Introductory Blog

RMST 202

Aanii, Boozhoo! Gonii White-Eye n’dishinakaaz, mkwa n’dodem, Deshkan Ziibiing n’doonjiba, Anishinaabe-niniis n’dow. Hello everyone! My name is Gonii White-Eye. I am Bear Clan from the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation in Ontario, and I am Anishinaabe. I chose to begin by introducing myself in my language because there is a long history of my family, my ancestors, and many Indigenous communities being prohibited from speaking our languages. As an Indigenous person in post-secondary education—a privilege that was denied to Indigenous peoples for decades—I choose to carry my traditions forward by using my language and culture in everyday life, including in academic spaces.

Although I am taking this class to meet my literature requirement, I am genuinely excited for the semester ahead. I look forward to meeting everyone, engaging with our shared readings, and working together to do well in the course. After watching the introductory videos, one question that stood out to me was Dr. Beasley-Murray’s: “Where is the Romance World?” I appreciated that this question is not meant to have a definitive answer. Instead, he explains that there is no fixed “Romance World,” and that responses to this question depend on perspective, time, and historical context. This challenges the assumption that Romance Studies can be traced back to a single origin or location.

What resonated with me most was the idea that Romance Studies is not bound to one nation, place, or stable tradition. Rather than being rooted in borders or origins, the field embraces movement, uncertainty, and change. Dr. Beasley-Murray suggests that we are all, in some sense, strangers to the world, and that Romance Studies exists within this shared condition. I found this perspective refreshing and inclusive, particularly because it resists rigid academic hierarchies and makes space for multiple ways of understanding literature and language.

I was also struck by the discussion of Romance languages as “mixed” languages—languages that emerged through contact, betrayal, and transformation rather than purity. This reframing positions linguistic and cultural history as dynamic and creative, rather than linear or fixed. Finally, I appreciated the emphasis on reading texts in translation. Viewing translation as a productive form of betrayal allows texts to travel, change, and take on new meanings. Overall, the introductory lectures left me excited to engage with the course moving forward.

Miigwetch (Thank you).