Guam culture, immigration and the US military build-up

Guam culture, immigration and the USmilitary build-upapv_1433 304..318

Amy OwenUniversity of Guam, Geography Department, Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 303 University Drive, HSS

Building 220C, PO Box 5172, Mangilao, Guam 96923, USA.Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The island of Guam, located at a strategic aquatic cross-roads in the Pacific, is undergoingchanges that will greatly impact the local population and culture. This study investigates the concernsand perceptions of local Guam people regarding recent changes in US policy. The impendingbuild-up of the US Military and the recent opening of Guam to immigration are explored through ahistoric contextual analysis of current events along with a survey of the island population. The surveyresults indicate that positive feelings towards the build-up were lower than what may have beenexpected from public discourse and uncertainty considerably greater than what have been expectedfrom public discourse. Views varied by age and by income, with the youth and middle class the leastoptimistic. The build-up was viewed overall as good for the island’s economy and bad for the island’sculture. Concerns over the build-up, as well as incoming immigrants were based on access to alreadystrained island resources rather than ethnic or racial bias. Unexpectedly, little variation existed amongthe attitudes of the diverse ethnicities that form Guam’s unique ‘Guamanian’ culture.

Keywords: chamorro, culture, Guam, immigration, migration, military

Introduction

The island of Guam, a US territory southernmostin the Marianas chain in the Micronesia region,is poised for change. The island’s people, begin-ning with the Chamorro indigenous group, haveexperienced cultural change through contactand interaction with others throughout historydue to the island’s central location in thePacific. Many groups have arrived at and thenutilised this water crossroads at the centre ofEastern and Western trade zones. At present, thepeople of this US island territory are facing newchallenges due to a build-up of the US militaryand immigration policies that will swell theisland population and alter the way of life of thelocal islanders.

Guam’s 178 000 people will soon experiencean influx of at least 40 000 people, whichincludes 8000 marines, 9000 dependants, andthe rest in construction and support services asa military base is moved from Okinawa (Ameri-can Forces Press Service, 2006; US Joint Guam

Program Office, 2008). This movement oftroops, part of a realignment effort betweenthe United States and Japan (Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Japan, 2005; American Forces PressService, 2006; Morgan, 2006), could entailmajor irreversible changes to the island andisland society that will likely initiate a differentway of life for the local population. Fears andconcerns raised at US military-hosted publicinformation and input meetings include lan-guage and traditions becoming harder toretain; jobs, contracts and businesses neededfor the build-up may be outsourced; closedor non-publicised bidding processes maymean Guam’s businesses might not be able tocompete; more local families and their childrenmay leave due to lack of employment opportu-nities; and further land takings, historically asensitive issue for the indigenous Chamorro, arepossible. While the people of the island havelong supported the presence of the US military,there are inherent tensions. The high-quality butlow-cost goods, services and utilities ‘within the

Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 2010ISSN 1360-7456, pp304–318

© 2010 The AuthorAsia Pacific Viewpoint © 2010 Victoria University of Wellington

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2010.01433.x

fence’ remain of benefit only to military, staffand their families. Housing costs, already highfor locals due to the generous military allow-ance for off-base housing, are already on therise, and offshore speculators are likely tobenefit. While the build-up will undoubtedlybring in new money, the question remainswhether the local population of Guam willbenefit from this funding bonanza.

This study investigates the nature of concernsregarding the upcoming military build-up, aswell as those raised by US policy on open immi-gration. Though Guam is a US territory, little iswidely known about Guam, its people, andthe policies that affect them, especially on themainland United States. The questions thatdrove this study were: (i) how does the percep-tion of the current local population regardingUS military expansion and immigration varyamong Guam’s people, and (ii) what are thedynamics of changes in Guam’s culture. Thisstudy contributes new and valuable contempo-rary information from the viewpoint of Guam’spopulation regarding these events. In addition,this work will attempt to contextualise theseperceptions and changes by providing a histori-cal context.

History is understood widely as a temporalaccount of a defined area or group. In this case,the focus is the island and the island’s residentsand their experiences over time. Culture is adifficult term to define with hundreds of verydifferent meanings in different fields of study. Inthis study, I have used the older simple defini-tion developed by anthropologist Ralph Linton(1940a: 466), ‘A culture may be defined asthe sum total of the knowledge, attitudes andhabitual behavior patterns shared and transmit-ted by the members of a particular society’.An anthropological definition is appropriate inthis case, as I am focusing on patterns that areassociated with a particular cultural group – thepeople of Guam. Culture is further defined byRalph Linton’s (1940: 466–467) assertion thatcultures are ‘adaptive’ mechanisms, and ‘. . .a cultural tradition is therefore a dynamicsystem (powered by natural forces which itharnesses) . . .’ (White, 1949: 166). Culture isidentified as a sum of patterns, one of which isattitude, the variation of which is analysed inthe Guam population examined here. Variationand change in attitude is therefore an indicator

of change in a culture and a reflection of itsdynamism. Temporal changes in culture willbe investigated through providing an overviewof the historical context of cultural change inGuam.

Culture and cultural change in terms ofattitudes is difficult to measure. Both quantita-tive and qualitative methodologies were usedhere. Empirical statistical data was analyseddeductively and reported quantitatively, whilehypotheses were explored qualitatively. First,information regarding Guam’s people andhistory was examined to in relation to themilitary build-up and immigration. Sourcesincluded observation, literature, local news,local publications and unstructured, informalinterviews with students, classes and commu-nity leaders. Second, an anonymous surveywas constructed from a summary of issues andthe concerns expressed by the local popula-tion in public meetings sponsored by the USmilitary regarding the build-up. Twenty-onesurvey questions were produced including tenquestions on participant demographics and 11closed-ended forced choice response ques-tions. Guam residents were invited to parti-cipate at public events, such as fiestas andmeetings, and public areas, such as supermar-kets and post offices from March to May 2009.The participant information provided indepen-dent variables for analysis of attitude variation,while questions regarding the build-up andimmigration formed dependent variables. Datawere analysed (Pallant, 2001) with SPSS 17.0using descriptive and chi-square tests. In orderto allow respondents an alternative to theforced choice, and to allow for communica-tion of reasons for non-response, commentspaces were provided. The survey attainedgood statistical representation (95% confi-dence level and confidence interval of 4.88)of Guam’s population of 178 287, with goodagreement in the survey sample of 403 respon-dents, with the major ethnicities, sex, geo-graphical location on island (north or south),ages and incomes of the actual population.Following all analyses (literature, observa-tions, interviews, survey), hypotheses regardingmechanisms of cultural change were gener-ated. This paper will initially provide a histori-cal context examining Guam society beforedetailing the survey results.

Guam culture, immigration and the US military build-up


305

Past and present cultural patterns

The Chamorro are Guam’s indigenous or firstknown people, recorded in the earliest knowncontact with Europeans. The early Chamorroculture was characterised as a highly coopera-tive society, a branch of Austronesian likely tohave originated from Southeast Asia (Wernhart,1972; Cunningham, 1992: 8; Rogers, 1995:22–23, 36–37; Hunter-Anderson, 2005:26–34). A seafaring people and expert naviga-tors and boat builders (Cunningham, 1992:17), they arrived in the Marianas Island chainby sailing craft over 4000 years ago with helpfrom the ocean currents and seasonal mon-soons. Guam, the southernmost island ofthe Marianas, is located south of Japan in theNorth Pacific and about three-quarters of theway from Hawai’i to the Philippine Islands.Trade was established early on with Micron-esia, as the greater region of small islands isknown, with Guam the largest. The socialstructure of the Chamorro consisted of rigidand complex castes, classes and clans, furtherdelineated by rank (Thompson, 1942: 39, 45;Cunningham, 1992: 89–90; Rogers, 1995:36–37). The high caste or nobles served aslocal leaders, and, in the absence of centralgovernment in the islands (Cunningham, 1992:157–176), skirmishes for power were commonto establish rank among the villages. Familymember ranking included the eldest sister andthe eldest brother in strong leadership anddecision-making roles. Considered both matri-lineal and matrilocal, lineage was passedthrough women, and land owned through awoman’s family or clan. The social networkwas complex and involved cooperation atevery level as well as reciprocity, or return ofgoods or service extended. A donation orChenchule’ was an obligation to be recipro-cated with great loss of respect if it was not.Men, especially nobles, built special outriggerlanteen sail boats called Proa (Rogers, 1995:31), deep sea fishing and diving and craftingstone and shell tools and weapons, andwomen wove fine baskets and made pottery(Cunningham, 1992: 57–70; Hunter-Anderson,2005: 43–46). Rank extended beyond death asancestors were revered, cared for and obeyed.Taotaomo’na, unhappy ancestral spirits (Cun-ningham, 1992: 98–99; Rogers, 1995: 38) and

other spirits believed to have the ability tomake mischief or cause bad luck, could protectthe family if rituals were carried out properly.Money was shell, with turtle the most preciousand valuable (Cunningham, 1992: 75). Betelnut was chewed and produced a pleasantmood-enhancing effect, carried around in littlewoven baskets and shared like other foods witheveryone. Gatherings with food, dancing andspeaking entertainments were common andcooperatively provisioned by the clan or familyoffering it. Cooperatively built houses werebuilt up on stone pillars called Latte (Cunning-ham, 1992: 58; Rogers, 1995: 31; Hunter-Anderson, 2005: 47–54).

Today, elements of Chamorro culture doremain. Latte stones, stone and pottery rem-nants and other artefacts remain on Guam.Betel nut is stilled chewed and shared alongwith food. Frequent and highly visible fiestasare thrown by families that invite many guests,espe cially in return for past help provided tothe family. Inafa’maolek, or extended familyand community cooperation, continues tobond the large extended families. High-ranking siblings still hold clan positions ofleadership (Thompson, 1942: 39; Souder,1992), and high-ranking families often holdcommunity and political positions of leader-ship. The society remains subtly matrilineal,even after colonisation with patrilineally ori-ented cultures. Though family order and clanrank is important, gaining social and politicalstatus is also contingent upon the level ofhelp, responsibility and service one provides.Ayuda, although it is a Spanish term meaninghelp, is a continuing Chamorro concept ofassisting the family. This includes obedi-ence to higher-ranking family members orcommunity leaders (Cunningham, 1992: 93).Reciprocity also remains an integral part ofcustom, with Chinchule books kept, especiallyfor funerals. Respetu is shown to others andmost especially to elders, today shown bybowing to or kissing the hands, or, more com-monly in Guam, kissing the cheek. Familyrituals such as those for marriage and funeralshave been integrated into Catholic rites suchas Novena after Spanish colonisation and con-version. And yet much change on Guam hasoccurred, often resulting from intense inter-action with other, very different cultures.

A. Owen


306

A history of interaction

A strong dynamic long associated with Guam’sculture is prolonged, intense interaction withoutside cultures, mostly powerful cultures of thewestern hemisphere. Contact with Europeanculture began with Spanish vessels travellingbetween New Spain (Mexico) and the Spanishcolony in the Philippines and transporting ofgoods between the colonies in the New Worldand the Asia Pacific (Rogers, 1995: 10; Fritz,2001: 1–3). Interaction with the Chamorropopulation living in the Marianas came about asthe Spanish ships stopped there to take on sup-plies. The Spanish claimed the islands on onesuch visit. First known contact with Europeanswas with Spaniard Magellan’s vessel in 1521.He dubbed the islands the Ladrones or thievesislands, because the native Chamorro report-edly helped themselves to the iron onboardMagellan’s flotilla. It is likely that the Spaniards,whose belief system included private ownershipof resources, were horrified when the commu-nity resource-oriented Chamorro appeared to‘steal’ their iron openly. This first clash initiatedmany misunderstandings that were to comebetween the Chamorro society and the Spanishduring the Spanish Conquest and Conversionperiods. Franciscan friars and shipwreck survi-vors were the first Spanish there, and, fromthem, accounts of pre-colonial Chamorroculture were documented (Driver, 1991, 1992,1993). However, because the patriarchal,European Spanish society and the cooperative,matriarchal Chamorro were so different, theSpaniards’ descriptions were often coloured byincomprehension of Chamorro culture (Goetz-fridt, 2010). When the islands were officiallyclaimed upon Captain Miguel Legazpi’s voyageof 1565, the Spanish did not find gold to mine,nor were plantations productive due to the soilproperties. The islands were used almost solelyas a stopover between colonies until the objec-tive became a mission for conversion (Hezel,1982: 137; Driver and Hezel, 2004).

The extreme social differences were mostlikely the fuel that ignited the Chamorro SpanishWar in the latter half of the seventeenth century.Friars and missionaries sent to convert theChamorro soon clashed with them in confron-tations that led to death and escalating violence.The Chamorro were subjected to many customs

of European Catholic culture. They were bap-tised, directed to wear and produce clothing,pray and attend mass and marry one person in aceremony for life. The Chamorro, who followedstrict matriarchal clanship customs that theSpanish did not understand, gave leeway towomen in marriage choices, including prepara-tion of young maidens in physical relations withmales prior to marriage and the allowance ofthe wife to end a marriage at will. What wastraditional and proper for Chamorro in learningand initiation rituals before beginning marriagewas abhorrent to the Spanish. The Chamorrodistrusted religious ritual of the Spanish as well,and rumours spread among Chamorro thatthe Jesuits poisoned the baptismal water used inthe ceremonies. The Spanish further breachedChamorro codes by baptising and treating thelower caste the same as the nobles. It appearedto the Chamorro leadership that favouritism wasshown to the leader of the Agana village, wherethe garrison and mission was stationed. Attackson missionaries and killings resulted in anincrease in troops and military being sent toGuam. Chamorro families were rounded up andplaced into the village system that exists today,far different from the scattered clan groupingsthat once dotted the island in patterns of rank.Many were placed into stockades. A series ofgovernorships began, along with more troopsnow under the control of the governor ratherthan the mission. Resisting Chamorro that hadfled to the northern islands were relocated toGuam (Hezel, 1988: 137). The native popula-tion was decimated over the next centuries,reduced from a pre-colonial 100 000 to lessthan 10 000 (Thompson, 1942: 28–35; Hezel,1982: 129; Marche, 1982). While it is truethat Chamorro, especially warriors, died fight-ing, many thousands more died from themeasles, smallpox and scarlet fever introducedby the foreigners. Spaniards married Chamorrowomen, and replacements for the depletedMarianas population were brought in from thePhilippines and Carolinian Islands. The remain-ing Chamorro population became almostentirely mixed.

By the turn of the century, about 15 pure-blooded Chamorro families remained, most onthe island of Rota north of Guam. Spain’sEmpire was in decline, and little attention waspaid to Guam by the Spanish Governor General



307

located in the Philippines. In 1898, the UnitedStates quietly seized Guam. Only Guam wastaken by the United States, not the other inhab-ited Mariana Islands to the north, which alsohad Chamorro families. Many families in Guamwere related to those of the northern islands,which later became the Northern MarianaIslands (NMI). These, including the largestinhabited islands Rota, Tinian and Saipan, werepurchased from Spain by Germany at the closeof the Spanish-American War. These colonialhistories began a separation that continues tothis day and makes Guam politically and eco-nomically different from the NMI, though theChamorro people remain on all of the MarianaIslands (Farrell, 2005: 117, 149–150).

The complex and ambiguousUS–Guam relationship

Although the United States’ impact on Guamand Guam’s culture is obvious, a closer lookreveals complexity. While the United States isvery much on the mind of the residents of thisUS Territory, many US citizens or mainlandersdo not know where Guam is, let alone Guam’shistory and who Guam’s people are (Rogers,1995; Bevacqua, 2005: 27; Hattori, 2009: 1–4;Goetzfridt, 2010). This becomes understandablewhen the American period on Guam and USstrategic use and development of this island areconsidered.

The Spanish colonial period ended and theAmerican began as US expansion went into fullswing. The concept of Manifest Destiny pushedthe development of the North American frontierwell out into the Pacific as well as the Atlantic.At the close of the Spanish-American War, theisland was ceded to the United States in formali-sation of the US occupation. Guam was, and is,valued by the United States for its central andstrategically superior location in the remotePacific with proximity to Asia. Yet the high valuethat the US military places on Guam has left itsidentity and political status uncertain (Palomo,1984; Troutman, 1997: 332–337; Hofschneider,2001: 203; Aguon, 2006). Though Spanish colo-nisation was difficult, the Chamorro were ingeneral accustomed to self-governing, and thesignificant changes brought by the Spanish weresurvived in large part by retaining close ties tofamily lands (Thompson, 1946: 7–8; 1991:82–

83). In contrast, the United States soon in-stituted strict Naval governance, and Navalinfluence remains strong to this day. Muchof Guam, including a large percentage ofChamorro family land, was taken for militaryuse. With the current militarization, more landtakings are possible, and remain a ‘sore’ spotthat deepens conflicting feelings toward theUnited States.

American influence, mostly in the form ofdevelopment, grew in relation to the specificneeds of the military (Hanlon, 1998: 1–14,51–54). Baseball, a hospital, theatres, stores andeven newspapers have appeared; however,there were none of these things when the UStook over from Spain and the Navy strictlycontrolled the Chamorro people under martiallaw. It remains in the memories of local peoplethat family members were medically treatedwithout consent, especially children, givennon-proven treatments, used as test subjects,misdiagnosed as having communicable dis-eases such as leprosy and confined or sent awayfrom their families (Hattori, 2004: 189–192).The Chamorro and Guam were a possessionthat lacked self-governance, a constitution,human rights and citizenship (Thompson, 1946:10–11; Aguon, 2006). The Naval governmentacted as if the people of Guam were unableto govern themselves (Hanlon, 1998: 14;Thompson, 2002: 560).

These memories of being treated as propertyare juxtaposed with feelings of gratitude, result-ing in a crisis of identity that remains unresolved(Thompson, 1946: 7–11; Troutman, 1997: 335–337; Thompson, 2002: 560–564; Bevacqua,2005; Underwood, 2009). During World War II,Japan seized the Northern Mariana Islands fromGermany, and Chamorro living in the NMI werepitted against Chamorro in Guam creatingwar brutalities that remain a painful culturalmemory (Higuchi, 2001: 35; Aguon, 2006,2007: 34–37). Guam was riddled with muni-tions and tunnels the Chamorro were forcedto dig. Forced into labour and concentrationcamps, beaten, beheaded and sent to Japan asPOWs, many died. Much of the strong loyaltyalways exhibited by Chamorro families stemsfrom the subsequent US rescue.

Though Guam was rescued three years later,in reality, the United States had cut its lossesand abandoned the island to the Japanese.

A. Owen


308

Additionally, the rescue by the United Statesinvolved a bloody battle that caused wide-spread destruction. Sumay, a beautiful fishingvillage and US Marine base housing 2000Chamorro, was erased from existence (Palomo,1984: 4–5; Oelke, 2007: 26–27). LiberationDay, July 21, celebrated every year as a majorholiday, thus evokes mixed feelings overwhether Guam was actually liberated by theUnited States (Carano and Sanchez, 1964;Palomo, 1984: 201–233; Souder, 1992; Blaz,1998: 125–143; Farrell, 2005: 145–149; Under-wood, 2009). Although Guam’s Congress thenpetitioned for an act that would provide citizen-ship for the local people and establish localgovernance, hindrance by the Naval Governorresulted in a 1947 walk-out by Guam’s Con-gress. Although the US Guam Organic Act of1950 did win a civilian government and iden-tified Guam as a territory rather than a merepossession (Cogan, 2008), residents cannot votefor the President and Guam still has no vote inthe US House of Representatives (Underwood,2009). Guam’s small size and population havebeen used by Federal officials in argumentsagainst Guam’s political development, whethertoward statehood as in the case of Hawai’i orUS Commonwealth status as in the case ofPuerto Rico or the Philippines (Hofschneider,2001: 208–209). Adding to the feelings ofGuam’s people of being ignored politically, theNorthern Marianas Islands (NMI) became aUS Commonwealth in 1975 (Aguon, 2006).Although President Ford approved Common-wealth status for Guam as well, disagreementsfrom federal officials blocked it from happening(Willens and Ballendorf, 2004: 5–7). Common-wealth status would alleviate the concern thatthe United States could terminate citizenship atany time without consent, reinforcing localfears of abandonment tracing from World War IIand Japanese seizure (Bevacqua, 2005; Under-wood, 2009). A Commission on the Decoloni-zation of Guam has been also been convened.Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands(TTPI), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Feder-ated States of Micronesia and Palau are all nowindependent and yet the political status ofGuam remains unchanged.

Economic changes brought by the UnitedStates have had a great impact on the localpopulation. Though much of that is positive,

change has been difficult in some respects.Guam’s economy changed radically from a sub-sistence fishing and agriculture-based economyto a cash- and wage- based economy.Agricultureand foods changed radically with some locallygrown foods disappearing and many importedfoods arriving (Marutani et al., 1997: 403–405).The economy is now focused almost entirely onmilitary and government economies amonga now-declining tourist industry. Though devel-opments such as imported goods, stores, recre-ation, jobs, water, roads, schools, sanitaryfacilities and electricity have undoubtedly ben-efitted the local population, the bases are segre-gated, and military lands off-limits to locals. Thisincludes approximately one-third of the island’sland, which is now owned by the military andclosed off from the general population (Fig. 1).

The island infrastructure, already strained tothe limits for schools, social services, power,water, roads, medical facilities, housing andlandfills will experience further pressure by theimpending military and support influx. Much ofthe land taken by the military has been viewedby locals as arbitrary and convoluted (Hof-schneider, 2001: 211). However, Guam has oneof the highest enlistment and casualty rates inthe US military and loyalty, patriotism and affec-tion for the United States remain visibly strong.Guam’s intense and complex history of interac-tion with the United States reveals uncertaintyand gratitude, fear of abandonment and hope;emphasizing the ambiguities inherent in theUS–Guam relationship.

Guam’s ethnic mix

Guam’s long history of interactive with out-siders has lead to a highly diverse andmulticultural island. Known generically as‘Guamanians’, the local people of Guam arehighly literate (99%), and enjoy a high lifeexpectancy, with social indicators closely mir-roring those for the mainland United States(US CIA, 2009). The population is estimated ataround 178 000 (Guam Bureau of Statistics andPlans, 2009), with the most populated partscentral and north. The Chamorro culture hassurvived almost four centuries of wars and colo-nization, and has a rich oral history that contin-ues (Underwood, 1984; Diaz, 1994: 29–32;Blaz, 1998).



309

Guam’s cultural diversity reflects the history:Spanish conquest and conversion, the Americanperiod after Spanish-American War, Japanesewartime takeovers and the ongoing US Territo-rial status. Guam is less than 50% Chamorrotoday, with the current ethnic makeup being41% Chamorro, 28% Filipino, 9% other PacificIslander, 6% other Asian, 5% Caucasian and therest other ethnicities (Guam Bureau of Statisticsand Plans, 2006). Filipino and Chamorropeople share a common Austronesian ancestryin Southeastern Asia, and Spanish colonisation.The Spanish sent Filipinos to Guam as exiledpolitical rebels and prisoners, and to replace thedecimated Chamorro population. The UnitedStates recruited Filipinos for major reconstruc-tion and construction efforts resulting from warand typhoons (Thompson, 1942; Agoncillo andGuerrero, 1977; Hezel, 1988: 150; Fritz, 2001:

5–10). The Philippines share a similar historyof war and economic problems. With a largepopulation to support and little job opportuni-ties, outmigration from the Philippines contin-ues. Generations later, Filipino families are sointegrated into the culture of Guam that it isnow home to them.

Although Guam’s trade and contact beganwith Carolinians during pre-contact times,people from what is now the Republic of theMarshall Islands (RMI), the Federated States ofMicronesia (FSM) and Palau are now immigrat-ing to Guam. These former Trust Territories arenow independent and have an agreement withthe United States that allows for free immigra-tion to Guam. This ‘Free Association’ is part of aCompact of Free Association (United States,1985) that assures defence from the UnitedStates, open immigration to the United States

Figure 1. Department of Defence (US Military) lands on GuamSource: (2008) Overview of the Draft US–Guam Joint Military Master Plan.

A. Owen


310

and territories, as well as social services. Whilethe goal is self-sufficiency for these now-independent states, in reality, US influence con-tinues across Micronesia, and these statesremain economically inter-dependent (Under-wood, 2003: 16). The Compact was imple-mented in 1986 for FSM and RMI, and in 1994for Palau. Guam is further changed and influ-enced by this migration. Guam and theChamorro are affected culturally and economi-cally with this effect known locally as ‘CompactImpact’. The immigrants come from islands thatare often remote and far less developed thanGuam. Because Guam is the closest point ofentry to the United States and to US servicesand opportunities, many choose to relocatethere. They come from over 630 small islands in1 million square miles of Pacific, where com-munication, education and infrastructure areinadequate. Literacy is low, jobs are scarce andpoverty is high. Many families immigrate toGuam, placing strain on Guam’s infrastructure,resources, society and culture that will be inten-sified by the military expansion now underway.The migrants are generically termed ‘Micron-esians’ by the local people of Guam. Althoughlocated in the region of Micronesia, Guam’speople do not consider themselves Micronesianbecause history and development, politics andeconomy set them apart.

Guam is also home to Japanese, Korean,Chinese and Taiwanese and other Asianmigrants (Stephenson et al., 2010: 49).Although Guam mostly interacts with Japantoday through the tourist trade, the current mili-tary build-up on Guam relates to more historicwartime events involving Japan. The island ofOkinawa, where the US Marine base is locatedthat is to be moved to Guam, was under theinfluence of Japan for hundreds of years andbecame an official Prefecture of Japan in 1872.The World War II Battle of Okinawa was the lastmajor battle in the war and the loss of life washuge. More US soldiers, Japanese soldiers andOkinawans perished there than Hiroshima andNagasaki combined, with over 250 000 casual-ties. After World War II ended, Okinawa wasunder United States Administration for 27 yearsbefore returning to Japanese administration in1972. Local Okinawans famously protested theUS military presence there when crimes such asthe 2002 and 2008 violent rape/assaults caused

great public outcry in both Japan and Okinawa(LA Times, 1995; Japan Times, 2008). Althoughthe move of the base from Okinawa to Guamis a result of agreements made between theUS and Japan, it will most affect the people ofGuam. I will now turn to the survey results thatexplore how people feel about this shift.

Survey results: Local perception patternsregarding the build-up and immigration

In the survey sample of 403 participants, 52%were female and 47% male. Ethnicity was 58%Chamorro, 28% Filipino, 6% other PacificIsland, 4% Asian and 4% Caucasian (Table 1).The participant information, used as indepen-dent variables for analysis, achieved closeagreement with the natural population of over178 000 in ethnicity, age and geographical dis-tribution (Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans2005, 2006, 2007). Low participant responsefrom the lowest income bracket may have beendue to reluctance to reveal income.

Significant relationships between the inde-pendent variables and survey questions, depen-dant variables in statistical analysis, are shown

Table 1. Participant information

Independentvariable

Categories Percentin sample

(n)

Percent inpopulation

(N)

Sex Male 47 51**Female 52 49

Ethnicity Chamorro 58 41***Other total 42Filipino 28 28Other Pacific island 6 9Other Asian 4 6Caucasian 4 5

Age range 18–22 28 8**23–30 25 1131–44 21 1945–63 20 1864 and older 7 8

Incomerange

Less than 15 000 16 40*15 001–25 000 15 2325 001–35 000 19 1535 001–45 000 13 12Over 45 000 33 10

Geography Northern villages 80 79**Southern villages 20 21

Note: Categories do not necessarily total to 100% due tosurvey non-response. Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans*2005, **2006, ***2007.



311

with chi-square values (Table 2). One importantsurvey finding was that people were not aspositive about the military build-up as pro-military observations of public commentary,news, military enlistment, fighting and deathrates might suggest. When questioned anony-mously about how positive they are about thebuild-up, 53% are positive and 41% are not, alower positivity rate than expected. Support ishighly visible in public, on the local news andin many positively written commentary pieceson the build-up. There was also variance inGuam’s open support of the United States andits military from the US seizure from Spainthrough WWII to the present. The premise thatGuam’s political identity and status willimprove is unclear, as 54% of all locals believethe build-up will improve Guam’s politicalstatus, while 41% do not. Of importance is thatGuam locals see themselves as loyal, and inthat culture it is meaningful. Cooperation isgiven a much higher priority in Guam than isindividual achievement, the latter being a hall-mark of European cultures and most especiallyof American culture. In the Chamorro culture,loyalty is reciprocated with support when it isneeded. In the Chamorro worldview, the islandand its lands are provided to the United States,their lives and families given to the US militarycause. The extended family remains of utmostimportance in Guam, and so is of highest value.Following the custom of reciprocity, the UnitedStates would be seen to owe much in theway of protection and assistance. Additionally,many US military personnel have married intolocal families. While 78% of participants have aclose family member in the military, the major-ity of Chamorro ethnicity do not. For thesereasons, Guam residents are highly uncomfort-able in publicly declaiming any US policy.Yet when the public is surveyed anonymously,there is personal fear, ambiguity, uncertaintyand concern along with the optimism. Publicuncertainty regarding the build-up is in keepingwith Guam’s historically ambiguous relation-ship with the United States.

Good for the economy, bad for culture

Participants view the build-up as good forGuam’s economy (71%), but see it as bad forGuam’s culture (74%). Comments at public

meetings, interviews, class interviews and com-ments on surveys all reveal that ‘bad for culture’is not centred on discrimination against outsid-ers, or racial or ethnic fear that the culture willbe destroyed. Negativity regarding the build-upand culture is strongest among the youth anddiscussed below. The strong positive responseregarding the economy is expected, since therewas great hope and public optimism for a boomin building and real estate speculation. Partici-pants ranked reasons for optimism as businessrevenue increase (32%), funds from UnitedStates/Japan (29%), more jobs for locals (23%)and infrastructure expansion (6%). Many busi-nesses, landlords and those anticipating jobsare hopeful that the economy with be strength-ened by the inflow of funds, development andservice needs that will accompany the incom-ing marines.

Yet there is significant variation in perceptionbetween income ranges, with the high- andlow-income participants most positive, and themiddle-income participants most negative.Variation between income groups or classesmay be a continuation of the hierarchicalancient Chamorro societal structure. Thatsociety, along with many other Asia Pacificsocieties, was historically class based. Today,middle-income residents in particular indicateconcern about whether the build-up and themore than $16 billion in funds expected for thebuild-up will be used for the betterment ofGuam and Guam’s people. Those with highincome may be stakeholders in Guam’s busi-nesses and so might be anticipating increasesthat will be beneficial. The lowest incomesectors may anticipate more jobs and services,and therefore welcome the better infrastructureexpected. The middle-income group pays alarge portion of the taxes and is pessimistic thatthey and their families will not benefit from thebusiness increases, reflecting views among themiddle classes of the US mainland. Commentsindicate much to lose and little to gain, alongwith concern that they do not have a say in thefunding process.

Most negative impacts on culture are viewedas increased crime by marines (41%), marines‘disrespecting’ women and fighting with locals(28%), family lands taken for the build-up(22%), and crime from military ‘camp followers’(10%).

A. Owen


312

Tabl

e2.

Sum

mar

yof

surv

eyfin

ding

s

Perc

eptio

nqu

estio

ns(d

epen

dant

vari

able

s)Pa

rtic

ipan

tre

spon

se(%

)R

elat

edpa

rtic

ipan

tch

arac

teri

stic

s(c

hi-s

quar

e)

Bui

ld-u

pis

over

all

posi

tive

Yes

(53%

)N

o(4

1%)

**

Age

(0.0

4)B

uild

-up

isgo

odfo

rec

onom

yYe

s(7

1%)

No

(26%

)*

*In

com

e(0

.00)

Bui

ld-u

pbi

gges

tec

onom

icpr

oble

mSt

rain

edin

fras

truc

ture

(35%

)R

eal

esta

teco

st(2

9%)

Jobs

lost

tolo

cals

(14%

)La

ndta

ken

need

edfo

rbu

sine

ss(8

%)

Age

(0.0

1)

Bui

ld-u

pbi

gges

tec

onom

icbe

nefit

Bus

ines

sre

venu

e(3

2%)

Fund

sfr

omU

S/Ja

pan

(29%

)Jo

bsfo

rlo

cals

(23%

)In

fras

truc

ture

expa

nded

(6%

)In

com

e(0

.01)

Sex

(0.0

1)B

uild

-up

isgo

odfo

rG

uam

’scu

lture

Yes

(21%

)N

o(7

4%)

**

Age

(0.0

0)

Bui

ld-u

pbi

gges

tcu

ltura

lpr

oble

mIn

crea

sed

crim

eby

Mar

ines

(41%

)M

arin

esw

ill‘d

isre

spec

t’w

omen

(28%

)Fa

mily

land

sta

ken

for

Bui

ld-u

p(2

2%)

Cri

me

from

mili

tary

‘cam

pfo

llow

ers’

(10%

)C

ham

orro

ethn

icity

(0.0

2)In

com

e(0

.00)

Sex

(0.0

4)H

ave

clos

efa

mily

mem

ber

inm

ilita

ryYe

s(7

8%)

No

(21%

)*

*C

ham

orro

ethn

icity

(0.0

0)

Bui

ld-u

pim

prov

esG

uam

’spo

litic

alst

atus

Yes

(54%

)N

o(4

1%)

**

Imm

igra

tion

bigg

est

econ

omic

conc

ern

Cos

tsgo

ing

up(4

1%)

Infr

astr

uctu

rest

rain

ed(2

2%)

Jobs

take

nby

imm

igra

nts

(15%

)R

eal

esta

tepr

ices

high

er(9

%)

**

Imm

igra

tion

bigg

est

cultu

ral

conc

ern

Diff

eren

ces

incu

lture

(38%

)In

crea

sed

crim

e(3

2%)

Des

truc

tion

oflo

cal

cultu

re(2

0%)

***

Whe

ther

conc

erne

dab

out

imm

igra

tion

Sam

eas

build

-up

(42%

)Ye

s,m

ore

than

build

-up

(18%

)Ye

s,bu

tle

ssth

anbu

ild-u

p(1

8%)

Not

conc

erne

d(1

8%)

Cha

mor

roet

hnic

ity(0

.00)

Inco

me

(0.0

3)A

ge(0

.00)

Not

e:Pe

rcen

tre

spon

sero

wdo

esno

tad

dup

to10

0%du

eto

non-

resp

onse

and

elec

tive

‘oth

er’

answ

ers

prov

ided

bypa

rtic

ipan

ts.

*No

data

.Pa

rtic

ipan

tsha

vele

ssth

an4

choi

ces

offe

red.

**N

ota

sign

ifica

ntva

lue.



313

The age factor

Of all of the demographic influences, age, sex,ethnicity, income and geography, age is themost significant predictor of variation in per-ception. Overall positivity, as well as the viewthat the build-up will negatively impactGuam’s culture, is strongly associated with theage of the participants. The youth and eldestexhibit the strongest negativity about the build-up. The eldest participants went through WorldWar II and have strong memories of that espe-cially terrible time period for Guam. It may bethat those that lived through the war are notas ready to support increases in military actionon Guam even though it does bring infunds, business and development. Funds andeconomy may also be less important to thoseon fixed incomes. The eldest group retains themost native culture of all of the groups. Theirchildren, the middle-age groups, were encour-aged not to speak the language and to becomemore ‘modern’. Over time, these middle-agegroups are losing many attributes of traditionalculture and are not passing it on in the tradi-tional form to the youngest groups as done inthe past.

Surprisingly, it is the young, many of whomno longer speaking their native language andare as technologically savvy as mainland youth,that are the most pessimistic regarding thebuild-up and Guam’s culture. This group did notlive through the war and do not live on fixedincomes and they carry on traditions less andless themselves. Yet there has been a ground-swell of Chamorro identity and cultural pride, amovement of youth, women and activists forpolitical self-determination. This movement hasa strong voice in the press and at public meet-ings and functions (Marsh, 2007).

Response from the youth that the build-up isbad for culture could be an indicator of tensionor hostility toward the military and incomingoff-island supporters, perhaps because they areof different ancestry. However, when ques-tioned closely, this group is not at all concernedabout different ethnicities or about the military.They are the largest supporter of the US troopswith their own enlistments and service. Instead,concerns about culture relate to cultural sensi-tivity in relation to gender. In survey commentsand class discussions on the topic, youths indi-

cate concern that Marines coming to theisland from the US mainland fight with localChamorro males. When jealousy over pursuit oflocal females is suggested as a possible reason,males and females alike disagree. The disagree-ments are viewed by the youth as a culturalpersonal boundary issue, with men from theUS mainland perceived as ‘disrespecting’ thewomen of the island. The disrespect is experi-enced by the females as an invasion of personalspace. In Chamorro culture, men are expectedto respect personal space and to ask for permis-sion to approach, speak with or socially touchother people, especially females.

The youth are also negative about the eco-nomic benefits of the build-up, indicatingconcern about loss of jobs to off-islanders andthe loss of lands that would be passed down tothem for use in business, their homes, subsis-tence farming and fishing. On the island, theyouth have a high degree of uncertainty regard-ing their futures. This generation, aged 18through 22, has a strong feeling of familialresponsibility to their families due to the reten-tion of the concept of Ayuda Familia. They mustsecure incomes. Yet they now face great uncer-tainty in the job market, like those of this agegroup all over the world. This generation,unlike that of their parents and grandparents,has been connected to the rest of the worldthrough satellite, wireless and cable from anearly age. The world economy is unstable,and prospects for jobs are ever in flux. Higherand higher levels of education are requiredfor each job opening; fields of employmentbecome obsolete within the time it takes tobecome educated in a field, and the number offull time positions with benefits is dropping atan alarming rate. Diminishing social securityprogrammes, fears about pensions and increas-ing education debts for the better off are con-cerns for the youth. However bleak the outlookfor those in this age group the world over, theyouth on Guam have even greater uncertaintyto face. Joining the military, working for thegovernment and tourism are the options thatare realistically offered. Agriculture is notviable, mostly due to polluted fallout fromnuclear testing in the Marshal Islands from1946 to 1962. Tourism is declining on theisland, and those jobs are often low paying. Forthose that enter the Service, the death rates

A. Owen


314

for Guam far exceed those of the mainland.Recently, many are unable to qualify due tofailure of written entry exams. The Governmentof Guam and school system struggles with atiny budget and faces drastic challenges, furtherdecreasing the odds of the island youth.

Inter-ethnic harmonising

Unexpectedly, the results of this study vary littleby ethnicity. The diverse but complex ‘Guama-nian’ locals are Chamorro, Filipino, Korean,Japanese, Europeans, other Islanders and more.There is very little variation between thesegroups in that they are for the most part unitedin their views. Although concern is raised aboutthe opening of Guam to immigration, thisconcern is strongly economic and varies littlebetween ethnic groups. These results are unex-pected, since those from other islands, beingimmigrants themselves, agree with the moreestablished locals regarding concerns overimmigration. The issues centre on rising costsand strained infrastructure, exacerbated byincoming immigrants utilising the housing,social and infrastructure resources. This suggeststhe same fears regarding the economy as withthe build-up and its huge inflow of outsiders.With the build-up to swell the population byat least one-fifth conservatively, the increasingnumbers of immigrants from the free associationpolicies compounds imminent concerns overstrained resources.

Summarising cultural patterns and changedynamics in Guam

Patterns in perception regarding the militarybuild-up and immigration across the localpopulation of Guam can be summarised asfollows:1 Roughly half are overall positive regarding

the military build-up, lower than expected incomparison with strong public positivity.Results indicate considerable uncertainty inthe community regarding the build-up.

2 Nearly three-quarters view the build-up asgood for the economy and as bad for Guam’sculture.

3 Perceptions differ mostly by age, with theyouth and eldest least positive regarding thebuild-up and Guam’s culture.

4 Cultural concerns do not relate to ethnic biasbut to perceived gender and sensitivity issueswith incoming marines.

5 Positivity regarding the economy and thebuild-up varies by income group. The middleincome group is most fearful that localpeople will not benefit from the build-up.

6 Views are consistent among Guam’s ethnicgroups.

Perception is an element of culture, therefore achange in patterns of perception are indicativeof a change in culture. Perception patterns inGuam vary little by ethnicity. Instead, variationsoccur by age and by income group or class,especially with youth and the middle class. Inassessing culture change dynamics on Guam, itis important to note that rapid culture change isnot without damaging effects. The traditionaldiet of seafood and island fare is now an Asian-American fusion and not always the best ofboth. The typical diet is high in fats, meats,starches, sweets and calories, resulting in direhealth effects such as diabetes, high blood pres-sure and obesity. There are signs of social stress.High rates of alcoholism and drug use, highsuicide rates, domestic violence and gang activ-ity among the youth that have been associatedwith culture clash and shock are likely a sign ofidentity crisis (Rapadas et al., 2005; Rapadas,2007). With the scattering effects of theChamorro Diaspora to other Mariana Islandsand the US mainland, the Chamorro struggle toretain their sense of cultural identity (Perez,2002; Perez, 2005). And yet despite this pain ofchange, the unique and charming Guamanianculture is undeniable and real to those thatexperience it.

To explain the mechanism of culture changein Guam, the rich history of Guam’s peoplemust be considered. Guam has served histori-cally as a water crossroads and strategic basefor the powerful nations of Spain, Japan and theUS. War events and interactions between thesenations have affected Guam’s people, and likethose in many other places, they have adaptedto survive and fit in. Many ethnicities migratedto Guam because of US policies, such as openimmigration and the current militarisation planthat is a result of negotiations with Japan. Thelocal population, beginning with the Chamorro,and constantly infused with migrants, haschanged in self-selected ways over time. An



315

identifiable ‘Guam Culture’ has developed thatis observable to those that move there. The term‘Guamanian’ also implies lack of ethnicity andis unofficially used to describe a local. In fact,those that move to Guam are changed in notice-able ways, regardless of what ethnicity they arewhen they arrive. Guam Culture embraces thetechnology of the US and of the developedworld. Language, lifestyle attributes and genet-ics are absorbed from many diverse groups. Inconclusion, Guam’s people have experiencedrapid culture changes over time as a result of thepolicies of incoming nations and of continuedinfusion of different ethnicities. The mechanismof change occurs by age group, with the youthselectively retaining, adapting and casting offcultural elements as passed to them by the oldergenerations.

It is hoped that this work will contribute tobetter understanding of the changes in cultureoccurring in the Pacific and the world over aspeople move and shift according to intenseglobal political, economic and environmentalforces. Guam’s people have experienced devas-tating typhoons, bloody wars, colonisation,militarisation and recurrent waves of immigra-tion. Each leaves Guam changed, and yet thepeople of Guam survive and thrive. The indig-enous inhabitants, the Chamorro, have joinedwith others as uncertainty prevails in regards toa more militarised future. They remain expertnavigators, surfing the rapidly changing andoften perilous global winds and tides.

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Ramona Rekdahl, a Guam busi-nesswoman, for ideas that helped to initiatethis research; to the University of Guam’sCollege of Liberal Arts and Social Sciencesfor supporting the work and assisting withfunding; to students Myracle, Melissa andBentley for interest and footwork in the field;and to University of Guam President Dr RobertUnderwood for inspiring words and forward-looking vision for Guam.

References

Agoncillo, T.A. and M.C. Guerrero (1977) History ofthe Filipino people. Quezon City, Manila: R.P. GarciaPublishing Company.

Aguon, J. (2006) Just left of the setting sun. Tokyo, Japan:Blue Ocean Press.

Aguon, C.L. (2007) A pre-occupied life: Rosa M. Ataligreflects on the Japanese occupation of Rota, WorldWar II and post-war Guam. Research submitted forcourse requirement AN/HI 413, Guam: University ofGuam.

American Forces Press Service (2006) Richard Lawless,US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Asian andPacific Affairs quoted at press release, Pentagon,Washington on 26 April in (rep.) S.D. Smith, Eightthousand U.S. marines to move from Okinawato Japan. Retrieved 25 June 2010, from Website:http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15356.

Bevacqua, M. (2005) ‘These may or may not be Ameri-cans . . .’: ‘The patriotic myth and the hijacking ofChamorro history on Guam’. Thesis, Master of Arts inMicronesian Studies, Guam: University of Guam.

Blaz, B. (1998) Bisita Guam: A special place in the sun.Fairfax Station, Virginia: Evers Press.

Carano, P. and P.C. Sanchez (1964) A complete history ofGuam. Rutland, Vermont and Tokyo: Charles E. TuttleCo.

Cogan, D.C. (2008) We fought the navy and won, a personalmemoir: Guam’s quest for democracy. Honolulu:University of Hawai’i Press.

Cunningham, L.J. (1992) Ancient Chamorro society. Hono-lulu, Hawai’i: The Bess Press, Inc..

Diaz, V.M. (1994) Simply chamorro: Telling tales of demiseand survival in Guam, The Contemporary Pacific 6(1):29–58.

Driver, M.G. (1991) Description of the Mariana Islands:Manuel Sanz 1827. Mangilao, Guam: Richard F.Taitano Micronesian Area Research Center.

Driver, M.G. (ed.) (1992) The history of the Mariana Islandswith navigational data and of the Caroline Islands andPalau: From the time of their discovery in 1951 byMagellan to the present by colonel of the infantry Luisde Ibanez y Garcia former governor of the islands.Mangilao, Guam: Richard F. Taitano Micronesian AreaResearch Center.

Driver, M.G. (1993) Fray Juan Pobre in the Marianas 1602.Mangilao, Guam: Richard F. Taitano Micronesian AreaResearch Center.

Driver, M.G. and F.X. Hezel (2004) El palacio: The SpanishPalace in Agana 1668–1898. Mangilao, Guam:Richard F. Taitano Micronesian Area Research Center.

Farrell, D.A. (2005) The partitioning of Guam and theNorthern Mariana Islands: A diplomatic history1898–1919, in L.D. Carter, W.L. Wuerch and R.R.Carter (eds), Guam history: Perspectives volume II,pp. 117–155. Micronesian Area Research Center(MARC) Educational Series no. 20, 22, 27. Mangilao,Guam: Richard F. Taitano Micronesian Area ResearchCenter.

Fritz, G. (2001) The Chamorro: A history and ethnographyof the Mariana Islands, 3rd ed. Edited by S. Russell andtranslated by E. Craddock. Saipan: CNMI Division ofHistoric Preservation.

Goetzfridt, N.J. (2010) Guahan: A bibliographic history.Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

A. Owen


316

Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans (2005) Familyincome data from 2000 census, special tabulations.Compiled by Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Hagåtña,Guam.

Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans (2006) 2005 yearbookprojections derived from US census 2000. Preparedby Guam State Data Center, revised February, 2007.Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Hagåtña,Guam.

Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans (2007) Ethnic compo-sition, Guam’s facts & figures at a glance, bureau ofstatistics and plans. Hagåtña, Guam.

Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans (2009) Ethnic compo-sition, Guam’s facts & figures at a glance, Bureau ofStatistics and Plans, Hagåtña, Guam.

Hanlon, D. (1998) Remaking Micronesia: Discourses overdevelopment in a Pacific territory 1944–1982. Hono-lulu: Univerisity of Hawai’i Press.

Hattori, A. (2004) Colonial dis-ease: US navy health policiesand the Chamorros of Guam, 1898–1941. PacificIslands Monograph Series 19. Honolulu: University ofHawai’i Press.

Hattori, A. (2009) Service learning in a Pacific island village:Lessons on history, culture and community fromuniversity of Guam students at historic Inalajan, Micro-nesian Educator 13: 1–17.

Hezel, F. (1982) From conversion to conquest: The earlySpanish mission in the Marianas, Journal of PacificHistory 17(3): 115–137.

Hezel, F. (1988) From conquest to colonization: Spain inthe Marianas 1690–1740, Journal of Pacific History23(2): 137–155.

Higuchi, W. (2001) The Japanisation policy for theChamorro of Guam 1941–1944, The Journal of PacificHistory 36(1): 19–35.

Hofschneider, P.B. (2001) A campaign for political rightson the island of Guam 1899–1950. Occasional His-torical Papers Series No. 8, Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands. Saipan: Division of HistoricPreservation.

Hunter-Anderson, R. (2005) An anthropological perspec-tive on Marianas prehistory, including Guam, in L.D.Carter, W.L. Wuerch and R.R. Carter (eds), Guamhistory: Perspectives volume II, pp. 20–59. Micron-esian Area Research Center (MARC) Educational Seriesno. 20, 22, 27. Mangilao, Guam: Richard F. TaitanoMicronesian Area Research Center.

Japan Times (2008) Okinawa rape case sparks resentment.Retrieved 2 August 2009, from Website: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080213a1.html.

Linton, R. (1940a) ‘Acculturation and processes of culturechange’, in R. Linton (ed.), Acculturation in sevenAmerican Indian tribes, pp. 463–482. New York,London: Appleton-Century Company, Inc.

Linton, R. (1940b) ‘The processes of culture transfer’, inR. Linton (ed.), Acculturation in seven AmericanIndian tribes, pp. 483–500. New York, London:Appleton-Century Company, Inc.

Los Angeles Times (1995) People’s rally of October 21.Released October 22. Retrieved 4 August 2009, fromWebsite: http://uchinanchu.org/history/1995_rape_incident.htm.

Marche, A.A. (1982) The Mariana Islands. (ed.) R.D. Craig,translated from the French by S.E. Cheng. Mangilao,Guam: Richard F. Taitano Micronesian Area ResearchCenter.

Marsh, K.G. (2007) Political reviews, Guam, The Contem-porary Pacific 19(1): 182–189.

Marutani, M., J. Brown, F. Cruz and J. Wall (1997)Agricultural crop production on Guam during the 20thcentury, Micronesica 30(2): 389–415.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2005) Rice, US Secre-tary of State, Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense,Machimura. Japan Minister of Foreign Affairs andOhno, Japan Minister of State for Defense, US JapanAlliance: Transformation and Realignment for theFuture. Security Consultative Committee Document,October 26. Retrieved 25 June 2010, from Website:http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0510.html.

Morgan, P. (2006) Hardening path of the U.S.–Japanesealliance and the future of northeast Asian security.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Inter-national Studies Association, Town & Country Resortand Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA.Retrieved 13 July 2009 from website: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/4/9/pages99494/p99494-1.php

MSNBC (2008) Youth vote may have been key in Obama’swin, Retrieved 2 September 2010, from Website:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497.

Oelke, J. (2007) Broken spear: The impact of federal andcommercial interests in the village of Sumay, Guam(1900–1945). Research submitted for course require-ment for Research Methods in History, University ofGuam: Guam.

Pagel, S. (2008) The old, the new and the in-between:Comparative aspects of hispanisation on the Marianasand easter island (Rapa Nui), in T. Stolz, D. Bakker, P.Salas and R.S. Palomo (eds), Hispanisation, The impactof Spanish on the lexicon and grammar of the indig-enous languages of Austronesia and the Americas, pp.167–201. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Pallant, J. (2001) SPSS survival manual. Buckingham, Penn-sylvania: Open University Press.

Palomo, T. (1984) An island in agony. Hagåtña, GU: Bank ofGuam.

Perez, M.P. (2002) Pacific identities beyond US racial for-mations: the case of chamorro ambivalence and flux,Social Identities 8(3): 457–479.

Perez, M.P. (2005) Colonialism, Americanization, andindigenous identity: A research note on Chamorroidentity in Guam, Sociological Spectrum 25(5): 571–591.

Rapadas, J.M. (2007) Transmission of violence: The legacyof colonialism in Guam and the path to peace, Journalof Pacific Rim Psychology 1(2): 33–40.

Rapadas, J., M. Balajadia and D. Rubinstein (2005) Guamcaught amidst change and tradition in A.J. Marsella,A.A. Austin and B. Grant (eds.), Social change andpsychosocial adaptation in the Pacific Islands: culturesin transition, pp. 145–170. New York, US: Springer.

Rogers, R.F. (1995) Destiny’s landfall, a history of Guam.Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.



317

Souder, L.M.T. (1992) Daughters of the island contemporarychamorro women organizers on Guam, 2nd edn.Micronesian Area Research Center (MARC) Mono-graph Series No. 1. Lanham, New York, London:University Press of America.

Stephenson, R.A., L.H.N. Chiang, H. Kurashina, Y.C.F. Chenand Y. Li (2010) ‘Guam is our home’: Taiwanese–Chinese ‘old timers’ perceptions of Guam, Pacific AsiaInquiry 1(1): 42–53.

Thompson, L. (1942) Guam and its people: A study ofculture change and colonial education. Studies of thePacific No. 8. Hawai’i: University of Hawaii andAmerican Council Institute of Public Relations.

Thompson, L. (1946) Crisis on Guam, The Far Eastern Quar-terly 6(1): 5.

Thompson, L. (1991) Adventures in Guam, Chapter 10 inBeyond the dream: A search for meaning, pp. 80–87.Micronesian Area Research Center Monograph SeriesNo. 2, Mangilao, Guam: Richard F. Taitano Micro-nesian Area Research Center.

Thompson, L. (2002) The imperial republic: A comparisonof insular territories under U.S. dominion after 1898,Pacific Historical Review 71(4): 535–574.

Troutman, C.H. (1997) Does Guam have a political identity?in L.D. Carter, W.L. Wuerch and R.R. Carter (eds),Guam history: Perspectives volume I, pp. 329–344.Mangilao, Guam: Richard F. Taitano Micronesian AreaResearch Center.

Underwood, R.A. (1984) Language survival, the ideology ofEnglish and education in Guam, Educational ResearchQuarterly 8(4): 72–81.

Underwood, R.A. (2003) The amended U.S. compacts offree association with the federated states of Micronesiaand the Republic of the Marshall Islands: Less free,more compact. East–West Center Working PapersPacific Island Development Series No. 16, September,Honolulu, Hawai’i: US.

Underwood, R.A. (2009) Guam’s political status. Retrieved8 June 2010, from Guampedia Website: http://guampedia.com/guams-political-status/.

United States (1985) Compact of free association, includedin Public Law 99–239, Compact of Free Association Actof 1985. Retrieved 1 July 2009, from website: http://www.fsmlaw.org/compact/.

US Central Intelligence Agency (2009) The world factbook, US Government Printing Office. Retrieved 7July 2009, from Website: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.

US Joint Guam Program Office (2008) Overview of the draftGuam Joint Military Master Plan, US.

Wernhart, K.R. (1972) A pre-missionary manuscript recordof the chamorro, Micronesia, The Journal of PacificHistory 7: 187–194.

White, L.A. (1949) The science of culture: A study of manand civilization. New York, London: Farrar, Straus andCompany.

Willens, H.P. and D.A. Ballendorf (2004) The secret Guamstudy: How President Ford’s 1775 approval of com-monwealth was blocked by federal officials. Micron-esian Area Research Center (MARC) and N.M.I.Division of Historic Preservation DCCA, Saipan: TheCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

A. Owen


318

Documents

Guam culture, immigration and the US military build-up