How to Tame a Wild TongueHow to Tame a Wild TongueIn “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”, Gloria Anzaldua exposes her feelings concerning social and cultural difficulties that Mexican immigrants face once being raised within the United States. She establishes comparisons among the languages of English and Spanish, and also their variations of cultural imperialism and the influence on people’s “preference” of one language instead of the opposite. She brings to discussion necessary social issues similar to sexism, cultural imperialism, racism, low vanity, reprimand, and identity construction.
The author surprisingly starts the article with a metaphor during which she defines the acculturation method as one thing very violent and cruel. additionally, the article aims at showing aspects of the acculturation process: the Anglo side and also the Hispanic side. On the Anglo side, there is the urgency of adaptation. In alternative words, if a person immigrates to the United States, he should embrace the language and culture aspect to be “accepted”; on the Hispanic side, there are the Mexicans who wish their kids will succeed and live the dream, therefore they’d better speak proper English with minimum or no accent. It appears that all the author needs is to be ready to freely speak Chicano Spanish and have their own language and identity respected. Consistent with the article, some progress has being created. There are books who in Chicano Spanish, and political parties who defend Chicano’s rights. There is, theres still an interrogation mark with regards to their race, identity, language, culture, sense of to express, freedom to specific their thoughts in whatever English or Spanish variation they require and sexism thanks to the “macho” options of Latinos normally. Additionally, the author expresses her feeling of shock, exposing how Chicano Spanish is reduced by Latinos and Anglo individuals. To conclude the author points out that Chicanos are lingually orphans and the way it seriously affects their should.
The article features a solid argument base which might be verified by students similar to foucault, Goffman, Zizek and Fanon. Though it had been printed in 1987 as a part of Anzaldua’s book “Borderland and La Frontera”, she was a up to date of the Chicano Movement within the 60s. Culturally, she was influenced by the social turmoil once she wrote the article. In alternative words, the richness of her writing goes on the far side information, it conjointly comes from personal expertise. one among the article’s strengths is clearly expressed by the author once she qualifies the acculturation method as violent. She uses the term “linguistic terrorism” and explains however the primary change is desecrated, once a private has his style of expression attacked with intend of censure. Another fascinating purpose is that the words of languages as subjective and passive of changes that transcend
n. the abstract. The piece could have been written with a more clear set of principles, but the author chose the wrong approach to contextualization. For example, she could write:
The article focuses on a specific individual the author identifies as the source of this information, which is how the article starts with, how he identifies himself. This is when he begins to become aware and his motives that may relate to social interactions, the personal life that has to be changed in his life, and the actions he took, that might explain the differences of being a writer and an activist as well as a human being.
In this article:
‡The idea of
‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
The essay, the work and its aftermath makes for an inspiring story of how there are very different ways of writing political art, both in fiction and films, as well as the fact that political art is becoming less acceptable as an art form, especially in the USA, from “the old ways».
It was only then that this «new ways» emerged. With a new lens and a whole new direction, it was no matter which way you went. The way that this writer chose to write for political art would be very different from the way that anyone who came after his own ideas should be writing. It was a true «new way», a true «new politics». The work is as good as it gets.
The idea that there is no way there is actually useful. The idea that every work that makes any claim is a lie is not. There is no other way of putting the issue. There is one way, and the only alternative is to turn away from the other. The writer could never make up what he got. He chose to write the book. It’s not true that he was on the trail and didn’t want to give up. He chose to say the things he felt good about
[
]