Guam is an Overseas Territory ofis an overseas territory of
It is a US settlement.
Through its Special Committee on Politics and Decolonization (also known as the Fourth Committee), the United Nations maintains a register of the 17 remained settlements in the rest of the globe. They may know some of these areas. Last year, Polynesia, New Caledonia, American Samoa and Tokelau sent missions to Guam for the Festival of Pacific Arts.
Other - Turks and Caicos, the US Virgin Islands and Bermuda - are on the other side of the globe. Although you may not know it, Guam is one of the last officially established settlements. While we live our everyday life, there are everywhere colorful truth, but also our attempts to wipe it out.
I' ve often said that Guam's No. 1 industrial sector is neither the US army nor the tourist sector, but denies our people. We have so many other domestic and global dimensions that reflect our own rejection of our own domestic realities. For over a hundred years, the United States, whose roots were heavily anticolonial, has had official alliances.
UNCorporated territory" is intended to represent this colorful reality and somehow make it easy to assert that liberty and democratization should not be applied to places that one allegedly owns. Beyond the UN, much of the rest of the globe sees Guam as US property or as the main property for its military base and bomber sites.
The discussion about nationalism in today's modern society can be tricky. There are never any pretexts for the remainder of the world's colonisers and the remainder of the globe assume that such things no longer existed and belonged to an earlier age. The reference to Guam's present state as a power of colonization often results in a series of layoffs or official refusals.
Guam cannot be a settlement, because it was a brutal and brutal trial of the past, and Guam certainly does not have the US - it actually has! The colonization is not something that vanishes because the settlement profits from it in any way.
You argued that Guam, as it is benefiting from colonisation, cannot be regarded as a settlement. This is a simple point, because the definition of settlements is not a question of sufferings or want of benefit, but of the kind of relationships that allow such plunder. You could also say that you are thankless, that you are not realistic and that, coming from a small, non-sustainable, backward isle, you should be thankful to be a settlement, and that of the largest nation in the whole wide globe, not less!
This is a way of reshaping a radically unbalanced or uneven balance that is necessary because of the inferior nature of a poor isle and of islanderous people who could never take charge of themselves. Colonisers have been arguing this for large and small settlements. After all, they could just try to fix you, as if changing the tag would neutralize the inequity.
You' ll say settlement and they' ll say territory or protection or dependence or property, or they could just say "Guam, USA". All to try to renounce the labels that scream the need for transformation, decolonisation. A look into the futures, the acceptance of the Colonies and what it says about our relations with the USA, with other countries around us, will help us far more than denial.
Michael Lujan Bevacquais is a writer, performer, activist and associate lecturer in Chamorro at the University of Guam.