Today in class, we began Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands.
This is going to be a challenging text, but a worthwhile one I feel. So, we’ll
read the bulk of Borderlands in
class. I think the preface does a nice job of establishing a context for her
work, especially when she says:
“I am a border woman. I grew up between
two cultures, the Mexican (with a heavy Indian influence) and the Anglo…I have
been straddling that tejas-Mexican
border, and others, all my life. It’s not a comfortable territory to live in,
this place of contradictions” (19).
We are quickly introduced to the
tension that exists at the border, the “constant state of transition” (25) and
the folks that live in a “vague and undetermined place”—the borderland, a
liminal space home to “the squint-eyed, the perverse, the queer, the
troublesome, the mongrel, the mulato, the half-breed, the half dead” (25). It
is here, “this thin edge of barbwire” (25), that Anzaldúa is looking for identity. This is a story about being caught
in between. In between cultures and in between countries. In between language. In
between male and female, in between sexuality. These are the ‘borders’—some
concrete, some ethereal—that we are investigating and the consequences of
crossing these borders.
I’m reminded of a poem, “Sonrisas” by
Pat Mora. Might be something a few of you could blog about. And the song “Cortez,
the Killer” by Neil Young. Also another piece to blog about. Of course there
are plenty of political cartoons from the early 1900’s (during the zenith of
immigration and America’s industrial revolution) that comment on overlapping
cultures and things like assimilation and language. After all, if you’re living
in America, you should speak English, right? Or, is the argument surrounding
language more complex than that statement would indicate? What do you think?
I think that it is more complicated than that statement. I don't think where you live defines the language you speak. Maybe if the statement was "if you're living in America, you CAN speak english". I think that is the main problem with boundaries and rules, or even gender roles. The word 'should' is part of the problem. You 'should' act lady like, you 'should' act manly. Maybe, if these 'roles' were defined instead by you 'can' act lady like, or you 'can' act manly. Maybe, then we wouldn't have so many gender role problems. Therefore, I think that the statement is not only vague, but wrong.
ReplyDelete