NIHI TA FAN AGULULUMI
For weeks following the death of Senator yan Maga’låhi Ånghet Leon Guerrero Santos the island went into a small but poignant cultural “crisis” over how the activist/legislator would be remembered. How would the collected consciousness and memory of our island deal with Ånghet his actions and his activism? A lot of discussions and dialogue took place about his impact. Everyone had some sort of claim to his legacy, everyone had something to say, to contribute to the reshifting of our ideas about this proud Chamorro warrior whom so many had hated, but now after his passing, so many were finding new inspiration in his impact. But in the noise of this refocus, sometimes Ånghet himself was lost, amid other agendas.
A haole caller into K-57 Radio offered his position on Ånghet’s legacy. The gist of his comments are as follows: Angel was an activist and a hero yes, but his activism was all American. Completely, absolutely American, and not Chamorro. Chamorro culture is a non-confrontational culture, there’s no activism in Chamorro culture. Angel was a proud American activist, not a Chamorro activist.
A student from the audience poised a challenge to Barnett saying something to the effect that, but isn’t Chamorro culture non-confrontational? Aren’t we supposed to respect authority, and not confront our leaders and each other? As Chamorros aren’t we supposed to be måmahlao? Isn’t criticizing the government and therefore activism against Chamorro culture?
Both stories present significant challenges to a present-day Chamorro who
consider themselves to be activists in some form or another, in particular for
Chamorro culture or for Chamorros. Is the term “Chamorro activist” an
oxymoron or a contradiction? And even if so, are Chamorros who participate in
activism going against the very culture that created them? It is in this
uncertain context, where a thick black line is drawn around our culture, and
absolute statements made about what is or isn’t Chamorro that this article is
created. It is the hope that these cultural contestations will be dealt with by
expanding our own ideas about ourselves, as well as dispelling some of our
self-stereotypes, which allow this type of narrow viewpoint to hold so much
power.
Cultures flow and ebb based on the dynamic pull of forces and instincts to preserve and to persist. Cultures change and maintain their identities through continuity, which is the maintenance of a central continuing identity despite changes in either or both the mechanics and spirit of the culture. Chamorro continuity is a delicate issue due to our close proximity to Haole/ Japanese colonialism for centuries. The politics of continuity and identity tend to be confused for Chamorros, and this is one issue of conflict and cultural contestation.
The indispensable difunton Donald Topping’s, Chamorro-English Dictionary defines måmahlao as: “Ashamed, to be ashamed, shamefaced, bashful, shy.” But the use of the word has been widened beyond that to describe some behavior that is considered appropriate in Chamorro culture. The idea is better expressed and described by Carmen Kasperbaurer, gi I tinige’-ňa, “The Chamorro Culture,” from the text Kinalamten Pulitikåt:
Måmahlao sets the standard by which to measure character, upbringing and conduct. It represents all the Chamorro ideas of what is proper and civilized behavior. A Chamorro who has shame is always humble and respectful; he or she is honorable and generous and caring of others; he or she is loyal to his or her family and is diligent about fulfilling his or her obligations and those of his or her family.
Mumamåmahlao most definitely has a place in Chamorro culture up to this day. It is a large part of behavior to our family members and elders. All Chamorros feel this, in one way or another, that this respect is a big part of what makes us Chamorro. Just as a basic idea, it is deeply ingrained in our lives, whether you articulate it as gairespetu nu I tano’-ta, nu I familiå-ta, nu måseha håyi, tanto nu I gubetnamento-ta. But this is just a basic idea, which can be expressed in any way shape or form. But the question here must be how did this idea of måmahlao preclude activism, and then does it preclude it at all?
Gregorio Sablan familian Kilili from Saipan once said that he felt that it was almost the natural, instinctive value amongst Chamorros to respect authority in all forms. That is was an almost absolute in their culture. But when something seems so definitive like this, it is probably time you rethink your stance. Philosopher/ psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek says that is exactly at this point where the truth seems so obvious and close, natural and normal that we must step back and not just re-evaluate this “truth” but also our position in relation to said “truth.”
When we think of concepts, especially in an abstract, detached way, as now, we tend to think of them in as narrow or general a framework as we need or want. Even when matched with the standard definition of måmahlao by Kasperbaurer we can see that although måmahlao would prohibit or frown on activism against your parents, or your uncles of your aunts, it doesn’t necessarily (although it could extend symbolically very, easily, but even that exception has its own problems) mean activism against GovGuam, or the Federal Government, or the military is against Chamorro culture. So why then has this been imposed on us? Or why have we imposed it on ourselves?
Think about the long road of word/term/concept association that takes us on a “lazy and relaxed” tour around the historical theme park that is Chamorro stereotypes. In Chamorro måmahlao means to have shame or respect when dealing with others (lao, mas minagåhet para I parientes-mu.) But when people speak in English about Chamorro culture (Chamorros included) they often translate måmahlao into the term “non-confrontational,” which gives it a new edge. It can mean either “does not confront out of respect” or “inability to confront due to some weakness in character.” With these ideas of respectful and humble Chamorros, trying not to offend, usually come terms like docile, quiet or passive. And with those “soft” words, usually follow other equally “laid-back” words like relaxed or lazy.
When Ånghet Santos yan I mangga’chong-ňa siha gi I Nasion Chamoru, first started fighting their fight for Chamorro rights, they were branded in Chamorro discourse as taimåmahlao, “without shame,” the opposite of måmahlao, this of course implying that the Nasion Chamoru and their activists were the ultimate enemies of Chamorro culture, completely opposed to the previously mentioned characterizations of the Chamorro people. And of course, sadly, even some activists would themselves admit to activism not really being a part of Chamorro culture, but something borrowed, or inherited from Americans.
All these terms and concepts, when put together create little tiny stereotypes, as well as massive and over-powering external as well as internal perceptions about Chamorros. When listening to Malafunkshun or K57on the radio, or eavesdropping off conversations at a restaurant in Hagatňa, we hear these ideas, and often discuss them ourselves, and this depreciation of a people seems so normal, and natural, like a pinpoint characterization, or a police sketch that looks exactly like the assailant. GovGuam and Chamorro laziness is one of the favored topics of Guam discourse, by Chamorros (especially in the private sector) as well as haoles and other non-Chamorros (especially in the private sector).
But think critically about the Chamorro that we have created with these stereotypes, which seem to encompass enough to create a person. He or she has been stripped of any action, of any drive. Dressed up with weak, soft, calm and cozy words, he or she barely seems capable of inhabiting this reality. How would he or she survive?
Maolek na finaisen. Where do these ideas come from? Where does this conceptualization come from which we all seem to agree with at least in part or in whole, but upon further reflection is terribly demeaning and false? The idea that activism, social/political criticism and pressing for social change, improvement or preservation are most definitely outside the realm of Chamorros, whereas taking coffee break every 15 minutes, and being lazy is so totally and utterly inside? Ginnen månu este na hinasso? Kao magåhet este chi-ňa para I kotturå-ta?
These limits, these demarcations of our culture, where do they come from? Ideas of Chamorros being non-confrontational, relaxed, even lazy. These ideas all seem so natural, so appropriate, like perfected stereotypes, how did they evolve? What we must remember is that there is always a shade of truth to a stereotype, but the complete mixture is half part truth, and one part control. This holds true even in our day-to-day interactions. Your personal stereotypes of other races (as well as other things) comes partially from your personal truth or history in relation to that race, and then from your desire to control the context, the discursive space, the ground through which you interact or discuss that race. The next question is of course, so who is controlling whom with this “Chamorro” stereotype?
It is not Chamorros alone, because so many negative stereotypes, to be self-disseminated in such pervasive ways would require more than just a mere shade of truth. Sixty even forty years ago, the discourse was far different, at least within the culture. With nearly all Chamorros making their means to live and thrive on the farm, being lazy meant starving yourself as well as your family.
“Chamorro na taotao ya-ňa macho’cho’…ha tånom I maise, an sakkan ha ko’ko…” A kåntan Chamorrita melody from the Musikan Guahan collection recalls how much a Chamorro likes to work, and describes his or her intimacy with and basic closeness to the land.
In his article on economic development on Guam, from Hinasso: Tinige’ put Chamorro, I difuntun Tun Jesus Sablan Leon Guerrero recounts Chamorro attitudes towards work as well as money, which were true on Guam even after the war, and show a startling contrast to how we conceive ourselves today. According to Leon Guerrero, one of the big obstacles of the Naval Government on Guam, as well as the Spanish (in terms of economic changes on Guam), was the attitude amongst Chamorros that working for money, and then paying for food, was actually considered to be very lazy. Isn’t this diametrically different then what we feel/think/know today?