Author Archives: Sam Hassell

Legend- Puerto Rico (Chupacabra)

Legend: There’s a creature that lives in the wild, called the Chupacabra, or goat-sucker, that comes out at night to prey upon all kinds of livestock (not just goats, but also cows, for example) in Puerto Rico. The creature comes from some kind of area where it can be easily hidden like a forest. Oftentimes, farmers will come out early in the morning to find one of their livestock dead and the markings of the dead livestock will have two deep puncture wounds that look like they were created by big fangs. All that is left of the animal is a carcass completely sucked dry of its blood, and with all other parts of its flesh left intact. It’s believed that the creature is “vampiric” in nature: it needs blood in order to sustain itself. It has fangs and glowing eyes.

The informant is uncertain whether the Chupacabra is only believed to exist in Puerto Rico or in other countries as well, and thinks that other features may be added to it, which vary according to the person telling the story. Some of these features, which he believes may also be included and that he may have heard of, include horns, wings, and a distinct howl. The informant learned the legend of the Chupacabra from his mother, who was born in Puerto Rico, during childhood, perhaps around 7 years of age. He is pretty sure the story was told to him while visiting grandparents in Puerto Rico, probably late at night, and in a cautionary way (“Look-out for the Chupacabra; he may get you!”).

The legend of the Chupacabra would be told at night in Puerto Rico. It is probably told most often to children to prevent them from being bad (“Don’t do this or the Chupacabra will get you”), but could also be told to an older individual. According to the informant, besides this, there is “no purpose to the legend” and he doesn’t “see what farmers have to gain by telling a story about the Chupacabra.” He doesn’t think the story has any literal truth, and he notes that the Chupacabra “hasn’t been scientifically proven to exist.” He supposes that it may in fact be some other type of animal, such as “a mountain lion or coyote.” He thinks that this legend puts Puerto Rico “on the radar” and “adds tradition” to Puerto Rico which “otherwise is a region of the world that many people don’t care much about.” The main use of the story, however, the informant reiterates, is probably to scare children.

Though the informant states at one point that he doesn’t think the legend of the Chupacabra serves any purpose, he does offer two distinct and, in my opinion, quite plausible reasons for why the story is continually told: first, that the scary figure of the Chupacabra can serve as a way to prevent bad behavior among impressionable children and second, that the story can be a way of distinguishing Puerto Rico, perhaps an otherwise small and insignificant country, as the place where this extraordinary creature exists. To this latter understanding I think it may also be added that the Chupacabra legend can provide a way of consolidating identity for Puerto Ricans and knowledge or lack thereof of the story provides an easy way of figuring out if one is an insider (a Puerto Rican, or someone of similar heritage), or a nescient (at least with respect to this common story) outsider. Likewise, his other reason for why the story is told—namely, to frighten misbehaving children, or to prevent future misconduct—seems to me to be just as practical and probable reason to pass along the Chupacabra legend. I can, for instance, remember my own parents reminding my young sister every time we passed an old, dilapidated house that it was inhabited by an old witch who, much like the Chupacabra, would come and take her from us if she didn’t behave.

One respect in which I disagree with the informant’s understanding of the legend involves his statement that Puerto Rican farmers (who he believes are the originators of the story) would have no reason to invent the insidious figure of the Chupacabra. The problem with this, first, is that by stating this he assumes that Puerto Rican farmers could (and did) only conjure up this tale in order to serve some hidden agenda, and thus envisions that the story could only be a rather less than ingenious (since it serves no purpose) ploy used by a lot of conspiring farmers. It seems clear that the informant resorts to an interpretation of the story’s origin whereby it must have been made-up by farmers for a certain reason because he views the legend of the Chupacabra as quite patently false; put otherwise, because the story is false, there must have been some other motive for the farmers’ telling it, since it could not be on account of its truth. Here, I think the informant misses an important and quite likely possibility for the origin of the story which seems common to the genesis of many legends, namely, that the beings and events they invoke serve some type of explanatory purpose; they are often extraordinary precisely because the phenomena they are meant to elucidate cannot be understood in terms of what is merely ordinary.  If viewed in this way, the legend could have a very real, and in no way conniving, purpose which was only for farmers to explain why their livestock were being consumed in such a peculiar manner.

Annotation:

Radford, Benjamin. Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore. University of New Mexico Press, 2011.

Folk Speech/Metaphor

“We’re gonna smack patties.”

The informant stated that they learned the above folk metaphor from a friend, approximately two years ago in middle school. The metaphor is sometimes used prior to the beginning of any form of competition, such as a game, with another group, and usually would not be said outside of this context, and even here, the informant claims, it is not used very often. According to the informant, the metaphor is “just a silly, dumb statement” which not many people say—the only two that he knows of being himself and a close friend.

With the exception of this informant, I do not believe I have ever heard the above folk metaphor used in any context. Nevertheless, I have two possible explanations for why it may be used, especially in the context of (group) competition. The first is that the phrase may refer to the literal smacking of meat patties on a grill by a cook with a spatula. Accordingly, this form of folk speech could be used before the onset of group competition as a sort of rallying cry, suggesting that group’s impending domination over the other (the patties), as in the case of patties being easily smacked all around a grill by the spatula of a cook. Such a cooking, and even more specifically, grilling metaphor might not seem so out of place in the context of sport if we, for instance, consider the common use of the term “gridiron”  in reference to the field used in American football, or to the sport itself (as in “Gridiron Football”).

Another, perhaps more remote, possibility is that this folk metaphor connotes domination in competition by referring to punitive measures (“smacking”) taken against a group inferior in some respect (the “patties”). Interestingly enough, the word “patty” sounds familiar to “paddy,” or a derogatory slang term for an Irishman, though no connection is necessarily suggested here. On either interpretation of the metaphor, it is clear that the phrase could serve, especially in the context of group competition, to portend a future victory.

Joke/Blason Populaire/True Riddle

“How long is a Chinese man’s name?” After the interlocutor’s response (unless there is none), the line is then repeated: “How long is a Chinese man’s name?” If the interlocutor still does not understand, this part may be restated with different intonation, making clear that the line is a direct statement, as opposed to a question: “How Long is a Chinese man’s name.”

The informant stated that he learned the above joke (and riddle) about two months ago from a friend who told him the joke on the school bus. He said that he would tell the joke to both friends and family and at no specific time. However, he would not tell it to Asian people that he did not know well. The informant thought that this was an unusual and “unique” type of joke and that it is funny.

When I heard this joke for the first time from the informant, I had the typical and expected response: “I don’t know, how long is it?” Then, when he repeated it for me again, I understood the structure and purpose of the joke. Like the informant stated, the joke is rather unusual and unique, owing to the fact that it makes use both of a group stereotype—namely, that Asians have what might seem to many Westerners an abrupt and odd form of nomenclature—and of a quasi true riddle structure in which the answer (here, precisely that there is no answer, or response which should be given) is contained in the question. This piece of folklore thus incorporates not only the generally pervasive genre of jokes in which people of nearly every age group participate, but also the scarcer genre of riddles, which is more commonly found among children (though the informant here is perhaps a few years past childhood) who, being themselves novice language users, take greater delight than many older individuals in the enigmatic applications of language so often found in riddles.

Proverb

“Shit or get off the pot.”

The informant says she learned the above proverb from her mother, probably as far back as childhood. The proverb is typically used to express frustration over somebody not getting something done. The informant believes that the saying is useful in that “it’s to the point: either produce or move on, enough is enough.”

Like the informant, I found this proverb to be a useful way of communicating one’s frustration with another person. The vulgarity seems to ensure that the saying is likely to be directed at somebody who is relatively close to the person uttering it, as well as that the line will quickly catch the attention of its recipient. The slang, or perhaps, antiquated term “pot,” clearly referring to a “toilet bowl,” is similarly rugged and catchy. Unlike the informant, I think that the above proverb may connote not only frustration that someone is failing to “produce,” but perhaps that they are doing so in an untimely manner, and/or that they are impeding someone else (most probably the person using the proverb) from performing the same activity. This interpretation and use seems more specific to the metaphorical language of the proverb, which appears to invoke the image of someone unable to go to the bathroom on account of another taking his/her time in carrying-out the intended action of the other.

Folk Belief- Runners/Race T-shirts

Belief: Runners should never wear the memorial t-shirt that they receive while registering for a race during the race that the t-shirt commemorates.

The informant stated that she acquired this belief through a friend and fellow runner about 10 years ago when she started running. The belief is to be followed in practice for any race. For the informant, wearing a race t-shirt while running the same race is something you “just don’t do if you’re a serious runner,” and doing otherwise would make you feel out of line. She also emphasized, though to a lesser extent, that wearing the race t-shirt during the actual race might make one feel uncomfortable as though it were a bad omen and that something undesirable, such as an injury, might occur during the race.

Two aspects of this runner’s belief conveyed to me by the informant seemed particularly interesting and worth noting. First, the informant understood the belief, or more specifically its manifestation in practice (i.e. not wearing the registration t-shirt during the race) as a way of determining the insiders—the seasoned or “serious” runners—from the outsiders, who are presumably novice or more casual runners. Never wearing one’s race t-shirt while participating in that same race is thus a tangible way of asserting one’s identity, or their belonging to the former class. The second thing that seemed apparent to me, but not so much to the informant who looked upon the belief as something they simply adopted and practiced without thinking too much about it, is that this specific runner’s belief may be connected to an anxiety that doing the opposite—that is, wearing the race t-shirt while participating in the same race that t-shirt commemorates—could serve as a form of jinx. On this understanding, wearing the t-shirt during the race would be a sort of premature celebrating, since the t-shirt is meant to commemorate a successful finish to its respective race, and so the t-shirt should not be worn by any runner who has not actually finished the race, lest something bad should occur while they are attempting to do so. The belief could thus be seen as serving a very practical purpose in that it prevents the runner from incurring bad luck.

?