Being Anti-American by Acting Really American

This morning, I read the latest entry on the Minagahet blog and ended up forwarding it to all my contacts. I wanted to blog about some of the things Miget wrote about after I read it, but he articulates himself perfectly; and you would be better off reading it directly. Miget dresses really funky (which is probably why so many rich white guys think he shouldn't be listened to), but he's really smart. I felt a little depressed reading the entry, because in a lot of ways, I know that no matter how much truth is within his message, our island has become heavily populated by individuals who have a very narrow understanding of the words "freedom" and "justice." I know that if you're not a member of a group that has a long and recent history of enslavement, oppression, or inequality, then it might be very hard to wrap your hands around what many Chamorros may be feeling. It's especially hard if, on the surface, things seem "fixed," meaning: they eat at the same restaurants as you, they have American retail chains, cable television, and they have the same passport as you. It's hard to understand why those people might still think you're an asshole. I get that. I have close friends who feel that way. The truth is, I try as much as possible not to talk about these things with them, because I know that they don't (and probably never will) get it.

But sometimes, when we're having fun, I know that I let what is inside slip. I know that occasionally, I'll make a remark or react in a way that unleashes emotions they weren't really prepared for. I know that in the past, when I've done this, a sincere confusion, shame, and hurt have spread across their faces. I know they feel bad, but I also know that they still struggle to understand. They ask questions like, "Well, would you feel better if you were able to vote for President?"; "If America gave you guys some money, would that end things?"; "Why don't you move here, to the states?!"; or "But that was so long ago, you have a passport now and you guys can serve in the military, right?"

They don't ask these questions to be mean, critical, or condescending; they ask them with open hearts. I know they do because they are people who I love, they are people who love me in return. When they ask me questions like that, I sometimes immediately drop the conversation, because I know that it will take forever to help them truly identify with what other groups with similar histories might be feeling. Some of them have even admitted to not understanding why the "Native Americans, African Americans, and Hawaiians" can't let go of what happened in the past. They say things like, "America already acknowledged that they were wrong. What more do they want?" Sometimes they say things like, "I'm not the one who colonized Guam. I wasn't even born yet, don't be mad at me." When you really love someone, you know that your relationship isn't worth ruining for a debate like that. When the conversation turns in that direction, I try to change the subject or continue as if nothing happened, as if everything is fine, as if we're really, truly equal. This makes them feel better. They like to feel like everything has been fixed, that we're all equal. I know that I have a tendency to be sarcastic, but I truly mean it when I say that I understand wanting or needing to feel that way.

This past week, quite a few people have accused me of being Anti-American for pointing out some of the obvious discrepancies between the basic tenants of the American ideal and all that is happening or has happened on our island (or around the world in general). I'm always confused when people call me, or anyone who criticizes the system, "Anti-American." I'm not going to call those people "stupid," but I am going to say that what they are saying seems kind of stupid. What is so anti-American about pointing out that America is doing something wrong and could do something better? I thought that was the whole point of being a citizen of the country that owns Guam?

I always hear Americans bragging about America's progress and how much "better" they think they are than other countries. I think that in many ways, they are right. America has much to be proud of, but just because you have things to be proud of doesn't mean you have absolutely nothing you should be ashamed of. Just because you did a few things right doesn't mean you can't fix a few things you did wrong. One of the things that I believe Americans should be most proud of is the way in which citizens of their country have protested, resisted, and reformed practices that were unjust and oppressive. The country they are so proud of has been born out of criticism and resistance. I figure that if you really love America and wish it the best, then you would go out of your way to help it become better. You wouldn't just let America run around contradicting itself, would you? If you really loved America, wouldn't you point out areas where it needs improvement? I really feel like the people who do not want Guam to receive its right to self-determination are the "Anti-American" ones. In my opinion, they don't love their country enough to push it toward progress and true justice. So from where I'm sitting, it looks like there are a ton of really Anti-American people around here.

Below is Miget's entry from www.minagahet.blogspot.com

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2011

The Decolonization Debate Continues

The decolonization debate continues.


Lately it has been all over the Marianas Variety website. I've been writing a column for them for more than a year now, and so I can attest to how much of a ghost town their website used to be. To see some articles on their site today and yesterday reaching 50 and 60 comments within a single day is a miracle to behold. It is still nowhere near the level of the PDN, which can reach 100 comments sometimes on articles that barely say anything, just because so many trolls hang out there, but it is still impressive. It is no wonder that the paper won't stop the publishing of "The Outsider Perspective" by Dave Davis. The angry and racist rhetoric of Davis is key to making the Variety appear to be a competitor to the community discussion role that the PDN plays. To be fair the news coverage of the Variety is much more balanced than the PDN, but this balance is generally lost on the editorial page.


Key elements of this debate is whether or not a self-determination plebiscite is "constitutional." Whether or not it violates the US Constitution.

If we lived in a world where truth and justice mattered then this issue would be irrelevant. This is a decolonization plebiscite, and as such it must necessarily not be bound by the rules of the colonizer since that would be a blatantly colonial act. So the question of whether or not it is constitutional shouldn't be a question at all. It is something that someone asked us that point, we would all stare at them blankly and wonder why such a silly question is being asked.


But, we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where power dominates and truth and justice only come into play when it matches the interests of the powerful. As such, we must have the absurd discussion about whether or not taking an act of self-determination would violate the US constitution. It is a tricky conversation and one which is definitely not fair or balanced in any real sense, but definitely fair and balanced in the Fox News sense. US law is not built around the interests of justice in any way which might challenge the rights of the US, today or in the past. Even when things are recognized to have been unjust or wrong, US law, like most countries does not allow for much to take place.


Justice in the generic sense nowadays deals with an appropriate punishment being meted against an criminal or someone who has violated or broken some law. But justice in the more philosophical and moral sense is about how to provide some reparation or compensation for something for which there can be no equivalence. How does one compensate those who were enslaved for centuries? How does one compensate people who were colonized and their cultures brutalized for centuries? How does one compensate those who were the victims of discrimination, genocide, mass torture and legalized abuse? In most societies, the answer is simple. At some point, when it no longer becomes possible or profitable to oppress a people, you let them go, you relax the rules that held them down and turned them into objects of power rather than subjects. Once you do that, you do close to nothing to mention what happened before or compensate them for the terrifyingly inhuman ways they might have been treated for long periods of time. In fact, when the issue comes up in some way which might eventually turn into some claim that those who have been wronged should receive some sort of justice, you have to limit the ways in which they can receive it. You have to use the law to minimize it and to take away any reasonable avenues they might have to demand that something be done about the way they were treated before.

A case in point is the very famous Apology Resolution that the Native Hawaiians received from the US Government under President Clinton. Whether or not the US assisted in overthrowing the Hawaiian Kingdom is not under dispute, it can be proven, clearly proven beyond a doubt that the US assisted stealing Hawai'i. The US Congress investigated this issue itself and found that US private citizens and government employees overthrew a sovereign nation. The US, rather than stepping back and restoring the kingdom of Hawai'i, instead merely looked the other way and held on to Hawai'i, later annexing it. The Apology was a carefully worded "despensa yu'." The US, basically came forward and admitted it had done something terrible, that was unjust, immoral and illegal. You would think that given this revelation of something so obvious and so odious, that it might become the basis for Native Hawaiians getting some restitution or justice for what happened to them a little over a century ago.


You would be wrong. In 2009, the Supreme Court decided that the meat of the Apology Resolution, meaning the preamble where the US Government admits to doing bad things, has no legal effect, and does not provide the basis for anything. The Supreme Court decided that this admission of terrible guilt amounted to only a conciliatory gesture, one meant to make someone feel better, but not actually do anything.


This is why justice, for it to mean anything requires more than what the person who commits the offense, or benefits from the offense is willing to give. It has to take more, or else it does nothing. If you don't give more than you are willing, you risk continuing the cycle of abuse and oppression. You enjoy the privileges of the former oppression, and give those who were oppressed no closure or way of getting some payback for how they were treated. Rather than deal with and attempt to fix the disgusting history of the US in Hawai'i, it merely buries it deeper and deeper, hoping that at one point not one will remember the bones and the trauma beneath the layers of lies and fantasies.

You create more and more layers of laws, decisions and common sense, which says that even though that tragic history has damaged in so many ways certain people, you pretend that somehow they owe you for what you have given them. You make it so that somehow when people want to try to right that wrong, to seek some justice, as if they are being unreasonable and wanting to unfairly turn back the clock.


In Guam, the decolonization discussion is stuck in this place. You have local advocates who are stating clearly that this right, which is internationally recognized should be protected and should be manifested. If this means holding a vote in which only those who are legally allowed to according to Guam Public Law take place, then so be it. From this position, Spain, the US, and even Japan all deprived Guam of something fundamental, their right and ability to determine their own destiny. The people of Guam were not and are not alone, but as colonization took so much from so many, this right to self-determination is akin to a smidgen of justice for the world that was turned upside down for several centuries and so many people were wiped from the face of the earth to people the global pyramid of privilege that we have today. This is part of trying to deal with the tragic legacy the majority of the world's people were shoulder with through imperialism and colonization.


On the the other side you have the American apologists, nationalists and exceptionalists. The ones who continue to argue that the US, even if it did so many terrible things in the past and continues to do so many hypocritical things today, it is nonetheless still something that has the moral high ground and cannot be transgressed. Despite the fact that the US has violated its own constitution plenty of times in the way it has treated its colonies, has no bearing on the fact that perhaps once or twice or a few times, you should violate the constitution in the name of something greater. Sadly, while the phrase two wrongs don't make a right, feels like it might be true, when used in cases like this, it is a defense of the wrongdoers and their right to determine what counts as right or wrong after the fact. It is actually a sad sad thing to behold. In very practical terms, it doesn’t make any sense.