R2 Response - Angie Woodmansee

Like Elliot’s essay, the responses I edited this week engage and grapple with the concept of historical silencing, in terms of both the individual and larger groups. These readings indirectly provide a strong counterargument to Lee’s political critique of Yamamoto, as they deal with the subversive undertones of her fiction within the context of an oppressed history. Many of the responses reflect on the authors’ personal reactions to the readings and Rabbit in the Moon, and there was a pervasive sense of guilt and shock at our general naïveté regarding such a significant part of American history. Yet this reaction only led to further investigation, which is itself a triumph for such works of fiction. Though in class we discussed the consequences of Yamamoto’s indirect and subtle tones in her stories, the fact that we are driven to investigate and uncover this silenced history and the marginalized voices attempting to give it representation is in itself a political feat. Initially unaware of our own “sins of omission,” it would follow that in recovering and interacting with such texts, we may be beginning a path not toward atonement (which is, for many reasons, impossible) but rather toward empowerment; in this small community we are recognizing and responding to voices long silenced, and by giving them such a space we can only hope that they will continue to be heard by larger groups.

In my opinion, these kinds of reactions are direct proof of Yamamoto’s political power. She does not need to throw it in our faces in order to make a point, and from the responses it seems clear that such subtle statements have in fact more deeply affected this group than any blatantly expressed political agenda ever could. They require reflection and the discovery of new information; they force the reader to consider literature and the voices within in terms of a greater historical context; they cause each individual to develop the ways in which they interact with a text, resulting in a more nuanced and complex analysis. We are, on an individual level, combating the dominant discourses in American history, which have for too long extended to us their destructive and limiting methods of oppression through omission.