Home

Manggåfan Alimåsak

Details

Written by: Bernard Punzalan

Published: 31 July 2013

Within the Chamorro Roots Genealogy Project™ database, the Manggåfan Alimåsak can be traced to some descendants with Leon Guerrero surname. The oldest level of the Manggåfan Alimåsak I have found so far can be traced to the descendants of Juan Jose de Leon Guerrero (1867-?) and Ana Delgado Sablan (Manggåfan Donggat: 1874-?).

 

(As of this writing I was unable to confirm if this Juan may be the same person as Juan Jose Borja de Leon Guerrero, son of Juan Jose de Leon Guerrero (b. abt 1832) and Vicenta Iglesias de Borja (1836-?).)

 

From Anthony Ramirez’ previous research “Chamorro Nicknames,” he found that the Manggåfan Alimåsak is also tied to some people with the San Nicolas surname. I am uncertain at this point if the San Nicolas and Leon Guerrero families with the Manggåfan Alimåsak  if there may be any direct lineal relationships with each other or if the same clan names are purely coincidental.

 

References

Ramirez also notes that alimåsak refers to a crab. Interestingly, while performing a quick search on the internet, the term “alimasag” pops up and is also a Tagalog word mostly referring to a blue crab.

 

In Pale’Eric’s blog, "FAMILY NICKNAMES : ALIMÅSAK" he writes:

"The story I heard says that one of the family ancestors had a little too much of the good stuff to drink, and was with others socializing on the beach. When he got up to walk, he didn't have much of a balance and started to sway to and fro as he walked. This reminded the others of the way the alimåsak walks sideways, and they laughed and started calling him alimåsak."

 

ADDED 6 August 2013:

In Laura Thompson, “Archaeology of the Marianas” (1932), she recorded the following nickname”

“ALIMASAG, Crab (Zosimus aeneus). A male ancestor of this family was dancing at a gathering and was rather clumsy with his arms. Another man made fun of him, saying: “You dance funny, you hold your arms like an Alimasag.” This is how he got his name.”

 

Land Record

In a 1901 Guam land record (Estate No. 925) Don Juan Jose de Leon Guerrero filed a petition to formalize his ownership for a parcel of “coconut land located in the Santa Rosa,” that was ceded to him around 1895, by his father-in-law, Vicente Sablan, without an inscribed title to the property.

 

 

(Observation Note: This type of land transaction was not uncommon for a person to petition the court due to the lack of an inscribed property title when a land transaction was previously made. In some land records under the Spanish government and early U.S. government, Chamorro nicknames were signified with an "alias" (clan name) followed by the person's name. This land record did not record Don Juan Jose's alias.)

 

Descendant

According to a funeral announcement, Francisco Pangelinan Leon Guerrero is a grandson of Don Juan Jose de Leon Guerrero. Francisco was born on April 6, 1926 and passed away on August 1, 2005. His parents were Vicente Sablan Leon Guerrero and the former Nieves Unpingco Pangelinan (Manggåfan Mali’).

 

Database Update 30 Jul 2013

Details

Written by: Bernard Punzalan

Published: 29 July 2013

The database has been updated and has grown from 298,406 to 299,033 names.

Manggåfan Robat

Details

Written by: Bernard Punzalan

Published: 24 July 2013

Where Does the family clan name Robat Come From?

This question has been asked of me several times usually from people associated who have Cruz or Guerrero ancestral lineage. Coincidently, my wife happens to be from the Manggåfan Robat through the Guerrero surname.

 

However, according to long time Chamorro genealogist and historian Anthony Ramirez, Robat is derivative of the surname Roberts or Roberto.

Of course one of the challenges I have as with others who have raised the question is that we have not been able to make the connection with the Cruz or Guerrero surname with the Roberto surname. Well, at least not yet. But what if there is no connection with the Roberts/Roberto surname?

There may be other possibilities why the Manggåfan Robat lives within other surnames. Some possibilities to consider:

• It might be hidden through the maternal maiden surname
• It’s possible that a child may have been born out of wedlock fathered by a Roberts/Roberto
• It might have derived from a first name of Roberts/Roberto and not a surname.
• Other?

The bottom line remains with research perseverance and how important the question is to you to try and find an answer. Tony Ramirez spent a lot time with the manamko towards documenting his work and findings. Therefore, I would also suggest one seriously consider asking the manamko to document interviews with them. We have so many knowledge gaps in our Chamorro ancestry and heritage.

There’s an interesting story waiting to be told and documented. We just have to make the time and effort to go after it!

Is "Guamanian" an Ethnic Race?

Details

Written by: Bernard Punzalan

Published: 17 July 2013

I meant to write about this issue a while back ago but fell off my radar. However, recently on FaceBook (July 15, 2013), thanks to David Atalig for fielding this very question on his FaceBook status, which pushed me to write more about this very issue. Although David is a Chamorro from Saipan, he and his family reside in California.

 

At the onset of this writing over 93 people “Liked” his status, while 34 people made a comment. If there’s one thing about FaceBook is that you never know what people will write about until they click that button to make a comment. A day later over 177 “Liked” his status and 65 people commented, both which continue to grow in numbers.

 

So here’s what David Atalig wrote to fuel comments:

 

Is "Guamanian" an Ethnic Race?

 

When I filled out my children's school application, it asked for my "Race". Among the choices was "Guamanian," "Hawaiian," and "Other Pacific Islander." Of course, since I am not from the island of GUAM, I marked "Other Pacific Islander." School administrator said they are only following what the US Census identifies as "Race". Really?? Shouldn't it be "Chamorro"???? This needs to be fixed!!

 

Although, some of us know that the term “Guamanian” is not a race, many others are not aware of it. In fact the response that David received from a California school representative was that their information of the term “Guamanian” as a race was derived from the Census.

 

Problematic Aggregation 

Perhaps, the most common problem is when organizations (public and private) devise forms and ask about a person’s race. It is not surprising that there is very little knowledge about the Chamorro people being a distinct group of people and race. For the most part, it seems, we have become encapsulated, perhaps even marginalized, into aggregate categories created for the convenience of others. Once a notion is made it triggers a domino effect of replicating errors regarding the Chamorro identity.

 

The U.S. Government has come a long way with regards to issues on its Territories (CNMI included), race, and minorities. Yet, we know that still much more can be improved upon and corrected. The public relies on the Government to lead the nation and know its “stuff.” Generally, once the government has “inked” it, many will rely on it as “gospel.” Such is the misnomer of the term “Guamanian,” which David and many others have faced.

In fact try visiting/searching some State government websites and see how they much they are consistent with the "Guamanian or Chamorro" race data. This all stems from the Census classifications and data. You will see first hand on how much these organizations attempt to be consistent with national data reporting and further causing more misinformation.

 

Reactions

Some of the comments were interesting to review. Some touched on the subject while others digressed into other areas such as Territory versus Commonwealth, a few attempted to define/qualify the two categories, and one even mentioned an issue with AT&T.

 

So I decided to “Share” David’s status to see if I could provoke more comments and perceptions, to see how others may feel about the question. CHE'LU Inc. also shared and received some comments on FaceBook too.

 

I also picked up from some of the commentators the impact of less or even restrictive race options for those with multiethnic ancestries, which included Chamorro. The restrictions create a form of identity confusion and challenges with navigating the concocted classifications that simply do not seem to fit one's true identity.

 

Yeah, I reacted too SMH…with some sarcasm, “Big issue with the Census over the years, the military, and other local, state and federal agencies. The problem is that those who do not know try to educate us as to who we are. Ai adei. Whenever there is no Chamorro category, please write it in!”

 

Nomenclatures

Throughout history, there are several nomenclatures that were used to identify the Chamorro people. Within our own people we refer to ourselves (those with indigenous ancestry in any of the Mariana Islands) as one or more of the following: Taotao tano; Taotao håya; or Chamorro.

 

During the Spanish occupation Chamorro people were recorded as: Ladrones, Indios/Indians, Marianos, natives, and Chamorro. The partition of the Mariana Islands after the Spanish-American War added more categories to the mix and complications.

 

When the U.S. and Japan occupied the islands, Chamorro people became further defined by their island of residence: Guamanian, Saipanese, Rotanese. As of the time of this writing I am not sure if the Chamorro people of Tinian had some designated term.

 

One of the earliest forms of use for the “Guamanian” nomenclature can be traced to the 1919 when the Guam Hymn, “Stand Ye Guamanians,” was written and composed by Dr. Ramon Manalisay Sablan.

 

During the late 1970’s, there is a contention that the term “Guamanian,” took on more traction with the notion that it was no longer exclusive to the Chamorro people of Guam. Rather, it started to become inclusive of non-Chamorro residents who where long time residents of Guam. Although, that notion may remain contentious with some, it does seem more apparent and acceptable today that the “Guamanian” nomenclature encompasses legal residents of Guam regardless of race or ethnicity. Several FaceBook commentators agreed that “Guamanian” was a term to refer to one’s nationality, per se.

 

I also found it interesting to note that several people commented that if Guamanian was an option and not Chamorro, they would end up selecting Pacific Islander status: a category that commonly tends to erroneously develop into a misinterpreted race of people. If I’m not mistaken Congress created this category of people (Pacific Islanders), which consisted of many races within the Pacific Islands, in order for such people to benefit from Federal program offerings.

 

Micronesian? Indeed, some forget or not aware that the Mariana Islands are geographically situated in Micronesia, with Guam being the largest island.

 

I’m sure there are probably other forms of nomenclature that may have surfaced at one time or another to try and categorize a Chamorro, but these are the most common ones that came to mind.

 

Decision Making Purposes

The Census Bureau’s website lists quite a number of reasons why such data is important to collect and maintain. However, within the U.S. Constitution, Article I, mandates a decennial census.

 

Perhaps the most applicable reason across general purposes is that the data will be analyzed and used for decision making purposes. Therefore, depending on the nature of what type of decision needs to be made, will be contingent and dependent on the data collected to date. If one does not have the appropriate data, s/he might not be able to make a more suitable decision that can impact the lives of many. In particular a faulty decision could result in an adverse impact/unintended consequence of loss of benefits, programmatic or funding opportunities, and the list can go on.

 

There were many comments to request Congressional representatives to try and fix the situation. But from my view it’s going to require everyone’s effort to educate people and organizations as to who we are as a Chamorro people. Please take the time and effort to educate others so that better decisions that may impact our people are made. As I mentioned earlier, if the "Chamorro" option is not there, please write it in.

 

I realize in some cases, sometimes a survey or form that is developed along the lines of today's federal policies may restrict the option to Pacific Islander. However, I believe we need to push back some and at least let them know that perhaps we do meet the federal definition of Pacific Islander, but we must further qualify that we are Chamorro people within that classification. From an analytical and policy standpoint such clarification would help further the government's understanding of issues that may be unique among different Pacific Islanders, instead of making general assumptions about all Pacific Islanders that could potentially marginalize a particular ethinic group of people.

 

Don't get tired of explaining it; be proud to tell them you are Chamorro and which island you come from! You might just also be helping future fellow Chamorro people from having to experience the same frustration.

 

A History of Census[tive] Race Questions

Although Guam was ceded to the U.S. in 1898, Guam was not included in the U.S. census until 1920. The CNMI was included in the 1950 Census, after World War II.

 

To reiterate, the government tends to drive and create classifications of people, and once it has been documented, many uninformed people may blindly follow and cause faulty decisions.

 

Throughout the decennial Census events, the questionnaires were not consistent for the Chamorro people and other ethnic groups. To get an idea of some of the inconsistencies, I have extracted verbatim instructions to the Enumerators and images with regards to recording “race,” for each Census beginning with 1920.[1]

 

 

1920 Census

 

Instructions:

 

120. Column 10. Color or race[2].-Write "w" for white; "B" for black; "Mu" for mulatto; "In" for Indian; "Ch" for Chinese; "Jp" for Japanese; "Fil" for Filipino; "Hin" for Hindu; "Kor" for Korean. For all persons not falling within one of these classes, write" Ot" (for other), and write on the left-hand margin of the schedule the race of the person so indicated.

 

121. For census purposes the term "black" (B j includes all) Negroes of full blood, while the term "mulatto" (Mu) includes all Negroes having some proportion of white blood.

 

 

 

1930 Census[3]

 

Instructions:

 

150. Column 12. Color or race.-Write "W" for white, "B" for black; "Mus" for mulatto; "In" for Indian; "Ch" for Chinese; "Jp" for Japanese; "Fil" for Filipino; "Hin" for Hindu; "Kor" for Korean. For a person of any other race, write the race in full.

 

151. Negroes.-A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be returned as a Negro, no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood. Both black and mulatto persons are to be returned as Negroes, without distinction. A person of mixed Indian and Negro blood should be returned a Negro, unless the Indian blood predominates and the status as an Indian is generally accepted in the community.

 

152. Indians.-A person of mixed white and Indian blood should be returned as Indian, except where the percentage of Indian blood is very small, or where he is regarded as a white person by those in the community where he lives. (Se par. 151 for mixed Indian and Negro.)

 

153. For a person reported as Indian in column 12, report is to be made in column 19 as to whether "full blood" or "mixed blood," and in column 20 the name of the tribe is to be reported. For Indians, columns 19 and 20 are thus to be used to indicate the degree of Indian blood and the tribe, instead of the birthplace of father and mother.

 

154. Mexicans.-Practically all Mexican laborers are of a racial mixture difficult to classify, though usually well recognized in the localities where they are found. In order to obtain separate figures for this racial group, it has been decided that all person born in Mexico, or having parents born in Mexico, who are not definitely white, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese, should be returned as Mexican ("Mex").

 

155. Other mixed races.-Any mixture of white and nonwhite should be reported according to the nonwhite parent. Mixtures of colored races should be reported according to the race of the father[4], except Negro-Indian (see par. 151).

 

 

1940 Census[5]

 

Instructions:

 

45. Column 10. Color or race.-For symbols to be entered in this column, see the note at the bottom of the schedule. Any mixtures of white and nonwhite blood should be recorded according to the race of the nonwhite parent. A person of mixed Negro and Indian blood should be reported as Negro unless the Indian blood greatly predominates and he is universally accepted in the community as an Indian. Other mixtures of nonwhite parentage should be reported according to the race of the father. Mexicans are to be returned as white, unless definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race.

 

 

 

1950 Census[6]

 

 

For the first time the Census form contained a choice of race; however, the Enumerator still had the ability to choose the race for the household.

 

Instructions:

 

Item 9. Race

114. Item 9. Determining and entering race.-Write "W" for white; "Neg" for Negro; "Ind" for American Indian; "Chi" for Chinese; "Jap" for Japanese; "Fil" for Filipino. For a person of any other race, write the race in full. Assume that the race of related persons living in the household is the same as the race of your respondent, unless you learn otherwise. For unrelated persons (employees, hired hands, lodgers, etc.) you must ask the race, because knowledge of the housewife's race (for example) tells nothing f the maid's race.

 

115. Mexicans.-Report "white" (W) for Mexicans unless they are definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race.

 

116. Negroes.-Report "Negro" (Neg) for Negroes and for persons of mixed white and Negro parentage. A person of mixed Indian and Negro blood should be returned as a Negro, unless the Indian blood very definitely predominates and he is accepted in the community as an Indian. (Note, however, the exceptions described in par. l18 below.)

 

117. American Indians.-Report "American Indian" (Ind) for persons of mixed white and Indian blood if enrolled on an Indian Agency or Reservation roll; if not so enrolled, they should still be reported as Indian if the proportion of Indian blood is one-fourth or more, or if they are regarded as Indians in the community where they live. (See par. 116 for persons of mixed Indian and Negro blood and also exceptions noted in par. 118.) In those counties where there are many Indians living outside of reservations, special care should be taken to obtain accurate answers to item 9.

 

118. Special communities.-Report persons of mixed white, Negro, and Indian ancestry living in certain communities in the Eastern United States in terms of the name by which they are locally known.

 

The communities in question are of long standing and are locally recognized by special names, such as '"Croatian," "Jackson White," "We-sort," etc. Persons of mixed Indian and Negro ancestry and mulattoes not living in such communities should be returned as "Negro" (see par. 116). When in doubt, describe the situation in a footnote.

 

119. Mixed parentage.-Report race of nonwhite parent for persons of mixed white and nonwhite races. Mixtures of nonwhite races should be reported according to the race of the father. (Note, however, exceptions detailed in pars. 116 and 118 above.)

 

120. India.-Persons originating in India should be reported as "Asiatic Indians.”

 

 

1960 Census

 

 

No instructions were available. [7]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1970 Census

 

 

Beginnin with the 1970 Census, the forms became self-enumerated, giving more autonomy for households to declare their race. The term "Black" also appears for the first time.

 

1980 Census

 

 

 

 

 

In 1980 it was the first time “Guamanian” was included as an option and yet, Chamorro was not an option. Also, the “race” item was not label like previous Census events.

 

 

1990 Census

 

 

 

In 1990, the “Race” label reappears; however, “Color” has been omitted. Note the introduction of the “Asian or Pacific Islander (API)” subheading, which “Guamanian” is included, but still does not offer “Chamorro,” unless one writes it in.

 

 

2000 Census

 

 

 

In 2000, the Asian or Pacific Islander (API) is dropped and now has separate categories. For the first time the “Chamorro” race is included but with the option of “Guamanian or Chamorro.” In this Census the respondents were allowed to pick more than one race for the first time. Also, “Other” became “Some other race” with its own write-in line.

 

 

2010 Census

 

 

 

And finally in the 2010 Census , the race categories remained generally the same as in 2000 and no change to the “Guamanian or Chamorro” option.

 

Bibliography

 

Census Bureau website accessed July 16, 2013 from: http://www.census.gov

 

Census Bureau. 1989. 200 Years of U.S. Census Taking: Population and Housing Questions, 1790-1990. Government Printing Office: Washington DC.

 

Central Bureau of Statistics. Population Census | Uses of Census Data. Accessed July 16, 2013 from: http://www.cbs.gov.il/census/census/pnimi_sub_page_e.html?id_topic=1&;id_subtopic=5

 

D’Vera Cohn. 2010. Race and the Census: The “Negro” Controversy. PewResearch Social & Demographic Trends.

 

Gina E. Taitano, ' Adoption of “Guamanian”', referenced July 15, 2013, © 2009 Guampedia™, URL: http://guampedia.com/adoption-of-guamanian/.