Saving Places - I Thought I Saw

This week's task in English was to discuss and give your opinions about a poem called "Saving Places - I Thought I Saw". I will try to give my view of what the author is trying to say and what the message in the poem is. The poem is written by Hannah Tobin (10).

I think the poem is about how humanity will destroy the nature and wildlife if we do not change the way we live.  I think the author tries to say that we have to do something about the pollution problem and take more care of the wildlife. She tries to say that we can not continue destroying the nature if we want the earth to be like it is now.

The poem is written from the future looking back on how humanity destroyed the nature and wildlife. In the poem the "I - person" describes how she thought she saw different things, like animals and a fertile plain. The  bird in the picture is a kingfisher who is one of the animals the girl thought she saw. This makes the reader thinking about why she do not see these things. The last sentence in the poem is: They all died out because of me. This tells the reader that the things died out or got destroyed because of "me". I think the "me" is the humanity or the generation the "I" is a part of, and the author tries to say that in the future we will realise and regret what we did to the nature. The things she thought she saw is things the author think we have to take care of and treat good.

It is really impressive that this poem is written by a ten year old girl, and I think it is good that kids and teenagers are doing things to make people think about how they treat the nature and wildlife.

Syver

Arne Ness's deep ecology

This text is about how Arne Ness’s deep ecology relates to pollution and wildlife. We have worked with Arne Ness(picture), and read texts about pollution and wildlife at school.

Arne Ness mean that everything that is alive has the same right to unfold and to be in the world, and that we have to treat animals and the nature in a good way. In the texts about wildlife and pollution, there were some examples that show how many people do not treat the nature and living creatures the way Arne Ness thinks we should. One of them is that the African elephant have almost disappeared, because people kill them to get their tusks. This is against Arne Ness’s deep ecology, because he thinks that people should not kill animals if they do not really need to. Arne Ness thinks that we should ask ourselves: Is this really necessary? Is it essential for me? If it is not so important, and it can destroy the nature or the habitats for other living creature, we should not do it. Another example is all the deforestation in the rainforest. It is bad for the climate and animals that live there. If people were better at recycling, there could have been less deforestation than it is today.

I think that there are many similarities between Arne Ness’s deep ecology and “the golden rule” witch is important in many religions. The specialty of Arne Ness’s deep ecology is that it counts for all other living creatures. People should listen more to Arne Ness’s thoughts, and think over what they do, and how important it is for them. If we do not, the climate can change in a bad way for many people.

Great words of wisdom from Horisoner 10:

I cannot do anything alone, says hundreds of thousands!

Sources:

• ·        Horisonter 10
• ·        Searching 10

7er©

Of Mice and Men

This text is about a book called "Of Mice and Men". I am going to write about why the story starts and ends in the place, and how this is relevant to the theme of the American Dream. First, I am going to write a short plot summary, so you know what the text is about.

The story takes place in California around year 1935, during the Great Depression. the story is about two workers, Lennie and George, who are working together on a ranch to make their dream come true. their dream is to get their own farm with animals and a little house. We follow them trough their days at the ranch where they are always thinking and talking about their dream.

An important term in this text is the American Dream, so i want to give you a definition of it. The term "American Dream" can be used in different ways. According to wisegeek, the American Dream is an idea which suggests that all people can succeed through hard work, and that all people have the potential to live happy, successful lives. This is relevant to the story becuase i think John Steinbeck, the author of the book, is critical to this term, i will explain this later in the text.

The story starts and ends at the same place. I think  that John Steinbeck wants to show that the ideas about the American Dream is not always true. People often end up in the same place as they started. People that were born poor, continued to be poor, and people that were born rich, continued to be rich for the rest of their lives.

I think that John Steinbeck does not belive in the American Dream, because the guys in the book do not sucsess in their lives. This makes the book relevant to this team. In the book the two main characters, Lennie and George, are dreaming about their own farm, but they never get it. They end up at the same place as they were in the start of the book, with alømost no money. So their dream never come through.

To answer the task, I will say the story starts and ends at the same place because the author wants to show that the ideas of the American is not always true. The American Dream is still "alive". Some people still sucsess in America with almost no money, but many people come to America and have to live on the streets.

Kilder:
-http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-american-dream.htm
-Of Mice and Men(John Steinbeck) Here is a page about the book.

Refleksjonsntat - RLE

Vi har fått i oppgave å skrive et refleksjonsnotat knyttet til turen til Berlin. Problemstillingen lyder slik: Du lever i Øst-Tyskland under den kalde krigen. Du har en datter som skal begynne på universitetet. Hun har gode karakterer og alt ligger til rette for at hun skal komme inn på Universitetet i Berlin. Så sier imidlertid Stasi sier at du må bli informant for dem ellers vil ikke din datter få plassen på universitetet. Hvilket valg tar du?

Før jeg begynner på oppgaven vil jeg forklare hva Stasi var. Stasi var det tidligere hemmelige politiet i Øst-Tyskland. De jobbet for kommunistpartiet SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands). Stasi sin jobb var å overvåke folk for å passe på at det ikke ble startet opprør eller ble dannet politiske grupperinger som kunne true kommunistpartiet. For å gjennomføre dette fikk de vanlige folk til å bli informanter. Disse personene skulle informere Stasi om hva folkene rundt seg gjorde. Det varierte hvor mye informasjon disse informantene ga til Stasi. Noen sa nesten ingen ting som var interessant for Stasi, mens andre sa alt. I følge Store Norske Leksikon er det anslått at organisasjonen i 1989 hadde ca. 91 000 ansatte, i tillegg kom over 100 000 såkalte uoffisielle medarbeidere eller informanter. Bildet til høyre er av Stasis logo.

 For å svare på denne problemstillingen vil jeg først finne ut hvilke valgmuligheter jeg har, og hva konsekvensene av disse valgene kan være.

Jeg har tre forskjellige valgmuligheter:

-Jeg kan velge og ikke bli informant. Dette vil være det riktige å gjøre i forhold til pliktetikk fordi det er det rette å gjøre i forhold til normene i samfunnet. Det er også et godt valg i forhold til konsekvensetikk, fordi dette vil gi et godt resultat for flere enn det vil gi et dårlig resultat for. Problemet med dette valget i dette tilfellet er konsekvensene for meg selv. Det vil føre til at datteren min ikke får begynne på universitetet.

-Jeg kan velge å bli informant, og informere Stasi om hva menneskene rundt meg gjør. Dette er en dårlig løsning i forhold til de etiske modellene. Dette kan ha dårlige konsekvenser for folk rundt deg, men det kan være bra for deg selv. Hvis man følger tankene med konsekvensetikk er ikke det viktigste å se konsekvensene bare for deg, men hvordan det er for flertallet. I dette tilfellet ville dette valget ha gode konsekvenser for meg selv, men det kunne ført til at en nabo, eller en god venn, ble straffet. Det ville i mine øyne vært forferdelig å vite at en god venn ble straffet fordi jeg tystet på den. Dette valget ville også vært galt i forhold til pliktetikk, eller regeletikk, fordi dette tankesettet sier at man ikke skal tyste på andre. Den gode siden med dette alternativet er at datteren min ville kommet inn på universitetet.

-Jeg kan velge å bli informant, men ikke informere Stasi om alt jeg ser. Jeg kunne bare sagt at alt gikk som det skulle, selv om det kanskje ikke gjorde det. Datteren min ville kommet inn på universitetet, og jeg hadde ikke trengt å tyste på venner og naboer. Problemet er at hvis Stasi hadde funnet ut at jeg ikke gjorde jobben godt nok, for eksempel hvis det hadde vært et opprør i nabolaget mitt, ville de straffet meg hardt, og kanskje drept meg. Konsekvensene av dette valget ville bare rammet meg. Dette er derfor et godt valg i forhold til konsekvensetikk. Dette ville også vært et godt valg i forhold til pliktetikk, fordi jeg ikke tyster på vennene mine og det går ikke utover andre enn meg selv. Denne typen informanter fortalte Lorentz Hermansen meg om. Han var reiselederen vår på klasseturen til Berlin og har tidligere undervist i Historie på videregående skole.

 Jeg tror jeg ville valgt den siste valgmuligheten, altså å bli informant, men ikke informere om alt. Selv om det ifølge de etiske modellene kanskje vil være riktig og ikke bli informant. Jeg mener dette er det riktig fordi det gjør at datteren ville kommet inn på universitetet, samtidig som jeg ikke hadde trengt å tyste på venner og naboer. Det kan hende jeg ville valgt å bli informant som sa alt hvis jeg hadde levd på denne tiden. Jeg ville kanskje tenkt at det ikke kunne ha så store konsekvenser for folk som det faktisk hadde. Det som gjør at jeg i dag velger å si at dette ikke er riktig, er at jeg vet mer om hva Stasi gjorde med folk som gikk imot kommunistene. Det kan også hende at jeg ville valgt og ikke bli informant fordi jeg ikke visste hva det kunne føre til. Det er altså veldig vanskelig å svare på hva jeg ville gjort fordi jeg ikke vet hvilke kunnskaper jeg ville hatt om dette mens Stasi enda var hemmelig.

7er ©

Kilder: http://snl.no/Stasi

             Horisonter 10, Gyldendal undervisning - Nettsiden til denne boken finner du her

The Falklands War

In 1982 there was a military conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom, this conflict was called the Falklands War or the Falklands Crisis/Conflict. The Falklands War took place on the Falkland Islands, who is two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina. The Falkland Islands was a part of the UK before the war. Argentina wanted the islands to be a part of Argentina instead so in 1982 they occupied the islands.

After Argentina occupied the islands, the UK sent air supported- fleet and infantry troops to the islands. The UK troop’s arrival led to many fights in the start. When they got to the capitol, Stanley, the Argentineans capitulated.

According to Wikipedia, It resulted in the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and the deaths of three civilian Falkland Islanders. The war did not solve any of the problems. There was and are still disagreements about the status of the islands. The war had political consequences in both of the countries. In Argentina it led to the junta’s fall. In the UK the war led to the conservative party’s election victory in 1983.

7er©

Sources: http://snl.no/Falklandskrigen

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_falklands_war