Anyone with Facebook can check these videotaped comments on the “We are Guahan” facebook page. Mr. Aguon’s presentation was a fairly normal and familiar motif until about the 30-minute point. At this point he begins to talk about violence as a tool for political change. He also seemed to try to argue that violence is some sort of sanctioned U.N. accepted method for political change. This is simply not accurate. In this day and age, there is no way the international community or the United Nations would accept violence as a method of change in a place like Guam. In the follow up question and answer session, Mr. Aguon at the two to three minute point continues on this discussion line.
In general, elected leaders on Guam who applaud or encourage this sort of rhetoric should examine closely what is really being said. This is not a view held by even a minor fraction of this community. Further, community groups and their leaders need to also be mindful that violence in the modern context as a political method is simply unacceptable.
Promoting dialogue and understanding is a far more acceptable method for political change. In the Guam case, it is clear that many of those seeking dialogue do not really know how to start one. Or it is quite possible they have not used appropriate methods or knocked on the right doors for assistance.
RON MCNINCH, PhD
University of Guam
