Santha is different from Cynthia

In the memoir By Any Other Name, Santha Rau states "But I put it all happily away because it happened to a girl named Cynthia and I was never really particularly interested in her." (Rau 6)  I am very convinced by Santha’s statement of ignoring her unfavorable identity. 

Santha was forced to have another “name”, in this case also known as identity.  On pg 2 the principal of her new school decides to make her an English name, “Cynthia”.  However, Santha does not approve her new name.  When the teacher asks her “What’s your name, dear? (Rau 3), she replies with “I don’t know”.  It is obvious that Santha knows her name, but hopes not to be called Cynthia because she does not want to be labeled as something she is not. 

Unlike many Indian students in Santha’s school, Santha is not afraid of being Indian; she is rather proud of her culture.  Although she was the only one having Indian food for lunch, she was not embarrassed.  This is very different from her Indian classmates, who drooled for Indian food but had sandwich due to peer pressure. 

Another reason Santha rejects her British Identity is because Santha’s live was too different from other British kids in her school.  For example, she could not grasp the system of “competitive games” (Rau 4).  She thought that it would be considered polite to let others win.  However, others criticized her for the custom she practiced in her home. 

Santha believes Cynthia is a completely different person from her.  She is extremely glad to separate Cynthia from her life.  As soon as her sister decides to quit school due racism, Santha receives it as a chance to escape from the school that forces her to change.  She leaves Cynthia behind at school and returns to her original life.

Changing the Name

Changing the Name

 

In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Juliet tells Romeo,

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. (II.ii.47-51)

 

                I strongly agree with this text due to various reasons.  It is an undeniable fact that a person does not change after his or her name has been changed.  If a superficial character “Bob” changes his name to “Patience” just to fix his rash decisions, there is a high chance he won’t achieve his goal.  Although such example can become a motivator, it won’t immediately fix a person’s problem or change the person.  This idea is also manifested when parents name their soon-born baby.  Although they name their child the way they want the child to be, there is a high chance the child will exactly meet the parent’s expectations.

                Object is also a subject that does not change when its name is changed.  For example, if a person buys a product from Samsung and sells it by the brand name Apple, no one is going to fall for such naïve deception. 

                Lastly, as mentioned by Juliet, love is given to a person due to who he or she is, not because of his or her name.  For example, if a fictional character “Bob” has a son, he will love his son because his son is a part of Bob’s family.  If a random person named “Bob’s child” comes to Bob for Bob’s love, Bob won’t love that person because he is not related in anyway with the person.  Same reason applies for man and woman who are in a relationship.  The man loves her for who she is, not for what she is called.  Even though the woman’s name is “Ugly”, she will look beautiful in the man’s point of view.

                Name is not what determines the characteristics of a person.  Therefore, changing the name is ineffectual of changing the person.

Exposition: War Child

-->

War Child

           

The memoir War Child starts on a setting inside a truck, driving on a rusty road.  The main character “Emmanuel Jal” is very hungry, because he didn’t eat anything since sunrise.  He wished it were night again, so that he could eat his meal.  However, the Arabs riding the same truck took away the food he wanted to eat so much.  Although Jal’s uncle asked politely to give Jal’s food back to him, the Arabs starting beating him.  There is no way Jal’s you siblings, Jal’s mom, and Jal could stop the indomitable violence the Arabs forced on his uncle.  Jal explains that the “seed of hate was sown inside him that day” (Jal 6).

This story really interests me so far due to the fact that I don’t know about the conflict in Sudan between the Arabs and the Africans.  In addition, the exposition grabs my attention.  Knowing hate in such young childhood is something I haven’t experienced in my life.  I think it would be a good chance for me to both be informed about the conflict in Sudan and recognize the difference between my life and the life of a Sudanese. 

One topic I would like to further develop is Jal’s mom’s values.  She would always say, “God loves everyone equally”, but does that mean she wouldn’t fight against the Arabs who are threatening both her and her family?  For example, in the situation of the truck, she ran to push away the Arabs from beating Jal’s uncle.  Would she continue to do that if someone uses violence on her family?  Also, is she happy about the SPLA?  She comments that “they are fighting for freedom”, but right after that statement she would also talk about how God loves all races.  Does that mean she is opposing the act of SPLA fighting (even though the SPLAs are fighting for the Southern Africans)?