Our crew just watched the film "Picture Bride." This movie is an absolute must-see, it brings all of the history we've been reading about and talking about to life. It will make you cry. Don't just brush it off and say you "can't" watch it, you "don't like sad movies," this is a movie about life. Challenge yourself. You won't be disappointed.
The film revolves around a Japanese picture bride, Ryo, who leaves her homeland for Hawaii, wed to a cane-harvester there, and her subsequent experiences. But it's so much more meaningful than I can describe for you here.
However, this post is very much an analysis of the work, so I suggest you go watch the film now and come back to read this afterwards. And, if you do go ahead, I hope you won't reconsider and will still watch the film anyway. It's something you need to experience yourself.
SPOILERS
When Francis told us that the film would make us cry, I didn't doubt it, and I know I started to a bit. It really brought to life everything we've been doing for the past few weeks. Takaki utilizes names and relations in his writing to link us to the subject, and I believe the film was even more poignant to this end - as Francis says, humans are visual beings. But what he really wanted us to write about with this was "why?" Why was it made the way it was, what was significant?
What was stabbing was that he asked us, "Why did Kana and Kei have to die?" There was an emphasis, why was it so important to the film,
"Why did Kana and Kei have to die?"
I looked up information on the meanings of the names Kana and Kei and came up with some ideas. Don't chain me down absolutely to the meanings, I don't know if they're right since a few were different, but I'll try to list as many variations as I can.
Kei I've found to mean "child," "wisdom," and "rapture, reverence" in Japanese (supposedly). In Hawaiian it can be "dignified." Kei certainly is just a child, and is very much Kana's life. Kana's name and its relationship to the film is much more obvious. The information I found labeled it a male name in Japan, and means "powerful." Kana certainly was very very strong, and noticed for it, and even her husband was jealous that she could work more than he could (or would). The word "kana" has also been used in general to mean the Japanese syllabry system(s) - the newer hiragana, katakana, and sometimes the old system man'yogana.
Perhaps their deaths represented a loss, somewhat, of the link to Japanese heritage. A loss of language, the eventual loss of appreciation for the homeland as later generations became "Americanized." Even in the film, when the overseer is talking to the workers, he combines English with Japanese, Hawaiian, and Tagalog into one mixed way of communication. The workers do the same - for example, Ryo's confusion over "hana" - Hawaiian "work," "hana-hana," as opposed to Japanese "flower," "hana."
Also, one of the main themes of the women's singing was "not becoming the fertilizer" for the cane. They all had hopes and dreams of eventually leaving the plantation. But, as illustrated by Kana and Kei's death in the harvesting fire, people did become the fertilizer - sometimes not so literally, but it was probably not uncommon. It brings you back to the reality from the intrigue of the romance sub-plot, that these things happened and people died on the plantations. In general, no matter the exact circumstances, many of the immigrants did not ever see their homelands again, nor did many of them really achieve their true aspirations, such as getting off the plantations or fulfilling their lives a certain way in America. Even as entrepreneurs, many Asian immigrants were forced into jobs like laundries because there wasn't much else.
Once again, humans are visual beings. The parallels and hat-tips to real stories, as well as these symbolic deaths, really bring the history to life and to the forefront of our minds. It establishes a link with these other human beings and spreads out to the people around you every day, people just like you.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Showcase 2
Time for the next showcase! This week is...
Utada Hikaru!
Known to gamers everywhere for her songs "Hikari" and "Passion" as the intros for Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2, Hikaru/Hikki/Cubic U has been writing songs since the age of 12. Born to Japanese parents right in the great NYC, she had a lot of musical influence - her father was a record producer, her mother was a singer, and her grandmother played the shamisen. A big hit in both America and Japan, here's two of her videos for you: Exodus 04 (English) and Sakura Drops (Japanese).
Exodus 04 performed live
Sakura Drops
Do check out the official music video for Passion if you have the time. Her videos tend to be very expressive, and that one and Sakura Drops have been the most impressive to me.
You wanna know more? Of course you do! Super awesome special Wiki now:
(this article does need some cleanup, so I'm expecting if you do go there, to do a bit more reading elsewhere as well)
~Post Note~
I'm sure by now you've all noticed that, without fail, I title every one of my non-Showcase posts. And they all seem somewhat odd. Well, I've decided to open up a little game. Every title of mine has been taken from somewhere, and has relation to the theme of this blog. If you can find out where the titles are from, you will unlock a surprise that I'll post up. The person who gets the most actually will get a prize from me (this, of course, is more for our society of 15 that I can easily find...). At the end I will reveal every title's origins and of course the winner(s).
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Blue Canary
Francis raised the question, "What can justify such legislation (the Chinese Exclusion Act, et cetera) to educated ... [professed-religious] men?" I'll give you a second to try to think of your own answer, or you can just scroll down now to read my opinion (yes, opinion - agendas, agendas, agendas, and neither am I omnipotent on the subject, I'm relating as I'm learning. I suppose the Houyhnhnms might pardon it for that cause).
It seems to just boil down to conservative nationalism.
These men, these white legislators, had a particular view of America and it was white. They believed they were doing an honest service by protecting that ideal. I don't believe that they were attempting to be racist and against the Chinese and other Asian immigrants, but in their minds they were for the "civilized whites" that the land had been "manifestly destined" for, without any particular malice. There is also the instinct of a fear of the foreign and unknown. Compounded with the white ideal, too many strangers from another shore could cause a bit of a legislative panic concerning what was happening, and what could happen, to the country. Despite the argument, "didn't they realize that America was founded on immigration," they did realize that it was built upon mainly European emigration and could even cite their own family histories as evidence. The influx of persons from Asia (whole of East Asia and the "Middle East") really was far removed from their family histories of immigration in their minds. Even going back to the story of the boys with the machetes, they obviously believed it was a good thing to be such extreme vigilantes because their parents probably were heavily against Mexican emigration to the United States (a case of the "mob mentality" was also an expedient to this - had it not been a group, it probably wouldn't have happened).
But the "reasons" aren't excuses and don't make the behaviors right. They don't condone and pardone such actions. So don't get me wrong there and blame me for rationalizing discrimination and violence. We need to attempt to understand opinions and motivations rather than just slapping on an all-encompassing label of hate as a reason for anything. As Frances said, if something is "just evil," it "paralyzes discussion" and no one gets anywhere in trying to solve the problem and prevent a similar one in the future. Furthermore, even if you do slap on "hatred," when you think about it, even that has a larger context and must be motivated by something else.
Francis also questioned us, "is there really equality" as professed in America? More specifically, "if you're alienated by your race, sex, et cetera, can you really be treated equally?"
First, let's think about the dynamics of power in the country. Money is one of the greatest equalizing factors, it seems, since if you have enough of it your past is forgotten, and you can even cover up scandals of your present. Now, on how the democracy works - the majority rules for the general population, right? Which implies that the minority loses. (Yes, obvious, move on, where am I going with this?) Well, with the label of a "minority" group in America... the word has the impact of giving you the impression you'll never get ahead with the "majority," the whites, doesn't it? Don't argue with me on how "that's not how it works, it's the majority of votes, blah blah blah electoral college blah blah blah more big phrases," I'm talking about the power of interpretation. The minority groups are the minority of the population, and when linked to the "majority rules" dissection, it really does carry defeating baggage.
Seemingly depressing. Seemingly encourage any "minorities" reading this to give up and to simply be subjected to white rule. But that's not my agenda for today. Remember, knowledge is power. Having the information enables everyone to fight a racial hierarchy. Regardless of your race as a citizen here, you're an American - don't openly, willingly label yourself a "minority," you'll be seen as less significant. But American as a whole - there's the equality. No race.
There is no "race."
It seems to just boil down to conservative nationalism.
These men, these white legislators, had a particular view of America and it was white. They believed they were doing an honest service by protecting that ideal. I don't believe that they were attempting to be racist and against the Chinese and other Asian immigrants, but in their minds they were for the "civilized whites" that the land had been "manifestly destined" for, without any particular malice. There is also the instinct of a fear of the foreign and unknown. Compounded with the white ideal, too many strangers from another shore could cause a bit of a legislative panic concerning what was happening, and what could happen, to the country. Despite the argument, "didn't they realize that America was founded on immigration," they did realize that it was built upon mainly European emigration and could even cite their own family histories as evidence. The influx of persons from Asia (whole of East Asia and the "Middle East") really was far removed from their family histories of immigration in their minds. Even going back to the story of the boys with the machetes, they obviously believed it was a good thing to be such extreme vigilantes because their parents probably were heavily against Mexican emigration to the United States (a case of the "mob mentality" was also an expedient to this - had it not been a group, it probably wouldn't have happened).
But the "reasons" aren't excuses and don't make the behaviors right. They don't condone and pardone such actions. So don't get me wrong there and blame me for rationalizing discrimination and violence. We need to attempt to understand opinions and motivations rather than just slapping on an all-encompassing label of hate as a reason for anything. As Frances said, if something is "just evil," it "paralyzes discussion" and no one gets anywhere in trying to solve the problem and prevent a similar one in the future. Furthermore, even if you do slap on "hatred," when you think about it, even that has a larger context and must be motivated by something else.
Francis also questioned us, "is there really equality" as professed in America? More specifically, "if you're alienated by your race, sex, et cetera, can you really be treated equally?"
First, let's think about the dynamics of power in the country. Money is one of the greatest equalizing factors, it seems, since if you have enough of it your past is forgotten, and you can even cover up scandals of your present. Now, on how the democracy works - the majority rules for the general population, right? Which implies that the minority loses. (Yes, obvious, move on, where am I going with this?) Well, with the label of a "minority" group in America... the word has the impact of giving you the impression you'll never get ahead with the "majority," the whites, doesn't it? Don't argue with me on how "that's not how it works, it's the majority of votes, blah blah blah electoral college blah blah blah more big phrases," I'm talking about the power of interpretation. The minority groups are the minority of the population, and when linked to the "majority rules" dissection, it really does carry defeating baggage.
Seemingly depressing. Seemingly encourage any "minorities" reading this to give up and to simply be subjected to white rule. But that's not my agenda for today. Remember, knowledge is power. Having the information enables everyone to fight a racial hierarchy. Regardless of your race as a citizen here, you're an American - don't openly, willingly label yourself a "minority," you'll be seen as less significant. But American as a whole - there's the equality. No race.
There is no "race."
Monday, September 17, 2007
Kireisugita bara ni koso toge no itami ga aru
I highly recommend any readers outside the Asian American History in Action community to read this book that I keep referencing - Ronald Takaki's Strangers From a Different Shore. It's a good read, you'll probably understand what I'm saying better, and you can make your own observations.
As for today:
The beginning of chapter 3 has me in the classic anime instant face-plant reel. Page 85, Takaki writes (direct quote) "The construction of the Central Pacific Railroad line was a Chinese achievement." While 1867 has the Chinese as representing about 90% of the workforce on the rail lines, the entire railroad wasn't constructed with that high of a percentage (in February 1865, the Centrail Pacific Railroad had only hired 50 Chinese workers - not 50%, just fifty people - and even though 50 more soon came, that's still only 100 Chinese workers), and even by 1867 there's still 10% of "something else."Once again, Takaki's agenda to emphasize the history of Asian Americans has kind of swept all the other workers under the rug. At the same time, I can't criticize him too much - he's omitting 10%, while standard American History textbooks have seriously watered-down 90% of this western-based half of the transcontinental railroad. 12000 Chinese workers are A LOT to overlook. Do you remember your books telling you how many there were? Besides the generic "many Chinese" and then maybe giving a total of all the workers on the railroad? Probably not.
Takaki goes on to write about Chinese entreprenuerial ventures and details their work experiences as employees under white masters - really, very near to slavery since the wages were so reduced for them as compared to white workers. Here's another thing you probably won't ever find in a textbook without perhaps tearing a library totally apart - like Bing cherries? Developed by the Chinese - Ah Bing from Oregon. Like oranges? Know Florida's huge citrus industry? Boosted by the development of frost-resistant oranges - also done by Chinese Lue Gim Gong. Surprise surprise. Yes, now would be the time to get the stereotypical view of the white genetic engineer out of your head.
Takaki also continues to tell of how Chinese labor was used, not only as simply a substitute to other labor, but also as competition for others already employed to stimulate a higher production. After the railroad was finished, many Chinese (and other Asians, I'm sure) where employed in the South on plantations. After the Civil War, the lack of slavery left a giant labor gap and workers were desperately needed. Plantation owners became particularly fond of the Chinese - their labor was cheap, as they were cheated into lower wages just as in every other job opportunity under white patrons, and when African Americans continued to work on the plantations with a salary, the competition of the Asians served to "regulate" them - the same kind of "divide and conquer" techniques that had been used in other employments as well.
When you think about it, many foreigners are detested for their competition above all things. It's probably this that leads to the majority of racism in America now. You might think by what I've brought up that the Asians, the Mexicans, et cetera were all exploited in the past for their labor, and so on, and yes, that's true. But it doesn't stop there, oh no. These people are still being exploited, and others still hold disdain for them because many employers still use them for competition and lower wages. This is what happens to those illegal aliens, followed by random acts of violence directed toward anyone similar (for example, in the case of the recent issue on the influx of Mexican citiziens into the southern United States, a Hispanic student was attacked by peers wielding machetes. It didn't matter whether or not he was a citizen, he looked "Mexican"). If Asian Americans are still perceived as foreigners, is it so hard to imagine that something like this could happen again? The irritation over so many cheap products imported from Asia to the United States, as well as the latest scare with pet food and toothpaste from China, won't help.
Watch your prejudices.
As for today:
The beginning of chapter 3 has me in the classic anime instant face-plant reel. Page 85, Takaki writes (direct quote) "The construction of the Central Pacific Railroad line was a Chinese achievement." While 1867 has the Chinese as representing about 90% of the workforce on the rail lines, the entire railroad wasn't constructed with that high of a percentage (in February 1865, the Centrail Pacific Railroad had only hired 50 Chinese workers - not 50%, just fifty people - and even though 50 more soon came, that's still only 100 Chinese workers), and even by 1867 there's still 10% of "something else."Once again, Takaki's agenda to emphasize the history of Asian Americans has kind of swept all the other workers under the rug. At the same time, I can't criticize him too much - he's omitting 10%, while standard American History textbooks have seriously watered-down 90% of this western-based half of the transcontinental railroad. 12000 Chinese workers are A LOT to overlook. Do you remember your books telling you how many there were? Besides the generic "many Chinese" and then maybe giving a total of all the workers on the railroad? Probably not.
Takaki goes on to write about Chinese entreprenuerial ventures and details their work experiences as employees under white masters - really, very near to slavery since the wages were so reduced for them as compared to white workers. Here's another thing you probably won't ever find in a textbook without perhaps tearing a library totally apart - like Bing cherries? Developed by the Chinese - Ah Bing from Oregon. Like oranges? Know Florida's huge citrus industry? Boosted by the development of frost-resistant oranges - also done by Chinese Lue Gim Gong. Surprise surprise. Yes, now would be the time to get the stereotypical view of the white genetic engineer out of your head.
Takaki also continues to tell of how Chinese labor was used, not only as simply a substitute to other labor, but also as competition for others already employed to stimulate a higher production. After the railroad was finished, many Chinese (and other Asians, I'm sure) where employed in the South on plantations. After the Civil War, the lack of slavery left a giant labor gap and workers were desperately needed. Plantation owners became particularly fond of the Chinese - their labor was cheap, as they were cheated into lower wages just as in every other job opportunity under white patrons, and when African Americans continued to work on the plantations with a salary, the competition of the Asians served to "regulate" them - the same kind of "divide and conquer" techniques that had been used in other employments as well.
When you think about it, many foreigners are detested for their competition above all things. It's probably this that leads to the majority of racism in America now. You might think by what I've brought up that the Asians, the Mexicans, et cetera were all exploited in the past for their labor, and so on, and yes, that's true. But it doesn't stop there, oh no. These people are still being exploited, and others still hold disdain for them because many employers still use them for competition and lower wages. This is what happens to those illegal aliens, followed by random acts of violence directed toward anyone similar (for example, in the case of the recent issue on the influx of Mexican citiziens into the southern United States, a Hispanic student was attacked by peers wielding machetes. It didn't matter whether or not he was a citizen, he looked "Mexican"). If Asian Americans are still perceived as foreigners, is it so hard to imagine that something like this could happen again? The irritation over so many cheap products imported from Asia to the United States, as well as the latest scare with pet food and toothpaste from China, won't help.
Watch your prejudices.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
It's so wrong; so far from true. In secret I'm just like you
One of the most prominent things, to me, in the second chapter of Takaki's book was that, throughout his whole emphasis on the building of the railroad, not once does he mention the Irish in particular, the Native Americans, or the African Americans that worked alongside the Asian immigrants. He just lumps them all together as "white laborers."
Not to be racist, but realistically - Native Americans and African Americans are not "white." They have their own identity and they were a part of the history of the transcontinental railroad too. Furthermore, Takaki also says, himself and through quotes, that Asians took the job because white laborers wouldn't stoop that low - and at the same time mentions white laborers next to the Asians! To the uneducated reader, this wouldn't make any sense - there either are white laborers there, or there are not. Even the educated reader would say that these statements don't fit together. And it's because Takaki does not distinguish between the Irish Catholic white who suffered from prejudice as well and were banned from working in many of the industries in the Northeast, and other "white" laborers such as the English. I'm sure there were other white laborers on the railroad from eastern Europe, too, but many of those immigrants from Russia, Hungary, Poland, et cetera were able to find jobs in the various mills and processing plants while the Irish as a whole entity were barred. There's my own history being omitted.
Take this message in two parts, and take it to heart. I reiterate, everyone has an agenda, and Takaki's is solely to represent Asian American history - even if, just as the white historian, he omits the history of others. Also, for other indignant Irish descendents out there, now you know what it feels like to the Asian Americans to be continually forgotten or seen as foreigners when they've been here for generations.
Not to be racist, but realistically - Native Americans and African Americans are not "white." They have their own identity and they were a part of the history of the transcontinental railroad too. Furthermore, Takaki also says, himself and through quotes, that Asians took the job because white laborers wouldn't stoop that low - and at the same time mentions white laborers next to the Asians! To the uneducated reader, this wouldn't make any sense - there either are white laborers there, or there are not. Even the educated reader would say that these statements don't fit together. And it's because Takaki does not distinguish between the Irish Catholic white who suffered from prejudice as well and were banned from working in many of the industries in the Northeast, and other "white" laborers such as the English. I'm sure there were other white laborers on the railroad from eastern Europe, too, but many of those immigrants from Russia, Hungary, Poland, et cetera were able to find jobs in the various mills and processing plants while the Irish as a whole entity were barred. There's my own history being omitted.
Take this message in two parts, and take it to heart. I reiterate, everyone has an agenda, and Takaki's is solely to represent Asian American history - even if, just as the white historian, he omits the history of others. Also, for other indignant Irish descendents out there, now you know what it feels like to the Asian Americans to be continually forgotten or seen as foreigners when they've been here for generations.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Showcase 1
I want to start showcasing some of the more noticeable Asian Americans/Asians in America of today on this blog, as a "fun" additive. I'll probably separate it in the future, just as now, so that my other entries don't seem too too long, and to avoid the risk of taking away from the seriousness of those long posts.
Please, make recommendations!
Showcase 1 features perhaps the most famous "Asians in America" musical artists of today, particularly among the younger generation(s) for their production of the soundtrack for Cartoon Network's "Teen Titans" and subsequent solo show -- Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi.
The following are their music videos for "Tokyo, I'm On My Way" sung in English, and Yumi's solo from the album "SoloSolo," "V-a-c-a-t-i-o-n" sung in Japanese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6uJod55Nws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZUTtCTzEI
(Lyrics for the 2nd on Youtube mainsite, Japanese)
Please, make recommendations!
Showcase 1 features perhaps the most famous "Asians in America" musical artists of today, particularly among the younger generation(s) for their production of the soundtrack for Cartoon Network's "Teen Titans" and subsequent solo show -- Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi.
The following are their music videos for "Tokyo, I'm On My Way" sung in English, and Yumi's solo from the album "SoloSolo," "V-a-c-a-t-i-o-n" sung in Japanese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6uJod55Nws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZUTtCTzEI
(Lyrics for the 2nd on Youtube mainsite, Japanese)
Go on - Wiki/Google them. You know you want to.
~Edit~
Well, Blogger's not behaving and embedding the videos, so I've had to only provide links to the videos.
wonk uoy naht noitceffa erom deen I
As stated previously, it is of great importance that the word "History" was removed from the College of William & Mary's course "Asian American History in Action: Theater and Film" (though the History is still included on Blackboard). I know what some of you are thinking - Francis/the professor is a visionary, he's not going to take this without protest. So what if "history" is removed - he'll teach it anyway.
Yes, and no.
Of course he's still going to teach the course as it was intended to be, Asian American history heavily emphasized (as it should be). But because the ends are the same does NOT mean that the means (or obstacles to such) can be ignored - no, pardoned. The efforts of the class's collective blogs are to bring attention to the principle of the name and what it stands for, not simply for the education we receive from Francis.
History is about power. Whoever writes the history books has the power to change them. Furthermore, when something is written, it gives it the appearance of validity; also, paper is "permanent" and will live on where spoken words may not.
Knowledge is power. Whoever has that knowledge can use it, for good or ill, and can see through petty acts of suppression to either further them, or stop them. We're being given, and relating to you, this knowledge that needs be used to stop the spiriting away of great parts of our past.
And what really infuses a being with the utmost power? A name.
Think about it - your name holds together your identity, as an individual and culturally, and affirms you as a human being. During the slave trades, the kidnapped Africans were stripped of their names and given new ones by their white "masters," taking away their right to be who they were as Africans and labeling them more as objects. Immigrants to the United States often had name-changes because the officials at Ellis and Angel Islands couldn't, or wouldn't, spell the original names correctly. This was reinforced by census takers who either reaffirmed the new name by their spelling, or could have even changed it again. Sometimes immigrants were asked to change their names completely to something more "American"; sometimes they did this of their own volition anyway, to blend in better (a luxury afforded to Europeans).
In changing the name of the course, there has been an attempt to reduce its power as a precedent.
Francis asked, "Why does Takaki use numbers" in his writing? Numbers hold a great deal of power, too - many times, numbers are indisputable (and so, for other numbers that could be debated, lends the appearance of hard truth), and in this case the numbers express populations of Asian Americans. While they may not be exact, the general accuracy is still highly pertinent. And why? Because the high population numbers prove that there exists a critical mass of Asian Americans in this country - "enough people who give a shit" (or should) to make these efforts worthwhile.
Print and numbers suggest validity. Many times, if we see something in print, we automatically assume it must be true. There is the human instinct of hope - we want to believe it's true. We want to believe that people wouldn't lie to us, especially concerning something as sacred as history. The "hardcore" media has grown weak and become partisan rather than having the sole goal of discovering the truth at any cost. Articles and newsreports have bias in them, and the media has become more of a business and more about ratings than perhaps it was ever, ever intended to be. In this day and age, we all must question "truth," question the paper. Everyone has an agenda. Even we bloggers have an agenda. I'll tell you right now what mine is - it's to hopefully inspire you to dig deeper than you're "told to," to start noticing prejudices, and to realize that Asian Americans are not getting the recognition that they deserve and need as American citizens. Question everything; question me. Even when you're in doubt, I've reached you - you're thinking.
Yes, and no.
Of course he's still going to teach the course as it was intended to be, Asian American history heavily emphasized (as it should be). But because the ends are the same does NOT mean that the means (or obstacles to such) can be ignored - no, pardoned. The efforts of the class's collective blogs are to bring attention to the principle of the name and what it stands for, not simply for the education we receive from Francis.
History is about power. Whoever writes the history books has the power to change them. Furthermore, when something is written, it gives it the appearance of validity; also, paper is "permanent" and will live on where spoken words may not.
Knowledge is power. Whoever has that knowledge can use it, for good or ill, and can see through petty acts of suppression to either further them, or stop them. We're being given, and relating to you, this knowledge that needs be used to stop the spiriting away of great parts of our past.
And what really infuses a being with the utmost power? A name.
Think about it - your name holds together your identity, as an individual and culturally, and affirms you as a human being. During the slave trades, the kidnapped Africans were stripped of their names and given new ones by their white "masters," taking away their right to be who they were as Africans and labeling them more as objects. Immigrants to the United States often had name-changes because the officials at Ellis and Angel Islands couldn't, or wouldn't, spell the original names correctly. This was reinforced by census takers who either reaffirmed the new name by their spelling, or could have even changed it again. Sometimes immigrants were asked to change their names completely to something more "American"; sometimes they did this of their own volition anyway, to blend in better (a luxury afforded to Europeans).
In changing the name of the course, there has been an attempt to reduce its power as a precedent.
Francis asked, "Why does Takaki use numbers" in his writing? Numbers hold a great deal of power, too - many times, numbers are indisputable (and so, for other numbers that could be debated, lends the appearance of hard truth), and in this case the numbers express populations of Asian Americans. While they may not be exact, the general accuracy is still highly pertinent. And why? Because the high population numbers prove that there exists a critical mass of Asian Americans in this country - "enough people who give a shit" (or should) to make these efforts worthwhile.
Print and numbers suggest validity. Many times, if we see something in print, we automatically assume it must be true. There is the human instinct of hope - we want to believe it's true. We want to believe that people wouldn't lie to us, especially concerning something as sacred as history. The "hardcore" media has grown weak and become partisan rather than having the sole goal of discovering the truth at any cost. Articles and newsreports have bias in them, and the media has become more of a business and more about ratings than perhaps it was ever, ever intended to be. In this day and age, we all must question "truth," question the paper. Everyone has an agenda. Even we bloggers have an agenda. I'll tell you right now what mine is - it's to hopefully inspire you to dig deeper than you're "told to," to start noticing prejudices, and to realize that Asian Americans are not getting the recognition that they deserve and need as American citizens. Question everything; question me. Even when you're in doubt, I've reached you - you're thinking.
Friday, September 7, 2007
When in doubt, shoot the wizard
I have reset my password - yet again - and this last one will hopefully remain my password for the duration of the semester. A new, real update will be following this one shortly, but immediately on my mind at the moment is this:
The language of the Philippines is "Tagalog" and thats "Ta-GA-log" NOT "TAG-alog" like those Girl Scout "Tag-Along" cookies. TaGAlog.
Now no reader has an excuse to pronounce it wrong.
The language of the Philippines is "Tagalog" and thats "Ta-GA-log" NOT "TAG-alog" like those Girl Scout "Tag-Along" cookies. TaGAlog.
Now no reader has an excuse to pronounce it wrong.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Who's Behind the Curtain, Anyway?
palimpsest - (noun) :
1) writing material (as a parchment or tablet) used one or more times after earlier writing has been erased
2) something having usually diverse layers or aspects apparent beneath the surface
(Merriam-Webster Online)
For far too long has the palimpsest of history been that of the "white gentleman" spinning together a thread of his own culture's story and either omitting the stories of others, or changing them to cast a better light on himself. dc_08 said it best when noting that the beloved FDR in history textbooks is greatly shielded from the link between him and placing all those Japanese citizens in internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was still the same man as the one that had "saved the economy" as had done this, he didn't miraculously change or sprout a doppelganger. Americans like to put the "best" presidents on pedestals, or any white historical figure, and then only see the good about them while ignoring the bad - and if that means writing the bad out of history, many editors will do it (knowingly or unknowingly). It's the same phenomenon that leads people to vehemently argue against the truth of the Sally Hemmings affair, despite having fairly solid DNA evidence. It's the same that leads people to hold up Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain or Robert E. Lee for their various qualities and ignore their various faults. Among normal fans, it's called "hero worship" and it's a big no-no.
Now we at William & Mary, and anyone else, have the opportunity to change the use of the historical palimpsest. We can erase the misconceptions of history and write in the corrections, amend the texts to include what was omitted, and make a more whole American history - the way things actually, truthfully were in the first place before being recorded by the imperialist scribe.
Zarah made a good point of our own memories being a palimpsest. This is absolutely true, as anyone will realize when they think about it. Everything we learn is, in time, amended to correct old information and add new. This class will give the impetus needed for people to start a new palimpsest of the mind. We've already amended our old ways of thinking about Asian Americans and have already made new connections. We've already learned new things, or things that had been discarded were brought to light again. And surely this class will continue to spur these amendments. Hopefully this class will open the door to other courses and the efforts of Francis and of his students will cause a palimpsest of the mind on a larger scale than just the 15 of us. It may be awhile in coming - but as Madeeha has noted, this controversy that we're fighting against has also been the impetus for us to start this palimpsest. The challenge we've been given will do more to propel us forward than surpress us. Debate spreads and brings attention to the debated. If our stand were never questioned, would we still be doing this? Would it still have the potential to spread farther than our campus through the online community?
1) writing material (as a parchment or tablet) used one or more times after earlier writing has been erased
2) something having usually diverse layers or aspects apparent beneath the surface
(Merriam-Webster Online)
For far too long has the palimpsest of history been that of the "white gentleman" spinning together a thread of his own culture's story and either omitting the stories of others, or changing them to cast a better light on himself. dc_08 said it best when noting that the beloved FDR in history textbooks is greatly shielded from the link between him and placing all those Japanese citizens in internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was still the same man as the one that had "saved the economy" as had done this, he didn't miraculously change or sprout a doppelganger. Americans like to put the "best" presidents on pedestals, or any white historical figure, and then only see the good about them while ignoring the bad - and if that means writing the bad out of history, many editors will do it (knowingly or unknowingly). It's the same phenomenon that leads people to vehemently argue against the truth of the Sally Hemmings affair, despite having fairly solid DNA evidence. It's the same that leads people to hold up Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain or Robert E. Lee for their various qualities and ignore their various faults. Among normal fans, it's called "hero worship" and it's a big no-no.
Now we at William & Mary, and anyone else, have the opportunity to change the use of the historical palimpsest. We can erase the misconceptions of history and write in the corrections, amend the texts to include what was omitted, and make a more whole American history - the way things actually, truthfully were in the first place before being recorded by the imperialist scribe.
Zarah made a good point of our own memories being a palimpsest. This is absolutely true, as anyone will realize when they think about it. Everything we learn is, in time, amended to correct old information and add new. This class will give the impetus needed for people to start a new palimpsest of the mind. We've already amended our old ways of thinking about Asian Americans and have already made new connections. We've already learned new things, or things that had been discarded were brought to light again. And surely this class will continue to spur these amendments. Hopefully this class will open the door to other courses and the efforts of Francis and of his students will cause a palimpsest of the mind on a larger scale than just the 15 of us. It may be awhile in coming - but as Madeeha has noted, this controversy that we're fighting against has also been the impetus for us to start this palimpsest. The challenge we've been given will do more to propel us forward than surpress us. Debate spreads and brings attention to the debated. If our stand were never questioned, would we still be doing this? Would it still have the potential to spread farther than our campus through the online community?
Saturday, September 1, 2007
And so it goes?
Prologue; Ch. 1: From a Different Shore
Takaki speaks volumes to me in only a few pages, which I have to admit is surprising. Don't misunderstand, I certainly didn't underestimate the author, but as a student hearing "read the prologue and then the first chapter" of a history book evokes the habituated feeling of dryness and tedious length. I stalled at first, but when I finally started reading I was amazed to find how truly interesting the topic was in and of itself without any prodding. While I spent three hours in the "study" lounge, I was (pleasantly) surprised that I managed to finish the reading without falling asleep, only taking half of the time I was there to complete it, and without ever feeling that I was actually working.
I suppose I'd label myself a romanticist or some kind of idealist. Being an overall otaku, I've always felt right at home within the modern Japanese/Japanese-American culture, and that has also opened doors for me to be automatically accepting of the country's history and the cultures of China, Korea, and other countries of Eastern Asia. I've never thought of Asian Americans as any different from other Americans, I'll admit to saying (specific, not stereotypic) Asian guys are hot (um, hello, Bou? Kanon? Teruki?) and not feeling awkward about it - and why should I? They're just as much 100% human as any "Caucasian." Furthermore, I don't see myself as having a definable "Asian fetish" brought on by some kind of imperialistic society; I'm dating an immigrant from Poland, and I'd hate if he ever DREAMED of giving up something so special like his heritage, like losing the language. The fact is, interracial relationships have been happening for years, whether or not they were overt. Even Thomas Jefferson has the "notorious" Sally Hemmings affair under his belt. Todd, while your self-scrutiny is greatly commendable, I hardly think you have anything to worry about. Quite frankly, hormones and endorphins are rarely racist. If you really love this girl, and it sounds like you do, your attraction probably wasn't driven by the unconscious urge to be imperialistic and completely absorb her into a white-man's world. People who behave in certain ways because their friends say "Asians are hot" as a factual statement (like the stereotypical "Asians are geniuses in the Science/Math areas") may need more work. Hopefully the proximity effect will kick in and eventually they'll come around to think like you.
As an anthropology student, too, an aversion to ethnocentrism has been pretty ingrained in me. With this and the aforementioned second home in Asian culture, I was deeply dismayed when I read by Takaki about how much racial discrimination there still is against Asian Americans. At first it came as a surprise, since these people are everywhere and hardly "foreign," but eventually it turned into a sickened acceptance of the fact that many Americans are just plain bigots, whether or not they try to be or admit it. Even when I tell some people I'm into anime/manga/J-Pop, I'll get "that look" or maybe someone will actually come out and tell me I'm "weird." Modern American society has forgotten all need for tact and no one thinks about what they say before they say it, leading to those innocent slip-ups such as being "the only Americans" in a Vietnamese restaurant, however surrounded by citizens. I won't put myself on a pedestal and say I've never had a moment where I wished I could take a stupid verbal accident back. But after having a slip-up and (hopefully) realizing it, one has to be more socially conscious. Every American should be. Asian Americans are the fastest growing minority group in the nation, it shouldn't be that hard to imagine that just maybe a good number of "Asians" are American citizens and just maybe deserve some decent respect (gosh darnit!).
This brings us to the main question of the day - where has the missing History gone in "Asian American History in Action Through Theatre and Film." Supposedly having the word "History" there would have brought about some kind of "controversy" or "risk." I don't understand why. Asian history, Asian American history, is essential to understanding the subsequently produced dramas and films. What else are films based on but what we know and what we cherish as our heritage? Just how many cowboy movies have been made in America? Film and Theatre go hand in hand with history; separating them makes the films meaningless and confusing, just driving more people to believe that the only things out there are cheap kung-fu movies. The same goes for the European-American films. If you completely take out the history and the modern social issues of, say, Brokeback Mountain and show it to an old-school, non-American Vietnamese person, all it's going to be is two men in funny hats dishonoring their families.
I am not Asian. But that doesn't restrict me from seeing what they see and knowing what they know. Asian Americans are Americans. Their history is our history. So what's the risk?
Takaki speaks volumes to me in only a few pages, which I have to admit is surprising. Don't misunderstand, I certainly didn't underestimate the author, but as a student hearing "read the prologue and then the first chapter" of a history book evokes the habituated feeling of dryness and tedious length. I stalled at first, but when I finally started reading I was amazed to find how truly interesting the topic was in and of itself without any prodding. While I spent three hours in the "study" lounge, I was (pleasantly) surprised that I managed to finish the reading without falling asleep, only taking half of the time I was there to complete it, and without ever feeling that I was actually working.
I suppose I'd label myself a romanticist or some kind of idealist. Being an overall otaku, I've always felt right at home within the modern Japanese/Japanese-American culture, and that has also opened doors for me to be automatically accepting of the country's history and the cultures of China, Korea, and other countries of Eastern Asia. I've never thought of Asian Americans as any different from other Americans, I'll admit to saying (specific, not stereotypic) Asian guys are hot (um, hello, Bou? Kanon? Teruki?) and not feeling awkward about it - and why should I? They're just as much 100% human as any "Caucasian." Furthermore, I don't see myself as having a definable "Asian fetish" brought on by some kind of imperialistic society; I'm dating an immigrant from Poland, and I'd hate if he ever DREAMED of giving up something so special like his heritage, like losing the language. The fact is, interracial relationships have been happening for years, whether or not they were overt. Even Thomas Jefferson has the "notorious" Sally Hemmings affair under his belt. Todd, while your self-scrutiny is greatly commendable, I hardly think you have anything to worry about. Quite frankly, hormones and endorphins are rarely racist. If you really love this girl, and it sounds like you do, your attraction probably wasn't driven by the unconscious urge to be imperialistic and completely absorb her into a white-man's world. People who behave in certain ways because their friends say "Asians are hot" as a factual statement (like the stereotypical "Asians are geniuses in the Science/Math areas") may need more work. Hopefully the proximity effect will kick in and eventually they'll come around to think like you.
As an anthropology student, too, an aversion to ethnocentrism has been pretty ingrained in me. With this and the aforementioned second home in Asian culture, I was deeply dismayed when I read by Takaki about how much racial discrimination there still is against Asian Americans. At first it came as a surprise, since these people are everywhere and hardly "foreign," but eventually it turned into a sickened acceptance of the fact that many Americans are just plain bigots, whether or not they try to be or admit it. Even when I tell some people I'm into anime/manga/J-Pop, I'll get "that look" or maybe someone will actually come out and tell me I'm "weird." Modern American society has forgotten all need for tact and no one thinks about what they say before they say it, leading to those innocent slip-ups such as being "the only Americans" in a Vietnamese restaurant, however surrounded by citizens. I won't put myself on a pedestal and say I've never had a moment where I wished I could take a stupid verbal accident back. But after having a slip-up and (hopefully) realizing it, one has to be more socially conscious. Every American should be. Asian Americans are the fastest growing minority group in the nation, it shouldn't be that hard to imagine that just maybe a good number of "Asians" are American citizens and just maybe deserve some decent respect (gosh darnit!).
This brings us to the main question of the day - where has the missing History gone in "Asian American History in Action Through Theatre and Film." Supposedly having the word "History" there would have brought about some kind of "controversy" or "risk." I don't understand why. Asian history, Asian American history, is essential to understanding the subsequently produced dramas and films. What else are films based on but what we know and what we cherish as our heritage? Just how many cowboy movies have been made in America? Film and Theatre go hand in hand with history; separating them makes the films meaningless and confusing, just driving more people to believe that the only things out there are cheap kung-fu movies. The same goes for the European-American films. If you completely take out the history and the modern social issues of, say, Brokeback Mountain and show it to an old-school, non-American Vietnamese person, all it's going to be is two men in funny hats dishonoring their families.
I am not Asian. But that doesn't restrict me from seeing what they see and knowing what they know. Asian Americans are Americans. Their history is our history. So what's the risk?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
