Glenn Omatsu highlights the transitions of Asian American struggle in the United States through historical epochs and people in his article The “Four Prisons” and the Movements of Liberation—not merely as development of consciousness—but as a struggle against oppression and power. The development Omatsu’s argument focuses on the notion of liberation from certain “prisons” which prevent people groups from escaping oppression and subjugation. A few examples of these ideological “prisons” range from poverty and racism to hyper-capitalism and neo-conservatism. While this critical reflection paper will highlight Omatsu’s argument, I will not seek to summarize his points. Instead, this paper aims to provide a critical perspective on Asian American neo-conservatism, Asian American leaders and icons (or the lack thereof) and questions of empowerment for the “collective liberation of all peoples” (Omatsu 109). I will then finally make an argument for the academic and practical development of Asian American theology in the context of ideological struggle and liberation.
The rise of Asian American neo-conservatism stems from an ignorance of oppression and marginalization in historical and present-day, racist institutions. Omatsu simply attributes the rise of neo-conservation Asian Americans to being born in an era of Reaganomics and hyper-capitalism. However, I believe this is a question of epistemology—the study of knowledge. How does knowledge transfer itself to one generation to the next? The creation of the first Ethnic Studies department in the San Francisco State Strikes marks the first signs of this struggle—a struggle of knowledge. If were the young people of the late 1970s and 1980s knew of the oppressive acts of the dominant majority in marginalizing Asian Americans in history, would their only experiences of racism be found in “name calling or ‘glass ceilings’ blocking personal career advancement—not poverty and violence” (Omatsu 97)? However as time moves forward, the struggle for liberation in epistemology remains at the forefront of this battle. Omatsu highlights that even in the Asian American movement, “we have an ideological vacuum, and activists will compete with neoconservatives, mainstream conservatives and others will fill it” (100). While Asian American studies in the past 30 years have made remarkable advances in academia, are Ethnic Studies and political struggle the only channels of liberation? As we approach an age of technology, art, music and film, Asian American scholars have to remain innovative at the frontline of this ideological battlefield. Yimou Zhang, Ang Lee and other directors are at the forefront of Asian American film. However, Asian American film has still yet to liberate itself from the chains of mainstream stereotypes. There is much work to be reclaimed in the area of music in Asian American liberation. I.M. Pei and Maya Lin have made phenomenal efforts in architecture and art. However, do these warriors of the Asian American movement reflect a grassroots activist approach to liberation and oppression or do they perpetuate ideological “prison” that prevent Asian Americans from escaping?
There is a lack of icons and leaders for the Asian American community. While there is an ideological and epistemological struggle at hand, we must realize that ideologies are manifested in people and leaders of our time. International icons like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X manifest Black liberation thought of the 1960s and 70s, but who are the leaders and icons of the Asian American liberation movement? Who are our leaders and icons? Omatsu asserts that the leaders and icons of our movement are found in the everyday activists like Philip Vera Cruz, in the efforts of organizations like CPA Workers Center, AIWA and KIWA. Nonetheless, what ideological contributions do these activists supply in this battle for liberation? I will argue that Asian American leaders do not perpetuate a single, cohesive ideology—contributing to the ideological vacuum. Perhaps this is because of diverse backgrounds or lack of similar experiences or the rise of the model minority stereotype.
Omatsu’s manifesto of a struggle for “collective liberation for all peoples” lacks strategy (109). While it is hopeful for leaders in Asian American communities to rise above their own struggles and self interests, what are the ideological advances we must make in order to win this war of liberation? The answer lies in the academic and historical study of Asian American theology—the study of God or gods from a religious perspective. Fundamental questions of ontology (the study of existence and being), morality, ethics and religion need to be cohesively addressed in order to provide the ideological backing of ideological liberation. Omatsu highlighted the global response to the struggle for liberation in the civil rights movements outside of the US. However, he failed to highlight the blossoming efforts in liberation theology all around the world. Ignacio Ellacuría, a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest, made significant contributions to Liberation Theology in El Salvador. The political implications of his findings was met with resistance which resulted in his murder in 1989 by the Salvadoran army. Reverend Allan Aubrey Boesak was a South African Dutch Reformed cleric who first became known as a liberation theologian in his work Farwell to Innocence, 1976. Boesak became most well known in his participation as an anti-apartheid activist in criticism of the Nationalist Party. Martin Luther King, Jr., was most well known for his involvement in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but most forget of the ideological roots of his campaign for liberation. In the famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, King calls for unity within the Christian community (particularly moderate white pastors) to fight against racial inequality under the Biblical theological banner of equality of all men under God. While all these icons and leaders of liberation have made significant progress in political struggle, their theological roots have left a cohesive and profound legacy in their respective communities. Asian American theologians have much room to grow in order to fill that ideological vacuum. Among those fighting for ideological liberation, Timothy Tseng, Tony Carnes, Fenggang Yang and Joaquin L. Gonzalez III are examples of Asian American scholars making progress in this field, yet a prominent, cohesive Asian American theology is yet to be unveiled.
I agree with Omatsu’s manifesto for the Asian American community to rise above the prisons of our time and fight for a “collective liberation of all peoples.” Poverty, racism, social injustice, environmental degradation have imprisoned Third World peoples for far too long—yet there is hope as "the shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before" (MLK, Jr.). However, Omatsu lacks strategy for his proposal. In order to win this ideological battle, liberation must be found in the development of Asian American theology in order to address the ideological prisons placed on us by white, Western dominant society in order to justify the moral and ethical implications of opposition to oppression and marginalization and racial inequality.
Post a Comment