The Taotao Tåno’ are descendants of the First People of the islands of the Marianas Archipelago, known as Tåno Låguas and Gani by our ancestors. Guåhan, better known in the world as Guam, is the largest in this chain of 14 islands in the Western Pacific, and the first Pacific island nation to be colonized. Pacific Historian, Douglas Oliver, writes: “the rape of Oceana began with Guam.” The indigenous people of this homeland have endured more than five centuries of colonial tsunamis by three major world powers: Spain, Japan and the United States of America.
Our ancestors were famed navigators. They were a wise and brave people who traversed uncharted seas in search of a new home far from their islands of origin in Southeast Asia. Free and doggedly-determined, highly-skilled seafarers, they settled in Guåhan and the other islands of this beautiful volcanic archipelago approximately 4000 years ago. As indigenous survivors, modern CHamoru people must address the intergenerational trauma, land alienation, relocation and social pathologies which have emerged from our treacherous historical journey. First, as a Spanish colony for centuries, then as an American colony for the past century interrupted briefly during World War II by the occupation of Japanese Imperial forces for four years. These colonial tsunamis have threatened to drown us as a people time and again, but our ancestors have managed to survive into this century. We now live with the threat of obliteration, if world powers act out their unquenching thirst for global control. Heavy U.S. military presence makes us an easy target for China and North Korea.
The quest for CHamoru self-determination which began in the 1500s when Guåhan became part of the Spanish Colonial Empire has surged, subsided and resurged over the centuries. Fearless indigenous leaders have organized around pivotal events which have shaped the political destiny of Guåhan’s Taotao Tåno’ in their search of a status beyond colony.
The land lust and greed of imperial nations seeking world domination and economic control of natural resources, which touched our shores over 500 years ago led to empire-building. Such hunger for power has fueled world wars and conflicts around the globe to this day leading to genocide and environmental destruction unparalleled by natural disasters.
The United Nations, established with binding covenants on the heels of WWII committed to end colonization by the turn of the 20th century. The U.S. having become the world’s most powerful nation was a signatory to that commitment, which they have ignored in relationship to Guam and their other colonies. So, our David and Goliath struggle for self-determination continues in the face of powerful Asian-Pacific adversaries threatening American interests.
In the ‘70s the quest for independence throughout the Pacific heightened as geopolitical rearrangements were being negotiated between colonial powers and their colonies. Many nation-states were able to exercise their rights of sovereignty. Tragically, American colonies have been conspicuously left out.
A generation of post-WWII Taotao Tåno’ became aware of a new world consciousness about indigeneity, decolonization, nation-building and the inalienable right to self-determination. CHamoru leaders, old and young, were fueled by the hope, possibilities and fervor of such movements across the globe. The Civil Rights Movement, black and brown power activism, the Independent and Nuclear Free Pacific Movement, a growing environmental consciousness, and the Women’s Movement inspired discourse, protests and political action. Elected politicians led the battle for a just resolution while grass-roots activists gave voice to this emerging consciousness.
Dubbed the CHamoru Generation for their advocacy, these 20th and 21st century champions have spoken, written and taught about peoplehood, ancestral land rights, environmental and climate concerns, sovereignty, indigenous identity and the importance of our heritage language. Resistance and controversy, spurred by colonial thinking and prevailing perspectives by the governing powers, have characterized the discourse to this day.
Corrective justice and the actualization of the CHamoru quest requires an understanding of basic terms that get misappropriated in the discourse related to CHamoru self-determination and decolonization. These terms are not synonymous, but they are joined at the hip. One cannot be fully achieved without the other. We must also be mindful of the interplay of these goals with the driver, which is cultural sovereignty. The Association on American Indian Affairs defines cultural sovereignty as “ the inherent right of a community, particularly Indigenous peoples, to define, maintain, control, and develop their own cultural identity, traditions, and heritage without external interference. It emphasizes self-determination, allowing groups to protect their languages, sacred sites, and knowledge from assimilation, colonization, and cultural appropriation.”
Guåhan remains an American colony to this day. The CHamoru people were colonized by the United States with the transfer of “ownership” from Spain in 1898. Only people, and their descendants, who were subjected to colonial rule can decolonize. But non-CHamoru residents of our shared community in Guam can certainly advocate for and support the right of the CHamoru people to decolonize. Decolonization cannot be achieved in a vacuum and without the support and willing engagement of our entire island community. This reality is complex as Guahan’s residents are now quite diverse and have varying degrees of political affiliation with the United States. The Taotao Tåno’ have become a shrinking majority in their Homeland. Most island residents have American citizenship, which complicates the issue of sovereignty and voting rights immensely.
Advocating for CHamoru rights does not spell disregard or disrespect for others who have more recently made Guam their home. Being pro-CHamoru does not mean that we pit ourselves against our neighbors and friends whose cultural heritage is tied to other islands and nation-states, as we are often accused. However, we do have to acknowledge and respect the distinction between indigenous peoples and ethnic groups, who leave their homelands to reside in an “adopted” country or island, in this case.
In defining ‘Indigenous Peoples,’ David Maybury-Lewis points out that the term indigenous comes from Latin roots meaning “native” or “belonging naturally to the soil. “ At its heart lies a simple and powerful concept: these are people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of lands that were later colonized, conquered, or settled by others.”
The UN’s working definition of indigenous people comes from the landmark study by Martinez Cobo. Simply put, indigenous peoples are “those having historical continuity with pre-invasion societies.” Other key characteristics of this definition are “strong territorial connections which characterize indigenous relationships with land and natural resources.” Unlike the dominant society’s often transactional relationship with land - i.e. the military reference to Guam as ‘the rock’ – “indigenous people typically maintain spiritual, cultural, and economic bonds with their territories. Indigenous peoples often find themselves marginalized, facing discrimination, and lacking political and economic power despite being the original inhabitants of their territories.” These descriptions fit the CHamoru reality and relationship with the land and natural resources.
The Taotao Tåno’, rightfully referred to as the “People of the Land” are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the islands of Låguas and Gåni (Mariana Islands). Notwithstanding, our indigeneity is often called into question or trivialized as irrelevant.
Things get more complicated when we talk about who should vote in a Self-Determination Plebiscite? Which rights are more important: U.S. Constitutional rights conferred by citizenship versus inalienable Human Rights? When we consider Guam’s diverse multi-ethnic island population of American citizens, we might be tempted or confused into thinking that we all have equal rights in relation to CHamoru Self-Determination. We don’t.
CHamoru identity derives from our indigeneity. Others who have made Guam their home derive their ethnicity from their places of origin or cultural heritage. We are all Guam residents, yes. But not all residents are indigenous.
Ethnic diversity is a form of social complexity found in contemporary mobile societies. It is part of our global reality. Here in Guam, we pride ourselves in being a multi-ethnic community which brings many benefits. Many jump to the erroneous conclusion that CHamoru advocates are anti-immigrant or anti-diversity. Quite the contrary, we often lend our voices to the cause of non-CHamoru people who suffer discrimination in the communities in which we live. This is not a battle between us and everyone else. This is a quest for social and restorative justice. It is a quest to resolve an issue that has languished in the halls of the U.S. Congress for over a century. It is a quest by the indigenous people of Guam to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and end our status as a colony.
Today, we must remain vigilant and strengthen our indigeneity by speaking our Mother Tongue, teaching it as an official language in schools, and revitalizing it through intergenerational use; practicing our values and traditions; protecting our homeland, sacred spaces, the land and sea and all Guåhan’s natural resources; tapping into our ancestral knowledge; claiming and exercising our rights as indigenous people, and educating CHamoru people and other residents about our quest, without which our voices will become noise, nothing more. We must, once again, in this century, navigate skillfully through dangerous rip currents and build a future befitting our legacy as CHamoru champions.
