In Gloria Anzaldúa’s essay “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” the author argues for the ways in which people can be made to feel ashamed of their own tongues. On the contrary, in Richard Rodriguez’s essay “Aria: Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood,” the author stands against bilingual education and affirmative action. Gloria Anzaldúa was born in 1942 in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas. She eventually became a schoolteacher and then an academic. More importantly, Anzaldúa speaks and writes about feminist, lesbian, and Chicano issues. Richard Rodriguez was born in 1944 in San Francisco to Mexican immigrants, and raised in Sacramento, California. He was a literary scholar and teacher until leaving the profession and becoming a full-time essayist. Indeed,
…show more content…
More and more of my day was spent hearing words. But that may only be a way of saying that the day I raised my hand in class and spoke loudly to an entire roomful of faces, my childhood started to end. (Rodriguez 334)
Given these points, we can see that Anzaldúa’s and Rodriguez’s essays are similar in that they both address having an ffect from American culture and accommodation.
However, these essays differ in beliefs about language and public identity. To start with, these essays differ in beliefs about language. Anzaldúa explains that “ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity.” (p.39) In other words, Anzaldúa notes to her readers that language is her identity. It is important in understanding that not only does Anzaldúa mention her ethnic identity but also her linguistic identity as well because the two concepts are interlinked. The language she speaks defines her cultural identity: So if you really want to hurt me, talk badly about my language. Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity — I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself. Until I can accept as legitimate Chicano
Texas Spanish, and all the other languages I speak, I cannot accept the
More and more of my day was spent hearing words. But that may only be a way of saying that the day I raised my hand in class and spoke loudly to an entire roomful of faces, my childhood started to end. (Rodriguez 334)
Given these points, we can see that Anzaldúa’s and Rodriguez’s essays are similar in that they both address having an ffect from American culture and accommodation.
However, these essays differ in beliefs about language and public identity. To start with, these essays differ in beliefs about language. Anzaldúa explains that “ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity.” (p.39) In other words, Anzaldúa notes to her readers that language is her identity. It is important in understanding that not only does Anzaldúa mention her ethnic identity but also her linguistic identity as well because the two concepts are interlinked. The language she speaks defines her cultural identity: So if you really want to hurt me, talk badly about my language. Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity — I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself. Until I can accept as legitimate Chicano
Texas Spanish, and all the other languages I speak, I cannot accept the