Paragraph Summary

1. After the Chinese moved to America, many U.S. citizens thought that the Chinese were taking all of their jobs so they did everything they could to make the Chinese seem undesirable.
2. Now, the stereotype is that Chinese people too hard-working and have no charm or personal skills
3. TV producers often capitalize on Chinese stereotypes to increase viewership
4. In Crazy Rich Asians, a Chinese family is depicted as only caring about their image and materialistic things.
5. When depicting Singapore, the director of Crazy Rich Asians portrays the country as an orientalist fantasy to appeal to “Old Hollywood”
6. The movie also reinforces the stereotype that Asians and Americans have different values.
7. The author brought up a personal anecdote about when his friends made fun of him for the food he ate
8. Even though Asians have been in the US for nearly two centuries, they are still treated as foreigners and often are misrepresented in the media
9. Fresh Off the Boat was meant to be a show that would finally represent Asian Americans but in order to make the show relatable to white people, the producers capitalized off of the stereotypes that many Asians hope the show would clear up
10. The author of the book that this show was based on said that the show was entertaining but not authentic to his experiences
11. Fresh Off the Boat actually reinforced many of the stereotypes that Asian Americans were hoping would be dispelled
12. Some try to argue that the TV show is a huge step in the right direction but in the author’s point of view an inaccurate depiction of Asian Americans is not a good thing
13. It is an injustice that the entertainment industry uses comedy to avoid important issues regarding the lives of many Asian Americans

Summary of the Essay

Author Tristen Chau argues that Asian-Americans have been misrepresented and stereotyped in the US ever since they first arrived, especially through the entertainment industry in the most recent years. When the Chinese first moved to America, they were looked at as a threat to white people’s jobs and culture. To combat this, the US set up systems that made it much harder for Chinese people to assimilate. The effects of these systems that were set up nearly 150 years ago have even impacted the lives of Asian Americans today. In the entertainment industry, we are trying to move closer towards a more equal representation between all races, but so far, there are still many shortcomings. TV producers often try to capitalize on Chinese stereotypes to increase their viewership. For example, in Crazy Rich Asians, many of the stereotypes that Asian Americans were hoping would be dispelled were actually highlighted throughout the film. And in the TV show Fresh Off The Boat, the same thing happened, the producers highlighted Asian stereotypes in order to make more money. Movies and TV shows like the ones mentioned here aren’t helping to solve the problem of Asian Americans seeming like foreigners; they’re taking advantage of it which reinforces the misleading stereotypes that are so prominent in America already.

Analysis of Chau’s Piece Through the Lens of Organization

To set up his argument, Chau starts by giving the reader some historical context to explain why Asian Americans are often stereotyped and seen as foreign to other cultures in the United States. He explains how certain policies were created by the government with the intent to limit Chinese immigrants’ opportunity and also talks about the effects that this had on how people perceived Asian Americans in the future. After giving us some context, Chau dives into the topic of Asian Americans and the entertainment industry. Chau argues that many TV producers intend to capitalize off of the stereotypes that center around Asian Americans rather than to correct them; clearly, they are in for the profit instead of the authenticity in Chau’s eyes. He then goes on to looks at some examples: Crazy Rich Asians and Fresh Off the Boat. When looking at Crazy Rich Asians, Chau points out some specific examples to support his argument that TV producers are capitalizing on stereotypes instead of dispelling them. Chau later interrupts the example of the movie to bring up a personal anecdote about how his friends made fun of the food he ate. He then goes on to discuss how the TV show Fresh Off the Boat was a major disappointment for many Asian Americans. Chau said he had hoped that this show would finally bring an authentic perspective to the entertainment industry, but it once again did the same thing as Crazy Rich Asians: reinforce old stereotypes. Near the end of his essay, Chau tries to discredit some counterarguments of the points that he made earlier. He ends his essay by claiming that the entertainment industry is doing Asian Americans and injustice by reinforcing stereotypes and disregarding authenticity.

An individual’s cultural and social identity is heavily impacted by the languages they speak. Language is the means of communication that upholds communities. The group of people you can communicate with is who you will identify with. A language is a survival tool. Language facilitates communal relationships through understanding. The people you form connections with are the people you can speak with. These relationships are based solely on the method of communication: a mutual language. In “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” Gloria Anzaldúa writes, “Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity—I am my language.” (Anzaldua 74). Anzaldua can identify with multiple communities because she speaks an abundance of languages. Speaking English gives her the power to connect with other English speakers and identify as an American. As a Chicano Spanish speaker, she identifies as a Chicana. When Anzaldua says “I am my language” she means that both literary and figuratively. Literally, the languages she speaks helps her fit in and grow her identity. Figuratively, she takes immense pride in her main language, Chicano Spanish. Chicano Spanish is the result of the absorption of English into Spanish. Precisely like Anzaldua herself, a Mexicana growing up in the United States. The blending of the two cultures and languages defines Anzaldua. She’s both Mexican and American. A mixture. My linguistic identity is as complex as Anzaldua. I was born and raised in the United States. However, my parents are proud Pakistani immigrants. Adamant of keeping Pakistani culture and language alive in their children. When asked what my first language is, I am dumbfounded. I don’t have a “first” language because I did not learn one language before the other. I was taught three languages simultaneously. In school I would learn English, at home I picked up Punjabi and Urdu. An assorted blend of Farsi, Hindi, and Arabic; my father often called Urdu aman ke zuban, the language of peace. Being multilingual, my father often joked that getting into an argument in Urdu is the worst because the language is full of manners. 

If everyone tried to tame Urdu in America, people tamed Punjabi equally as much in Pakistan. In the US English is the “proper” language. In Pakistan, Urdu is the “proper” language. People have developed a prejudice against Punjabi as a “rural” and “outdated” language. Yet, I love speaking Punjabi and find that out of all the languages I speak it is the most expressive. This is because Punjabi is “A language which…[I] can connect… [my] identity to, one capable of communicating the realities and values true to [myself]…” (Anzaldua 74). Language is about identity. When you can communicate with people you begin to form communal bonds with them. My identity is built by the languages I speak. As an Urdu speaker, I associate myself as a Pakistani. As a Punjabi speaker, I associate myself as a Pakistani Punjabi. As an American English speaker, I identify as a Pakistani Punjabi American. The diverse languages I speak help me connect with different people. This helps me understand my identity.  

However, the concept of language is not definitive. Languages are flexible and depend on the speaker and the audience. A younger speaker will have a colloquial vocabulary. Whereas, elders speak with more formality. One such example is the usage of formal pronouns as a sign of respect. For instance, in Spanish, the pronoun “usted” is used to address someone older in age or of a higher social rank. Similarly, in Urdu, the pronoun “ap” is used. I learned Urdu from my parents and due to their desire of raising respectful children, my mother would always tell us that “respect will be reciprocated”. So, always use formal pronouns. My mother always addressed my sister and me with “Ap” as well. Adults loved this, always complimenting us with our manners. But that wasn’t the language Urdu speakers our age spoke. Amongst each other children used the informal pronoun “tum”. Using the formal pronoun made me stand out amongst the children. To become a Pakistani child, I had to speak their language. I had to speak informal Urdu. I had to become their language. However, that meant I had to cross the moral threshold my parent had set up. I had to destroy the adaab in the language. Was I going to destroy the grace of its adaab to play a game of hide and seek? No, I was not. I am my language, and I will not change for temporary acceptance.  

When I hear the phrase “I am my language”, I think it resonates with me heavily. Anzaldúa constantly stresses the importance of the ties between language and identity throughout her piece, but I believe this line in particular hits the nail on the head in a very poetic way. I believe it talks about how language and identity are intertwined and cannot be separated, while also alluding to how the “linguistic terrorism” the author refers to, essentially strips an individual of their identity overall when they are stripped of their language, meaning they are no longer “themselves”, but in fact taking on a completely new identity based on language.

Personally I can relate to this. I grew up in the Bronx, NY, where most Latinx and non-Latinx black people speak AAVE. To us, it doesn’t really feel like a different language, and most folks don’t even recognize it as a dialect; not because they think it’s illegitimate, but because they just see it as English. They don’t have a special name for it. It’s just regular English to them.

However, my mom made sure I knew the difference, and while she did recognize it as a legitimate dialect, she did not believe it was appropriate to use in a professional/academic environment, so I was “forbidden” from using it in school and around her; she wanted “academic English” to be my default. Of course she couldn’t stop me from using it in school but I’m still not allowed to speak like that around her. This difference in language caused me to have a huge identity crisis that lasted most of my life, so I resonate heavily with this quote. I think language does play a huge role in your identity, and sometimes that “linguistic terrorism” starts at home, which is why so many POC children grow up having to sacrifice some part of their identity at some point.

(break)

“I’m the one I should love in this world.” – Kim Seokjin, BTS

I chose this phrase in particular because while there are tons of phrases and aspects of language that bring me joy, including my own “New York accent” as I’ve been told (or in all honesty, the regional-unique[?] AAVE I tend to use), I think the linguistic aspect of this one is super interesting and something definitely worth discussing.

Kim Seokjin is a South Korean singer in the South Korean boyband known as BTS.  I’m sure most folks have heard that name at least once, especially considering their recent spike in popularity amongst the general public (or to be more specific, the populus that doesn’t already listen to k-pop). Most folks who don’t speak Korean wouldn’t really spare a glance in the direction of k-pop simply because they’re not interested in music they cannot understand (which is valid to an extent in my humble opinion). However, as you all may know, not all k-pop listeners (also known as “stans”, meaning stalker fan, which comes from Eminem’s song “Stan”) are Korean and/or speak Korean.

The phrase come from Kim Seokjin’s solo song, “Epiphany”, from the group’s album “Love Yourself: Answer”. The title is pretty self-explanatory, explaining that the singer has an “epiphany”, where he realizes he should love himself. However, one of the most interesting aspects of this song (and k-pop overall) is the language barrier. Despite not every single one of their fans being fluent in Korean (or English, seeing that the line is sung in English), all of their fans were able to receive, understand, and digest this message. In the passage we read in class, “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”, the author talks about how important language is to cultural identity and how it’s not something that can be easily stripped. Language means everything to us, especially when you’re a part of a marginalized group. So to have a South Korean boy group be able to convey the universal message of the importance of self-love without having to sacrifice their identity as East Asian men, is honestly incredible to see. Humanity seems to be so obsessed with the idea of assimilation and being “one in the same” that we are willing to sacrifice centuries of culturally significant languages, practices, garments, etc. all in the sake of fulfilling their “one race: human” fantasies.

The phrase, “I am my language,” speaks volumes about what makes us all different and how language exposes our many cultures and identities. Language gives us a sense of connection and understanding with others. Not only do our languages define us, but in language there are dialects spoken in different countries or different regions of a country. In particular, our dialects are one of many ways that make us feel part of a community. In “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” Gloria Anzaldua expressed all languages and dialects she speaks. She mostly speaks about her relationship with Chicano Spanish. In the beginning of the passage, I felt a connection with her when she explained the situation between her and the teacher. The teacher said, “If you want to be American, speak ‘American.’ If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong” (69). Although I speak English in class, my family and I only speak Spanish. There have been occasions where we have been told to speak English because we are in “America.” I personally believe the United States of America is the land for all languages and for all to be free. There are many languages and dialects spoken in the United States. The “typical Americans” need to accept that we should all be able to embrace our cultures. 

I would consider myself a person who prioritizes my family and puts their needs before mine. My family is very close and we share a strong bond. I am not just talking about my parents and my sister. I am taking about uncles, aunts, cousins, and second cousins. Being that they are all from Medellin, Colombia, they speak in a specific accent and dialect. The people of Medellin are known as “paisas.” The word paisa brings me joy because it represents the connection I feel with my family. The sayings, the jokes, the pronunciation, etc. We understand each other in a way that no one else will. This goes back to how your own specific language, shared with others, can result in a strong relationship. Although Anzaldua only speaks about how we are our language, there are many other ways we can feel a connection with others. People might share similar hobbies, similar jobs, the same race, etc. Some of my friends and I get along well because we share similar hobbies. We all enjoy fitness and talking about our nutrition. I feel a connection with them because I know I can always come to them when I have a question, or a concern about exercising correctly. Building relationships and connections with others is a very beautiful thing and brings joy into our lives. We should all feel comfortable to share a connection with others and not be criticized for it. 

Gloria Anzaldua writes about how language is tied to one’s identity and culture in “How to Tame a Wild Tongue.” The language someone speaks means more than just words coming off their tongue, rather they can show a lot about someones’ culture and traditions. Anzaluda writes about her struggles as well as benefits in speaking her foreign language, Chicano Spanish. As we have seen, living in America and not speaking white english is already a challenge on its own, so we can only imagine how hard it is for Anzaldua. Yet it gets even worse for example when she writes “Chicano Spanish is considered by the purest and by most Latinos deficient, a mutilation of Spanish.” This line came to show us that Chicano speakers were also hated by their own people, separating their culture even more from others. This separation causes the Chicanos to remain closer together and build a stronger and bigger cultural bond that originates from their language. 

After reading Anzalduas writing whenever I hear or see the phrase “I am my language” I feel as though I understand it on a different level. To be your own language is to carry its culture with all of its positive and negative aspects. When Anzalduas writes about going to the drive in movies, to watch mexican films with her family it reminded me of my own culture. As part of my Jewish community, every holiday my family would gather together for a big dinner laughing, reading jewish books, and embracing our culture as proudly as ever. Reading about how Anzalduas shares that special bond of language and culture with her family warmed my heart and flooded me with my own memories of my culture and language. One word that I have many memories around is the phrase “shabbat shalom.”

Shabbat shalom is the Jewish phrase used in order to wish a good sabbath to one another on Saturdays. The word shalom in hebrew actually carries two meanings, one being a form of a greeting, and the second meaning peace. So when saying shabbat shalom you are both greeting and wishing peace to whoever you are conversing with. This line personally means alot to me, because it reminds me of being able to sit down with my whole family, and have a nice meal while enjoying each other’s presence. Additionally, we do not use cell phones or electronics giving everyone an opportunity to socialize and talk on a deeper, more personal level. Although the menu for the sabbath meal is different for everyone, we tend to embrace our Syrian culture and have many Middle Eastern foods and desserts. When with extended family, each family will make their own dish leading to a very flavorful and cultured meal. While it might seem that the sabbath can only be celebrated by Jews, it can be appreciated and kept by all. In the end of the day it is just a day of rest that can be used to bond and grow with loved ones. Every family in the world can create their own version of a sabbath enjoying each other’s conversation and appreciating their own cultures and languages, whether it’s Chicano, English, or anything in between. 

I’m a southerner – I like country music, football games, grilled brisket, and big rodeos – but that’s not what defines me. Even though these are things I appreciate about my home state of Texas, country isn’t my favorite kind of music, I don’t only like football, there are plenty of other foods I like more than brisket, and I’ve only ever been to a few rodeos in my life. If you asked what some of my favorite things are, none of these southern stereotypes would be a part of my answer. I may identify as a southerner at heart, but this is by no means the entirety of my identity.

Pretty much anyone in the world knows that Texans talk funny. Many of us have very strong accents and unique sayings that may be hard for an outsider to understand. “I’m fixin’ to go to the store,” really means I’m about to go to the store. “Howdy,” just means hello. It’s not a sprite, pepsi, soda, or pop – we just call it a coke. “This ain’t my first rodeo,” means we know what we’re doing. It’s not “I guess we can go to the movies,” it’s “I reckon we can go to the movies.”

All of these phrases bring a sense of comfort to me. It’s what I grew up hearing from my family. “In Texas, we have a little thing called southern hospitality.” This is something Texans love to bring up anytime they are compared to a northern place like New York City. This southern hospitality is centered around politeness, good home cooking, helpfulness, charm, and charity. This is something I witness on a day to day basis. When the neighbor is trying to fix his boat, you better expect we – along with plenty of other neighbors – will go over to see “what’s goin’ on.” If you’re in Texas and you don’t open the door for a lady, you better expect to get some eyes glancing in your direction from any bystanders. These are just a few fundamental parts of this “southern hospitality” that we southerners are so proud of. When I hear southern phrases like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph, I feel a sense of charm that just makes me feel at home.

Of all the words and phrases that are unique to Texans, one stands out above all the rest: “y’all.” It’s simply a combination of the words, you all. In the 1500s the word “thou” was still used as “you,” and “ye” was the plural version of that. In some Scottish dialects, they would say “ye all,” instead of “ye.” As many of the Scottish people immigrated to Texas, they brought that saying with them. This eventually morphed into the word, y’all. Basically, y’all is just a plural version of you. I believe that southern hospitality might have even had a part in the formation of this word. Because southern hospitality focuses so much on the importance of community and inclusivity, I believe that “y’all” became so prominent due to the fact that Texans have a tendency to want to include others. In fact, I think it is a word that should be accepted by all Americans. “Y’all” would be a great addition to everyone’s vocabulary, because there is just no other word like it that can be used to include others.

In How to Tame a Wild Tongue, Gloria Anzaldua says “Chicano Spanish sprang out of the Chicanos’ need to identify ourselves as a distinct people.” While many of the words and phrases that we Texans use maybe not have emerged from necessity, they did help us identify ourselves as a distinct people. Southerners are known to be some of the most courteous people, and much of that is reflected in the language we use to this day. If you ever come down to Texas, you can see just how southern hospitality is reflected all throughout our language.

Gloria Anzaldua’s piece “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” describes cultural aggression and is very heavy handed in doing so.  Though it is a very important (and relevant) topic and there is much to be said about it in the United States, I thought a different angle to this would be to address the point about people finding unity in language.  My example is sports fans.  They can find “their people” based on the jargon used.

There have been words and phrases appropriated outside of sports. “Armchair quarterback” and  “backseat driver” are not necessarily the same, but at times the former is more appropriate.  People who have a lot of driving experience have definitely experienced a passenger trying to micromanage their driving to no end.  The occurrence is so common that it has entered our mainstream English vocabulary.  “Armchair quarterback” refers to a person that is obviously not playing in the football game, talking about what the players should be doing.  The implication is that the “football critic” is ridiculous because they don’t have the knowledge or ability to properly criticize the team.  This can be quite applicable to work situations.  Obviously, gossiping is a bad work practice but that is a common situation and has similarly entered mainstream vocabulary.

The meanings behind phrases such as “Slam Diego” (team moniker) or “hesi pull-up jimbo” (a memetic joke) could be figured out by a casual fan, but they are very incomplete without context.  To an outsider, it would be very difficult to describe the reason behind why some of these events are notable and probably seems idiotic to sports haters.  However, say one of these phrases to anyone “in the know” and nothing more needs to be said.  While this example is not on such a serious level as what Anzaldua wrote about, it is interesting that it will take me more than 200 words to describe “Slam Diego” to an outsider when that information could be conveyed in much less to even a casual fan.

“Slam Diego” refers to a baseball game in 2020 where a player for the San Diego Padres team hit a grand slam (best possible hit), in a lopsided game.  The opposing Texas Rangers were (unjustifiably) upset about the score being run up and tried to start a fight, which ended with suspensions and the manager complaining in the interview after the game.  This sparked a widespread condemnation throughout the baseball community for those actions and a discussion about “unwritten” rules of the game.  In an objectively strategic perspective, the game of baseball has no mechanism to stall out the game to end it.  You can’t run out a clock if the score is lopsided like most other sports where it’s done with a sense of respect for the opponents’ dignity.  Though very rare, there have been very large documented comebacks in baseball history.  Therefore, if the losing team isn’t giving up, then why should the winning team stop scoring?  That train of logic put the debate to rest.  The San Diego Padres continued to hit grand slams game after game in a cosmically comedic fashion (the occurrence of these grand slams was so rare that they did multiple feats that never happened in 100+ years).  Thus, fans gave the moniker to the team to commemorate what happened.

“With Chicanas from Nuevo México or Arizona I will speak Chicano Spanish a little, but often they don’t understand what I’m saying. With most California Chicanas I speak entirely in English (unless I forget). When I first moved to San Francisco, I’d rattle off something in Spanish, unintentionally embarrassing them. Often it is only with another Chicana tejana that I can talk freely.” (Anzaldua, pg. 71)

The selected quote describes how free Anzaldua feels when speaking with different sets of people.  Upon reflecting on the first and second set of phrases, there are various barriers when it comes to decoding slang.  For sports fans, you have some different groups with some overlaps: non-fluent speakers, non-native speakers, non-fans, casual fans, and ultra fans.  Through this exercise, it becomes apparent that for speakers of dialects of a language like Spanish will have several regional and class divisions.  Through the sharing of language, everyone learns and time will tell if these words and phrases become generally recognized and accepted.  To relate to Anzaldua, this is not only restricted to a dialect but can extend beyond regions and even to very small groups such as friends of family.

When I hear the phrase “I am my language”, I instantly make a mental relation between myself and my religion/ culture rather than my language. Language is simply an extension of said religion/ culture. The quote “I am my language” refers to how the writer or “I” is close with his/her own religion/ culture. Now, as far as my history as a language user goes, the quote: “If you want to be American, speak ‘American.’ If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong.” (69 Anzaldúa) is very relatable. Seeing as language is just an extension of religion, this quote describes (almost perfectly) my experience with language. I am Jewish and speak Hebrew. Although I am not the most proficient in the language, regardless, I speak it. Whether we like it or not, racism is a very common thing all across the globe. As a jew, I have been condemned for speaking my second language. Antisemitism is a relatively common thing today and I relate to the quote above as it summarizes what the main objective of racism (in this case Antisemitism) is… Being different or culturally diverse makes you stand out, people who do not agree with your beliefs will try to condemn you for said beliefs. It is disgusting that people all over the world (including myself) have to deal with other people forcing their ideologies on us. I wish to live in a world without hatred, or racism… a world where we can all simply live in peace and love each other and respect each other’s values. For so long we have all hated on one another and have not respected each other’s “languages” or in other words cultures. We all come from different backgrounds, have all been raised differently, but at the end of the day that should not matter. We are all human beings with feelings and emotions; just because one person is different from another should not give anyone a valid reason to make fun of, humiliate, or bully an individual.

One phrase that I relate close to that outsiders may not understand is “0-60”. This phrase relates to the amount of time it takes for a car to reach 60 mph from 0. I love cars and although I am a safe driver on the road, I enjoy “going fast” (with caution). I really enjoy driving and go out for a drive roughly every day. It is a way for me to clear my mind and enjoy myself simultaneously. I normally drive with all of the windows down and roof open, while playing my favorite songs through the speakers. This helps me unwind and enjoy myself. The phrase “0-60” helps me relate to many others as I have many friends who also love cars… we converse about the topic regularly. Overall, I love the topic of cars and the technological advancements that have led to the creation of such wonderful machines today. I relate to the term “0-60” as it reminds me of my love for the topic of cars.

I’m not my language, it belongs to me. Language is not the representation of my identity, it’s part of it that has been molded by many of my other traits. There are contrasts and differences between Anzaldúa’s perspectives of language and mine, and I can see the reasons behind it from the story she narrates in her text “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”. Anzaldúa believes that language is the living image of her identity, this is clearly because of the life-long struggle she has encountered around her use of Chicano Spanish and her accent. I consider that language is not the reflection of who I am but rather only a part of it that has been shaped by my experience with its use and other characteristics that define my personality; although I’ve never personally encountered any major form of objection or resistance to my free use of any of my both languages (Spanish and English) or my accent. Worth clarifying that I carry great pride in being bilingual and my accent – which I consider to be my personal signature while speaking. By this sense, if anyone ever tried to “tame my wild tongue” it was me, who once taught that my best bet was slowly trowing Spanish in the recycling bin of my brain to give English “more space”. Gradually, I encountered how foolish that idea was as well as realizing that to “erase” Spanish I would indeed have to erase part of who I am. 

My tongue is unique in my persona because no one else speaks the way I do, not even those who speak the same English and Spanish. In her text, Anzaldúa said “A veces no soy nada ni nadie. Pero hasta cuando no lo soy, lo soy” (“Sometimes I’m nothing nor no one. But even when I’m not, I am”). By referring to herself as “nothing” and “no one” she means that her ways of speaking cannot be categorized, but even when she and her way of communicating are unable to labeled – as in this society where apparently everything requires labeling – she is her very own label, in which she can belong and talk freely; this is the perfect depiction of how I feel about language. I would rather mix up and play with Spanish and English – on their own or together, hence, Spanglish- than just having to stick to one of them and follow formalities; with the exception of academic use. I constantly fool around making clever combinations and associations of words. One example of how I have personalized my use of language is the Spanglish word ”inchas”. The Spanish translation of the word “inches” is “pulgadas”, but in an occasion, I started to say “inchas” instead, it was funny because in Spanish we rarely use inches as a measurement so people are little familiarized with the Spanish word for it, so in no time everyone was using the word “inchas” when talking about any measurements, I consider it a success. With my bilingual friends, we often say words in Spanish that are derived from English like “wachear” (from watching), “petear” (from petting), and many others, we also complete our sentences with English if we can’t remember the Spanish word for it and vice-versa. Anzaldúa makes mention of this, “We use anglicisms, words borrowed from English”, however, I don’t feel we are borrowing nothing from nowhere, we are using the languages that belong to us in our own way. It is not pressure to use English that causes us to create these words, but rather domain and usability, demonstrating we own our tongues.