Watching El Norte was truly an experience for me. It provided
a new lens for me to think and to feel through. I thought about perceptions and
constructs and I felt sad and frustrated. I also thought about family and occasionally
felt happiness.
One thing that really struck me was the idea of “home.” This
idea was directly questions at the end of the film right before Rosa’s death.
She expressed angst, because she did not have a home. Her home was taken away
from her in San Pedro, in Mexico she was not allowed to have a home, and she
could not find a home in the north, no matter how hard she tried. What truly
made an impression on me, though, was her suggestion that perhaps she will
finally find a home in death. This made me very sad. It also led me to further ponder
“home”.
What is “home”? Is it a place, a person, a feeling? I don’t
think anyone can agree on a single idea of home, especially since it’s such a
personal concept. It’s crazy that something so important to every single human
is so difficult to define. For me, this connects back to our class discussion
and reading about “diaspora” and what that means for those experiencing it.
Enrique and Rosa experience diaspora and struggle with it enormously, and the
film makes it clear that this is not a unique struggle.
***Our human nature presents this incredible need for a
home. Without one, we feel incomplete and lost. Society and recent history have
inhibited many from claiming a home, while entitling others to one. I think
that this is the true divide between diaspora and non-diaspora. Not necessarily
a person’s or a people’s migration or displacement, but rather the structures
that have been forcefully put into place to restrict those persons or peoples
from claiming a home where they are able.
Sam, I really like your distinction of the division of diaspora and non-diaspora defined by the ability to call a place home. It is a simplification, but I think that idea connects to the readings we have done on Diasporas and homelands. In particular, Len Ang describes diaspora today as "collectivities who feel not fully accepted by, and partly alienated from, the dominant culture of the 'host society,' where they do not feel (fully) at home." However, with this definition, the people in the "host society" are assumed to feel at home, unlike the people that face diaspora. My question to the question is then who are the people who are part of the "host society" that do not feel at home? Are they too categorized as people who face diaspora?
ReplyDeleteAng then goes on to say that "the classic definition of diaspora emphasized the traumatic past of the dispersed group, and in today's usage, trauma is located as much in the present, in the contemporary experiences of marginalization or discrimination in the nation-state of the resident..."(Ang 286) Therefore, can individuals of diaspora's be categorized as "from the host-soceity" but feel marginalized to the point that they do not feel "a connection to the homeland," therefore they are categorized as diasporic?
Ultimately what this comment comes down to is how do we limit who is and isn't included in the definition of diaspora? How do we decide?
Sam, I think your question about what is "home," does connect a lot to the readings of diaspora that we had. I think something you did not mention that is important to this movie especially is choice. In diaspora there is sometimes not the option to move away from "home." This is clearly expressed in this film. Yes, they were moving away but it was not because they wanted to, it was because they did not have any other choice. So, what is "home"? Is it a place where there is an option/choice for mobility? Is it a place where there is freedom? Is "home" an actual physical space or is it a constructed idea?
ReplyDelete