The butterfly effect entails that a small supposedly insignificant event in the past could set off a chain of events and compound to profoundly shape the present. Time travel in science fiction generally follows this principle, usually the consequence is larger than the action that caused it. As opposed to this, Dana is actively making an effort to alter the present and still isn’t guaranteed to have any impact and the possibility of her making no difference at all in who Rufus becomes is real. Rather than emphasising how much difference a little change in the past can make on the present Kindred illustrates the opposite, how little difference even a massive change in the past can make in the present. Dana’s individual actions are humbled in the face of the bigger picture.

This is furthered by the fact that time, in the book, isn’t linear. The book begins by recounting an event that happens at the end of the story, the main characters are constantly flung between the past and the present and time doesn’t even move at a constant rate. The past isn't the beginning, the present isn’t the middle and the future isn’t the end. 

I think Butler subverts our understanding of time to show how the connections we make between history and the present are interpretations, not objective truth. She highlights uncertainty and chaos in Kindred to show that the cause-and-effect relationship between past and present is constructed. In reality events and the order in which they happen are random and uncontrollable and the amount of influence one event has over another is to a large extent subjective. Much of the interconnectedness of historical events is created by us and isn’t innate. 

Butler’s blending of the past, present and future allowed her to critique newly emerging perspectives on slavery among young African Americans in the 70s. Increasingly popular stances among young black people at the time were arguments like ‘I wouldn’t have taken that. I wouldn’t let anyone treat me that way’. What I think Butler is trying to show is the flaws of assuming what we would or wouldn’t do in a situation based entirely on secondhand experience. By calling the way we understand history into question and blurring the clear-cut cause and effect relationship between past and present Butler challenges using historical accounts as our means of understanding both past and present. I think what she is trying to propose is that empathising with people in the past is necessary to understand history but that it can’t be acquired from historical accounts because they aren’t as concrete and tangible first hand experience.   

It is despite the uncertainty of her situation and in the face of her potential insignificance that Dana still chooses to try and change Rufus. Her reasoning for this is trying to achieve “insurance” for her own life. Dana argues that should she return to the past without Kevin her chance of survival will be drastically reduced, and her only hope would be that Rufus remembers her clearly and positively enough to ensure her some level of protection. Her wellbeing and her life are entirely dependent on “gambling against history”; this presents Dana as helpless. In my opinion this mirrors the uncertainty faced by real enslaved people, the decisions they made (to resist or to comply) decided whether they were safe or unsafe or whether they lived or died. The primary flaw with arguments like “If I was in ___ situation I would have ___” is how reductive and detached they are. I think Butler is forcing us to empathise with how little choice Dana has in order to confront us with the realities of enslavement and the potential insignificance of individual choice. 

Butler also challenges the individualism of arguing “I wouldn’t let anyone treat me that way”. This argument reduces the issue of oppression down to individual choice, turning the responsibility away from the oppressive system onto the oppressed. These arguments tend to, in my opinion, reduce the empathy that we have for enslaved people and aggrandise individual choice neglecting the larger collective and context. Butler doesn’t entirely dismiss the power of individual choice as Dana’s survival is dependent on her choice to mold Rufus, however she makes it a point not to guarantee Dana’s success the way that “I wouldn’t let anyone treat me that way” seemingly guarantees that individual choice can prevent oppression.

Paper one was a research paper discussing the idea of a global black identity. What drew me to this question is my own experience as an international student, an African and a consumer of primarily british and american media. I initially struggled with managing the scope of my question as the impacts of racial slavery on the global black identity were seemingly endless. Finally selecting specific targets to cover within the essay is one of its biggest strengths as it allowed for me to actually begin answering the question. Even if the essay doesn’t cover every single consequence of racial slavery on the global black identity, I think what allowed it to be an effective piece of writing was that it had a defined direction. 

Paper two was more of a comparative essay focussed on explaining the ideas expressed in Walter Johnson’s “On Agency” through Octavia Butler’s writing in “Kindred”. Finding an effective article to supplement my analysis and then actually trying to digest the content of the article was probably the most difficult part. However, sticking with the article I chose and taking the time to not only understand it but formulate the language to explain my analysis of it made the writing process much easier. I think a strength of this paper therefore is its detailed analysis and clear articulation. 

Paper three was the paper that pushed me most out of my comfort zone and it is in my opinion the most unique piece of writing in my portfolio. A lot of my research for that paper was talking to my mother and so sorting through what information she had to find a clear connecting trend was the longest part of the writing process. Later, finding a way to retell the events and support them with relevant historical research in a way that made a cohesive story was also challenging. Despite the challenge, I think this is the paper's biggest strength and I think what makes the paper effective is being able to retell personal family stories to be a reflection of a broader historical period that any reader could have interest in. 

Lastly, the two journals, journal one was an explanation of my previous understanding of slavery and journal three was an analysis of the way Butler writes time travel. I truly enjoyed writing journals for this class because it permitted me to actually share a less formal, more personal version of my writing which I didn’t really get to do previously. What I appreciated about journal 1 was that it made me identify gaps in my understanding of the history of racial slavery as well as reflect on why those gaps exist. I think a strength of that journal entry was its clarity in mapping out what I already know and what I want to learn. Journal three was similar to paper 2 in that I was initially having a hard time with articulation. The prompt was challenging to tackle in my experience but doing so helped me understand the text with newfound depth and once again, forced me to write an answer that I was satisfied with.