In "Transnational Migration and the Globalization of Grassroots Politics", Michael Peter Smith writes about the dimensions of the culture and characterizations of globalization. Three examples that he discusses are: Reterritorializing Lost Homes, Spatial Extension of Intensified Social Relations, and The Globalization of Personal Attention. I found his short spiel on the desired response to deterritorialization from refugees and exiles is to reterritorialize. Transmigrants in the United States, per say, perceive their land to be lost and expresses a more "politics of return" in order to recapture their homeland. I found this to be true within the Vietnamese community here especially in San Jose and Orange County, where South Vietnamese Veterans, such as my best friend's dad who continues to be an active member of anti-communist protests and gatherings. It's interesting how he addresses this phenomenon as a "political imaginary" which I find to be a little offensive and hurtful because these groups, in the end, do not see it as something imaginative, but something that they can help change in their homeland. Nonetheless, Smith does speak upon the more positive side of this, stating that it does transform various transmigrant communities with a large cultural population. We have Koreans with "Korea Town" and Vietnamese with "Little Saigon" etc. These places offer a community, a political reform, "trustworthy" businesses* and more. My question may require more research and interviews, but I wonder in what ways do the practices of involuntarily deterritorialize groups effect the global community, if at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment