News today about Saipan Chamber of Commerce's public voting on its stand regarding federalization of the CNMI, majority voted against it but largely divided on the grandfathering issue, says the papers.
Questions of the community are:
1. Was the voting a vindication on the boycott or business ban on its president's business empire on Saipan?
2. Would the result of this voting affect the federal decision on the take over?
3. Why didn't the Chamber provide the public the names of the businesses that are against or supportive of the issues today?
4. Do consumers have the right to know which are which?
You tell me.
The Reveler
113 comments:
The Chamber, as a private organization, has every right to not disclose specific votes. They have the right to disclose or not disclose anything that takes place amongst them.
Having said this, we as citizens have the right to "encourage" them to release such voting information, by boycotting all the businesses of the Chamber.
This may encourage them to consider more carefully in the future, the positions they take and the way with which they divulge information about their "position" to the community.
In the end the Chamber can opt to do whatever it wants.
Agree. Didn't the media show some of the members speak about their sides of the story? Since they have been exposed why not treat things equally, right?
i have a rather long response to this but i decided to just put it on my blog. pleae come on over and check it out.
love,
brad
http://beachboyinparadise.blogspot.com/
I have decided to Boycott McDonald's and Mr. Crabs until they build a playplace for the children of the Marianas
You mean I can't egg you on into a battle again Sand? lol... darn! (or drats! maybe)
I hear they have "weighted voting," which means the big boys get more votes than the small businesses.
Weighted voting? The chamber has been more like dead weight actually... judging by there lack of real performance or ability over the last few years. They complain about everything under the sun, but when it's time to step up and weild their power as one voice of business, for the improvement of their business... they have time after time just flopped. (Comeon sand... I know you're just itchin' to comment).
and they offer more votes to businesses depending on what type of membership they subscribe to. those who pay the most dues get the most votes. average joe co. gets one vote while the big spenders get five votes. no company gets more than five.
there's a comment...
..and there's more on my blog now:
http://beachboyinparadise.blogspot.com/
lol... thanks for the technical info. Doesn't help to redeem the Chamber any however. :) The roof'll be fallin' on their heads and Guerrero will be saying "no percentage reduction in the amount of commercial tax rebates!". They're so lost they can't tell their asses from their noses.
The ones 'lost' will be those unfortunates working at a paycheck job, private or government, that disappears as the tax base and customer base collapses under the crushing weight of federal intervention.
There is no property tax here, there is a hidden sales tax called BGRT which is paid by business, there is effectively no income tax as most is rebated (late) the payroll tax bite is almost non existant compared to the services expected. Bottom line? When the businesses are bled dry, you will be living on the beach stabbing crabs with a leg-bone spear.
You might be able to tell your ass from your nose at that point. Your ass is what you will be sitting on and your nose will be that thing smelling famine as you say 'where did all those stores and hotels go to?'.
max sand?
fyi, it's not me...
So they voted but at the end of the day, I am the one to choose which bread to buy, what remittance company to use, where to put gas for my car, select groceries that I want, what radio station to tune in, and what telephone company to make a call.
Did anyone understand what "max sand" is talking about? Huh? What?
Your argument may need a bit of focus... well, maybe more than a bit.
there has been great debate about "anonymous" commenting. When you live on an Island 15miles long and 5miles wide and discussions transcend from the issue to personal attacks, you put the issue to the arena anonymously. anonymous personal attacks on another are wrong. bringing an issue to the forefront (anonymously) and addressing an opinion about the issue without any personal attacks keeps people focused on the "issue." too many times you see discussion and debate move from the issue to the person discussing the issue. what agenda does the person have? is he related to another in office? lets discuss the issues and facts behind the issues and not focus in on who brought the issue to the table..
to whichever 'anonymous' posted on 8/11 at 12:55.
Try focusing on the previous posts. I'm sure you can figure it out. If not, maybe a remedial reading course is in order.
remedial course? lol... you are the remedial course.
and to the previous anonymous commentor... I agree with you! Or do I? You confuse me to.
whos going back to school?
This blog is all about posing issues anonymously and I love it for that same reason!
BUT the source does make a difference. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
If you don't know what's behind a person's reasoning then you can't grasp the whole discussion (by that I mean more than the actual words exchanged--still with me?).
I don't care who's related to who in a conversation. It's all about what they say and why they say it.
You get the "why" when you know who the source is (or have a pretty good reason for it anyway).
I agree that the people who turn discussions into personal attacks lose sight of the issues.
That's how you can determine how to rate their side of the conversation. You can tell if their intent was simply to demean their partner.
The only way to take your theory of anonymous posting seriously is we work in a vacuum whereas you only allow for anonymous posting from all parties.
That way the anonymous responses are to truly anonymous posters. Does that make sense?
As it is now, we have anonymous posters making their judgments on those of us not ashamed of our points of view.
Love,
Brad
Still in the sand (or is it vice versa?)
nope... still in the sand. don't figure that'll change anytime soon. not that i think it'll matter to you sand, i think you just want to know who "nony" is... but if it'll get you off the whole "who is related to who" or "what their agenda is" tracks... I'm not related to anyone on this island except for my immediate family (wife and children), I've been here for many years and have never participated in politics, I am the absolute definition of an independent voter and have nothing to gain or lose directly by supporting one position, person or party. I only care about decency, right, rights, and saipan.
(poster fr.anonymous 8/11 7:59)
living here for over 40 years, when you address an issue and one knows who you are, 90% of the time they then move to who your family is what connection do you have in addressing the issue, agenda, etc.. eg. fed.takeover and Juan Pan.. the issue is on fed. takeover and then strayed to banning Herman's bakery products..absolutely ridiculous.. we need to stick to issues.. maybe if you are from off island and have nothing to lose (bus.relations, family, etc) it is easy to speak up, however, when you live here your whole life on a 15mile x 5mile island, you have to be mindful and respectful in what you say and do..
i agree, but my plan is to live here that long without compromising my identity. i want people to know where they stand with me and i think that people value that. well, i hope they do anyway.
it's easy to have a "plan" like that, when you aren't tasked with feeding a seven child family and caring for your parents. When you have to address the costs of daily care for more than just yourself... you can blab about erring concerns and criticisms anonymously...unfortunately, if it is between ensuring my 2 year old eats or letting my name be known so that you have a tool to judge the credibility or weight of my statements... I choose to feed my 2 year old.
understood, but i'm not blabbing...
and i do have everything to lose. i don't have family here. i'm on an island within an island.
granted i am only responsible for myself, so we are in completely different situations.
that said, you mentioned that people will try to judge your statements by weighing your perceived agenda.
i think that's completely fair and should be expected. i mean, everybody has a reason for thinking the way that they do and it'd be nice to know that going in.
take yourself, for example. how else would i know your situation unless you communicated it?
now, rather than considering you a coward for withholding your identity i consider you a victim of a society dominated by fear of reprisals.
i think what you're saying speaks to deeper issues about people being afraid to speak their minds.
it's an absolute injustice that you don't feel able to speak your mind freely and openly in a democratic society.
having lived here for a fraction of the time you have, i still understand how that exists, but it doesn't make it right.
as some form of compromise, how about giving yourself some kind of name that would allow you to maintain your anonymity and help knuckleheads like me know who's who among the anonymous crowd?
i agree... we live in an imperfect society. that does not mean that I will risk my children's meals.
i once was a single man, roaming the island, free to shoot from the hip with regards to my comments, because i new that in the end... i could live off the beach just fine.
when you have kids... you don't know how that changes everything... and i mean everything. your opinions about unions, your want to see everybody who works hard do well...irregardless of their nationality or immigration status, your disgust of racism and inequality... and disgust of folks taking these issues lightly.
as a single man... i can hold my own, live off the land, etc. etc. but as a father... you consider first and foremost food and shelter for your family and second...what can i do within the confines of the system i live under to ensure that every single child in my community is treated well and has every opportunity in life.
concerns about borders, immigration status, race, religion, etc. playing into the mix of these, in any form, is not only incredibly shallow... it is evil. pure and simple evil. men make up these rules to protect what they perceive as theirs. only it usually really isn't theirs..it is someone elses. they've only stolen it.
so... as a non-chammorro I say... look to the native american indians, look at the hawaiians, look at the guamanians, the puerto ricans... and then decide if what you are being told by the government is the truth or not. will they make your life better? why do they do what they do? etc. the federal government cares about you not one iota. plain and simple. you have inhabited these islands since before the time of christ. you mastered ocean voyaging before any european was able to travel five miles from shore. you have weathered four foreign administrations still intact. do not look towards another government to save you. do not sell your land. do not bargain with your souls. keep your pride. you know what is good and what is right and what the truth is. look past the smoke and mirrors.
and throw off those chains of tyranny in the name of a cheap maid.
I have kids. I am a pussy. I do not have the right to speak up as a man. I can not point out injustice because I'm afraid of Ben Fitial, who is my lord and savior.
no...not a cheap maid... in the name of ensuring that 20, 50 or 75 years from now you still have something to barter with. The most important of things... land. That you are not homeless people in your own home.
as for totalwussy...you are a simpleton with a warped sense of god.
Anonymous = non-Chamorro asking or should I say directing the Chamorros this and that. How I wish we know your identity so we can thank you personally.
Imagine if Martin Luther King said you know, I have kids, I think I'll just sell insurance. My kids have to eat. That civil rights thing isn't so important.
I find your stance awful. Beyond that, these people here are Americans. This place is American soil -- voluntarily. Incidentally, Guam and Saipan are more prosperous than the non-American islands out here. If the government thousands of miles away can send these people here off to war, which they have and are, they can tell this government you can't bloat the labor supply with contract workers and it isn't exactly tyranny. The federal government tells the individual states to do all kinds of things.
By the way, I have kids and it hasn't stopped me from criticizing this lousy government.
As some had told me, "The people in the CNMI had sold the land (figuratively) to the Americans, as they have relinquished their citizenship to the Americans and have been benefiting from it since the Covenant. What would be the difference now?"
What do you say to that?
"it's an absolute injustice that you don't feel able to speak your mind freely and openly in a democratic society.
having lived here for a fraction of the time you have, i still understand how that exists, but it doesn't make it right."
same holds strong in DC/Hawaii/etc.. try speaking your mind in other areas if you hold positions under certain administrations..I know some who have.. they lost their jobs (political hires).. does not only happen in the CNMI.. might be more evident here, but definitely present on K-Street and in other areas also......
"As some had told me, 'The people in the CNMI had sold the land (figuratively) to the Americans, as they have relinquished their citizenship to the Americans and have been benefiting from it since the Covenant. What would be the difference now?'
What do you say to that?"
I would say that the Chamorros haven't owned the Marianas Islands since the Spanish times.
They've simply been living here while global powers exercised Machiavellian principles over the local population.
After the fall of Japan, the USA gave the locals the land of their fathers for the first time in hundreds of years.
The Covenant didn't have to be signed but the indigenous people in charge opted to sign a binding agreement of protection with their liberators.
Now who benefited more from the Covenant? I don't know. I know that the indigenous people are at the helm for the first time since these islands got their respective names.
It's been 30 years since the Covenant was signed and who has gained more from it?
I don't have that answer. What do you think?
#1 - to "jeff" - When you use the term "voluntarily" to describe the way the plebescite went... you use it very loosely. The fact is, during the US administration of the NMI, under the trusteeship, absolutely no economy was put in place, barely any new infrastructure was completed... simply as little was done as possible. You should read what was required of the US under the trusteeship in terms of development of the islands...you'll find the US addressed almost none of it. Instead they used free USDA food, the dream of what was pumped in on new color cable television and the lure of the cars and houses that US administrators on Navy and Capitol Hill had. The choice was...vote US or start from scratch with near nothing. Very voluntary Jeff. If you think this wasn't the plan... think twice... read some of the reports that were done for the United Nations with regards to the US administration of the NMI and other trusteeships.
#2 - to Sand - Indigenous islanders are at the helm for the very first time? It's a puppet helm. There were puppet helms under Spanish, German and Japanese administrations. You can argue the levity given the puppet helms... but this isn't the only puppet helm. The US has ultimate control and as obvioused by the lack of a plebescite for Guam, the theft of native Hawaiian lands, the native ameri...etc. etc. and the ease with which they make determinations about the NMI. To think that "indigenous are at the helm" is ludicrous.
I don't even know what you're talking about. The locals own the land. They have an exception the 14th amendment and make a law based on race. Now the richest families are buying up all the land they can for peanuts. Who wouldn't. It's cheap.
No one here I've heard has any complaint against the U.S. other than now they are upset that Congress wants them to pay people more than $3.05 and stop flooding the island with contract workers, who have long been abused here.
Any one of these islands would love the same deal the CNMI got.
There is no shortage of infrastructure compared to Chuuk, Yap or Palau. I have things in my classroom from federal grants such as digital projectors, multimedia and A/V equipment that rich districts in the states don't have, and we barely pay taxes.
What a raw deal.
you are confused jeff... the point i was making was that the US did almost nothing to develop these islands before the plebescite. There were a whole number of items they were supposed to address as trustees of these islands under the united nations trusteeship. these things weren't done for a reason. what happened after we voted to become a commonwealth of the US is a different matter. comeon man, you are a teacher... you should read up a little more.
I'll take the final word on this one:
God Bless America!
...and no one else.
whoa. calm down boyz...
I remember back in those days. My father would take us up to Capitol Hill with some five gal. container to collect water. Capitol Hill was the only place with fresh water. If we knew somebody we filled up at their house, if not we go to the back of the administration building. Alot of us did that at the time. I remember thinking Capitol Hill was like pictures we see of the Brady Bunch or Hollywood. Those were good and bad times. But anonymos is right about what they did to us. You can't hold a piece of steak in front of a hungry person and then ask if you want the steak or want to take a chance to starve. They held the steak in front of us for nearly forty years. After we voted for the steak we got hamburger instead.
"...theft of native Hawaiian lands, the native ameri...etc. etc."
We'll agree to disagree on this one. Land isn't stolen, it is won and lost.
It's been this way for many millennia when foreign powers exercised Machiavellian principles over weaker neighbors.
I'm not saying it's right, but that's not theft. You're either strong enough to keep you land or you're not.
Thank God we don't live like that on a daily basis. Gotta love government and police for letting us be more than hunters, gatherers and defenders of our personally property from invaders or hungry rivals.
That said, wars were fought against the Native Americans for the land. The same would've happened with Hawaii had the Queen not acted in the best interests of her people.
I'm not championing the ideals of "manifest destiny," but rather explaining it.
And this place was fought for and won by a liberating force from the US mainland who defeated the Japanese slave owners--not a "puppet helm."
Whether you agree with me or not, this land would still be Japanese owned were it not for the allied invasion.
The local people are in charge, and to say otherwise is insulting. I think the USA has a responsibility and has earned the right to have a hand in the CNMI's development.
Lots to say but work beckons...
I agree with most of what anonymous has written. [It might help us better understand and follow a comment thread if, next time, you were to give yourself a number or pseudonym, perhaps for use in this comment thread only.]
Jobs are harder to come by here than in the mainland. Employers know that, and, unfortunately, misuse their power. Look at what's happening to some of the Dekada leaders.
In fact, the federal government can be worse than the Babauta administration was in this regard, not only for their own employees, but in pressuring the CNMI government and private employers to muzzle contrary views. Threats of boycotts only make things worse. The federal and local courts also consider themselves particularly omniscient, and have been known to play favorites based on political views. There are plenty of valid reasons for anonymity.
One should keep in mind, though, that the blog owner knows your IP address, and it would likely be disclosed in a defamation action or other civil or criminal lawsuits.
Brad, here is a link to a comment posted in Angelo's blog where I explain in detail how to insert links in comments. It is the 16th of (currently) 19 comments, or currently third from the bottom. Let me know here if you need more help.
The U.S. spent billions in WWII liberating Western Europe and dealing with Imperial Japan's havoc in the Philippines, China, Korea and in various other places. I'll give them a pass if they didn't give this place New York City's infrastructure 50 years ago since they chose to rebuild Europe via the Marshall Plan. There are limits on resources. The U.S. has dumped tons of money into this place. Even with your claim on all they didn't do 50 years ago, this place has done well and has a sweetheart deal. I could theoretically make some kind of you're a _________ you should know better, but I have the guts to put my name to what I say and you don't.
Thanks for the tip, Anonymous [#006]!
..BTW, you're right, Jeff. At least you identify yourself. That's an issue I'm afraid will never die in blogland.
God bless Bulgaria, and Angelo's apartment (where the Gucci clothing is stored).
To a more serious topic: The Japanese were hardly "slave masters" here during their reign as LoN Trustees as Brad implies. That time was perhaps the most productive in Marianas history. With infrastructure, population and a sustainable economy unlike anything seen here before or since. That all ended during the Pacific War.
For good or ill, the winners took the spoils and have done with them as they please, which is the way of Man.
Really, Max? Ask the Koreans about that...
...although I like your takes all the way from Machu Pichu. I'm right, right? Just have a feeling on this one.
Sand (brad) with regards to Hawaii, the Queen and its native peoples.... you are just about the most unknowledgeable pro-western, half-baked ninkompoop I've heard with regards to Hawaiian history.
with regards to the rest...I am just not going to write another book detailing your very pro-euro skewed take. "earned the right"... Chamorros have "earned" the right... Uncle Sam hasn't.
talk to manamko...read oral histories... the large majority say that life was good during the japanese administration up until the year or so prior to the invasion by the US. It was an invasion here... the US did not own these islands prior to the war... therefore, it was no "liberation". liberated into what? another foreign administration?
pro-euro morons abound...unbelievable.
Brudah we lived thru this history, so don't think you can arrive and tell it to us. We know it better than you will ever know it. We know first hand. We lived here thru ww2 the trustee time and current US administration. No need to interpret to us about our history.
manifest destiny is a european term for the theft of native lands. it's arrogant, disgusting and racist and to brush it off as being the way things are is disgusting as well. things that are wrong should be changed. things that are wrong, will in the long-term be changed.
...and by the way Sand... when I pull up in my truck with guns blazin' and rob you... I'm not stealing your things right? I'm "winning" them. That's your opinion right? "Land isn't stolen. It's won or lost". Land is stolen all of the time... at the point of a gun. Land is property right? So I hope you'll look upon any armed theft as not really being theft... but being a legitimate loss.
what? how could you win items by taking them that dont belong to you? history history. shall we call Genevieve Cabrera to discuss about this?
that's what I'm trying to figure out rev. Sand's theory is that you can't steal land... you can only win or lose it. I say land has been stolen throughout history, whether this was through force or through shenanigans.
i venture to say that should Sand lose property in a robbery, he won't see his STOLEN property as fair winnings for a victor.
Yet another anonymous…
If you disagree with the history of Hawai'i, then perhaps you'd like to explain. Why not start your own blog to educate the “pro-euro” crowd. Some Hawai'ians feel cheated, and that's fine. They're Americans and they have the right to express their opinions freely.
Have you read this?
"I Lili’uokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.
That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.
Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands"
Machiavellian principles...
I'm not saying that it was a nice thing to do, but the "superior force" simply imposed its will. That is what Machiavellian principles are all about. It's shitty, but my point wasn't based on whether or not the Americans were in the right. They were just more powerful and decided to get imperial for the first time.
Machiavellian principles...
I don't think that's the case here in the CNMI.
As far as the CNMI goes, would you like to tell me how someone other than the US “earned” the right to have a hand in the CNMI's development?
Basically, the Japanese owned these islands, and the USA took them in WWII. Then, the USA turned over the keys to the indigenous population 30 years ago with certain provisions.
What I'm saying is that the day-to-day operations of the CNMI are in the hands of the indigenous population for the first time since the times of Taga because the USA let the local people do so. There wasn't some major uprising by a local army that drove anyone out of here.
Am I wrong? It's not a popular thing to say but that's the way things happened. It smacks of arrogance but I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't fighting in WWII. I wasn't a framer of the Covenant. I'm just some guy who loves the diversity here on the islands and is thankful for the opportunity to live here.
...and I can't own property here, remember?
And Rev, how do you determine who the land belongs to in the first place?
“manifest destiny is a european term for the theft of native lands. it's arrogant, disgusting and racist and to brush it off as being the way things are is disgusting as well. things that are wrong should be changed. things that are wrong, will in the long-term be changed. “
What are “Native Lands?”
What does that mean exactly?
Does that only go back to recorded history? How did the “Native” people get the land in the first place? Where did they come from? Christians believe that life sprang from the Garden Of Eden with just two people.
So were Adam and Eve the owners of all of the land? Would that make us all “Natives” by virtue of being their descendants? Not to mention brothers and sisters. So then all of the land belongs to all of us. What about people who believe in other religions?
As far as being racist, are you saying that applies to tribes of the same culture who attack each other for land as well? You’re barking up the wrong tree there.
And by the way, I never said that I agreed with Imperialism or “Manifest Destiny” in the first place.
I was saying that the only way to steal land is to grab a shovel, dig some up and take it home. Perhaps instead of saying land is “won or lost” I should have said it’s “bought and sold.”
Sometimes it’s with money and sometimes it’s with the lives of soldiers.
Not saying I agree with it.
“...and by the way Sand... when I pull up in my truck with guns blazin' and rob you... I'm not stealing your things right? I'm "winning" them. That's your opinion right? "Land isn't stolen. It's won or lost". Land is stolen all of the time... at the point of a gun. Land is property right? So I hope you'll look upon any armed theft as not really being theft... but being a legitimate loss. “
You’re being ridiculous. Besides, why would I worry about you showing up with guns blazing when you aren’t even brave enough to post your name?
Take it easy gunsmoke. I’m not a fan of the principles, and that’s why we have law enforcement to protect the rule of law in these more civilized times.
Man, Middle Road has the most commented about blog int he history of local blogging.
Turn over the title, Harry!
I think that Middle Road is the most popular blog ever...
“...and I can't own property here, remember?"
I should have said, "...and I can't own land here, remember?"
I wasn't linking property to my discussion, only land.
And yes, land can be property, but I wasn't linking all types of property into my argument--just land.
"if you disagree with the history of hawaii"...lol sand. I know the history of hawaii quite well. i don't disagree with the history of hawaii, i disagree with your incorrect interpretation of it.
...and that's right sand... only stolen land is not really "stolen" in your opinion... it is property whose definition falls outside of all other property with respect to whether or not it can be pilfered.
Native lands are lands that are inhabited by the first persons to arrive and utilize that land (not neccesarily settle it). And with regards to your other pointed question (two native groups battling)... if Chamorros had invaded Yap... Carolinian Yapese would still be considered the indigenous (native) owners of that land.
Posing ridiculous, eurocentric, pro-fed and racist(albeit I fear you don't really see the ingrained racism of many of your statements)situations (like the battling natives concoction) doesn't forward your very incorrect position on past or present concerns.
...but the people of europe were natives. how would that be racist?
what's your point...if the french invaded briton... the brits would still be the "native owners of the land"... just as the scots and irish are of theirs. If there are any druids left however... they may have a claim.
first is first...no matter which way you cut it. quit dancing around sand... you don't dance well.
:)furthermore... I am determined to make this the most popular blog in the pacific region :) ... next comment please
my point there was to attack the "racist" tag...
totally not me.
Jane, why are you so quick the beak out the racist tag?
...And if you don't think I'm a good dancer then you must've seen me at GNO on Friday night at Hard Rock Cafe.
...Back to the issue though...
“what's your point...if the french invaded briton... the brits would still be the "native owners of the land"... just as the scots and irish are of theirs. If there are any druids left however... they may have a claim.”
So how would it be racist for me to ask about this?
“Native lands are lands that are inhabited by the first persons to arrive and utilize that land (not neccesarily settle it). And with regards to your other pointed question (two native groups battling)... if Chamorros had invaded Yap... Carolinian Yapese would still be considered the indigenous (native) owners of that land.”
This was your example. Just because your interpretation of “native” is an islander rather than someone who you defined earlier as a “native” doesn’t make my statements “ridiculous, eurocentric, pro-fed and racist.”
“like the battling natives concoction”
Yep, and you said that “natives” by definition can be Europeans as well. So, how is what I said even remotely racist?
Brad, does that mean when you said Japanese used to own this land, that the rightful owner should be the Japanese?
It's sad that throughout the world history, those who originally owned the land, such as American Indians and the natives of the Pacific Islands have become second class citizens in their own land.
what's racist brad is that rather than address the issue of rights and liberty... real liberty that is... you throw out manifest destiny and fake "what if" scenarios of native infighting with regard to native ownership rights to land and native rights to their own administration and decision-making. That is why Sand.
You can keep doing the twist... but as I said earlier... you don't dance very well (and yes I see you out on occasion).
Not at all, but they were the owners at the time. Get it? I'm not saying it was right, but they did own this place in the same fashion that the Spanish and the Germans owned it before them.
The Spanish exercised Machiavellian principles by seizing control of the islands and naming them the Marianas.
See below from: http://www.cnmi-guide.com/history/spanish/
"Magellan sighted the islands on march 1521 when he made his landfall at Guam. He claimed the islands for Spain and first christened the archipelago "Las Islas de las Velas Latinas" (The
Island of the Latine Sails), because the triangular shape of the sails used native canoes were similar to those used on Mediterranean vessels."
So that’s when the Spanish owned these islands, whether you agree or not. Than came the time when the Germans owned these islands.
See below from:
http://www.cnmi-guide.com/history/german/
“The islands were sold by Spain to Germany in 1899 and so remained under the German flag until the start of World War One in 1914 when the Japanese moved against the German administration in the islands and forced out. Defeated Germany was stripped of all overseas possessions at the end of the war in 1919.
The Mariana Islands were turned over to the newly created League of Nations to be administered as the Japanese Mandated Territory. Japan had become an ally of the United States, Great
Britain and France shortly before the end of the war and was named as the pacific area's administering authority.
By 1919 the islands were being administered Japan as a mandate under the League of Nations.”
Then Japan owned these islands, though nobody liked it or recognized it.
Follow the information below from:
http://www.cnmi-guide.com/history/japanese/
“Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in 1935 after it had virtually annexed the Islands into the Empire.
By 1936 a thriving fishing industry had developed as well as a sugar industry which occupied 68 percent of the arable land on Saipan, 80 percent on Tinian and 33 percent on Rota.
The resident population grew to 23,800 on Saipan (of which only 3,222 were originally from the islands); 1,530 on Tinian (25 Chamorros) and 5,600 on Rota (791 Chamorros).
By the time the dark clouds of war had gathered over the western Pacific, some 29,692 Japanese military personnel were garrisoned on Saipan.”
While Japan owned the islands, nobody recognized their claims over the Marianas. The only thing was that nobody moved against the islands until the Allied liberation force attacked on June 15, 1944.
With full possession of the islands and plenty of refugees on their hands, the United States was charged with caring for the people of the Marianas until they were able to do so for themselves, albeit with some provisions.
See below from:
http://www.cnmi-guide.com/history/commonwealth/
“The people of the Marianas were the first of all the former Trust Territory entities to decide their future political identity, they decided to enter into a Commonwealth arrangement in
political union with the United States.
In all of Micronesia they were the only island group to do so. On January 1978 the Northern Mariana Islands became self governing in political union with the United States under the
terms of a covenant negotiated between the two government and the area's first elected governor took office.
*****For the first time after more than 300 years under the flags of Spain, Germany, Japan and the United States, the new Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands began its own
destiny.
It has been said that the Spanish brought Christianity to the islands; the Germans - copra commerce; the Japanese agricultural and industrial development and the Americans the
concept of self government.
On May 28, 1986 the United Nations Trusteeship Council concluded that the United States had satisfactorily discharged its obligations to the islands. On November 4, 1986 the United States citizenship was conferred upon those people of the Northern Marianas that met the necessary qualifications.
On December 22, 1990 the Security Council of the United Nations voted to dissolve the Trusteeship.”
So now what?
Like I said, the local people are at the helm of their own ship for the first time since 1521 and to say otherwise is insulting to the people of the Marianas. That’s not a racist point of view at all.
...and you are a coward to call names behind the cloak of anonymity. I don't have any family here so I can't have you fired or anything like that so why not call me or email me directly to let me know who you are.
You have my word that I won't out you to the public on the blog. That would make no sense at all for either of us.
To call me a racist is ridiculous.
Which race am I saying is the best?
Which race am I am I saying is the worst?
Which race am I attacking?
What race am I?
What race are you?
What race are the Japanese?
What race are the Spanish?
What race are the Germans?
How does anything I said make me a racist?
Something tells me that your only response will be something highly qualified like "It just does."
i didn't say you were racist sand... i said your comments were inherently racist... they are and were
By the way,
According to the definition I found at:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=3ZY&defl=en&q=define:Racist&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
“Racism has many different definitions. Historically, it has been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation.”
I didn’t insinuate that race was superior or inferior to anyone. That was all your doing…
I don't care what color any of these people were. Change the names of the countries and the locations and plug them into the same story.
It's still a matter of factual events that had nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin.
Anyway, time for a shower after the ol' soccer game. My multicultural team played well, (hmmm, we do wear white uniforms...)but we lost out to those damn Fiesta Pirates, 4-2.
Hope to spar more later but I'd rather we see eye to eye rather than bicker.
We can go back and forth over a beer, a glass of wine, a cola (even neutral on the brand).
It's up to you...
when the indigenous peoples of the world... no... just the pacific islands for now... control their own destinies without the hand of overbearing, pseudo-colonistic world powers meddling in their affairs and treating them like children... I will take you up on the beer (fiji bitter preferably). until then i will quench my thirst on my tears.
That time, my anonymous friend, will come when they want it to and not before...
81 comments?
Didn't I say that I had the final word on this one?
it is not that easy sand... unfortunately... corrupt powers with military and economic might decide when they are done sucking all they need to suck out of a population or place before anything possibility of real liberty has a chance. and this is rare unless you have a population base to support any real uprising (india, south africa, etc.)
whoah!!! I almost forgot... there was a previous "jeff" post that required a challenge;)... jeff states that the US "dumped money" into the NMI and we had a "sweetheart deal". lol. Give me a break... since 1978, the US has provided just over $600million dollars to the commonwealth. this includes covenant funding and other federal program funding (grants, nutrition assistance, non-covenant program assistance). To put this into perspective jeff...
1)this comes to roughly $20million a year... a fraction of the costs of government
2) the cost of one f22 raptor is approximately $361 million dollars (total development costs have so far run 28 billion)
3) the cost of one (yes one) B-2 spirit bomber is $2.2 billion
4)$25million in federal dollars spent on the fort peck fish hatchery in Montana
I could go on with a bundle of arguably useless pork projects the federal government has spent incredible amounts of money on...but I won't.
You get the picture... to suggest that the US has "dumped money" on the NMI is ludicrous! Over the course of 30 years, we've gotten about a fourth of the cost of one B-2 spirit bomber. We've gotten the equivelent in federal funding of 24 fish hatcheries or two f22 raptors.
Get a grip Jeff... the US isn't the omnipotent, all knowing and generous god you'd like to think they are.
Brad do you ever work? Gosh, such textbook comments! Will somebody call historian Gen Cabrera to verify his facts!
Wait for our new post and i guess some of these would be related to it...i mean about what the US has given the CNMI.
...how much money do you really think it takes to run this place anyway?
if you think the us government is bad, how about performing a little introspection.
any thoughts about a bicameral legislature, three municipal councils, three mayors (four if you include the northern islands), and governor for a population of roughly 16,000 voters?
that's more than a million dollars for each voter and i think that's more than enough to run this place.
any thoughts about a government that allows video poker machines on just about every street corner to financial rape its constituents?
how about the lack of open government in the legislature?
no government is perfect and i don't think anyone is deifying the feds--especially an anti-bush guy like jeff.
and how about providing a ratio about the money "dumped" here compared to similar dollars shelled out for comparable populations in the mainland?
and the folks on the mainland pay federal taxes!
this is not a complaint, but let's be fair and get all of the relevant facts in here...
btw anonymous, would you mind explaining what the USA has received in return?
and please provide similarly detailed statistics.
i'm still waiting for the day when you shed your cloak of anonymity and join the adults at the discussion table...
to john b.
yeah, i work. ha ha ha. i just want to be clear with the facts rather than trade mindless banter.
that's for the bar...
They get a fun place to bomb.
They get bodies in dump in Iraq.
They get the option to put a military base on Tinian should China decide to liberate Taiwan.
And that's a fair exchange for $20 million per year? I guess so since the US pays it.
(Hand up) Okay, sounds good enough for me but this doesn't seem nearly detailed to satisfy me.
And someone thinks this isn't enough? That's a joke.
I'd agree if people started paying federal taxes and were granted the right to vote.
But in order to do that, several laws would have to change here. Like that whole land ownership thing (which I'm not entirely for).
...and it's Taiwan that's waiting to liberate China.
to sand..."join the adults at the table?" ... give me an f@#n break dude... I am an adult at the table... you, however, have managed to sneak away from the childrens table for a bit.
...and I was generous when I started the federal funding count from 1978 (hence 30 years), I should have included the trusteeship period where absolutely nothing was done here development-wise... then it would be more like a period of 70 years.
do you realize sand that when the new commonwealth government began work in 1978... the primary issue here for the next 10 years was the replacement of japanese water pipes that were the main carriers of what little water went through the villages? That's how much the US invested in the NMI during the trusteeship period. We used to wake up every single morning at 4am and fill up buckets of water from a low tap (pressure not enough to make it to a sink let alone a showerhead) just so we had water the rest of the day. This was everyday during the trusteeship and was absolutely the norm.
you know absolutely nothing sand...zero, zip, nadda, nil...
stick to kicking a soccer ball and crooning PI ballads at karaoke houses
oh, well you got me. anytime you have to bust out the soccer and singing defense i must've lost.
thanks for schooling me...
when you want to be real about this let me know. by the way, how's the water situation now?
looks like the local government cares just as much about the water these days, huh?
i can't be "real" with you sand... you do not have enough information to participate in any sort of "real" conversation that revolves around the past history of the NMI (and other Pacific islands for that matter).
p.s.-i've lived in four different villages since the mid '80s and i've always had good water pressure... in fact, great water pressure. i've never once needed to wake up at 4am to fill buckets thats for sure.
what else sand?
i also have no fear of my kids being sprayed down by the ddt truck, my families always had a car (just like the ones we used to see up on capitol hill), the roads aren't covered with potholes, my kids don't have to walk a mile to school, etc. etc. alots been done since the US relinquished administration of the islands.
one more thing... a previous post (don't remember which and I'm not going to scroll through all this to find it) posed a challenge... show me the federal funding allocations to a city of similar size population-wise to the CNMI... so, I picked one... Santa Barbara (the city...not county), population 92,000 (2000 census). I started researching federally allocated funds (not state), for highways and roads, the airport, conservation, education, etc... to be honest I finally got tired of searching and didn't cover every single area federal funds where federal funds were surely to be recieved (arts, parks, museums, public works projects, homeland security, power, public school education, assistance programs, etc.)
I used 2005, as this was the most current year where federal funding reports were most complete. So here's the VERY INCOMPLETE list:
1)533,270,000 - Federal research funding for University of California at Santa Barbara
2)17,000,000 - Hiway 101 widening project
3)4,000,000-Marine Sanctuary project
4)1,100,000-Harbor Dredging
5)50,000-shoreline study
6)121,500-estuary restoration
7)100,000-community recovery school
8)50,000-community center
9)800,000-HI-101 management system
10)3,000,000-historic land acquisition
11)200,000-creek rehabilitation project
12)100,000-shoreline protection project
13)2,000,000-intelligent transportation system project
So...thus far into the list the total is close to 600million...and there's so much more to go.
That's just 2005.
So pleeeeeaaaaaasssseeeee don't go on about the federal money that's been "dumped" here.
Most folks have heard that Hawaii is a state, one of the United States of America. Most people, including those who live in Hawaii, accept that statement as a fact.
But the reality is that in a world in which nations are as bound by the rule of laws as are the citizens of nations (if not more so), the truth is quite different!
The truth is that each and every step along Hawaii's path from sovereign and independent nation, to annexed territory, to state, was done in violation of laws and treaties then in effect, without regard to the wishes of the Hawaiian people. Many people, including President Grover Cleveland, opposed the annexation of Hawaii.
But in the end, simple greed and military interest overrode any concerns or moral right and legality. Hawaii's legitimate government was toppled using threat of American military force. Hawaii was stolen from her people for the benefit of wealthy American plantation owners and military interests, and the justifications for the crime were invented after-the-fact.
Hawaii's government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this "superior force of the United States of America," Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people.
...yes Sand... stolen
...and Sand... this is from the United Nation's Chronicle-1986
Because of Micronesia's full political and economic dependence on the Administering Authority (the United States), it was impossible to ensure freedom and free choice of a political status. The Micronesian people had been deprived of any real opportunities to gain independent status.
The main goal of United States policy towards Micronesia was to turn the strategic Trust Territory into a military-strategic springboard in the Western Pacific for the Pentagon in order to ensure control over a large region of the globe. The United States had forced the local authorities of Palau to adopt agreements to permit transit of nuclear weapons through the Trust Territory, port calls and landings by American vessels and aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. The United States had used the Trust Territory as a testing ground for atomic and nuclear weapons.
Plans to militarize the Territory and deploy nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction seriously threatened the Micronesian people and countries of the entire region.
The Congress of Micronesia, which was striving to maintain the unity of its Territory and to establish an independent Micronesian State, had been dissolved. Micronesia had been divided into four island entities. That had been done to weaken the resistance of the native population to the "neocolonialist, annexationist policy' of the Administering Authority.
During its 40-year administration, the United States had pursued a policy of slowing down the Trust Territory's development. It had not promoted the establishment of a viable, independent economy, industry or agriculture which would meet the needs of the native population. While Micronesia had earlier been a food exporter, nowadays, as a result of agriculture's collapse, the population's food needs had to be satisfied through imports. A major problem was almost universal unemployment, especially among young people.
The Administering Authority also acted in violation of Article 83 of the Charter, which stated that all functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas should be exercised by the Security Council. Never in the course of drafting the Compacts for the four separate parts of the Trust Territory had the United States gone to the Security Council. Nor had the Compacts themselves been submitted officially for consideration by the Trusteeship Council.
Micronesia had never been, and was not, a Territory of the United States. The question of its future was inseparable from the problem of decolonization. The United Nations must maintain responsibility for the Territory until it attained true independence. Under the Charter, any change in the status of a strategic Trust Territory was to be carried out only pursuant to a decision by the Security Council. Therefore, a unilateral action by the United States Administration could not be recognized under international law as legitimate or having legal force.
...now Jeff and Brad... I'd suggest that as citizens and residents who wish to participate in a "real" discussion about the NMI, you go listen to stories of the Manamko, let go of your "US knows all" mentality, read a wider variety of publications on NMI history and then come back to the table ;)
Funny thing about Santa Barbara is that they pay federal taxes. See, they pay into the system and that's why they receive more in return.
comeon brad... santa barbara wasn't laid waste by a military invasion... on and on... you are amazing (in the truly not-good sense)
doesn't matter what anyone says or shows you... you are still a nitwit who has no desire to be anything other than a nitwit...
I would love to do nothing more than to read more about the history of the NMI and will gladly do so.
With regards to your referencing the United Nations Chronicle 1986, I suppose you mean the seven page Fourth Committee (Decolonization) report, the subject of which was “for the fortieth session after considering the question of Western Sahara, the status of 14 other Territories, and the implementation of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.”
I read the report without finding reference to the NMI but I don’t doubt your claims that it’s in there somewhere. Perhaps helping me out a little bit. From the Fourth Committee report:
“The Committee also recommended draft consensus texts relating to Tokelau, Pitcairn and Gibraltar, a draft decision concerning St. Helena and nine other resolutions relating to Anguilla, American Samoa, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands. In all those cases, the Committee acted on recommendations of the Special Committee on decolonization.
The Committee decided it would not act on a draft on the question of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. East Timor was not considered by the Fourth Committee, as the Assembly had decided to defer consideration of the question to its next session (see decision 40/402).”
See below:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_v23/ai_4656162/pg_5
The subject of the future of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia), reviewed by the Trusteeship Council at its May/June session this year, will be among the concerns of the Fourth Committee.
The report on the different territories begins here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_v23/ai_4079802/pg_1
But I can’t seem to find the information on any of the other reports on the United Nations Chronicle 1986 that mention your specific post as it relates to Micronesia. Have any additional references? A little help would be great.
...and I'm not in the whole "US knows it all" crowd. I was when I got here but I have changed in the past nearly five years.
...and you don't have to be a dick either.
the text was from the United Nations Chronicle...not the fourth committee report.
...and u r a dick :)
...and that's where you lost me.
Before I go, the Fourth Committee Report was part of the United Nations Chronicle 1986 along with:
Committee condemns attempts to curb South African press coverage
1985 Ad
Governments asked to make 'most generous efforts' to meet needs of Palestinian refugee agency
Fourth Committee takes action on Western Sahara, small territories, other decolonization issues
Emergency needs total $1 billion; resolve to solve African crisis must not waver, Secretary-General says - Javier Perez de Cuellar
First Committee reviews question of Antarctica for third time, three texts adopted
Secretary-General warns of deficit reaching $250 million in 1986 - Javier Perez de Cuellar
Outer space sub-committee considers satellite and spacecraft issues
WHO board reviews 'health for all by year 2000' strategy
Security Council calls on South Africa to lift state of emergency
Conference on disarmament opens second part of 1986 session
Revitalization of the international system, resolving financial crisis are 1986 priorities
1986 Ad
Committee on Information adopts 57 recommendations after considering three sets of proposals - establishment of new world information and communication order
Mandate of United Nations force in Golan Heights extended until 31 May 1986
International Youth Year 1985: participation, development, peace
Second committee continues review of development issues in November discussion
Sixth Committee acts on wide variety of legal issue: protection of children, detained persons, among them
General Assembly condemns terrorism wherever and by whomever committed; hostage-taking and abduction condemned by Security Council
All states urged to prevent arms race in outer space and to promote international co-operation
Three texts - on Lebanon, Al-Aqsa, Libyan plane interception - vetoed in Security Council
Security Council warns South Africa against committing 'aggression, terrorism and destabilization' against African states
Security Council does not adopt text condemning South Africa for attack against Angola
Guidelines on confidence-building sent by Disarmament Commission to General Assembly
'Group of 18' on UN efficiency and financing makes 71 recommendations on organization's functioning
Second treaty review conference calls for measures to strengthen biological weapons ban
How unique is UNU? - United Nations University
by Kinhide Mushakoji
Call for negotiations for peaceful, definite resolution of Falklands issue - Malvinas
Situation of youth in the 1980s
Rain, good harvests, but African emergency continues
UNESCO asks states considering withdrawal to 'reconsider their position'
Assembly adopts seven resolutions on Middle East and Palestine issues; calls for comprehensive settlement under UN auspices
Assembly calls for continuation of efforts to establish a new world information and communication order
Proposed text deploring Israeli acts violating sanctity of Jerusalem mosque vetoed in Security Council
Special meetings mark 26th anniversary of Sharpeville massacre; Secretary-General says racial discrimination should cease everywhere - Javier Perez de Cuellar
International convention against apartheid in sports signed on 16 May by 43 states
'Fewer weapons and more development in all regions': eminent panel recommends steps to link disarmament and development
International Conference for Independence of Namibia calls for mandatory sanctions against South Africa
IAEA conventions on nuclear safety provide for co-operation in wake of nuclear accident - International Atomic Energy Agency
50 to 200 million children under 15 are in world's work force, ILO says - International Labor Organization
Assembly affirms confidence in IAEA, urges co-operation regarding peaceful uses of nuclear energy - International Atomic Energy Agency
Twenty-third conference of the FAO adopts pesticide code, food security compact
Expert group meets on 1990 world population and housing census programme
Secretary-General asked to monitor any new Dead Sea Canal development - Javier Perez de Cuellar
Consideration of human rights issues produces 30 decisions in Third Committee
Text condemning Israel for 'interception and detention' of Libyan plane vetoed
'Action-oriented' solutions to be sought at special session of General Assembly on critical situation in Africa
Secretary-General, Special Committee against Apartheid state views on new pass laws
Draft principles on remote sensing activities approved by Outer Space Committee
The United Nations plan for Namibian independence
Secretary-General calls for moratorium by Iran and Iraq on attacks on civilian areas - Javier Perez de Cuellar
IAEA asked to consider measures to ensure Israel does not attack 'peaceful nuclear facilities' - International Atomic Energy Agency
Guidelines for future action for youth
$740 million pledged for UN development activities
The 38th floor - on Human Rights Day - editorial
'Disastrous increase' in violence in southern Lebanon if UNIFIL withdraws, Secretary-General warns - United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Javier Perez de Cuellar
Auschwitz exhibit underscores United Nations commitment to human rights
Security Council considers situation in southern Mediterranean, adjourns in March without taking action
Nineteen million in Africa still threatened by drought despite improvements, United nations warns
The 38th floor - editorial
Commission on TNCs discusses coproate activities in southern Africa, code of conduct at April sessions - transnational corporations
Economic and Social Council considers issues relating to human rights, women, drugs, homeless, southern Africa
Comprehensive study outlines post-independence national development strategies for Namibia
Security Council considers Nicaraguan complaint against United States, takes no action
Political solution urged by Assembly for situation relating to Afghanistan
Youth: positive prospects, problems, possibilities
World Hunger Media Awards presented
The 1985 assembly: a message of solidarity and hope
General Assembly reaffirms Comorian sovereignty over island of Mayotte
Convening of ministerial-level world meeting on drug problems approved by Assembly
Security Council calls for immediate cease-fire, cessation of all hostilities, withdrawal of forces to international boundaries without delay - Iran-Iraq conflict
African crisis: the human dimension special UNICEF report on the future of Africa's children
Special Assembly session adopts five-year programme of action for economic recovery of Africa
Security Council does not adopt text condemning United States armed attack against Libya
UNICEF executive board endorses programmes for children in 'difficult circumstances', including 'street children' and war victims
General Assembly demands action for immediate implementation of Namibian independence plan, comprehensive sanctions and South African withdrawal from the territory
Security Council does not adopt text calling for full compliance with International Court ruling in case of 'military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.'
Assembly endorses four principal components of a settlement to the situation in Kampuchea
Young people and drugs
Refugee questions subject of third committee scrutiny in November
If all you wanted to do was be a name caller you've succeeded. I thought you were better than that.
can i say i love dicks?
Oh, and after looking a little deeper into the report I found what you referenced.
“The Trusteeship Council on 28 May stated it considered that the United States, as Administering Authority of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, had ‘satisfactorily discharged its obligations under the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement' and that it was ‘appropriate for that Agreement to be terminated' upon the entry into force of the Compact of Free Association for the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, and the Commonwealth Covenant in respect of the Northern Mariana Islands.”
And the small segment of the report you referenced was part of the complaints that the USSR brought up with regards to the United States’ handling of the islands. That was during the Cold War and the Soviet Union was more concerned with the US interests in the Pacific rather than the fate of the Pacific Islanders.
See more from the report below:
“The United Kingdom said the Soviet Union had long argued that the United States had fragmented the Territory to achieve its basic aim of annexation; that it had exploited and neglected its people; and that it had militarized the area. Those charges were "baseless' and not motivated by the realities of the situation and the interests of the Micronesiana.
If the United States had wanted to annex the Trust Territory, it would have been well advised to retain the virtually unlimited powers granted it under the Trusteeship Agreement. But political-status negotiations had begun as far back as 1969 in order to encourage a greater measure of self-government on the part of Micronesians. It soon became clear that the unity of the Trust Territory was more apparent than real. Different parts of the Territory had their own sense of separate identity and their own ideas about constitutional advance.
The Administering Authority had gone to great lengths to encourage democratic freedoms in Micronesia, including the fullest political participation by the local people in the affairs of the Territory. The people of the Territory had chosen freely to divide the Trust Territory into four political entities, in accordance with Charter purposes and principles.”
And still more:
“The economic situation in the Trust Territory did leave much to be desired. But to criticize economic under-development of the area was not the same as to accuse the United States of pursuing the policy of exploitation. Micronesia contained little in terms of natural resources to exploit, still less to deplete. Its population was tiny and spread over a vast area…
…Vast sums had been pumped into the Territory over the years to make up for its many disadvantages. That reflected the traditional generosity of the American people and their fundamental dislike of their unaccustomed role as colonial-style administrators. Payments to the Bikini islanders--some $150 million so far-- could not compensate them for the loss of their atoll, but were a step towards redress.”
As for being forced into making a decision:
“France said it had participated in all Visiting Missions to observe plebiscites and most other missions to the Territory. It had also been active in discussions of reports of the Administering Authority. It was clear to France that the peoples of Micronesia had exercised, under United Nations monitoring, their right to self-determination. They had freely made their choice between the various means of exercising that right.”
Read the whole report next time.
Christensen told the media that the US didnt intend to sign the agreement and make the CNMI run the immigration indefinitely, that she'd persuade the US for this.
If there is anyone who loathes the current American government more than me, introduce me to them, because they sound like a drinking buddy. George Bush and company don't know their ass from a whole in the ground. I've got a dozen posts on that subject, and consider Chomsky about my favorite author. Usually I'm called anti-American, so being accused of U.S. knows all is kind of funny.
sorry... but that is how both you and sand came off. we lived it first-hand, you guys didn't live it at all... and have generally sided on the pro-fed side and second-hand information.
don't you wonder why only a few american souls from the tt times remained or returned here... it was abysmal. on the other hand, countless statesiders who moved to the NMI in the 80's have remained.
that is because it was much improved by the local administration.
to say otherwise is simply WRONG. when you flippantly ask the question "so how is your water now?"... you highlight both your lack of knowledge about the NMI during the TT and your gross pro-fed pro-euro bias.
So you think this CNMI government now and then is effective? You might be the first person I ever heard say that?
Actually, I was asking more about the quality of the water here, not the water pressure.
And by the way,my information was well referenced and accurate.
On another note, I'm not even for the whole federalization thing either (and no, Ron, I don't have a maid).
And please tell me more about this pro-fed pro-euro stuff. What is pro-euro exactly?
I didn't say that the Spanish and Germans did a better job than the Japanese of running the place.
Since I can't go back and live the TT times, perhaps you can offer something for me to research.
My guess, and I'm just guessing, is that the manamko (sorry about the spelling. I don't know the proper punctuation either) would have favorable things to say about the way that the US handled things here.
Why else would they have voted overwhelmingly to form a stronger bond with the US by signing the Covenant?
Another thing would be for you to suggest something for me to read that might enlighten me as to the history of the TT times.
You say I should read a variety of things so I ask you where I should begin.
Hey, I'm wrong about a lot of things and I'm not too proud to admit it.
I just don't like people blaming the US for everything that has gone wrong here because that obviously isn't the case.
And I don't deify the US government either. I would much rather see the local government pull us out of this mess, one that we are clearly in.
So I guess to sum up I would like the whole pro-euro thing explained and a list of things to read that will help me better understand your point of view, short of hopping in a time machine and living it with you.
Thanks,
Brad
...i'm bored already... and lazy... even more-yawn
sand gave up on u.
Post a Comment