Tuesday, January 24, 2023



Frenchie January 18, 2023 at 4:38 AM

Bevacqua has two major problems:

1) he lacks intellectual honesty, because he is willing to argue any which way to further his narrow and flawed sense of history, and his revisionist understanding of said history

2) His lack of deep research on issues of ethnology, civilisations, and again history, makes him conclude wrongly on the reasons of certain events. Not surprising, since this is not his background of studies.

In the history of the world, it has been underlined that societies living in highly challenging environment, mostly desert settings, tend to be matriarchal. Within these very few matriarchal societies, IE: the Touaregs of the Sahara, the Tubus of the Tibesti, or to a lesser extent the Bushmen of the Kalahari, it has been established that the lack of food and liquid resources has led these tribes to regulate the number of births in the tribe according to the annual living conditions. These are exceptional conditions, which cannot be superposed to other civilizations and/or situations.

Dr Rubinstein never equated these known examples of population control to the situation in the Marianas, which were very different.

The situation facing Chamorros then, are more in line with the aborigines on larger islands like Taiwan, which also faced a brutal military colonization, and subsequent subjugation. In this case, it was noted the same high ratio of suicide and infanticide as a form of refusal of their loss, rather than a matriarchal enlightened approach to population control. Bevacqua is here again being petulant and dishonest.

Bevacqua's tactic of trying to fit a political argument to an historical narrative is not new, but it is certainly highly reprehensible.


Carl Borja Nelson January 23, 2023 at 1:49 PM

I posted this article to Bevacqua's "Guahan Politics) page over a week ago. He eventually responded, of course denying Tim's points in his opinion piece (without offering serious evidence refuting Tim's points).

I responded to that and then he responded again; and then, for some reason he (or, he says, one of his co-administrators) kicked me off of the site and took down the article.

I messaged him asking him for his reason for kicking me off of the site and talking down my post (and our comments). He messaged me back that it was one of his co-administrators that did it. Possible but I'm skeptical.

He said he would look into it and try to get me back on the site as soon as possible.

He came back and said that he needs a copy of the post because FB won't let him see it. I don't have a copy of it. It was taken down . Lol. SMH.

I just sent him a link to Tim's above article refuting Bevacqua's argument that abortion was accepted and considered positive by indigenous Chamorros.

I don't understand why he criticizes America and other Western capitalist countries but invests so much energy trying to make us copy those countries' practice of killing innocent, unborn infants (62M+ in America alone since Roe v Wade in 1973).


  1. This CHamoru anti- fertility policy is inane.

    CHamorus should be against anti- fertility policy and for policy that encourages CHamoru fertility because:

    1) The world will be better off with more CHamorus rather than with fewer

    2) CHamoru Self-determination will be easier to attain with more CHamorus rather than with fewer

    3) Policy should encourage the wanting of CHamoru babies rather than encourage the killing of unwanted CHamoru babies

    4) The policy of killing CHamoru babies reflects the hyper-individualism of the West, not the traditional CHamoru perspective.

    1. Wow. You hit that "nail" on the freaking head! Funny how Bevacqua et al, in their hyper-pro-abortionism - are "agents" of the West that they otherwise detest. Just stupid.