indigenous languages of Mexico, a deep connection to the land, and a political, social, and historical displacement (2002, 224). The Chicana/o homeland, Aztlán, becomes a unifying concept and base for Chicana/o presence in the United States. Ramirez suggests that saying the word also becomes a basis of commitment toward “Aztlán” acknowledging and claiming indigenous concepts as part of the Chicana/o reality (2002, 224-225). However, the point that Ramirez makes is that this “imagined” Chicano nation to subjugate, define, and control Chicanas, revealing a “served contradiction between ideology and praxis” (2002, 225). While nation-imagining implies homogeny, many have been uncritical of the official discourses of a solely Chicano nationalist movement—many except for Chicana feminists. The term feminist perspective,” writes Yvonne Yarbro-Bejarano certain “Chicana “implies similarities with and differences from either an exclusively or ‘feminist’ ‘Chicano’ perspective” (2007, 364). Perspectives on Chicana thought are numerous, and are more so, necessary. Indeed, a Chicana feminist critique is a useful starting point for rethinking citizenship, borderlands and Ethnic Studies away from the binary opposition between and to questions of difference, power, and knowledge (Aldama “us” “them,” and Quiñonez 2002; see also, Moraga and Anzaldúa 1981; Anzaldúa 1987; Alarcón 1997; Trujillo 1998). In my classroom, starting with the Chicana feminist critique in my to Chicana/o Studies” courses is as purposeful as it is useful. My “Introduction very own introduction to Chicana/o Studies was through the lens of Chicana feminism and not through the oft-taught starting point of Chicano nationalism. In the process of challenging existing paradigms, Chicana feminists introduce new
indigenous languages of Mexico, a deep connection to the land, and a political, social, and historical displacement (2002, 224). The Chicana/o homeland, Aztlán, becomes a unifying concept and base for Chicana/o presence in the United States. Ramirez suggests that saying the word “Aztlán” also becomes a basis of commitment toward acknowledging and claiming indigenous concepts as part of the Chicana/o reality (2002, 224-225). However, the point that Ramirez makes is that this “imagined” Chicano nation “served to subjugate, define, and control Chicanas, revealing a contradiction between ideology and praxis” (2002, 225). While nation-imagining implies homogeny, many have been uncritical of the official discourses of a solely Chicano nationalist movement—many except for Chicana feminists. The term “Chicana feminist perspective,” writes Yvonne Yarbro-Bejarano “implies certain similarities with and differences from either an exclusively ‘feminist’ or ‘Chicano’ perspective” (2007, 364). Perspectives on Chicana thought are numerous, and are more so, necessary. Indeed, a Chicana feminist critique is a useful starting point for rethinking citizenship, borderlands and Ethnic Studies away from the binary opposition between “us” and “them,” to questions of difference, power, and knowledge (Aldama and Quiñonez 2002; see also, Moraga and Anzaldúa 1981; Anzaldúa 1987; Alarcón 1997; Trujillo 1998). In my classroom, starting with the Chicana feminist critique in my “Introduction to Chicana/o Studies” courses is as purposeful as it is useful. My very own introduction to Chicana/o Studies was through the lens of Chicana feminism and not through the oft-taught starting point of Chicano nationalism. In the process of challenging existing paradigms, Chicana feminists introduce new
DryHate.docx