For the past two weeks we have talked about home and
its different definitions. This week’s topic was really interesting since the
past response I had talked about home and what it means to me. On Thursday I
really liked the discussion and the different meanings that people were giving
for the term diaspora. Personally, I did
not had a clue of what diaspora even meant and on Tuesday I left the classroom
a little confuse of the reading that was due and the word itself. Not until Thursdays
reading that I realize what it meant or what it means in different context and
how one can define it. There was specifically one definition that I understood
better than the others. In the reading “Beyond ‘Asian Diaspora’” by Ien Ang,
Ang defines modern diaspora as “that all peoples must have a territorial
specific homeland and that living away from it is an unnatural and undesirable condition”
(Ang, 286). I personally disagree with what Ang is saying here, or at least the
way it’s phrased. Based on what I understood Ang describes that, based on the
modern definition, everyone should have not two or three but “a territorial…homeland”,
meaning that it’s only one. The word “territorial” gives me the hint that it
must be physical and it should be the one where you were born. I don’t think
that I would agree with that because from where I see it, home is familyand it
can be different for many people. I don’t think that it is fair to say that you
belong to only one homeland. On the second part of the definition, Ang defines
that “living away from it is unnatural and undesirable condition” (Ang, 286).
My interpretation: That living away from your homeland is not what one wanted
and that it is unnatural that someone could leave the place where they were
born. Also, that it’s an “undesirable condition” to be living away from the
place where you belong. I think that it one way it can be undesirable. For example,
a lot of people migrate to different countries with no choice, they do not want
to leave their family behind but they have to because they know that they might
be prosperous in another place. Then, Ang goes on further with the definition
of diaspora in which refers to “all kinds of groups who have a history of
dispersion, groups variously referred to immigrants, expatriates, refugees,
guest workers, exile communities…and so on” (Ang, 286). Mainly referring to all
those that have left their homeland and that have not returned back. In the reading
it also says that people also want to return home, but it could be interpreted
as a myth because once one leaves there is no turning back home. Diaspora is
then put as a label for that specific group for those that leave their home. This
is my own interpretation of what diaspora means, after all everyone defines it
differently because the definition keeps changing throughout the years.
I agree with you Viri. So many people come to this country by seeing a way to lead a better life, and in some aspects it may be. But back to the topic of homelands, it's interesting how you interpreted "territorial homeland" by it being a single physical space. I had a similar reaction. I don't think everyone can identify one single homeland. "Undesirable conditions" were buzzed words for me, and I am not on board with that. I wonder what influenced that part of the definition, because like you said, someone may find a risk of migrating to another country with the intention of leading a more prosperous life; that doesn't neccessarily mean that the homeland is undesirable. And not everyone does not have a desire of returning. I think of my parents, they have expressed wanting to return home, although there may not be official plans of moving back to Oaxaca, that does not mean that the thought has never arisen. That's something I think Perranas and Sui don't address either. There are other factors that keep people from moving back to the place they migrated from. Then there's the question, do people acknowledge their current residence as a homeland? That's a question I would be curious to ask, the next time I speak with my parents, and perhaps other peers. It'd be an interesting conversation to have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that there should be the option of having multiple "homelands." I'm confused about whether I agree with the notion that Ang describes the modern diaspora as requiring "a territorial specific homeland" (286). I suggest Ang is describing the influenced progression of the definition of diaspora which went from the diasporic experience being "described negatively in terms of exile, isolation, and loss, of displacement from ancestral homeland as a traumatic experience, where some catastrophic event- often but not always of a political nature- is collectively remembered as the starting point of the original dispersion," and with that the definition was influenced and commonly assumed to mean in modern day as, “that all peoples must have a territorial specific homeland and that living away from it is an unnatural and undesirable condition” (286). With that, Ang contends that there is a modern, influenced understanding of the definition's "trauma" requirement, which encompasses, "the contemporary experiences of marginalization or discrimination in the nation-state of residence," (286). Moreover, Ang describes the transformation of the working definition in order to present another working understanding of the new definition of diaspora. For instance, the author suggests, "In this context, the term diaspora has increasingly lost its paradigmatic association with exile from home and the myth of return and has become much more widely and unspecifically used to describe the condition and experience of dispersion as such, which may not necessarily involve trauma and marginalization but also empowerment, enrichment, and expansion," which shows how Ang is participating in shining a bright, positive light on the diaspora conversation (287).
ReplyDelete