In “Asian American Formations in the Age of Globalization”, Hu Dehart discusses the problematic perceptions of “Asian American success” (p. 8) attributed to their ‘foreign/immigrant’ status and cultural values. For many Asian Americans themselves, this status as “model minorities” have given them a way to ignore displaced Asian groups who had to come to America as refugees. For example, according to Hmong American leader, KaYing Yang, the Hmong people, the victims of war, “... are concerned with connecting their everyday lives in the United States to still unresolved feelings for and tied to a lost homeland. For them, the term “Asian American” does not make sense… may find themselves forever refugees” (p. 18).
Furthermore, E. San Juan Jr. challenges the role of ethnic studies within the “transnational corporate machine” (p. 282) that is the university, positing that aspects of ethnic studies fails to radically transform the education system to deepen the understanding/representation of the lived experiences and struggles of marginalized groups. Instead, the university’s capitalistic interests in the Pacific exploit the Asian diaspora’s desire for connection to both homes. Despite some acts of resistance, “... the task of revolutionary transformation is shirked…” by the current state of ethnic studies.
 |
| Source: Austrian Economics Center |
Question: Is the university’s interest in ‘diversity’ and the Asian diaspora merely a business opportunity? How can the state ethnic studies improve to radically transform transnational relations and solidarity?
Hu-DeHart, Evelyn, ed. Across the Pacific: Asian Americans and Globalization. Vol. 2. Temple University Press, 2000.
No comments:
Post a Comment