Loni Ding, an AsAm director, creates what she calls “docu-memoirs” to “search out shards of history found in archaeological artifacts, household objects, personal mementos, folklore, and rituals, the film links history to contemporary issues.” Docu-memoirs are not objective, nor are they completely subjective. They are compilations of personal accounts which give historical context to the actions of the characters.
- The term “docu-memoir” encompasses the concept of non-faceless history that Lee describes in Acts of Exclusion. Are docu-memoirs useful recordings of history?
- Since they draw upon personal experiences being retold, do they impose the viewpoints of some (East Asians, for example) on all members affected by the event? Or do the personal experiences help to make the history richer and better understood?
- Should we strive to write history objectively, or (as suggested by Lee on page 150) should we try to record the past in such a way that it “exceeds history as a series of numbers and dates”?
Lee compares the writing of Asian American history with the theatrical expression of Asian American conflicts in history. She claims that it is "impossible to make rigid distinctions between written history as 'fact' and theater as 'fiction'" (137).
- What do you think is more effective for continuing our discourse: writing textual histories or dramatic performances? Why?
- In these instances, what defines "fact" and "fiction"? Could history potentially be considered the "fiction" and theater the "fact"?
See pp. 146-7 to reference Hwang's The Dance and the Railroad for these questions.
- When a theatrical representation of an historical event is deliberately changed to oppose the recorded information about said event, can the dramatization still be considered historical?
- How does the rewriting of history via theatre differ from the rewriting of historical textbooks?
