A Scandal in Plain Sight


Christopher Columbus Spain World History Archive National Catholic Reporter

Newscom/World History Archive
An illustration shows Christopher Columbus standing before the king and queen of Spain, presenting Indians and treasures from the New World in 1493 in Barcelona.






Doctrine of Discovery: A Scandal In Plain Sight

9/22/15

In 2009, the Episcopal Church repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery.

In 2012, The Unitarian Universalist Association followed suit. Other religious groups—the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the World Council of Churches, New York Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, the United Methodist church, to name a few—have also repudiated it.

But the Vatican has refused to publicly address Catholicism’s role in bringing about the Doctrine of Discovery, or revoke the papal bulls that articulated it. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising to find that most Catholics know almost nothing about it.

Libby Comeaux, a lawyer and co-member of the Loretto Community, recalls the first time the Loretto sisters were confronted by the history. It was January 2012. Comeaux was participating in an environmental conference in the Denver metro area, of which the Loretto community was a sponsor.”

“A number of Loretto sisters and members were at the gathering,” Comeaux said, “and one of the themes was the rights of nature, public trust, that sort of thing, as it applied to water. And a law professor from Denver University stood up and started giving us some feedback that was fairly uncomfortable to hear. … He was saying, ‘You’re talking about rights of nature as if you invented this term, and you’re Catholics. What do you think about the Doctrine of Discovery? What are you doing about it?’

“I may have been the only Catholic in the room who knew what he was talking about,” she said. In November 2013, the Loretto community sent a letter to Pope Francis.

The letter called on the pope to “formally and publicly repudiate and rescind the Dum Diversas Bull of 1452, and other related bulls, which grant the Pope’s blessing ‘to capture, vanquish, and subdue the Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possession and their property.’ We also call upon the Pope to repudiate and rescind the Inter Caetera Bull of 1493 that granted authority to Spain and Portugal to ‘take all lands and possessions’ so long as no other Christian ruler had previously claimed them. These bulls instilled the Doctrine of Discovery, the papal sanctioning of Christian enslavement and power over non-Christians.”

The letter stated the papacy had done some positive work regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples—such as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s supporting the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Pope John Paul II’s asking of forgiveness for the misdeeds “of the sons and daughter of the church”—but not nearly enough.

(Recently, Pope Francis asked forgiveness in South America “not only for the offenses of the church herself, but also for crimes committed against the Native peoples during the so-called conquest of America.”)

The Loretto letter included a message from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Religious Friends (Quakers), which stated:

“You [as Pope] have the power and responsibility to do more, by issuing a new papal bull that formally, directly, unequivocally rescinds and revokes the Doctrine of Discovery and the horrible, cruel, un-Christian language in those bulls that denigrates entire peoples with no justification.”

Comeaux said the Loretto letter was sent to the Vatican and to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. She said the Loretto community received no response from the Vatican. U.S. bishops’ conference president Archbishop Joseph Kurtz sent a note with a “polite thank you for including me,” she said.

The sisters have contacted Kurtz, who heads the Louisville, Kentucky, archdiocese, and “he’s expressed interest in getting more information,” she said, “and we’re preparing [that] for him.”

Other groups have called on the pope to address the Doctrine of Discovery. In 2014, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious asked the pope to rescind the doctrine. In June 2015, the Romero Institute, a nonprofit law and public policy center focusing on Native American issues (and named after slain Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero), did the same.

From the Native perspective, the Indigenous Law Project’s Steven Newcomb, who is Shawnee and Lenape, discussed the issue directly with Vatican officials.

On May 16, 2007, Newcomb and other Native American representatives presented their case to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, now apostolic nuncio to Poland and then permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, in New York City.

On July 16, they received a letter from Migliore informing them that subsequent papal bulls had “abrogated” the ones they wanted revoked—including a bull from 1537 that explicitly forbade enslaving “Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians”—and that there was no need to take further action.

As for the doctrine’s more recent interlacing with U.S. law, “The refutation of this doctrine is therefore now under the competence of American politicians, legislators, lawyers and legal historians,” Migliore wrote.

Comeaux, who is familiar with the correspondence, characterized the letter as exercising “some fancy footwork in canon law.”

“It reads fairly defensively,” she said. “Indigenous scholars, frankly, don’t respect the integrity of the response.”

Why the reluctance? Newcomb attributes it to “denial.”

“There is a difficulty for the church in reconciling those documents and that language to the teachings that are attributed to Jesus in the Bible,” he said. “How in the heck do you have document after document after document [like the papal bulls in question] and then claim that you have this beneficial enterprise that you’ve been promoting throughout the world?”

Those documents had consequences, he said. “It’s not just a bunch of words on paper. When you understand the way in which language constitutes reality—that words and their meanings form the very basis of reality—then what form of reality was being constituted by the issuance of these documents?”

Newcomb said the doctrine’s effects can be seen in “everything that has devastated our nations and peoples, from the loss of our languages, cultures, spiritual traditions, territory. Every part of our existence has either been completely destroyed or destroyed to an extent, taken over. We as Native peoples have been taken apart at the seams, as it were.”

What would happen in the U.S. if the pope were to repudiate the bulls that gave rise to the doctrine?

Probably not much, legally speaking, said Jeffers. “It would just be a gesture,” he said. “It’s so wrapped up in law now, and law has become so divorced from religion, in Western societies at least, that the courts I don’t think are really going to care what the Catholic church says.”

Within the church and without, however, nearly all involved in the effort to repudiate the doctrine agree that the first step toward healing the wounds it inflicted begins with a basic acknowledgment of its history, and the reality it continues to perpetuate—to pull that reality out of the shadows and into the light of day.


RELATED: Intergenerational Grief on Cheyenne River Indian Reservation
RELATED: Boarding Schools: A Black Hole of Native American History
RELATED: Limited Housing, Poor Economy Plagues Reservation
RELATED: ‘Reeling From The Impact’ of Historical Trauma
RELATED: Disastrous Doctrine Had Papal Roots

Vinnie Rotondaro (vrotondaro@ncronline.org) is national correspondent for National Catholic Reporter, where this series first appeared. Republished with permission.

Editor’s note: It may seem like papal statements from 500 years ago are ancient history. But Native American activists and scholars insist that Catholicism’s past continues to affect the present. Papal bulls from the 1400s condoned the conquest of the Americas and other lands inhabited by indigenous people. The papal documents led to an international norm called the Doctrine of Discovery, which dehumanized non-Christians and legitimized their suppression by nations around the world, including by the United States. Now Native Americans say the church helped commit genocide and refuses to come to terms with it. This is Part Six of a six-part series on the legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery. Republished with permission.


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/09/22/doctrine-discovery-scandal-plain-sight-161758
 
 
 
 
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/09/22/doctrine-discovery-scandal-plain-sight-161758

How to Stop Catching Tomorrow’s Fish: A Tale from Palau

By | Opinion |
www.blog.nature.org


I have eaten fish all my life. Like so many in my island nation of Palau, eating fish defines me as a Palauan.

Here, you grow up with an almost intuitive understanding of the value of fish. A Palauan man’s duty is to fish to feed his family and to provide the fish for cultural obligations, including: giving fish to his daughter’s husband and his family, providing for first child birth ceremony, and funerals.

These are events that bring families together to exchange food and money. Palauans never used to have bank accounts; savings were invested within families and in-laws through exchanges of food and fish is a huge part of that equation — a man gives fish and in exchange he gets money, which is then given to his wife’s brothers and cousins who give fish to her. And the cycle continues. Fish is an investment.

But despite the cultural importance of fish for Palauans, fish are still in decline and we know it. For many years we have watched our catch get smaller and smaller, including fish that are too small to have had any chance to reproduce. Like farmers who eat their own seeds, we are eating away our future. We are eating tomorrow’s fish.

How can we turn this cycle around? A tale of two small fishing villages in Palau is giving me hope — a tale based on science and community action. But we have to scale up this approach quickly, before it’s too late.

A Tale of Two Fishing Villages 

For generations, fishermen from Kayangel and Ngarchelong fished for food and worked together for common good of their communities.

Though the villages are separated by vast fishing grounds, starting in the 1980s fisherman began following the advent of commercial fishing in my nation to see the impact of irresponsible fishing in other fishing grounds throughout Palau. They resisted live grouper traders from Hong Kong offering to move into their fishing grounds. But some of these fishermen eventually started to fish commercially in the 1990s as Palau began to develop from a subsistence-based economy to a cash-based one.

And a few years later, fishermen from Kayangel and Ngarchelong noticed a decline in the size of fish they were catching and recognized that they were now catching smaller and fewer fish.

Fishermen measuring fish in Kayangel. Photo © Dr. Jeremy Prince

Concerned, they took action to reverse the decline. Traditional chiefs imposed a ban on fishing in eight channels where fish aggregate to spawn. And they established two of the largest Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the main Palau archipelago, which closed off areas to fishing. Soon, these MPAs were showing more fish, spurring excitement in the fishermen that their fish stocks would return to normal levels.

Instead, the fishermen continued to see declines in their catch. The MPAs were not enough to address continued fishing pressure. But these communities didn’t give up hope. Instead, they wanted data — data that was lacking on the status of their fisheries, but that could confirm what their eyes told them.

When the fishermen began working with scientists from The Nature Conservancy to collect that data, they began to understand exactly why the size of fish was critical for the health of their fish population.

We trained fishermen to measure the size of the fish and to examine the reproductive organs to determine if they are male or female and if they are mature or not. This was a very simple technique that the fishermen easily understood because it built upon their existing knowledge of these species. 

For example, they could identify female fish based on their experience of seeing fish eggs when they clean their catch – experienced fishermen knew that the presence of eggs usually relate to moon phase. These measurements determined the size at maturity for their fish — the size at which a fish is big enough to reproduce.

Eventually, what the data showed shocked the fishermen: more than 60 percent of fish they are catching have not had any chance to reproduce.

From Data to Management

So how did fishermen from Kayangel and Ngarchelong get from data to action?

The data were a huge wake-up call. The fishermen realized that better gear and increased market demand had led to a decimation of their fishing grounds. As Baudista Sato, fisherman from Ngarchelong said: “kid a kekedel ra bodo ngemoes,” meaning “we have been catching young fish.”

Fishermen being trained to examine fish gonads to determine if mature or not. Photo © Andrew Smith   
But with the help of Conservancy scientists, the fishermen were able to use the data to go a step further anddetermine a management scheme. They worked with their state legislature to pass a fisheries management framework law in July 2015 that has put a 3 year moratorium on five species of grouper (Plectropomus aerolatus, Plectropomus leopardus, Pleactropomus leavis, Epinephelus fuscoguttatus, and Epinephelus polyphekaidon). The law also mandates promulgation of additional fish regulations on size and other management approaches.

The fishermen then formed a fishery cooperative as a non-profit organization with the aim of increasing their participation in management and ensuring improved benefits from the fishery to their community. They recognized that it was hard to make change happen working as individuals. But a cooperative approach will allow them to leverage change and improve benefits to them and save their fish for tomorrow.

And it’s not just about fish — it’s about saving their way of life and culture.

The cooperative currently has 41 members from the two fishing villages. Katsushi Skang, the co-op president, says: “Together we can chart a course that helps our fishermen thrive today and our culture thrive for generations to come.”

Can This Tale of Two Communities Inspire More Success?

Using the size of a fish to estimate its reproductive potential is still a developing science, but even so it was powerful enough evidence to motivate fishermen to take action based on what they know.

There is an ongoing effort by the Science for Nature and People (SNAP) working group to provide a broader process on how small-scale fisheries can be assessed using fewer data sets that involved fishermen to set their own goals and targets for managing their fishery. This approach would be revolutionary, allowing accurate assessments of small-scale fisheries and speeding up the advance of fishermen-led reform that will could help more fishing communities restore their resources.

Even though it has been tried in just two villages, the approach that the Conservancy provided lays the foundation for fishermen and communities to make changes in how fishing today can ensure fish for tomorrow, in Palau and elsewhere.

The basic principles:
  • Empowering fishermen to understand their fishery
  • Exploring other management approach beyond MPAs
  • Improving enforcement and compliance
  • Offer alternative livelihood opportunities
  • Ensuring that improved fishery benefits fishermen

Different communities will respond differently to change, however, these basic principles can ensure that we identify the agent of change within the community. The Conservancy’s work in Palau is about empowering the fishermen with the tools and knowledge they need to stop catching tomorrow’s fish, and to eventually restore thriving fisheries.

Empowering communities is the way to scale up fisheries reform and have a large impact across many fishing communities, not only in Palau but in other places where fishermen are facing decimation of their fish.




http://blog.nature.org/conservancy/2015/09/23/how-to-stop-catching-tomorrows-fish-tale-palau-fishing-fisheries-science/

Tinian Mayor: DEIS Technically Flawed


By Alexie Villegas Zotomayor
Variety News Staff 
www.mvariety.com
September 26th, 2015


THE municipality of Tinian, through Mayor Joey Patrick San Nicolas, has asked the Department of Defense to defer issuing a Record of Decision relating to the planned construction of military training facilities on Tinian and Pagan, saying that the draft environmental impact statement is technically flawed.

In a 31-page comment submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command on Sept. 14, Mayor San Nicolas stated Tinian’s opposition “to any plans to turn our island into a live-fire training range.”

He said their comments to the CNMI Joint Military Training or CJMT draft environmental impact statement are the “articulation of our collective objection to a plan that will fundamentally change how we live and who we are as a people and as a community.”

San Nicolas said the DEIS, in its current form, violates the National Environmental Policy Act.

Joey Patrick San Nicolas
The mayor said the (1) DEIS fails to properly analyze or account for the environmental justice issues linked to the CNMT and other Department of Defense actions; (2) DOD failed to prepare a single EIS, which discusses impacts of all connected and cumulative actions in the Marianas; (3) it failed to explore all “reasonable alternatives” for the training proposed under the CJMT; (4) DoD failed to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act or NEPA; (5) the analysis of issues relevant to the Endangered Species Act is inadequate; and (6) the analysis of Marine Mammal Protection Act-related issues is also inadequate.

The mayor said allowing DoD to proceed with any of the proposed alternatives, which involve live-fire training activities, destruction of fishing, hunting and gathering grounds, and destruction of cultural sites, would be contrary to and a reckless disregard of NEPA’s fundamental policy “to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.”

He said DoD has taken the position that because all of Tinian is considered a minority and low-income area, there are no environmental justice issues.

He noted DoD’s “inane interpretation” of environmental justice.

In addition, he raised serious concerns regarding DoD’s outreach for the DEIS.

He said DoD’s outreach lacked transparency and possibly resulted in mass confusion over the anticipated impacts of the CJMT.

He cited inconsistencies between the statements made by the DoD representatives and the actual draft EIS.

He said if DoD were to make another EIS, it should make a real effort to obtain input from the local community.

“The denial of fair treatment and meaningful involvement throughout the NEPA process is compounded by CNMI’s political status,” the mayor said, adding that the CNMI lacks the ability to participate in the federal decision-making process.

“While the DEIS identifies the impacts on the island of Tinian as significant, it callously disregards the traditional and customary practices of the indigenous population that necessarily involve continued access to areas that are within the Military Lease Areas,” San Nicolas said.

All the proposed alternatives in the DEIS, he added, restrict their access to historical and cultural sites located within the Military Lease Areas.

He said restricting access to the MLA will intensify the conditions of poverty on Tinian.

According to the mayor, DoD failed to adequately explain reasonably foreseeable impacts or to identify mitigation measures for the impacts on the local community in the draft EIS.

Further, he said DoD violated NEPA by failing to prepare a single EIS which addresses all connected and cumulative actions in the Marianas.

The EIS for the relocation of the Marines to Guam, the CJMT and the Mariana Islands Training and Testing are connected actions, which must be analyzed under a single EIS, he added.

San Nicolas said DoD’s proposed plans will fundamentally and permanently alter the very nature of who they are as a people and as a community.




http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/80285-tinian-mayor-deis-technically-flawed

The military takeover of the Marianas

 
By Peter J. Perez
www.mvariety.com
September 26th, 2015


THE day will come when we will look back on these post-Soudelor days and nights with a mixture of nostalgia and sadness.

We will remember the damage to our homes and possessions and the hard work cleaning and clearing debris, the hot sleepless nights, the mosquitoes, the shortages, the lines and the worry. We will remember how we helped and were helped, how we consoled and were comforted, and how, together, with help from many, we endured, we rebuilt, and we resumed our lives.

And from the vantage point of years from now, we will also remember that while we were distracted, the U.S. Navy moved closer to its goal of militarizing our islands and using them for bombing ranges.
Even before the Navy began its move, the U.S. military already had extensive areas of the Marianas under their control. They occupied fully half of the northern third of Guam along with huge areas in the south, including the island’s only lake. They had most of the land around Apra Harbor, and numerous other large areas of Guam that, together, make up a third of Guam’s entire land mass. Here in the CNMI, they had a long-term lease on two thirds of Tinian, land around Tanapag Harbour and the entire island of Farallon De Medinilla. They had also managed to convince our leaders to allow them to anchor supply ships off our tourist beaches.

Most of the Navy and the Air Force presence up to that point involved active or potential military bases. Military bases, although always controversial, are busy active places. They bring jobs and opportunities to the communities that host them. But starting in 2010, the Navy began to look at our islands for something altogether different — live-fire training ranges.

The year 2010 marks the beginning of the Navy’s series of proposals to turn the Marianas into the world’s largest bombing range. That is the year the Mariana Islands Range Complex or MIRC proposal was approved. The MIRC created a half-billion-square nautical mile live-fire training range that surrounds Guam, Rota, Tinian, Saipan and all but the furthest islands to the north. The MIRC authorized live-fire on and in the land, air and sea throughout the training range.

Soudelor winds began to blow on Aug. 1st, the day after the Navy announced its Record of Decision for another proposal – the Mariana Islands Training and Testing or MITT Area. The MITT doubled the area of the MIRC to nearly a billion square nautical miles. It also greatly increased the level of the Navy’s deadly sonar and live-fire ordnance testing and training in CNMI waters. The MITT plan allows the Navy to damage or kill over 6 square miles of endangered coral reefs plus an additional 20 square miles of coral reef around FDM through the use of highly explosive bombs. It ups the rate of explosive bombing from 2,150 bombs per year to over 6,000 bombs per year, increasing the Navy’s bombing of FDM by roughly 300 percent.

On Sept. 2, 2015, while most of us were busy trying to get water and file FEMA claims, the Navy signed the Record of Decision for another proposal, the Guam and CNMI Military Relocation proposal, approving a new Marine Base on Guam, a new Live-Fire Training Range Complex or LFTRC and a separate hand-grenade range.

Next in the Navy’s step-wise move on the Marinas is the CNMI Joint Military Training or CJMT proposal. The CJMT would allow them to use two-thirds of Tinian for their second highest level of live-fire training range and to take the entire island of Pagan and use it for their highest level of live-fire training.

Unlike the LFTRC, the MIRC and the MITT that seemed far away, the CJMT proposed activities are entirely in CNMI. It completes the Navy’s live-fire training plans, surrounding us with live-fire ranges; on Guam to the south; Tinian in the west, FDM and Pagan to the north, and all around us on and in the ocean.

The CJMT will have wide-spread negative consequences on virtually every aspect of life in the CNMI; health, environment, natural resources, economics, culture, historic preservation, social justice, infrastructure, public safety and freedom of movement. The military will have over 24 percent of our total land mass and will dominate and control our airspace and maritime waters, restricting our movement and activities from Guam to Maug. With the CJMT, our local representative government becomes subjugated and subordinate to the Navy.

The Oct. 1 (CNMI date) deadline for public comments on the CJMT Draft Environmental Impact Statement or EIS is nearly upon us. It is our last chance to voice our concerns before the Navy publishes its Final EIS and makes its Record of Decision.

Public EIS comments are extremely important because the Navy only has to respond to the concerns about impacts to our lands, our waters and our people that are raised in the comments. They don’t have to try to avoid, minimize, mitigate or even consider any adverse impacts that didn’t make the deadline. Also, subsequent legal action cannot be taken on impact issues that don’t make the deadline. Not getting an issue into the EIS amounts to a free pass for the Navy on that issue.

Through your EIS comments, you can demand that the Navy thoroughly investigate and disclose all the adverse impacts of their planned activities on our environment and our historic resources — not just those they choose to consider, but the ones you bring up. For example, you can demand a thorough scientific study of the potential impact of years of explosive ordnance contamination of the soil to Tinian’s underground fresh water supply. You can also call out their failure to consider reasonable alternatives. For example, you can demand that they thoroughly investigate and consider alternatives to training that do not involve our islands and our waters.

It is not likely that you’ll have read all of the Navy’s 1500-page Draft EIS and the many hundreds of pages of highly technical appendices. But that should not stop you from asking about any issue that is important to you. If the Navy addressed the issue, they can say so. But if they did not, your asking can force them to address it.

It is easy to submit comments. Just visit http://www.cnmieis.org/submit-comments.html. The website makes it fast and easy. It also provides excellent and easy to understand information on the Navy’s proposals and the shortcomings and omissions of the Navy’s Draft EIS.


Time is of the essence; act now and submit your comments before Oct. 1.

The author is co-founder of PaganWatch and member of the Alternative Zero Coalition.



http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/editorials/80265-the-military-takeover-of-the-marianas

the ocean in us

in Pacific Eco-Poetics  



Right before eco-poetics class last week, I received this email from my university alert system: “A tsunami watch has been issued for the state of Hawaii. Estimated possible wave heights are 0.3 to 1 meters above the tide level. Estimated wave arrival time is 3:06 a.m., Sept. 17. Please follow the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, other government agencies and local media for the latest news.” This tsunami watch was triggered by an 8.3 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Chile.

Our topic for class was, appropriately, the Pacific Ocean (oceans being an important theme in eco-poetics). We discussed the essay, “The Ocean in Us” (1998), by Tongan scholar Epeli Hauʻofa, which insists that the “sea is as real as you and I, that it shapes the character of this planet, that it is a major source of our sustenance, that it is something that we all share in common wherever we are in Oceania.”

Alongside Hauʻofa’s essay, we read the poem, “Ocean Birth” (2005), by Māori poet Robert Sullivan. This poem is a chant-like ocean pastoral, lyrically calling forth the currents, the sea creatures, the names of Polynesian islands, and the bodies of Pacific Islanders to all sing their songs of birth. The poem ends: “Every wave carries us here— // every song to remind us— / we are skin of the ocean.” Hauʻofa and Sullivan represent a Native Pacific perspective on the ocean, in which the ocean is our source, our origin, our common inheritance.

We also read and discussed two texts that speak to a Trans-Pacific perspective. First: “Oceania as Peril and Promise: Towards Theorizing a Worlded Vision of Trans-Pacific Ecopoetics” (2012) by American poet Rob Wilson. This essay foregrounds the ocean as a theoretical network of global flow, “liquid modernity,” and “postmodern fluidity,” as well as a material network of capitalist shipping lanes and airfreights, military bases and testing sites, and marine territorializations and exclusive economic zones—all routing across the west coast of the American continent, the Pacific Islands, and Asia. Thus, the ocean represents both peril and promise. Peril in the sense that the ocean is in danger from us (plastic, overfishing, nuclear testing, warming etc.) and that it can be a danger to us (rising tides, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.). The ocean also represents promise in the sense that it offers a vision of “transnational belonging, ecological confederation, and trans-racial solidarity.”

Lastly, we read and performed the poem “Pacific Ocean” (2009), by American poet Brenda Hillman. This poem views the Pacific from California, where the poet touches the coastal waters and launches into a meditation on the vastness and complexity of the ocean. As such, the poem flows in fragmented waves and currents of perception, swirling with flotsam and jetsam, memory and information, plastic and prayers, of spice and maritime routes, dreams and drownings. Or, as Hillman puts it: “a fertile dread…mixed with ecstasy.”

Every culture—and even every person—has a different relationship to, and understanding of, the the vastness and complexity of the ocean. And even though every poet represents the ocean in different ways, it has always been a space and place of deep symbolism and meaning. As Hauʻofa wrote: “The sea is our pathway to each other and to everyone else, the sea is our endless saga, the sea is our most powerful metaphor, the ocean is in us.”

For this week, students wrote about the ocean (6 poems, 1 prose piece: 15 minutes of reading time). We welcome your comments on the poems. If you are inspired, we encourage you to write your own poems reflecting on what the ocean means to you.



siblings in church (a border series)
by Lee Kava


There is a border
between air and deep water –
in English, they call her
Surface

There is a border
between stillness and rooted land –
in English, he is called
Wind

Their mother and father
Ocean
teaches the siblings to live
connected with one another in
every way, even when they argue
to weather their limits, they respect
the nature of vastness,
the power of distance
and they guard against the danger
of forgetfulness, nurturing
connection, even as borders born
of the sea.

But Ocean’s body has been changing –
sister and brother, Surface and Wind
find their parents’ minds
far away
dealing with ailing bodies –
breaking limbs, broken waves
bleeding
from so much swelling
over islands
in their seas –

and in the distracted stress of Ocean,
Wind and Surface find themselves
trapped
made to sit
in the pews
of a church.

The congregation –
of United Globalization –
insists that Wind and Surface always sit
in the back
of its holy mindedness,
while priests of corporate and academia
preach the doctrine
of “borderless
worlds”

what happens if they take
our nature?
whispers a worried Wind
to his sister –
perhaps these priests
don’t need water
to walk on anymore
Surface answers back –

SILENCE!
cries the congregation
who feel the siblings rumbling
in the back
of their minds –

what will happen to our cousins,
the land? and the people they care for?
thinks Wind
to his sister –
Surface shifts
her body slightly,
letting her brother know
she has heard him –

SILENCE!
scream the priests
who frantically turn back the windblown
pages of their fiscal sermon –

Silently, the siblings squirm
in their seats, worrying the body
of their mother and father
over which the church sits
like dominion, the reach of its walls
infinite –

The drone of the congregation deafens
even Wind’s ears, scratches over Surface’s skin -
the members recounting
the small accounts
of airplane travel,
capacities of cargo ship holds,
and the blessed logistics
of holy global capital


............................

Mother Ocean
by Jessie Lathrop

Humans come from the earth but
Earth comprises mostly of ocean.
Humans, then, are less soil, more sea –

Salt in your arteries,
Water on your pores,
Whispering along
The underside of your skin,
Slipping by your bones,
Pulsing out on the highways
Of your veins and back
Into the thoroughfares
Of the world.

The ocean in me
Calls to the
Ocean in you,
Rocking one shore to another,
Steady-washing heartbeat.

Crash your heart on my currents
And memorize their contours and swirls.
When the ocean is home your house moves –
Tides migrate and circle back
Like flocks of birds.
They change, they adapt to the world
And they adapt the world to them,
They tiptoe across the planet following the moon –
For like the ocean we will twist up into the air
And return tumbling to the sea,
Leave
And come back –
Again –
Surging,
Water nomad.


............................

Ocean 
by Darlene Rodrigues
Spell of our experience
away from
pestilence
famine
hunger
poverty
war
how can a promise
brimming opportunity
fail
win
at once
lola said

the spell of the ocean sings us away
Lullaby
ug
ug
springs the water
ub
ub
ub ub
ug
ug
ug ug
fetch the water sweet
and flowing
down the stream to the ocean it
greets
ug ug ub ub
where the dagat and yuta meet

Orasyon
shore to shore
wave on wave
fix the broken thread
of blood and heart
unlanded soul
pagkakaron
charred tongues of our apo
ngihib does not inhabit the caves of their mouths
lawod laps unevenly at their lips

current/pagkakaron/sulog/currently
sulog of pagkakaron has taken us away
on a bangka
pagkakaron we know not inside of wood and sail
the american sulog has washed it away
levis
marlboro
nike
adidas
polo
hersheys
cocacola
spam
ritz
snickers
honolulu
dallas
london
riyadh
linkoping
amsterdam
singapore hongkong


layag/to sail
she craves pasayan
to pass the time
in hawaii
a way of soroysoroy
passage in the land of the puti

 
............................


THE SECOND FLOODING
after Yeats’ The Second Coming
by Chase Wiggins


Round and down as in a drain unplugged;
The whales cannot hear each other sing;
Things fall apart; the levees cannot hold;
Wrathful Atlantis is loosed upon the land,
The ever-rising tide is loosed, and everywhere
Those closest to the Ocean prepare to drown;
The best hold small hope of recourse, while the worst
Are still peddling beach front properties.

Surely some apocalypse is at hand;
Surely the Second Flooding is at hand.
The Second Flooding! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Gaia’s Unconscious
Troubles my sight: an expanse of ruined ocean;
A shape with kraken body and arms grasping capital,
A gaze blank and pitiless as market forces,
Is sliding across a shelf of human debris, while all about it
Indignant priests cry out about promises misunderstood.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty-one centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by nuclear disaster.
And what desperate beast, its reckoning come round at last,
Rockets towards Kepler 452b* to be born again?

*An exoplanet currently being touted as “Earth 2.0” by NASA scientists.

............................

Laniakea
by Elan Stopnitzky


It’s easy to forget where
I am
when space is cut up
by edges

my feet tread
euclidean pavement
and the whole universe seems
contained
in the mind of a honeybee

but I can look over the coast
read the curves of the sandbank-
tides forming
the handprints of
a moon

submerge this body
feel

the slowing of my heart, automatic
to preserve air because
time is long and
our skin has learned
the sensation of water

turn to the stars
we used to find our way
over this ocean delivered
to the earth
in the snow of asteroids

their ancient light
laps my eyes
like caravans of waves
at the shore

And I am here

............................


O-SHUN
by Brian Leung


Ocean—insignificant
Ocean—murderer
Ocean—divider
Ocean—burden
That of which defines us—me—has unsavory definitions.
I am—insignificant
I am—a murderer
I am—a divider
I am—a burden
The mirror is placed before us—me—and the sea reflects
Trouble to/trouble from
We are—insignificant
We are—murderers
We are—dividers
We are—burdens
We; unity
results from ocean and
I; diversity

Unity is recognizing the history
Unity is recognizing our belonging to
what makes our indispensability possible.


............................


The Ocean Embassy
by Henry Wei Leung


The following was reported to me by a woman who has asked to remain anonymous, and who herself was introduced to “The Embassy” by a group of the initiated who, as we know, are rendered anonymous by the very nature of their activity. While I cannot betray her confidence or credentials, I can offer my own as the most minimal vouchsafing of the credibility of my words and, thereby, of hers. I am a California-born graduate of Oxford (Brasenose College, where indeed the Queen once came to dine with us at Hall and, though I myself was not invited, I was later told that she had sat in the seat directly adjacent to my habitual seat), and subsequently of Princeton. I have no history of activism, much less of environmental activism. My visits to the Pacific Islands (the small ones so called) have been limited to highways, coastlines, one disastrous instance of snorkeling, and large gatherings during which the natives on a stage explained their culture amidst great thundering festivities. I offer this as assurance, first, against any gullibility or naivete on my part, and second, against the likelihood or capacity to invent the following story given my limited personal contact with the subjects in question. I am an agent of the government (in largely clerical work) and the following views and statements in no way reflect or represent those of the U.S. Department of State.
The Embassy exists just below water level in the belly of the Lēʻahi crater, which serves as a ventilation window into the core of a network of volcanoes, on the annexed island of Oʻahu. It is said that The Embassy made itself known to the human population shortly after the formation of a Mars encampment on the northern slope of the Mauna Loa volcano, where astronauts had begun an extended period of training in a geodesic dome to simulate a long-term stay on the planet of Mars. The woman, who is the main character—but not the protagonist—of our story, has suggested that The Embassy had recognized in this the advent of a galactic human exodus, and so at just such a time decided to begin negotiations on various fronts.
Admission to The Embassy is bureaucratically determined but, naturally, no paperwork is involved. The woman was invited by a principle of longing greater than her own desire, a compulsion beyond language to the base of the crater called Lēʻahi. She found behind dry brush a crevasse into the volcanic rock with a vertical mouth barely the width of her body, on the southeast side. It was a descent into darkness and smoother and smoother surfaces of stone. The duration, seen from outside, might have been days, as the gravity drew her close and the pull on her body’s time made her heavy. For her, the duration was approximately an hour. Meanwhile, a swimmer disappeared in Hanauma Bay.
The legends are incorrect. The lizard of rock does not awaken from the ridge of Hanauma Bay to take a sacrifice of swimmers once a year, just as the volcanic tuff of Lēʻahi is not intended to resemble a dorsal fin. Associative anthropomorphism is a human pastime and a failure to imagine the Other. The swimmer disappeared into a perpetual maelstrom hidden at the bottom of the ocean. He, too, lost time in the depth and dispersal of a great gravity. His cells were pulled apart and recombined with water until the water came to know him. He was a fractal of the human species and the human story. The ocean interviewed the woman by unconstructing the man. She passed. (And years passed as the data of his cells was scattered up to land to find its way to new bodies as a salt wind, as a revelation of sound.)
The woman found herself in the belly of the crater under water level where an ancient source of lava still sloshed like wine at the bottom of a gourd. [. . .]




http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/the-ocean-in-us

Studio Enjoy: Supaman





Published on Feb 20, 2014
Montana hip hop artist Supaman performs his song 'Prayer Loop Song' in the Gazette's Studio Enjoy.
LLOYD BLUNK/Gazette Staff
Additional camera operator: ZACH BENOIT/Gazette Staff

The Imperialist Lie That Won’t Die: America is Making the Planet Safer

The U.S. maintains 800 Military Bases Across the Globe. They're a Threat to National Security -- and Harm Us All


The imperialist lie that won't die: America is making the planet safer
With the U.S. military having withdrawn many of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans would be forgiven for being unaware that hundreds of U.S. bases and hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops still encircle the globe. Although few know it, the United States garrisons the planet unlike any country in history, and the evidence is on view from Honduras to Oman, Japan to Germany, Singapore to Djibouti.

Like most Americans, for most of my life, I rarely thought about military bases. Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described me well when he wrote in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize — or do not want to recognize — that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”

To the extent that Americans think about these bases at all, we generally assume they’re essential to national security and global peace. Our leaders have claimed as much since most of them were established during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. As a result, we consider the situation normal and accept that U.S. military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land. On the other hand, the idea that there would be foreign bases on U.S. soil is unthinkable.

While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 U.S. bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 U.S. “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.

Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the U.S. can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States.

“Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld,” Chalmers Johnson insisted, “one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.” Alarmed and inspired by his work and aware that relatively few have heeded his warnings, I’ve spent years trying to track and understand what he called our “empire of bases.” While logic might seem to suggest that these bases make us safer, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion: in a range of ways our overseas bases have made us all less secure, harming everyone from U.S. military personnel and their families to locals living near the bases to those of us whose taxes pay for the way our government garrisons the globe.

We are now, as we’ve been for the last seven decades, a Base Nation that extends around the world, and it’s long past time that we faced that fact.

The Base Nation’s Scale
Our 800 bases outside the 50 states and Washington, D.C., come in all sizes and shapes. Some are city-sized “Little Americas” — places like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and the little known Navy and Air Force base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These support a remarkable infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, power plants, housing complexes, and an array of amenities often referred to as “Burger Kings and bowling alleys.” Among the smallest U.S. installations globally are “lily pad” bases (also known as “cooperative security locations”), which tend to house drones, surveillance aircraft, or pre-positioned weaponry and supplies. These are increasingly found in parts of Africa and Eastern Europe that had previously lacked much of a U.S. military presence.

Other facilities scattered across the planet include ports and airfields, repair complexes, training areas, nuclear weapons installations, missile testing sites, arsenals, warehouses, barracks, military schools, listening and communications posts, and a growing array of drone bases. Military hospitals and prisons, rehab facilities, CIA paramilitary bases, and intelligence facilities (including former CIA “black site” prisons) must also be considered part of our Base Nation because of their military functions. Even U.S. military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.

The Pentagon’s overseas presence is actually even larger. There are U.S. troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories, including small numbers of marines guarding embassies and larger deployments of trainers and advisors like the roughly 3,500 now working with the Iraqi Army. And don’t forget the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers. Each should be considered a kind of floating base, or as the Navy tellingly refers to them, “four and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory.” Finally, above the seas, one finds a growing military presence in space.

The United States isn’t, however, the only country to control military bases outside its territory.  Great Britain still has about seven bases and France five in former colonies. Russia has around eight in former Soviet republics. For the first time since World War II, Japan’s “Self-Defense Forces” have a foreign base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, alongside U.S. and French bases there. South Korea, India, Chile, Turkey, and Israel each reportedly have at least one foreign base. There are also reports that China may be seeking its first base overseas. In total, these countries probably have about 30 installations abroad, meaning that the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases.

“Forward” Forever?
Although the United States has had bases in foreign lands since shortly after it gained its independence, nothing like today’s massive global deployment of military force was imaginable until World War II. In 1940, with the flash of a pen, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a “destroyers-for-bases” deal with Great Britain that instantly gave the United States 99-year leases to installations in British colonies worldwide. Base acquisition and construction accelerated rapidly once the country entered the war. By 1945, the U.S. military was building base facilities at a rate of 112 a month. By war’s end, the global total topped 2,000 sites. In only five years, the United States had developed history’s first truly global network of bases, vastly overshadowing that of the British Empire upon which “the sun never set.”

After the war, the military returned about half the installations but maintained what historian George Stambuk termed a “permanent institution” of bases abroad. Their number spiked during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, declining after each of them. By the time the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, there were about 1,600 U.S. bases abroad, with some 300,000 U.S. troops stationed on those in Europe alone.

Although the military vacated about 60% of its foreign garrisons in the 1990s, the overall base infrastructure stayed relatively intact. Despite additional base closures in Europe and to a lesser extent in East Asia over the last decade and despite the absence of a superpower adversary, nearly 250,000 troops are still deployed on installations worldwide. Although there are about half as many bases as there were in 1989, the number of countries with U.S. bases has roughly doubled from 40 to 80. In recent years, President Obama’s “Pacific pivot” has meant billions of dollars in profligate spending in Asia, where the military already had hundreds of bases and tens of thousands of troops. Billions more have been sunk into building an unparalleled permanent base infrastructure in every Persian Gulf country save Iran. In Europe, the Pentagon has been spending billions more erecting expensive new bases at the same time that it has been closing others.

Since the start of the Cold War, the idea that our country should have a large collection of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops permanently stationed overseas has remained a quasi-religious dictum of foreign and national security policy. The nearly 70-year-old idea underlying this deeply held belief is known as the “forward strategy.” Originally, the strategy held that the United States should maintain large concentrations of military forces and bases as close as possible to the Soviet Union to hem in and “contain” its supposed urge to expand.

But the disappearance of another superpower to contain made remarkably little difference to the forward strategy. Chalmers Johnson first grew concerned about our empire of bases when he recognized that the structure of the “American Raj” remained largely unchanged despite the collapse of the supposed enemy.

Two decades after the Soviet Union’s demise, people across the political spectrum still unquestioningly assume that overseas bases and forward-deployed forces are essential to protect the country. George W. Bush’s administration was typical in insisting that bases abroad “maintained the peace” and were “symbols of… U.S. commitments to allies and friends.” The Obama administration has similarly declared that protecting the American people and international security “requires a global security posture.”

Support for the forward strategy has remained the consensus among politicians of both parties, national security experts, military officials, journalists, and almost everyone else in Washington’s power structure. Opposition of any sort to maintaining large numbers of overseas bases and troops has long been pilloried as peacenik idealism or the sort of isolationism that allowed Hitler to conquer Europe.



The Costs of Garrisoning the World
As Johnson showed us, there are many reasons to question the overseas base status quo. The most obvious one is economic. Garrisons overseas are very expensive. According to the RAND Corporation, even when host countries like Japan and Germany cover some of the costs, U.S. taxpayers still pay an annual average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the United States. The expense of transportation, the higher cost of living in some host countries, and the need to provide schools, hospitals, housing, and other support to family members of military personnel mean that the dollars add up quickly — especially with more than half a million troops, family members, and civilian employees on bases overseas at any time.

By my very conservative calculations, maintaining installations and troops overseas cost at least $85 billion in 2014 — more than the discretionary budget of every government agency except the Defense Department itself. If the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is included, that bill reaches $156 billion or more.

While bases may be costly for taxpayers, they are extremely profitable for the country’sprivateers of twenty-first-century war like DynCorp International and former Halliburton subsidiary KBR. As Chalmers Johnson noted, “Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries,” which win billions in contracts annually to “build and maintain our far-flung outposts.”

Meanwhile, many of the communities hosting bases overseas never see the economic windfalls that U.S. and local leaders regularly promise. Some areas, especially in poor rural communities, have seen short-term economic booms touched off by base construction. In the long-term, however, most bases rarely create sustainable, healthy local economies. Compared with other forms of economic activity, they represent unproductive uses of land, employ relatively few people for the expanses occupied, and contribute little to local economic growth. Research has consistently shown that when bases finally close, the economic impact isgenerally limited and in some cases actually positive — that is, local communities can end up better off when they trade bases for housing, schools, shopping complexes, and other forms of economic development.

Meanwhile for the United States, investing taxpayer dollars in the construction and maintenance of overseas bases means forgoing investments in areas like education, transportation, housing, and healthcare, despite the fact that these industries are more of a boon to overall economic productivity and create more jobs compared to equivalent military spending. Think about what $85 billion per year would mean in terms of rebuilding the country’s crumbling civilian infrastructure.

The Human Toll
Beyond the financial costs are the human ones. The families of military personnel are among those who suffer from the spread of overseas bases given the strain of distant deployments, family separations, and frequent moves. Overseas bases also contribute to the shocking rates of sexual assaultin the military: an estimated 30% of servicewomen are victimized during their time in the military and a disproportionate number of these crimes happen at bases abroad. Outside the base gates, in places like South Korea, one often finds exploitative prostitution industries geared to U.S. military personnel.

Worldwide, bases have caused widespread environmental damage because of toxic leaks, accidents, and in some cases the deliberate dumping of hazardous materials. GI crime has long angered locals. In Okinawa and elsewhere, U.S. troops have repeatedly committed horrific acts of rape against local women. From Greenland to the tropical island of Diego Garcia, the military has displaced local peoples from their lands to build its bases.

In contrast to frequently invoked rhetoric about spreading democracy, the military has shown a preference for establishing bases in undemocratic and often despotic states like Qatar and Bahrain. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, U.S. bases have created fertile breeding grounds for radicalism and anti-Americanism. The presence of bases near Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin Laden’s professed motivation for the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Although this kind of perpetual turmoil is little noticed at home, bases abroad have all too often generate grievances, protest, and antagonistic relationships. Although few here recognize it, our bases are a major part of the image the United States presents to the world — and they often show us in an extremely unflattering light.

Creating a New Cold War, Base by Base
It is also not at all clear that bases enhance national security and global peace in any way. In the absence of a superpower enemy, the argument that bases many thousands of miles from U.S. shores are necessary to defend the United States — or even its allies — is a hard argument to make. On the contrary, the global collection of bases has generally enabled the launching of military interventions, drone strikes, and wars of choice that have resulted in repeated disasters, costing millions of lives and untold destruction from Vietnam to Iraq.
By making it easier to wage foreign wars, bases overseas have ensured that military action is an ever more attractive option — often the only imaginable option — for U.S. policymakers. As the anthropologist Catherine Lutz hassaid, when all you have in your foreign policy toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Ultimately, bases abroad have frequently made war more likely rather than less.

Proponents of the long-outdated forward strategy will reply that overseas bases “deter” enemies and help keep the global peace. As supporters of the status quo, they have been proclaiming such security benefits as self-evident truths for decades. Few have provided anything of substance to support their claims. While there is some evidence that military forces can indeed deter imminent threats, little if any research suggests that overseas bases are an effective form of long-term deterrence. Studies by both the Bush administration and the RAND Corporation — not exactly left-wing peaceniks — indicate that advances in transportation technology have largely erased the advantage of stationing troops abroad. In the case of a legitimate defensive war or peacekeeping operation, the military could generally deploy troops just as quickly from domestic bases as from most bases abroad. Rapid sealift and airlift capabilities coupled with agreements allowing the use of bases in allied nations and, potentially, pre-positioned supplies are a dramatically less expensive and less inflammatory alternative to maintaining permanent bases overseas.

It is also questionable whether such bases actually increase the security of host nations. The presence of U.S. bases can turn a country into an explicit target for foreign powers or militants — just as U.S. installations have endangered Americans overseas.

Similarly, rather than stabilizing dangerous regions, foreign bases frequently heighten military tensions and discourage diplomatic solutions to conflicts. Placing U.S. bases near the borders of countries like China, Russia, and Iran, for example, increases threats to their security and encourages them to respond by boosting their own military spending and activity. Imagine how U.S. leaders would respond if China were to build even a single small base in Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean. Notably, the most dangerous moment during the Cold War — the 1962 Cuban missile crisis — revolved around the construction of Soviet nuclear missile facilities in Cuba, roughly 90 miles from the U.S. border.

The creation and maintenance of so many U.S. bases overseas likewise encourages other nations to build their own foreign bases in what could rapidly become an escalating “base race.” Bases near the borders of China and Russia, in particular, threaten to fuel new cold wars. U.S. officials may insist that building yet more bases in East Asia is a defensive act meant to ensure peace in the Pacific, but tell that to the Chinese. That country’s leaders are undoubtedly not “reassured” by the creation of yet more bases encircling their borders. Contrary to the claim that such installations increase global security, they tend to ratchet up regional tensions, increasing the risk of future military confrontation.

In this way, just as the war on terror has become a global conflict that only seems to spread terror, the creation of new U.S. bases to protect against imagined future Chinese or Russian threats runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. These bases may ultimately help create the very threat they are supposedly designed to protect against. In other words, far from making the world a safer place, U.S. bases can actually make war more likely and the country less secure.

Behind the Wire
In his farewell address to the nation upon leaving the White House in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned the nation about the insidious economic, political, and even spiritual effects of what he dubbed “the military-industrial-congressional complex,” the vast interlocking national security state born out of World War II. As Chalmers Johnson’s work reminded us in this new century, our 70-year-old collection of bases is evidence of how, despite Ike’s warning, the United States has entered a permanent state of war with an economy, a government, and a global system of power enmeshed in preparations for future conflicts.

America’s overseas bases offer a window onto our military’s impact in the world and in our own daily lives. The history of these hulking “Little Americas” of concrete, fast food, and weaponry provides a living chronicle of the United States in the post-World War II era. In a certain sense, in these last seven decades, whether we realize it or not, we’ve all come to live “behind the wire,” as military personnel like to say.

We may think such bases have made us safer. In reality, they’ve helped lock us inside a permanently militarized society that has made all of us — everyone on this planet — less secure, damaging lives at home and abroad.