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.
Great response- thanks for sharing, Sam!
ReplyDeleteWhy do you go by Sam and not by Samantha?
Going by Sam just happens to be a personal preference of mine. My family prefers to call me Samantha, since that's the name my parents gave me after all. They've stuck by it forever and refuse to call me anything aside from that. It's always felt rather formal, and I would consider myself to be one of the most informal people on the planet.
DeleteI feel like I'm not as connected to Samantha as I am to Sam. It's simpler and some how it feels more neutral to me, gender wise. I've never really considered myself very feminine, either. Both names and nicknames that are aligned with femininity don't make me feel very comfortable.
I really like the way that you handle the many different aspects of yourself and what you do. Thinking of yourself as yourself first and all of the groups and roles that you fit into as subcategories of that self seems like a great way to define a self and do what you want to do. I personally don't think of myself in that manner. I can feel myself change drastically based on the context I am within or the people I am around. However, I like your way of defining yourself better than mine, as it seems healthier and more free. If any of that makes any sense whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI really dig your response to the whole "two halves" thing. While I think there's some definite impact on a person's mannerisms when surrounded by different groups in different contexts, you're right, I don't think it defines us as a person necessarily. Like, I'm sure nobody speaks the same way around their friends as they would their parents, but they're still the same person under that, just being presented in different ways.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the evaluation of your last name was really interesting! I've heard you talk about it before, but this was a really in-depth and thought-out analysis of it and it was really interesting to learn about.
Rad blog by the way, good background image
Yes, see that was what I was trying to say, although I'm not sure how well I delivered that message. I really do think how people present themselves can change without a doubt. However it's not as if you are a completely different person. It just doesn't work that way. Or at least it shouldn't. If you are pretending to be a different person depending on the groups you are in you aren't presenting yourself differently, and you certainly aren't a different person. That my friends, would be lying.
DeleteAlso, thank you! It's kind of a complicated thing, and its hard for me to explain off the top of my head. I'm glad I got the opportunity to write this down somewhere, to be honest with you.
Thanks homie, but lets be honest, your blog is by far superior.
I agree with the previous comments, and definitely love your opinion on the article and how a person is still the same person in a group, and those other parts are simply added to it. What I like most was what you said about how your family's last name changed on introduction to America. I sort of started to talk about his in my response, and I think that as isolationism started to end and people began to branch out the last names began to change more. As I said before, we've been moving away from the traditional means of family trade names, those with meaning, and names passed along, and I think that translation problems and choosing more accepted names is partly to blame for that. Starting a new life, people wanted to be accepted and treated as an individual, and not as, say, an Irishman, and so changed their name to something general or ambiguous to keep from being persecuted or treated differently. As society changes and people begin to branch out and want wish to be accepted, names are evolving as well.
ReplyDelete