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.
142 AMERICAN POLITICAL POETRY<br />
He claims to “descend / <strong>in</strong>to dangerous abysses of <strong>the</strong> future” and<br />
sounds desperate when he says, “I want to believe / whatever problems<br />
we have, time will take / its course, <strong>the</strong>y’ll be endured and consumed.”<br />
Unlike his uncle, <strong>the</strong> speaker lacks faith. The poem concludes<br />
with him imag<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g follow<strong>in</strong>g his dead uncle <strong>in</strong>to a church, watch<strong>in</strong>g<br />
him “kneel before La Virgen De Guadalupe, / bloody lips mov<strong>in</strong>g<br />
slightly.” While <strong>the</strong> uncle’s “great gray head [is] poised <strong>in</strong> listen<strong>in</strong>g,”<br />
<strong>the</strong> speaker concludes “consider<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> words faith, prayer and<br />
forgiveness, / wish<strong>in</strong>g, like you, I could believe <strong>the</strong>m.” The speaker<br />
thus expresses his lack of faith <strong>in</strong> <strong>poetry</strong>, <strong>in</strong> community-based action<br />
(as prayer can be ei<strong>the</strong>r communal or private), and <strong>in</strong> human goodness.<br />
Whereas Pérez-Torres claims that <strong>the</strong> poem has an ambiguous<br />
end<strong>in</strong>g (Movements 83), I see a clear conclusion but an ambiguous<br />
future for <strong>the</strong> speaker. There is, I th<strong>in</strong>k, a glimmer of hope left due to<br />
his belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> power of language. In <strong>the</strong> poem, language is capable<br />
of jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g generations even as it simultaneously highlights <strong>the</strong> rift<br />
between generations. At <strong>the</strong> conclusion, <strong>the</strong> speaker-poet affirms <strong>the</strong><br />
power of <strong>the</strong> word—“a prayer on my lips bridges years of disaster<br />
between us”—and thus affirms <strong>the</strong> potential poetic agency of <strong>the</strong><br />
migrant’s language.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> model for community activism and <strong>the</strong> roles of <strong>poetry</strong> have<br />
changed from Uncle Baca to J.S. Baca, it may be due partly to a<br />
change <strong>in</strong> what Pérez-Torres calls <strong>the</strong> “process of affirmation.” This<br />
process, he writes, occurs on a personal level <strong>in</strong> Baca’s <strong>poetry</strong> whereas<br />
much Chicano Movement <strong>poetry</strong> was driven by a “desire to organize<br />
a community for <strong>political</strong> action,” which is <strong>in</strong> some ways similar to<br />
Black Arts Movement <strong>poetry</strong>. In contrast, Baca’s is not protest <strong>poetry</strong><br />
or organiz<strong>in</strong>g tool; as Pérez-Torres po<strong>in</strong>ts out, it is more complex,<br />
and it “represents a retreat from mass <strong>political</strong> movement, a reflection<br />
of <strong>the</strong> <strong>political</strong> situation dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Age of Reagan” (Movements<br />
11–12, 47). The poem is thus elegy to <strong>the</strong> tactics of <strong>the</strong> Chicano<br />
Movement and testimony to a more fragmented <strong>political</strong> reality; as<br />
such, its skeptical, fractured voice reflects this uncerta<strong>in</strong>, but none<strong>the</strong>less<br />
palpable, agency.<br />
The gap between Baca’s and his uncle’s poetics represents a<br />
dilemma for poems of migratory agency and it also represents one<br />
between notions of <strong>the</strong> poet’s role <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> and North America. The<br />
Lat<strong>in</strong> American testimonio tradition helps elucidate this divide. John<br />
Beverley def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> testimonio as a story “told <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first person by<br />
a narrator who is also a real protagonist or witness of <strong>the</strong> event he or<br />
she recounts, and whose unit of narration” is “a significant life experience”<br />
(24). A testimonio, <strong>the</strong>n, is a “narrative of real historical actors”