E NTREVISTAS A GERENTES DE LOCALES COMERCIALES

This study explored how different migrant settings and diaspora circumstances contributed to the creation of transnational identities amongst I-Kiribati migrants living in various settings. Economics, environment, education, and marriage were the most commonly stated reasons for migration. Migrant destinations and populations varied greatly between research locations due to differing individual and group migration patterns. When possible, I-Kiribati preferred to live in close proximity to other I-Kiribati migrants.

It is not unusual for Pacific Islanders, as it is for others, to move and settle… where there are already people of their own kind or others whom they know… confidence and security among Pacific Islanders are acquired through membership of a kin group or otherwise (Ravuvu, 1992: 330).

The Kiribati diaspora, shares common characteristics of other diaspora populations, defined by Safrin as a people with a shared: “history of dispersal, myths/memories of the homeland, alienation in the host country, desire for eventual return, ongoing support of the homeland, and a collective identity importantly defined by this relationship” (as cited in Clifford, 1994: 322). Large geographically centered diaspora populations permit the constant flow of people and things between sending and receiving points; which, for Kiribati migrants, encouraged the maintenance of a compromise culture and transnational identity. Additionally, these factors contributed to the confidence, and security of migrants in their new lives overseas.

Scholars who use the diasporic model to study migration emphasize connectedness between the sending region and the various receiving regions and comparison of the experiences of migrating people in various locations (Spikard, 2002: 12).

Due in large part to the limited interactions with other migrants, individuals in the U.S. quickly assimilated to their new environments. For these individuals, reliance on internet contact

and intermittent telephone calls with other Kiribati migrants expedited the assimilation process. Chain migration, most apparent in New Zealand, added a dimension to migration rarely seen in the United States. In addition to lessening the seclusion that early migrants to New Zealand and current migrants to the U.S. faced, chain migration actively transformed the act of migration from one of separation to one of unification.

If it were true that Kiribati would go under, I think my family would go to New Zealand or Australia, because I have family there, not like herein the U.S., its better [there] because there are a lot of I-Kiribati there (Uinterview.9.5., 2009).

Due to the scattered migration movements of the I-Kiribati, research was not designed around one geographically bounded place. The typical single-sited ethnographic field is predicated on a multi-site construct as local environments are fabricated on external social, ecological and economic constructs. As seen, the local Kiribati environment was increasingly being impacted by global flows of people, information and products. These eventually had impacts on other local environments through the process of migration to New Zealand and U.S. communities.

Inspired by a security studies and cultural survival approach, research situates itself between anthropological inquiry and real world application, as growing concern over climate change pushes the Kiribati government to plan for future population relocation. Characterized as an emergent methodological approach to fieldwork, a multi-sited approach was employed. Inquiry began with an examination of the sending country and progressed to three migrant destinations in Australia, the United States and New Zealand. During the study, virtual destinations were uncovered, in which participants from research and non-research settings involved themselves in. The multi-field site design allowed for the development of a closed comparative study on I-Kiribati migration.

Within Kiribati, findings revealed a physical environment threatened by rapidly changing ecological conditions. Government representatives were adamant in their efforts to bring climate change to the forefront of not only the national agenda but also the world’s attention. Interviews and surveys conducted in Kiribati produced mixed reaction to climate change. While many participants heard of climate change, belief in its actual presence and/or future consequences lacked. These sentiments were reiterated overseas by several informants.

Fueled largely by global political, economic and scientific opinions which perpetuate ideas that climate change is either, not real or something for only marginal future concern; climate change remains an unresolved social issue in the country, years after its scientific legitimization. Implications from these conflicting perspectives resonated within informants own minds as they remained conflicted over climate change. Research carried out in the summer of 2008 on Abaiang Atoll highlights this discord.

If our numbers are correct, insofar as micro atolls play a role in reef growth, the central Pacific atoll nations are in little danger of drowning as their upward growth potential, which is equal to the lateral rate of 2.0 cm/yr, is probably far greater than most global warming experts have predicted…. Even if Tarawa tide table values are correct, the micro atolls should be able to catch-up. Of course, if those who forecast the demise of reefs throughout the oceans because of global warming related to, anthropogenic accumulations of carbon dioxide etc. are correct, the people of these atolls will be in trouble. However, our data do not suggest such catastrophic changes in sea level (Flora, 2009: 9-10).

Scientific evidence which focuses on micro atoll growth in wake of rising sea levels supports climate change denial perspectives.

I don’t believe that climate change is real. There are some lands that are now under the water but other lands are coming up in their place (KInterview.13.1, 2013).

What the paper did not account for was the human inactivity on the research field. Located 20 minutes walking distance from the nearest sparsely populated village, human contact with micro atolls under investigation was minimal at most. While these conditions are desirable in atoll development research, they do not represent the full picture of challenges faced by atolls supporting human populations. Significant changes to the natural environment and its ability to support human populations are becoming a stark reality in South Tarawa. Once staunch deniers of climate change are now starting to embrace a new perspective.

The majority of I-Kiribati have no wish to live in another country but mounting evidence suggests that we may soon have little choice in the matter, therefore migration may become the major element of adaptation (Uan, 2013).

Even prominent religious leaders are beginning to lessen their former strongly held climate change denial positions.

My strong belief in God, and understanding of scripture is that there will be no flood. I believe everyone on the islands will be safe, but with the help of others, and it is through God’s hands that the others will come (IFAD, 2011).

Though many I-Kiribati in Kiribati and abroad are beginning to change their position on climate change, doing so does not come without significant costs. The emotional stress faced in doing so is painstakingly obvious as it is heart wrenching. I’m sorry, I’m sorry… I can do this…

I want to do this… was frequently heard throughout a 2013 informal discussion with new migrants

to the United States as we talked about what they were experiencing back home. The emotional cost of having to think about one’s entire known world being rendered uninhabitable and the consequences for friends and relatives remaining in the islands exposed validity to I-Kiribati climate change deniers. Outright denying climate change’s existence was easier than believing in it and its potential impacts on one’s world and one’s self. Personalizing disaster through

climate change acceptance has been shown to do two things; cause great pain and cause great anger, hold great potential to inspire activism through in-person, radio, television, film, print and web-based outreach efforts.

Most of the research participants in Kiribati had relatives already living overseas, and some stated that they would go and live with them if climate change rendered Kiribati unfit for human life. The general cause for migration at that point in time however, did not center on unfit living conditions due to climate change. Stated reasons included marriage to foreigners, educational opportunities, an annual migration lottery and work opportunities.

From Kiribati, research progressed to migrants’ lives overseas. Objectives included documenting migrant experiences, community functions, and involvement. Those who migrated to the United States did so mostly through marriage. They were more often than not, physically secluded from other I-Kiribati migrants and relied on mail, phones or internet to maintain contact with other I-Kiribati at home and in the United States. These migrants initially faced severe bouts of homesickness and subsequent loss of language and cultural practice utilization in succeeding generations. While all wanted to maintain the Kiribati culture in themselves and their children, circumstances created significant challenges in doing so.

If I could say anything to the I-Kiribati who will come here, I would say, try to keep your culture, keep your identity. If you are born in Kiribati you know the culture, you know the language, so you have to keep it. It’s very important (Uinterview.9.19., 2009).

Early New Zealand migrants arrived under temporary work schemes. With the establishment of the PAC in 2001, recent migrants arrived under permanent resident migration allotments. Established migration schemes and policies funneled I-Kiribati into New Zealand society annually. The number of I-Kiribati living in New Zealand was much greater than in the United States, allowing these migrants to develop communities and interact with other migrants

on a daily basis. The Morningside community greatly eased the transition which new migrants faced as it provided a sense of belonging and safety to its members. Additionally, the community united migrants and enabled the transmission of language and cultural practices to succeeding generations. While the community provided significant benefits for an otherwise minority migrant population in New Zealand, it did have its share of shortcomings. Some of the most commonly stated problems included burdensome financial and time commitment. These were seen to constrain migrant’s progress towards upward mobility in their new homes.

Australian migrants provided a glimpse into what life was like for those who had little to no knowledge of Kiribati. The circumstances under which these individuals migrated were like no other in the study. Their secluded Australian upbringing was unique and sheds light on what future non-Kiribati born individuals may be like if Kiribati were to disappear below the sea.

Classic migration literature suggests that migrants choose to permanently migrate for egocentric reasons, in which native customs, traditions and languages become replaced with migrant destination ways. However, migrants in this study chose to migrate for various reasons. The most frequently stated reasons included marriage, education and/or employment. As we look to the future, it could very well be argued that Kiribati migrants may have less of a choice and more of an obligation to migrate for their own existence.