Wednesday, February 23, 2011


a. Both of these burning incidents are alike because they were ways to express their disagreement of how they and others like them were being treated. To show their anger they performed burnings, trying to prove a point to the country. This all started because they weren't allow them to do what they wanted (and should I point out that what they wanted to do was totally harmless to others, selling food at a scale and practicing Buddhism without forcing others to do the same). Now the difference between them is that Mohamed Bouazizi's, the scale owner, burning was meant as a political act of anger and was directed toward the government, while Thich Quang Duc, the Buddhist, bring was religiously justified and was to call attention to his cause, not technically blaming the government, but wanting the people to see what was going on.

b. Truthfully I feel that both of these situations could have been handled better. What I mean is that they didn't have to ignite them selves to get their feelings through. I know it did get people to notice what was happening, but maybe they could have done some other act of rebellion to get their message across. Maybe in Mohamed Bouazizi's case, he could have burned a picture of the dictator or had others follow him in a strike that prohibited the rules in Tunisia. And forThich Quang Duc he could have done some kind of Buddhist act because technically he broke his own rule of Buddhism by not settling a problem peacefully. If he did something that followed the Buddhism tradition it might not have started the Vietnam War. (emphasis on might)

c. “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” By: Albert Camus

In this quote it is stating that the only way to fix a problem is by standing up and proving that it is worng. This is related because each men thought that by burning themselves they would be able to get a point across. They knew there were things that needed to be straightened out in their world and actually did something to cause things to change.

OPTION #2/Literary Analysis of WWI

Here are the steps for being successful.

1. Choose a(n) topic/event/person leading up to WWI.

2. Find a picture and quote that relates to your topic/event/person.

3. Analyze the picture and quote and EXPLAIN how your topic/event/person are related!!! BE CLEVER, find important things that are in the picture and quote that could be used to get a better understanding of the place and time the picture and quote were at.

Please number your response as shown below.

1. Type your topic/event here. Then provide a summary. Now post a link where someone can learn more about the topic/event.

2. Copy and paste the the picture and quote…quote above picture. Now post a link

where someone can find the quote and picture.

3. Now write your analysis. Find important details in the picture that could help identify how your quote relates. Try to find poetic elements it the picture…if you can.


1. My topic is on the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He was 51 when he when he and his wife were shot and killed by Gavrilo Princip. This is said to be the started WWI.

2. "Sophie dear, Sophie dear, don't die! Stay alive for our children."

3. In this picture it shows Archduke Franz Ferdinand arriving in Sarajevo. If you noticed there is military staff surrounding him. This might be because they are protecting him… but from what? Also the atmosphere is dusty and hard to see through. This could help cover and hide some unwelcoming people. In Sarajevo there was a group called The Black Hand that wanted to kill the Archduke. Their three attempts had failed, which was to bomb the train, so another terrorist named Gavrilo Princip stood up and shot two bullets as the train was riding by. The first bullet hit Ferdinand’s pregnant wife who died instantly and the other hit Ferdinand in the neck. Franz Ferdinand’s final words were, "Sophie dear, Sophie dear, don't die! Stay alive for our children."

The White Man's Burden & Imperialism

Analysis Questions: The White Man's Burden

By. Rudyard Kipling

Q1. Determine what Kipling means by "the White Man's Burden."

A1. What Kipling means by "the White Man's Burden is that the white leaders believed that they were above all others and that they would be able to lead the US to world domonation. They thought very little of any other kind of race, looking at them like they were dirt, and felt that as long as there were white leaders, they would be able to rule the world.

Q2. Does Kipling justify imperialism? How so?

A2. Kipling is justifying imperialism. In this line, "To seek another's profit, And work another's gain," it explains how the white leaders would try to take over someone elses land to gain more authority, thus allowing them to control the citizens that belonged to other leaders, "and work another's gain."

Q3. Why might such a justification might be so appealing?

A3. Kipling's justification of imperialism is so appealing because of the way he sees and interperates his feeling on what's going on. He understands that imperialism is a great advantage to the white men and that it is proves great power and authority, but also understands the disadvantages that occurs to anyone else.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Self-Reflection Questions Reconstruction Debat

  1. How did I feel during planning this presentation? Why did I feel this way?
    1. During the planning of this presentation I felt pride with a little bit of anxiety. I felt pride because of the part I was chosen to do for the debate. I liked the amount of speaking I would do and that someone would be up with me as I presented. I did feel anxiety during the process because of the short amount of time that was given. It was due on Monday, which meant I had to finish practically the whole presentation and practice what I was to say during the weekend. Only problem was that I had a soccer tournament, so that took away a whole bunch of my working time. I ended up working on it on the last day and pretty much was stressing out the whole time. J
  2. How did I feel prior to presenting? Why did I feel this way?

I was a little nervous to be presenting in front of the past DLC kids because they were older and because they wanted revenge for how we had graded them on their presentations, though I wanted to prove to them that the DLC 7 this year was far more superior then they ever were, which gave me confidence and excitement. Sadly that confidence and excitement was drained out of me as soon as I walked into DLC that Monday morning. I was so nervous and afraid of messing up and embarrassing myself in front of the DLC 8 that I started freaking out again, but soon calmed myself down so I would be ready and prepared for the debate.

  1. How did I feel while I was presenting? Why did I feel this way?

When I was actually up and presenting I felt pretty self-confident. I felt that I did a decent job in my speech, considering there were many tech-difficulties. I cannot be sure of how well the others thought of my performance, but I don’t think I could have done much better… well maybe a little better, but still not much. J

  1. What did I personally do well?

I personally did well in projecting my voice and emphasizing important words. I don’t know if my voice was rough or shaky, but I don’t think it mattered. Like the other debate we had, I tried to be as persuasive and strong as I possibly could.

  1. What did not go as desired in this presentation?

All the technical difficulties that sprung up during my presentation were definitely undesirable. I feel that with out the problems I could have held the audience better and probably would have been more persuasive­­­­­­­­­­.

  1. On a scale from 1-10, how well do I think I understood the content? Explain.

I would give myself an 8 in my understanding of the content. I understood most of the facts about Lincoln’s 10% plan and the Radicals 50% plan. I know next to nothing about the Constitution, which was a problem during the questioning stage.

  1. How do I think my group members perceived me? Why do I think this?

I think they perceived me pretty well because I finished my slides on time and presented them confidently and strong. The only problem that happened was that I stressed out a little bit before the debate, which probably upset them.

  1. How do I think the 8th graders perceived me? Why do I think this?

I don’t think they perceived me well at all. Mainly because after the debate all the 8th graders said which side they thought won and whom they thought did well. Out of everyone who presented in that debate, which was about 10 people, I was the only one who didn’t get a complement from them. That made me feel negative, offended and ashamed of my performance. I didn’t think I did well at all and I hated how they felt about me as a performer.

  1. Knowing that I can only control how I act and react, if I could do this presentation again, what would I change about my actions to make it a more ideal experience?

I would change how I reacted to the tech-difficulties and how I reacted by not getting a complement from the 8th grader. First of all for the technical stuff I should have just kept going on with my presentation like Riley and Ciara instead of stopping and trying to fix it. With the complements I should have ignored what they said about the other people and just stayed proud and happy with my performance. Because I let the 8th graders get to me, now I am still not to sure of how I did.

  1. What are my strengths in groups?

I am pretty good at fixing most problems and on getting my work done.

  1. What areas do I need improvement?

I need to get less stressed out over things and just stay cool and confidant.

  1. What is the most important thing I learned about myself? Why is this so important?

I learned that I listen to what people say (or not say) way too much. I need to be my own inspiration and need to listen to myself, not others as much.

  1. Are there any other things that I need to express?

No not really.