A good review in HYPHEN
and
a moment to tear and celebrate.
'Walang Hiya' Book Launch
(L-R) Roseli Ilano, Aimee Suzara, David S. Maduli, Joan Iva Cube, Edene Matutina, Kristen Sajonas, Thomas Paras, and Aimee Espiritu.
“Walang hiya” is one of the worst insults thrown in the Tagalog language. The phrase means “(You have) No shame,” and behind this insult resides a cultural dictate to respect those in positions of authority or higher social standing. This dictate was overturned at the book launch for Walang Hiya … Literature Taking Risks Toward Liberatory Practice which took place earlier this month at the Bayanihan Community Center in San Francisco. Artwork and readings demonstrated that resistance to unfair dominant control and representation leads to empowerment. Editor Roseli Ilano and president of Philippine American Writers & Artists, Inc. (PAWA) Edwin A. Lozada hosted the event.
Walang Hiya adds to the number of Filipino American anthologies that have proliferated in the last decade, including Babaylan, Pinoy Poetics, and Field of Mirrors. The success of these anthologies attests to the enormous efforts made by Filipino American writers in establishing an identity and community. These great strides mark an improvement from only ten years ago when literary critic Oscar V. Capomanes proclaimed “the incommensurable sense of nonbeing that stalks many Filipinos in the United States,” referring in part to the invisibility of Filipino Americans in American history and discussions of Asian American literature.
What distinguishes Walang Hiya from other anthologies is that it was conceived specifically as a tool for educators and community activists. Editors Lolan Buhain Sevilla and Roseli Ilano, who met while organizing in the East Bay Filipino Community, devised a series of critical questions and exercises for each of the book’s four sections. “Human rights, social justice, and education are very important to Lolan and I,” Ilano explained. “Through the anthology, we strove to find a way to use art and literature to not only bring people together, but as a way to use the narrative form as a departure point for personal and political transformation. Stories are powerful. Being able to share our stories in creative ways is a critical component of any kind of positive change.”
The launch showcased a diverse range of styles and voices. What ultimately unites the readings and artwork is their sheer energy – their willingness to push boundaries, to question assumptions, and to confront limitations that have defined Filipino Americans for too long. In doing so, the artists collectively transformed experiences of marginalization, hurt, and outrage, to one of celebration.
Highlights included spoken word performances by David S. Maduli and Aimee Suzara. Maduli presented “Old Man,” about a grandfather who struggles with nightmares of the Japanese occupation of the Philippines even as his memory deteriorates. Maduli’s delivery was sharp, each syllable like the snap of gunfire, enacting the physical, psychological, and emotional violence at the heart of his poem. Equally impressive was Suzara’s “Because Going Back Home is Not Always Romantic,” about the paradox in the ability of cultural redactions to insult and yet also to seduce. Suzara’s background as both an award-winning performer and playwright shone through her unique style, one of impassioned outspokenness that managed to avoid lapsing into facile melodrama too often found in spoken word.
Also distinct among the readings were the meditational poems “Prayer” by Edene Matutina which explored religious taboos against sexuality, and “Functional Paper Cranes” by Thomas Paras, a lament against the limitations of language.
While the readings illuminated different aspects of Filipino American history and experience, one strong theme that surfaced was the problem of cultural amnesia. Joan Iva Cube’s chapter “Penance” from her novel-in-progress offers a reason: “It was easier… to forget rather than try to balance that tightrope between two different worlds.” Her teenage character’s painful difficulty with trying to understand religious observations during a visit to the Philippines speaks to the intergenerational conflict and resulting forgetfulness that often plague immigrant families.
Perhaps most worthwhile to note is that all the anthology contributors also work as educators, community activists, and volunteers, further proving that these artists truly walk their talk. Kristen Sajonas who opened the launch with a tearful reading of her poem “They are Even Afraid of Our Songs of Love…,” a lyric tribute to the power of romantic love to inspire political courage, explains her belief in art as a vehicle for social change: “The idea that art is simply “entertainment” or “distraction” numbs critical thinking and tries to pass off as truth the myth that we can unplug and depoliticize ourselves at any time and place of our choosing just because we want to, a notion that smacks of privilege and is political in itself.”
In addition to the performances, the audience admired collage artwork by Aimee Espiritu who designed the book’s section breaks. Her collages bring together discordant images and force the viewer to thread the significance between them. One collage in particular superimposed photos of a jeepney, the Banawe rice terraces, a crucifixion, a barefoot hiker, and two women in traditional costume, among others, upon a layout of U.S. naturalization questionnaires, likely in an effort to contemplate the complexity and expansiveness of the Philippine diaspora.
Walang Hiya’s uncompromising stance has led to its success. The launch closed with the exciting announcement that the anthology will be included in readings lists for Philippine literature courses at San Francisco State University.
For more information, visit www.walanghiyaanthology.com.
U.S. Judge Overturns Prop. 8 In Gay Rights Victory
by Liz Halloran
August 4, 2010
Proponents and opponents of Proposition 8 outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco, Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010.
A federal judge in California has ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights for all Americans.
The opinion, issued Wednesday afternoon by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, scuttles the state’s “Proposition 8,” a state Constitutional amendment barring such unions. The so-called “Prop 8” was approved by California voters in 2008, just months after state legislators legalized same-sex marriage – prompting more than 18,000 couples to converge on city halls across the state to marry.
In his ruling, Vaughn wrote that the Proposition 8 “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates and irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.
He said the amendment, approved by 52 percent of Californians who voted in November 2008, “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
“Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” he wrote.
And Vaughn, who was appointed by President George H. W. Bush, drew on history in defending the right of same-sex couples to legalize their committed relationships: Such relationships, he said, “are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.”
The ban was upheld last year by California’s Supreme Court, whose decision was subsequently appealed by gay marriage advocates. The trial was held earlier this year, and featured high-powered lawyers Theodore Olson, a conservative and former U.S. solicitor general, and David Boies, who represented then-presidential candidate Al Gore during the high court dispute over the 2000 presidential election results, joining forces to argue in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Walker’s decision marks the beginning of yet another chapter in the ongoing war over whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights and protections for Americans extends to same-sex couples seeking to legalize their unions.
His opinion is expected be appealed — and even before it was issued, those supporting the marriage ban asked that his decision be stayed if he found the unconstitutional. It appears inevitable that the issue will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There, justices would be asked to decide a civil rights question that states have been struggling with mightily -– and with increasing vigor — since Vermont broke new ground in 2000, by approving same-sex civil unions.
Since then, the District of Columbia and five states, including Vermont, have approved measures giving same-sex couples the right to receive marriage licenses. The other states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and New Hampshire.
Walker's decision comes in the wake of another dramatic opinion out of federal court in Boston. There, Judge Joseph Tauro found unconstitutional a 1996 federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The act bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.
Tauro ruled that the DOMA improperly meddles with states' traditionally exclusive right to regulate marriage. Activists are watching to see if — or when — the Department of Justice, tasked with defending federal law, will appeal.
Americans have shown consistent and growing support for the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
A recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed said they support the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 25 percent supporting their right to civil unions.
That poll, and others like it, found that opposition to same-sex marriage is strongest among older Americans who identify themselves as
——— original post ———
There are numerous reports that a U.S. judge in San Francisco has overturned as unconstitutional Proposition 8, the California law that bans gay marriage in the state.
We'll post more information and the ruling as soon as we get access to it. It's a significant victory for gay rights but the question can still be considered unsettled until the case is ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment