In “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”, chicana author Gloria
Anzaldua expresses how difficult it was to grow up while constantly having your
language, and to an extent identity stifled from people on either side of the
matter. The phrase “linguistic terrorism” seems like a perfect way to describe
what it must feel like to have to take classes where to end goal is to essentially take away your accent. It does feel like a
fairly blatant violation of the first amendment. When Anzaldua recalls being
physically reprimanded for speaking Spanish, a tongue she considered native, at
recess and to go “home” if she didn’t like having to anglicize her language is
basically taking away her freedom of speech. Not being free to speak in any
way, shape, or form violate the first amendment and from the memories and stories
that Anzaldua shares with us it seems that chicanos as a whole were robbed of
the freedom of speech.
Historically this isn’t really anything new to hear. America
taking the culture out of its “cultural melting pot”, but it stood out the me
that Anzaldua mentioned also feeling shame and censorship when communicating
with other Latinos. She says that to many latinos and Latinas Chicano Spanish
is considered a “mutilation of Spanish”. It came across that one the American
side she felt oppression and degradation, but on the other hand, when
conversing with Lations and Mexicans she felt shame and embarrassment. Anzaldua
says “if a person has a low estimation of my native tongue, she also has a low
estimation of me”. Having her language overlooked is comparable to being
overlooked as a person. These constant attacks on her native tongue and by association
self worth can be called violent in the sense that their purpose was to break
her. The final paragraph almost serves as a direct response to this saying that
the chicono tongue won’t break and “will remain”.
I completely agree with Tyler, as a Latina I was able to identify with this text in so many ways, especially with the concept of "mutilation of Spanish". My mom would always correct me when I accidentally started a sentence in Spanish, then ended it in English. She would say I taught you to speak "proper Spanish". Anzaldua points out such a true statement saying that this is also a language and should be treated and accepted like the rest. Being bilingual is very difficult not only because you try to fit into both cultures, but because you try to fit a certain standard in each one. For example, when speaking English, you sometimes have to try harder to than the others who have been speaking this language for their whole life, because being bilingual sometimes involves thinking in one language and then translating it into another. This eventually leads to "Anglicism’s or pochismos" which are words distorted by English with an accent characteristic. This has occurred to me so many times and it's hard not to feel ashamed or embarrassed. It comes to a point where you have to accept the pros and cons of being bilingual and as Anzaldua said accept that this is just another "linguistic group and we should not use our language differences against each other, and overcome the tradition of silence”.
ReplyDeleteI also completely agree with you Tyler. Growing up, Spanish was my first language but moving to Texas really changed how I spoke over the most important years of my life for language. I love my culture entirely and it is very difficult to hear what I speak now; to them it is “butchered” Spanish. Through the years it seems that Spanish only gets even more difficult to speak because English has become the language I use primarily. Even worse, I have two younger siblings who have to deal with this situation with much more difficulty. It seems the newer the generation, the harder it is for them to retain the language of their own culture. As you said, attacking one’s language is violent. Not only does it affect what and how one chooses to speak, but it also affects who and where they learned it from. I know it must hurt my father to think that my youngest sibling understands Spanish but refuses to speak it. The “mutilation of Spanish” you referenced from her text is something serious. I feel very ashamed to think that my first language is no longer “perfect” when I speak it. It’s truly embarrassing carrying a conversation with an elder and for them to think less of me because of my now “butchered” Spanish. Though it is something that will never stop. Language is on a constant never ending road to change, be it perfect or butchered.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the post.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that the attacks on native language can be considered an act of violence for its purpose is to break one’s identity and destroy cultural values. As a matter of fact, Gloria Anzaldua speaks against this so-called “Linguistic Terrorism” with a spirited determination: “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.” Anzaldua explains the sacred connection between national identity and national language as they distinguished her from the rest of the world. She considers her native tongue to be her own skin, her racial identity – something she lives in and proudly displays but are often to be alienated or suppressed. She goes further to justify the natural sense of ethnicity: “Deep in our hearts we believe that being Mexican has nothing to do with which country one lives in. Being Mexican is a state of soul – not one of mind, not one of citizenship. Every national language that remains tells a heroic history of its people and explains an inherited pride, the kind of pride that cannot be surpassed by others’ and by the pressure of residency. To kill a man is to kill his language because then he will no longer have self-worth nor knowing of identification. Thus, to be bashed for who you are and where you’re from is a vicious act of violence against one’s sense of individuality.
I definitely agree with everything that you said Tyler. Indeed, denying a group of people their language is a violation of the first amendment. The statement that stuck with me the most was when Anzaldua wrote, "So, if you want to really hurt me, talk badly about my language" (par. 27). Her saying this alone exhibits how important language is when it comes one's culture and sense of identity. Robbing one of this very aspect is the same as robbing them of their selfhood. When Anzaldua writes about her Anglo teacher saying to her, "If you want to be American, speak 'American.' If you don't like it, go back to Mexico where you belong." This statement exemplifies the pure ignorance that exists in our country. Americans tend to think of themselves as being better than those that come from different cultures or countries. A term that best fits this sense of arrogance and stubbornness is known as Americentrism. I couldn't have agreed more when you said, "Having her language overlooked is comparable to being overlooked as a person." Being oppressed by others who don't understand your culture causes you to loose a sense of self-worth, thus definitely making one feel overlooked and feeling as though they are not as important. No one should be forced to feel that way and backed into a corner simply because of where they come from or what's in their blood. One should be able to live in America without being degraded simply because they are proud of where they come from or speaking in their native tongue. And if anyone suppresses one for doing so, then their freedom of speech is being violated and it is truly an act of violence.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your claim that Gloria Anzaldua’s first amendment rights were violated and that denying a group their language is an act of violence. The feelings and perspective of the speaker in the story were ferociously biased, and the piece as a whole is comparable to an emotional outing, with support for the argument coming from a plethora of idioms to gain the compassion of the reader to gain inertia for an idea that’s only importance and functionality is from its cultural value. While you’re absolutely correct in your evaluation of Anzaldua’s experiences, the reasoning that, because she felt singled out and her language was being denied, justifies that she lost her freedom of speech is a logical fallacy in that the Bill of Right’s wasn’t created to serve the individuality and culture that each citizen holds, it was created to protect the opinions, life, property, actions and beliefs, which can branch from a culture, but as a whole language and overall culture is not guaranteed, nor should it be. You see, ideas, customs, language, etc. are ever-changing, so guaranteeing each person a right to their own culture works away from the general assimilation that modern society strives for. Of course there will always be uniqueness of all sorts in every person and every group of all kinds, but there must be a standard facilitation for basic function in the society, one that converges to a single culture, because at that unreachable point (but one that can be gotten very close to) lies infinite communication, understanding, empathy, etc. All in all, this makes Gloria Anzaldua’s rationalization that discouraging her language, and insecurities felt of a foreign culture is equivalent to taking away her right to freedom of speech and inciting violence, when in reality her meandering is just a personal conflict that is based on an extreme sense of self-worth and self-pride to the cultural group which she was born into, and therefore has no worth of reason on the scale of societal precedence.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the first amendment, I do agree that restricting an individual's spoken language as well as their accent is a violation of the first amendment. Additionally, I do agree that doing so is an act of violence, or linguistic terrorism, and negatively effects the individual by estranging them from their culture. Anzaldua expresses her connection between herself and her language, stating, "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, " (par.27). By having forms of expressions restricted, a multilingual individual is restricted in their self identification, self worth, and sense of culture.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't feel Anzaldua's shame and embarrassment of speaking Chicano Spanish around Latinos and Latinas is due to American society draining away her sense of cultural and ethnic identity. I believe that the presence of Chicano Spanish is an excellent example of the assimilation of two cultures, as when Anzaldua states," We speak a patois, a forked tongue, a variation of two languages," (par. 12), the two languages being English and Spanish. Nevertheless, Anzaldua states, "[Chicano Spanish] is illegitimate, a bastard langauge...Chincanas feel uncomfortable talking in Spanish to Latinas, afraid of their censure," (par. 22, 24). This demonstrates the pressure of both societies to enforce a specific language. Rather, it not just the Americans, but also the Latinos and Latinas who create linguistic terrorism.