In this week’s reading of The Deep, I would like to focus on a passage in the text that I found rather comforting. While Yetu is leaving the Wajinru, she experiences different memories and rememberings in different parts of the ocean. She realizes she’s unsure of if these memories are hers or not, but in drifting she feels a sense of identity has appeared. Something that she has struggled with since she carries the remembering of her community. Specifically, “Rememberings didn’t haunt her. She was just Yetu. She wasn’t quite sure who that was, but she didn’t mind the unknowing because it came with such calm, such a freedom from the pain.” This part of the chapter brought me some comfort, mainly because in Western and/or certain individual perspectives, the Ocean has been seen as this scary vast force that entails danger. This part of the book challenges that. The feeling that there could be comfort and familiarity in this huge space even though it is unknown. And the factor of it being unknown it doesn’t deem it scary or dangerous was a refreshing point of view.
I appreciate this specific part of The Deep because it pushes me to hold (even more) of a personal and intimate perspective on the Ocean and I also like that it challenges the view of sublimity associated with the Ocean since it suggests that the Ocean can heal and comfort individuals, like Yetu in this case.
While this entire section of “The Deep” by Rivers Solomon was interesting, I was especially interested in reading about Yetu’s initial escape in chapter 5, and her relationship to the Wajinru through her pain. What interested me the most about the initial escape from the Wajinru was how the journey she went through after the Remembrance could be an anecdote to the pain and suffering that people have experienced as a result of slavery and the slave trade. Yetu’s body gives out while trying to escape but her will keeps her pushing through. She goes days without eating and has horrible migraines and pain in her limbs. Historically, there have been forms of systemic racism that have been implemented to prevent people of color from achieving what white people have been able to achieve throughout the generations post-slavery. This has been proven true even in recent decades. I believe that her experience was a big focus because it alludes to what people of color have gone through due to the History. I also liked the idea of being a unified group of people because of the history. While Yetu is suffering, she has a “deep, restful sleep. There were no nightmares, Remeberings didn’t haunt her… She wasn’t quite sure who [Yetu] was, but she didn’t mind the unknowing because it came with such calm… (70). I thought this was an interesting sentence because it shows that the history serves to not bring pain, but create a relationship of unity with her people. There was calamity and comfort in her pain, and although she left her tribe, she subconsciously knew they felt the same way. She feels a sense of “freedom” (70) from her pain. I believe that this is one of the main points of the entire novel. History is a painful subject that needs to be embraced in order to have a sense of unity, as horrible as it may be sometimes.
For this weeks chapter, I find it quite interesting because I was intrigued by how Yetu interacts with humans, whom she refers to as “two-legs.” Her descriptions of them were fascinating, especially since she views the world from an aquatic perspective. For instance, she likened their hair to “large chunks of coral” (Solomon, 71). This is noteworthy as it helps shift the reader’s view from a land-focused to a sea-focused lens (Terracentric). As well chapter 7 stood out to me, as it explores the dynamic between Yetu and Oori. This relationship ultimately nudges Yetu towards making decisions with her own interests at heart. Their attraction to one another adds another layer of complexity to their interaction, focusing more on their essences rather than external differences. This connection ties back to earlier discussions in class about the distinctions between creatures and humans, questioning where we draw the line between them. Yetu is distinctly not a human yet she more than merely an animal. She possesses complex emotions, advanced cognition, and can form meaningful relationships with bipeds, even though she has physical traits like gills and sharp teeth that are non-human. This idea draws me back as well to the argument we had when we read “The Little Mermaid” that mermaids are human as well and they have key characteristics like emotions and family that can argue that they are more human than merely animals.
So our girl Yetu was rescued by humans, which I find an interesting take on the mermaid mythos because usually its the mermaid who does the rescuing? Like how in the Little Mermaid, the mermaid in there rescued the prince from drowning, but in The Deep, Yetu’s being fed and looked after.
Also her relationship to Oori is interesting to me, because its this book’s instance of the two worlds meeting in the middle- both grapple with companionship as well as the past. I think Oori continuing to ensure that her homeland stays up despite being the last of her entire group/kin is important because in a way, it ties into the whole “ocean is an archive” thing- she’s ensuring that her history stays up, and that there IS a homeland that exists out there for her to return to. In way, Oori represents the idea that it is one’s duty to ensure that their history stays remembered. Yetu is a sort of a parallel because her entire culture is based on the idea that only ONE person should remember so everyone else can forget, and like… The way they contrast each other in this aspect is interesting.
Both were essentially forced into being the upholders, the historians, and yet they have such different approaches to how they do this. This is such a refreshing take on the mermaid tale and I’m really enjoying it so far.
A discovery based on a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson
The ocean has existed long before humanity and will exist long after humanity ceases to exist. The ocean is more than just a body of water. The sea contains history that humanity may never get to unlock. With everything that the ocean can be and provide, people have failed to give it the respect it deserves. People are dumping their trash into the ocean, overfishing, polluting it with noise that is harming marine life, and treating the environment so horribly that it heats up the ocean as well. Without water there is no life. If there were any one thing to determine the sustainability of living existence, it would be water. Ralph Waldo Emerson perfectly captures this idea in his poem simply titled “Water”. Although the poem is short, it does an amazing job at exploring the importance that water has on the world. Ralph Waldo Emerson uses personification in his poem “Water” to exemplify his deep respect for nature and implies that water is more than just a resource, but it is also an entity that behaves similarly to a human. By implying this, readers can deduce that policy change is vital in order to preserve the ocean which will eventually be the difference between survival and perish as a society as environmental threats continue to grow.
The main literary device used in Emerson’s poem is personification, which he uses to induce empathy for the ocean and show that it should be treated with respect like any human would deserve. Water is more than a vital resource, it “understands, Civilization well;” (1). By opening with this line, Emerson introduces the literary device of personification. It is no secret that the ocean has experienced every period of history that humanity has ever been through. By mentioning this, the ocean can be personified as a wise and old being. If the sea is so wise, why don’t people listen to it? This poem was written in 1909. At the time, international travel was done by traveling on boats. Globalization occurred through the use of boats as well. When Emerson wrote this poem, he had no idea of the increase in pollution that would occur within the next century. Rather than listen to his cautionary tale, people continued to modernize the world at the expense of the environment. As people treated the world worse, the ocean was one of the many things to suffer. Like a person who is neglected, the wise ocean decided to provide less and less until humanity changes the way they treat it. Emerson later connects this idea to a line about the ocean not being “disconcerted” (5), further implying that the ocean is wise. A non-living being cannot be wise, therefore the ocean has to be a living entity. Some cultures, such as Hinduism, see God as a body of water. Although the sea may not be a God, it is very much alive with every wave and storm.
Emerson shortly after states the power that the ocean has in inflicting emotion within himself. The ocean triggers feelings within him, just as how thoughtful words can make a person happy or how a hug can bring a person comfort. By continuing the personification of the ocean, Emerson calls the ocean pretty and explains how the ocean “chills [his] life, but wittily” (4). Like an old friend that one can always rely on, the ocean can provide more than just resources. It can be therapeutic and bring forth one’s true connection to nature. It can be a sanctuary from the society that people have created. Making the ocean be personified to resemble the love and care of a friend would be a great way to make people want to take care of the sea. This connection is likely an intentional way of turning a neglected body of water into a friend that requires the same amount of care as any other person. Emerson likely intended for people to read this poem and consider their connection to nature, specifically their treatment of the ocean. By creating a poem like this, discussions of protective policies likely came to be. While the ocean is not yet fully protected, analyzing literary history is a step in the right direction to protect oceans. People may not always be inclined to learn from Science, but literature is an engaging way to learn about true problems, and is arguably a better teacher of proper ways of coming up with a solution. Scientists can see why things are wrong and perhaps even come up with expensive solutions to the environment’s problems, but understanding and loving literature teaches people to treat the world a certain way. If people listen and agree with environmental literature, they will learn to love and take care of not only each other, but the world as well.
The ocean expects nothing from people but respect, which Emerson implies in his poem. It simply treats humanity how humanity treats it. Emerson explains this towards the end of his poem. When the sea is “well-used, it decketh joy… ill used, it will destroy” (7). The ocean, like any person, can become angry when treated poorly. As a living environmental entity, it has a wrath that can wipe out bloodlines, whether it’s through tsunamis, tidal waves, rip tides, or currents. At the time that the poem was written, there weren’t nearly as many pollutants in the ocean as there are today. The great pacific garbage patch was only found in 1997, 90 years after the poem was written. It comes from all of the plastic that has traveled through currents and accumulated in the ocean. In retaliation, fish are dying from all of the plastic they are consuming, and coral reefs are dying from all of the chemical pollutants found in the plastic and other forms of waste. If nothing changes anytime soon, the poor treatment of the ocean will lead to the downfall of humanity. The ocean does not need humanity, but humanity undoubtedly needs it. Emerson ends his poem by reminding the readers that although the ocean is beautiful, it holds all the power and can and will destroy humanity if humanity tries to destroy it. Under a glowing sunset, the ocean lays with a “face of golden pleasure” as it will “Elegantly destroy” (11) what it needs to in order to live. Although it shares respect for humanity, the sea will never hesitate to do what it needs to do for its own survival. Like a bee, the ocean will mind its own business but will strike if people try to intervene with its natural existence.
Emersons emphasis on the destructive nature of the ocean should serve as a hard warning as to why people must take better care of the ocean. At the time it was written, there wasn’t much concern for the ocean as science hadn’t declared human behavior to be dangerous to the ocean yet. A century later, the ocean is in crisis as we have entered a post-modernist world that has sacrificed the environment (specifically the ocean) for the sake of temporary convenience. Humanity has found a system that works so well, they are unwilling to change it, even if it means letting future generations suffer. This is why implementing policies is extremely important. This can change the course of the future before the damage to the environment becomes irreversible. The ocean is an entity that holds all of the knowledge that humanity has ever had, and it has a wrath more powerful than anyone could survive. Rather than fearing the ocean, it should be celebrated. It has provided more than it has ever destroyed multiple times over, and it treats people well as long as people treat it well. Some people may argue that implementing policies will do little help to the ocean and significantly reduce the standard of living for people, but that is simply not true. The standard of living may decrease in the short term, but it is better than the alternative, which is facing the wrath of environmental consequences. By personifying the ocean, Ralph Waldo Emerson shares his deep respect for nature that others should share, and implies that the ocean is a living entity that, similar to a human, responds to poor treatment.
In some parts of this weeks readings, I noticed how mermaids were being portrayed in a negative light and depicted as vengeful. Particularly in the first section it states, “In early 2012, a local news station reported that the community b lamed the malfunction of Gwehava Dam in Gokwe, completed just two years earlier on “angry spirirts” who “exist in the form of a mermaid and a large strange snake that dwells within the surroundings of the dam” (166). This reflects a belief system where supernatural beings are held accountable for natural events or technical failures. By framing the malfunction as the result of angry spirits, it implies that there are consequences for human actions, such as disrespecting the natural environment or failing to appease spiritual entities.
We are the ones invading their habitat and environment, but claiming that they are the ones to blame when our agenda doesn’t go as planned. Blaming mythical beings or spirits for natural events may serve as a coping mechanism or a way to reconcile human actions with the unpredictability of nature. However, it’s crucial to recognize the underlying power dynamics and environmental impact of human activities, such as dam construction or habitat destruction, which can disrupt ecosystems and displace indigenous species. Attributing blame to mermaids and other mythical beings for the malfunction of the Gwehava Dam may reflect a broader narrative of displacement and exploitation of natural resources. There is tension between traditional beliefs and modern development, where indigenous mythologies are often marginalized or dismissed in favor of technological explanations.
This week’s reading was enlightening due to the fact that even though both Yemaja and Aganju are “gods”, Aganju’s role has fallen into “disuse”. First and foremost, Yemaja being raped by her son was very unexpected. I found that her body “exploding” the birth of other gods was a symbol of the children that replace the pain she endured from her son. It was nature’s way of compensating her for her son ruining her life. I found this article that briefly summarizes the story of Yemaja, and I like how the author mentions that her ‘waters protect her children from a predatory world.” This story is inspiring because it shifts the idea of victimized women being broken and vulnerable, and instead paints them to be hero’s of their own narratives. Rather than being depicted as a pained and emotionally devastated women, her rage turned her into a powerful protector of the sea.
Every single culture that has ever existed has a strong relationship with nature. Humanity has always had a natural connection to the world, but as humanity continues to progress, relationships with nature are deteriorating more and more, and people are replacing their connections to nature with connections to technology. Studying literature that has been passed down through different cultures and generations is an important aspect of cultural evolution, as literature of the past can act as cautionary tales that aid in how to live a good life. By close reading “The Tuna of Lake Vaihiria”, specifically the Polynesian iteration of the story, we read the story of a young woman, named Hina, escaping an arranged marriage to a monster by seeking the help of the deity Maui. Maui defeats this monster and gives Hina the monster’s head, which will turn into a coconut tree once she sets it down, as a gift. Hina accidentally sets the head down before she can get home, but as the tree grows, it bears coconuts as gifts for her and her new family. Through its subtle use of metaphor, “The Tuna of Lake Vaihiria” uses Hina’s rejection of arranged marriage to offer an insightful exploration of the intricate relationship between humanity and the natural world, suggesting that like a human being, nature retaliates against poor treatment towards it, but it may also serves as a sanctuary from societal norms that creates and provides.
The entire conflict of the story arises from Hina wanting to escape an arranged marriage to a king. Both the concept of marriage and the idea of a social hierarchy are completely artificial and are ideas that were created in order to structure a society. Although culture is an important aspect of humanity, it can be detrimental to people who are unable or unwilling to conform to it, such as Hina. At the wedding, she proclaims to her parents in terror that she must “find her own sanctuary” (3) from the arranged marriage. Prior to meeting the Eel King, she was blindly excited for the marriage because she grew up believing that this was the way life was supposed to go. Deciding that she will not marry the Tuna King was Hina’s way of allowing her raw emotions to overpower a social norm. This led her to begging Maui for help, who in this iteration hooked and controlled the sun. Although Maui is a demi-god in a human body, he arguably is the metaphorical representation of nature in this story. Maui acts as a savior to Hina by releasing her from the grasp of the king.
On top of killing the king, Maui also gifts Hina the head of the king which grows into a coconut tree that provides for her and the family she chooses to have in the future. Although Hina did not follow the direction Maui gave of not setting the head down until she was home, she was able to create a sanctuary where the tree landed. It provided food, shelter, and was able to house her and her new family. By being able to develop her own sustainable way of living, she proves that she can find sanctuary in nature. As she treated it well, by being respectful to Maui and respecting his gift, she was able to escape the social norms that were going to strip her of her free will and developed a newfound appreciation for the world around her. This is a common occurrence that people experience once overcoming trauma. In this case, the trauma was caused by being forced to conform to the marriage she believed she was destined to. The marriage situation does an amazing job at connecting the natural world to the unnatural world. In its truest form, the natural world represents peace and tranquility whereas the unnatural world represents fear and unhappiness with the mask of providing consistency. In any given culture, one can safely assume how their week will go. They have traditions that they follow, social structures to conform to, and practices that they have trained themselves to react to in certain ways. For example, a person can wave in one culture and know that they are being greeted, but in another culture, a hand wave can be seen as disrespectful and a person can be offended. Only in nature can there be no expectations other than taking care of oneself however they may need to.
The Eel King can be attributed to embody the deceitful and harmful practices that exist within cultures. While in some iterations he appears as a human, the polynesian iteration shows the king to be a large, thick eel with human legs. Eels, like snakes, represent deceitfulness in stories. By having human legs, one could make the point that the deceitful qualities within the Eel are elevated, both metaphorically and literally. Legs can represent control and mobility, but also show that by having human traits, it likely shares some parts of a human mind. The Eel king may want to get married to fulfill his hierarchical duties, but in doing so he would be manipulating and controlling Hina, which would be hurting a natural creation. The Eel was a literal freak of nature. He brought the worst parts of humanity and nature together. Despite being a symbol of trickery, the Eel fell for Maui’s bait and was punished for it by getting decapitated. Hina rejected societal norms, seeked help from a demi-god that represents nature, and was awarded for it. The Eel was a natural representation of the culture that Hina grew up in. He pushes for the arranged marriage to happen, and disregards her well being for the sake of following the cultural practice. People grow up in different cultures and are taught to respect their norms and practices and rarely give it much thought. Whether it is painful, outdated, or a person simply does not agree with their culture, they are rarely given the opportunity to leave and unlearn what they know. The only place where culture can be ignored is within nature. Nature provides and creates. Despite humanity’s poor treatment of it, people can find places where nature is preserved and find moments of peace.
By close reading this story, people are able to explore the connection that nature has to the unnatural world. Nature treats humanity with respect and provides for them as long as humanity reciprocates the behavior. People may argue that nature is a constant that cannot provide because it is not a living, thinking being. This is absolutely not the case because nature works hard to keep itself in homeostasis. Think of it as karma. Many people believe that if a person radiates positivity and puts good into the world, they will have good karma that will throw goodness back at the person. If a person is bad, they will receive bad energy. Nature will always serve as a sanctuary, but if people destroy nature, they will lose their sanctuary and will no longer be provided for, meaning it is of utmost importance to keep nature healthy and respect it. Hina embodies the everyday person that is conforming to a culture or society that they were born in. She gets the option to conform and be miserable, or seek refuge and live free. By alluding to the decision, the story gives the readers the opportunity to question for themselves if they are conforming or rebelling against their own way of life. The story also makes an effort to show that Hina lives happily after choosing to live free. She is fed, sheltered, and is able to raise a family. This story is not anti-culture, it is simply a cautionary tale that explains that there is always salvation in nature. With that being said, the conclusion can be drawn that through its use of metaphor, “The Tuna of Lake Vairhiria” uses Hinas rejection of arranged marriage to offer an insightful exploration of the intricate relationship between humanity and the natural world, suggesting that like a human being, nature retaliates against poor treatment towards it, but it may also serves as a sanctuary from societal norms that creates and provides.
This week’s reading on Aganju and Yemaja was of course an interesting one, as they all are. We are first introduced to both Aganju and Yemaja, “Mother of Fish,” who gives birth to Orungan. In the story, Orungan develops a lustful relationship with his mother and decides to pursue this, forcing his mother into relations with her. Yemaja is taken aback by this and rejects all his notions of having a romantic future together. What I found interesting about this, aside from the several counts of incest, was the fact that after this traumatic and painful experience of being taken advantage of by your son, creation follows. In most stories have seen or heard, things of this sort would often lead to catastrophe and destruction, but instead led to the creation of several Gods and Goddesses that in turn gave them rivers, agriculture, wealth, etc. In Yoruba mythology, Yemaja is the central role of a creator, and their origin story is one I am not familiar with at all. My confusion lies within the moments leading up to this creation, I think in one sense it’s obvious that Yemaja is birthing all these Gods from the ravishing that came from Orungan, on the other hand, I don’t know if the creation is coming from the pain and fear she is experiencing. I suppose the creation could be coming from both the traumatic experience and the pain, but would it make a difference if it was coming from one or the other? Regardless, a whole bunch of creations came from it and gave them new life and purposes, or maybe it’s just an optimistic perspective on something really disturbing.
In this weeks reading, we learned about the origins and some of the stories of African spirits that fit in well with the stories we have read so far about mermaids and other natural spirits. For this reading, I found a lot of it interesting but I want to focus my close reading on the story of Aganju and Yemaja. The idea that so many different gods came from Yemaja, especially considering she is the “mother of fish”, is such a fascinating concept. I would have thought that her extremely traumatic experience with her son Orungan would lead to death and destruction, but instead, it led to creation. From her came fifteen gods that provide, whether it’s water, air, natural resources, or food. When reading the story, I thought it was comparable to the story of Jesus Christ. He was brutally sacrificed for the betterment of humanity. Although the intention wasn’t necessarily the same, the outcome basically is the same, humanity gets “saved” whether it’s from being given more resources to live, or to avoid Hell.
The fact that these Gods are still worshiped is a beautiful teller of how much respect African culture must have for nature. In the previous story of “African Mermaids and Other Water Spirits”, we learn a lot about the beliefs that are still extremely prominent in Africa. Although tribes preside in areas that are not close to each other, they share a love and respect for nature which has “remained strikingly relevant” (3) throughout the generations. People believe in spirits that provide, and avoid building where Mermaids have been thought to potentially seen to live. I think that faith is the best thing that people can have in respect to nature. Faith teaches people to live a certain way, and when people believe something hard enough, they are willing to set aside their wants and needs for the greater good of their faith. By faith being intertwined with nature, people show more respect to it, as we have seen in this reading. This makes me wonder why people do not treat nature better despite it being such a prominent concept in almost every religion.
