the African-born who were neither Muslim nor speakers of Spanish or Portuguese, the or Africans. This widespread use of may help explain the bozales “raw” ladino subsequent adoption of As an act of self-definition, author’s Joannes Latīnūs. has no parallel, and in that vein the expression of re-creation is powerful. author’s His new name clearly communicates a total identification with his intellectual passions, and with the status and recognition derivative of his expertise. But in reinventing himself on the basis of what he does, of his value and utility to the larger society; indeed, in drawing attention to the fact that his new persona is premised on how others him, “see” and at the where he is even his exercise in reconfiguration demonstrates “place” “seen,” its limitations. Joannes is, after all, a cultural affectation, unmoored to any land Latīnūs mass or specific location on the planet, or for that matter to any clan or family. In Joannes therefore, we have the essence of the diasporic condition. He Latīnūs, is free to re-imagine himself and his world, but only certain trajectories are possible for him. Let us be clear: in Joannes we do not have the necessary elements for an Latīnūs interaction between African and European cultures and perspectives; his is not a test case for the thesis of enculturation or notions of hybridity, as per every indication he was just a child, if not an infant when taken into captivity. Therefore, unless he remained in intimate connection with his mother, or was in vital contact with groups of Africans in the area, he had no access to a collective past, he had no personal memory of African antecedents upon which to draw in his self-refashioning. “Johannes Latīnūs, originally from is an imagined subjectivity based almost entirely on achievements and Ethiopia,” limitations experienced in a context in which his claims were quite tenuous. He is without question privileged he receives a wonderful education, he is able to make a –
the African-born who were neither Muslim nor speakers of Spanish or Portuguese, the bozales or “raw” Africans. This widespread use of ladino may help explain the author’s subsequent adoption of Joannes Latīnūs. As an act of self-definition, has no parallel, and in that vein the author’s expression of re-creation is powerful. His new name clearly communicates a total identification with his intellectual passions, and with the status and recognition derivative of his expertise. But in reinventing himself on the basis of what he does, of his value and utility to the larger society; indeed, in drawing attention to the fact that his new persona is premised on how others “see” him, and at the “place” where he is even “seen,” his exercise in reconfiguration demonstrates its limitations. Joannes Latīnūs is, after all, a cultural affectation, unmoored to any land mass or specific location on the planet, or for that matter to any clan or family. In Joannes Latīnūs, therefore, we have the essence of the diasporic condition. He is free to re-imagine himself and his world, but only certain trajectories are possible for him. Let us be clear: in Joannes Latīnūs we do not have the necessary elements for an interaction between African and European cultures and perspectives; his is not a test case for the thesis of enculturation or notions of hybridity, as per every indication he was just a child, if not an infant when taken into captivity. Therefore, unless he remained in intimate connection with his mother, or was in vital contact with groups of Africans in the area, he had no access to a collective past, he had no personal memory of African antecedents upon which to draw in his self-refashioning. “Johannes Latīnūs, originally from Ethiopia,” is an imagined subjectivity based almost entirely on achievements and limitations experienced in a context in which his claims were quite tenuous. He is without question privileged – he receives a wonderful education, he is able to make a