I'm from Guam, and half Chamoru. Most of the comments in this thread show the ignorance that this article is pointing out — Americans don't understand the situation in Guam, because they've never had to really pay attention.
Guam is a U.S. colony that has benefitted from the U.S., but has also been overrun by Americans and people from Asia, so that Chamorus are now a minority on the island. We've long wanted to have a vote to decolonize, but this has been blocked by Americans on the island who demand to have a vote in a matter that should be up to the Chamorus.
As a result of blocking decolonization, we have been impacted greatly:
* Big military bases have brought a militarized mindset to the residents.
* Those bases were taken without asking or recompense, and drive up land prices, which drives up the price of everything else.
* The U.S. has protected U.S. corporations from competition (Jones Act, etc) which drives up the prices as well.
* The U.S. has set immigration policies to benefit itself, leading to a flood of immigrants who the U.S. doesn't pay for (healthcare, education).
* U.S. corporations have taken over commerce (think big box stores and chain restaurants), leading to a loss of the local culture.
* Guam residents are mostly in poverty, undereducated, with terrible health. You could argue that it's our own fault, but the U.S.'s unthinking impact has created a system that leads to these results.
There's a lot more to this — it's an incredibly deep topic — but I thought there should be a voice here from someone who understands the issues.
I have no particular opinion on Guam or its governance, but if Chamorus are a minority of the people living there (& a minority of the people born there?) it feels kind of unfair for them to unilaterally make major decisions and remove the majority group from the area.
Ex. obviously what American settlers did to mainland Natives was heinous and should not have happened, but it's less clear that Natives of the current generation should be able to unilaterally vote to remove Americans that are born here now.
Guam is the homeland of the Chamorus, and it was taken from us by the Americans. For them to say they should vote on what should be done with it seems more unfair. We're a minority because of American action, not by choice.
On a historical level, I agree it's unfair. The Chamorus should never have had your land taken against your will. However, there are now a lot of Americans born on Guam, and it's to the point where it seems like it would also be unfair to kick out those people born there, with their families living on Guam for decades & who are now the majority.
I'm not arguing against you, necessarily. It's a hard situation and maybe Americans leaving is the better solution.
How far "back" do you think it's fair for decolonization advocates to go? Do you think the same argument you're using here, applied to other places (ex. the continental U.S.) is also correct?
-
Addendum via Wikipedia: "The United States Department of the Interior approved a $300,000 grant for decolonization education" in 2016[0]. No idea what to make of this.
Decolonization is a fairly established process around the world, many places have decolonized. And it's established that the colonized people are the ones to decide, not the colonizers. The U.S. (and Americans living in Guam) don't seem to grasp it because they think if they're living in Guam, they should have an equal say. That doesn't make sense if you're not one of the colonized.
And yes, as you noted in the addendum, there has been money allocated for decolonization education. It happened, but all efforts to have an actual vote were blocked in court by (a handful of) Americans living in Guam.
Very few English speakers (from the U.S. at least) who've graduated college will have been taught this. I worked at newspapers and no one I worked with knew this. It's not a distinction that English speakers are aware of, even at university level, unless they have a reason to know it, like being linguists or knowing people who are Swedish.
If you're a journalist you can't ask a swedish person if you've messed up any details? That's the point. It's so flipping easy to get the detail right.
That book is pseudoscience. As are a lot of the books and videos promoting high fat diets. We don’t need to be afraid of fat, but replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats has been shown to lead to better heart health outcomes by gold standard studies and meta reviews.
I appreciate that you have an alternate opinion. I've gone through quite a few studies myself as well as other doctors say the contrary.
Rather than just "saying you're wrong, I'm wrong", can you the gold-standard studies you're claiming?
Also not sure what about the book is "pseudoscience", can you name specific aspects in that make it pseudoscience? (it actually doesn't recommend anything... so curious how it's pseudoscience)
Thank you for your writing, Maciej. It’s so good.