Reading a Samoan Novel and Questioning One’s Motivations

where we once belonged” Go back to where you came from you…ghosts!  Gauguin is dead.  This is no paradise”  says Siniva a character in Sia Figel’s Where We Once Belonged.  The narrator continues, offering this commentary on reactions to Siniva’s quote:

Palagis [white people] were confused when they heard such words–most of them were shocked, shocked that someone recognized them doing what they usually did: Peeping-Tomming for a past, an illusion long dead, long buried in museums of their own making. They were ashamed and looked down, buying ulapule or coconut earring from an old woman out of guilt.

This quotation provides striking insight into the experience of Samoans being visited by white outsiders looking for some sort of mythic Pacific paradise or untouched location to study the essence of humanity.  The commentary about the way the past is constructed reminds me of all the old museum dioramas and displays I have seen featuring artifacts from the Pacific past with an effort to proved an authentic sense of life before contact.

The question then came to my mind as to why I was reading the book.  As I sit surrounded by the snow in the Midwest, am I looking to read an exotic text to serve as a contrast to my bland, first world existence?  As such I may not be the obvious tourist, but perhaps I am doing the same thing tourists do while claiming greater literary awareness.

My own motive questioning aside, I highly recommend reading this novel.  Not only for the questions it raises, but also for its portrayal of adolescence  gender, and maturation in a post-colonial society.

Census Brief on Multiracial Populations

I am currently reading my way through the recent US Census publication “The Two or More Races Population: 2010.”

There are some numbers in here that really point to the future of America as a place where racial definitions shift, multiply, and become flexible.

Consider for example the fact, “people who reported [being] White as well as Black or African American…grew by over one million people, increasing by 134 percent—and people who reported [being] White as well as Asian…grew by about three-quarters of a million people, increasing by 87 percent.”

That’s a lot of people one could probably not accurately put in a racial box just by looking at them.

America may not be a post-racial nation, but doing racial tallies continues to get more complex.

Here is a telling map and graph showing geographic distribution:

 

PS:  Since the race question on the census does not address Hispanic origin (that is a separate ethnicity question), there is no way of knowing how  Hispanic or Latino identity fits in the mix.  Also, since the census counts Americans of Middle-Eastern or Arab origin as White, that is also an area lacking in differentiation.  In both cases, individuals may note that they are Some Other Race, but that category is not broken down.

National Statuary Hall Part II: Racial Breakdown

According to my count, of the 100 statues in National Statuary Hall the racial breakdown of the individuals portrayed is as follows:

93 White

5 Native American

1 Hispanic

1 Pacific Islander

These numbers make the addition of Frederick Douglass even more essential as he is the first black individual portrayed in this national collection.

I would say that the lack of diversity is a result of the fact the installation of statues was authorized in 1864, but it took a long time for all the states to provide the statues with some still not there in the early 90s  (Wikipedia).  I would have thought that by that time at least one state would have had a black citizen to honor.

Given the politics that would be involved in any state replacing a statue at this point, I think the collection will likely remain with its current mix of individuals.  The only hope might be if the territories get to add statues.  My old home island of Guam could provide some variety.  Consider the individual sculpted below.

Statue of Chief Kipuha (or, Quipuha) at the new Chamorro Village in Hagåtña.

 

By the way, there are 92 men and 8 women in the hall, something else on which to work.

Island Angst or Why I Should not Have Read Jamaica Kincaid

Queen Liloukalani, the last Hawaiian monarch

So I leave tomorrow for vacation, heading eventually for a week on the Hawaiian island of Kauai.  I am looking forward to the time way, the relaxation, the beautiful scenery, the ocean, the sand, and all of the other aspects of vacation.

However, I also suffer from a case of post-colonial island angst.  This peculiar malady is caused by reflecting on what it means to be a tourist, particular the elements of race, class, and imperialism that play a role in my traveling to enjoy the exotic or foreign elements of an island whose past involves colonial occupation.

In my case the onset of this malady can be traced to my reading Jamaica Kincaid’s essay “A Small Place” in which she lambastes the white tourists coming to her home island of Antigua stating:

“An ugly thing, that is what you are when you become a tourist, an ugly empty thing, a stupid thing, a piece of rubbish pausing here and there to gaze at this and taste that, and it will never occur to you that the people who inhabit the place in which you have just paused cannot stand you, that behind their closed doors they laugh at your strangeness” [17].

She goes on to explain how tourists are oblivious to the suffering, oppression and marginalization of the residents of the island.  She ties tourism to the island’s colonial past, particularly its experience as a British colony and sees it it as an extension of that past.

After reading the book, I resolved never to travel as a tourist to any Caribbean island and also threw in the resorts of Mexico to be comprehensive.  I do not want to play any part in the post-colonial ugliness.

When it comes to the Pacific, my view is colored by my experience living on Guam for two years.  There I saw first hand the way the residents both enjoyed economic benefits of being a US territory but also resented the loss of land and autonomy.  There was definitely the sense of the Guam as an American colonial possession, an island with no vote in Congress, limited if any say in many key issues,  and a history of American occupation dating back to the Spanish American war.  As part of Guam’s marginal colonial existence, the education system was inferior to that in the 50 states as was the medial system (except for the military hospitals).  Like those other islands, Guamanians made money off of tourists but did not particularly like them seeing them as rather clueless individuals who could be charged exorbitant non-resident rates for goods and services.

Based on my reading and experiences, I therefore am not a fan of being a tourist on an island, particularly one that has been colonized by a European/American superpower leaving the local population in a marginalized position.

Hawaii, however, presents a different situation.  On the one hand it was a US colonial possession where the US deposed an indigenous monarchy and took power.   There are also many issues around land rights and movements to increase Native Hawaiian rights. On the other hand, Hawaii is a US state with all the benefits and representation that entails.  It cannot really be said to be a colonial possession, although its history involves colonialism.

Still, as a potential tourist, I wonder if in Hawaii I am the ugly being Kincaid describes.  Am I with my white skin and economic resources clearly an outsider who would be better off staying home?  I do not think so, after all I am helping the local economy and all of this angst at least shows I am conscious of the various dynamics.  Still, I wonder about the acquisition of the land on which the resort hotel stands and I will be avoiding any luaus and hula shows. It is one thing to passive acquiesce in the demise of Queen Liliuokalani.  It is another thing to consume deliberately a repackaging of Hawaiian traditions for tourist consumption.

But here is the question, why do I feel all this angst regarding island vacations when I do not feel it when vacationing in the mainland US?  Should  I not feel guilt visiting anywhere the indigenous population has been removed and/or marginalized?  Perhaps it is proximity that bothers me, proximity to the dispossessed, and I would prefer to live my life not thinking of that reality.

Asian American Support for Affirmative Action

In a recent press release the Asian American Defense and Education Fund persuasively argues that a majority of Asian Americans support affirmative actions and oppose the elimination of race as a factor in college admissions.

They have released as study which refers to:

a Voter News Service/Los Angeles Times poll which found that a majority of Asian Americans demonstrated support for race-conscious admissions policies by rejecting Proposition 209 in California, a measure that prohibited public universities from considering race in admissions: “Polls by the Voter News Service/L.A. Times and the Field Institute reveal that among Asian American voters, support for Prop 209 was only in the range of 39% to 44%.” AALDEF’s exit polls also found that 75% of Asian American voters in Michigan rejected Michigan’s Proposal 2, a similar state referendum seeking to ban race-conscious policies.

The Asian American Defense and Education Fund also refers to a recent poll:

Last week, the Pew Center issued a national report on Asian Americans which correspondingly found that the number of Asian Americans who believe they are discriminated against under the current admissions policies is extremely low. A majority of participants (61%) believed that being Asian has no impact in collegiate admissions, and most of the remainder (20%) believed that being Asian can be a helpful factor. Only 12% believed it hurts to be an Asian applicant.

I found this press release noteworthy as it counters the anecdotal impression I have had that Asian Americans oppose affirmative action at least in college and university settings where it seems to be a factor making it harder to get into college.  For example there is this piece in USA Today regarding students not checking the Asian box on college applications so as not to disadvantage themselves.  The USA Today piece goes on include this data:

Asian students have higher average SAT scores than any other group, including whites. A study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade examined applicants to top colleges from 1997, when the maximum SAT score was 1600 (today it’s 2400). Espenshade found that Asian-Americans needed a 1550 SAT to have an equal chance of getting into an elite college as white students with a 1410 or black students with an 1100.

I wonder where the truth lies.  The small number of Asian American high school students to whom I have talked, do feel a sense of unfair discrimination, but that may be a result of their being in a highly competitive independent school environment fighting for eventual Ivy League admission and not more broadly experienced.  I would be interested in seeing the Pew data broken down by socioeconomic status, region, and educational attainment.

From “The Ivy Coach”

Guam Makes the News–Please No Grass Skirts!

Guam made the national news.  To be specific two American territories in the Pacific Ocean, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) held caucuses today and Mitt Romney won both.  I used to live on Guam, and I find this rare time in the sun for the island a lesson in perception.  Note this article by Ben Jacobs from The Daily Beast in which he makes numerous references to “men in grass skirts.”  In all the time I lived on Guam I never saw a man in grass skirt except in photos of tourist shows at the big hotels.  The article also makes reference to other Guam issues that are supposedly important.  There is a crack about Japanese holdouts from WWII, but the last one was captured 40 years ago. Also, the author brings up the brown tree snake, which while an important environmental issue, is old news as all the indigenous birds were rendered extinct a while ago. I think the columnists would do better looking at the question of America’s colonial relationship with Guam, the issues of land ownership/appropriation, the rights and claims of Guam’s  indigenous Chamorro people, and the condition of Guam’s school system.  Given the few seconds of attention these contentious issues are likely not going to come up.  I guess I should be happy that Romney sent his son all the way out to the islands to campaign, a first on the ground candidate delegation in recent history.

Check out the photos below. The top one is from the Guam airport and is an accurate representation of Guam as a modern territory.  The second photo is not from Guam but from the CNMI. Yes, there are grass skirts, but note the pool.  This is staged resort photo designed to recreate the stereotypical pacific island experience for the esteemed visitor.

Matt Romney at the Guam Airport

Matt Romney in a staged photo in the CNMI

George Clooney, Indigenous Hawaiian

I saw The Descendants  today and found it was a great movie worthy of all its accolades.  However, in the movie George Clooney is an indigenous Hawaiian.  Well, actually his character Matt King controls a land trust because of an ancestor who was part of the deposed Hawaiian monarchy.  As Matt King says at one point that while his family may be exceedingly white and privileged they have Hawaiian blood.  Given all of the historical injustice done to Native Hawaiians including the virtual coup executed by white planters to overthrow Queen Liliuokalani,  I wonder how George Clooney as Matt King is going over in Hawaii.  To an extent he is a character aware of racial politics, calling himself and his family haoles  (Hawaiian for non-Hawaiian, in some contexts an insult), and proving quite aware of the need to keep land for Hawaiians.  Yet he is also a rich white guy named “King” who in the movie controls pristine land as a descendant of the indigenous population.  Overall, I wonder what the directors and writers are trying to do with this film and its message about land, Hawaii, and the rights of indigenous people.

For a deeper progressive critique of the movie see “Racism in The Descendantsby retired University of Hawaii professor, Michael Haas.