american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
128 AMERICAN POLITICAL POETRY<br />
Villanueva’s seamless use of both languages symbolically redeems <strong>the</strong><br />
“private suffer<strong>in</strong>g” (55) <strong>the</strong>y endure <strong>in</strong> this state of physical, economic,<br />
and l<strong>in</strong>guistic limbo. He immediately frames <strong>the</strong> poem <strong>in</strong> a state<br />
between languages—images of community are <strong>in</strong> Spanish whereas<br />
courtroom legalisms are <strong>in</strong> English. The first <strong>in</strong>stance of this dualism is<br />
an English epigraph from <strong>the</strong> unjust, predatory courtroom of midn<strong>in</strong>eteenth-<strong>century</strong><br />
California. It appears, as is customary, between <strong>the</strong><br />
title and <strong>the</strong> first l<strong>in</strong>e of <strong>the</strong> poem, which is also “Nuestros abuelos,”<br />
and is attributed to “The Honorable Don Pedro de la Guerra,” a<br />
California senator, lawyer, and judge of Spanish descent.<br />
The epigraph and its footnote are key to understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> poem’s<br />
suggestive framework. 8 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> footnote below <strong>the</strong> poem,<br />
Guerra’s speech was orig<strong>in</strong>ally delivered <strong>in</strong> court on April 26, 1856,<br />
“<strong>in</strong> opposition to <strong>the</strong> ‘law to settle land titles <strong>in</strong> California’ ” that was<br />
“approved by <strong>the</strong> legislature” that year. The epigraph and footnote<br />
suggest to readers that <strong>the</strong> poem will be directly oppositional as well,<br />
but <strong>the</strong>y soon learn o<strong>the</strong>rwise. The italicized epigraph beg<strong>in</strong>s with <strong>the</strong><br />
seem<strong>in</strong>gly rhetorical question, “Who are <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs?,” which Guerra<br />
answers <strong>in</strong>stantly and unambiguously. The pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case, which<br />
gave Chicana/o lands to white settlers, were <strong>the</strong> “conquered who are<br />
humbled before <strong>the</strong> conqueror ask<strong>in</strong>g for his protection, while enjoy<strong>in</strong>g<br />
what little <strong>the</strong>ir misfortune has left <strong>the</strong>m.” The pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs, moreover,<br />
were unable to comprehend <strong>the</strong> “prevalent language” (English) of<br />
“<strong>the</strong>ir native soil,” which makes <strong>the</strong>m “strangers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own land.”<br />
Here Villanueva (and Guerra) portrays <strong>the</strong> migrant’s (not immigrant’s)<br />
lament depicted by Islas, Baca, and McKenna. In choos<strong>in</strong>g<br />
this epigraph, Villanueva uses <strong>the</strong> terms of colonial conquest, terms<br />
that highlight <strong>the</strong> dislocation of Chicanas/os and <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>ability to<br />
resist it due to a lack of speak<strong>in</strong>g skills <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> conqueror’s language. As<br />
such, <strong>the</strong>y have been rendered childlike and obsequious and, most<br />
disastrously, silent. They have not been driven off of <strong>the</strong>ir own land to<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r lands, but made <strong>in</strong>ferior on <strong>the</strong>ir own lands to “<strong>the</strong>ir<br />
conquerors,” which is colonization at its worst.<br />
The epigraph appears between <strong>the</strong> repeated “Nuestros abuelos”<br />
and is huge and forbidd<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>the</strong>m. The epigraph and<br />
footnote comb<strong>in</strong>e for parts of eleven l<strong>in</strong>es; <strong>the</strong> poem itself has sixteen<br />
l<strong>in</strong>es. Chicanas/os’ ancestors are both figuratively and literally made<br />
small <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> U.S. courts. However, “nuestros abuelos”—represented<br />
<strong>in</strong> Spanish—suggests that identity, family, and heritage are <strong>the</strong><br />
prov<strong>in</strong>ce of Spanish-speak<strong>in</strong>g roots, not Anglo North American ones.<br />
These two words imply that <strong>the</strong> poem’s speaker considers himself a<br />
product of a collective heritage of Chicanas/os, not of our heritage,