Monday, January 21, 2008
Unit 12: Conejo Biography
Conejo, now 25, resides in a small mountain village. The brief time spent with Dr. Fuentes and his journey to find his students highly impacted the life of young Conejo. After the death of Dr. Fuentes Conejo assisted with the burial and vowed, in some way, to continue the legacy of the good doctor. Conejo found caring adults in the small village who offered shelter and food in exchange for his labor. Through his labor he was taught mountain farming and takes great pride in his farming skills. He married a young lady when they were both 2o and now have 2 small children. Conejo continues to farm and is planning to move his family to a town in hopes of getting his children an education. Over the years Conejo has participated in many peaceful demonstrations for Indian rights and fair treatment. He feels strongly about advocating for his people and feels Dr. Fuentes would be proud of his efforts.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
As a child, Gabi learned the truth about her parents, both biological and adoptive. This knowledge set her on a path to help others who shared her same fate. After being raised by her adoptive parents and biological grandmother Gabi went on to Buenos Aires to study at the university. She realized she had a passion for politics and eventually became a lawyer. Gabi is currently single and works long hours as an attorney dealing with family law issues. She maintains close contact with her adoptive mother, usually eating lunch with her every Tuesday and Saturday. She misses her adoptive father and grandmother since they died several years ago. Gabi has hopes of marrying and starting her own family within 10 years.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Missing...
For this blog I will assume the role of attorney for the Horman family. I will be bringing a case against the US government for its alleged role or complicity in the death of Charles Horman in Chile in 1973. I will briefly summarize the case by listing 3–5 key arguments to be made in court on behalf of your client.
After pouring over numerous documents, witness accounts, and declassified information, the following arguments will show that the United States Government played a role in the death of Charles Horman.
1. Charles Horman went to Chile in 1972 with his wife, Joyce. When they arrived in Chile President Allende, a socialist, was in office. The Horman's were there to peacefully learn about the country of Chile.
2. In September 1973 there was a coup by General Augusto Pinochet and President Allende committed suicide. Pinochet was anti-communist and a conservative dictator. Horman had a more liberal ideology.
3. In 1973 Nixon, Kissinger, and other US officials feared communism expansion in South America and saw that the coup in Chile to be positive for US political purposes. The US supported, although not officially, covert operatives working towards the implementation of the Pinochet regime.
4. Rafael Gonzalez, a retired security official from Chile, stated that he was witness to meetings discussing Hormans destiny due to the fact that Horman, "knew too much." This information first came available in a 1976 story appearing in The Washington Post.
5. Peter Kornbluh discovered documents while working as a senior analyst at the National Security Archive. What Kornbluh found clearly indicates that US Intelligence played a role in the death of Horman.
The evidence from above will clearly show that the United States Government had a role in and clearly had knowledge of the death of Charles Horman and willfully denied any responsibility in the matter.
After pouring over numerous documents, witness accounts, and declassified information, the following arguments will show that the United States Government played a role in the death of Charles Horman.
1. Charles Horman went to Chile in 1972 with his wife, Joyce. When they arrived in Chile President Allende, a socialist, was in office. The Horman's were there to peacefully learn about the country of Chile.
2. In September 1973 there was a coup by General Augusto Pinochet and President Allende committed suicide. Pinochet was anti-communist and a conservative dictator. Horman had a more liberal ideology.
3. In 1973 Nixon, Kissinger, and other US officials feared communism expansion in South America and saw that the coup in Chile to be positive for US political purposes. The US supported, although not officially, covert operatives working towards the implementation of the Pinochet regime.
4. Rafael Gonzalez, a retired security official from Chile, stated that he was witness to meetings discussing Hormans destiny due to the fact that Horman, "knew too much." This information first came available in a 1976 story appearing in The Washington Post.
5. Peter Kornbluh discovered documents while working as a senior analyst at the National Security Archive. What Kornbluh found clearly indicates that US Intelligence played a role in the death of Horman.
The evidence from above will clearly show that the United States Government had a role in and clearly had knowledge of the death of Charles Horman and willfully denied any responsibility in the matter.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Tsotsi...
Optional Blog: View the 2005 Academy Award-winning South African film Tsotsi*. Write a postscript to the film: what happens to him and the other people in the Soweto township (especially his long-time friend and the young mother)? What happens to the victims?
I think that David (Tsotsi) was arrested and faced some serious criminal charges. He most likely served time in prison. He shot a woman, stole 2 autos, and kidnapped a baby. This is what the police KNOW he did. I liked how the writer/director chose to end this movie. It left you thinking. There were two alternate endings. The first showed David being shot and killed by the police. This was very sad and final. The other ending showed David being shot (not critically) and getting away...running back to his shantytown.
I think that his friends continued on the path that they were on. Aap and Boston continued to pursue petty crime as a way to survive. I think the young mother (Miriam) raised her child and probably found out what happened to David through the newspaper. She most likely would be saddened, but would deal with it and raise her child in the best way she could. There weren't many options for people living in shantytowns. The problems of economic hardship, AIDS/HIV, unemployment, race relations, etc. were very tough obstacles for the township residents.
The victims were happy to be reunited with their baby. There were definitely problems associated with the aftermath of what Totsi did. The mother was shot and we don't know if she is permanently disabled, the father witnessed the murder of Butcher. This family experienced a lot of trauma in a short period of time. They were violated in unthinkable ways. The one good thing is that their child was so young and I don't think he was harmed in any permanent way. I do hope that the young mother (Miriam) that breastfed the baby was healthy and didn't have any diseases that could have been transferred to the young baby.
This was a very good movie that I would recommend when you get time.
I think that David (Tsotsi) was arrested and faced some serious criminal charges. He most likely served time in prison. He shot a woman, stole 2 autos, and kidnapped a baby. This is what the police KNOW he did. I liked how the writer/director chose to end this movie. It left you thinking. There were two alternate endings. The first showed David being shot and killed by the police. This was very sad and final. The other ending showed David being shot (not critically) and getting away...running back to his shantytown.
I think that his friends continued on the path that they were on. Aap and Boston continued to pursue petty crime as a way to survive. I think the young mother (Miriam) raised her child and probably found out what happened to David through the newspaper. She most likely would be saddened, but would deal with it and raise her child in the best way she could. There weren't many options for people living in shantytowns. The problems of economic hardship, AIDS/HIV, unemployment, race relations, etc. were very tough obstacles for the township residents.
The victims were happy to be reunited with their baby. There were definitely problems associated with the aftermath of what Totsi did. The mother was shot and we don't know if she is permanently disabled, the father witnessed the murder of Butcher. This family experienced a lot of trauma in a short period of time. They were violated in unthinkable ways. The one good thing is that their child was so young and I don't think he was harmed in any permanent way. I do hope that the young mother (Miriam) that breastfed the baby was healthy and didn't have any diseases that could have been transferred to the young baby.
This was a very good movie that I would recommend when you get time.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Gourevitch Book Review....
Blog: Write and post a brief review (500–1000 words) of the book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch. Focus in particular on your reaction to the reading and on any changes you might make to the film Hotel Rwanda based on your reading of the book.
I read this book before watching the movie Hotel Rwanda and was glad I did. It puts the movie in a clearer context and gives a detailed history of the events that led up to the mass killings in 1994. Gourevitch is a great writer and did a thorough job of detailing not only the events of the actual genocide, but the history of Rwanda leading up to massacres.
The book explains the role of ordinary citizens, including medical professionals, religious clergy, and peasants that were involved in the butchering of their neighbors. One of the more disturbing images from reading was the part that Pastor Ntakirutimana played in the Mugonero Massacre. Talk about an abuse of trust. The pastors story was told in great detail and gave the reader a good idea of how serious these issues were.
Gourevitch spends a couple of pages talking about his brief relationship with Dian Fossey while he was studying at Cornell University. Her death, by machete, not having anything directly related to the plight of the Tutsi, does indicate the corruption that was in place in the Rwandan government.
An important and helpful part of the reading for me was the explanation behind the stratification system in Rwanda. How the European fad of race science played a role and planted seeds in the minds of Rwandans that would slowly grow and bear some ugly fruit in the form of death and destruction. The movie never touches on John Hanning Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis. Basically, what Speke's myth means is that the Tutsis descended from Caucasoid tribe of Ethiopian origan and was superior to the native (Hutu) negroids. This Hamitic myth plays a role in defining how Rwandans see themselves. The book references a speach given by Leon Mugesera, a Hutu Power ideologue. During the 1992 speach he called on Hutus to, "send the Tutsis back to Ethiopia" by way of the Nyabarongo River, a tributary of the Nile. Hutus clogged the river with thousands of dead Tutsis.
One last point about how much more depth and explanation the book gave. While viewing the movie during the scene where the hotel was being evacuated of foreign dignitaries I noticed a lady with a dog on the bus. This scene would lead you to believe that dogs were valued more than the Africans who were left to work out their problems. The book explained the lack of canines in respect to the killings that were taking place, something the movie didn't address. Dogs were killed by the RPF and Nato forces due to the dogs eating corpses and posing a potential health threat.
These are all small details that the book mentions, but essential in giving us a clearer picture of what was really going on and the severity of the atrocities involved. I think the movie could've added another 10 minutes of footage that would have given the viewer a much greater look at what was going on in Rwanda during this grotesque time.
I read this book before watching the movie Hotel Rwanda and was glad I did. It puts the movie in a clearer context and gives a detailed history of the events that led up to the mass killings in 1994. Gourevitch is a great writer and did a thorough job of detailing not only the events of the actual genocide, but the history of Rwanda leading up to massacres.
The book explains the role of ordinary citizens, including medical professionals, religious clergy, and peasants that were involved in the butchering of their neighbors. One of the more disturbing images from reading was the part that Pastor Ntakirutimana played in the Mugonero Massacre. Talk about an abuse of trust. The pastors story was told in great detail and gave the reader a good idea of how serious these issues were.
Gourevitch spends a couple of pages talking about his brief relationship with Dian Fossey while he was studying at Cornell University. Her death, by machete, not having anything directly related to the plight of the Tutsi, does indicate the corruption that was in place in the Rwandan government.
An important and helpful part of the reading for me was the explanation behind the stratification system in Rwanda. How the European fad of race science played a role and planted seeds in the minds of Rwandans that would slowly grow and bear some ugly fruit in the form of death and destruction. The movie never touches on John Hanning Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis. Basically, what Speke's myth means is that the Tutsis descended from Caucasoid tribe of Ethiopian origan and was superior to the native (Hutu) negroids. This Hamitic myth plays a role in defining how Rwandans see themselves. The book references a speach given by Leon Mugesera, a Hutu Power ideologue. During the 1992 speach he called on Hutus to, "send the Tutsis back to Ethiopia" by way of the Nyabarongo River, a tributary of the Nile. Hutus clogged the river with thousands of dead Tutsis.
One last point about how much more depth and explanation the book gave. While viewing the movie during the scene where the hotel was being evacuated of foreign dignitaries I noticed a lady with a dog on the bus. This scene would lead you to believe that dogs were valued more than the Africans who were left to work out their problems. The book explained the lack of canines in respect to the killings that were taking place, something the movie didn't address. Dogs were killed by the RPF and Nato forces due to the dogs eating corpses and posing a potential health threat.
These are all small details that the book mentions, but essential in giving us a clearer picture of what was really going on and the severity of the atrocities involved. I think the movie could've added another 10 minutes of footage that would have given the viewer a much greater look at what was going on in Rwanda during this grotesque time.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Paradise Now...
I read the petition and the counter petition and tried to be objective while reading them both. I do see valid points raised by both sides and can't choose either one. I think the film has to be viewed and the viewer must make up his own mind. It is apparent that the movie attempts to humanize the oppression in Palestine through the eyes of Khaled and Said. During the process we are shown family history, the bonds of friendship, the striking difference of life on both sides of the fence, and how oppression is dealt with by some. I liked the more moderate voice of Suha in this movie and she lets viewers know that not everyone is an Islamic extremist willing to die a martyr.
This was a good film that had my deepest attention throughout. The scenes of the state of Nablus were all telling. There was rich family history with the triangle of Khaled, Suhu, and Said. All of their fathers had a unique role that no doubt shaped the attitudes of the aforementioned in very meaningful ways. I really think Said may have been influenced the most in concern to both his and his father's role in the conflict.
This was a good film that had my deepest attention throughout. The scenes of the state of Nablus were all telling. There was rich family history with the triangle of Khaled, Suhu, and Said. All of their fathers had a unique role that no doubt shaped the attitudes of the aforementioned in very meaningful ways. I really think Said may have been influenced the most in concern to both his and his father's role in the conflict.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Zinat...
The first scene that I found revealing was the role of women in Iran. It was evident by the dress and domestic jobs that they had very specific roles in Iranian society. Zinat was somewhat of an exception and we later find out it's due to some sort of government training program that she entered with family support.
The scene where Zinat gives a vacine to Ashraf's baby and how Ashraf reacts is very telling. Mothers were apparently anti vacine and I'm not sure if this is for religious reasons or more cultural/traditional in nature.
Zinat and Hamed's wedding was a revealing scene of culture, traditions, and customs. I liked some of the colorful clothing worn during this scene since most of the movie is very dreary looking and without a lot of color. Zinat is full of emotion during the wedding, but not for reasons that one would think.
The final scene where Zinat is leaving in the truck with Ashraf's sick daughter that she just saved is also very good and leaves the viewer with some hope. After some thought and initial hesitation, Hamed catches up and jumps onto to back of the truck in a show of unity and support for his wife and what she does. I think that is symbolic of the change to come.
I wouldn't change the ending scene at all. I liked how the movie finished and the ending made the movie worth watching in my opinion. The first half of the movie actually put me to sleep.
The scene where Zinat gives a vacine to Ashraf's baby and how Ashraf reacts is very telling. Mothers were apparently anti vacine and I'm not sure if this is for religious reasons or more cultural/traditional in nature.
Zinat and Hamed's wedding was a revealing scene of culture, traditions, and customs. I liked some of the colorful clothing worn during this scene since most of the movie is very dreary looking and without a lot of color. Zinat is full of emotion during the wedding, but not for reasons that one would think.
The final scene where Zinat is leaving in the truck with Ashraf's sick daughter that she just saved is also very good and leaves the viewer with some hope. After some thought and initial hesitation, Hamed catches up and jumps onto to back of the truck in a show of unity and support for his wife and what she does. I think that is symbolic of the change to come.
I wouldn't change the ending scene at all. I liked how the movie finished and the ending made the movie worth watching in my opinion. The first half of the movie actually put me to sleep.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)