About the Author

Michael Lujan Bevacqua comes from the Bittot and Kabesa clans and is the father to the mas ñangñang na nene giya Guahan Sumåhi, who is notorious on island for ruining numerous R-rated movies for childless adults. He has way too many websites and is involved in too many different activist projects, that all keep him from finishing his Ethnic Studies dissertation. Michael has many dreams some of them possible, others needing lots of work in order to become possible. He dreams of an independent Guam, and a Guam where the Chamorro language is more pervasive than yellow-ribbon-car-magnets, watching a Test Cricket series between India and Pakistan in India, and becoming the front-man for a Chamorro language Ska Band.

See All Posts by This Author

There Are 11 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by Kel Muna on 15 June 2009:

   “you belong to me and I can do with you as best I please.” is this an actual quote? holy smokes.
2. 

   Comment by Joseph Certeza on 16 June 2009:

   A teacher told me that she believes in the mixture of scholars and activist, which she calls them scholarly activist. The balance of both worlds.

   That is crazy to read that kind of stuff from the military. Once again, the oppressors believe they know everything about the land that is not theirs.

   Don’t worry man, I am just learning how to accept the role of being an activist. I was too questioned by my parents about becoming an activist. They thought I would be a radical, and one of them compared me to Angel Santos. I come from a very political family, but I never had any interest for the system. My uncle being the present day Governor and then relatives that are loyal to the “Your Still the Once” campaign. Fully understanding oppression in America and our island, America’s previous social movements, and the Ethnic studies department at De Anza my mind has changed.

   As an inspiring artist for social change, I’ll support you in the movement. The arts and the culture was slowly diminishing as I was growing up, then I was are taught in the eyes of the West and that is why I am an activist. The empowerment of the Chamorro culture, the language, and to educate the youth in art.
3. 

   Comment by Lucas A. Storts on 16 June 2009:

   ok, now i’m pissed. who was that?
4. 

   Comment by Michael Lujan Bevacqua on 23 June 2009:

   Usually the rhetoric that the military uses for describes Guam’s political status focuses on the positives it gets by being here. We don’t have to ask anyone’s permission, we are close to Asia and danger spots. This was an instance where all of the positive facade and all of the pretense of Guam being a partner with the military fell away leaving only the “ownership” of a colonial relationship. You don’t hear stuff like this in any official statements, but its always there. Surprisingly, in court cases this is where the idea that the United States “owns” Guam and can do whatever it pleases with it, is always admitted to, openly and freely. A little over a century of American legal precedent all points to this. Its truly sad that we don’t have more people recognizing this, it should make us all made, regardless of where we stand on political status, everyone should be an activist when it comes to this.

   By the way, to provide a little bit of the context of the statement, it was made in response to questions about Angel Santos and about the Government of Guam’s pushing for a different political status. This Air Force guy was basically saying, according to US law you can’t do anything, the law states that you belong to the Federal Government, and they can do with you as they please.

   Si Yu’us Ma’ase for your comments.
5. 

   Comment by Ronald Stade on 16 December 2009:

   Buenas! The title and name of the U.S. Air Force strategic analysts who so openly declared that Guam is like a cup is Lieutenant Colonel Douglas. While his statements may have been intended to test or provoke me, it is nevertheless true – as Mike Bittot notices – that they also reflect an attitude that I believe still prevails among many haoles as well as in the military-industrial complex at large. Instead of editing Douglas’ remarks, or burying them under my own comments, I decided to quote him verbatim in the hope that the reader would feel as outraged as I did at the time. Si Yu’us Ma’ase, Ron
6. 

   Comment by bert cruz on 26 December 2009:

   Boy, a lot of questions but no answers. In the late seventies I spoke at a rally in Fort Mason, San Francisco, to a gathering of sympathetic San Franciscans, mostly white. I was one of many other central pacific islanders protesting the dumping of nuclear waste near Guam. I complained about the wanton disregard by large governments of the small islands in the central pacific. Well, here we are almost forty years later and still complaining. I don’t think the problem is the U.S. – its US! Guam is a possession of the United States and, so, by extension, are we. We are, indeed, the “cup” to which that USAF officer compared us. I think the general concensus, especially of the post-WWII generation, of guamanians is that we change our “cup” status. But how do we change? To what do we change? Do we seek independence from the U.S.? Do we become the fifty-first state? Do we join the CNMI and become a commonwealth? Do we join with CNMI and seek independence as a nation group of small islands? Personally, I think Guam should seek statehood. I have been an American all my life. I love the U.S. despite its imperfections with which we just love to take issue. Americans are an easy target for hateful rhetoric because they cherish freedom of speech. I love America because this nation believes in God given individual rights and property rights, two very important premises toward building a great nation.
7. 

   Comment by Michael Lujan Bevacqua on 28 December 2009:

   To bert cruz: “Well, here we are almost forty years later and still complaining. I don’t think the problem is the U.S. – its US!” I hear this argument a lot, and I do agree that the apathy that most people on Guam have towards the decolonization of the island has played a big role in keeping Guam a colony. I hear this in Guam and I hear this in the United States as well, that if Guam wanted to be something else it would just have to make that decision.

   The problem with these arguments is that they are made to do exactly what bert cruz’s comment is meant to do, to take the United States out of the colonial equation, to make excuses and apologize for it. Its very easy to blame Guam for everything, its problems, its status, but if you are really looking for solutions and just moving beyond questions, then all issues have to be addressed as part of that shared relationship.

   But even beyond this, the idea that Guam being a colony is its own fault or because people on Guam haven’t made up their own mind yet simply isn’t historically accurate. The main example here would be Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Movement showed to the United States that the majority of people on the island desired to change their political status and for years negotiations took place between the Government of Guam and the Federal Government. Eventually, Commonwealth died because the United States refused to recognize any provisions which would give Guam any power unto itself, or any authority which would conflict with Federal law. I can give you a number of big and small instances where its made clear that the United States has no intention of ever supporting Guam changing to another status. As I tell my students at UOG, political status can never be reduced to just us, the US is the one who “possesses” us and seems to enjoy holding on to us and so they have to be changed and challenged in order for Guam to be empowered.

   Lastly, for me it doesn’t matter whether my colonizer is the best and friendliest in the world or not, he’s still my colonizer and so therefore he needs to be challenged and he needs to be complained about. I think that Guam has changed dramatically from 40 years ago, especially in terms of political status. One thing which hasn’t changed though is the United States reluctance to support Guam in its quest for self-determination.
8. 

   Comment by bert cruz on 10 June 2010:

   Well, Michael, here we are almost six months later and no one else is having this conversation except you and me. It kind of makes my point about apathy on Guam especially among Chamorus. I will take issue with your statement that “…Guam has changed dramatically from forty years ago, especially in terms of political status.” Really? How so? How have we changed politically? The one big political change then (that is, in 1970) was that, for the first time, we were able to vote for our governer. That hasn’t changed. Michael, to date, we maintain political status quo. And our apathy has gotten worse. The biggest problem is with US…not the U.S. You see, a fire has to be lit under us to make us realize that we are better than what we are now. We hate the status quo but, boy, this western culture really has by the balls when it comes to McDonalds Big Mac. Where are the rice fields and taro plantations, the cargos of copra and dried fish, the fishing boats with fishermen taking their catch to Rota, Tinian and Saipan? My grandparents, only two generations ago, did this for a living. My grandmother grew tobacco and made her own Mickey Twist (remember that?). My grandfather had his ranch and was a lumberjack by trade. My grandparents worked the land and worked for themselves. I’m an electrical estimator and project manager here in San Francisco and I work for someone else. Many Chamorus live in San Diego and Las Vegas. You see? We like the status quo. I know a little about how the Philipinos fought and died for their independence. So who is ready to be the Chamoru Jose Rizal? Are we ready to fight, tooth and nail, and bleed, for something as precious and magnanimous as independence? Are you ready to do this? Michael, I’m not trying “…to make excuses and apologize for…” a nation that certainly doesn’t need excuses. Believe me, if any nation understands what it means to shed blood for independence, the United States certainly understands. The real question is do we, Chamorus, also understand?
9. 

   Comment by Michael Lujan Bevacqua on 10 June 2010:

   Bert, the simple truth is this, if you can’t talk about Guam’s present status and not include the United States in the equation, then you are absolutely making excuses for it. The United States engineered Guam as a dependency after World War II. They created a system and Chamorros eventually, in the ashes and chaos of life after World War II, accepted it more readily than their ancestors had done prior to the war. The United States is more than happy if Guam remain the way it is, it gets alot from Guam in this subordinate status, both economically and strategically. It is not in their interests for Guam to become either self-sustaining or independent, and they have repeatedly blocked any attempts that have been made since the 1970’s to change Guam’s political status. There are been many efforts to change things, but every single time, the US has put a stop to it or refused to recognize it.

   The path to sustainability starts with rejecting the United States and what it has come to represent in Guam since World War II, dependency, giving up culture, powerlessness and so on. Great strives have been made since World War II, you may not know anything about them, but that doesn’t change the fact that things have changed and can be changed even more. But calling the United States out, seeing beyond it and no longer seeing it as the liberator or benevolent master that Chamorros long thought it was is just the beginning.

   I agree that people are for the most part apathetic of these things on Guam, but if you were to compare attitudes about political status now and twenty, thirty or forty years ago, you would see very real changes. The amount of people who could imagine an independent Guam sixty years ago could be counted on one hand, but today there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of people on island who not only can, but actually want it. But what we have to do is not reproach ourselves because we aren’t like the Filipinos a century ago, or aren’t like our elders who lived in a different time, but rather work with what we have now in order to change things. It will come slowly of course, because the Western late capitalistic lifestyle is very appealing, since it is all about you being comfortable, making money and living the way you want. But moving towards a more sustainable island does not mean turning back the clock, but always taking what we have learned in our history, what we can borrow or learn from others and then choosing our own path. But, as I say again, its always hard to do that sort of thing if you’re colonized, and so that’s why if you are to have any real discussion about this issue, you have to bring the US into it.
10. 

    Comment by bert cruz on 11 June 2010:

    Good morning, Michael. I do not want to keep the U.S. out of the equation. I understand that the U.S. treats us like that infamous cup, as a possession rather than a people. And, yes, our political status has changed since 1898 and again in 1950 and again in 1970. Also, in 1972, Guam was granted a non-voting delegate to the U.S. Congress. These were major changes. But name me one major change since, for example, CNMI became a commonwealth. At that time, in 1974, the chamoru people were presented with a plebiscite that gave us a chance to join with CNMI in its pursuit of commonwealth; and then, again, in 1978 we were presented with the same plebiscite. Both times chamorus, then, voted against joining CNMI. Also, during those years, there was a push toward a change in political status. In 1976 the U.S. Congress authorized the leadership in Guam to call a constitutional convention so as to draft its own constitution. Of course, with conditions favorable to the U.S. Okay, at least this was a first step toward realizing our own political self-determination. And, as expected, it was met with many road-blocks from the Department of Interior. But it was a positive move forward toward self-determination. To make a long story short, given the local political environment and the hostilities among local gubernatorial candidates during what was then an election year, ultimately, the Guam electorate rejected the first draft Constitution and Federal Relations Act that would have given us more autonomy. More recently, in 1997, a Commision on De-colonization was created to formulate a plebiscite on three options – you know these options – on which chamorus would vote. This was thirteen years ago! How far has this commission gone toward presenting these options for vote? Not very far. You see, the first real obstacles to overcome is a corrupt local government, nepotism in every aspect of the local government, upwards of forty percent government (local and federal) employment of chamorus. And, since our tax base is so small, and our budgetary appetites so large, local government tax revenues need to be significantly subsidized by the federal government. We are beholding to the U.S. We need our Big Macs, so to speak. Yes, the United States government is, and will, stand in our way toward independence. But, before we blame others for our predicament, we had better change a lot of what we are now. This will take a lot of fortitude, self-examination, courage and perseverance. But, I promise you, we will be better prepared to deal with the U.S. and whoever else may stand in our way.
11. 

    Comment by Michael Lujan Bevacqua on 11 June 2010:

    I knew that we didn’t really disagree about this. Moving toward sustainability will as you say require sacrifice, fortitude, self-examination, I agree with all these things, but what people don’t often see is that, at the center of becoming able to do that is challenging the United States and what it means in Guam. People can always move towards being more in tune with their environment or live in more sustainable communities, but one of the primary reasons that we on Guam don’t, is because part of our experience of colonization is that this unstable capitalist lifestyle is one of the gifts Guam has received from the United States, and that to challenge that is also the challenge the Americaness of Guam or of its people. After World War II, people stopped farming, stopped most of their traditional more self-sufficient life ways, for at least three reasons. 1. changes in Guam’s economy made it more profitable and easier to work for wages and get a job working for someone else. 2. changes in Guam’s economy made it not only more expensive to have your own sort of traditional business, but also that whatever you produced would be more expensive than something imported from elsewhere. 3. Because that was part of becoming an American, Chamorros left and right associated (and still do to this day) progress, prosperity, comfort, happiness with being American, and so eagerly threw away their language, some practices, land, and their ideas of sustainability in order to pursue that colonial dream.

    I agree with you that Guam’s leaders have often times been the biggest obstacle in terms of having any change on this issue. The current Governor is a perfect example, since coming into office in 2003, he has done absolutely nothing on political status, and with the exception of trying to rename Guam – Guahan, has done nothing in terms of moving Guam’s to become more sustainable or independent. One of the biggest problems with Guam’s government is that it was raised from its birth to be a ward of the Federal Government, and we saw this become full force following the two major supertyphoons of Karen and Pamela. The Government of Guam exists to try and get Federal money for things, and even thought it could try other paths, that is the easiest way to get money, and so that is what everyone does. An influx of Federal money might be nice, but it always comes with strings attached and it always helps feed into Guam’s feeligns of dependency and ideas that America is the liberator or that American money is someone special super money.

    I remember when the Indigenous Fishing Rights Bill first came up two years ago, Felix Camacho and alot of Govguam people didn’t like the bill at all, even though it was a step towards giving people who do live that sort of lifestyle some help in terms of providing for themselves. The bill could have been changed slightly to address certain problems people had with it, but Camacho’s response when he vetoed it, and the response that I heard from most people was that this bill was dangerous: 1. because you can’t trust Chamorros with their own waters, they’ll destroy everything: 2. if this bill passed, Guam would lose Federal funding for some programs.

    In the past different leaders have taken issues of political status more seriously, and we have seen the impacts that can happen when it does. But in the meantime, significant progress has been made on the ground. As I said in my last comment, the fact that there are thousands of people on Guam who would publicly attest to wanting an independent Guam is very big deal, not something to be treated lightly. It is not something to lament as not enough, but rather something to be built upon towards something more.

Post a Response