Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Question #2
I do agree with Anzaldúa. The first amendment, which is the right to free speech, is the right to express one's opinions or thoughts publicly. So why was it so wrong for Anzaldúa to speak Spanish? "Attacks on one's form of expression with the intent to censor are a violation of the first amendment." I do think it is a violation because no one has the right to tell what you can or can not speak. Key word, FREE speech. Then there is speech, as in her or anyone else's language. Everyone is born with these natural rights, but of course not everyone is born in the same culture. Spanish was her culture, so who is anyone to say that someone's native language is right or wrong and not allowed. It's like saying any of the other races are not allowed to speak their own language, something they most likely grew up speaking first, because it is "wrong". Someone's language is part of their identity, their background, who they are. They are being who they are so why be put to shame. "I remember being caught speaking Spanish at recess -- that was good for three licks on the knuckles with a sharp ruler" is what I think is an example of her claim that it was an act of violence. It's not right for her to get punished just for speaking another language. She was brought up as child speaking Spanish, its not her or anyone's fault. She did nothing wrong but to speak in which she supposedly has the right to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Being proudly chicano, I agree that most of what she is saying makes sense. I have previously felt this sense of alienation due to my blended culture. In many ways, I see where she's coming form, but I also feel that her argument may be a little outdated seeing as people are a lot more cognizant of these issues. Although, I do agree with most of what you and Anzaldúa's point of view is, I find it a little extreme for her to call it an act of violence. It doesn't seem as though there are enough non-chicanos against the use of chicano spanish for it to be considered a violation of the first amendment. She conveyed the idea that it's shame that sometimes sets chicanos back from speaking our language. This seems to be a more plausible justification for why it's not widely used as opposed to suggesting that other people are suppressing the use of the language. Anzaldúa did provide the example of being cut in the tongue and for that I do concur that is an act of violence towards censoring her native tongue, but her punishment is outdated. I've never in my lifetime ever heard of anyone being subdued because they were caught speaking spanish. While I have heard the general, "This is America. Speak English!" I see this more of as a racist remark than a violation of my first amendment right to speak spanish. There are some racist perspectives, but there is no law that specifically outlaws the use of the language, therefore I don't find any real violation of any of her rights other than shame in her mind.
ReplyDelete