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.

Questions for "All Quiet On The Western Front

Now that you have finished reading All Quiet on the Western Front, please discuss these three questions with your critical friends. Post a response to one of these questions on your blog. Be sure to integrate the responses of your critical friends in your answer...

1. What is ironic, or dramatically unexpected about the novel's ending?
What I found ironic and strange about the ending of the novel is that Paul dies and also HOW he dies. It is strange to see a main character in a book to die, people always want a continuation and a "happy" ending. However, this is not always the case. Books and movies can't always end happy, as life. The author proved this with Paul dying. Paul died, as some people would say, not honorable. He didn't even die in battle. Instead all of his fellow comrades died before. Paul inhaled a poisonous gas and was left to die in a hospital. He didn't die trying to save anyone, didn't die in the middle of battle, instead he didn't in a hospital, by "accidental" inhalation. In the hospital, Paul doesn't have the urge to go back home, to see his family. He wants to die, for all of his suffering to finally end. He has lost the will to live already and to me that's really sad. The war affected him so badly that he is already against human nature, against living.

2. What images of the novel are lingering in your mind? Explain why these images made a lasting impression on you.
The image that made a lasting impression on me was when Paul was in the hospital and how he just wanted to die. It was very sad that this person has come down to this type of level, which is probably the worst. At this point, he doesn't care about anything, even of his own life. Everything he's done, everything he achieved, came all down to this. It takes something powerful to break this human nature, the will to live. A person can be stranded on an island with nothing and all but he still holds onto his life, the only thing he has left. The war has left Paul with nothing, no friends, no life.

3. Do you think Paul can claim to speak for an entire "lost generation" when he speaks of the effects of war? In Paul's opinion war ruins those who survive as must as those who die. Do you think his fellow soldiers felt the same way about war?
I think that the fellow soldiers probably felt the same way as Paul did. War is so terrible that people feel that everything has been drained from them, every inch of them. Before a soldier dies, the war has already affected him. No body can be exposed to all the horrors in war and not be affected by it. When I hear from holocaust survivors, or anybody who has been in a war, it is so hard to believe what they are saying. They describe what they've seen and it sounds like a movie, not in real life. All those horrors...we can't even imagine. One day a holocaust survivor came to speak at my old school, she had lost all her family and has been to several concentration camps. Someone asked her "Is it easy for you to speak about it, after all those years?" and she said "No, I still cry." Some people can not even speak about the war at all. All these people change so much after a war. They become less open, less alive.

Quotation

Read through chapter 10 by Friday, and complete the text by Tuesday, Feburary 19. Be prepared for an assessment of the entire text next week.
Write a minimum of two dialectic journal entries and comment on two student posts. Choose one salient quote and:

1. Explain what the quotation means in the context of the text
2. Why it is important/interesting to you.

"To me the front is a mysterious whirlpool. Though I am in still water far away from its centre, I feel the whirl of the vortex sucking me slowly, irresistibly, inescapably into itself."
-All Quiet On The Western Front, pg. 55.

I really like this quote because of how it is written. How the author uses a whirlpool to describe the front, it's very powerful and poetic as well. The front does suck soliders in, they are young boys who don't want to kill. They're far away from the middle and don't want to do anything wih the war and kill. But slowly they learn to kill, the front is sucking them in, like a whirlpool. They cannot do anything and then it is difficult to get pulled out from the whirl. After the war, they can be physically, mentally, nad emotionally scarred. The whirl has changed them forever and they will never be the same again.

Abstract

Abstract


The setting is going to be in the barracks playing cards during World War One. Michael the communist [the red] and Alexander [the white] get into a discussion on their opinions on the war. Michael starts off saying that all the war is because of the rich people. Alexander says that they are fighting for their country, for their families, and what they believe in. Michael gets into the argument by saying that the people, who lead this war, are rich and are using the soldiers, who are middle class or poor, to fight the war for them. Also, that the soldiers are all brothers and should fight against the rich people all together and not fight against each other. Alexander argues about the bad that the Germans have caused and shouldn’t let that slip by and defend their country. The argument continues between them until the card game is finished. Alexander sees that he’s lost the card game and says “I lost, you won…up for another round?” Michael agrees and they start playing cards again. Scene ends.

Character Bios

This characters name is Alexander (Sasha). He is 25 years old and lives in Russia with his wife and 2 kids. He spends most of his time with his family, his wife being his high school sweet heart and the two kids being a 9 month old girl and 3 year old boy. These are important times in a kids life and he wants to be there for them. How can his son learn to be a man without a father figure around? He wants to help his country and serve in war but he has doubts on what good its going to do.


This Character's name is Michael (Misha). He is from Russia and serves in the Russian army during World War One and is seventeen years old. He is an only child and just graduated from high school and is pro communist. Michael is very eager to support his country and fight in the war. However, he gets involved in communist acts and the Russian revolution. Michael has brown hair and eyes and is six feet tall.

Monologue

It feels as if I live in a daze, in a fog.
My mind isn’t working; I’ve turned into a killing machine.
My arms and my legs aren’t connected to me.
The nightmares live on inside of me.
Nightmares of a kid sitting scared stiff on the ground.
Only the earth is there to protect him.
The sound of gunfire rings through his ears.
He wishes he could have done more in his small nineteen years.
And I mean, this kid is terrified.
I know this because,
That kid was me.

Reflection

Today's discussion in during class brought up very strong ideas and opinions. What I thought interesting was how people get affected by war. In the book, "All Quiet on the Western Front," it talks about this. The men enlist into the army, or get drafted in, at about nineteen years of age, sometimes even younger. They just graduated from high school. They're young, high-spirited, curious, and enthusiastic. At home they haven't got much, parents, some interests, and maybe a girlfriend but that's about it. Some of the other men in the war are older, around thirty or forty years old. They take the war as a mere interruption in their lives. At home, they have a career, interests, a wife, children, and their own home. They can go back to their lives not nearly as scarred as the younger ones. The war shapes these young ones lives.

All Quiet on the Western Front

Read through chapter 4 (up to page 75). In this chapter Paul states:

"At the sound of the first droning of the shells we rush back, in one part of our being, a thousand years. By the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected. It is not conscious; it is far quicker, much more sure, less fallible, than consciousness. . . . It is this other, this second sight in us, that has thrown us to the ground and saved us, without our knowing how. . . . We march up, moody or good-tempered soldiers—we reach the zone where the front begins and become on the instant human animals."

Why would Paul characterize himself and his comrades as "human animals"?

Your task: Discuss the meaning of this quotation and the experiences the boys are enduring internally. In addition to your posting, comment on one other student's post.

Post: Minimum 200 words
Comment: Minimum 100 words

During war, people let out their human nature. The quotation is saying that once the first explosive comes, the sounds of firing, then the animal inside of each solider has "awakened". This is when their true human nature and instincts have come out. They march up civilized like good soldiers, and haven't experienced battles yet. They stand straight and good mannered until the fire shots. The fire which signals "GO!” It's as if a trigger as been set off in their brain, a gate opens and their instincts emerge. Soldiers start screaming, shooting, running, and stabbing. They act like total lunatics, barbarians, like ANIMALS. They are animals in a human body. This is what I think Paul means. He describes himself and his comrades marching up good-mannered. However, once the fire shoots, everything completely changes. Humans run up to each other like animals, doing anything they possibly can to kill the others, and do anything they can to stay alive. They do whatever it takes to survive, that’s human nature. We all have this, it’s our instinct. It’s so amazing that in less than a second, a person can act totally unlike himself, like an animal in that short point in his life. Then when everything is over, he can go back to his family and home as his own good-mannered self. This quotation really shows us true human nature.

When Monarchy Returns....Was it worth it?

After Napoleon abdicates in 1814, the revolution is officially over, and Louis XVIII is crowned King of France. Can you believe it? The monarchy returns!!! In light of our investigation of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era, evaluate the legacy of the French Revolution. Do you believe it was a success or a failure? Your response should be atleast 150 words.

Before 1789, France lived in great poverty. There was an unequal distribution of wealth. The third estate was affected the most, they made up about 97% of the population and it included everyone except for the clergy and nobility. They were the poorest of the three estates, and they were the only ones taxed. There were no rights, no freedom, and no equality. The King, Louis XIV was doing nothing with the problems France was going through. Instead massive wars were waged, taking out loans, and overspending were taking place and the country went bankrupt. The people could not take any more of this. They started protests, riots, and storming. They started to confront the king. With an enlightenment idea of freedom, equality, and brotherhood a Revolution began. In 1789, a National Assembly was created. The third estate was now more powerful. There were many philosophies that were untraditional. The Philosophy that all men are created equal and certain rights were the beginning of a democracy. Even though, in 1814, Louis XVIII is crowned king of France and the monarchy returns the revolution was definitely a step forward into creating a better form of government. It made may for other ideologies such as nationalism, socialism, and eventually communism. Early communist leaders such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both commented on the French Revolution to find important lessons. The French revolution made way for another form of government. It turned into communism, but then eventually it turned into a democracy.