Clarifying the term ‘local’

In my letter to the media responding to Ruth Tighe’s statement about Abe Malae from American Samoa, I asserted the importance of giving the benefit of the doubt to the “island community.” In my letter I did not mention that a “race” or particular indigenous people should be looked upon more favorably over other Americans residing in the CNMI.

C.M. Jones took out of context completely the gist of what I advocated in my letter. His comment, “We should stop referring CNMI locals based upon their race over other Americans and stop giving them a lower standard to meet, as well as require them to compete on a truly level meritocratic playing field,” was not what was stated or even insinuated.

Moreover, nowhere in my letter did I state that there should be an outright preference over other qualified candidates who happen to be Americans residing in the CNMI. What I did say was that those qualified applicants who happen to be an integral part of the island community should always be taken into account when reviewing applications from people who might be coming from outside the CNMI. And when I say qualified candidates, I am referring to anyone with indigenous heritage, e.g., Chamorro, Carolinian, and those Americans who were born in the CNMI or migrated from the mainland and have lived in the island community for a considerable length of time.

It should be brought to Mr. Jones attention that several years subsequent to the Covenant agreement between the CNMI and the U.S., i.e., 1988, those individuals in the CNMI would fall under the umbrella of being American citizens. Thus, they would have the same status as those Americans who may have been born in a state in the mainland, but later migrated to the CNMI for whatever reason.

For purposes of clarification: An individual who is born and raised in a particular area, e.g., CNMI and California, are considered “a native.” Those individuals who are not born in a particular place but have resided there a long period of time, or perhaps all their lives—like I have in California—would be considered “locals” but not “natives.” The point of discussing these categories is to emphasize that the term “local” is oftentimes used to refer to both categories of individuals and just because the natives are born and raised in the area does not give them anymore consideration when it comes to education, buying property, employment, or whatever.

The reference in Jones’ letter that CNMI policymakers are lowering the standards for people who are local is an insubstantial accusation that is nowhere to be found in black and white. Where is this policy? Making these kinds of proclamations is fanning the flame of racism in the island community amongst those with indigenous blood and heritage versus those who possess a different background.

So please allow me to reiterate publicly what I indicated in my letter regarding the position of CUC executive director. I believe that anyone who possesses the criteria for the above position, whether they are of indigenous heritage or an American in the CNMI who would be considered “local,” should be given the benefit of the doubt for any and all jobs in the island community. And if any of these qualified individuals is selected by the hiring source, e.g., board, because he or she is the best fit, then it could be said that the community is truly taking care of their own.

Dr. Jesus D. Camacho
Delano, California