Naming is a constant in our lives. Names can apply to people, places, things, physical objects and hypothetical ideas. We use names to identify, but what is the connection between the name and what the name represents? In her essay, “In History,” Jamaica Kincaid discusses the importance of naming and the impact of multiple narratives. The first half of Kincaid’s essay focuses on Columbus’ journey to the “New World.” Kincaid tells of sailors’ stories of far away treasures while discussing Columbus’ motivation and his background, saying “I am not yet a treasure… I do not yet have a name” (6). Naming gives a validity and realness to things in the world. Not having a name means that Kincaid cannot yet be a treasure. This idea hints at the societal
…show more content…
Kincaid states that “another person, who would have a more specific interest, a painter, might say, it is a green that often verges on blue, a green that is often modified by reds and yellows and even other more intense or other shades of green. To me, it is green and green and green again” (13). This repetition serves to demonstrate that one’s perception of something and the impression that the thing leaves on the person depends on their level of interest. The example that Kincaid provides, her narrative of “green” Antigua, alludes to the difference in perception of narratives. A person who has lived in a place for their whole life would not create the same narrative for that place as someone who had just “discovered” that place. Kincaid also repeats questions throughout her essay. Her question “Should I call it history?” (2 & 25) implies that names are superficial, as anything can be called anything, so long as society recognizes that the name is representative of whatever is being named. Asking her question sets up a paradox: names give meaning but the meaning is something independent from the name; this supports Kincaid’s argument of the living and changing nature of narratives. Asking the reader multiple questions over the course of the essay gets the reader thinking about the answers to the questions on their own, which brings the reader to Kincaid’s conclusion without explicitly telling the readers what to think. The reader then firmly believes the conclusion, as they believe that the idea is their
Kincaid states that “another person, who would have a more specific interest, a painter, might say, it is a green that often verges on blue, a green that is often modified by reds and yellows and even other more intense or other shades of green. To me, it is green and green and green again” (13). This repetition serves to demonstrate that one’s perception of something and the impression that the thing leaves on the person depends on their level of interest. The example that Kincaid provides, her narrative of “green” Antigua, alludes to the difference in perception of narratives. A person who has lived in a place for their whole life would not create the same narrative for that place as someone who had just “discovered” that place. Kincaid also repeats questions throughout her essay. Her question “Should I call it history?” (2 & 25) implies that names are superficial, as anything can be called anything, so long as society recognizes that the name is representative of whatever is being named. Asking her question sets up a paradox: names give meaning but the meaning is something independent from the name; this supports Kincaid’s argument of the living and changing nature of narratives. Asking the reader multiple questions over the course of the essay gets the reader thinking about the answers to the questions on their own, which brings the reader to Kincaid’s conclusion without explicitly telling the readers what to think. The reader then firmly believes the conclusion, as they believe that the idea is their