The Sexualization of Pachucas

Question 1: Pachucas and female Zoot Suiters were most known for their outright rebellion toward societal constructs. How does the sexualization and juvenile delinquency of Pachuca’s affect the attitudes that are directed toward the women and adolescents who associate themselves with this subculture? Does the wartime effort affect the way these women are portrayed in society? (Escobedo 133-144).

In “The Pachuca Panic: Sexual and Cultural Battlegrounds in World War II Los Angeles” by author Elizabeth Escobedo, she asserts the various social stigmas and behaviors against women Zoot Suiters also known as Pachuca’s.  A Pachuca is the female counterpart, often idealized as a beautiful Chicana woman in extravagant evening dress or a female version of the Zoot Suit, out with a Zoot Suit boyfriend for a night on the town (Escobedo 134).  This was a major point of contention during the war years because Zoot Suits and individuals who supported them such as the Pachuca’s were seen as unpatriotic because their outfits used a lot of fabric during a time when a rationing of supplies was in effect (Escobedo 136).  However, the wartime Pachuca embodied an essential symbolic essence on which debates about the changing social landscape of the war years occurred.

Ecscobedo stated that by, “Using style and behavior as a way to challenge ideas of respectability and to assert a distinctive identity, Pachucas defied mainstream notions of proper feminine decorum and endangered rigid, static definitions of Mexican femininity.” (134).  I believe that this rebellion against social conventions caused a lot of anger in mainstream American society for those involved in this unique subculture.

This conflict even caused riots named “The Zoot Suit Riots” which were a series of conflicts in June 1943 in Los Angeles, CA between American servicemen stationed in Southern California against Mexican American youths and other minorities who were residents of the city.  American servicemen and civilians attacked and stripped youths who wore Zoot Suits because they considered the outfits to be unpatriotic during wartime (Escobedo 140).  I believe these women were sexualized and portrayed as deviant during the wartime years because of the sentiment against them because of their minority status/unpatriotic wearing of Zoot Suits.  Many of the men of the time thought these women as objects and wanted to “claim” one because of their highly sexualized view from society.

 

Source:  Escobedo, Elizabeth. “The Pachuca Panic: Sexual and Cultural Battlegrounds in World War II Los Angeles”. Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Summer, 2007), pp. 133-156.

Picture 1: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/541276448949765843/

Picture 2: http://www.museumofthecity.org/project/la-pachuca-mexican-subculture-in-1940s-los-angeles/

Cultural Appropriation: The Cross

Acculturation is everywhere and is embedded into American culture. A lot of the time we may not even notice appearances of acculturation, since the cultural significance is usually lost along the acculturation process.

In the article titled “Cannibal Culture,” author Deborah Root discusses cultural appropriation and how there is an overall negative impact. For example, though cultural appropriation may seem harmless from a surface level, Root argues that appropriation “reduces the living people and culture to the status of objects” (Cannibal Culture, 70).

This is exemplified in a number of fashion trends. One specific one that I will focus one is the cross. Though this fashion trend is not as prevalent as it was several years ago, it is still present in our culture. The cross is a religious symbol in Christianity and when it is used in secular contexts such as fashion trends, it can be seen as cultural appropriation since it seems to lose its significance.

For Christians, the meaning of the cross symbolizes what Jesus Christ has done for all people, out of love. He has died a life for us on the cross so that those who believe in him may live a life of freedom away from sin.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the cross, and I personally would not be offended if I knew someone wore it and was not Christian. Though, it is sad to see that a lot of the time, especially when in fashion trends, it loses its meaning as a result of cultural appropriation. This is especially evident in articles of clothing which have both the right-side-up cross, symbolizing Christ’s Crucifixion, and the up-side-down cross, most often used as an anti-Christian or Satanic symbol; both have very different meanings. It is highly unlikely that people of the faith would wear both version of the cross. 

There are times when it is unclear whether or not someone wears a cross because of a fashion trend, because they are Christian, or for both reasons. That is completely fine. That being said, I am not arguing that people should not wear a cross at all. Rather, I want to point to the fact that there is a real meaning and purpose to the cross rather than a simple fashion trend. The cross, along with many other elements of culture, become culturally appropriated, and a lot of the time we may not even notice it. 

Resources:

Root, Deborah. Cannibal Culture: Art, Appropriation, and the Commodification of Difference. Westview Press, 1998.