Identity In I Am Joaquin
A collective cultural identity provides an individual access to their origins and a sense of belonging to a larger peoplehood. Cultural identity may be difficult to define, as a group’s location, beliefs, religion, or traditions can change or face oppression. In a time of cultural crisis, authors Gloria Anzaldua and Rodolfo Gonzales write pieces to resist assimilation into and oppression by an Anglo-dominant America. Both writers look to the past of Mexican Americans in order to establish cultural unity and validity in a current time of injustice. They examine separate, individual cultures that have contributed to the present, collective view of identity. Anzaldua and Gonzales include many oppressive and painful historical moments in their
…show more content…
The entity “Joaquin” or “I” narrator takes ownership of the both historically oppressed and the oppressing people. Gonzales directly accepts and clearly expresses all historical events and peoples involved, as they produced a current identity. Events For example, this can be seen through Gonzales defining “Joaquin” as both the last Aztec emperor Cuauhtémoc and the Spanish conquistador Cortes. After referencing both leaders’ names, Gonzales shows that these identities are equal and reflective of one another. Gonzales has Cuauhtémoc identify Cortes as a Spaniard, “who also is the blood, / and image of myself” (267). This line describes an oppressor as a direct reflection of an individual, wronged identity. This language distracts from past conflict and emphasizes a kinship or likeness among peoples. Readers can more clearly reflect on the need for unity and equality while facing current …show more content…
Like Gonzales, Anzaldua references negative historical moments as a part of the Chicano identity. She addresses these events in a cause and effect manner, referencing dates and actions but not evoking strong feelings. Anzaldua also references Cortes’ invasion and conquering of the Aztec people. She mentions the number of deaths of the Indian people, stating “Before the Conquest, there were twenty-five million Indian people in Mexico and the Yucatan. Immediately after the Conquest, the Indian population had been reduced to under seven million” (27). Anzaldua relays what happened before an event, and what happened after. She does not incorporate any personal traits or feelings into the actions of the Spaniards or Indians. Rather the event is viewed as a neutral action that produced the Chicano people. Anzaldua’s cause and effect history continues as she states, “The mestizos who were genetically equipped to survive small pox, measles, and typhus (Old Word diseases to which the natives had no immunity), founded a new hybrid race and inherited Central and South America” (27). Though Spaniards took land and destroyed culture, the emphasized effect is a formation of hybrid people and its benefits. Positive language, such as the words hybrid and inherited, contrast the mention of fatal disease. Like Gonzales, Anzaldua uses language to
The entity “Joaquin” or “I” narrator takes ownership of the both historically oppressed and the oppressing people. Gonzales directly accepts and clearly expresses all historical events and peoples involved, as they produced a current identity. Events For example, this can be seen through Gonzales defining “Joaquin” as both the last Aztec emperor Cuauhtémoc and the Spanish conquistador Cortes. After referencing both leaders’ names, Gonzales shows that these identities are equal and reflective of one another. Gonzales has Cuauhtémoc identify Cortes as a Spaniard, “who also is the blood, / and image of myself” (267). This line describes an oppressor as a direct reflection of an individual, wronged identity. This language distracts from past conflict and emphasizes a kinship or likeness among peoples. Readers can more clearly reflect on the need for unity and equality while facing current …show more content…
Like Gonzales, Anzaldua references negative historical moments as a part of the Chicano identity. She addresses these events in a cause and effect manner, referencing dates and actions but not evoking strong feelings. Anzaldua also references Cortes’ invasion and conquering of the Aztec people. She mentions the number of deaths of the Indian people, stating “Before the Conquest, there were twenty-five million Indian people in Mexico and the Yucatan. Immediately after the Conquest, the Indian population had been reduced to under seven million” (27). Anzaldua relays what happened before an event, and what happened after. She does not incorporate any personal traits or feelings into the actions of the Spaniards or Indians. Rather the event is viewed as a neutral action that produced the Chicano people. Anzaldua’s cause and effect history continues as she states, “The mestizos who were genetically equipped to survive small pox, measles, and typhus (Old Word diseases to which the natives had no immunity), founded a new hybrid race and inherited Central and South America” (27). Though Spaniards took land and destroyed culture, the emphasized effect is a formation of hybrid people and its benefits. Positive language, such as the words hybrid and inherited, contrast the mention of fatal disease. Like Gonzales, Anzaldua uses language to