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?
In terms of the docu-memoirs, I think that of course they are useful recordings of history. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are the ONLY useful recordings of history. And because they are based on an individual's views--it's pretty much inevitable that these views are NOT always going to reflect the collective's opinion. So in this sense, although they impose other people's views, it still definitely contributes to history and is part of what makes history so interesting. How it is different for so many people. This sort of ties into the next couple of questions regarding fact and fiction. I believe that we definitely NEED these docu-memoirs looking at an individual's experiences. However, we need to make sure that (1) the public is AWARE that these memoirs are coming from one individual and that (2) a wide variety of docu-memoirs are available. This is the only way that we can really get a complete idea of "history". It's kind of like seeing two sides of an argument--the more stories we obtain, the better representation of history that can be created. History needs the facts and figures and numbers in order to set the background, but it needs the more "personal" stories in ADDITION to the facts and figures and dates and numbers. They kind of go hand-in-hand.
ReplyDeleteThe line between fact and fiction in history is difficult to distinguish. In mainstream media, we typically see films or movies that are kind of a combination of fact and fiction. Then in more documentary-like films, we see fact. However, I actually think that we rarely see a historical film that is completely fiction.
What is most difficult however, is to make clear to the audience which parts of the movie or play or whatever are facts and which parts are fiction. Though it is definitely possible to distinguish fact and fiction when WRITING a play, it is much more difficult to define it to the audience when WATCHING a theatrical production.
The final questions regarding deliberately changing a theatrical representation to oppose recorded information is sort of hard to answer. It definitely isn't fact. It may depend on the definition of "historical", whether or not we define anything "historical" as anything that actually happened in history. If this is the case, then it definitely is not historical. But at the same time... it's kind of like the playwright is attempting to rewrite for some reason or another...
Finally, rewriting history in theater in a general scale I believe is considered an "art" or piece of "fiction". But once you stick it in a history book, you're kind of academically approving it, and making it official. Not to say that theatrical representations are always false, but looking at this in a very general view, people are going to take what is in the history book to be true, while the truthfulness of what is in the theatrical production can always be questionable.
I would like to respond to your questions on Loni Ding's "Docu-memoirs." I read a little more on her and found that her approach on recording oral history is a valuable research technique. Oral history, according to the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, is a self-conscious, disciplined conversation between two people about some aspect of the past considered by them to be of historical significance and intentionally recorded for the record. Although the conversation takes the form of an interview, oral history is, at its heart, a dialogue. The interview between the interviewer and the interviewee can be a history lecture, a confessional, a verbal sparring match, an exercise in nostalgia, or any other of the dozens of ways people talk about their experiences. I found that Ding's docu-memoir is a way of recording of history. However, I am not certain how useful it is on a mass scale as it is a subjective experience. We must keep in mind that facts can be obscured, altered or fictionalized by the producers of the mass media in the process of dramatizing an event.
ReplyDeleteWith The Dance and the Railroad, it is important to note how the viewer is viewing it, as Jessica kind of alludes to, is it art? is it history? Lee calls all of the works he discusses: "history plays." What does that mean? A combination of history and art? When Hwang wrote "Railroad" what was his intention, more history, more art?
ReplyDeleteLee writes at the beginning of the article that, "Asian Americans have their own vision of the past in America" (137). They therefore have an eagerness to write their own histories, or to rewrite dominant hegemonic histories. Therefore, when Hwang's story of the railroad workers differs from Takaki's historical story, it is a history revised, but with intention. The question is not, is it historical? but, what is the intention? In "Railroad" the intention was, as Lee states, to "evoke a sense of unity" and to necessitate a "pan-Asian collective" (147).
If history is "made" by historians, then it is important to know who is writing the history because the individual's perspective - the way in which she or he orders his or her world, past, present and future - affects how he or she writes history. And if only certain perspectives make up the history that is taught in textbooks, then individuals can be held unfairly accountable for exclusionary laws and politics and there is a misunderstanding of cultural identity and racism perpetuates. The free speech amendment plays an important role here: we need to read (and it is great that we finally do) written works other than the textbook and that definitely includes reading docu-memoirs. We should also watch films, see plays, and hear guest speakers because history is experience and who better to tell the history than the people who experienced it? I think it would be GREAT if we could read the poems inscribed in the walls of Angel Island.
ReplyDeleteI think that personal history is important for learning about certain groups of people experiencing oppression or an identity crisis because those are human qualities and shared experiences, and how history is written plays an important role in identity and history reflects current debates. Sharing of personal experiences helps to identify overall problems, like instituted racism, as well as issues - the how and why of differences in oppression specifically directed to one particular group - to show the importance of collective action.
History is about more than the numbers and dates, it is about the people and people need to be represented as more than purely functional labor value or an immigration statistic. I agree that a personal statement and authentic human experiences are testimonials to truth of history. We need to listen to the voices in order for lesson to be taught to the audience and for a bridge to be build between the ruptures of time and space. Apathy needs to be taken out/ care needs to be added in to the (economic) system and into history so that we can make progress- to make a CHANGE !
Something to think about is how focusing on history takes away from focusing of the present and how focusing on the present - working to get the things we need to be complacent or that individual freedom we try to attain - disjoints us from the past so that we can never reach a complete fulfillment because we don't learn, because we are always looking "up".
I think that the line between fact and fiction is sometimes extremely thin. The way that different events are recorded is very different depending on who is recording them. For example a white historian and an Asian American historian may record the same event very differently. They record events as objectively as possible but some of their preconceived biases are bound to affect them, thus possibly giving both of their stories a slightly different twist. Both historians will have recorded their truth but this, most likely is not the same truth as the other historian. Because of this I think that it is extremely important to look at all types of history including written history and dramatic performances because they, mostly likely, both record someone’s truth from that time even though they are different. For this reason it is impossible to say that one is more effective than the other because they are both essential for someone to come up with their own idea of what happened.
ReplyDeleteI agree that docu-memoirs are very useful as recordings of history, especially since they provide information and interpretations that would not otherwise be available. I don't think that they can or should stand completely alone, but as one of many sources of 'history', they are important.
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether they 'impose the viewpoints of some...on all members affected by the event' ties into ideas we read about and discussed last class. What meaning is constructed? What are the implications? We can't ignore the context; in your example, the idea that East Asian personal experiences could speak for or be imposed on all affected is completely dependent on East Asians being seen as representative of all who are affected.
I'll argue that it's impossible to write history 'objectively' for related reasons. How you view reality, what you witness, how you express 'facts' in language, what is included and what is not--all of that is determined by a person's perspective, reality, experience, system of understanding the world. History is recorded, expressed, and shared through mediums that cannot be created, nor taken in (whether you read, see, listen, or interact with it), 'objectively.'
I've been unable to identify where Lee argues that history should be recorded objectively on page 150 (hopefully you guys can help me find that during class), but I read the argument on page 150 as speaking to how important subjectivity is in recording a history that more thoroughly reflects reality. Specifically, "a particular subjectivity for the Asian American character, one that exceeds or stands outside of 'economic value in the social equation'" is extremely important.
The complexity in (creating) 'history' definitely should not be overlooked or disregarded; statistics, numbers, and functional human action provide one (limited) understanding of what has happened in the past, and subjective recordings and expressions provide a number of other ways to understand what has happened. I
think that each additional way of considering historical events contributes towards a deeper, more thorough, more nuanced understanding of what has happened (albeit some contribute more than others).
So, I don't see either textual histories or dramatic performances as being consistently 'better' or 'more useful'; it depends on the purpose, and each adds something different. I would say that looking at the two in relation to each other is most effective for the discourse; either stands alone provides for only a (much more) superficial discourse and understanding.
ReplyDeleteSomething I was confused/curious about is when and how art is defined as ‘fiction.’ My personal perspective regarding ‘truth’ makes it difficult for me to answer your question about ‘facts’ vs. ‘fiction’, but what I can say is that I don’t think it is a binary. I don’t think that there is a dividing line between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’. Even if you want to consider only those two qualifications, I don’t think you could just them on a line and consider it a continuum, since the two are not mutually exclusive. It might look more like a two-dimensional plot on a plane; in one case, historical fiction can be very ‘fictional’ while still being very grounded in the historical situation and what actually happened (e.g. not based on any real people or any real details, while still accurately reflecting the climate and peoples’ general sentiments at the time; and in another case, a ‘non-fiction’ account could include only ‘factual’ statements, but present a very limited, biased view of the history (through omission of important context, other facts, etc.) and therefore be very ‘fictional’ in how it reflects historical reality.