Abraham Liddell--Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned

Before I delve into my reflection and what I gained from taking this course, I think it is important to preface this discussion with why I decided to take AC 498 to begin with. As an American culture major, I was looking for another class to fulfill one of my requirements. I could take another 496 class or a 498 course. There really weren't that many, but the course on Latina Oral History caught my eye from the beginning. Judging by its course description it appeared to be very much focused on hands-on participation. Not only that, but students would get to learn some new skills. I had done very little archival work on my own time, as most of my own research concerns could be located in books that were readily accessible. As a discipline, oral history was new to me. None of my other history courses covered it and so that fascinated me. Lastly, the history of Latinas interested me, particularly Chicana feminism. The chance to meet such activists in person and learn there stories as part of a project meant to give new perspectives for future research was something too intriguing to pass up. Searching for new perspectives is something of importance to me in my own research and this course enabled me to see many more.

To begin it has been both difficult and stimulating to try and understand the complex narratives that come together to form what is called Chicana Feminism. The reasons for this are myriad. The first of which is that Chicana remains a term not completely applicable to all the women that we interviewed and certainly not to all Latinas. Indeed, Chicana, and the adoption of Chicanismo, is specific to a certain group of female activists who wanted to reclaim and support their own native identities and sexuality. But there are differences among them that complicate and frustrate this narrative. In navigating this course and others, I have come to learn that there are no terms that are universally applicable to entire groups. Chicana? Feminist? Some of the activists that we had the privilege of interviewing would scoff at one or both of them. Indeed, Jane Garcia, whom my partner and I had the pleasure of interviewing, certainly would not identify as being a feminist even if, through her actions and dynamism, some would like to label her as such.

The second reason that Chicana Feminism has been a topic of difficulty for me is because of the term of feminism. What is feminism? Some scholars, some activists, some women will give you different definitions. Indeed, feminism means different things to different people. I will not offer a definition of feminism here as I don’t have one of my own, and I certainly don’t feel comfortable giving more than a regurgitated set of scholarly definitions. I’m not sure if that was the purpose of this course—to complicate whatever understanding of feminism I had prior to taking this class? I do know that feminism is real and it touches everyone. But it’s definition remains elusive. The problem with it, too, is that who can say what feminism is? Who has that power? I like to consider feminism something that is organic; it grows in different ways in response to social stimuli both internally and externally. It’s not static.  I don’t think a single definition would be able to cover all of these changes and it certainly would not include all of the people that consider themselves feminists.

The history of Chicana Feminism itself is quite complex. The diverse narratives and different identities that make up both Chicanas and feminists mark the pages of Chicana Feminist history. A closer look at Chicana Feminism reveals its multiplicity. It resists the dominant narrative that makes up activism and feminism, even my understanding of Chicanismo. In this class, I have again come up against the problem of dealing with the dominant narrative. Too often do we allow our practice of history to take into account only a select few groups, topics, or themes. This glosses over the particular nature of history and reduces it to a set of repetitive facts and trends that are more easily digestible. Looking at history from a magnifying lens, one can see all of the intricate connections that make up the greater narrative. The distinctions that were once invisible at a greater distance suddenly reveal themselves and add another layer of intrigue. You suddenly realize that there are an infinite number of questions and there is much more to be known.

Looking at history from different perspectives produces works like those of Maylei Blackwell and Kimberly Springer. Offering new perspectives or looking at accounts from a unique angle makes for better, more nuanced history. I've learned from this course that history is more than a story of the victors, it is also a story of the favored and those that do the most but only in the fashion that people want things done. That I had never heard of women like Anna Nieto-Gomez was due to both my ignorance of Chicana feminist and also of her being written out of mainstream feminist history. It is through this process of ignoring certain key figures and events that we manufacture an incomplete historical structure—in this case it relates to feminism.

The best example of this that I learned of was the archive. I had previously only given to thought to the ways in which historians focused on certain narratives, but I had never considered how important archives were in the process of doing history. The things that I found most astonishing were the ability of archives to disregard certain materials in favor of others and to only hold on to those considered of value and/or that were popular. Here I was thinking that archivist kept everything by nature of their profession. This was a kind of vicious cycle. How were researchers supposed to do work without a facility in which to find pertinent items? A lack of materials on a certain topic in archives results in a dearth of new and innovative research on that topic. Research interests help drive what material archives keep and maintain.

Moreover, by not acknowledging certain histories or marginalizing them, we label them as unimportant. This course has brought this dilemma to the forefront for me. Solving issues pertaining to sexism and racism require social action, of course, but we need to face the issue of how we historicize as well. Disregarding a group’s past will only teach us to marginalize them in the present. Privileging one narrative over others also teaches us to value on group over another. That is one reason why many feminist activists strove to create departments and courses pertaining to them. History is a way of anchoring yourself in the past and the present. When in search of themselves oppressed groups often look to the past, for it provides both meaning and solidarity.

 In the case of women and feminism, the mainstream narrative was that of white, middle-class feminists with a small smattering of only the most well-known or outspoken black feminists. Where were the Chicanas and other Latinas? The Asians and Native Americans? This teaches us to look at history as being dominated by certain groups with the other narratives only scribbled in the margins, which is why we get disciplines and fields titled Latina history or women’s history. That is not to say that labels and distinctions are not important; however, if we must label and distinguish one history from another then it must be done for all such narratives. If there is a women’s history then so too must there be a men’s history—though I think if that were the case we would quickly realize how ridiculous the idea of arbitrary distinctions is.

I learned one of the best lessons of the course during the interview of Jane Garcia. Jane identified as Chicana but was not a feminist and was also a republican. She was far from conservative. I got the sense from her that this was woman who was used to pushing boundaries. Her marriage with her husband—though she followed traditional cultural marriage norms at some level—was an example of this. I remember her telling a story about the beginning of her marriage when women were initially required to eat standing in the kitchen after cooking. Only the men were allowed at the table. Well, Jane Garcia took a seat at the table, and though the men objected, they eventually got used to it. She also worked when her husband didn't think it was necessary. She snuck in hours as a teacher in order to help pay the bills. Jane hid her checks from her husband until a time of need. Since then, he did not seem to have a problem with her working.

It was hard to believe that his little woman with an infectious laugh and smile could be so dynamic. She had in her possession letters of correspondence from a number of corporations, politicians, and activist groups. That she was somehow able to influence and touch so many people was astounding to me. To me, Jane was something of a watchdog. She looked out for the community that raised her. She was very active, not just for Chicanas and Chicanos, but for anyone facing discrimination or hardship. My amazement was compounded by the fact that she also identifies as a republican. Activism and republicanism are often seen as being on opposite ends on the political and social ideological spectrum, yet there she is, right snug in the middle.

 Jane Garcia is one example of a person who frustrates the idea of what many might think of a Chicana activist. Indeed, she adds a new perspective. While some might consider most republicans of color to be upper-middle class or wealthy, those things don’t adequately describe her. While she may have changed her class status, as she was raised by a single mother, much of her work she does for free. Moreover, she is never away from her community. And because she is so close to her community, I do not see Jane being a part of something that does not benefit them. Hardline political identification can isolate people, and Jane is trying to integrate the problems of the poor and oppressed into the political mainstream. Though she did not say this explicitly during our interview, from her words and actions you see Jane as someone who does not want to assimilate to anything. Rather, she changes things so that they serve the people the best. Perhaps this can explain her work as a republican. Should only the liberal democrats serve the needs of underrepresented groups? If Jane were to answer that question, I think she would say no. Poverty and racial prejudice can really only be solved once everyone is involved in the process of their extinction. There can be no divisions in terms of their eradication. And it was this lesson that stuck with me the most.

Jane Garcia’s added perspective alongside the books and essays that we read really helped me to understand how nuanced history actually is. In order to work as a historian, I need to constantly try and envision the possible narratives that are missing from my own work. Obviously, I won’t be able to account for them all, but the first step is to recognize them. I should be thinking to myself: What’s missing? Rather than just assuming that I’ve covered all that there is to know. Constant reevaluation of our perspective and our own particular biases is a good thing. History, like so many other academic disciplines, is a social and political tool. It influences us even when we think it doesn't  Today’s ripples in the political, social, and economic spheres could have their genesis in the decades preceding this moment. And if they don’t, then they are very likely to be connected to the past in some way. The current social and political climes seem to operate under the notion that we exist now in a time when so much of our history is done. Some pundits and journalists argue that we live in a post-racial society and women have greater access to positions of power. I disagree with the former, but the latter is certainly true. We have a president who identifies as black, a female (before her retirement) secretary of state who is likely going to run for president (with a good chance of success), and an increasing number of minority women obtaining high income jobs. But these are only significant within a historical context. We can only fully appreciate them if we take into account the perspectives of the people that they are a part of and their struggles. Therefore, we should be striving to make better history. Better history has more perspectives.