In essence, whether it be romanticizing Venus’s trauma, or recounting her death, Hartman underscores the difficulty of revisiting history to reconstruct a narrative. She sheds light on the limitations, particularly the ability to create an accurate archive without re-victimizing the subjects. Though she encounters confusion and obstacles constructing such a narrative, she stays committed to redress the faults of the archive, and moreover, restore the public’s memory with an accurate narrative.
This idea of revising history, or restoring lacking or misleading archives of marginalized groups was compelling. As we discussed the text, in tandem with general course themes, many questions arose for conversation. Is it possible for archives to be accurate if they’re not composed by the subjects–for example, are slave narratives accurate if written by a third party? Or further, can someone from the present accurately fathom or communicate narratives from the past? Can “giving voice” to a marginalized group justify all the problems that arise with revisiting history? Though we read accounts such as Venus in Two Acts, and Hartman’s general thoughts and course of action, we wanted to take the opportunity to explore this theme further.
Our team wanted to explore the idea of revisiting history for marginalized groups, and decided to pick a moment in history to “revisit,” with each of our team members providing different interpretations of the event, through the medium of our choice. Essentially, we hope to illuminate many ideas that Hartman demonstrates in her text, and gain a first-hand account at revisiting a piece of history that either lacks recognition as a major historical theme in traditional classrooms and explore our personal interpretations. Some of our guiding questions include:
The event that we chose is the Asian American movement at UC Berkeley, particularly 1968 with the birth of the Asian American Political Alliance. When narrowing down our event, we wanted to pick a historically marginalized group that was of significance to us.
With all of our group members being Asian American students on the Berkeley campus, we thought the group would have relevance, similar to Hartman’s urge to represent her ancestors. Though we were aware that as present day students, we might have difficulties in understanding the extent of marginalization or racism in the 60s, we would still be able to grasp the essence of being Asian American on this campus. The movement’s lasting impact has affected every single student on the U.C. Berkeley campus today, particularly for Asian American students, and we hope to explore the history of such an impactful event.
This idea of revising history, or restoring lacking or misleading archives of marginalized groups was compelling. As we discussed the text, in tandem with general course themes, many questions arose for conversation. Is it possible for archives to be accurate if they’re not composed by the subjects–for example, are slave narratives accurate if written by a third party? Or further, can someone from the present accurately fathom or communicate narratives from the past? Can “giving voice” to a marginalized group justify all the problems that arise with revisiting history? Though we read accounts such as Venus in Two Acts, and Hartman’s general thoughts and course of action, we wanted to take the opportunity to explore this theme further.
Our team wanted to explore the idea of revisiting history for marginalized groups, and decided to pick a moment in history to “revisit,” with each of our team members providing different interpretations of the event, through the medium of our choice. Essentially, we hope to illuminate many ideas that Hartman demonstrates in her text, and gain a first-hand account at revisiting a piece of history that either lacks recognition as a major historical theme in traditional classrooms and explore our personal interpretations. Some of our guiding questions include:
- What is the role of perspective in Revisiting History? We can “revisit” history in multiple forms, from attempting to understand those from history by reconstructing narratives to analyzing photographs from the time. How will our perspectives, as individuals and those from the present, affect our ability to understand history and those involved?
- Does the representation of historically marginalized groups in the present justify “giving voice?” Can we–in the present–accurately comprehend and relay the narratives of the past?
The event that we chose is the Asian American movement at UC Berkeley, particularly 1968 with the birth of the Asian American Political Alliance. When narrowing down our event, we wanted to pick a historically marginalized group that was of significance to us.
With all of our group members being Asian American students on the Berkeley campus, we thought the group would have relevance, similar to Hartman’s urge to represent her ancestors. Though we were aware that as present day students, we might have difficulties in understanding the extent of marginalization or racism in the 60s, we would still be able to grasp the essence of being Asian American on this campus. The movement’s lasting impact has affected every single student on the U.C. Berkeley campus today, particularly for Asian American students, and we hope to explore the history of such an impactful event.