End of "Not On Our Watch"

I liked the ending of "Not on Our Watch" the best since it actually explained what we we can do to help out, which is the whole point of the book. It talked about how we can write letters to the congress, to Bush. It made me want to do something right away, so i'm glad that we wrote letters to Congress and did Camp Darfur. It felt very good to know that we are actually doing something to help and not just sitting around. I would like to inform people on Darfur and its atrocities. Hopefully, at least one person out of all the people we inform will stand up and do something. It's one more person, one more letter. If everyone informed 20 people and one would do something and stand up, imagine how many letters would be sent to Congress every day, imagine how much money will be donated to help save Darfur, and imagine how we can save Darfur with just information. Information is the strongest way to stand up in what you believe in, for humanity.

Camp Darfur Reflection

Camp Darfur was a really great experience, not only for the visitors but for me and our team as well. We learned many htings about other genocides and I really felt like I had done somehting good. It was the most fulfilling project that I have ever worked on. It didn't even seem like a school project and I was excited to do it. Camp Darfur was set up very nicely and I htink it went great. I thought that more people from outside the High Tech High Village should have come, and newspapers, radiostations, and the news channels. However, I feel that I have infomed people about Darfur and the Cambodia and Holocaust genocides. My project In-Action was creating the Holocaust tent along with the China group. The tent turned out really well and added to Camp Darfur. People entered the tent thinking " I already know plenty about the Holocasut". But as they read and looked at the pictures they had many questions brought up. As I explained more about the Holocaust people had surprised looks on their faces and I was glad that I told them somethings which they did not know. All the speakers were great and really wonderful and I glad they came. The speaker which I found most interesting was Rachel who needed her son to translate. She said some very strong points and explained to us what was happening in Darfur, non-political, the victims views. She moved to the USA as an adult with children so she remembers her old country very well. I think the visitors were very much impacted by Camp Darfur. They entered the camp thinking that it's just a school project, but after they looked around and heard from us, they were very impressed. I think what impressed them was by how much we knew and how excited we were to be doing this, and that we got so many people together and information. We did not handle this as just a school project, so that was very impressive to me and to the visitors.

Chapters 4-6

In chapters 4-6 of "Not On Our Watch" starts off with the history of this genocide. It gives you a more clearer understanding of why this is happening in Darfur, and that it is very complicated. I did not know many of the things which were said in the book, and now I understand what is happening over there and what is happening in Darfur better. At first, I was really confused. Why is the Janjaweed killing off innocent Darfurians? Why isn't anybody coming to help? Why is the government of Sudan letting this happen? The whole situation is very compicated and the country is suffering more than genocide. But of course genocide is the worst possible thing to happen, and that is what we should focus on. The country was split int regions, being mainly north and south darfur. When Sudan became an independant country in the 50s, the regions came together. Darfur was one. This caused killing, fighting, and the two did not go together for their great cultural difference. North Darfurians are mostly arabs and south Darfurians are traditional Africans. The two have been fighting each other for years. Now it has gotten to the point were a genocide is being comminted in the region against the traditional Africans, in South Darfur mostly. In the secons part of the chapters, Dan talks about more of his experiences in Darfur. So far, I think the book is very good and structured good as well. It switches off with information and history to each author's own stories and opinions.

Chapters 1-3 Class Discussion

On THursday we had our first in-class discussion on hte first three chapeters of "Not On Our Watch". At first, we talked about the authors' writing styles. The book provides both facts and statistics in Darfur as well as the authors' personal stories of how they got to be on htis project and their thoughts along the way. The class was split into two of how they thought about the writing style. One side says that theres no need for the "personal stories". Who cares about Don Cheadle giving out ipods? What does that have to do with Darfur and its atrocities? The other side said that those "personal stories" explain how the authors got to be in Darfur and what they experienced along the way. Plus, we need those accounts for the readers amusement as well, not may people would like to read 244 pages of plain statistics, right? Personaly, I think that we really do need those accounts, for many reasons. When you're reading this book, you really wonder how the authors got to be in Darfur and what made them become active. You read statistics and facts on Darfur on the internet all the time, so why do we need it in this book?
The second thing that we discussed was the actual text, not writing styes, although that didn't last long. I think that this book is amazingly written and I think that a reader who hasn't heard much about Darfur, or at all, will be drawn to this book if of course someone "forces" them to read it. It has a good balance of personalatiy, facts, and ways in which you can do to help. Well you read "Not On Our Watch" you really feel that you can make a difference. I felt that I needed to do something and stand up to take action. And this is exactly what this book was meant to do.

Not On Our Watch: Chapters 1-3

In class, we have been reading a book called "Not On Our Watch: The Mission To End Genocide In Darfur And Beyond" by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast. In our field trip to Los Angles on Thursday, April 26th we went to an event for Darfur, with guest speakers Don Cheadle and John Prendergast. They spoke about their experiences visiting Darfur, ways in which you can help stop the genocide, and about the book. The book starts off with facts about the genocide. Who is helping and who is not and what is happening in Darfur. It is basically facts and statistics. For me, I knew most of the facts in the book and was like I was reading an enclopedia. In the second chapter, however, Don and John speak about their own experiences and how they got to Darfur and to writing this book. I found it to be very interesting because it adds a sense of humanity into the book. If someone wants to know what Darfur is, they can read facts about it on the internet. This book is not only for facts and statistics, but also about people. The authors do a great job in engaging the reader. It shows that one person can make a difference. So far, I am enjoying this book and what it has to offer.

"Night" by Elie Wiesel: Dialectic Journals

Post three dialectic journal entries as you read the text.

Tuesday: Post 1
Wednesday: Post 2
Thursday: Post 3

1)"We stayed motionless, petrified. Surely it was all a nightmare? An unimaginable nightmare?" (pg. 28)

In these short sentences, Elie Wiesel describes how all of this seemed like a nightmare. A nightmare that you cannot wake up from. He makes the horrors of the Holocaust more understandable to us by relating it to a nightmare. We can imagine our worst nightmare, and imagine if it really was true? If it wasn't a nightmare, but real life? It's unbelievable. Elie Wiesel was standing in a line in a concentration camp, a boy of fifteen. The line led to death, to his grave. He was in line for the cremotoria. The smell of human flesh in the air. How could such a sight be imagined by us? It can't. The only thing that can be is perhaps our worst nightmare.

2)" Why should I bless His name? The Eternal, Lord of the Universe, the All-Powerful and Terrible, was silent. What had I to thank Him for?." (pg. 31)

In this quote, Elie Wiesel is questioning his religion, his beliefs. For him, it felt as though people were all alone, abandoned at the time by G-d. That He is the One who chose to be silent. He felt that he had nothing to thank Him for.



3)"Someone began to recite Kaddish, the prayer for the dead. I do not know if it ever happened before, in the long history of the Jews, that people have ever recited the prayer for the dead for themselves." (pg. 31)

I only hear the recital of the Kaddish and recited the Kaddish at funerals or at synagouge when someone has died. People don't recite Kaddish for themselves in Jewish law, even when they know they're about to die. They know that their family friends, and the rabbi will recite it for them. But in the Holocaust, the people knew that they were going to die. And who will recite Kaddish for them? There was no one. Everyone were awaiting the same fate. When in the history of the Jewish people did people have to recite Kaddish for themselves? Reciting the Kaddish was the last thing that they could do, it made them feel better. Who will know of their deaths? Who will care enough to recite Kaddish for them? Their family were dying too. They couldn't recite Kaddish. Many died and many had no one else to recite Kaddish for them, the prayer of the dead. It is the last prayer.

"The Perils of Indifference"

This is an exerpt from the speech "The Perils of Indifference".

"What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?"

Answer Elie Weisel's questions to the best of your ability. Use your heart, your mind, your understanding of human nature, and historical evidence. A minimum of 300 words is expected.




For me, "indifference" is really just what he says..."no difference". But this totally contradicts human. Everyone is different. No one is the same. Not everybody can be treated the same. It the same thing for men and women. People say that they are equal. But they are NOT equal. They have different types of roles in life and it's just how it is. Yes, they need to be given the same rights and the same chances in education and work. One shouldn't be treated lower than the other, but the same. Same doesn't always mean that everything should be the same. Each of them of very important roles and jobs to do, and if one of them wants to be like the other, it just won't work. We need both for the world. If all men do things that typically women do, or all women do things that typically men do , then there will be this huge empty space, this gap, on one side. Everything needs to be balanced out. It's not natural. To me, indifference is the ability to accept. Just to accept. It's not "equal" or no difference. Christians, Jews, Muslims, they are all different. They're not the same. That's why there are different ethnic groups, races. No one can be like the other. But we are all equal in our rights. The rights to live, to have an education, to work.
Some People just can't accept. Most anti-semantics and racist people just don't have know about the other race, religion, or culture. They haven't really talked to them. They haven't really meet them. They just know that they are bad and need to be exterminated. That's all. Why? Why are they so bad? You ask. Their answer? Maybe they'll give a reason: Because they have all the money, because they bombed us, because they are different. Ok, maybe those people did bomb. But this was a small number of their group. It not that all of a sudden everyone in the same race, religion, etc. think the same, do the same. They don't. Everyone is different in that group. One cannot judge a whole group. Each person should be only judged by themselves, as individuals, not from their background and where they are coming from. But there's a huge problem with this. People can't do that. We can't "Not Judge" a person by where they are coming from. We can't look at a person all the time and not think about the bad their country or race has done. It takes a really strong kind of person to do this.