In the medieval unit we studied about many kings, and most of them did not 'understand' or make rules that benefited the people. Kings like king Richard was one of the kings that never would have interest in his people. This led to the Peasants creating a rebellion, but still if a king were to follow the will of his people, bad things could happen. For example, if the kings people wanted to build a new building, but the king had no money. The king would need to introduce a tax, but the peasants have no money. Therefore a rebellion could start, and during 1381 a rebellion did start because of a tax and a statute. Still things like higher wages, or freedom, could easily be changed. Adolf Hitler did not follow what his people/ nazi's wanted. Instead he used them to do what he wanted. Therefore I believe that he was not a good leader.
I believe that Duke William had the strongest claim. Harold had taken an oath to help Duke William become the king of England after Edward the Confessor died. In the Medieval times, being called an oath breaker was a minor moral sin which was frowned upon. Duke William also claimed that in 1051, when he visited Edward, Edward chose him as his successor. The leader of Norway, Harald Hardrada, also had a claim for the throne. Harald Hardrada's claim was that one of Harald's ancestors, King Cnut was king of England before. I believe that William had the best claim because Harold Godwinson had taken an oath to help William become the next king of England, and Hardrada's claim was not direct enough because it was one of his ancestors that was the king of England.
1.What’s familiar about the incident Eve describes? The part of how she was added into the group for a moment just for the fun of the diary. This has happened to me before. When I was younger, I was also excluded from a certain 'group'. This group was not popular. Something similar to the story that Eve describes was; the group made fun of people. Once, the group found a valuable book, one that was important to the owner. Even though the owner wanted it back badly, the group kept it away from him. I was standing there, watching, hoping that someone would stop the bullying. I still regret till today that I did not stand up against that.
2.What surprised you?
The fact that the group was in second grade surprised me. From my experience, not many second graders are capable of forming a 'group' that excluded girls and boys that were 'different'.
3. How does Eve’s story relate to bullying? Was she bullied? Did she bully? How would you explain her behavior? ( perpetrator/bystander/victim?). make sure you justify( back up your answer.)
Eve was bullied, and later on bullied someone else. Eve was excluded from the 'in group'. She bullied a the girl who was helping the 'in group' make fun of other kids. When the in group finds the girl's diary, they told Eve to come and read the diary. When that girl finds other kids reading her diary, Eve clearly felt her pain. I believe that Eve acted as a perpetrator, because she did not help the girl when she was in pain, but instead Eve contributed to it.
4. Where have we seen examples of bullying/ostracism/exclusion occurring in texts studied so far this year- factual as well as fictional?
In the first book that our class read, it shows how the main character 'Pheonix' was bullied. The bully Steve convinced all the other students that Pheonix was a nerd. Steve even convinced the other kids that Pheonix and Laura (Pheonix's only friend) were a couple. Usually Laura helped Pheonix out when Pheonix was bullied by Steve. Once where Steve, Pheonix, and Laura got pulled into a game, Steve was the antagonist. Steve stole Laura and needed supplies from Pheonix.
In the book The Hunger games bullying and exclution occurs, even though the Hunger games is mostly about violence, because Cato, the main antagonist, focuses on trying to kill Katniss, the main protagonist; this leads to a type of hunt. This puts Katniss under pressure. Cato also formed an alliance, and together with that alliance, Cato searched for Katniss. This shows bullying and exclusion.
5. Eve concludes “Often being accepted by others is more satisfying than being accepted by oneself, even though the satisfaction does not last.’ What does she mean? I think Eve means that; sometimes, being allowed into groups can be more satisfying than being alone. Even if it is the wrong group.
The story that I was given is about Le Chambon, a small village south of France that took in Jewish refugees. Even though they saved lives, they did not regard themselves as heroes. This showed me that even if you did something heroic, your not a hero, you were just doing the right thing. From reading the article about Le Chambon, I also learnt that your religion is usually part of your choice.
"If we do not work towards developing confidence in our spiritual resources, we will be responsible for producing in due time a world devoid of humanity."
In this quote it shows how religion is part of choice. If we lack faith in religion, we lack confidence, if we lack confidence, we choose out of fear. Many Germans chose to follow Hitler out of fear. Le Chambon's Magda Trocme said;
"There was no decision to make. The issue was: Do you think we are all brothers or not? Do you think it is unjust to in the Jews or not? Then let us try and help!"
Le Chambon had courage that many other villages, cities or countries lacked, historical courage.
I chose the poem 'Victory', mostly because it was the poem that meant the most to me. I enjoyed the poem because of the affection shown between Sonia and her father,. This poem was about the last time Sonia Weitz saw her father. The beginning of the poem was dull and depressing, but towards the end the theme changed to a happier tone. She explains how her father who was once strong, now weak and frail, danced with her to the tune of a harmonica. She enjoyed this moment so much she added in the poem:
"There are no tools to measure love, and only fools would fail, to scale, your victory".
This quote in my opinion meant that only fools would not know the value of love.The poem is about the separation of Sonia Weitz and her father. The poem also mentions that she might die. A scene in my life which related to this poem was when I was lost in a shopping mall. I thought that was the last I had seen of my family, and I gave up hope on ever seeing them again. I felt depressed and isolated. Then I started to reflect over good memories and smiled at the good times we had.
It was partly luck that led Hitler to power. Conditions such as the Reichstag Fire, or the great Hyperinflation led Hitler to gain the Germans obedience. When Germany was suffering from the Hyperinflation, they were in many ways, desperate. Germans wanted a leader who would solve this. Hitler took this opportunity. His convincing speech was all that was needed to gain Germany's trust. Other factors contributed to Hitlers control, but nothing as overwhelming as the Reichstag Fire. After Berlin firefighters reached the Reichstag building, Chambers of Deputies were dead. Policemen searched inside of the building for a cause, and found a man named, 'Marinus van der Lubbe' who supposedly started the fire. To the Nazi's, the fire was an affirmation of the communists plotting to damage the Government of Germany. Marinus van der Lubbe was beheaded a year later, in this way Hitler then got rid of his main competition. These events, in my opinion, was the two most important events, because they slowly both led Hitler to power.
According to the Nuremberg law, a citizen would be proclaimed a Jew, if 3-4 grandparents were Jews. Even if you yourself had converted into another type of religion, you would be recognized as a Jew. Jews were hated by the Nazi's for what they had done in WWI, therefore this meant the Nazi's pushed Jews out of their business, and non- Jewish Germans would take over for a bargained price. This left many Jews jobless.
Even Jewish doctors were not allowed to treat non-Jewish German patients, and Jewish lawyers were forbidden to practice law. This meant many Jews became unemployed. A way Nazi's expressed there hatred for Jews, was that the Nazi's stamped a red 'J' on the Jew's identity cards, and a Jews middle name would be changed too; if you were a boy 'Israel', and if you were a girl 'Sara'. This allowed police to easily identify Jews.
A law called the "Law of the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People", was a law made for official marriage. If you had contagious diseases or passed on illnesses, you were not allowed to marry. These were some of the many things Nazi's did to change history.
1. What are Civil Rights? What are some that we have?
Civilians are given rights, so problems such as racism and sexism are not extended as a 'moral hazard'. Rights such as Freedom of speech, Abolition of slavery, Right of privacy, and so on. When Hitler took control, rights including these were deteriorated. Leaving only, if you are a 'Perfect German', you are allowed to live in no harm. This new concepts was derived from of course Hitler himself. 2. Why might some of Hitler's measures in abolishing personal freedoms and Civil Rights be seen by some as as a positive, or necessary move?
Back then, when Germany was in a treacherous path, people would believe Hitler, knowing that what other things they had tried had no value. When Hitler gave such a satisfying speech, people would follow, not knowing what would become of this new lead. Hitler gave the impression that he had a great pansophy, which he knew people would follow along. When he said that the destruction of Civil rights is necessary, people would follow along thinking that it was part of a process leading towards a better Germany. "Now we’ll show them! Anyone who stands in our way will be mown down! The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats... as well!" After a fire broke down where the usual Reichtag meetings are held, Hitler persuaded the Nazi's to get rid of competition, this was easily done for him because his Nazi army had somehow doubled. After this communist massacre, Hitler was surely in power, and he used it in ways you will never imagine.
In my opinion, the whole treaty was unfair to the German citizens. The fact that they can only have a certain amount of soldiers and combat machines such as torpedo submarines, battleships, so on; does not allow them to fend of attackers. The fact that Germany was blamed for the whole conflict they called 'The Great War' was not sincerely correct. The war began due to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who which was assassinated by a group of Serbian nationalists. With that information, why was the war blamed on Germany? Additionally, Germany and her allies were blamed for the damage done during the war, still Germany herself had to pay all the expenses. All of these reasons describe why I believe that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair towards Germany.
