Dumais is a surname, which my father claims to have meant "of many" as in of many riches, or "to be well" in health. What his, better yet our, ancestors didn't realize is that when translating it to English, Goodrich did not have the same meaning. Goodrich was a British surname that originally meant "Godric' or "God-rule". Now whenever we try to research our family's origins from Cuba, we have no luck in finding relatives all because of a faulty translation. Sometimes I like to imagine what the conversation between my great-grandfather and an American trying to figure out how to translate it was like. It'd probably have been something like, "Oh, it means to be healthy and wealthy? I heard some people go by Goodrich, get it? Good and Rich? That's probably what Goodrich means. Boom, there's your name, say goodbye to your entire family's history!", but just imagine them speaking in whatever jargon that actually fit that time-frame, more specifically, on the coast of Florida. I think my last name, Goodrich, has shown me my family had way too much trust in white people, but, hey, now that we are white people there was really no harm done. My father and his family were mistaken for white Americans, which was the plan all along, so props to you however-many-greats-grandpappy. In all seriousness, if it hadn't been for the name change my family may not have even stayed in America. With prejudice and several other factors they could have faced they may not have been able to stabilize business here. Which means that I wouldn't exist. If you look at it that way, the name Goodrich defined both my family's erasure and, ultimately, our survival.
-------------------------------------
"Two" of yourself
"Two" of yourself
When it comes to being a person, having only two halves doesn't really seem to fit it. You can be an individual and then be a part of a larger whole. This group in some instances could be a smaller part in another bigger whole too though, couldn't it be? You could be part of several larger wholes as well. I do not think this means there are "two" or more of you. You can be a part of a club and still be yourself. You just happen to be within a club.
For instance, I am a coach for Special Olympics soccer and track and field. I am also a martial artist, I used to be on an extreme martial arts demonstration team where we would do gymnastics and fighting performances. I am also a member of a family as I am a member of several clubs at school. When I'm coaching I'm still myself, this does not make two of me. There is not a 'Sam that is just Sam and does nothing', and a 'Coach Sam'. On the demonstration team I was not suddenly just a performer. I am Sam, who happens to coach, does martial arts, has a family, participates in clubs at school, and who goes to school. These are just subcategories that further define me as an individual.
While I understand what Anna Quindlen was saying in her article, I personally do not agree with what she is saying. You are an individual, you can be an individual within a group of people, but you are not the entire group of people. The individual and the individual in a group is the same individual. She was herself, she just happens to be a mother and wife as well.
