Towards an Interconnected Pacific:

An Historiography of Guam in Japan

Maria Cynthia Barriga
Waseda University

Abstract

This paper contextualizes written works on Guam published in Japan from the 1920s to the present,
thus presenting a Japanese historiography of Guam. It finds that unlike the prewar and wartime
authors who wrote to facilitate Japanese imperialism, contemporary scholars increasingly focus on
social issues in the island. In the late 2000s, the US military buildup triggered calls for solidarity
between scholars in Japan and on Guam, and collaborations initiated in peace conferences led to
writing (academic and otherwise) that was more sympathetic to the concerns of the island. In the
2010s, two full-length academic books on Guam were published. Products of linkages, these works
were reviewed and referred to by scholars across fields of studies, furthering engagements and
interactions.

There has been a growing academic interest in defining the Pacific. Arif Dirlik, on the
premise that the Pacific is an invented concept, argued that from the 16th century capitalism has
been the primary driver in defining the region. Influential as Dirlik’s ideas were, his discussion
was noticeably limited to the continents rimming the ocean and glossed over the islands dotting
the region within. Later scholars such as Matt Matsuda addressed this limitation by highlighting
the importance of the islands. His article “The Pacific” proposes “an oceanic history much more
located in thinking outward from Islanders and local cultures” (759). Notwithstanding the
differences in perspective, both Matsuda and Dirlik approach the region in terms of
interconnections: movements, crisscrossing, and encounters.
In 2015, a group of scholars gathered to discuss the Pacific as a field of studies; their
reflections on the workshop were compiled and published as the “Pacific Empires Working Group
Forum.” For Paul Kramer, one of the participants, focusing on interconnections within and across
the ocean allows for a history “beyond the nation” (33). A Pacific Studies that emphasizes
movements and encounters can therefore provide an alternative to national and transnational
approaches. It can also force historians to rethink the characters in their narratives. Besides the
commonly told histories of imperial wars and territorial disputes, imperial alliances for the purpose
of possessing and exploiting “the rest of the Pacific and Asia” should be examined (19). To show
an example of such historical alliance, Takashi Fujitani refers to Militarized Pacific, which
criticizes US and Japanese militarization and imperialism in the region.
Other participants’ reflections also mention hurdles and solutions. As Eiichiro Azuma
laments, “Our current mapping of the Pacific is [skewed by] an institutional problem in academia”
(7-8). Rigidly institutionalized fields of studies make it difficult for scholars to transcend the
current artificial, self-contained sub-units of the Pacific: East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the US
west coast. Responding to Azuma, Jordan Sands writes that precisely due to its breadth and
complexity, Pacific Studies demands “greater communication among scholars grounded on the
study of different places” (1). Just as the Pacific has been the site of encounters among peoples
moving from one point of origin to the next, so Pacific Studies necessitates a meeting of scholars
from various countries, universities, and fields of study.
This need to converse with colleagues based overseas and writing in different languages is

21
 Towards an Interconnected Pacific

emphasized by the 2018 anthology Oceanic Histories. In its chapter on the Pacific, it claims that
as early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “the Pacific was historicized within [by] Japanese,
German, and Anglophone scholars alike” (Bashford 62). In the 1920s, historians based in Hawaii
and New Zealand were also publishing about the region. Ignorance of these earlier developments
leads to the misconception that interest in the Pacific is new. To avert such limited views, not only
histories but also historiographies are needed. In definitional discussions about the Pacific, it is
essential to study not only histories of the islands but also the different ways in which these
histories were crafted.
As journals like the University of Guam’s Pacific Asia Inquiry join these definitional
discussions,1 I wish to contribute by presenting a historiography of Guam in Japan. In doing so,
my paper seeks to inform scholars in Guam how the island has been written about in Japan and the
historical contexts that brought about these writings and to identify existing linkages between
scholars in both areas. The choice of Guam among all the islands and of Japan among all the places
where numerous works have been published is, admittedly, motivated by my own research interests.
Therefore, I invite scholars working on other islands and historiographies into an academic
discussion with the view of gaining a more holistic understanding the Pacific.
As a historiography, this paper traces research trends in Japan from the 1920s (when Japan
was establishing its foothold in Micronesia) to the present. It asks how has Guam been discussed
in written works published in Japan? Simply put, it reviews the literature related to Guam published
in Japan and locates this in the authors’ varying historical contexts. The paper neither investigates
in detail one article or book nor verifies information presented in the materials. Instead, it scans a
range of materials to find patterns in how Japanese authors dealt and are dealing with Guam.
Unlike annotated bibliographies and catalogs, it does not seek to be comprehensive. I did not sift
through the yearly volumes of Nihon Shuppan Nenkan [Publication Yearbook in Japan] to search
for “Guam” in its many lists and graphs. Instead, for the prewar and postwar periods when
discussions revolved around the Pacific in general and not about Guam in particular, I relied on
secondary sources and existing bibliographies and then highlighted the entries and authors that
touched on Guam. Only for the 2000s and onwards, did I peruse the actual materials. Similar to
how anthropologists and sociologists conduct snowball interviews, I began with a handful of
academic journal articles and got introduced to other key informants by checking reference lists or
by directly corresponding with the authors themselves. In the process, I became familiar with those
writers most often cited and gained insight to the common approaches employed and the
perspectives they held.
In brief, the paper finds that, following changes in the authors’ milieus, the literature related
to Guam in Japan has been much transformed. Unlike those who wrote for the Japanese empire
before and during the war, contemporary scholars increasingly focus on social issues concerning
the island. In the 2000s, Japanese authors, troubled by Japanese tourists coming to Guam without
understanding the island’s history, wrote introductions to Chamorro history and culture as
alternatives to the proliferating travel guides. Around the same decade, Guam served as a useful
case study in various fields, particularly Ethnic Studies, American Studies, and War Studies. In the
late 2000s, the US military buildup and Japan’s participation in it triggered partnerships between
scholars from Guam and Japan. Their collaboration in turn created a scholarship that is now
sympathetic to the concerns of the island.
The paper highlights collaborations in order to expand and strengthen them. Japanese
scholars studying the island can infuse Guam scholarship with new resources. Meanwhile Guam
researchers could critique Japanese academic publications and continue to help steer their

22
 Pacific Asia Inquiry, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2018

trajectory. Through the awareness of what is being written about them and through scholarly
dialogue, researchers in both areas can inform and motivate each other’s projects. This paper, at
its core, advocates for an interconnected Pacific.

A Brief Historical Background (19th Century to 1920s)

In 1868, as the Spanish empire was fast declining, Japan ushered in a new era, transitioning
from the 250 year-long Tokugawa Shogunate to the Meiji Period. In the same year, 37 Japanese
who stowed away through Yokohama arrived in Guam. These 37 as well as the increasing number
of Japanese sailing to the Pacific islands did so either through a “shady intermediary” or alone in
just a small schooner. Once on the island, they were employed as manual laborers or engaged in
illegal trade. Only in the mid-1880s were the islands explored by Japanese officials and statesmen,
and only in the 1890s were expeditions to Guam undertaken.
In 1898, the Spanish empire fell and the shifting balance of world powers created diverging
colonial histories in the Pacific. Guam, along with the Philippines, was ceded to the US while the
rest of Spain’s remaining territories were sold to Germany. Soon after, the Philippines was granted
an Organic Act, its government hastened towards Filipinization, and its ports were opened to
commerce beyond Manila. Guam, meanwhile, languished under the US Navy, its port closed in
1912 and only vessels with special permits were allowed to enter. In 1914, as the First World War
broke out in Europe, Japan occupied the loosely held German territories in Micronesia. After the
war, in 1919, these were mandated to Japan by the League of Nations. With Palau as administrative
center and sugar-based companies in Saipan, the islands in Micronesia saw an influx of Japanese
migrant laborers and professionals alike.
Nan’yō Guntō [South Seas Islands], as Japanese-occupied Micronesia came to be called,
was established with three points in mind. One, it was a base from which the Japanese economy
was to expand to the outer nan’yō [South Seas], i.e., the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Two, it
offered strategic positions against the US military in the Pacific. And three, having received the
mandate, Japan wanted to educate local residents. In the 1930s, with increasing criticism from the
US and Britain, Japan asserted its position in Nan’yō Guntō. That said, until the outbreak of the
Sino-Japanese War in 1937, it sought to avoid further agitating other empires and limited its efforts
to developing the islands’ economies (Imaizumi 277).

Writing for the Empire (1920s to 1940s)

It was within this climate, one characterized by the desire to investigate, exploit, and
economically develop the southern frontiers, that Japanese authors from the 1920s to the 1940s
wrote about the islands. To effectively exploit resources, knowledge of them was essential. It is
thus no wonder that most of what was written was on the natural sciences and physical
anthropology, as seen in Fujio Uchinomi’s list Nan’yō Guntō Kagaku Bunkenshū [Collection of
Materials on the Natural Sciences in the South Seas Islands], on the new territories of Japan.
Because Guam remained under the US and was outside the Japanese empire, it was rarely
mentioned. The bibliography of prewar and wartime materials compiled by Sachiko Hatanaka, for
example, was subtitled “Micronesia under the Japanese Mandate, 1914-1945” and has scant
information on Guam. Likewise, of the 24 reels of books, the titles and tables of contents translated
by Iris Tanimoto-Spade’s team, only six mention Guam. Indeed, considering the consistent
labeling of Guam as an American territory, it seems that the Japanese authors writing about the

23
 Towards an Interconnected Pacific

Pacific, many of whom were working for the government, evaded investigating the island out of
deference to the US.
Such was not the case for the Japanese authors writing about Southeast Asia, many of
whom viewed Japanese expansionism as the natural course of empires. Nan’yō Kyōkai, for
example, was an organization which consistently monitored the empire’s southern border with the
hopes of expanding it. The organization focused on the region beyond Nan’yō Guntō, that is, the
area to which Imperial Japan was to expand. For its writers, “nan’yō” primarily refers to Southeast
Asia (Kawarabayashi 4). As seen in the indexed catalog of the organization’s publications from
1915 to 1944, there were more mentions of British Malaya, Siam, Java, and the Philippines than
Taiwan and the entire Micronesia combined. Nevertheless, it was in the writings of these Southeast
Asianists that early descriptions of Guam could be found.
One such Southeast Asianist was Shizuo Matsuoka, a board member of the Nichi-Ran
Tsūkō Chōsa-kai [Association for Investigation and Exchange between Japan and the Netherlands]
(Hayase, Nan’yō Kyōkai II 33). In Matsuoka’s two books on the Pacific (1925) and on Micronesia
(1927), Guam was not absent. In particular, in Taiheiyō Minzoku-shi [Ethnography of the Pacific],
he includes Guam in his descriptions of islands/groups of islands outside Japanese-occupied
Micronesia. As the 1930s progressed and Japan’s foreign policy shifted from coexistence to
integration, works like Matsuoka’s were reprinted in a different light. In the foreword of the
posthumously reprinted Taiheiyō Minzoku-shi, historian Kōya Nakamura passionately explained
that the Japanese empire was expanding. For Nakamura, the islanders, who surely wanted to join
that empire, should be allowed to continue dancing and singing and practicing their traditions (1).
Understanding island cultures was essential.
Significantly, many of the authors were not academics as the term implies today. Matsuoka,
for example, was a military man by training and profession. Likewise, most of the entries in
Tanimoto-Spade’s list are works by or published under the supervision of the Nan’yō-chō [South
Seas Bureau], the government agency in charge of Nan’yō Guntō. Unlike the rather apolitical
academia in Japan today, authors and scholars before and during the war were employed by the
government, not surprisingly considering that Tokyo Imperial University (present-day Tokyo
University) itself was mobilized for war.

Postwar Pacific/Oceanic Studies2 and Books about Guam (1970s-2000s)

In the first few decades after the Second World War, Japanese material about the Pacific
was scattered or destroyed. Moreover, Japanese researchers could not go to the islands for field
research until late 1950s. In 1971, a convention of specialists recommended to UNESCO that a
list of remaining prewar and wartime Japanese material be drawn up. With funding from UNESCO
and Harvard-Yenching Institute, Sachiko Hatanaka, one of the earliest Japanese to conduct field
research in the Pacific after the war, and her team of graduate students proceeded to build a
bibliography of Japanese material about the region. In 1979, they published this bibliography with
an enclosed introduction in English. A reflection of the prewar and wartime scholarship, it too
focused on Japanese occupied territories and entries concerning Guam were nil.
As Hatanaka and her team labored to recover scattered prewar and wartime material,
Oceanic studies and Pacific studies were re-emerging in Japan, first in academic societies and then
later in universities. In 1977, ethnologist Eikichi Ishikawa together with a group of young
anthropologists established the Japanese Society for Oceanic Studies (Nihon Oseania Gakkai). A
year later, Taiheiyō Gakkai [Pacific Studies Association] was also established by a mix of

24
 Pacific Asia Inquiry, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2018

international relations specialists, political scientists, economists, journalists, and businessmen

(Yamamoto 80-81). From the 1980s to 1990s, individual professors and researchers, mainly
anthropologists and several linguists interested in the cultures of island countries, brought Oceanic
and Pacific Studies into universities.
The immediate postwar Pacific studies in Japan barely touched on Guam, though
exceptions occasionally appeared. On these rare occasions, discussions revolved around the war.
In one workshop on Pacific islands nations and Asia-Pacific war histories in 1988, Masanosuke
Okada focused on wartime Guam. In particular, he presented Nan’yō Kohatsu’s activities on the
island during the Japanese occupation. A former employee of the company, Okada also shared his
personal experiences during the workshop’s open forum which fortunately was also documented
in the proceedings. Four years later, military historian Kohki Ohta also published a two-part journal
article on the Minseibu (Japanese civilian government) in Guam. In general, however, Pacific and
Oceanic Studies, following their prewar predecessors and taking a wider geographical perspective,
glossed over the island.
The first works concerning Guam were not from academia. They were, instead, from war
commemorations and the tourism industry. From the late 1960s to the mid-1990s, publication of
war memoirs and autobiographical novels steadily increased in Japan. In the 1980s, aging war
veterans journeyed to their former battlefields, returned to Japan, and wrote about their experiences.
Within this climate of commemoration, accounts of the Battle for Guam also appeared in Japanese
bookstores. In 1972, Tan Horikawa published a collection of documents pertaining to the war in
Guam and Saipan as part of a ten-volume series entitled Taiheiyō Sensō Hairaito [Highlights of
the Pacific War] that involved Japan’s Ministry of Defense, the US Department of Defense, and
several Japanese and American news agencies. In 1981, a photo collection of the battle in Guam,
of American soldiers in the field, and of Japanese soldiers’ studio pictures was published by Masao
Hiratsuka. Such commemorative war histories persisted even after the 1980s, for example,
Hiratsuka’s 2015 war narratives on Saipan, Guam, and Peleliu, as well as Makoto Nishimura’s and
Makoto Konishi’s photo compilations of war ruins.
Meanwhile, Japan saw a rapid expansion of its economy. The so-called baby-boomer
generation, born in the latter half of the 1940s, poured into Guam in large group tours usually
funded by companies for their employees. Travel books in hand, Japanese tourists came to Guam
to escape their increasingly hectic life and enjoy the island beaches. After Japan’s economic bubble
burst and during the recession of the 1990s, Japanese tourism in Guam changed in character. No
longer did the bulk of the tourists come in large groups with a packaged guided tour. Rather they
came with their families or friends and wandered around the island at their own pace. Reflecting
the change in the types of tourists, travel books also transformed from pocket-sized books
showcasing beaches (and some war ruins) to travel “manuals” for individual wanderers. Often with
an enclosed map, these manuals served as substitutes to personal tour guides recommending routes,
places to see, and what to eat and where. Besides war histories, therefore, written works concerning
Guam can also be found in these travel books.3
By the 2000s, the sheer number of Japanese tourists coming into Guam and their lack of
knowledge of Guam history became a concern for Japanese authors. Wary that Japanese tourists
were not even aware of the Japanese military occupation of Guam, the Battle for Guam, and the
loss that the islanders suffered because of these events, a number of Japanese authors felt the need
to educate Japanese tourists about Guam culture and history. In 2001, then-journalist Shun Ohno
(currently an East and Southeast Asian scholar teaching at Seisen University) published a book
about Guam’s general history and current political conditions. Having travelled to the Micronesian

25
 Towards an Interconnected Pacific

islands in his college years, Ohno’s paradise-like image of the islands was transformed by the war
ruins he saw and by islanders’ vivid stories of Japanese colonization. Makoto Yamaguchi, a
sociologist taking a historical perspective, traces how Guam became a Japanese tourist “paradise.”
Yamaguchi maintains that Japanese tourists need to be conscientious of the islanders’
memory/history, especially those pertaining to the Japanese occupation, the Battle for Guam, and
the immediate postwar years. Educators Kyōko Nakayama and Ronald Laguaña partnered to
produce an introduction to Chamorro culture, complete with a brief history, testimonies of the local
residents, and a list of common Chamorro words.
Unlike the preceding decades in which Guam was barely discussed, the 1970s saw written
works specifically about the island. Two characteristics of these writings can be noted. They seem
to target popular readership and, while they may have influenced the general context of Japanese
academia, they were nevertheless outside academic discourse. Also, until the 1990s, they revolved
around topics which Japanese popular readers found interesting, such as beaches, war ruins, and
war narratives. It was only in the 2000s that introductions to Chamorro history and culture came
out as alternatives to the proliferating travel guides.

Guam Gains Academic Attention (2000s to 2010s)

In the same decade, changes can be observed inside academia. Guam was increasingly
mentioned in Oceanic and Pacific Studies, though only in passing or, at best, one case study among
many. Kyoto University’s Oceanic Studies mentions Guam in a brief reference to creole language,
tourism-based economic development, and remnants of the war. Yasukatsu Matsushima’s 2007
Mikuroneshia, which deals with Micronesia thematically, mentions Guam in discussions on war
claims, tourism, and US military bases. In the 2000s, the growing Pacific and Oceanic Studies
programs were incorporating Guam to expand their knowledge of the region. However, because
they sought to write a regional study, they could mention the island as only one of the many cases
in the Asia-Pacific region.
Academic works focusing on Guam were to be found in other fields. In American Studies,
Kayo Ikeda focused her attention on US policies concerning its territories. After discussing briefly
Puerto Rico, Ikeda shifted to Guam, taking it as a peripheral US territory where the extent and
character of the American empire can be dissected and nuanced. In Ethnic Studies, Takemasa
Teshima, who completed a dissertation on the Ainu of Japan a decade earlier (in English, from
Washington University), penned a piece on the Chamorros of Guam and their struggle for
decolonization. It is worth noting that while the anthology to which Teshima contributed this piece
was entitled Ajia-Taiheiyō Chiiki no Esunishiti [Ethnicity in Asia-Pacific], all cases except for
Guam are from Asia. Meanwhile, Yamaguchi joined other social scientists in a new movement to
comprehend armed conflicts. Established in 2009 with the aim of building a new interdisciplinary
field to understand war and humankind, the Society for Sociology of Warfare actively published
anthologies on the links between the 20th century total war/s, war commemorations, technology,
media, and the 21st century war on terror. For the most part, their publications are limited to
sources based in the US and Europe, the Middle East, China, and Japan, particularly, Okinawa and
Hiroshima. However, in an anthology edited by key members of the Society, Yamaguchi provides
an examination of Japanese educational tours in Guam as a case study of so-called war tourism. In
the 2000s, Guam served as a useful case study in various fields. It allowed for a center-periphery
analysis in American Studies, a stepping stone towards Ethnic Studies’ understanding of
indigeneity and indigenous movements in the Pacific Islands, and an alternative perspective to the

26
 Pacific Asia Inquiry, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2018

Western- and Japanese-based discourses in war studies.

Outside academia, politico-military developments triggered protests from activists in both
Okinawa and Guam. In 2006, the American and Japanese central governments reached an
agreement to move US marines from Futenma Base in Okinawa to Guam, with the condition that
Okinawans allow the US military to build another base in Henoko. In 2007, Hibiki Yamaguchi of
the People’s Plan Study Group, reported about the 2006 plan to transfer the US navy from Okinawa
to Guam. This report Yamaguchi elaborated in a ten-part series of articles which ran from 2009 to
2012 in the People’s Plan magazine. In 2010, Ikeda, who had long been writing about American
policies on the region, moved her analysis towards “One Guam,” the financial assistance program
linked to the US military build-up on the island. In the same year, Keith Camacho and Wesley
Iwao Ueunten published a scathing commentary (in English) against US militarization in the
bilingual International Journal of Okinawan Studies, though the issue was generally overlooked
by Japanese scholars outside Okinawa and Okinawan Studies. Kensei Yoshida, one of the first to
raise the issue, complained that the Japanese media and the Japanese government (except for the
local government of Ginowan City where Futenma Base was located) were completely silent on
the matter (3).
In the 2000s, Japanese scholars wrote with a purpose of addressing regional issues. Unlike
its prewar and immediate postwar predecessors, Oceanic Studies was no longer simply interested
in investigating and recording the flora and fauna of the islands. It looked at Oceania as a periphery,
as a victim of scientific and technological developments, and as a region that necessitates paradigm
shifts in conventional scholarships. Echoing (albeit in varying degrees) activists concerned with
the impact of US policies in the Pacific, Ikeda, Camacho and Ueunten, and Hibiki Yamaguchi
raised the case of Guam and linked it to US militarism elsewhere.
Until the mid-2010s, works that focused on Guam are widely dispersed. Makoto
Yamaguchi was a sociologist from media studies; Ikeda was in American studies; Teshima had
been writing about the Ainu and Japanese laws concerning Japan’s indigenous peoples.
Consequently, no dialogue between them occurred. Neither did they affirm nor critique each
other’s works. Indeed, one wonders if they even knew each other existed. Analyses on Guam
remained in academic journals as well as in university department and research center bulletins.4
Moreover, until the mid-2010s, there was barely any discussion among Japanese academics outside
conferences and workshops. A look at the references and methodologies of academic journal
articles shows that data was gathered by going into the field and interviewing locals. The references
were either English sources concerning Guam or Japanese sources about the Pacific in general. At
most, the only cited Japanese sources specifically on Guam are the authors’ own previous
publications. Perhaps because there were just a few of them and because those few had varied
interests, very rarely did Japanese academics critique or build on each other’s findings and
frameworks.

Collaboration and Convergence (2010-Present)

As the 2010s continued, collaboration among scholars and activists from the island and
from Japan became increasingly frequent. Conferences served as a venue to meet, discuss, and
foster solidarity in addressing regional issues. In 2011, three scholars and activists from Guam
went to Okinawa to present in a forum organized by the Japan Peace Conference. Describing
conditions in Guam, they found connections with other territories to which the US military planned
to relocate its marines. The following year one of the presenters, Michael Bevacqua, took a group

27
 Towards an Interconnected Pacific

of Japanese researchers around the island. At least one of these researchers, Yutaka Kato, produced
a series of articles for Tōkai University’s Bulletin of Liberal Arts Education Center. The first two
pieces published in 2013 and 2014 examined Guam and Okinawa, respectively, as peripheries of
the US and the Japanese empires. The most recent focuses on Pagat, a sacred land for the
Chamorros and located south of Andersen Air Force Base. A cultural anthropologist, Kato
problematizes the socio-cultural impacts of militarization and economic development. Clearly,
closer collaboration between scholars in Japan and Guam was giving birth to another research
trend as Japanese scholars began taking on social and political issues relevant to the islanders.
A change in the scholarship can again be seen in the mid-2010s with the publication of two
full-length academic books: One is the Japanese translation of Keith Camacho’s Cultures of
Commemoration and another is Reo Nagashima’s published dissertation Amerika to Guamu
[America and Guam]. Both contribute to Japanese scholarship in two ways. First of all, they
provided a framework which other scholars can assess or build upon because as full-length
academic books they were able to elaborate on ideas more than journal articles can. Second, both
called for book reviews from colleagues in Japan, forcing experts on the Asia-Pacific to engage
each other in writing.
The first of the two had its origins in 2009 when Camacho was introduced to Akira
Nishimura, who was then researching on commemorative services for the irei (spirits of those who
died for Japan). Both interested in war commemorations, Camacho and Nishimura met at the
workshop “History and Commemoration: Legacies of the Pacific War” at the East-West Center in
the University of Hawaii in the following year. When Camacho visited Nishimura’s university in
Kagoshima in 2012, they agreed to translate Camacho’s work. Particulars of the translation project
were laid out later that year and the full translation was published in 2016. Nishimura, who by
2017 had become one of the key members of the Society for the Sociology of Warfare, explains
that Camacho’s work succinctly presents the islanders’ side of the war to complement Japanese
scholars’ focus on commemorative services for their own war dead. Moreover, Nishimura
speculates that Camacho’s conclusions could refine contemporary histories of islands in the Asia-
Pacific. Echoing Camacho’s examination of how colonialism created a fissure between the
Chamorros in Guam and in Saipan, Nishimura raises questions about the history and history-
making of islanders in Japan’s outlying Ryukyu Islands and Ogasawara Islands (268).
The second of the two books come from a completely different field. Perhaps because
Nagashima referenced studies beyond his scope, Amerika to Guamu received reviews from a wide
range of scholars, many of whom do not specialize on the island. For example, Hiroshi Fujimoto,
a specialist on US foreign relations, highlights the link Nagashima makes between Chamorro
social movements and international indigenous movements, acknowledging the value of the book
in further understanding US diplomacy in the region. Yamamoto, in her paper examining Guam
politics during the 12th Festival of the Pacific Arts, starts from Nagashima’s claim that Chamorro’s
colonial experience influenced the formation of their indigenous identity as well as the social
movement for self-determination and land rights. Without denying that such a social movement
exists, Yamamoto argues that with it, and even among the Chamorros themselves, discourses on
hybridity also persist. Matsushima, who had published on Micronesia and on Ryūkyū
independence, suggests that commonalities as well as linkages between Okinawa and Guam be
further considered. He argues that had the analysis gone beyond “America and Guam” and
included Japan, Nagashima’s argument on colonial relations might have been stronger (49). Indeed,
while Nagashima’s bibliography covers a wide range of Japanese works related to Guam and the
Pacific, the documents he consulted are mostly in English.

28
 Pacific Asia Inquiry, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2018

Since the late-2010s, the scholarship in Japan has seen much collaboration and
convergence. The increasing militarism in the region propelled calls for solidarity among affected
localities, primarily in Guam and in Okinawa. Initially done in conferences, collaboration later
extended to field research which in turn produced a series of articles that articulated parallelism in
the colonial experiences of Okinawa and Guam. Increasingly, scholars in Japan and their partners
in Guam are engaging each other.
As a way of concluding, I refer to Yamamoto’s 2005 survey on Pacific Studies in Japan.
Yamamoto claims that works by Japanese scholars remained inaccessible to scholars in the Pacific
Islands. According to Yamamoto, the great hurdles to scholars accessing each other’s works are
the language barrier and the differences in historical recognition. More than a decade after
Yamamoto’s survey, language remains an obstacle. Material in the English language is accessed
and utilized by Japanese scholars and some has been translated into the Japanese language. In
contrast, Japanese material remains inaccessible to researchers in Guam and Japanese scholars
hardly ever write in English. Higuchi and Tanimoto-Spade are rare exceptions. Some Japanese
scholars have attempted to cross the divide by presenting at conferences held in the Marianas.
Notably, Ryū Arai and Nagashima presented at the Marianas History Conferences of 2013 and
2017 respectively. This paper serves a similar aim of breaching the language barrier and bridging
the gap between researchers in Guam and in Japan. By knowing what has been written about them,
by whom, and why, academics in Guam can assess, critique, and improve what Japanese authors
are writing. In turn, Japanese scholars writing about Guam, the Pacific, and Oceania can contribute
materials and perspectives to their partners on the islands.
Differences in historical recognition which prevented academics in both areas from seeing
eye-to-eye have been overcome through recent exchanges and collaborations. Unlike prewar and
wartime publications, contemporary written work concerning Guam is no longer geared towards
colonization and imperialism. In the 1970s and the 1980s, commemorative works on the Battle for
Guam and popular tour guides saw print. By the 2000s, scholars began considering the adverse
effects of Japanese tourism, especially the Japanese tourists’ lack of knowledge on the islands’
history and culture. By the close of the decade, US militarism spurred collaboration among
scholars and activists in both areas. These linkages bore fruit as more and more Japanese academics
problematize US militarism and imperialism on the island as well as Chamorro indigenous
movements to counter these. Japanese scholars’ sensitivity on social issues on the island and their
close collaboration with their counterparts in Guam are creating a research trend that is sympathetic
to the social movements on the island.
Ironically, the academic literature related to Guam in Japan has come to reflect the one on
the island and in the US, detached from Pacific and Oceanic Studies in Japan. In his review of
Nagashima’s Amerika to Guamu, Matsushima argues that analysis should have expanded to
include Okinawa. I affirm Matsushima’s critique, though I extend it beyond one author. Amerika
to Guamu embodies the academic literature from which it was produced, one that is propelled by
similarities that scholars find between Guam and Japan’s historically discriminated islands
(Nagashima 301, Nishimura 268), but nevertheless reflects the scholarship in the US and its
territories. Authors who wrote about Guam until Nagashima’s publication relied on their own field
interviews, on American sources and, in many cases, on US-based theoretical frameworks. This, I
think, is quite unfortunate as Japanese scholars are privy to Japanese-language primary sources
which very few in Guam can access. Indeed, because they live and work in a different context,
Japanese scholars studying Guam are in a unique position to provide alternative perspectives to
the scholarship on the island.

29
 Towards an Interconnected Pacific

In summary, this paper traced a historiography of Guam from the 1920s to the present. In
Japan, where Pacific and Oceanic Studies have a long history, Guam has mostly been glossed over.
With the shifting socio-political conditions of recent decades, however, Guam has become one of
the central locations in understanding the Pacific. To understand US and Japanese militarism in
the region, knowledge of the US military bases and policies in Guam as well as indigenous and
local responses is essential. In the emerging new War Studies in Japan, awareness of the islanders’
side of the story prevents an overly Japanese- and Western-centric scholarship of war and war
commemoration. This will lead to increasing conversations about the Pacific among Japanese
authors across fields of studies and disciplines.
In the creation of a new Pacific Studies, exchanges among scholars among the islands and
across the Rim are critical. As noted by participants in the Pacific Empires Working Group Forum,
scholars interested in building Pacific Studies come into the field from nationally based area
studies. As such, it is imperative that scholars engage in meaningful discussions. As definitional
questions concerning the Pacific persist, a dynamic academic dialogue can open up new
approaches and lead to answers that are cognizant of like-minded efforts and varying contexts
across the region. As Dirlik stated more than two decades ago, “the Pacific, therefore, is not so
much a well-defined idea as it is a discourse” (136).

Notes

1. So far, conceptualization of the Pacific has been done mostly outside the islands, with
University of Hawaii and the University of the South Pacific in Fiji as notable exceptions. That
definitional questions concerning the Pacific are now being asked not in the continents, but
rather on an island (Guam) is quite telling.

2. In Japan, Pacific Studies is distinguished from Oceanic Studies. Geographically, Pacific

Studies encompasses Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, while Oceanic Studies covers
those three areas as well as Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, Oceanic Studies generally
looks at the region as a whole, usually discussing it thematically. Pacific Studies on the other
hand focuses on an island or group of islands, investigating in detail its culture, history, and
society.

3. Here I rely on the analyses by Makoto Yamaguchi and Kōji Maruta et al on travelguides and
by Jun Nagamoto on Japanese tourism and lifestyles.

4. Guamu to Nihonjin by Makoto Yamaguchi may perhaps be an exception. Though simplified

in a shinsho (somewhat like a pocketbook in format), it nevertheless provides sociological
analysis and a framework which other writers could use for their own research. For example,
Kōji Maruta and his students relied on Yamaguchi’s periodization of Japanese tourism in Guam
to guide their examination of travel guidebooks. Another book worth mentioning is Yoshida’s
Okinawa no Kaiheitai wa Guamu e Iku. Aimed towards general readership, the book’s
convincing arguments on US militarism influenced Japanese authors.

Note on Japanese names: The paper deals with various Japanese individuals, some of whom were
married to non-Japanese while others have long been based outside Japan. For consistency,
Japanese first names precede their surnames (despite the MLA prescription that Japanese surnames

30
 Pacific Asia Inquiry, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2018

precede first names). Also, diacritic marks are retained for Japanese place names carried over into
English (for example “nan’yō”), unless standardized English spellings are available (for example
Tokyo and Kyoto). Lastly, translations of titles and names of institutions provided in the source
materials were used whenever possible.

Acknowledgements: I am grateful to my PhD supervisor, Shinzō Hayase, to Reo Nagashima, and

to my peers at the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies and at the Academic Writing Center of
Waseda University for reading and commenting on drafts of this paper.

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Bevacqua, Michael. “Futatsu no Yume” 二つの夢 [Two Dreams]. Heiwa Undō 平和運動 492
Feb. 2012: 20-23. Print.
Camacho, Keith and Wesley Iwao Ueunten. “Determining Oceania: A Commentary on Indigenous
Struggles in Guam and Okinawa.” International Journal of Okinawan Studies 1.2 (2010):
85-104. U of Ryukyus Repository. Web 8 June 2018.
Cristobal, Hope Alvarez. “Gunbi Zōkyō wo Yurusanai Guamu no Tatakai” 軍備増強を許さな
いグアムのたたかい [Guam’s Fight against the Military Expansion]. Heiwa Undō 平
和運動 492 Feb. 2012: 3-4. Print.
Endō, Hisashi 遠藤央 et al, ed. Oseania-gaku オセアニア学 [Oceanic Studies]. Kyoto: Kyoto
Daigaku Gakujutsu Shuppankai, 2009. Print.
Flores-Mays, Cara. “Guamu de no Gunbi Zōkyō no oyobosu Eikyō” グアムでの軍備増強の及
ぼす影響 [Consequences of Military Build-up in Guam]. Heiwa Undō 平和運動 492
Feb. 2012: 16-18. Print.
Fujimoto, Hiroshi 藤 本 博 . Review of Amerika to Guamu: Shokuminchi-shugi, Reishizumu,
Senjūmin アメリカとグアム：植民地主義、レイシズム、先住民 [America and Guam:
Colonialism, Racism, and Indigeneity], by Reo Nagashima 怜央長島, Ajia Afurika Kenkyū
アジア・アフリカ研究 56.2 (2016): 56-59. Print.
Fukuma, Yoshiaki 福間良明, Gen Nogami 元野上, Shinzō Araragi 信三蘭, Shun Ishihara 俊
石原, eds. Sensō Shakai-gaku no Kōzō: Seidō Taiken Medea 戦争社会学の構想: 制度・
体験・メディア [Ideas in the Sociology of War: Structure, Experience, Media]. Tokyo:
Bensei Shuppan, 2013. Print.
Hiratsuka, Masao 平塚柾緒, ed. Guamu no Tatakai グアムの戦い [Guam Fighting]. Naha:
Gekkan Okinawa-sha, 1981. Print.
---. Gyokusai no Shimajima: Saipan Guamu Periryū Iōtō. 玉砕の島々: サイパン・グアム・ペ
リリュー・硫黄島 [Islands of Honorable Deaths: Saipan, Guam, Peleliu, Iwo Jima].
Tokyo: Yōsensha, 2015. Print.
Horikawa, Tan 堀川潭. Gyokusai! Guamu, Saipan 玉砕! グアム・サイパン [Dying a Hero’s
Death! Guam and Saipan]. Tokyo: Gakushū Kenkyūsha, 1973. Print.
Ikeda, Kayo 池田佳代. “Guamu-tō ni okeru Beigun Saihen Keikaku no Seiji-gaku: Wan Guamu
Gensetsu wo Chūshin ni” グアム島における米軍再編計画の政治学：ワン・グアム
言説を中心に [Politics of Military Build-up in Guam: Role of One Guam Discourse].

31
 Towards an Interconnected Pacific

Hiroshima Daigaku Daigakuin Sōgō Kagaku Kenkyū Kiyō III: Bunmei Kagaku Kenkyū 広
島大学大学院総合科学研究紀要 III、文明科学研究 [Studies in Cultural Sciences,
Bulletin of the Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences III Hiroshima U] 5 (2010):
35-52. Print.
---. “Nichi-Bei Kankei to Guamu Jūmin no Hōteki Chii (1899-1939)” 日米関係とグアム住民
の法的地位（1899 年～1939 年） [The U.S. Citizenship Question for the Guamanians,
1899-1939]. Hiroshima Daigaku Ōbei Bunka Kenkyū 広島大学欧米文化研究 [Studies
in European and American Culture, Hiroshima U] 7 (2000): 1-17. Hiroshima U
Institutional Repository. Web 8 June 2018.
Katō, Yutaka 加藤泰. “Guamu de Bunkateki Kenri wo Kangaeru: Kichizōkyō no naka no ‘Seichi’
Pagat”グアムで文化的権利を考える：基地増強のなかの｢聖地」Pagat [Thinking
Cultural Rights at Guam: Military Buildup and 'Sacred' Pagat]. Tōkai Daigaku Sōgō Kyōiku
Sentā Kiyō 東海大学総合教育センター紀要 [The Bulletin of Liberal Arts Education
Center, Tōkai U] 36 (2016): 61-82. Print.
---. “Guamu Okinawa Teikoku ni Tsuite no Nōto” グアム・沖縄・帝国についてのノート
[Guam, Okinawa and Empire: A Historical Note]. Tōkai Daigaku Sōgō Kyōiku Sentā Kiyō
東海大学総合教育センター紀要 [The Bulletin of Liberal Arts Education Center, Tōkai
U] 33 (2013): 59-77; 34 (2014): 127-48. Print.
Konishi, Makoto 小西誠. Guamu Senseki Kanzen Gaido: Kankō Annai ni Nai Sensō no Kizuato
グアム戦跡完全ガイド：観光案内にない戦争の傷跡 [A Complete Guide to Traces of
the Battle for Guam: War Ruins not in Tour Guidebooks]. Tokyo: Shakai Hihyō-sha, 2011.
Print.
Maruta, Kōji 圓田浩二, et al. “Nihonjin ni yoru Guamu Kankō: Fīrudochōsa no Kekka kara” 日
本人によるグアム観光：フィールド調査の結果から [Guam Tourism by the Japanese
People: From the Field Survey]. Okinawa Daigaku Jinbun Gakubu Kiyō 沖縄大学人文
学部紀要 17 (2015): 85-95. Okinawa Repository Integrated Open-Access Network. Web
8 June 2018.
Matsuoka, Shizuo 松岡静雄. Mikuroneshia Minzoku-shi ミクロネシア民族誌 [Ethnography
of Micronesia]. Tokyo: Oka Shoin, 1927. Print.
---. Taiheiyō Minzoku-shi 太平洋民族誌 [Ethnography of the Pacific]. Tokyo: Oka Shoin, 1925.
Print.
Matsushima, Yasukatsu 松島泰勝. Mikuronesia: Chiisa na Shimajima no Jiritsu e no Chōsen ミ
ク ロネシア：小さな島々の自立への挑戦 [Micronesia: Small Islands Challenge
towards Independence]. Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2007. Print.
---. Review of Amerika to Guamu: Shokuminchi-shugi, Reishizumu, Senjūmin アメリカとグア
ム：植民地主義、レイシズム、先住民 [America and Guam: Colonialism, Racism, and
Indigeneity], by Reo Nagashima 怜 央 長 島 , Hōsei Daigaku Ōhara Shakai Mondai
Kenkyūjo Zasshi 法政大学大原社会問題研究所雑誌 [The Journal of Ōhara Institute
for Social Research, Hōsei U] 694 (2016): 45-49. Print.
Nagashima, Reo 長島怜央. Amerika to Guamu: Shokuminchi-shugi, Reishizumu, Senjūmin アメ
リカとグアム：植民地主義、レイシズム、先住民 [America and Guam: Colonialism,
Racism, and Indigeneity]. Tokyo: Yūshindo-Kobunsha, 2015. Print.
Nagatomo, Jun. Migration as Transnational Leisure: The Japanese Lifestyle Migrants in Australia.

32
 Pacific Asia Inquiry, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2018

Leiden: Brill, 2015. Print.

Nakamura, Kōya 中村孝也. Foreword. Taiheiyō Minzoku-shi 太平洋民族誌 [Ethnography of
the Pacific]. By Shizuo Matsuoka 静雄松岡. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1941. Print.
Nishimura Akira 西 村 明 . Translator’s Afterword. Senka wo Kinensuru: Guamu Saipan no
Rekishi to Kioku 戦禍を記念する：グアム・サイパンの歴史と記憶 [Cultures of
Commemoration: The Politics of War, Memory, and History in the Mariana Islands], by
Keith Camacho. Trans. Akira Nishimura 明西村 and Taiki Machi 泰樹町. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten, 2016. Print.
Nishimura, Makoto 西村誠. Saipan Guamu Tenian: Taiheiyō Senseki Kikō サイパン: グァム・
テニアン: 太平洋戦跡紀行 [Saipan, Guam, Tinian: Records of Ruins of the Pacific
War]. Tokyo: Ushioshobō-Kōjinsha, 2007. Print.
Ohno, Shun 大野俊. Kankō Kōsu de Nai Guamu Saipan 観光コースでないグアム・サイパン
[Another Guam & Saipan]. Tokyo: Kōbunken, 2001. Print.
Ohta, Kohki 太田弘毅. “Guamu Minseibu ni Tsuite: Nihon Kaigun Minsei Kankei Kenkyū no
Hitokoma” グアム民政部について：日本海軍民政機関研究の一齣 [About the Guam
Minseibu: A Research Related to the Japanese Navy Minseibu]. Seiji Keizaishi-gaku 政
治経済史学 314 (1992): 1-14; 315 (1992): 13-21. Print.
Okada, Masanosuke 岡田昌之助. “Nihon-gun Senryōka no Guamu ni okeru Nan’yō Kōhatsu no
Jigyō” 日本軍占領下のグアムにおける南洋興発の事業 [The Activities of the
Nan’yō Kōhatsu in Guam during the Japanese Military Occupation]. Taiheiyō Gakkai
Gakkai-shi 太平洋学会学会誌 38 (1988): 76-94. Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan Dejitaru
Korekushon 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション [National Diet Library Digital
Collections]. Web July 7, 2018.
Teshima, Takemasa 手島武雅. “Chiisa na Shima no Ooki na Charenji” 小さな島の大きなチャ
レンジ [A Small Island’s Huge Challenge]. Minzoku Kyōsei e no Michi: Ajia Taiheiyō
Chiiki no Esunishiti 民族共生への道：アジア太平洋地域のエスニシティ [Towards
Collaboration among Indigenous Peoples: Ethnicity in the Asia-Pacific Region]. Ed.
Takahiro Katayama 隆裕片山. Fukuoka: Kyūshū Daigaku Shuppankai, 2003. 195-217.
Print.
Uchinomi, Fujio 内 海 富 士 夫 . Nan’yō Guntō Kagaku Bunkenshū 南 洋 群 島 科 学 文 献 集
[Collection of Materials on the Natural Sciences in the South Seas Islands]. Tokyo:
Hokuryūkan, 1945. Print.
Yamaguchi, Hibiki 山口響. Kaiheitai Guamu Iten: Dare no tame no Futan Keigen na no ka (1)
海兵隊グアム移転：誰のための負担軽減なのか (1) [On Transfer of U.S. Marines to
Guam (1)]. Pi-puruzu Puran ピープルズ・プラン [People’s Plan Quarterly] 47 Summer
2009: 109-22. Print.
Yamaguchi, Makoto 山口誠. Guamu to Nihonjin: Sensō wo Umetateta Rakuen グアムと日本
人：戦争を埋め立てた楽園 [Guam and the Japanese: Paradise on a Landfill-covered
War]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2007. Print.
Yamamoto, Matori 山本真鳥. “Guamu Kaisai Dai-12 Kai Taiheiyō Keijutsusai to Bunka no Seiji”
グアム開催第 12 回太平洋芸術祭と文化の政治 [The 12th Festival of Pacific Arts in
Guam and the Politics of Culture]. Hōsei Daigaku Keizai Gakubu Gakkai Keizai Shirin 法
政大学経済学部学会経済志林 84.4 (2017): 103-32. Hōsei U Repository. Web 8 June

33
 Towards an Interconnected Pacific

2018.
Yoshida, Kensei 吉田健正. Okinawa no Kaiheitai wa Guamu e Iku: Beigun no Guamu Tōgō
Keikaku 沖縄の海兵隊はグアムへ行く：米軍のグアム統合計画 [The Naval Troops
in Okinawa Go to Guam: US Military General Plans for Guam]. Tokyo: Kobunken, 2010.
Print.

Secondary Sources

Armitage, David, Alison Bashford, and Sujit Sivasundaram, ed. Oceanic Histories. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2018. Print.
Azuma, Eiichiro. “Is There the Pacific?” Amerasia Journal 42.3 (2016): 7-11. Print.
Bashford, Alison. “The Pacific Ocean.” Oceanic Histories. Ed. David Armitage, Alison Bashford
and Sujit Sivasundaram. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018. 62-84. Print.
Camacho, Keith. Cultures of Commemoration: The Politics of War, Memory, and History in the
Mariana Islands. Hawaii: U of Hawaii P, 2011. Print.
Dirlik, Arif. “What’s in a Rim?” Peace Review 7.2 (1995): 135-41. Print.
Fujitani, Takashi. “A Different Kind of ‘Asia Pivot.’” Amerasia Journal 42.3 (2016): 17-22. Print.
Hatanaka, Sachiko. “A Bibliography of Micronesia Compiled from Japanese Publication, 1915-
1945.” Occasional Paper 8. Tokyo: Research Institute for Oriental Cultures, Gakushūin U,
1979. Print.
Hayase, Shinzō. “The Japanese in Modern Philippine History.” WIAPS Research Series 5 (2014):
1-249. Waseda U Repository. July 7, 2018.
--- 早瀬晋三. Nan’yō Kyōkai Hakkō Zasshi: Kaisetsu, Sō-Mokuroku, Sakuin 南洋協会発行雑
誌：解説・総目録・索引 [Periodicals of Nan’yō Kyōkai: Annotation, Contents, Indices].
Tokyo: Ryūkei Shosha, 2018. Print.
Higuchi, Wakako. “A History of Pre-war Japanese Residents of Guam.” Guam History:
Perspectives Volume One. Ed. Lee Carter, William Wuerch and Rosa Roberto Carter.
Guam: RFT MARC, U of Guam P, 1998. 141-180. Print.
---. The Japanese Administration of Guam, 1941-1944: A Study of Occupation and Integration
Policies, with Japanese Oral Histories. London: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2013.
Google Books. Web 21 June 2016.
Imaizumi, Yumiko 今泉裕美子. “Taiheiyō no ‘Chiiki’ Keisei to Nihon: Nihon no Nan’yō Guntō
Tōchi kara Kangaeru” 太平洋の「地域」形成と日本：日本の南洋群島統治から考え
る [Japan Creates the Pacific Region: The Japanese Administration of Nan’yō Guntō].
Iwanami Kōza Nihon Rekishi Dai-20 Kan Chiiki-ron (Te-ma Kan-1) 岩波講座日本歴史
第 20 巻地域論〈テーマ巻 1〉[Iwanami’s Japanese History Volume 20 Regional
Discourses (Theme 1)]. Ed. Toru Ohtsu 透大津 et al. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2014. 263-
94. Print.
Kawarabayashi, Naoto 河原林直人. “Kaisetsu” 解説 [Annotation]. In Nan’yō Kyōkai Hakkō
Zasshi: Kaisetsu, Sō Mokuroku, Sakuin 南洋協会発行雑誌：解説・総目録・索引
[Periodicals of Nan’yō Kyōkai: Annotation, Contents, Indices]. Ed. Shinzō Hayase 晋三
早瀬. Tokyo: Ryūkei Shosha, 2018. 3-27. Print.
Kramer, Paul. “A Complex of Seas: Passages between Pacific Histories.” Amerasia Journal 42.3
(2016): 32-41. Print.
Marianas History Conference. Marianas History Conference: One Archipelago, Many Stories:

34
 Pacific Asia Inquiry, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2018

June 14-18, 2012 – Fiesta Resort and Spa. Guam: Guampedia Foundation, Inc., 2012.
Guampedia. Web. 8 June 2018.
Matsuda, Matt. Pacific Worlds: A History of Seas, Peoples, and Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2012. Print.
---. “The Pacific.” American Historical Review 111.2 (2006): 758-80. Jstor. Web July 15, 2018
Sand, Jordan. “Reconfiguring Pacific History: Reflections from Pacific Empires Working Group.”
Amerasia Journal 42.3 (2016): 1-6. Print.
Tachibana, Takashi. “Tokyo University at War.” Trans. Richard H. Minear. Japan Focus: The
Asia-Pacific Journal 1 Dec. 2017: 1-19. APJJF. Web 8 June 2018.
Tanimoto-Spade, Iris. “Japanese Source Materials Dealing with Guam and Micronesia, 1914-
1945.” Working Paper 37. Guam: MARC, U of Guam P, 1982. Print.
Yamamoto, Matori. “Pacific Islands Studies in Japan.” Center for Asia-Pacific Studies 95 (2005):
76-95. Research Gate. Web 8 June 2018.

35