#perspective 3

So, I added these two images of Pennsylvania between the 20th and 21st centuries to highlight the differences. The first picture is in black-and-white and shows a 20th-century mansion. The more modern picture is in colour and depicts a long street with many storefronts. The 20th-century building is almost gothic in nature and extremely tall, as seen when using the people along the street as a reference. However, the 21st-century street is much shorter but wider, and has many colourful signs, highlighting the clear difference in architecture. What stands out to me, though, is how similar the trees and the road signs look in both photographs. This shows to me that a setting having some enduring or common features is not mutually exclusive to having been transformed. Additionally, I tried to find a modern photo of the mansion in the first photo, but the photographer claims it was burnt down in 1980 (Peter A. B. Widener House). With that fact and with these images in general, I wanted to emphasise how much can change in a physical location over one time skip, just as Thakore emphasises how much South Asian representation can change in that same amount of time. Additionally, large jumps in a temporal setting, such as a 200-year shift, result in significant changes to the generations featured. The perspectives of South Asians in America vary widely, even within generations. Many South Asians who immigrated for “financial and professional success… were able to experience upward social mobility as a result of the educational capital they brought with them. Additionally, their success influenced the success of their children and proceeding generations” (Thakore 150). This narrative starts by saying that South Asian immigrants were looking for “success,” were able to find “upward social mobility,” and passed along “their success” to their children. So, this implies that by “experienc[ing] upward social mobility,” they were able to achieve “financial and professional success.” I argue that this conflation of “success” with Thakore’s earlier use of “financial and professional success” shows a priority to social success. So, for professional and educated South Asians, success in American Eurocentric society is more important than success in one’s career, even in the modern, capitalistic American workforce. Additionally, by saying that an immigrant’s “success influence[s] the success of their children,” Thakore shows that it’s not as simple as a hand-me-down where a parent’s hard work guarantees benefits for their children. Instead, a successful environment can create opportunities for first-generation immigrants to find it for themselves. Finally, revisiting the earlier conflation of different types of success raises a new question: is it necessary for the children of immigrants to come from a “financial[ly] and professional[ly] success[ful]” or will thriving socially also influence their ability to achieve economic and career stability? I argue that with Thakore’s choice of wording, with social success highlighted, the answer to this question is yes. Nevertheless, it is clear that the hardships and prosperity of a South Asian’s parents will impact them, showing that generations of immigrants can have vastly different lives and opportunities. So, even within a single time span, generations of immigrant Americans can change significantly. This development connects to how geographic and cultural locations can also be deeply impacted by a time shift.

This responsibility that teachers of young children have is why I included this image. The photograph is of a group of elementary schoolers’ art project made of paper figures, which is described as a look into self-expression (Children's Art Projects). Despite being self-portraits, there is a clear blueprint in the art, with matching blue pants and outlines. These parallels represent the influence of the teacher giving them instructions, even if the teacher had no intention to do so. Many of the children seem inspired by each other, seen with similar hairstyles and drawings on their shirts, which could show how kids “transmit” language and values to other students. This connects back to educators having a responsibility to correct students with harmful preconceptions, which can be done by introducing certain literature. Another sign of what is authentic to Asian culture is the author's background. Even in the cases where “cultural details are portrayed more accurately, when “outsiders” write about Asians, they often miss aspects of what is authentic to those who are native to Asia” (Harlin and Morgan 189). Their wording states a key difference between “accuracy” and “authentic[ity].” Thus, White American authors can be accurate to a certain extent when writing Asian characters, and may be able to write about some “cultural details” and “aspects.” However, they are unable to become fully authentic because they are “outsiders” to Asian culture. “[O]utsider” has one meaning of someone who doesn’t belong to a certain culture, and one of someone who is not accepted by it. This wording made me wonder if it would go beyond people who don’t belong, such as non-Asians, and people who may not be accepted or may not feel a sense of belonging, such as mixed-race Asians or children of immigrants. However, the authors use “native to” instead of “Asian natives.” Using “Asian native” would mean only people born in Asia, including Asians in Asia and Asian immigrants. So, their use of “native to” removes this exclusivity and extends the term to include non-outsiders from Asia, such as first- and second-generation immigrants and half-Asian Americans. Overall, authenticity is impossible to recognise for those who are not from the culture that they are writing about, at least for Asian American characters. But authenticity is also essential, as it helps educators know which children’s books to teach and which to avoid.