Glenn Omatsu's essay, "The 'Four Prisons' and the movements of liberation.." discusses the use of history in inspiring activism and identity amongst Asian Americans between the 1960's to the 1990's. The Four prisons that Omatsu refers to is a philosophical notion that people are locked within ideological prisons; history as identity, history as developing current norms and repressive confinement, society, and the self. Omatsu discusses the attitudes of civil-activism and thought during the 1960's, noting that the primary leaders in civil rights activism and movements to advance racial minorities were lead by African American leaders; such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Omatsu also notes that Asian Americans involved in civil rights activism were mostly students and academics, and that grass-roots movements and community involvement was their way of trying to improve the Asian American experience. Omatsu's articles discusses many different points, but its main focus or question is whether the current(or recent) work of Asian American activists is similar to the struggles and works of movements from the 1960's and 70's. I also think that he may be asking whether it is a minority's responsibility to try to improve the condition of people within their own race/ethnicity, or if they should try and do this through an all encompassing racial/civil-activist movement?
Omatsu's article notes the importance and prominence of intellectualism in activists and activism. Stating that most of their ideas and perspectives came from "Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao." The activists who drew from these intellectuals were more "bigger-picture" activists, concerned with the condition of all minorities and marginalized peoples. In contrast to this, Omatsu juxtaposes Neo-Conservative Asian Americans, and how their Neo-Conservatist perspectives pull them to approach racism and civil rights in a different manor. For the Neo-Conservatists, racism and civil rights problems exist as products of "culture," rather than institutions. They also don't acknowledge history as a key part of the Asian American experience. Though they also disagree with racism and problems of civil inequality, their approach is less "active," and involved.
One of the main points that Omatsu brings out is that, involvement and being "active" is one of the most important aspects of implementing change. He states the importance of grass-roots organizations in how they spread awareness and knowledge to the masses. Throughout the period of 1970-1990 Asian-Americans who recognized their parents' or their own national origins started doing activities and involving themselves in movements for countries like, Korea, Japan, China, or the Philippines.
The article's ending point is that both MLK Jr. and Malcom X became idealists aware of international crises and not only the condition of one people. I think that Omatsu was trying to suggest with this article, is that, it is the Asian Americans responsibility to get involved and actively "assert" themselves into the community. By doing this for movements and awareness of not just Asian-American related problems, but also global, and larger community issues, they are improving the condition of Asian Americans. By contributing to a larger, growing movement of Asian Americans as assertive leaders and intellectuals, it is helping the condition of Asian Americans and helps shape the consciouss identity of "Asian American." This is not meant to sound like its intentionality is completely self-serving, but that in helping others(or everyone), one also helps their own condition or ideals.
I like Omatsu's argument that Asian American civil movement was initially inspired by the black liberation led by Malcolm X rather it was influenced by Martin Luther King Jr. His examples of leading figures of the movement made me think who were the leading figures in Asian American movement and I could not think of anyone. Omatsu later states that Asian American movement were led by many Ivory Perrys, anonymous participants, especially groups of college students, the elderly, workers, and youths. Mass participants led the movement in order to educate to raise political consciousness and they fought for a "collective liberation of all peoples." Omatsu also exemplifies the Asian American Writers Workshop at the International Hotel in San Francisco as a cultural revolution in Asian American Communities. "The Fall of I-Hotel" shows the Omatsu's ideas of Asian American movement. The movie documents the struggle of Filipino community and presents its history overviews. To preserve their community center, I-Hotel, the whole community supported the movement like Omatsu explained. Omatsu analyzes the history of Asian American activism and prospects how the legacy can be carried on today, however, it will be better if he provides specific ways to make the ideological advances for successful liberation.
2 comments:
Glenn Omatsu's essay, "The 'Four Prisons' and the movements of liberation.." discusses the use of history in inspiring activism and identity amongst Asian Americans between the 1960's to the 1990's. The Four prisons that Omatsu refers to is a philosophical notion that people are locked within ideological prisons; history as identity, history as developing current norms and repressive confinement, society, and the self. Omatsu discusses the attitudes of civil-activism and thought during the 1960's, noting that the primary leaders in civil rights activism and movements to advance racial minorities were lead by African American leaders; such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Omatsu also notes that Asian Americans involved in civil rights activism were mostly students and academics, and that grass-roots movements and community involvement was their way of trying to improve the Asian American experience. Omatsu's articles discusses many different points, but its main focus or question is whether the current(or recent) work of Asian American activists is similar to the struggles and works of movements from the 1960's and 70's. I also think that he may be asking whether it is a minority's responsibility to try to improve the condition of people within their own race/ethnicity, or if they should try and do this through an all encompassing racial/civil-activist movement?
Omatsu's article notes the importance and prominence of intellectualism in activists and activism. Stating that most of their ideas and perspectives came from "Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao." The activists who drew from these intellectuals were more "bigger-picture" activists, concerned with the condition of all minorities and marginalized peoples. In contrast to this, Omatsu juxtaposes Neo-Conservative Asian Americans, and how their Neo-Conservatist perspectives pull them to approach racism and civil rights in a different manor. For the Neo-Conservatists, racism and civil rights problems exist as products of "culture," rather than institutions. They also don't acknowledge history as a key part of the Asian American experience. Though they also disagree with racism and problems of civil inequality, their approach is less "active," and involved.
One of the main points that Omatsu brings out is that, involvement and being "active" is one of the most important aspects of implementing change. He states the importance of grass-roots organizations in how they spread awareness and knowledge to the masses. Throughout the period of 1970-1990 Asian-Americans who recognized their parents' or their own national origins started doing activities and involving themselves in movements for countries like, Korea, Japan, China, or the Philippines.
The article's ending point is that both MLK Jr. and Malcom X became idealists aware of international crises and not only the condition of one people. I think that Omatsu was trying to suggest with this article, is that, it is the Asian Americans responsibility to get involved and actively "assert" themselves into the community. By doing this for movements and awareness of not just Asian-American related problems, but also global, and larger community issues, they are improving the condition of Asian Americans. By contributing to a larger, growing movement of Asian Americans as assertive leaders and intellectuals, it is helping the condition of Asian Americans and helps shape the consciouss identity of "Asian American." This is not meant to sound like its intentionality is completely self-serving, but that in helping others(or everyone), one also helps their own condition or ideals.
I like Omatsu's argument that Asian American civil movement was initially inspired by the black liberation led by Malcolm X rather it was influenced by Martin Luther King Jr. His examples of leading figures of the movement made me think who were the leading figures in Asian American movement and I could not think of anyone. Omatsu later states that Asian American movement were led by many Ivory Perrys, anonymous participants, especially groups of college students, the elderly, workers, and youths. Mass participants led the movement in order to educate to raise political consciousness and they fought for a "collective liberation of all peoples." Omatsu also exemplifies the Asian American Writers Workshop at the International Hotel in San Francisco as a cultural revolution in Asian American Communities. "The Fall of I-Hotel" shows the Omatsu's ideas of Asian American movement. The movie documents the struggle of Filipino community and presents its history overviews. To preserve their community center, I-Hotel, the whole community supported the movement like Omatsu explained. Omatsu analyzes the history of Asian American activism and prospects how the legacy can be carried on today, however, it will be better if he provides specific ways to make the ideological advances for successful liberation.
Post a Comment