I’ve had a box of 1960′s and 1970′s Chicano Literature for about two years now. Not sure how I got it or where it came from. I’ve read a decent amount of Chicano and Latino Lit but most of it written and published in the nineties or later. The last couple weeks I’ve been pulling out these old yellow books the youngest one published in 1972. I love the smell of old books.
I am currently reading Literatura Chicana: Texto y Contexto, Chicano Literature: Text and Context. It is one of the best collections of Chicano literature I have ever read. It blows away every modern Chicano collection I have read. Why didn’t I ever get this book in any of my Latino Lit classes?
The writing style of it is also very different than modern Chicano Anthologies. For example in modern anthologies it is seen as a political statement not to translate Spanish or Espanglish into English. In today’s anthologies leaving it in the original language is sometimes seen as a protest; I am not going to adapt my language, my writing style, to make it easier for you the reader. However, in this book they offer it both in the original and the translated.
This book has a lot of authors I’ve read but includes very moving pieces that I’d never seen before. Some of the authors include Luis Valdez, Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales, and John Rechy (my Irish-Chicano compadre). But this book also uses a lot of authors that I would never consider Chicano. Which does not mean I don’t like the authors but why did they use Mexicans instead of Chicanos? They used wonderful authors like Carlos Fuentes (whom I didn’t know until recently “...was denied permission by United States immigration officials to land… on the ground that he was “an undesirable alien.” and Elena Poniatowski.
There are two questions that I have regarding this book that I have for this and most other Chicano books.
Why Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz? And why Aztecs?
Let me start with the Aztecs. I feel that as Chicanos we often forget about all the other groups and languages. For example my people the Purépecha never fell to the Aztecs. And when the Spanish conquered the Aztecs messengers were sent to ask for help from the Purépecha. What did the Purépecha do? Well, they killed the messengers of course. However revenge is a dish best serve cold and the messengers had brought small box with them into the Purépecha city of Tzintzúntzan….I am getting side tracked. But my question is why do we love the Aztecs so much? Why not the Mayans? Why not the Olmecs? Or better yet the Karankawa of modern day Texas/Mexico?
Let me move on to Sor Juana. Two things: first, I adore Sor Juana’s work since I was about 14 and in Mexico and told to read some work of hers. I forced myself to memorize her work. Second thing is before I begin my rant on Sor Juana and Chicanos it does not mean that I cannot be moved to change my views on her. Just as I changed my views on Chicanos and La Malinche. I now proudly say I am a Malinche! I am the manipulator of languages, I am a creation and a creator of Mestizaje, I am a virgin and a whore, I am tongue, womb and brain. Okay, back to Sor Juana. Why are Chicanos so fascinated by her? Why is she included in so many Chicano works? She is not Chicana. Some scholars (wrongly) claim that by some classifications she was not even Mexican but Spanish. She was neither Spanish nor Chicana. She was a intellectual Mexican feminist. Malinche may have given birth to Mestizaje (as Chicanos we are Mestizos y como la India MarÃÂa nàde aquÃÂ, nàde allá pero si se dan cuenta yo ahora digo que soy de aquày de allá…como los hijos de la Malinche) but what does Sor Juana have to do with Chicanoism?