This novel has left many impressions and images in my mind. The warzone was amazingly described and made me think about warzones, being shellshocked, the inhumanity of war, death and agony. Paul's story is filled with pain and suffering. His squad is slowly taken out, soldier by soldier. In the end, it is only Paul left until he is affected by a chemical attack. Paul died by the end of the story. It taught me much about trench warfare and what solider must endure in battle.
The images of fighting and violence is a constant reminder what happened not so long ago. It is funny as it was considered the "war to end all wars," yet we are in the middle of a huge war on terrorism in the Middle East. These images have remained in my mind becuase it was a huge part of the book. Understanding what these young men went throught was one of the authors goals. I believe he was successful and the reader's perspective of war and the soldiers who fight them are changed. You do indeed learn of the life of these soliders and how they survive. You begin to question if war is really necessary. Or for that matter, can it be avoided. Also, it brings a connection to modern times with the war on terrorism in the Middle East. We no longer use trench warfare, but advanced tactics and procedures. We have learned a lot from WWI (technology being the most) but one thing is for sure: war is eternal.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Dialectic Journals
“Comrade, I did not want to kill you. . . . But you were only an idea to me before, an abstraction that lived in my mind and called forth its appropriate response. . . . I thought of your hand-grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade…how could you be my enemy?”
I thought this quote is extremely interesting. It is the first time Paul Baumer kills another human being. He cannot contemplate his actions and wonders why it must be done. Could it be that Dual is not different from Paul? Paul has gone through an extensive change in personality, attitude, mentality and morality. He seems confused when the deed is done. They are forced to fight each other no matter what their internal feelings are. They have been convinced that the men they are at war against are evil. Is it possible that the propaganda manipulated their thinking? It is possible and that is what happened.
It is interesting how Paul calls the one he killed “comrade”. I think he removed the differences and found something similar to himself. Paul feels that the things that divide the two men are irrelevant. He really connects to Duval in the sense that they are two and the same. The quote also delves deep into the moral decisions of taking another man’s life. It is a constant battle over right and wrong. Paul knew what he had to do but may not know why. The soldier’s mind is a fragile thing – something that is constantly changed and altered into a confused state.
"I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how peoples are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another."
Paul is describing the soldiers on either side of the war, including himself. Even though he is young, he knows the causalities of war being death, violence, and inhumanity. He believes that they have been tricked and foolishly joined to help the country. The soldiers had no knowledge of what they were going to experience. I think Paul believes that the government is to blame for the war – the soldiers are just mere pawns who are controlled by the government. He realizes that there is no reason to kill one another – man is turned against his brother.
It is very interesting how he says he knows nothing of happiness or joy because of the war. It comes back to the theme of the book – the transformation of man into beast when at war. He is also making a statement of the humanity loss when fighting and killing. The young boys who enter warfare have no idea what they are getting into. It is probably the closest thing to hell on earth. It is something no man wants to experience. A very important quote when discussing the life of soldiers.
I thought this quote is extremely interesting. It is the first time Paul Baumer kills another human being. He cannot contemplate his actions and wonders why it must be done. Could it be that Dual is not different from Paul? Paul has gone through an extensive change in personality, attitude, mentality and morality. He seems confused when the deed is done. They are forced to fight each other no matter what their internal feelings are. They have been convinced that the men they are at war against are evil. Is it possible that the propaganda manipulated their thinking? It is possible and that is what happened.
It is interesting how Paul calls the one he killed “comrade”. I think he removed the differences and found something similar to himself. Paul feels that the things that divide the two men are irrelevant. He really connects to Duval in the sense that they are two and the same. The quote also delves deep into the moral decisions of taking another man’s life. It is a constant battle over right and wrong. Paul knew what he had to do but may not know why. The soldier’s mind is a fragile thing – something that is constantly changed and altered into a confused state.
"I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how peoples are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another."
Paul is describing the soldiers on either side of the war, including himself. Even though he is young, he knows the causalities of war being death, violence, and inhumanity. He believes that they have been tricked and foolishly joined to help the country. The soldiers had no knowledge of what they were going to experience. I think Paul believes that the government is to blame for the war – the soldiers are just mere pawns who are controlled by the government. He realizes that there is no reason to kill one another – man is turned against his brother.
It is very interesting how he says he knows nothing of happiness or joy because of the war. It comes back to the theme of the book – the transformation of man into beast when at war. He is also making a statement of the humanity loss when fighting and killing. The young boys who enter warfare have no idea what they are getting into. It is probably the closest thing to hell on earth. It is something no man wants to experience. A very important quote when discussing the life of soldiers.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Character Bios
William Scotts:
William Scotts is a male solider who enlisted for the Allied Forces with his old friend Thomas Washington. He knew he wanted to help our country by fighting off the Germans. Scotts is about 25 years of age and comes from England (?). He is in the front lines and supports suppressive fire when the enemy attacks the trenches. He serves as a rifleman when attacking the opposition. He is not married, but since the war started, has met a woman named Paulina Madison. She did not want him to go, put he felt it was the right thing to do. He first becomes scared when the attacks begin, but eventually adjusts to the situation. The first chemical bombing was very horrifying; it came swiftly and unrepentantly. Luckily, he was able to put on his gas mask in time. He is very dedicated to what he does and is very patriotic. His squad has taken over many German platoons and soldiers. A few times, Scotts ran out to “No Man’s Land” to put down the German enemy. Scotts is a British soldier who is on the Western Front. His conflict resides in himself. He sometimes questions his actions and whether joining the army was the right decision. He does not know if killing is the right thing. He will find out soon enough in the battles to come.
Thomas Washington:
My name is Thomas William Washington and I am a US soldier. I am 24 years old. I have a wife and three kids back home. Both of my parents had died when I was young and my grandparents had raised me ever since. I didn’t really have much friends growing up until I got in seventh grade. I met one of the greatest guys ever. He was and still my best friend. His name was William Scotts. One of my allies and best friends has joined me in World War I. Together we have killed other people to keep ourselves alive. We have been hiding in these fronts in order to stay alive and kill the enemy. We were born and raised in London, England. We have known each other since the seventh grade. We decided to go to college together but that never came in the picture. The irony of World War I had called us both. I hated everything about wars and killing people. William always thought it would be a real rush and that he always wanted to support his fine country. Then all of a sudden were here in these horrible fronts we call home.
William Scotts is a male solider who enlisted for the Allied Forces with his old friend Thomas Washington. He knew he wanted to help our country by fighting off the Germans. Scotts is about 25 years of age and comes from England (?). He is in the front lines and supports suppressive fire when the enemy attacks the trenches. He serves as a rifleman when attacking the opposition. He is not married, but since the war started, has met a woman named Paulina Madison. She did not want him to go, put he felt it was the right thing to do. He first becomes scared when the attacks begin, but eventually adjusts to the situation. The first chemical bombing was very horrifying; it came swiftly and unrepentantly. Luckily, he was able to put on his gas mask in time. He is very dedicated to what he does and is very patriotic. His squad has taken over many German platoons and soldiers. A few times, Scotts ran out to “No Man’s Land” to put down the German enemy. Scotts is a British soldier who is on the Western Front. His conflict resides in himself. He sometimes questions his actions and whether joining the army was the right decision. He does not know if killing is the right thing. He will find out soon enough in the battles to come.
Thomas Washington:
My name is Thomas William Washington and I am a US soldier. I am 24 years old. I have a wife and three kids back home. Both of my parents had died when I was young and my grandparents had raised me ever since. I didn’t really have much friends growing up until I got in seventh grade. I met one of the greatest guys ever. He was and still my best friend. His name was William Scotts. One of my allies and best friends has joined me in World War I. Together we have killed other people to keep ourselves alive. We have been hiding in these fronts in order to stay alive and kill the enemy. We were born and raised in London, England. We have known each other since the seventh grade. We decided to go to college together but that never came in the picture. The irony of World War I had called us both. I hated everything about wars and killing people. William always thought it would be a real rush and that he always wanted to support his fine country. Then all of a sudden were here in these horrible fronts we call home.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Casualities of War
I know the casualities of war because I am a German solider
My job is to aim, shoot, kill, reload and repeat
My name is Paul Baumer and this is my life
Running through trenches and dodging shells is just a taste
I have seen my friends die by explosive fire
Hell seems like paradise compared to this
Can you hear me? Can you hear my distress?
I hope so, cause no one else is listening
Can you see the humanity in my face?
I cannot, because I lost it when I entered this death zone
Can you imagine fighting as animals and killing like beasts?
I can, because I know the casualities of war
My job is to aim, shoot, kill, reload and repeat
My name is Paul Baumer and this is my life
Running through trenches and dodging shells is just a taste
I have seen my friends die by explosive fire
Hell seems like paradise compared to this
Can you hear me? Can you hear my distress?
I hope so, cause no one else is listening
Can you see the humanity in my face?
I cannot, because I lost it when I entered this death zone
Can you imagine fighting as animals and killing like beasts?
I can, because I know the casualities of war
Indifference and Human Nature
Our class discussion on Friday was very interesting. I do believe that indifference does result in genocide and consequently, war. If we look back at how Hitler was rising to power, no one challenged him. It was the appeasement that got him such a large portion of the world. The threat was not imminent to many countries. In fact, Winston Churchill knew the dangers of having Hitler rise in power, but no one would believe him. There is a saying that history repeats itself. This can be seen with Iran’s influence over the rest of the world. I fear that it is also appeasement that will lead to Iran gaining nuclear weapons. Recently, French president Chirac stated that it would not be a bad thing if Iran possesses nuclear weapons. It was this mentality that made Hitler so dangerous and powerful. The United States and the United Kingdom both see the Iranian threat, but many are also discounting it.
One comment in class that I found most interesting was Carl saying that with every war our technology becomes more advanced. I completely agree with this; it seems that we have the latest technology because of warfare. This says much about our inherent nature as humans. I honestly believe that humans are evil, wicked and greedy beings. Because of our imperfectness, we crave power resulting in conquest and world strife. In we also look at the animal kingdom, they also clash very frequently. Different wolf packs attack other wolves or their prey for food. Other animals attack each other because of territory or the female mate. We often see outbreaks of violence in the human society also for many of these reasons. Since this earth was created, violence and cruelty was imbedded in our brain – it is part of who we are.
One comment in class that I found most interesting was Carl saying that with every war our technology becomes more advanced. I completely agree with this; it seems that we have the latest technology because of warfare. This says much about our inherent nature as humans. I honestly believe that humans are evil, wicked and greedy beings. Because of our imperfectness, we crave power resulting in conquest and world strife. In we also look at the animal kingdom, they also clash very frequently. Different wolf packs attack other wolves or their prey for food. Other animals attack each other because of territory or the female mate. We often see outbreaks of violence in the human society also for many of these reasons. Since this earth was created, violence and cruelty was imbedded in our brain – it is part of who we are.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
All Quiet on the Western Front [Response 1]
"All Quiet on the Western Front" is the testament of German solider Paul Brummer during World War I. He fights alongside his best friends in a constant struggle for humanity. Brummer has been at the battlefield before and shares his knowledge of human experiences. The quote below is narrated by Brummer as they storm into battle.
“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.”
This statement is very interesting and defines why "All Quiet on the Western Front" was written. I believe that Paul is describing the alteration of man into beast during warfare. By the use of his words “good-tempered soldiers” and “human animals” it is apparent that he is telling how ordinary men are completely altered in light of rushing into battle. He tells us that he is awakened by the gunfire and the whole process is unconscious. Paul is illustrating the men as “human animals” because of the state of action they are in. Killing surrounds evey soldier and is a constant thought rushing through their minds. According to Brummer, men can be completely changed by the shellshocks of gunfire and warfare. This is true in all battlefields as mankind adapts to the current environment. They become beasts and their alterations are based on the actions surrounding them. By living in a killing environment, one must learn how to kill. He also tells us that the arena is very surreal; men not knowingly move out of danger by falling to the ground. Paul believes that this is their “second sight” and this is what keeps them alive. It is almost like he is implying that the battles they endure are animalistic and eventually torment a human’s humanity.
The young men are experiencing what no man wants to go through. War is often called hell, but what these soldiers contend with is even worse. They suffer death at first hand every day. Friends die and enemies are killed. It is a constant struggle of eye for an eye. The constant bombardments of thousands of rounds are just of a taste of their duty. War is a very ugly thing – something mankind must live with forever.
“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.”
This statement is very interesting and defines why "All Quiet on the Western Front" was written. I believe that Paul is describing the alteration of man into beast during warfare. By the use of his words “good-tempered soldiers” and “human animals” it is apparent that he is telling how ordinary men are completely altered in light of rushing into battle. He tells us that he is awakened by the gunfire and the whole process is unconscious. Paul is illustrating the men as “human animals” because of the state of action they are in. Killing surrounds evey soldier and is a constant thought rushing through their minds. According to Brummer, men can be completely changed by the shellshocks of gunfire and warfare. This is true in all battlefields as mankind adapts to the current environment. They become beasts and their alterations are based on the actions surrounding them. By living in a killing environment, one must learn how to kill. He also tells us that the arena is very surreal; men not knowingly move out of danger by falling to the ground. Paul believes that this is their “second sight” and this is what keeps them alive. It is almost like he is implying that the battles they endure are animalistic and eventually torment a human’s humanity.
The young men are experiencing what no man wants to go through. War is often called hell, but what these soldiers contend with is even worse. They suffer death at first hand every day. Friends die and enemies are killed. It is a constant struggle of eye for an eye. The constant bombardments of thousands of rounds are just of a taste of their duty. War is a very ugly thing – something mankind must live with forever.
Immigrant Voting: Legal or Illegal?
The rise in immigration in America has led to the debate whether legal and illegal aliens have the right to vote on decisions in America. Many organizations and coalitions have been involved on both sides of the argument. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Currently, it is a hot topic when discussing immigration reform and allowing new rights to non-US citizens.
A major argument used to support immigrant voting is that immigrants are taxed and yet they are not represented. This means that they still have to pay taxes even though they are not allowed to vote. Many activists have spoken that this goes against the constitution and that it contradicts what the Declaration of Independence and the revolution of the United States’ stands for. After all “no taxation without representation.” Does it actually go against what the United States stand for? Another issue is that immigrants who have potentially lived here for years have still no say in United States government law.
One point about immigrant voting is the fact that only United States’ citizens can vote. It would be unconstitutional to allow a foreigner to vote in US decisions. It’s the same situation with legal and illegal immigrants. In addition, the immigrant might have a certain agenda for the United States. You have to consider their motivation and why they want to vote. They could encourage abstinence among illegal immigrants and drastically change United States law. Voting is a right every American citizen has. Legal and illegal immigrants are not considered American until they gain citizenship.
I personally think that it is wrong and unconstitutional to allow non-US citizens to partake in a very important act such as voting. Once the immigrants become a United States citizen, it is their civic right to vote. Some foreigners may be coming to the United States for work and better salary but then end up residing back in Mexico. If this person was allowed to vote, it would infringe on the constitution and American’s rights. By law, immigrants are only American once they are a citizen. In argument to the taxation, the immigrants are still protected by the constitution. They do have liberties and human rights. The only one is representation by voting. In addition, if they retire, they have good retirement benefits that are provided by the government. I strongly believe that legal immigrants do not have the right to vote. In the case of illegal aliens, I have a stronger belief of the case. The illegal aliens are not even here legally, defying the United States law of homeland and border protection. People who create fake identification or cross the border illegally and expect the right to vote are very hypocritical. Even for foreigners who have stayed here illegally for years have no legal right to vote.
A major argument used to support immigrant voting is that immigrants are taxed and yet they are not represented. This means that they still have to pay taxes even though they are not allowed to vote. Many activists have spoken that this goes against the constitution and that it contradicts what the Declaration of Independence and the revolution of the United States’ stands for. After all “no taxation without representation.” Does it actually go against what the United States stand for? Another issue is that immigrants who have potentially lived here for years have still no say in United States government law.
One point about immigrant voting is the fact that only United States’ citizens can vote. It would be unconstitutional to allow a foreigner to vote in US decisions. It’s the same situation with legal and illegal immigrants. In addition, the immigrant might have a certain agenda for the United States. You have to consider their motivation and why they want to vote. They could encourage abstinence among illegal immigrants and drastically change United States law. Voting is a right every American citizen has. Legal and illegal immigrants are not considered American until they gain citizenship.
I personally think that it is wrong and unconstitutional to allow non-US citizens to partake in a very important act such as voting. Once the immigrants become a United States citizen, it is their civic right to vote. Some foreigners may be coming to the United States for work and better salary but then end up residing back in Mexico. If this person was allowed to vote, it would infringe on the constitution and American’s rights. By law, immigrants are only American once they are a citizen. In argument to the taxation, the immigrants are still protected by the constitution. They do have liberties and human rights. The only one is representation by voting. In addition, if they retire, they have good retirement benefits that are provided by the government. I strongly believe that legal immigrants do not have the right to vote. In the case of illegal aliens, I have a stronger belief of the case. The illegal aliens are not even here legally, defying the United States law of homeland and border protection. People who create fake identification or cross the border illegally and expect the right to vote are very hypocritical. Even for foreigners who have stayed here illegally for years have no legal right to vote.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
French Revolution Evaluation
- The French Revolution up until Napoleon's exile in 1814 is hard to evaluate. It was both a success and a failure in different ways. The French revolutionaries in this time were not like the colonists in America. Some were extremists and radicals. Others were philosophers and intelligent thinkers who wanted the best for France. The revolution started out strong, but struggled at the very end of the reformation.
In the very beginning, the French modeled the American colonists by challenging the monarchy with action, staying united as a people, and then writing a delcaration and constitution. The storming of the Bastille was a very courageous and ambitious form of action. The revolutionists massacred the royal guards and ravaged the jail in pursuit of weapons and forms of defense. The National Assembly tried bringing the clergy together with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. They had great intentions, but they had difficulty carrying out thier ideals. A man by the name of Maximillian Robespierre took the revolution too far. He was considered to be a tyrant and a murderer. This extremist beheaded 40,000 people who were "loyalists" to the king. He also executed the king as well. Robespierre also created a "you are either with us, or against us" mantra. In turn, Robespierre was assassinated due to his radical views and agenda.
In 1794, French had some success with creating the Directory. Many improvements were made to society - fairly little violence, voting rights, and many more new laws. In spite of this, Napoleon rose to power in the 179os. He overthrew the French government in 1799. Although he completely reformed France, he also conquered an extensive amount of land. He waged wars on almost every country. He is even thought to have damaged the sphinx's face in Egypt. His rule as emperor lasted eleven long years. He was exiled because he led his army through a brutal winter across Russia. 400,000 of his troops died because of the winter. His last battle lasted one hundred days and made Louis XVIII flee his own country. After Napoleon was excommunicated, monarchy reigned. This defeated the purpose of the French revolutionaries, but in 1848 (?) they elected their first president.
It was a success in regards to progress, ideals, and the enlightenment philosophy. A declaration of independence was written very early on in the French revolution, presenting the ambitions and ideals these people had. The people had representation in the National Assembly, where all the Third Estate residents joined together. In many ways, the French Revolution mirrored the colonist' revolution in America. However, the actions that would take place are way different. When you have radical extremists, only chaos erupts. Napoleon was both a reformer and a dictator. He did indeed conquered many countries, but in doing so, helped his own people and ultimately helped France. It failed when looking at the route it took. The end result was a monarchy, something the revolutionaries tried to dissolve. It made great strides philosophically, but failed to carry it on to victory.
In the very beginning, the French modeled the American colonists by challenging the monarchy with action, staying united as a people, and then writing a delcaration and constitution. The storming of the Bastille was a very courageous and ambitious form of action. The revolutionists massacred the royal guards and ravaged the jail in pursuit of weapons and forms of defense. The National Assembly tried bringing the clergy together with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. They had great intentions, but they had difficulty carrying out thier ideals. A man by the name of Maximillian Robespierre took the revolution too far. He was considered to be a tyrant and a murderer. This extremist beheaded 40,000 people who were "loyalists" to the king. He also executed the king as well. Robespierre also created a "you are either with us, or against us" mantra. In turn, Robespierre was assassinated due to his radical views and agenda.
In 1794, French had some success with creating the Directory. Many improvements were made to society - fairly little violence, voting rights, and many more new laws. In spite of this, Napoleon rose to power in the 179os. He overthrew the French government in 1799. Although he completely reformed France, he also conquered an extensive amount of land. He waged wars on almost every country. He is even thought to have damaged the sphinx's face in Egypt. His rule as emperor lasted eleven long years. He was exiled because he led his army through a brutal winter across Russia. 400,000 of his troops died because of the winter. His last battle lasted one hundred days and made Louis XVIII flee his own country. After Napoleon was excommunicated, monarchy reigned. This defeated the purpose of the French revolutionaries, but in 1848 (?) they elected their first president.
It was a success in regards to progress, ideals, and the enlightenment philosophy. A declaration of independence was written very early on in the French revolution, presenting the ambitions and ideals these people had. The people had representation in the National Assembly, where all the Third Estate residents joined together. In many ways, the French Revolution mirrored the colonist' revolution in America. However, the actions that would take place are way different. When you have radical extremists, only chaos erupts. Napoleon was both a reformer and a dictator. He did indeed conquered many countries, but in doing so, helped his own people and ultimately helped France. It failed when looking at the route it took. The end result was a monarchy, something the revolutionaries tried to dissolve. It made great strides philosophically, but failed to carry it on to victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
