Written for a Guam History class, in response to the reading of leaflets written by Angel Santos in 1991, regarding unfair US immigration laws, and potential for Guam's economic growth if it became independent.
Angel Santos’s first article is a passionate plea for Chamorros to take note of an issue that is changing and will soon change forever the landscape of Guam, immigration. The article covers potential laws which will allow more and more immigrants access to Guam, as well as how existing laws have hurt terribly the Chamorro community, by making them a minority on Guam.
In the mind of Angel Santos the immigration problem is just one of many issues which the United States ignores and refuses to deal with. Santos makes no bones about this early on by listing them outright. The fact that the United States immigration laws do not take the size of Guam, or its status as a colony into consideration is just part of the whole attitude of the United States to Guam, which is one of indifference. Aside from control of immigration, other problems are lack of self-determination, delays over war reparations for World War II, and the subject of his second article, which is lack of local control over economy.
Angel Santos is a member of the Chamoru Nation which has always taken an activist stance in terms of local affairs. This article is no different, as he attacks over and over the indifference of the United States to Guam. The indifference comes in the form of laws which adversely affect the Chamorro population of Guam, and which are made without any input or consent by the Chamorros.
Examples of these laws are The Nursing Relief Act, which grants permanent resident status to an alien nurse that is working in the United States or Guam. Or the changes made in the Immigration Reform Act which makes Filipino veterans from World War II, who are residing in the Philippines eligible for United States Citizenship.
These laws represent a serious problem with Guam’s and therefore Chamorros relationship to the United States, that problem is that Chamorros have no say or no control over the laws which the United States makes that apply to Guam. Guam’s colonized status is obvious here, as we send a representative to the United States Congress who is supposed to be our representative in the halls of American government, but he or she has no vote. The person who represents us in Washington D.C. has no say, no power, no input into the laws that apply to us. That is truly colonialism.
It can also be seen as colonialism, how these laws which affect Guam economically are made and applied. Guam is hindered by economic laws that treat Guam as a foreign country and don’t allow it to take control of its own resources.
But in the second article, what is more important to Santos is the fact that we can survive on our own, without the United States. He details several ideas which can help Guam have a self-supporting national economy, such as fishing canneries and mineral mining. Through his second article he asks Chamorros to shift their perspectives and their ideas about political status. If Guam were to become independent or at least more independent than it would be treated as an equal with the United States and other nations around the world. But this would not mean that we would never see the US again or become bitter enemies, as Santos points out in his concluding remarks, “We must understand that 99% of all countries throughout the world are politically independent, but are economically interdependent with each other. Based on this argument, Guam can become politically independent and economically interdependent with the United States.”
A good point and one which we should absolutely consider when plotting the future course of Guam.
Much of Santos’s comments can be seen as pure racism, as he seems to attack the Filipinos and the Micronesians who make their lives here, as much as he attacks the United States. But when you look at the statistics, the population numbers and then the laws, it is hard not to be mad. Chamorros at one point represented probably 99% of this island’s population, but by 1991 the number had dropped to 42%. I’m sure recent census numbers show the Chamorro population decreasing even further. This is very sad, because it means there are more people living here who consider their home elsewhere, than consider Guam their homeland.
Santos makes a good point in his closing paragraphs “Numbers mean votes and votes means political power.” The fact that Chamorros are already a minority in their homeland, means that they are in danger of losing their special connection to this land. Already we sometimes refer to Chamorros as one of the races or ethnicities on Guam. But then that doesn’t tell you the whole story. To do that simplifies the history of the Chamorro people and washes away their special connection to this island. As Chamorros become outnumbered in their own land, it becomes very possible that this land will soon stop being “Tano I Chamorro,” and just start being “Guam, Where America’s day begins.”
As far as historiography is concerned Santos cannot be considered an objective author. He is an activist and he is obviously angry at the crimes of the United States. But before we doubt his articles and his cries for nationalism, we must consider the important role he does play in balancing our perspectives. After reading these articles, I know that Santos speaks the truth. There has always been something in the back of my head which told me that something was wrong with our relationship with the United States, but it was always brushed aside by my parents, who both worked for the Federal Government. From my parents I was constantly told that the Federal Government was very important to us, that is was like our lifeline, and it was always helping us out. They made it sound like the Federal Government was our best friend. But certain things never made sense, like why were some people mad about their land being taken? Why were some people mad at the way the Federal Government was treating us? The majority of the people on Guam, think the way my parents do, that everything is fine as far as our relationship with the United States. That is why Angel Santos and those like him are so very important. They give us the other side of it all. Another perspective saying that, maybe things aren’t so perfect, maybe things can be better, and maybe the cause of some of our problems is the United States!
For that reason I feel Santos can be as biased as he wants.
Fehman magahet no? Na'laolao este ya para u makonne' hao tatte asta i Page Main