RP2: Who is left out?

In class today, Dr. Gómez asked the question pertaining to the outlined definition of ‘diaspora.’ She asked us to think about “who is left out.” This really resonated with me after having read the readings for class today. I was selected to be the expert for the Ang piece, Beyond “Asian Diasporas”, which left me thinking about the complexities of the term diaspora and how neither of those two terms can fully encompass a full meaning that is absorbed as held true by those perceived to be within the “Asian diaspora” nor those outside of it.

Ang makes the assertion that diaspora is crafted to essentially create an “other” that is displaced from a place of origin that has multidimensional components attributed to having a ‘country of origin.’ Ang’s allegation about the constructed term of diaspora is clarified when she states, “the term Asian Diasporas in the title of this volume points to a basic contradiction. There are no Asian diasporas, only ways of seeing this diaspora as Asian” (Ang 289). I interpreted this portion of Ang’s piece as an argument essentially stating that diaspora is limiting and inherently creating an ‘other’ that is seen, but does not actually exist outside of the socially constructed narrative. One person can encompass aspects that could very well be seen as a diasporic with Asian components, but not actually identify themselves within anything comprising those limiting confines of a definition placed on various peoples. The issue raised here begs to question about what those outsiders see as fitting an arbitrary construction of  pertaining to “Asian diaspora,” when they, themselves, do not associate within the realm of either of those terms. I think about the “Korean adoptees in the West” as Willina spoke about in class that are multifaceted in the sense that they can identify with something, but may be perceived as something else. We cannot choose out own fate in the diasporic dialogue because it has already been chosen for us by the government, nation-state, or next door neighbor.

So to answer this question about “who is left out?” I would argue that Ang would agree in saying that under current stagnant views of diaspora; everyone. We are multifaceted people with multifaceted “origins” and we can pay homage to as many places or lack thereof that we as individuals so choose. An obvious answer would be African-Americans who were brought here on the Middle Passage from African who under the current working of diaspora would view themselves in a from ‘neither here nor there’ mentality. I, a Mexican woman, pay homages to various lands that I call home, but to say I am part of the Mexican diaspora would essentially be denying any part of the multifaceted components that come into play with the indigenous and Afro-Mexican roots can be found in the intricacies of the blood that runs through my veins.