Welcome to Southern Nationalist Network

Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Guam natives defy US Empire

November 24, 2011
By

The native people of Guam who have suffered US occupation as a colony of Washington, DC for a century and have been reduced to a minority on their own island are attempting to assert their natural right of self-determination. Meanwhile, the United States is looking to move many thousands more US soldiers to the island. We can also expect Federal courts to try to nip this rebellion in the bud by ruling that the Guam natives have no right to determine their own future. If the Guamanians were allowed to re-establish control over their destiny it would likely inspire greater resistance to the US Empire around the world where US troops enforce Federal rule. From a Southern nationalist perspective, the case is also important because the Guam natives are a minority at only about one third of the population of their island (and if the Feds move in thousands more soldiers as expected that percentage will drop much further) and therefore their survival as a people is at stake. We Southerners are on the verge of being a minority in several of our States now (having already been displaced in many areas of the South) and are fighting for our survival as well. Southern nationalists then share with the Guam self-determination movement a common oppressor and a similar struggle for survival and independence. Justin Raimondo has the story for Antiwar.com:

The misnamed Center for Individual Rights (CIR) is filing a lawsuit [.pdf] against the government of Guam, charging it with “discrimination” – on the grounds that voter qualifications in the upcoming plebiscite on the island’s status are “undemocratic.” The problem? Guam has decided that the American invaders who seized control of the Pacific isle after the defeat of the Spanish Empire – and incorporated the territory into the American Borg by order of Harry Truman in 1950 – aren’t going to get to vote. According to the Decolonization Registry set up by the elected government of Guam, those qualified to vote include:

Those persons designated as Native Inhabitants of Guam or their descendant, defined within Chapter 21 of Title 3 of the Guam Code Annotated, who are eighteen (18) years of age or older on the date of the Political Plebiscite, and are registered voters of Guam. ‘Native Inhabitants’ shall mean those persons who became U.S. citizens by virtue of the authority and enactment of the 1950 Organic Act of Guam and descendants of those persons. ‘Descendant’” shall mean a person who has proceeded by birth, such as a child or grandchild, to the remotest degree, from any Native Inhabitant of Guam, as defined in Subsection (e), and who is considered placed in a line of succession from such ancestor where such succession is by virtue of blood relations.”

National Review reports the story as follows:

“The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Arnold Davis, is a former Air Force officer who has been a resident of the island since 1977. When he tried to register for the plebiscite, his application was rejected and marked as ‘void’ by the Guam Election Commission because Davis is white.”

This is demonstrably false: as the above cited ruling by the Registry makes clear,anyone who was living on Guam in 1950, when the US declared Guam a “non self-governing territory,” and officially colonized it, is eligible to vote, as are their descendants, no matter what their race. The plebiscite, which should have been held in 1950, effectively nullifies the conquest of Guam by the US and the denial of its right to national self-determination. That this injustice may soon be coming to an end is what sticks in the craw of Mr. Davis and Neocon National Review. Guam is booty in the game of Empire, an important symbol of American hegemony in the Pacific, and the very idea that the Guamanians want their country back is an affront to the neocons.

Guam has been systematically pillaged by the American conquistadors, its natural resources and beauty despoiled by military encroachment, its native peoples outnumbered by acquisitive invaders – and corrupted by a generous welfare system that has turned Chamorro communities into the Pacific equivalent of our own infamous Indian reservations. To make matters worse, an expected flood of US military personnel – as many as 10,000, and their families – are expected to arrive on the island in due course, after having been kicked out of Okinawa by the Japanese. The rapid expansion of numerous military facilities on and around the island is also projected. What this amounts to is, quite literally, an invasion – and the Guamanians are fighting back.

With typical neoconnish rhetoric about “democracy” and “equality,” the CIR lawsuit contends the plebiscite will amount to a massive act of “discrimination,” but this is nonsensical if we consider the crucial context in which the vote is occurring.

Let’s say an invading army occupies your town, and declares it a “non self-governing territory.” They make Main Street the center of a vast and sprawling military base, and commandeer the town’s resources to this end. Tens of thousands of soldiers converge on the place, turning it into a playground for hordes of barely-educatedjuvenile delinquents.

You and the original inhabitants of your town have had enough, and decide to organize a vote on the question of the town’s future, a plebiscite offering three options: independence, becoming a protectorate of the invading army, or outright union with the invaders. In an act of “discrimination” and “racism,” you disqualify any of the invaders or their spawn from voting: only the original townspeople, whose property was overrun, are permitted to participate.

Is this “undemocratic”? Maybe. Is it, however, an injustice? The answer is an emphatic no!

It is, indeed, an act of supreme justice, one that doesn’t recognize temporal limits tothe concept of right, but carries it to its logical conclusion: the idea that the restoration of lost rights is the precondition of liberty. A conquered people surely “discriminates” against their conquerors by disdaining them, and regretting their very presence – they would have to be inhuman not to.

In the battle between “democracy” and justice, libertarians take the side of the latter inany and all cases – and, in this case, the line is sharply drawn. On one side, we have those who uphold the alleged democratic “right” of the majority to expropriate the property and liberty of the minority. On the other side of the barricades stands a people who just want their country back.

Well, then, the smartasses among my readers – of which there are many – might say, doesn’t this mean you want to give America back to the Indians? The short answer is: yes – especially the isle of Manhattan. A somewhat longer answer is: while true justice knows no statute of limitations, the reality is that the passage of time clouds the record, including conflicting claims over just land titles, and so it is not always practical to carry out this restorative principle in actual practice. Yet that doesn’t invalidate the principle itself: it only impels us to apply it whenever and wherever possible.

In the case of Guam, the historical record is relatively recent – and clear. The ongoing rape of a once beautiful and blessed isle is a crime, and there is no reason why the rapist and his descendants and agents should have a say in its future – any more than the German army marching into Austria, in 1938, had any “right” to vote in the “plebiscite” that incorporated the country into the German Reich.

In 1950, Truman and the US Congress passed the “Guam Organic Act,” [.pdf] which absorbed the island into the archipelago of colonial possessions that would serve as lily-pads for the projection of US power into Eastasia. Nobody asked the Guamanians what they wanted: as a subject people, they had no say in the matter. Now they are determined to have their say, and let the US “exceptionalists,” neocon democracy-mongers, and born-again “anti-racists” over at National Review make the most of it!

To underscore the contempt for which the Empire holds its subjects, a recent delegation of 15 US Senators on their way to a China junket didn’t bother meeting with Governor Eddie Calvo, a snub that had the Governor livid:

“This morning, Guam Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo asked whether I would be greeting the 15 U.S. Senators scheduled to arrive at Guam’s Andersen Air Force Base today. We were both surprised and extremely upset that no one in the federal establishment informed Guam of their visit. We called the Navy to verify this stopover and we were told that the U.S. Senators will not entertain any meeting or discussions with Guam leaders or the Guamanian people. Instead of landing at the A.B. Won Pat International Airport, Guam, they have decided to shield their visit in secrecy and land within the confines of Andersen Air Force Base.

“In the 100 years we have been a colony of the United States, the U.S. government hardly did anything to resolve our colonial status. What kind of democracy allows colonialism to flourish? I am livid the U.S. Senate, a body created by the will of the people of 13 colonies who wanted freedom and democracy, would turn its back on the Guamanian people. It is obvious we are not part of their constituency, and they do not consider us a valuable part of the American family. This only serves to inflame our long-held belief that we are an American colony of second-class citizens who matter only when our geopolitical position is needed by the U.S. government.”

Adding to the insult was President Obama’s refusal to meet with Guam officials when his plane stopped for refueling en route to the Eastasia Summit: the White House didn’t even take the time to issue a statement to the people of Guam. Which brings to mind the Governor’s trenchant question to the 15 Senators:

“If Guam was so important to U.S. strategic interests, then why would the nation’s leaders continue snubbing Guamanians? If the Senate wants to thumb its nose at Guamanians, then perhaps it is time for Guamanians to call in every injustice ever committed upon our people by the US government.”

As always, the reflexive arrogance of the high and mighty sets the stage for their ultimate undoing. Guam may be a forgotten outpost of empire, a resting place for Uncle Sam’s boot as he performs a “Pacific pivot,” but the Guamanians’ desire to regain control over their destiny ought to be a lesson – and an inspiring example – to the whole world.


 

Tags: , , , ,

  • CapnConfederacy

    One of my best friends in high school was a Chomorran. You know, me the evil racist Southerner. I never really asked him how he felt about such things. But then again I never really got into such things back then. It’s a shame. Last I heard he was working for Homeland Security. Sad.

  • Chris

    Wow, you read that and you see alot of similarites when it comes to not only the Native Americans here, but also us, Southerners !. Filthy U.S. Military and Government. I mean read this.

    “Let’s say an invading army occupies your town, and declares it a “non self-governing territory.” They make Main Street the center of a vast and sprawling military base, and commandeer the town’s resources to this end. Tens of thousands of soldiers converge on the place, turning it into a playground for hordes of barely-educatedjuvenile delinquents.

    You and the original inhabitants of your town have had enough, and decide to organize a vote on the question of the town’s future, a plebiscite offering three options: independence, becoming a protectorate of the invading army, or outright union with the invaders. In an act of “discrimination” and “racism,” you disqualify any of the invaders or their spawn from voting: only the original townspeople, whose property was overrun, are permitted to participate.”

  • Confederate Papist

    I know Chris….it sounded hauntingly familiar…

  • http://southernnationalist.com James H Swor

    I have been to Guam several times. The US military occupies fully one half of the island. Local people are not welcome or allowed on that half. The military and the local people do not mix socially or with business. It is like two distinct worlds side by side. Just imagine half of your state with a fence across it and you would never again be allowed access to it. What if China or Nigeria just decided to create their own community of 25,000 people in your county? And you had no say in the matter…

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/SCVORG Jim Elam

    Guam is a U.S. Territory just like Puerto Rico, and American Samoa. They are much better taken care of than if left to fend for them selves. Look at Hawaii. Should we give back Hawaii to a few Hawaiians?

  • Chris

    Jim, Would you want China to take you over and say the same thing about you ?

  • CapnConfederacy

    Absolutely. The people of the Kingdom of Hawaii deserve to have their land back. I used to live there. I identified with those good people. The same thing happened to them as it did to us. If what happened to us is wrong, what happened to them is wrong. There might be only a few full blooded Hawaiians left, but the other locals can’t stand the haole invasion. And who can blame them? Same thing that happens to us. Rich old yankees moving to a nice warm place. Or folks that come to a place and think it’s wonderful with the culture and what not. Well you know what foreigner? It’s not gonna be the same if you move there and change the place. I’ve always said, I love Hawaii too much to live there. Besides, just because I respect the people and the culture, doesn’t mean it’s my place. Everyone has a place. Mine is Dixie.

  • http://southernnationalist.com James H Swor

    Jim, with all due respect, you are wrong on many levels. The people of the territories you have mentioned are not better off… In fact, healthwise and culturally, they are far worse off than they were a hundred years ago. Jim,other than the occupation of the South, you have listed some of the most egregious examples of US Imperialism and Colonialism.
    Unfortunately, many of these peoples have temporarily bought into the hype and propaganda of the Empire at the expense of their culture. And as we know, if you dont have your culture, youve got nothing… Many of these cultures are experiencing a renaissance of awareness but for some it’s all but over.
    By the way, there are as many as 250,000 people in Hawaii who are Hawaiian(kanaka maole) and part Hawaiian, with many thousands living on(in exile) the West Coast. That’s not just a few Hawaiians. If more Americans knew of the Hawaiians efforts for self-determination, it would be only a matter of time before there were 49 states.
    And to CnC: Amen to that…

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/SCVORG Jim Elam

    Well James, If this is the foundation of your belief, perhaps we should give back California, New Mexico, and part of Texas to Mexico. Additionally, Why not just give back DIXIE back to the Natives Indians and go back to Europe.

    The reason we lost the War of Northern aggression is because we were NOT aggressive. Had we been blood thirsty and been better prepared for a offensive attack and slaughtered everything including Washington we would have won in an instant. Playing defense is a loosing strategy. Taking about First Manassas. or Battle of Bull Run.

    Before you give away America to make people love you just remember that Peace only come at the price of death.

  • Michael

    Jim, California, New Mexico, etc. are not mine to give away. “We” can’t give them to anyone. They are under the domination of the US government – and “we” are not the US government. Self-determination is the natural right of all people everywhere. It is not a privilege for “we” to bestow upon some people and not others. If the people of California, New Mexico or where-ever want to be independent, then it is their right to be so. It is not the right of anyone else to tell them they can not be free. As for “giving back Dixie to the Natives Indians and going back to Europe” I am not from Europe. I was not born there. I have no property there. I can’t “go back” to somewhere I am not from. Likewise, what Indians are we to give all of Dixie to today? Most of them are either dead or assimilated into Southern culture. Some maintain their own identity and culture in small, isolated places, but these small groups certainly have no legitimate claim on all of Dixie. Were there injustices done against the Indians? No doubt. I’m highly sympathetic to their plight and support the independence of any surviving Indian group that wants to be free. But there were large areas of the South during the colonial area that were not settled by Indians. Anyone had a right to claim these areas who settled there and made improvements upon the land. There were also legitimate purchases of land by Colonials from the Indians. The Colonials had a just right to settle those lands as well. As for the lands that were unjustly taken where there are surviving Indian nations that have maintained a just claim on these areas, the Indians should be compensated. However, we must admit that the claim of a descendant many generations removed from a victim has less of a claim for compensation than does the original victim himself. So, it would likely be a complicated process settled in court but I do support justice for the Indians and anyone else who has been victimised. Given that Indians only make up about 1% of the population of the South today though this justice would not entail “giving back” all of Dixie to anyone. It would likely mean that the Seminoles in Florida, the Cherokees in NC and OK and surviving Indian groups elsewhere in the South would become independent and could then make arrangements with their non-Indian neighbours and whatever sort of government a free South had to live in peace and trade with each other.

    As for giving Texas back to Mexico, again, it is not yours or mine to give back. We must remember that Mexico is an empire (like nearly all states in the world) with a ruling White and mestizo class in Mexico City that dominates many largely Indian areas in the south and a large geographic area with a great deal of cultural/ethnic diversity. As well, the people of Texas, including Indians, mestizos and White settlers of both Spanish and Southern background, revolted against the Mexican authorities and became an independent republic. Their descendants would probably not appreciate any attempts to “give back” their land to the Mexican government.

    Your statement that “peace only come at the price of death” reminds me of the slogan of the totalitarian government in George Orwell’s classic book “1984″: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” It makes about as much sense. The lack of peace is not peace, Jim.

  • CapnConfederacy

    I couldn’t have said it any better myself Michael. And thank you Mr. Swor.



Images

SNN