The killing of Cecil the lion in 2015 revived passionate debate on trophy hunting in Africa. This article examines the mentoring contributions to this debate made from the 1930s to the present by three prominent hunter-writers: E. Hemingway, R. Ruark, and W. Smith. The Anthropocene has been marked by vestigial atavistic hunting practices that these three writers enacted themselves and dramatized in their fiction, offering role models for hunters and hunter-writers. They have ennobled a controversial vision of sportsmanship in an era that can no longer afford it, and with it they have helped to perpetuate a failed colonial model of white life, ignoring native peoples’ lives in favor of itinerant hunters.
Silence is a conceptually complex stance within the narrative of Asian American women’s writing. Since the narrative of struggle sees silence as a barrier that needs to be broken to show resistance against social construction, many Asian American women’s writings adopt a “breaking the silence” framework in their narratives. Silence is associated with content and passivity over hegemonic oppression. Nevertheless, such a framework may risk oversimplifying the agency that silence may actually entail. This article shows how reading silence should also include the understanding that silence is a strategy—what I call “strategic silence”—having its own complexity of agency. In order to articulate this stance, this article explores the semantic frameworks on the meanings of silence. These frameworks are used to analyze silence and trauma in two Asian American women’s writings. More specifically, a close reading investigation of silence and trauma in Grace M. Cho’s narrative “Haunting the Korean Diaspora” (2008) and Joy Kogawa’s “Obasan” (1981) is done to see how different kinds of silence are produced and reproduced within the representational level of the text. The article concludes with discussing how silence can also function as a coping mechanism of transgenerational trauma that breaks the silence and forms a narrative of resistance.
Recently, there has been the lingering tendency among historians to consign history documentaries to a secondary position of relevance, especially in comparison with history presented in conventional literature. It is the position of this article that, irrespective of style peculiarities, any documentary that reflects the world, in a manner that conforms to basic historical method, is as good as historiography. The essay therefore makes a case for the acceptance of history documentaries, not merely as a subset of historiography but a mainstream feature, coequal in status as, and complementary to, printed text. The article, therefore, controverts the notion that only written history is historiography, as this amounts to resisting improvements in presentation brought about by cultural and technological change.