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.