It came to me in a conversation, but the change was predetermined by the way my writing and thinking made a shift unconsciously.  I had already shifted yet was not conscious until I became conscious of the change that has already began in my writing and thinking. What has changed is the way I deploy the term Amerasian as strategy. It works as strategy and produces outcome, but only slowly and sometime with confusion. I think the term itself is mired with myth, it is almost impossible of expressing the real.  I have tried throughout my life to present the double faces of the term by working through the very contradiction and conflict it elicits by its ontological double existence as the constructed term first, then Amerasian as its body/form, second. There is another route to which my project can move and develop without compromising the essence of my work, which is to challenge hegemony and to transform the way in which knowledge is produced through discursivity and narrativity of power. The Black-Okinawa theory/framework allows my work to exceed and extend the work I was able to produce thorough the Amerasian perfomative/theoretical framework. It does not mean that I discount its functionality, but rather I recognize its limits. On the other hand, through the Black-Okinawa theory, I am able to build and develop beyond the limits of the term Amerasian.  I will expand on this discussion later, but for now, I mark this shift as a turning point/moment of my theoretical and methodological development that will be shaped and transformed by the Black-Okinawa framework.