After reading Anzaldúa’s piece, I was thoroughly intrigued by her use of language and how she would switch back from English to Spanish. This created a unique piece that I would describe as not “Anglo” literature or “Chicano” literature, but instead a combination of the many influences she has had on her writing as well as her life experiences. For example, she writes about the many languages used in the Southwest, which were: Standard English, Working slang English, Standard Spanish, Standard Mexican Spanish, North Mexican Spanish dialect, Chicano Spanish, Tex-Mex, and Pachuco. All of these languages and/or dialects influence her writing and it is shown in this work. Therefore, I would argue that Anzaldúa’s work was not an American or a Mexican piece, but an amalgamation of the unique culture present in America’s Southwest.
Although I did thoroughly enjoy Anzaldúa’s piece and the structure of it, I do have some issues with parts of her work. For example, she constantly utilizes the words ‘we’ and ‘our’ when referring to Chicanos. Does this mean that she is speaking for all Chicanos? If so, I feel that it is very difficult for one person to accurately speak for an entire group of people. In addition, I feel that she could have ended her work on a more conciliatory tone. For example, in her second to last paragraph she makes the statement, “tenémos que hacer la lucha,” which roughly translates to we have to fight. Also, the last paragraph it almost sounds if she is saying that Chicano and American culture is incompatible; and that Chicanos “will walk by the crumbling ashes as we go about our business…we, the mestizas and mestizos, will remain.” This quote and the general tone of her ending should have stressed unity and co-existing, not that only the mestizas and mestizos, will remain.
E367: Writing and Diversity 
Kyle, I was also intrigued by Anzaldua’s choice of language. I found her decision to switch between English and Spanish to be a powerful one. This is because she tells the reader that her most comfortable language to speak is Spanglish, and throughout the reading she is searching for an answer for everyone who feels most comfortable speaking Spanglish, too. I think this is the group she is referring to as “we.“ Her tone is revolutionary and this piece is an attempt by her to not feel alone anymore, so by using her terminology of “we” and “our,” she is attempting to acknowledge the group of people who feel the same as she does.
LikeLike
Kyle,
I’m glad you mentioned the authors use of “we” in the reading. I also found this to be confusing. Your critique on the use of the word “we” makes me wonder if there is ever a time to really use the word.
I took a feminist political theory course last year, and my professor would always question the students in the class if they used “we” or “us” when speaking. She would ask them to specify what they meant by the word. No one was ever really able to use “we” once they thought about the implication of the word and just how extensive the term is. Now, I try to avoid using “we” unless I know I am speaking for a limited and specific group of people. As you mention, it is hard to talk for other people and often leads to speculation. I wonder if there is ever an appropriate time to use “we.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kyle,
So let’s talk tomorrow about how Anzaldua ends her piece! I agree with you that her last ¶ has a somewhat triumphalist tone—but I think she’s trying to offer some sort of solution to the problem of identity that she’s been exploring throughout her essay (she calls the Chicano a “thief in his own house” in the ¶ right before it), so I’m inclined to cut her some slack for trying to end on a note of uplift. But I’m also eager to hear what other people think. Thanks for raising this issue!
Joe
LikeLike
Hey Kyle!
I find it interesting that you mentioned Anzaldula’s use of her two languages throughout her piece and the effect it has on her writing. I feel that by doing so, she is able to properly create a sense of “we” in her writing in that all readers who speak Spanish or are part of any Spanish community immediately feel connected to her writing. I found it interesting that by adding sentences in Spanish, she was able to both let in a group of Spanish speakers, as well as make English speakers feel as though they are on the opposite side of the border. With this tactic I think she was successfully able to create ties and have a sense of “our” language and “our” culture shine through. I definitely do agree though that Anzaldula used this term for what she felt created a sense of “we”, but may not always be the case. Some Chicano members may have felt that the Spanish phrases chosen create more conflict than a sense of inclusion.
LikeLike
I also find the use of “we” or “Our” within her piece as an interesting choice and I like that you critiques/questioned her choice. I think a lot of people who are speaking about their own culture and a shared identity group tend to use this sense of a shared opinion within the community–as if everyone shared the same experience or opinion. But, that probably isn’t the case. It seems to be an attempt at activism or unification–especially since after she mentions Cesar Chavez and United Farmworkers and how chicanos didn’t see themselves as a common people, a community, until these movements started. This unification of “we” and “our” is used within these movements–when I was able to go see Dolores Huartas, who helped found the United Farm Workers movement alongside Cesar Chavez, speak at my past college, she yelled “Si se Puede!”–“Yes we can!” And I think Anzaldua is using the same strategy of trying unite her people and create more of community.
LikeLike
Kyle,
I felt that you had a very good analysis of Anzaldua’s piece. I was very interested when reading your second part of your response especially when it came to talking about the end of the piece. I felt for it to be cohesive and end positive, it should have ended stressing unity. It would have fit perfectly with her overall theme and the importance on blending things together.
LikeLike