Histories are Real
Toby Wu, Programming Co-Chair
I am very interested in how we are taught our histories, which is why I chose to major in History & Education. I mean, these questions are worthwhile to consider: What do our histories entail? Why is knowing our histories important? How do we recognize and teach our histories? When I was helping out with CYI's Summer Leadership Institute this past weekend, I thought about these questions some more. The workshop allowed for these young people -- all in high school -- to take in significant periods of Asian American history and to process their own relationship to the history. For me, it was fascinating to hear their responses to our guiding questions.
At the beginning, the participants characterized their relationships to Asian American history as generally weak and impersonal. Learning about Angel Island, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese American internment, and legal cases such as United States v. Thind and Ozawa vs. United States meant little to them, because they were all so distant from their lifetimes. When we asked why it was important to learn history, participants responded something to the extent of, "History repeats itself, so we should learn from our mistakes." It was a fine response, but I still wanted more. It just felt so trite, because it was how we were taught in our history classes on the first day of class. I wanted to challenge them some more.
With the help of the other facilitators, I think we had a successful moment of facilitation when I began to refer to the Ozawa and Thind cases as a jumping point. Why is citizenship important? What does citizenship give us? Why are those rights and privileges important? What do we enjoy now that are derived from our citizenship in this country? We continued the day with a screening of "Who Killed Vincent Chin?" and a brief Q&A with director Christine Choy. At the end, some of the participants did express a newfound appreciation for Asian American history. but even then, the responses to why Asian American history was important to know remained the same.
Their answers emphasized the content of the history, whereas I wanted the participants to think about the power of it. The omission of the histories of marginalized peoples is an act of oppression not only because we should all know our histories (which is a matter of principle) but also, because that limits the abilities of marginalized peoples to organize and to form collectives from their shared politicization. This dismissal of our histories in our channels of nation-building (such as schooling) hides, more than anything, the ways we are politicized or deprives us of a kind of vocabulary to articulate who we are.
I am an advocate of reconceptualizing the histories we teach our young people because history education is a crucial site for movement building. The potential is huge. The legal cases involving Ozawa and Thind are not two independent cases; rather, they contribute dynamically to the political formulation of our Asian American identity (though not to suggest that Asian Americans are folks who wanted to be white but aren't). Maybe then, there would not be so many divisive conversations about who is legitimately Asian American or what countries fall under Asia. Maybe then, we would begin to have more productive conversations about how our politicization is shifting, and how we may reconsider our identities to incorporate new groups. Maybe then, words like ching chong would have a stronger resonance with more of us, not because they are necessarily abrasive or vulgar, but because they are contextualized by a larger picture (or should I say, movie?) of history in our minds. And of course, content is important, but we will also need to consider the frameworks with which to present the content, because just as learning about the American Revolution has implications for informing our identities as Americans, learning about Asian American histories has implications for informing our identities as Asian Americans. (I'm not trying to be divisive by seeing color; I'm just trying to be real.)
Returning to the content-focused responses to why learning history is important, I would even assert that those responses are reminiscent of right-wing rhetoric, which I have often found to be dealing with principles and content more than about systems and frameworks. I'm currently reading The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, and of course, conversations about the nonprofit industrial complex emerged from the left. It makes sense to me that the right would not encourage those conversations, so they encourage conversations about the principles of charity instead. In my mind, the debates about abortion, same sex marriage, and immigration are only cousins to this issue of recognizing our histories. to move the country forward, we need to go beyond the principles of life-killing, institution-preservation, and legality and recognize these systems of sexism, heterosexism, and racism.
Post a Comment