Professor Gaspar De Alba introduces the widely anticipated and recognized movement of the CARA exhibition which was meant to represent the underrepresented community of the Chicano peoples. This being a community which was deemed less valuable than traditional, praised anglo-saxon works. But Gaspar De Alba notices that within a community of people that are underrepresented, unvalued, and pushed to the side, there are those within that community that are victims of the same oppressions by the same oppressed group. I began to ponder why a group who has suffered discrimination and oppression would do the same to members of their own group; more specifically, why did the men in the chicano movement dominate over women?
Gaspar De Alba notes that men outnumbered women in almost every genre except one, feminist visions. It seems that somewhere along the lines it was decided that yes women will be a part of the movement, but in their own separate category which wasn't nearly as large as the mural genre. Why was it an insisting idea that women could not contribute, could not produce, and could not have a voice? I wonder if in a group of enlightened chicanos were these men still victims of primitive ideals handed down generation from generation that machismo culture is cardinal law. Could it be that even the most revolutionary members of the chicano movement could fall victim to the idea that machismo was the way of life. I believe the answer would require a further population study; however, a hypothesis could state that yes, these men of the chicano movement, although revolutionary in their ideals for civil rights, still did not dust off all of their inherited prejudices. After all, even Cesar Chavez has been recorded using derogatory terms such as "wetbacks".
But is there truth behind the sexism of chicanos in the CARA exhibit? Perhaps men and women are just good at different things which may be true but in this particular case you have a group of men telling women they can't do things such as paint murals because it's too labor intensive. Something which women stood up and discredited all together as seen by the mujeres muralistas. The CARA exhibit was extremely important in mainstreaming chicano art and culture and all chicanos should be extremely proud of the exhibit, but, it is important to note, that not all parties of the chicano movement were equally exhibited and this is something chicanos everywhere should take into consideration and take action on.
"There's No Place Like Aztlan"
If Azlan is lost to the chicano, then where is home? Many people in my community pride themselves when they speak of their home, whether it be Mexico, Cuba, Peru, people always fondly remember their mother land and hold it dearly to their heart, many haven't returned in years due to their immigration status and many will never return. But to those of us who's only connection to the motherland is through our parents, and the land where we were born and raised forces us into generalized categories claiming we don't truly belong, where is our home?
I believe Gaspar De Alba is suggesting that home really has to do with ourselves and what we create through our experiences. She gave Dorothy for example, who could return home at anytime because she held the key, in this instance her shoes. But also, I think generally people romanticize home as a utopia but fail to address the failures within that society. Perhaps we need to do as Dorothy, perhaps we need to dig deep into ourselves and discover who we truly are and then we can make home right where we are as the leaders of the harlem renaissance did. The idea of home being somewhere else rather than we are is problematic, as stated by Gaspar De Alba, when Mexican americans go "home" to Mexico they are depicted as "gringo wannabes" no longer patriates of their country. The idea of home could simply be a utopian dream meant to keep a person in search of their place of belonging, a sort of existential contrast to, where did we come from?
No comments:
Post a Comment