1. In response to Katie's question about tying old readings into the readings from this week: I was very struck by the sentiments that Anzaldua put forth in her chapter "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" regarding the chicana plight of language and how that is directly linked to identity. Not nationality, not even race, identity. How on both sides of the border, she is told to changed the way that she speaks and interacts with others purely due to her language. This sentiments seems to be stemming from what "The Latino Threat" talked about. It describes the Latino Threat Narrative as an attack on Latino immigrants because "[they are] unwilling or incapable of integrating, of becoming part ofthe national community" (Chavez 2). This is part of the reason and Latinos are not accepted in America, they speak a different language and want to hold onto that language.
2. My own question this week also comes from the Anzaldua chapter. If we are indeed living in a "globalized" world in which the economy, the neo-liberalist "race to the bottom", currency, travel, etc. are all unifying, where does that leave language? Why do most of us in America only speak one or two languages when many Europeans speak three or more (I understand that both of those statements are overgeneralizations, but I'll use them for the sake of argument)? Is it more efficient to continue to only speak English and push English as the language of the future, or adopt more languages into the fold and learn them?
Relatedly: is a person's identity really tied up in the language that they speak as Anzaldua argues? If so, is this true for all people groups? If not, are there exceptions (such as chicanos, who seem to be pulled between two different languages/nations/races) that have a right to hold onto their native (or even hybrid) tongue?
No comments:
Post a Comment