First of all, any form of representing a story is necessary and respected. Because the stories needed to be told rather than forgotten, it is much better to historically correct tell the story rather than let it sink into the unknown. I would prioritize telling the story over finding the “best” way to represent the narratives. I think we need to care less about some’s opinions and start to do what is morally best for humanity. We need to be careful whether it is a whole pie or just half of it. By focusing too much on the way we represent it, we might oversee or undersee the whole picture which will incorrectly tell history. You can not offend the dead so only those who live. (this is not true in Asian culture superstition). Every story must be told accordingly and correctly because they are information and history. We do not tell historical stories to offend but tell something that happened in the past. It might not even matter if those stories offended anyone. In fact, the person who tells a story can not do anything if his story offended people. Because today there will be someone who will find anything offensive even the silliest things. How can we care about all of judgments? If there is someone who finds the representation of Bukaku women offensive cause the women were portrayed as barbaric and primitive. So, how can the storytellers satisfy all of the opinions?
In addition, the representation of stories must be open and free, so it can be a market of information. Different representations of narratives are important so people can judge for themselves. Even the most unethical way still represents important information if the stories are true. The only unethical way of telling stories is telling wrong stories or willingly telling lies or fake stories. Not to mention the censorship from the government was the main source of taking away records. The Coronavirus which came from China created a global pandemic and fear. The records about this virus and the stories about the world from late 2019 to 2022 are largely governmental and mainstream. If 50 years later, all of the individual stories about 2020 covid got forgotten and the majority of records were only WHO and CDC documents and White House Tweets. Our grandkids would laugh at us and disgust us for how we treated our own people during this period. They would have laughed at us for believing in the statement of WHO of how coronavirus can not transit through humans and how effective the vaccine is. How the economy was destroyed; How people lost their businesses, jobs, and way of living due to this fear. How individual freedom and religious free were trampled and the Constitution was violated in the name of public health. How our government kept lying and censoring critical opinions regarding the government handling the virus. How countries like China and Vietnam imprisoned people and barbed wire them from leaving their houses like in Shanghai. Even democratic countries like Canada and Australia adopted similar policies. If we fear government censorship, why should we censor our own stories? What if our representation of stories is called unethical since millions of people died due to coronavirus? What if it is “unethical” to weigh economic impact over public health or human lives? What if future historians feel uncomfortable telling stories that seem unethical but true. That would mean a more accurate narrative was lost or uncovered.
All of my experiences and relationships during this covid period are opened for future historians to dig in because I would feel great honor or my descendants would feel honor that their grandfather’s stories were studied. My stories would have last through years, through generations, and finally they become legacy or legends. There is no other ethical way of representing the story by telling it with the most accurate fact and righteous mind. Like I said, the only unethical way is to distort or misrepresent those story in order to make dark into light or light into dark. For example, I have fought against the UCSD’s booster mandate policy. It is unethical when future historians reported my stories as anti-science and enemy of public heath. That would be totally inappropriate and wrong as it has become subjective and biased. Historians can not use the stories to push for their own narratives by distorting and misrepresenting the stories. They can falsely believe but can not intentionally lie. Conclusion, it is your freedom to report any story you want and it shall not be limited. However, you shall not lie or false witness of others’ stories
