Dr. Natividad prattled for some time about such issues as U.N. resolutions, U.S. reluctance to address historical wrongs, how the decolonization process will soon be launched, blah, blah, blah. It does strike me as odd that Dr. Natividad, who I understand is of Filipino descent, is working so diligently to exclude some 50,000 resident Filipino U.S. citizens on Guam from the decolonization process.
If you heard that interview, you probably recognized it as a regurgitation of the same thing we’ve been hearing for about 30 years. That carried over to the Sept. 23 meeting of the Commission — the first in about 12 years. The second such meeting happened on Nov. 17 and came across mostly as a whining session about a lack of money. The assault on our constitutional guarantees continues however; and though they seem to be in permanent denial, some very real obstacles confront those who wish to bend constitutional and voting rights protections to suit personal and political ends.
It’s not reassuring to know that a university professor can be so ignorant of constitutional law, and it seems she isn’t alone. Then again, perhaps that’s not the case at all. There’s no doubt that realities are often obscured and twisted by the pressure of political aspirations, sometimes to the point where it becomes hard to determine where the truth actually lies. We all know that politicians — and especially Guam politicians — aren’t above peddling emotionally charged misinformation to the gullible public in the expectation that nobody will call them on it. We have ample evidence of that every two years. Failing to recognize past mistakes, we insist on putting in public office those whose only talent is for getting elected, with vision and energy devoted to nothing more challenging than the run-up to the next election. Perhaps some university professors suffer from similar shortcomings.
In lockstep with the government-sponsored racially exclusive decolonization scheme, we find Guam Senators Barnes and Blas jointly fielding a bill structured to produce a racially discriminatory political status vote. Ditto for Guam Senator Guthertz, a public administration guru who should know better. Our governor — presumably reliant on bad legal advice — has also fallen for the “Chamorro Only” hype, penning a letter to President Obama seeking recognition and support for an exercise in overt racial discrimination. Perhaps he’ll modify his position as he learns the true legal complexion of the issue.
It all has to do with the notion that some U.S. citizens are more qualified to vote on certain public matters than others, and until now there has been nobody willing or able to confront proponents of that view on an equal footing. “Chamorro-only vote” advocates may eventually find themselves dealing with a federal voter discrimination lawsuit that will settle this question once and for all.
It would be interesting to watch our public officials and others as they attempt to defend the so-called “Chamorro-Only vote” in a highly publicized anti-discrimination lawsuit. It should make for lively give-and-take. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see.
And by the way — you can safely disregard the persistent references to U.N. resolutions. In the first place, such resolutions have no legal force or effect relative to U.S. Constitutional law; and in the second place, they actually read quite differently from what you’re supposed to believe.
Contrary to the contention that we are limited to only three choices when selecting a preferred political status, U.N. Resolution 2625 reminds us that “any political status freely determined by a people” is also a legitimate option. And who are the “people?” That would be you, me and all the rest of us.
DAVE DAVIS
Yigo, Guam
