An Article Review on Michael Hawkins Disrupted Historical Trajectories and Indigenous Agency Hawkins Disrupted Historical Trajectories and

Indigenous Agency: Rethinking Imperial Impact in Southeast Asian History provides us with a different and a much critical approach in studying the history of Southeast Asia. He points out that the problem with Southeast Asian history is that it is, if not all the time, often described as the disrupted history which has lost its natural course to cultural and political development due to the invasion of external, Western forces. Southeast Asian history is much defined by an imperial past and the coming of foreign colonizers. According to Hawkins, the problem with this type of approach to Southeast Asian history is that it downplays the abilities of those who were conquered, regarding these people as passive and weak victims of the Western invasion. It refers to Southeast Asia as passive receivers while strengthening the Wests image as the powerful colonizers. Hawkins says that the root of this problem is due to the imposed need for a teleological understanding of history (2007). With the problems of teleological history pointed out, Hawkins then leads to an alternative way of studying Southeast Asian history. Scholars mentioned in his article have rejected teleological history by pointing out the limitations of writing history in the said form and doing critical studies on Western hegemony in the region. In addition, Hawkins emphasizes that there is much to be explored about Southeast Asias imperial past which cannot be compensated by simply pointing out the instants in history. Rather, we must view historys motion (2007). There are many reasons why I find this article interesting. One is that Hawkins, without having to mention it, highlights the importance of history in defining identity. History is where

one refers to when it comes to looking for his or her roots. It is a reference one uses when going back to how it all started. This is why it is crucial to study not only what is written in history but also how it is written. The manner in which it is done is equally as important as the accounts which are listed down. With this in mind, I will have to agree with Hawkins on his side about the problematic issues in writing a teleological history. Teleological history, I believe simply asserts Western power over Asia. It is a method of writing history by looking at the end, through the eyes of the foreigner. It makes it appear as though the arrival of the West determined the development for Asia itself. Like what Hawkins said, it is a form of Edward Saids Orientalism describing Asia as poor victims of domination who will remain subordinate to a strong, dominant Western force. The Wests constant degradation of Asia is only done to establish the West as the norm or the superior ones. This manner of writing history fails to acknowledge the achievements of indigenous Asia and the role they have played in shaping the regions political and cultural progress. Asians are not to be regarded as passive because the results of colonialism were not simply due to the West but to the interactions and struggle of power during that period. When reading about the history of Southeast Asia, it is important to see through the texts and make a critical analysis on how the region and its people are portrayed. One must recognize the cultural and political achievements of Southeast Asia as well. More importantly, according to Hawkins, one must regard history as a continuum (2007). It is not simply learned by pointing out significant events in the past but it is also about studying social relationships and other factory which are influential in history. Southeast Asian history is not merely about instants but also about the interactions and struggle for ideology. It is now a challenge for this generation to be critical when reading these types of texts, write history which no longer acknowledges Southeast

Asia as the region of the passive victims of Western domination or create counter discourses for this manner of writing history.