I think after reading The Cossacks, a question on many of our minds (or mine, at least) is how can someone assimilate into another culture? Maybe not a step-by-step process, but is it possible to completely adopt customs and ways of life former alien to you? A Dream in Polar Fog certainly addresses these questions and presents a view quite different from the one presented by Tolstoy. I’d like to explore this idea more, while keeping in mind that just by reading someone else’s words, I am bringing my own biases and former understandings to this discussion, which is just something I think is worthy of being aware of.

To start, after this portion of reading, it appears that for all intents and purposes, John has assimilated into the Chukchi community: he marries a Chukchi woman (both in his conceptualization of marriage and in the Chukchi understanding), he hunts with the other Chukchi men, he shares his gifts and supplies with the other members of the community (unprompted and even unexpectedly), and even supports the ideas of communal living and common good to a further extent than Armol’ in the case of purchasing a whale boat individually versus as a collective. Recognizing these facts of how John acts does not place a moral judgement on them. It is not objectively “good” or “bad” that he adopts values and behaviors of another group of people. But it is a marked change in how John thinks and acts that should be acknowledged for his personal adaptation, and growth in understanding and ability to learn new things. I am personally impressed and would judge his change and rationale for that change as overall “good” (in simplest terms). He makes informed, rational decisions, “Stay here forever?…These people had been so good to him, and had shown the kind of magnanimity he would not have expected in the world he came from” which stem from a choice to realign his values with those of a community to whom he owes a debt of gratitude and his life in many ways (129).

But I especially appreciate Rytkheu’s manners and methods of highlighting the complexity of ideas of inclusion, assimilation and what it means to “belong.” Orvo, in particular, provides a counter-opinion to (primarily Armol’s and even John’s) doubts about the efficacy of cultural conversion. Instead of calling the other person’s views wrong, Orvo questions them, “[if we drive John off] what about Pyl’mau?…What danger is there in a cripple? You’re not afraid of him, are you?” (161). In so doing, he and so Rytkheu, question the premises for these gut reactions of “white people are bad for the natives, they ruin everything they touch, they will cause the native’s demise and never truly be able to understand them.” (Also see Orvo’s thoughts on page 139—very interesting.) Ply’mau also voices doubts about John’s assimilation, “You’re a white man, and you need these things more” (159) but also acts as John’s foil in accepting John, his way of life, and teaching him Chukchi ways (as opposed to John accepting her way of life) in mixed actions from washing her face (page 131) to questioning how their daughter could possibly not be ‘real’, “As you see, this baby is real enough, and I’m sure that Tynevirineu-Mary will fly” (211).

This reflection only touches on a variety of events/themes that could be explored much more in depth (the significance of Tynevirineu-Mary, especially her name, how Rytkheu may or may not present his own opinion in Orvo’s point of view, Armol’s jealousy and what that means, Ply’mau’s role her own questioning of cultural assumptions), but I was very interested in how it all works together, and especially the idea of judgement (having just read a multitude of The Orient opinion articles in response to “I am Brett Kavanaugh”). There are also a lot of other ideas I had, from comparing Mr. Carpenter to John (notable page 146-149) and views on religion, and questions of “who benefits” from these interactions. Anyway, looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts on these topics and others.

One question I had, that I would like to put out there before I forget, is on page 169, are they talking about children killing their parents because the parents are no longer self-sufficient and so are a drain on resources? Or am I misreading this?