I was recently privileged enough to accompany a group of our school's brightest students to a conference at University of Washington. Our gracious hosts, the students of MEChA de UW, fed us, provided comfortable accommodations, took us on a campus tour, entertained, and programmed a number of other unforgettable experiences for us.
During one of the workshops, a presenter stood before us and made the following argument:
In our organization, we call ourselves Chicanas or Chicanos. We reject labels like Hispanic or Latino/a, because these words come from European Americans who do not have our best interests in mind. The choice of calling ourselves Chicanas and Chicanos is about self determination, about not letting someone else decide our identity for us.
I've known about this particular label for years, and have been more familiar with it as a blanket term for people of Mexican descent who are born in the U.S. The conscious decision to repurpose the word makes perfect sense to me: I absolutely agree with the right to self determination, and one of the recurring lessons I have learned from history is that hegemonic groups seek to cement their position by making their subjects perform a new subservient identity. This is why during the presentation, I found myself nodding my head and glancing at my students in hopes of seeing some resonance in their body language.
But during all of this, my crap detector was stirring within.
I took my time thinking about the word, but it gradually began to slip from my mind until a couple of weeks ago when Angenette sent me a link to a glossary of slang terms from Buenos Aires. Between classes, I casually glanced over the list, and there it was: Chicana.
To Rioplatenses, it appears that Chicana carries the meanings of "trap, snare, deceit, swindle, ruse, fraud...."
With this in mind, the task of persuading at least one huge group to re-label themselves as Chicana/o is suddenly much more complicated. I wonder if MEChIstas have dialogued with Argentinos about this.
I realize, of course that the term Chicano was originally derogatory in Mexico and has since gradually been converted to its modern uses. The origins of the word are disputed, but it is clear that it comes from one of the indigenous tongues of Mexico.
But during all of this, my crap detector was stirring within.
I took my time thinking about the word, but it gradually began to slip from my mind until a couple of weeks ago when Angenette sent me a link to a glossary of slang terms from Buenos Aires. Between classes, I casually glanced over the list, and there it was: Chicana.
To Rioplatenses, it appears that Chicana carries the meanings of "trap, snare, deceit, swindle, ruse, fraud...."
With this in mind, the task of persuading at least one huge group to re-label themselves as Chicana/o is suddenly much more complicated. I wonder if MEChIstas have dialogued with Argentinos about this.
I realize, of course that the term Chicano was originally derogatory in Mexico and has since gradually been converted to its modern uses. The origins of the word are disputed, but it is clear that it comes from one of the indigenous tongues of Mexico.
I welcome the sense of solidarity of purpose that could be achieved through a widespread adoption of a Pan-American identity. But my greatest reservation against using the term Chicana/o is that it is so Mexi-centric, and I simply am not Mexican. Sure Mexicans have borne the brunt experiences on the borderland between the U.S., but it seems that so many other experiences (including my own Chileno/Aymara roots) are swallowed up and assimilated into the Chicano term, and this kind of assimilation is exactly what Chicanas/os are fighting against.
Have any of you experienced trouble or confusion about when to use terms like Latina/o, Hispanic, or Chicano/a? What do you prefer to call yourselves, and in what context?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Berets
ReplyDeleteThat link is about the Chicano Movement which initiated in California, Very enlightening..
Very interesting - thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeletehttp://xicanosblog.tumblr.com/post/11859972927/chicano-latino-hispanic
ReplyDeleteThese racial/ethnic categories described above can be “externally ascribed”, meaning people are placed into these categories by decoding markers of difference such as skin color, language/anccent, cultural expressions/aesthetics, etc. by means of what many call the “normative gaze”. “Externally ascribed” identities are widely seen as complicating an individual’s “internally ascribed”, or self-reported/self-determined, racial/ethnic identity. The way in which someone comes to determine their “internally ascribed” Racial/ethnic identity is explained/detailed through racial/ethnic identity formation models (Erickson, Helms, Phinney). These models are usually linear and sequential as to suggest that one progresses along a continuum, starting with childhood, eventually “arriving” at an “authentic” racial/ethnic identity. These models also suggest that an individual progresses forward through stages of identity formation and doesn’t allow for identity regression meaning once you’ve passed through the “immersion/emersion” stage (Helms), for example, you will never return or go back through the “disintegration” (Helms) stage.
So what does this say about racial/ethnic identity politics in America?: so much is at stake in affirming an “internally ascribed” identity which may or may not trump any “externally ascribed” identity especially if the “externally ascribed” identity is stigmatized. Socially speaking, so much is attached to racial signifiers like ethnic/racial categories that we will deny or avoid affirming our “true” (not with a capital T as this is all subjective and socially constructed) racial/ethnic heritage and arm ourselves with a less-denigrating identity, i.e. “Spanish”. This is one conundrum that “whites” don’t have to navigate and even enjoy the ability to appropriate other racial/ethnic identities without reprisal: proof positive of “white privilege”. Ironically, white Americans do avoid affirming a “racist white” identity and can “other” such whites.
Most young Americans of color wish to be socially defined in colorblind or raceless terms in order to be emancipated from having assumptions made about their intrinsic character, abilities and worth based upon your race/ethnicity. While it may be a reality that America is no longer overtly racist, cultural reproduction persists. The American (neo)liberal notion that we are a post-racial society defined by equal opportunity (aka colorblind meritocracy) discursively denies the pervasiveness of racism/racial discrimination and makes invincible the taken-for-granted racial hierarchy that stratifies Americans. This leads many to the “culture of poverty” paradigm or discursively attributing the many social/political/economic disparities which occur along lines of race/ethnicity in America to the cultural deficiencies of the subjugated versus white privilege, white nationalism and white supremacy/hegemony.