Teaching and learning intercultural communication by reconnecting with land

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 I use the term “Xicano,” which is an acknowledgement of many complex layers of colonial identity that are marked by attempts to erase Indigeneity (those in the U.S. flattening numerous Indigenous affiliations into a single non-White other from beyond the southern U.S. border), political sovereignty (the term honors the efforts of the Chicano movement while moving past its machista roots), and an antinationalist politics (the term not only acknowledges those from México, but holds a space for migrants fleeing the violence of other colonial nations in what is often referred to as “Latin America”).

2 Here, I am using the term “migration” to refer to the movements of people in today’s global and nationalist context. I understand that there is an underlying contradiction in taking an antinationalist political position while relying on a definition of migration that is rooted in a national governance. However, a nationalist definition of migration is generally accepted by undergraduate learners in the U.S., especially with reference to the Mexico/U.S. border, which is the boundary between the U.S. and the global South.