How do you think the trauma that Okinawan women experienced during the Battle of Okinawa impacted their responses to the military base construction that the US military Occupation authorities enacted during the early 1950s that we see in the Isahama struggle? What traumas have to be dissociated from the Battle of Okinawa and understood as new to the time of US military occupation?
The Battle of Okinawa took away husbands and fathers from their families. It disposed of the breadwinners and main providers and as a result pushed women into the labor force. Women were not only mourning over loved ones, but they had to become the head of the family in order to provide. This trauma of having to deal with so many emotions while having all responsibility fall onto them caused them to be very protective of their homes and their livelihood.
The trauma of being evicted from their homes and having to fight for the right to their land needs to be dissociated from the Battle of Okinawa and understood as new to the time of US military occupation. This forced removal was separate from the battle and was the result of new ruling. The loss of family members from war and conflict is not a new concept, but the overtaking and exploitation of land is specific to the occupation of the US military as its apparent need to build military bases. In general, the Okinawan women faced two rounds of trauma as a result of the Battle of Okinawa. First they lost their support, their husbands, their fathers, etc., and then they lost their home. Every part of their life was distrupted.
How does Kwon’s exploration of “the work of waiting” impact the way that we think about immigration policy in a specific country? What kind of map of global migration patterns would be adequate to express the range of labors that people engage in to support one migrant worker?
When thinking of immigration and immigration policy most people, myself including, would only thing of the migrants themselves and the path they take to get where they are going. However, after reading Kwon’s piece, it is clear that immigration has two ends, both the actual immigrant who has moved to work in a new location and is sending money back to their home location, and then there is the person at home, responsibly for maintaining and spending the money. This second labor is often overlooked but is an essential portion of the concept of immigration for a better life. In Kwon’s piece, the waiter in this particular situation, Mr. Ho, goes as far as to say “taking care of money is more important than making money” (pg. 495). I think it is important to consider the different types of labor involved in supporting one migrant worker when discussing immigration policy because it is important to be conscious of the fact that what happens to one migrant workers affects a lot more than just them.
A more adequate map of global migration patters to express the range of labors that people engage in order to support one migrant worker would have components in many countries and would depict flows of labor going between the two countries. There would be the original portion, which would show the route the migrant worker took, informing us where they came from and where they were going, indicating that the opposite direction is that of the monetary flow. However, there would also be an indicator of where that money was spent, the labor performed by the waiter managing the money, as well as the general support transferred between the two parties. An additional component which is important to include would be the labor of the migrant transporter, as most migrant workers seeking a better life immigrate illegally and rely on smugglers to get them into the country. This labor allows for the migrant worker to reach their desired destination, but it also involves a monetary flow in return. All together, there are quite a bit of components of labor that go into supporting one migrant worker, most of which are overlooked and disregarded.
