel we had any of these "problems" or these radical ideas. Leaders in Guam were actively looking at other places in the world and thinking about their own political status, and starting to conceive of how things could be different.
Here are some quotes from the time:
*************************
As time went by, Guamanians, especially those in political leadership positions, found certain provisions of the Organic Act “either outdated, inappropriate or unenforceable.” Introduced by Democratic Senator Richard F. Taitano, its chief sponsor, PL 9-244, authorized Guam’s first constitutional convention for the purpose of reviewing the provisions of the Organic Act and recommend modifications to Congress and the US President.”
Pedro Sanchez, Guam/Guåhan - p 422
Although in our view it would be of importance to the people of Guam both in terms of their sense of identity and because of the economic benefits be allowed participation in regional Pacific institutions, the United States government has resisted this. We fear the needs of the people of Guam have been balanced against uncertain, and we would suggest inappropriate, foreign policy considerations of the United States. Instead of the United States government appearing - as indeed it must and should appear - to seek out and generously promote opportunities so that its most valuable possession - its citizens - can benefit from participation in the world community, the people of Guam have seen almost the exact contrary to be the case…We can only conclude that in some fashion Guam’s present status as an unincorporated territory of the United States weighs to its significant detriment and permits various Federal agencies unfamiliar with Guam to take a less sympathetic attitude on matters of great concern to the people of Guam.
First Political Status Commission Final Report - September 1974
In recent years, there has developed among the people of Guam a feeling of discontent regarding the island’s political status. The current attitude of nearly all the residents of Guam is that our political relationship with the U.S. Government is not acceptable. Our relationship does not give Guam the economic tools for survival, not the political mechanisms for dignity. While the island’s residents may (and do) differ widely on what constitutes a better arrangement, we are nearly unanimous in our belief in the right to self-determination. Moreover, we, recognize, as must the Federal Government, that this right has not been openly and freely exercised or even acknowledged.
15th Guam Legislature, Statement on Political Status, 1979
We believe strongly, both from a legal basis as well as a moral point of view, that the people of Guam have an inherent and inalienable right to self-determination. Our basic premise is that we are currently equals only in the sense of being U.S. citizens; but unequal in terms of being able to shape our own destiny. Our dignity must be maintained and the maintenance of it will not be accomplished by an offering of options.
15th Guam Legislature, Statement on Political Status, 1979
Comments