HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND ON MEXICAN IMMIGRATION
In his article “The Hispanic Challenge” conservative
political scientist Samuel P. Huntington claims that the Hispanics divide the
US culture into two by rejecting Anglo-Protestant values that he holds to be core
of US cultural values, by his definition. On the other hand, Chicana feminist
lesbian poet and author Gloria Evangelina Anzaldúa roots for diversity and
multiculturalism in the US and tell how mestizas contribute to the bonding of
different identities in the country.
In order to grasp both of these articles and
their claims, we need to know about the historical background of Mexican
immigration, the push and pull factors. The first significant wave of Mexican
workers coming into the United States began in late 19th century.
They replaced Chinese workforce that was diminished after the enforcement of
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) which banned all immigration of Chinese laborers.
When the Unites States entered World War I, the need for Mexican labor increased
sharply; so the Mexican government sent Mexican workers as contract laborers to
the US. After the war ended, a nativist atmosphere was dominant in the US, and
this caused restrictions on immigration quotas and to the creation of the U.S.
Border Patrol. However, the demand for unskilled workforce continued much after
the war, and Mexicans kept crossing the border, either legally or not. Mexican
migrants worked mainly in agriculture, mining industry, and railroads. The poor
conditions for Mexican citizens after the Mexican Revolution in 1910 spurred
another wave of Mexican immigration to the US. Immigrants were first
concentrated on southwest, later southern states (which are called the Sun Belt
states) most which was Mexican land not long ago. They helped this area bounce
back after the WWI and develop further.
The push factor in Mexican immigration to the
US was an economic restructuring and urban poverty in Mexico made worse by the
Mexican Revolution; whereas the labor demand in US Southwest acted as a pull
factor. By looking at the history of Mexican immigration, Hispanic resistance
towards assimilation and their rejection of Anglo-Protestant values can be
understood better. They helped the land develop and were in fact called out of
need. Moreover, they don’t feel that they need to conform with the culture of
the land they migrate to, because the land was, to quote from Anzaldúa,
“Mexican once / was Indian always / and is. / And will be again.”
THE HISPANIC CHALLENGE
Political Scientist Samuel P. Huntington,
known for his very famous “The Clash of Civilizations” book, shares his views
about the rapid growth of Hispanic immigration in the U.S., in his article “The
Hispanic Challenge”. Huntington, in the article, argues that America is losing
its “origins” and the components he claims the nation was founded on. These
components according to him are ethnicity, referring to white British, the
Protestant Christian religion and the English language. As a result of
immigration from other European countries, he claims that the U.S started to
lose its foundations when Catholics started arriving. However, it is the rise
of immigration rates, particularly from Latin America and Mexico what he fears
the most as they have the fastest growth rates in the last few decades. He
truly sees Hispanic immigration as the greatest threat to the American national
identity as their increasing presence have caused a lot of changes in education
systems and policies. He lists 6 factors that makes Hispanic immigration
different from other immigration groups and gives reasons for his fears:
·
Contiguity: Close border, easy
access to the country
·
Scale: Growth rates in the last
few decades
·
Regional Concentration:
Immigrants forming their own communities in specific regions and resisting
assimilation
·
Persistence: Continuity of
immigration instead of subsiding like other immgration waves
·
Illegality: Number of illegal
immigration into the country
·
Historical Presence: Claiming
their long lost land in the U.S.
Huntington criticizes the Civil Rights
movement and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, both of
which had a significant role in promoting immigration and not making enough
restrictions for this inflow of Hispanics into America. His fear is that, if
nothing is done to stop this immigration, the U.S will have fully transformed
into a bilingual, multi-racial and multi-ethnic society and not be the same
America it used to be, an English-speaking, dominantly European, Protestant
Nation.
He also goes on to suggest that if
immigration is stopped or significantly reduced, it will provide several
benefits to the nation like preventing illegal entries into the country,
improving wages of low-income native citizens, ending controversies of
bilingual education and debates of whether English or Spanish should be the
official language.
GLORIA E. ANZALDUA
“Cradled in one culture, sandwiched between two cultures,
straddling all three cultures and their value systems”
“Todas las partes de nosotros valen”
Contrary to what Samuel Huntington claims, she
is in favor of multiculturalism and diversity. The best way to cure injuries of
the past is related to embracing dual identity. By mentioning “nahual” (which
means the shape shifter), she claims that mestiza absorbs various components of
the two cultures and create a new identity and a new existence for herself. She
praises mestiza people with regards to their being resolute. We can understand
this view of hers by looking at the corn example in her text. As she says
“mestiza holds tight to the earth, she will survive the crossroads.” Also corn
signifies “pueblos” living together harmoniously. No matter how their shape or sizes
are different all kennels are bound to the same ground, to the same cob. A corn
when it nourishes from its roots it grows more. This is another symbolic
meaning in her using corn as an example for multiculturalism. Multiculturalism
is associated with the husk over the corn because it leaves no part outside by
weaving the whole. If kernels are separated from each other it will not be able
to flourish and become unhealthy. Her choice bases on inclusion rather than
exclusion. In her essay, she explicitly tells us that our role should be link
people with each other. It’s to transfer ideas and information from one culture
to another.
According to her, ignorance is the main
danger. It also is a tool for white culture to kill mestiza culture. She
resents that white culture never allows others to “be fully themselves”. As she
states in her texts, the thing which splits people and creates prejudices is
this ignorance.
“Let’s try it our way, the mestiza way, the Chicana way, the woman
way.”
“I change myself, I change
the world.”
Anzaldúa mentions the struggle is inner. The remedy shouldn’t be reactive but active.
The first step towards remedy lies behind to raise awareness of the situation.
Only awareness can open a door to further changes. She emphasizes that firstly,
the self has to start creating a change in him/her. Only after that, a total
change in the society can be possible. Another remedy that she poses is about
proving visibility. Being “weaponless with open arms” is the final step on the
way towards spiritual freedom and towards curing the open wound according to
her.
“Se hace moldeadore de su alma”
Anzaldúa explicitly offers some solutions to
the problems caused by historical injuries and its consequences such as the
pursuit of unity in diversity. Although she projects a cultural collision, in
other words un choque, she believes in the possibility of creating a more
extensive unifying culture. She proposes to create a mestiza consciousness
which is related to shifting point of view from being a prisoner of the past to
face the history even if it gives pain. It is also associated with keeping on
living with a new understanding that involves belonging to a larger entity.
Assimilation
Minority cultures had to face with aggressive
assaults on their culture sometimes in a bloody way and sometimes in a way
through subconscious. Being accepted usually is a common desire because human
beings are social creatures and they tend to prove existence in a social group.
In order to “melt in the pot” as way of acceptance, they sometimes willingly
consent to be root out, in other words to be exposed to assimilation.
Questıons:
1-
Is it possible to form unity by
preserving diversity?
2-
Does cultural collision result in
disintegration?
3-
What do you think about the economic
consequences if USA stops accepting immigrants?
4-
Why is language important for
identity?
Videos:
More
info on:
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/17.html
http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/05/uneasy-neighbors-a-brief-html
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/17.html
http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/05/uneasy-neighbors-a-brief-html
Deniz
Yılmaz
Sera
Dicle A.Aziz
Esma
Şermet
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for Deniz, Sera and Esma for this informative presentation. As we have seen in our previous presentations, high numbers of immigrant populations receives different reactions throughout United States. The biggest portion of these immigrants are Hispanics. Their numbers become wider and wider as the time goes by. According to BBC, in 2050 Hispanics will become majority in the USA. ( the picture is in Prewitt post) The minority will become majority. These 2 articles are very matching with each other for comparing the point vs. counter point.
ReplyDeleteIn Borderlands by Anzaldia, multiculturalism and dual identity are praised. It is implied that war is inner and the biggest danger is ignorance. Mestiza culture is repeated several times which means recovering the past injuries and creating more exclusive culture. This point of view is more reasonable for me than Huntington's point. Anzaldia agrees that there will be cultural coalition yet everyone should face the reality without stereotypes and forget about the past even if it gives pain. So, about the question in the post " Does cultural coalition result in disintegration?" my answer is NO. One should learn how to cope with the differences and should not force anyone into fixed patterns. No one should be forced into assimilation which eventually leads to disintegration if one rejects to assimilate. Of course everyone has dreams such as Mexicans Americano Dream. But what I don't understand is that why would having a dream becomes problem when the dream turns out to be an immigrant groups such as Hispanics?
In The Hispanic Challenge, Huntington analyze United States when combined with Mexicans. According to him, Christianity and being Anglo are the key elements. He very much opposes the wide immigration of Mexicans and even gives examples about fertility rates. Huntington emphasizes the fertility rates of Hispanics' being much more higher than American citizens which is offensive for the Hispanics. It indicates that Hispanics are underdeveloped and they are not able to control how much sex they have. Considering fertility rate as an example for his cause means offending one's, in this case whole Hispanics', personal life. Huntington even goes on to criticize Spanish and how should it be subordinate to English. While I was reading about this, I remembered how a Turkish person reacts to a person speaking Arabic or Kurdish. I am not making any political statement but from the perspective of human rights, our nation and Americans like Huntington are biased heavily under stereotypes. For example, Huntington says that there is no Americano dream there is only American dream. He sounds as if a dictator who gives no chance to the people other than his own nation. We should maybe call him Hitlerton. Maybe that's too harsh. Nevertheless because of his last paragraph, he earned it!
Another example can be about a memory of mine. When I was in Madrid, I went into a Kebab Restaurant and the owner turned out to be an Kurdish immigrant who was living in Turkey and then ran away because of the tension between Turks and Kurds. I do not know if he have done anything to hurt Turkish people but he constantly said "We are all the same. When I was living in Turkey I learned Turkish and today I know Spanish as well. We are word citizens. Even though I know 3 languages as if my native language, I did not lose my cultural identity as a Kurdish person." The transformation of the struggle between Hispanics and Americans can be said to correspond with the struggle between Kurds and Turks in Turkey.
Bige YILMAZ
Hilterton is the best thing I've about Huntington in years!!! LOL!!!
DeleteThank you guys for this great presentation that led us to the deeper parts of these two contrasting articles.
ReplyDeleteWhile you were presenting I asked myself “What is citizenship and who defines it?”. We know what citizenship means in our minds but when it comes to define it, that’s the tricky part. How do we define who is a citizen and who is not. Apparently Huntington takes up language, religion and your origin as the categories to define U.S. citizens. According to him, the true citizen of America would be Anglo-Protestant and English speaking people. Do people need to speak English or be a Protestant in order to be accepted as citizens under the law of the United States. I believe a person’s language or religion or ethnicity is not relevant to their citizenship. Hispanic people arrived in the U.S. with hopes of a better and free life however all they got was prejudices and ignorance. I watched a video you provided on your blog post and it was talking about experiences of Hispanic immigrants in terms of language. People at the viddeo talked about how people judge them according to their different accents and how they feel uncomfortable about it. So this also brings about the problem of not just immigrating to America but also the assimilation and integration part of it. How immigrant mix into the American culture and how society perceives them is also a problematic issue.
In this manner, I find myself mostly siding with the idea of mestiza culture that Anzalda also advocates. Transforming society into a more unified one by mixing different cultures is a solution but not an easy one. People are mostly not willing to accept different cultures and traditions. This is why immigrants cannot get used to American culture easily and also that’s why there is this debate about Hispanic immigrants being a problem. I think both sides should be willing to integrate with each other in order to live harmonously. Spanish should not think that these are their lands before and they will be theirs again soon but rather accept them as American land where they seek a happy life. In addition Americans should not look at Hispanics as a problem but rather people from another culture, who want to contribute to the U.S. economy and the society. This will again bring us to the conclusion that differences should not be treated as tools for seperations but rather reasons to integrate and become a one peaceful nation.
-Aslı Aygüneş
Don't forget that when are talking about Mexican American peoples, we call them Mexican Americans, Chicanos, or Latinos. Spanish people are from Spain :)
DeleteGood presentation, thank you for your time. The questions were chosen very-well, I really enjoyed the discussions we had in class. (Hilarious song at the end, gotta love Cartman.)
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I find the issue of immigration exceptionally intriguing as I am pretty much planning to immigrate to another country upon graduation. That’s where the Sweden example came from as well, I’ve been thinking a lot on assimilation and how far I’m willing to go myself. So, I’d like to talk a bit more on just that and answer a few of the questions posted above in the process.
Above all, I believe, the decision to immigrate in the first place requires one to make a very detailed comparison of their country of origin and the destination they’ve picked. To simplify it, you compare the pros and cons of both, if the pros of your choice of destination convince you to make the move and if you’re willing to suffer the cons; you do make the move. (Again, I’m really really simplifying the process for the sake of establishing the basis of my argument.)
Admittedly, the example of Sweden was slightly off the track considering the historical background of the US and Mexico. A similar case that I can definitely relate to, however, is Turkey and Greece –or any other ex-Ottoman territory I guess. Say, I’m planning to move to Greece for one reason or another. I cannot simply ignore the cons my decision will bring along –the currency conversion rates and the problem of language come to mind at a first glance. It’ll not only fail to achieve any sort of tangible result whatsoever, but also bring further problems if I insist on keeping the pros of both worlds and speaking Turkish and demanding that the government addresses me in my own language whilst I’m there. By the time I book my flight, I have made a silent declaration that I am willing to leave my own culture behind –not entirely, more on this below- and adapt the Greek way of life. Not necessarily its language, but if I do refuse to learn Greek, I should also be willing to cope with the consequences.
This is not to say I won’t accept a Greek immigrant who doesn’t know Turkish, please don’t get me wrong here. But the moment he demands that he’s addressed in Greek by, say, the government, I’ll find it funny. Either he had made his own research and accepted the fact that he’ll have certain difficulties living in a country with a very small English-speaking population or he failed to find that out and is making unreasonable demands.
Again, I feel the need to clarify this point. I would love to have the guy bring along elements of Greek culture –which I find fascinating-, I’m all for diversity. It is only the language part that I cannot understand as language is far more than a cultural statement, it’s a tool. Language is the primary method through which a society functions. It isn’t necessarily unifying on its own neither is it absolutely necessary to have only one official language. Likewise, any immigrant is free to talk in whatever language they fancy at any given moment, as long as they don’t expect the native population to do the same (then again, they just might be willing to). I have a huge collection of wonderful memories had in a dorm with 20+ nationalities, each talking in their own language every now and then. This was in Finland and absolutely none of us demanded that the government would address in our mother tongues and all went well, if not too well. Although we were not immigrants, we would make excellent ones.
*character limit, continues below*
This is a subject I’ve been thinking about for years and I feel like each and every single time I make a statement here, I can talk about on that statement only for hours and I would love to. But given the word limit here, I should probably cut it short. To sum it up the best I can, I believe one’s immigration to any country comes with a silent statement, a hidden contract. You’ve assessed the pros and cons of the culture of your destination, and the fact that you’re willing to participate in it should be playing a huge role in your decision. Bring along your songs, stories, words and expressions, novels and poems, food, drinks, clothing, jokes and insults or absolutely anything you can think of as long as you are also willing to live within the undesirable elements of your destination and not just try to have the best of two worlds.
DeleteNote: Proof-reading this, I feel the need to add one small detail. Please note that anything I’m arguing here applies only to those immigrate willingly. Wars, political unrest etc. are entirely different things and ask for an entirely different discussion.
-Buğra Murat Altan
Wait...what's wrong with having the best of both worlds? That is, what's wrong with cultural adaptation that goes both ways? The immigrant bring parts of her culture to her new place and her new place also changes a little in response to her presence...isn't that the very definition of culture as we understand it (as shifting, mobile, complex, multiple, and everyday)?
DeleteNothing at all. What I'm opposing is the forceful and instant assertion of just that, rather than one that is done willingly and one that happens gradually. As in, the immigrant shouldn't resist the local culture and act hostile against it, and vice versa. "The hidden contract" is more or less one's acceptance to do just that. It's pretty much inevitable that the local culture will likewise adapt elements from the incoming culture in the process.
DeleteBut, during this very process, the very same immigrant should also be willing to embrace the cons of the destination, if that makes sense. The emergence of a mixed Hispanic-American culture is an entirely positive thing. It's just that, for instance, an American moving to Mexico should realize that learning Spanish might be a good idea. (And realize that not doing so will make certain things difficult. It becomes questionable should they demand to be addressed in English within Mexico. They just might get that treatment, but it's not a necessity on the local Mexicans' part.)
Could have worded it in a better way, my bad there. By "not having the best of both worlds", I meant that the desired pros will be accompanied by foreseeable cons and one should keep those in mind.
-Buğra Murat Altan
The only thing that raises concerns for me are words like "should" or "must," because they have a moral content to them. For instance, do we blame the wife of an immigrant whose husband demands that she stay in the home because his patriarchal values dictate that is her proper space? How then, can this woman actively engage in the local culture? That's an extreme example that I use simply as a counter point. In general, I agree with you, but not on moral grounds of "should" or "should not", but simply out of a matter of respect for the culture or country that an immigrant has become part of (in one way or another). I am trying to do my best to learn Turkish because this is the country where I live and work; this is where I pay taxes; this is the country that pays me and houses me. But it's fucking hard. So let us not forget to have some compassion for people who migrate because sometimes it can be a long and hard process to adapt to your new home, even when your heart desires belonging. Other impediments to belonging can include issues like violence or rejection from the host community. Not all places welcome immigrants with open arms. Do we then blame these people for being scared, for their fear of being mistreated or discriminated against if they try to venture out and embrace the host culture? All I want to say is that I think more moderate language shows compassion towards both migrants and host cultures and acknowledges both the challenges and opportunities of cultural contact. Ya know??
DeleteFirst of all, I want to apologize to miss your presentation. I believe that it was a wonderful one. By reading the text and the knowledge of the past classes and terms, I will try to answer one of your questions.
ReplyDeleteQ: Why is language important for identity?
I want to start with the dictionary meaning of language, which is a type of communication used by the people of a particular country (Cambridge Online Dictionary). But more than that, language represents culture, language represents identity, language represents the ties between people. Without language, there is no possible way to connect with one another. Without language, one cannot share. By saying, “share”, I mean any kind of share, such as sharing a culture, sharing an ideology, sharing values, etc. “Humans learn their culture through the language and culture is transmitted through language”. Identity is shaped by ones culture, education and etc. So without language, there is no possibility to have a culture and without culture there is no possibility to have an identity.
“An entire way of thinking is lost each time a language becomes extinct”.
https://www.udel.edu/anthro/budani/Culture%20and%20Language.pdf
Additionally I want to share a TEDtalks by Jamila Lyiscott who is multilingual and talking about “Broken English”.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english
I personally think that, contrary to what Samuel P. Huntington is saying in this article, 'Hispanics' are not rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values (and as he is implying the American culture). The truth is that people like him are rejecting the 'Hispanic' culture and any background that is not 'White-American'.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the very principle of "assimilation" is definitely a suggestion for people coming to a country, to completely forget about their 'original' cultures and behave/think as a 'native' of the country they chose to live in (what about the children of these people then ?). Assimilation is alienation. Leonora Miano, a Cameroonian writer said once, speaking of immigration something like "do you think that we are 'empty shells' ? That we don't have any cultural background and we can forgot everything just because you want us to ?"
People like Samuel P. Huntington are pretty obsessed with the idea that being 'different' is dangerous, he cannot understand that being different doesn't prevent from being unified. The best example is the family. The members of a same family can be so different but they still form a family.
I find it pretty funny to read some things like "America is losing its “origins”" knowing that if we have to remind the origins of certain parts of America today like California or Texas, they obviously take their roots from Mexico, so from a Hispanic country.
Building unity doesn't mean turning everyone into the same person/entity. People just need to share some common features. That's definitely what (all kind of) Americans are doing living in The US.
This is quite interesting because (can't be helped making the link) this is some very important topic in France, whether immigrants have to assimilate or integrate. I personally feel uncomfortable with the very principle of assimilation, less with the integration one.
As the daughter of immigrants, I was born and raised in France, so I feel fully French, even if I speak Arabic too (actually I speak 8 languages so some French people are going to hate me) but what suprised me is that, for a lot of French people, being an immigrant or the child of an immigrant is the same. Consequently, a lot of French citizens think that people like me are not fully French. They are, in fact, the one rejecting us and then putting the blame on us pretending that, if we speak another language, this is because we reject 'their' values. For example, this summer in Nice airport, an employee who said "Hello" in Arabic to one of his colleague had been suspended and they tried to fire him because he spoke Arabic.
The real problem is not the fact that people are different (they were/are/will always be different), it is the very fact that some people don't accept differences.
We can definitly built unity out of diversity, what we need is respect. I am not saying tolerance because the very meaning of this word makes me feel a little ill at ease. Gandhi said once something like "I don't really like the term 'tolerance' but this is the best I found". As far as I am concerned, I prefer 'respect'.
As for America, the very origin of this country is based on immigration, they managed to built an entire Nation unifying 50 different countries. This is the very illustation of unity among diversity. So why should it be different when it comes to the inhabitants ?
And for the record, I wanted to add that this statement about the explosion of birth rate among Hispanic-American is of course a way to say that these people cannot control how much sex they have and how many children they have, implying that they are babarians, but this is also a way to feed the fears (that they will be more numerous than 'white Americans') and the aversion that some Americans have for the Hispanics.
On a personal level, I couldn't agree with you more, Ines. I love also your metaphor of the family as a way of describing unity through difference. You should borrow a book from me by Chela Sandoval: Methodology of the Oppressed. She theorized what you've elegantly parsed into a theory callled "differential consciousness."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQ:Why is language important for identity?
ReplyDeleteI think food ,clothing, celebrations, religion and LANGUAGE shows only part of a person’s cultural heritage and the shared customs , histories and values are the characteristic of culture that shapes people’s thinks, behaves and to see the world in a common point of view which is also make one more American. To look at the chapter 10 in Americanah ,Ifemelu talks about bananas and Tv shows that shows differs from her country and when she witnesses the eating habits of Americans, she was shocked. For example, when Dike said to her:” Why are you doing that? Eating a banana with peanuts? She said :” That’s what we do in Nigeria. Do you want to try ? …(page139) With this kind of conversation, she understands that people who came to America from other countries start to get used to live with American’s customs and habits. Thus, they became more American. I’m not sure my classmates read the book “Stealing Buddha’s Dinner” by Bich Minh Nguyen but I want to refer that book. The Vietnamese girl when she came to America start to consume American food a lot. She believed that when she consumed it, she would become more American but Ifemelu doesn’t accept this concept she only believe and see the America as a country which gives an opportunity to study and have a better life.
As I mentioned above, how customs, eating habits and other things represents one country’s culture. Language also one of the most important thing to represents the one’s culture. To look at the Anzaldua’s piece of work, she uses lots of Spanish words and I think she wanted to give the correct information or message through her Spanish words or sentences because sometimes the common language such as English is not enough to explain one’s cultures, customs or ideas. That’s why I strongly believe that language is very important for building one’s identity as well as his/her culture.
Irem--I really like how you incorporate Nguyen into this response and begin to talk about how language complexity reflects complex identities...
DeleteFirst of all thank you for Esma, Deniz and Sera for their presentation. Starting with the articles "The Hispanic Challenge" by Samuel P. Huntington, there are greatly offensive statements about the immigrants and their desire to stick to their culture. The issue of fertility is mentioned in the text which is definitely a sign of underestimation of the Hispanics. Moreover, it is also argued that the immigration that is faster and higher than the assimilation rates creates the major problem for the United States. Why is it a problem to have two cultures in the same time for people?! United States is and has been always an immigrant country that offers opportunities for many different ethnics and cultures. As Congressman Tom Tancredo discuses in the video, before the immigrants were likely to adopted the American culture that they disconnected with their previous culture, at least they mostly wanted to. But recently the issue has changed now the new comers prefer to increase their living standards in America but also they want to keep their origin culture, language customs and even religion. It is an issue that is completely depends on ones desire, assimilation is not necessary and anyway it is losing its power.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the language of one culture is one of the most important value they have and the freedom to use it is not a discussion issue for anyone. First of all, a language is a living thing that emerges, develops and dies. It represents a culture with all its means. For example English words or expressions cannot replace a Turkish expression that is only meaningful in Turkish. This is the issue for all languages that carry their specific culture or ethnicity. As Huntington stated in the article "There is no Americano dream. There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society. Mexican Americans will share in that dream and in that society only if they dream in English." the immigrants may only speak English and dream of something that someone else has. This doesn't make sense, because it is called "The American" dream created by Anglo-Protestants but there can be another dream created by Hispanics and they can call it "Americano dream" as they have both flags in their heart.
Rabia Betul KUBILAY
What do you think about cultures that have more than one language, like Chicano/as, who sometimes speak English, Spanish, Spanglish and other languages? Is there such a thing as one language for one culture?
DeleteFirstly great post, you guys! I love especially the pictures.
ReplyDeleteDuring and after your presentation, I questioned myself a lot about the idea of identity and citizenship. These two concepts are really difficult to put into a single meaning in today's multicultural world, I guess and I learn that it is a little hard for me to accept some things. These two texts were really useful in that way since they show the two faces of the coin. While I was reading Huntington's article, I found his ideas too extreme and clearly constructed at the same time. I wanted to deny his ideas but he creates his sentences in a very logical way. Yet after reading Anzaldua's article, watching your presentation and videos, I can easily see that this subject of citizenship and identity can be pulled into a lot of way according to the point of view of the person who analysis them. However, I understand that while we are thinking about this subject, we shouldn't take other countries' examples while looking into America's situation because of the old borders. For Hispanic people, it is not only about migrating to another country but it is moving to the old cities of their own. It's been some time since these cities are not theirs but as Turkish people who experience a lot of forced migration because of changing borders, I believe we are more sympathetic to their cause and can easily understand how they feel.
I think language is important in order to survive in a different country but I do not believe one should except English as their first language and forget about their own languages since especially for these immigrants, the language is an important factor which ties them to their native lands where they are, even though physically close, far apart. Also I think it would be much easier to answer your first question, which ia "Is it possible to form unity by preserving diversity?", when we changed it as "is it possible to form unity by seeing similarity?"Then it would be a big hell yes! So, the solution to this problem of citizenship, I think we should look into the similarities rather than diversities in order to unify. In a multicultural country as America, it is natural that there will be lots of diversities among people, even among white Americans who believe that only they have right to be an American. That's why, as long as people keep ignoring their similarities and seeing only their differences, unfortunately it is impossible for them to unify. I do not know how to make them see it other than keep them informed about other race and ethnicities and their cultures without any stereotypes and prejudices.
Thank you, again. I enjoyed a lot while listening your ideas on this topic.
Ezgi ULUSOY
Or, we could learn to see diversities as sites (sights also maybe?) of differences that can be celebrated, learned about, or united through the recognition of shared struggles (like all people who suffer under patriarchy for example....). I think the similarities and differences are both important and I guess I don't care about unity as much as I care about justice....
DeleteFirst of all, thank you so much ladies. It was a very great and informative presentation. I enjoyed so much.
ReplyDeleteI think that multiculturalism and diversity are actually good and beneficial for United States and thanks to this diversity and multiculturalism United States is a multinational country. Anzaldua is a Chicana feminist and she defends multiculturalism and dual nationality. She thinks that mestizas contribute to the bonding of different identities in the country. According to her, national identity becomes stronger thanks to different cultures and values.
Mestiza consciousness is like a survival strategy and mestiza culture is more exclusive culture. Anzaldua gives a “corn” example. “Indigenous like corn, like corn, the mestiza is a product of crossbreeding, designed preservation under a variety of condition” (Anzaldua 103) We learned that “Mestiza” is mixing but it is not just a racial mixing.
On the other hand, Samuel P. Huntington talks about “fertility problem” and actually it is offensive for the immigrants because he says that immigrants make more babies. He thinks that the Hispanics divide the U.S. culture into two but I think that Hispanics do not divide the U.S. culture, they are the part of U.S. culture. For example, “Selena Quintanilla” was a Mexican-American singer and she was so famous in U.S. Obviously, she was a part of music culture of U.S. She was so successful and she refined the music culture with her own language which is “Spanish” and her own values.
Finally, I think that multiculturalism is not a bad thing and diverse cultures are actually beneficial for U.S. because cultural diversity makes people more aware about different cultures, languages and values.
-Ezgi Doğan
ReplyDeleteFirst of all thanks to Esma,Deniz and Sera for their informative presentation. Hispanics are the biggest part of immigrations live in America and as it is clear in the presentation Hispanics are the ones whose culture and values is rejected by Anglo Protestants. They immigrate to America and suffer from the differences they have between them and American people. As it is mentioned in Samuel P. Huntington’s text there is no such thing like Americano Dream. There is only American Dream and that is the dream that American people work for achieving and reaching it. American Dream is about wealth and good quality life but it is only peculiar to American people. Because of this fact in the text of Samuel P. Huntington the non existence of Americano Dream is mentioned. As Anzaldua defends multi cultural and cosmopolitan structure of America, people from many different races, etnicities and cultures become together and live in serenity and peace. Mestiza culture is a special culture, which is product of a crossbreeding. To sum up, multiculturalism is very advantegous structure for American society to empathy, to understand and to accept people from many different culture, etnicity and race to intervene them and assimilate to live with them in serenity in spite of their race, ethnicity, language and culture differences.
Özge BAŞAK
Great post with great pictures, thank you girls!
ReplyDeleteI want to talk about both of this week’s article by siding with Gloria Anzaldua (of course) and by standing against Huntington’s racists claims about Mexicans. What I like most in “La Frontera” is the idea that cultural diversity is a good thing. La Mestiza, for example, “is a product of the transfer of the cultural and spiritual values of one group to another.” Mestiza people do not belong to one specific rigid culture and their racially mixed form should not be seen as something bad. We, as people, are always in an interaction so we should rather learn how to live in diversity. In culturally mixed societies there should not be ignorance and prejudice but rather a welcome to people from all colors and classes. That is why I find “The Hispanic Challenge” has some racist ideas because Huntington sees immigrants as a threat to the unity of the United States. He claims that Mexicans people Mexican people are more fertile in compare to other immigrants and when their population increases, the threat that the US faces also increases at the same time. He does not support the increasing population of Hispanic people because he does not want that there will be two groups of people, culture and language in the US: There should only be English language and American culture and there is no place for Hispanic culture and Spanish language. The thing that I criticize in this part is that he ignorance the reality that these Spanish speaking Hispanic people were residents of where we now know as Texas, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah etc. These territories belonged to Mexicans and they were taken away from them so I think that they have a right to speak their own language and this is not a threat to American culture because I think if there is a threat that is the “whites” threat to Hispanic people. That is why I think that Huntington sees only one side of the story and rejects Hispanic values in order to protect Anglo-Protestant values.
To come to one of the questions on the post about the importance of language for identity, I can say that our language is the first that we identify ourselves with. In our early ages, we speak the language that our family speaks and we learn that language in a different way than we learn a second language and for this reason we can better explain ourselves in our native language. If we have relatives, we speak with them in our native language because it belongs to our culture which seems as a threat, by some people, if we live in a foreign country. Language cannot be a threat, but people who see cultural diversity as a threat is the real threat for humanity.
-Tansu Özakman
Huntington‘s fear of immigration from Mexico and Latin America was all over his work. I think that his political ideas were absolutely insane and it seems to me that he was just afraid of Mexican American people. His work also includes a vital mistake because I found out that even Mexico itself has an illegal immigrant (from Central America) and assimilation issue on its southern border. I could not agree with him as I believe that “belonging to a social culture” determines to be a citizen of a country, but not “belonging to a specific ethnic, religious group, or to a civilization.” Anzaldua’s mestiza is about people who are actually able to transcend all dualism and contradiction. As she points out, cultural coalition is possible if people just accept the idea and forgets about the past, that is, if everyone learns to live with differences cultural coalition cannot result in disintegration.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that it is very much possible to form unity by preserving diversity. This quotation I found might as well helped to answer this question: “Unity in diversity is the highest possible attainment of a civilization, a testimony to the most noble possibilities of the human race. This attainment is made possible through passionate concern for choice, in an atmosphere of social trust.” (Michael Novak, epigraph opening Unity in Diversity: An Index to the Publications of Conservative and Libertarian Institutions, 1983]) As it is mentioned here, unity in diversity is possible but not without an effort. People should cope their fears and taboos first. If there is an understanding of any differences without stereotypes, then there is interdependence in diversity. It is also beneficial for the country as the best solution for US is to have as rich diversity of social types as possible because it aids to develop the nation. It is crucial because the society can earn a rich and strong source of ideas as different techniques of people can enhance the knowledge and provide assistance to the nation. It was also the key factor for America to become a very powerful country in the first place: unity in “diversity.”
Burcu Karatekeli
Very nicely expressed, Burcu!
DeleteThank you all the presenters for the good and informative presentation.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Huntington’s ideas about diversity and also his criteria for describing American. Indeed, I found his ideas about language as very fascist. As a person who believes this Turkish saying “Bir lisan bir insan, iki lisan iki insan” in English it means something like that a man who speaks a language is a man, a man who speaks two languages is worth two men, I think knowing more than one language is huge advantage because it gives you a privelege to access to new people, new culture, new stories, traditions, literature etc. It basically opens door of another world and I think having citizens who speak two or more languages provide nothing than development for a country especially countries like America that formed from different nations. So, on the contrary to Huntington, I think diversity is a good thing in every field and I believe where there is diversity there is always improvement and flourish. Because each individual, each idea provides new perspectives, new way of seeing things. And I believe that we always have something to learn from each other.
So, I am on Anzaldúa’s side. I totally agree with her about that people should forget about their past injuries, prejudices and accept each other with their traditions, languages and all other differences. I think it is possible to form unity by preserving diversity if people can see diversity as an advantage. I mean unifying not by assimilation of immigrants or ignoring their languages or identities but by recognizing both side’s cultures and languages. If people can see that they can have mutual gain if they do not see differences as a bad thing there can be unity that forms from diversity. So, I do not think that immigrants have to be assimilated in order to unify country. Unity can be provided when immigrants can continue to speak their own languages beside national language or they can keep their traditions beside country’s traditions that they immigrate. Because when these are provided it means both side recognize and respect each other and aside from their origin they can create hemogenic society which is I think true unity.
Thanks for presentation it was great. I would like to write about first and fourth questions mostly by referring to ANZALDUA's text "La Frontera", chapter five because the importance of language very clearly explained in that chapter.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to form unity by preserving diversity?
I think it is possible but to a limited extend. No matter how the laws would encourage equality for every ethnic or racial group they are the written legal words of the dominant race who would firstly protect the primacy of themselves. For example, Turkey is one of the nations that shares same language, history, and traditions with a variety of ethnic groups that exist since the beginning of Ottoman Empire, and all citizens of Turkish Republic have same rights regardless of their ethnic/racial origin. However, as time goes on it becomes clear that there is an insufficiency of laws that refers to minority groups such as Kurds, Circassians, Meskhetian Turks etc. It is possible to see same example in United States where people face racial inequality. If one would say that some deficiencies are insignificant, one will lose out his/her identity and be condemned to be forgotten. So, preserving diversity causes social conflict that continues till one side give up.
Why is language important for identity?
"... But for language to remain alive it must be used. ..." (Anzaldua, La Frontera p.81)
"So if you want to really hurt me, talk badly about my language. Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity - I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself." (Anzaldua, La Frontera p.81)
I believe every single person in the universe has two worlds in both of which we need language to demonstrate and remain our existence. One is the real world and the other one is inner world. Anzaldua's statements are very well examples of importance of language in real world, through which we demonstrate our existence in present time and travel to our past, history and origins where our ethnic values and ethnic identities has been formed. If we don't hold on to our language we can lose our identity and sense of self. When it comes to our inner world, it can be said that the language is the only tool that helps us to link these worlds. Thus, language is the internal reflection of imaginations, ideas, creativity and wisdom to the real world. By reflecting our inner world we allow others to see it or through language others are able to get into our inner world.
best wishes
HASAN BAYRAM
Great way to incorporate the other Anzldua readings you are familiar with, Hasan!
DeleteThe topic is somehow different and interesting, though its quite straitforward because it has lots of ways to look at Huntington's text and also I took previous class with Prof. Reimer, so I am familiar with the “Chicano/a” identities. Starting with the Mexican revolution in 1910, it was mainly about the immigrants on southern and southwest side and it gives the idea of quotas for the inpoverished ones. Immigration act long after that on 1965 is also related to that situation. The one sentence that Deniz mentioned is “the defining component for the American identity is whiteness” and yes agreable but yet arguable fact is labor power is provided by mostly the Mexican's. Therefore in a consumer society it will and it is always be needed to servitude kind of jobs in several areas. For instance I remember a scene from South Park where Cartman pays money to the Mexicans, that they will write essays for them. That is actually a representation of the labor power of the Mexicans in America.
ReplyDeleteTherefore the Video also was significant because it illustrate the ways and the areas that Mexicans had to work. Those areas was not quite good, I mean not all American citizens may wanted to done those jobs. In addition to that the statistics about the migration was a good example to show how much they participated in the employement. In 1970's it was 6000 or so, and in 1990's it gets over 2 mil, today it is over 7 million which is a huge population that can change lots of things. Hangtington's text was in a way racist but it was listening an example of eugenics.
The main part is “white, Anglo-saxon, protestant human” that counted as a person as always in U.S. However, like Anzeldua or the Huerta; those writers make difference like pulling out the facts from the resource. As Anzeldua said, “they should not be ashamed of what they are” and “”each of us have a value” those are the keypoints that Anzeldua's argument about Chicano/a's.
My question is, Anzeldua's La Frontera shows that ignorance is a danger that could lead bigger problems but again, rather than ignorance if people just live with their lives and do not convene to others, is this problem solved in that way ? Or why should anyone identify another for race, gender, apperance ?
Serhat BAŞAK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrndVhFkzxI
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83nfRx6nf0s
That's the South Park, it has 2 seperate parts sorry. The racial profiling is quite high in that example as you may see.
But, of course, people will always mix and come into contact with each other--that's pretty unavoidable unless you really isolate yourself from society in dramatic and uncommon ways. So, mixing and contact will happen. The question Anzaldua suggests is how to preserve what's important to yourself, your definition of your culture, ethnicity and history, while also not excluding others and making space for contact with other cultures, even when that contact can be painful or marked by power differences? That's a question that Anzaldua says is a personal one that has to be navigated psychologically first (by the individual) and then transformed into social action and political resistance through things like art, activism, politics, or even spiritual practice...
DeleteFirst of all sorry for missing your presentation...
ReplyDeleteAs far as I read Anzaldua suggests that dual identity is the suffarage that Mexican Americans or Chicanos having in their lives. The reason being Mestiza, mixed culture is making them have dual identity which also an indication of the dual language. This identity crisis also create a cultural assimilation that will change their style of living. Those injuries also getting them closer with their own race but does everyone need to become something that their originality changed, to become an American. In addition those mixture and those Mestiza concentrated in certain places which also makes them stuck in a place with assimilation or assimilative people together. Hispanics and Mexicans; they all share their language but they do not share life style which is the problematic part in the language question. Spanish have lots of different dialects and this is a major difference which lead a caotic environment for everyone.
When I hear Anzaldua, the first thing that comes to my mind is 'Spanglish' :) just a reminder for previous lectures that we did...
Dilan ALGAN
Dilan--YES. I wish you had brought your knowledge of Anzaldua into the class, but alas, we missed you on Tuesday. But you have mentioned a crucial point: dual (or multiple languages) are markers of dual (or multiple) identities and ALL OF US practice multiple identities in our daily lives, and ALL OF US even use different kinds of languages, dialects and ways of communicating in our daily lives. Those who took 195 will remember how we all made our lists of our "languages." So how can we kick people out of a community for having multiple languages and identities when it is something that all humans share?
DeleteFirst of all, thanks to the presenters for an interesting and informative presentation. While observing the presentation itself, some thoughts about multiculturalism and the concept of borderland identity came to mind. One of them was the dogma that we as human beings, should only have a one "true" home where we can feel at ease. In this context, I'm talking about countries, of course. Now, this way of thinking is very limiting for someone who had no choice but to depart his/her hometown/country because of reasons. Accusative behavior towards this particular person can only lead to alienation. Alienation from the same culture that the citizen back home is trying to protect. A psychological exile, if you will. Anzeldua supports the idea of multiculturalism, the Chicano/Chicana identity because she is aware that a person is not only bound to his/her country of birth. It is a matter of choice and perspective. One can determine how he/she wants to lead his/her life when it comes to cultural identity. I'm not trying to say that we should abandon our roots, instead, we should be able to acknowledge them and build upon the foundations of who we are. It's not a matter of mere differences or similarities, it is about finding a common ground where many cultures and healthy personalities, relationships can cherish.
ReplyDelete-Kaan Can Oyman
YES--the idea of being a psychological exile is crucial. Anzaldua feels like a psychological exile in the borderlands because she is neither "here" nor "there." Her strategy is to try and find strength in position of being in-between. She links it back to some Aztec spirituality as a source of power, especially for women, queers, and people of Mexican descent. I think, Kaan, you've summed up her complex ideas very succinctly.
DeleteFirstly, I want to say thank you for this great presentation.
ReplyDeleteIn this post, I would like to focus on the role and significance of language among immigrants and ethnic groups. I think, for immigrants language symbolizes their "power", "voice", "identity" and "home". It is perceived as the significant part of their culture that they left in their home country. Thus, it should not be weird for these people to want to speak their own language. Nevertheless, problem starts with the discussion of the extent of this usage.
I think that everyone should be free to speak the language that they want and make them feel more comfortable in their social life. However, there should be one or two (for Spanish situation, I will point out later) particular "offical" language to make some process easier and unify more people.
I would like to to give two examples to show the role of language in different situations. For instance, Kurds' demand to have Kurdish education have been considerably discussed in Turkey, because many people thougt that the offical language of Turkey is Turkish, so the education should also be like this.
Another example is that, if you live in Turkey as a wife of a worker living in Germany, you cannot go to Germany to live with your husband without knowing basic level of German. These examples may be irrevelant with our topic, but I wanted to show how the approaches to language by immigrants, minority groups and politics are different.
It is known that assimilation starts with language. In the text "Hispanic Challange", it is emphasized that second generation of Mexicans use both English and Spanish whereas first generation speaks generally mostly Spanish. It means that third generation may not even speak Spanish.
I support bilingualism in te USA. I mean, the second official language should be Spanish. Firstly, language means power and unify. In this situation, I believe that more people will be unified. Secondly, this would be really great message to millions of people including immigrants who speak Spanish.
-Yasemin Öztemür
It is very interesting to observe how embracing dual or more cultures convey different meanings. I find Anzaldua’s approach more peaceful, integrating and cooperative than Huntington’s. I like her “being flexible and vulnerable to the cultures” idea because it is a very important step in creating one’s cultural identity. The important point is do not let yourself neither reject your native identity nor foreign identity. In this case, it is US’ white culture. If people can achieve in balancing dual culture selves and accepting that cultural identity cannot be shaped by one culture only. In the modern sense, such attempt is nearly impossible. Because of globalization, mobility, technology, movies and immigration people meet different cultures every day.
ReplyDeleteSamuel Huntington on the other hand put more emphasis on how Latin Americans mostly Mexican Americans –because their population preserve their culture by various reasons. He makes drastic arguments, as if he gave the idea that dual culture can be eliminated at some level. He even claims that the US that we know can completely change because of the increase in Hispanic population and this would lead the end of the US. I do not believe that such approach would bring healthy results in a multicultural country like the US. It is true that in demographic sense people of Latin American descent and Latin American immigrants are rising. However, this does not give the idea that the US is going to change dramatically from its very foundations. First, it is important to take notice that for any ethnic group whether they are minority or majority they should keep in mind that cultural exchange is inevitable. Just because it is inevitable does not mean that it is bad. It creates a deeper vision and helps people to integrate easily. Second, dual cultures do not destroy one’s native culture and necessarily create a “melting pot”. It’s literally depends on the perception of the culture. You can take from both and more or you can choose to accept only your side. The latter leads alienation and disintegration and thus is not practical.
Anzaldua states that she does not forget the white culture’s dominating and self deprecating impacts on her own culture. She embraces her own identity but she does not take hateful stance on the white culture as well. She allows white culture to be part of her own identity. This is a very critical point. She construct such a balance that does not allow discrimination and assimilation at the same time, whereas Huntington gives the example of Miami’s Hispanic culture beats the white supremacy and they become the minor group that have to adapt Hispanic measures. I would say that oppression or pressure from any ethnic group is wrong. Just because an ethnic and racial acted in discriminative way does not give rights to any ethnic group to do same when they become majority. Otherwise, this would start a ceaseless cultural war that would eventually destroy both cultures.
Hacer Bahar
What I like about your response, Hacer, is the emphasis on the point that cultural contact is both inevitable and it does not necessarily lead to the destruction of one culture and the supremacy of another. Cultures are ALWAYS shifting, changing, adapting and influencing each other. FACT. :)
DeleteFirst of all, I would like to thank all the presenters. It was a brief and informative presentation. When the subject is race we always think about black people but there is more than that in the United States of America. By this presentation I have learned that how a big places other immigrants especially Mexican Americans have in the USA. The questions they asked push me to think. I would like to answer the questions: Is it possible to form unity by preserving diversity? And Why is language important for identity?
ReplyDeleteI do believe that it is not really possible to form unity by preserving diversity because even if all people are equal under the law, people create inequality among themselves according to their race and ethnicity. For example, Kurdish people are in our country. They have a different language and different traditions than we do. They live in Turkey but they do not accept the laws and system of Turkey. They would like to draw their own boundaries by dividing Turkey. They would like to use their own languages officially and so on and so on. I personally believe that diversity is a good thing but it generally has a negative effect on the unity of the country no matter which country it is.
When it comes to why language is important for identity, it is very important because it makes a country, a country. It makes a certain country different from other countries and help form unity. For example, in one of my classes, “Topics in Theory for American Culture”, we were talking about the foundation of dictionaries. They were founded and used to create unity in the country because using the same language throughout the country is very important for unification.
Pınar ILGAR
Thank you Sera, Deniz and Esma for their interesting and nice presentation. It is always exciting to compare two articles or two different views. So in my opinion Huntington is a d-bag especially when he talks about the fertility rates like Prof. Reimer pointed out. He is judging harshly saying the cultures that have more kids are less sophisticated. It is very offensive. one point that he makes is the concentration. he says the more concentrated the mexicans are, the more difficult to assimilate them since large groups could survive without talking English. I think he is mad that some white people have to be bilingual to have the job opportunities. Obviously he suggests to stop/reduce Mexican immigration. He thinks that he has his points. on the other hand, there is my idol Gloria Anzaldua. She talks on different points that I couldn't agree more. She is a cultural theorist and suggests dual identity to cure the injuries of the past. The best thing I like about her is the visibility topic. She says (to minorities) don't be ashamed of yourself. the worst danger is ignorance like colorblindness we discussed in the class. Linking people to each other and transforming the ideas is always the brightest solution. The other thing I like about her is the process of transforming society begins with transforming yourself. (it's like the personal is political). Also language is important for identity. She speaks both spanish and english and they both express her identity. I love the question that Deniz asked at the end of presentation. "Is it possible to form a unity with diversity?" I wish! It is my utopia.
ReplyDeleteThank you darlies for your presentation.
ReplyDeleteWhen one thinks America, he/she must need to think of the minorities as well. America's issue is not only with blacks but also with the 'other one's too. I'm going to answer the fourth question, Why is language important for identity?
I do not remember it exactly but when we read 'How To Tame a Wild Tongue' by Gloria Anzaldua, on our first year, I can say that any language which was not english described as a wild tongue to tame, which also was an identity loss. Language is important for identity because, I believe that language means human, mind, culture and soul and identity. If one's native language is being ignored, then it means that one's identity is being ignored. This is not only racist but also an ignorant behaviour. How could foreign people can understand each other if they're not talking with their very own and uniqe language in a foreign land?
Also, in her text, (How to Tame..) Anzaldua mentioned 'lingustic terrorism'. How the language of Hispanic people's tried to ceased to exist. I especially agree with the terrorism part. Becuase, they terrorized Hispanics to speak only english. They wanted them to forget their language and identity. Moreover, they wanted them to forget themselves. Which was a more dangereous terror than guns.
Kardelen İpek
Thank you Sera, Deniz and Esma for their interesting and nice presentation. It is always exciting to compare two articles or two different views. So in my opinion Huntington is a d-bag especially when he talks about the fertility rates like Prof. Reimer pointed out. He is judging harshly saying the cultures that have more kids are less sophisticated. It is very offensive. one point that he makes is the concentration. he says the more concentrated the mexicans are, the more difficult to assimilate them since large groups could survive without talking English. I think he is mad that some white people have to be bilingual to have the job opportunities. Obviously he suggests to stop/reduce Mexican immigration. He thinks that he has his points. on the other hand, there is my idol Gloria Anzaldua. She talks on different points that I couldn't agree more. She is a cultural theorist and suggests dual identity to cure the injuries of the past. The best thing I like about her is the visibility topic. She says (to minorities) don't be ashamed of yourself. the worst danger is ignorance like colorblindness we discussed in the class. Linking people to each other and transforming the ideas is always the brightest solution. The other thing I like about her is the process of transforming society begins with transforming yourself. (it's like the personal is political). Also language is important for identity. She speaks both spanish and english and they both express her identity. I love the question that Deniz asked at the end of presentation. "Is it possible to form a unity with diversity?" I wish! It is my utopia.
ReplyDelete