In response to a recent posting by Eileen Tabios, who writes, in part:
I'm sure the sunny professor doesn't realize he struck a nerve with me (or perhaps he does). You see, prior to tending my grape vines (all one stalk of them), I was fairly active in the Asian American literary scene.....but what I noticed is that much of my work never gets classified as "Asian American" or "Filipino American" literature. Why? Because I don't write the kind of stuff that has mostly become classified (as Timothy has observed) as Asian American works by referencing biography, food and ethnicity. I am not the only "Asian American" poet who's ranted before at this practice.I really didn't mean to strike a nerve -- though I realize that now -- but my initial hesitation to classify her as such was partly in reaction to what Tim Yu wrote earlier. That is, I didn't want to simply pigeonhole her poetry as "Pinoy poetry," as poems (or as a blog) that is only brought up within that Asian context. (Not that that's a bad thing, but I think the readers know what I mean.) Both Asian Americans (and well-meaning non-Asian editors, etc., out to "diversify" their anthologies) are complicit in fashioning particular tired images, narratives, paradigms, and so on that keep Asian Americans in safe, domesticated categories. And that was what I was reacting to when I wrote what I wrote -- I think Eileen and I agree about things, only I came about it the other way round. For instance, I think Lew's Premonitions is important precisely because it does not simply proclaim Asian American poetry as an "Other voice." Not all Asian American poets may want their work to be ("merely") classified as "Asian American poetry," with all that that label, positive and negative, entails.
She writes as well:
Let me spell it out: if the author is Asian American, that makes the works "Asian American" -- the work itself doesn't have to fit your preconceived paradigms. Kapisch?!Oh, I completely agree. But -- hee hee -- let me play devil's advocate and present a couple of statements:
Both may be true, but is one truer than the other? =)
Chan Is Missing is an Asian American film.
Smoke is an Asian American film.
(There will be a Part 3 to this entry as well, including a response to a letter by Tim Yu, and Dana Takagi gets thrown in there somewhere.)
Posted by the wily filipino at April 29, 2003 05:19 PMDear Sunny,
Oh! I hope I didn't give the impression I am pissed at you(r remarks). If anything, I was pleased by what you said -- though used your comments as an opportunity to do my rant at *other* Asian American academics.
Kapisch?
You're still handsome and adorable, of course. But that's because I'ma still drinking the vino,
Ms. WinePoetics
Posted by: Eileen Tabios on April 29, 2003 06:12 PMA lot of this "authenticity" of Asian American art or whatever seems to be playing with that line of color-blindness that you easily dismiss. There is the want to make explicit that Asian Americans are doing things! And there is the want to show that people who are not white and also Asian American are doing the same things as other (white) Americans (or Canadian, Brazilians, or what have you...)
just some white guy's thoughts... =)
Posted by: jesse on April 30, 2003 12:32 AMYes, I see and understand the point made by Jesse. But that's also the same perspective that's been used to flatten difference (whether that difference is based on race or other factors). I'm sure many have written on how this perspective -- inadvertently or deliberately -- has been used this way. David Mura's memoir TURNING JAPANESE (for one) comes to mind.
not an Asian American but a human perspective ;),
Posted by: Eileen Tabios on April 30, 2003 09:32 AM