Take the Tortillas Out of Your Poetry

Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | Adult | Published in 1995

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

Censorship and Liberation

The main theme of “Take the Tortillas Out of Your Poetry” is the antithetical relationship between censorship and liberation. This essay was written at a time when censorship and book banning was in the headlines. Author Salman Rushdie received death threats due to the publication of his novel Satanic Verses (1988). Furthermore, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), under pressure from right-wing interest groups, began adding restrictions to their grantees’ projects in the late 1980s, thereby hindering free speech. Anaya’s essay responds to this trend and argues that marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted. In regard to the NEA debacle, Anaya writes, “The censors assumed the right to keep these creative works away from all of us. Censors, I have concluded, are afraid of our liberation” (72). Since the author views literature as a road to liberation, he views censorship as the greatest obstacle to that liberation.

Indeed, Anaya decries different types of censorship, each a form of marginalization. First, there is self-censorship, in which people silence aspects of their culture to better fit into mainstream society. For example, his friend refuses to submit bilingual works to the NEA even though his English-only works are not his best. Anaya writes:

I was dismayed by my friend’s conclusion. How he coped with the problem has tremendous cultural implications. It has implications that we may call self-imposed censorship. My friend was censoring his creativity in order to fit the imposed criteria (68).

Other forms of censorship include book burning, which Anaya experienced first-hand; and more veiled censorship, like when publishers ask Chicano writers to minimize their works’ distinctive cultural elements.

Anaya criticizes censorship because he views reading, and the access to diverse voices, as an opportunity to better understand the world. This understanding is a sort of liberation for the reader and the creator: “Art is a very human endeavor, and it contains within its process and the objects it produces a road to liberation. The liberation is significant not only to the individual artist, it is a revelation for the community” (72-73). By expressing themselves in their authentic voice, authors can open readers’ minds and combat prejudice.

Language as a Part of Identity

Chicanos often have a complex relationship with language. Many speak English and Spanish at native levels. Others might be more proficient in one than the other. Still others code-switch between the two with relative ease. For those who identify deeply with their Indigenous heritage, both English and Spanish might be languages imposed on them by colonizers. In short, no one language is a marker of Chicano identity.

While this fluidity characterizes Chicano literature, the cultural-linguistic dynamism can also deter insular, purely anglophone publishers and board members: “A number of poets who use Spanish and English in their poetry applied but did not receive fellowships; they were so discouraged they did not reapply” (68). Anaya thinks that, rather than Chicano writers having to resolve this problem, others should be more open—hence his dismay when his friend conceded to submit only English poetry for grant applications. Part of the beauty of Chicano culture comes from its rich linguistic variance, which allows for bilingual jokes and word play. Anaya laments that his friend “took out his native language, the poetic patois of our reality, the rich mixture of Spanish, English, pachuco, and street talk that we know so well” (69). Anaya argues that to truly express oneself, one must be able to employ their authentic language.

Anaya’s concern is that historically marginalized groups are discouraged from exploring their relationship with language because English is imposed on them from a young age and used as a tool of oppression. This was true of Mexican Americans who were punished for speaking Spanish at school, and this imposition continues into adulthood:

The threat to keep us subservient did not abate. The English-Only moment continued the old censorship we had felt on the school playgrounds, but now the game had moved into the state legislatures. This threat continues to be used against our language, art, and literature (72).

Prohibited from fully expressing themselves, Chicano writers cannot put forth their best work. Anaya encourages them to preserve their authentic voices to reflect their identity, pushing for American society to embrace its multicultural reality.

Literature as Nourishment

Another theme is the idea that literature is a spiritual sustenance. As the essay title indicates, the idea of sustenance plays an important role in the text: Tortillas symbolize distinctively Chicano cultural elements. Therefore, when he reflects on how his poet friend decided to produce purely English poetry to pacify grant panels, Anaya says that “he took the tortillas out of his poetry, which is to say he took the soul out of his poetry” (69). Because the friend is removing the “tortillas” from his poetry, no one is being nourished—the writer is dissatisfied because he is removing parts of his identity from his writing, and the reader similarly misses out. If the reader is from outside of the community, they’ve been denied a chance to understand or engage with Chicano culture. Such missed opportunities endanger the culture: “If we leave out our tortillas—and by that I mean the language, history, cultural values, and themes of our literature—the very culture we’re portraying will die” (69). By connecting cultural literary elements to food, Anaya reveals his larger goal of preserving Chicano culture.

One strategy for cultural preservation is to encourage more people to read, and Anaya does this by describing books as spiritual sustenance, a comparison he first made in childhood: “There was food for my soul in the books, that much I realized” (67). Another goal of this essay is therefore to demonstrate the importance of reading and spark readers’ pursuit of knowledge, as the more people who read Chicano literature, the more the culture is preserved. Similarly, those who read diverse voices will find a deeper understanding of cultures across the world.

Additionally, literature is like food because both are essential to survival. That is why Anaya pairs them in his concluding thoughts: “Let me return to the theme of reading and books. Tortillas and poetry. They go hand in hand. Books nourish the spirit; bread nourishes our bodies” (72). The metaphor implies definite spiritual malnourishment for a child who reads only the traditional, Anglocentric literary canon, as the child risks developing a narrow cultural understanding that predominantly celebrates white, heterosexual men. This is why Anaya also calls for the American literary tradition to be more inclusive and equitable to writers who are persons of color, women, or gay or lesbian. By expanding curricular literary diversity, schools can help younger generations change the status quo.