In
our three readings for this week, we see that home often cannot be defined by the
social constructs that are borders, and that identity cannot solely be
associated with one’s nationality. The three pieces address the concepts of
home and identity in different manners, but all seem to demonstrate that
despite our tendency to classify ourselves based on our countries of origin,
one’s nationality may not always be an accurate representation of how one
identifies his or her self. Today, we live in a world that is segmented by
walls, fences, and imaginary lines. These dividers force us to pick one side or
the other, but this dichotomy does not apply to all and it often alienates
those who fall into the no-man’s land that is created as a result of these
borders.
In
Borderlands/La Frontera, Gloria
Anzaldua’s account of life along the Mexican/American border is evidence of the
limitations of using nationality as a primary identifier of those whom we
associate with. As Anzaldua describes, the border does not represent a clean
split of cultures. Instead, the Borderland is a place where numerous cultures
intersect—Indian, Mexican, American—and all of these cultures come to be
visible in the people who inhabit this land. Anzaldua does not call herself
Mexican or American. Instead, she identifies as a mestiza; “a product of crossbreeding; designed for preservation
under a variety of conditions” (Anzaldua 103).
It is unfair that Anzaldua must be forced to classify herself as one
nationality or the other, as neither justly represents the hybridity of her
identity, nor accurately communicates where Anzaldua feels her roots are. This
story is indicative of the damage that our global system of nation-states truly
inflicts on the people of the Borderlands, as by being forced into certain
taxonomies, people like the mestiza
“have never been allowed to develop unencumbered…never been allowed to be fully
[them]selves” (108).
A
similar situation unfolds in Thomas King’s Borders.
Prior to the arrival of European settlers to North America, Native Americans
maintained unchallenged sovereignty over their own land. However, colonial
powers viewed the Natives as an impediment to their own expansion, and so it
was necessary to relocate the tribes—often forcibly. Native Americans were forced
to forfeit their sovereignty and were “allowed” to become citizens of America
and Canada. However, for some, even claiming citizenship with a country that
was occupying their land was an admission of defeat and submission to the
colonizers. So, when Laetitia’s mother is stopped at the border and asked to
state whether she is coming from the “Canadian side or American side,” it is
only natural for her to respond that she is coming from the “Blackfoot side”
(King 138). For her, admitting to come
from either America or Canada is to recognize the legitimacy of a country that
has stripped her people of their land and their sovereignty. Her refusal to
capitulate is an incredible example of pride and resilience in the face of an
oppressive system that has deemed her rights and the rights of her people as
insignificant, and is thus a refusal to be a willing participant in such a
system
In
“Who’s Irish?” by Gish Jen, the Grandmother is faced with a loss of her own
identity as she begins to realize that her world has changed around her and
become largely unfamiliar. She is troubled by the fact that her granddaughter’s
“nice Chinese side [has been] swallowed by her wild Shea side” (Jen 6). She
knows that in China, she would deal with a problem like this with spanking the
child, but her daughter and son-in-law don’t view this as acceptable. After
seeing Sophie’s bruises resulting from what the Grandmother would call light
punishment, the Grandmother is forced to leave the house and is no longer
allowed to babysit Sophie. However, she is taken in by Bess, who assures the
Grandmother that she is an honorary Irish. In the face of this loss of touch
with her own traditions that she associated with being Chinese, the Grandmother
finds solace in accepted into Bess’s culture, demonstrating again the fluidity
of nationalities and their lack of concreteness.
No comments:
Post a Comment