|
|
1 Jan 2001
Dear Khmer Institute: It was with more than a little dismay that I read yet another article in which Ms. Ung has perhaps invited more discussion about her book. In a CNN internet-only piece in the Book News section of the website (30 DEC 2000), Ms. Ung continues her mission to "explain" the rationale behind her publication. Yet, rather than clarifying and perhaps mollifying any of the concerns that have been raised about certain aspects of her book, she is apparently content with adding even more fuel to an already roaring fire. In the piece, she stated that one of the reasons for telling the story, she says, was to educate others, especially her two American nieces, Victoria, 15, and Maria, 19. "I've watched them grow up and study Russian history and American history," Loung says, "and they didn't know any Cambodian history. They didn't understand us. They're not going to get the story anywhere else and I just wanted them to know." Upon reading that I thought to myself, "Oh really Ms. Ung?" ... It is in her book that she tells how she and her brotherss and sisters would study Chinese, French, ... and THEN Khmer at home on the kitchen table, not to mention family members watching Chinese martial arts movies, admiring and flaunting physical "Chinese" attributes - in an apparent disparaging contrast to her perception of "Khmer" physiology, spending time swigging down American Coca-Cola, and enjoying special breakfasts of French bread and iced coffee, etc., etc. So, .... apparently it was OK for HER to dabble in other cultures, i.e. un-Cambodian or un-Khmer while growing up in Cambodia, ... but for her nieces to study Russian and American history is taboo? And now, despite apparent questions regarding credibility of some of the historical content, and, shall we say - "interpretations" in HER book, ... she has the fortititude to say that- "they," (her nieces) aren't going to get the story (Cambodian history?) "anywhere else" ... but from HER? Well now, judging from her book we can rest assured that her nieces will get a good solid factual (?) accounting of Cambodian history ... as long as it is from the perspective of a FIVE YEAR-OLD? As for her advocacy for certain aid programs in Cambodia, ... there is something to be said for contemplation and attempting to bring some good out of a situation that wrought so much that was bad, and no doubt many others have mixed emotions as survivors of an event that claimed so many lives. I don't enjoy engaging in this type of back-and-forth, but to say nothing is to condone what I myself would be criticized for doing. It is with aspects of the book's portrayal of certain Cambodian historial events, as well as inclusion of elements of questionable intent - that have created the concern. I don't think that anyone will deny Ms. Ung her so-called "right" to have her recollections published, but the readers, especially the Khmer who have raised objections to the aforementioned areas, are just as entitled to their opinions. And, contrary to assumptions of some of Ung's supporters, no Khmer want to mount a "witch-hunt." In actuality, Ms. Ung may have helped to awaken a "sleeping" Khmer community, ... but on the other hand, Ung must have figured that ALL Khmer were asleep, ... I am sure that by now she is being made very aware that her assumption was incorrect. Why my concern? I am married to a Khmer survivor of the Cambodian "killing fields," and like Ms. Ung, I too have nieces and nephews, and like Ms. Ung I want them to learn the history of their ancestral homeland - the good and the bad, ... but you can rest assured that Ms. Ungs book will never find a home on our bookshelf, especially as a work of reference.
Jim Yost
|
© 2000 The Khmer Institute. Los Angeles, California. All rights Reserved. |