L-R: Oscar Penaranda, Min Paek, Nancy Hom and Alison Satake
Activist Imagination’s public events launched yesterday with The Journey So Far: 35 Years of Activism. The panel discussion, featuring Nancy Hom, Oscar Penaranda and Min Paek, and moderator Alison Satake, was held at the Manilatown Center.
It was my first time in the still-gleaming new building. Bob Hsiang and Nancy Hom recalled the original layout, and it was uncanny to imagine it. The Kearny Street Workshop storefront extended to where the Manilatown foyer is today. Split by a “junk shop” (according to Nancy) on the corner, KSW had a second storefront; the old Jackson Street Gallery, believe it or not, was twice as spacious as the current community room.
Hom shared her enthusiasm for KSW’s early creativity and spontaneity. She described an off-the-cuff three-day, booze-fueled animation project: a battle between McDonald’s fast food and dim sum. Allegories like these make the old days seem carefree, participatory, social. As an outsider looking in, I enjoy hearing of the absence of exclusion or dogmatism. KSW seemed to be a space for all comers.
The panel discussion was an interesting reflection on 35 years of activism. I realized, though, the past was much different than the present, and by necessity, we will shape the future on its own terms.
For example, I would have liked to differ when the conversation turned to the similarity with current events and the 1970s. The comparison seems unfair to current activists. The political upheaval in the 1960s was world-wide; imperialism was imploding in Asia and Africa. Without diminishing the credit due to ethnic studies strikers and I-Hotel activists, I see their activism as a tributary of a global current of resistance, whose groundwork was laid in prior decades. Back then, as Penaranda said, “You couldn’t help but be political.” Today, the costs of being complacent are not broadcast in the form of bodybags (which is what politicized Hom), nor brought home in draft cards (as audience member Charlie Chinn pointed out).
At the risk of mixing metaphors, here’s another analogy: consider a fulcrum of opposite forces, which swings in a struggle for power until one side gains enough momentum (or mass as a social movement) to overturn at the zenith (and cause significant social change). Maybe the revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s tipped the zenith; now, energy is waning until the conflict between opposites gains enough momentum. But we’re not even close. As David Brooks pointed out in the New York Times, “voters are desperate for change. [But] .. they don’t want a change that will upset the lives they have built for themselves.” I don’t want to make excuses for the much-disparaged apathy of our citizenry. Rather, I want to make a case for strategy.
Let’s honor the bright young people who throw themselves into non-profits for little remuneration by making it worth their time. And while we’re at it, let’s make it lucrative, so that constituents — and not just college grads — can afford righteous day jobs (and likewise, retain the other 50% of new teachers who burn out within three years). This means we have to re-think strategies and the institutions we’ve come to take for granted since the 1960s. I’m skeptical of the non-profit structure (arguably, non-profits keep us “fighting scraps instead of a seat at the table”). Today we’re on a different playing field (thanks to the advances made by our predecessors), and I’m looking forward to hearing about new strategies.
I take exception to Chinn’s position — in response to Paek’s worry about the backlash to American wars — that overseas, Asian Americans are perceived as Orientals, not Americans. While I’ve experienced that kind of essentialism, I’ve also had many more encounters to the contrary. Give people some credit — migration is not that complicated a concept. For example, given US-Philippines relations and Chinese privilege in the Philippines, Filipinos I met showed a much more nuanced understanding of ethnicity and nationality than Mr. Chinn allowed. And despite their self-described “reserve,” I met Englishmen who were quite forthcoming about their opinions of the US government. In any case, the threat of bodily harm while traveling abroad is a relative inconvenience — I’d argue that only when the costs outweigh the benefits of complacency at home, can we begin to swing the fulcrum again.
Lastly, I asked the panel to talk about the future of APA activism, and the usefulness of the term, “Asian Pacific American,” as we face economic and environmental change on a global scale. (While the term may have been coined with the 1980 Census, it’s important a framework adopted for our struggles, and the strategies of organizations like KSW.) The panelists talked about the early use of the term, which expressed the desire to be seen as a true American. While the struggle for equity continues, I think getting our piece of the American pie is too narrow a vision for the future, as the US consumption of global resources spirals out of control.But since the discussion focused on the past, I may have jumped the gun a bit. I look forward to upcoming panels on the present and future of APA activism.
Christine Wong Yap
Artist
Activist Imagination
http://www.christinewongyap.com



