1.) After reading the first five chapters, what is your reaction to what you have read? What do you know about Guatemalan culture now? What do you WANT to know having finished the first five chapters? What do you EXPECT to find out as you continue reading?
In the first five chapters, Rigoberta Menchu describes the beginning of a new born's life. From where she came from, when a new born is born, the community considers the new born as another member of their family. The whole community considers one another family which I found it interesting. One thing that I would like to know is how much has their culture changed from when Rigoberta Menchu was interviewed for this book to now. From what I had read, it seems like I, Rigoberts Menchu talks in depth about the Guatemalan culture. By the time we finish this book, I feel like we'll get a stronger idea of what it is like for an average Guatemalan.
2.) Menchu begins the third chapter by including a quote from Miguel Angel Asturias, which states, "That night he spent howling like a coyote while he slept as a person.' / "To become an animal, without ceasing to be a person.' / 'Animal and person coexist in them through the will of their progenitors at birth." Why did she include this quotation? How does it relate to the Guatemalan people? How does it NOT relate to the Guatemalan people?
The Guatemalan's believe that they are born with an animal entity. Every person has their own animal from when they were born. The animal you are given depends on the day that the child is born. Whatever animal a person is given, it will reflect on the personality the person will have. So for an example; if you are given the lion, the persons personality will be short-tempered and often angry. Miguel Angel Asturias' quote doesn't literally mean what he is saying but it relates to their animal entity.
3.) Menchu speaks in depth about the finca. What is your impression of the fnca? What does it remind you of?
When Rigoberta Menchu speaks about thhe finca's, it reminded me about the in the Medieval Times. In the Middle Ages they had manor's which is similar to finca's. The only difference a finca had to a manor was that the people didn't permanently live on the land and the Guatemalan's were paid, but very little. I found that conditions working on a finca is more harsh than working on a manor. It was suprising when I read that Guatemalans are forced to work off any accidents they were responsible whether if its breaking a coffee branch or a tool.
4.) On page 31, Menchu writes, "My father told me: "When you're old enough, you must travel, you must go around the country. You know wat you must do what I do." Why would he say this? Does a seemingly simple statement like that posses power? Explain.
A statement like that definitely posses power. Rigoberta Menhu's father was able to encourage her to do what is best and follow what she believes is right. I believe he said this to encourage her to work her hardest and find what truly believes in.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
I, Rigoberta Menchu
1. What is your reaction to the fact that she was only 23 years old when she was interviewed for the book? Imagine someone having lived that much life.
I think it is really amazing how much she has experienced. Most 23 year olds here in the U.S. have just graduated college and are hopefully working and beginning their life. It seems like Rigoberta has already gone through so much. Not only has she witnessed so many awe full things, but she is taking action and helping the cause to fixing what is so corrupt and messed up.
2. The interviewer explains, “Words are her only weapons.” She continues later to articulate, “She is fighting for the recognition of her culture, for acceptance of the fact that it is different and for her people’s rightful share of power.” What is your reaction to this? Have you encountered something similar? If so, how did it feel? If not, what do you think it would feel like?
I think it's sad how it has come to this. Rigoberta and so many others were quieted because their lives were threatened. People should have the right to naturally speak out and have their voices heard. I have never experienced something like this, but I can only imagine the feeling of having so much locked up inside you just dying to be heard from others.
3. The interviewer specifically points out the difference between acculturation and imposing culture on someone else. Do you think that Hawaii experienced something similar to this?
Hawaii has gone through the exact same thing. The only difference is the U.S. government wasn't as radical as the Guatemalan government. Hawaii was forced to transform from their kapu system and old Hawaiian ways into what the mainlanders believed was the "right" way to live. They were taught that everything that they knew and loved was actually the wrong, and that they had to adapt to the white mans way of seeing things.
4. What are your thoughts on the preservation of culture?
I believe culture should be preserved as much as possible. They lead us back to the past, telling stories of what our ancestors did. Sadly, I think at the rate were going, culture will die out. People seem to care less and less about things like culture. They have become to engulfed in the cyber world to care about who they truly are and what defines them as a human being.
I, Rigoberta Menchu
1.) What is your reaction to the fact that she is only twenty-three years old when she was interviewed for the book? Imagine someone having to live throught that much.
I think it's very powerful. Just the fact that she's seen and been through so many things really inspires me. For someone to take all those tramatic tragedies and make something significant from them at a young age is amazing. She was willing to learn the spanish language to defend her people. For a women especially in a country like Guatemala, to fight for justice, is something of great courage a determination.
2.) The interviewer explains, "Words are her only weapons." She continues later to articulate, "She is fighting for the recognition of her culture, for the acceptance of the fact that it is different and for her people's rightful share of power." What is your reaction to this? Have you encountered something similar? If so, how did it feel? If not, what do you think it would be like?
Rigoberta Menchu's words were her biggest weapons. Her words and purpose was what made her a big icon to the indegenous people in Guatemala. My reaction to this made me think of other historical time periods when other groups like the African-Americans, American-Indians, and even early colonist in America sought for equal right from their government. I've never been through what they went through but I know it would be a long struggle for justice.
3.) The interviewer specifically points out the difference between acculturation and imposing culture on someone else. Do you think that Hawaii experienced something similar to this?
When white missionaries came to Hawaii, they taught the people to be more Christian-like because they saw the Hawaiian culture as savage and demonic. They forced the Hawaiians to change almost everything of who they were. They were forbidden to speak their native language and forced to become people who they weren't. The missionaries had made them to Christians so the Hawaiian culture was nearly lost. I would say the Hawaii has experienced something similar to what the interviewer discusses.
4.) What are your thoughts on the preservation of culture?
The preservation of culture is important to me because it's an identity of who you are and where you came from. There will be some changes over time but knowing your culture and having a strong understanding of your ancestry is important because it is what shapes you as an individual.
I think it's very powerful. Just the fact that she's seen and been through so many things really inspires me. For someone to take all those tramatic tragedies and make something significant from them at a young age is amazing. She was willing to learn the spanish language to defend her people. For a women especially in a country like Guatemala, to fight for justice, is something of great courage a determination.
2.) The interviewer explains, "Words are her only weapons." She continues later to articulate, "She is fighting for the recognition of her culture, for the acceptance of the fact that it is different and for her people's rightful share of power." What is your reaction to this? Have you encountered something similar? If so, how did it feel? If not, what do you think it would be like?
Rigoberta Menchu's words were her biggest weapons. Her words and purpose was what made her a big icon to the indegenous people in Guatemala. My reaction to this made me think of other historical time periods when other groups like the African-Americans, American-Indians, and even early colonist in America sought for equal right from their government. I've never been through what they went through but I know it would be a long struggle for justice.
3.) The interviewer specifically points out the difference between acculturation and imposing culture on someone else. Do you think that Hawaii experienced something similar to this?
When white missionaries came to Hawaii, they taught the people to be more Christian-like because they saw the Hawaiian culture as savage and demonic. They forced the Hawaiians to change almost everything of who they were. They were forbidden to speak their native language and forced to become people who they weren't. The missionaries had made them to Christians so the Hawaiian culture was nearly lost. I would say the Hawaii has experienced something similar to what the interviewer discusses.
4.) What are your thoughts on the preservation of culture?
The preservation of culture is important to me because it's an identity of who you are and where you came from. There will be some changes over time but knowing your culture and having a strong understanding of your ancestry is important because it is what shapes you as an individual.
I, Rigoberto Menchu (ONE)
1. What is your reaction to the fact that she was only 23 years old when she was interviewed for the book? Imagine someone having lived that much life.
I find it amazing that Rigoberto Menchu was only 23 when she was interviewed because I find it hard to imagine that she has gone through so much in such a short time period. Typically 23 year olds are just getting out of college and getting a job. She has gone through so much and yet she remains so strong. I do not know many people who could be so sane after seeing their mother and their brother killed by such a corrupt power that they could not stop. She lived through genocide and great sadness.
2. The interviewer explains, “Words are her only weapons.” She continues later to articulate, “She is fighting for the recognition of her culture, for acceptance of the fact that it is different and for her people’s rightful share of power.” What is your reaction to this? Have you encountered something similar? If so, how did it feel? If not, what do you think it would feel like?
I feel that for a lot of people in a lot of places words are their only weapons. It some of the most dangerous places it is impossible to speak your mind and if you do you will just be killed. That is why it is so important in many areas that the people there get an education and it is the lucky ones who do that are able to make a bigger difference. Now I have never experienced the fight to get power. I feel that I can say whatever I want and for the most part it gets heard by someone. However, if I was part of a group that did have limited power I would be frustrated that I could not do what I wanted and be treated the same as everyone else. I would be annoyed and irritated that my culture which is rich is so many ways is not recognized. I would also be scared for myself and my family. I would want to scream and let the world know what was happening.
3. The interviewer specifically points out the difference between acculturation and imposing culture on someone else. Do you think that Hawaii experienced something similar to this?
I think Hawaii is one of many areas that have experienced culture, religion, and other views on. It really makes me sick when throughout history missionaries or travelers have gone to a different land only to change and exploit its indigenous people. They never can learn from these groups but instead they feel as if they are the superior race and have to make the natives like them. This has happened with the Native Americans, Hawaiians, Mayans, Africans, almost every group. Many people believe that if you are not like them then you are wrong and “NEED” their help so that you can change. Most of the time it is by force and many die in the process. The world is all about money it always has been and it always will be. People are just too selfish. The white people would have never fought so hard for Hawaii if there wasn’t something here they wanted. It’s the same experience in every situation.
4. What are your thought on the preservation of culture?
I am personally very into different cultures. I feel that I have been denied a culture of my ancestors because of the lack of interest in generations before me. In a way I am jealous of all of the rich culture many of my classmates share with being Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan, ect. I am white and black and that’s all I have ever been told so because I don’t really have any culture except for being American I tend to get angry at those who don’t care about where they come from and disregard their culture. I have friends who refused to learn Spanish because they were ashamed of being Hispanic. I know friends who don’t participate in family traditions because it is embarrassing. To them I say shame on you, I would have loved to learn a second language or have certain cultural traditions. I embrace other cultures but I feel bad who don’t embrace their own. My parents didn’t hold close theirs and now I suffer because I want to have something that is special to my race and a part of me. So to get back to the original question I think preserving your culture is VERY important because that is what ties us to our past and where we come from. It is a part of who we are.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
A Sense of Guatemala
1. Fischer and Hendrickson speak of the importance of identity. Notice how the whole beginning speaks of the two major ethnic groups (Indians and ladinos). How do you think this notion will affect you when you’re in Guatemala? Do you think this notion applies to your life in Hawaii?
While we are in Guatemala I do not think that we will see the racial descrimination that is present in that country. We will be satying in a small town that I imagine will be mostly made up of the poorer working class. We might see a change in the class when we are on our way from the airport to San Lucas, but I cannot be sure. As for this notion in Hawaii I see one major difference ; in Hawaii there seems to be a type of racism towards people from the mainland, however, with the people in Guatemala there is a division between two local races.
2. The authors articulate specific things that really begin to define who and what Guatemala is. What is your reaction to how they portray Guatemala? Would you have chosen something else? Why or why not?
To the world we see Guatemala as a place of extemely rich culture. Guatemala is defined by their acheological sites, vibrant colors, and rich coffees and other exports. Guatemala is also rich in Maya culture and the ladinos in that area like to take advantage of that which is not always told. The media also bortrays Guatemala as a underdeveloped country that just went through a civil war. If I were to portray Guatemala I would do it with more of a truth aspect and show the world how the Indians are treated.
3. What is your reaction to the U.S involement in the war? Explain.
I am honestly not that shocked that the U.S. helped the “wrong” side of the battle. It looks like the U.S. was in it for the money and the bussiness so it does not surprise me that they helped kill thousands of innocent people. The U.S. thought that they were helping to stop Communism but they did not get the entire story so they helped who can them the most information and twisted it so it worked in their favor. This was during a time when Communism was feared and the U.S. paniced so they helped what they thought would go to the stop of Communism spreading.
4. Do some research on Bishop Juan Gerardi. Speak to what you know and understand about who he was and how he formed Guatemala.
For what I found on Bishop Juan Gerardi he was a great man in Guatemala. He helped the indigenous people with many things especially during the Civil War. He helped with getting the army convicted for their crimes. He was also a human rights activist and worked with the people directly.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
A Sense of Guatemala
1.Fischer and Hendrickson speaks of the importance of identity. Notice how the whole beginning speaks of the two major ethnic groups (Indians and ladinos). How do you think this notion will effect you in Guatemala? Do you think this notion applies to your life in Hawaii?
I am part of a very ethnically diverse family. My mom is half Native American, and a mix of different European ethnicitys ( mainly English and Irish). My dad is Tongan, Samoan, Chinese, French, German, Swiss and Portuguese. So pretty much I'm a little bit of almost everything. I have never really felt out of place, although sometimes I get the feeling that I could fit in everywhere but at the same time nowhere. I wonder what people in Guatemala will think about a person like me. From the article it seems like you are either indigenous or not. I found it interesting that it talks about how an indigenous person can make the switch into ladino life, but not vice versa.
Throughout my time living in Hawaii I have seen beautiful example of how different peoples and cultures can live together and thrive. I have also seen examples of the opposite. People here are very proud of their cultures and often that gets in the way things.
2. The authors articulate specific things that really begin to define who and what Guatemala is. What is your reaction to how they portray Guatemala? Would you have chosen something else? why or why not?
What the authors said about Guatemala was an eye opener for me. It is interesting and irritating that the government is so hypocritical. Everything they use to attract attention and visitors to the country are all things that they look down upon in real life. They use the native people and culture only as a way to present the country in an exotic, appealing way to the outside world. I like the way that the portrayed Guatemala because it is very real and revealing.
3. What is your reaction to the U.S involvement in the War?
My reaction is one of extreme frustration and disappointment. We could have helped prevent many innocent lives from dying but instead we made it worse. It wasn't our place to step in especially since we didn't have the facts right. It was a stupid mistake, at least I hope it was a mistake.
4. Do some research on Bishop Juan Geradi. Speak to what you know and understand about who he was and how he formed Guatemala.
Bishop Juan Geradi seems to me to be a man of great courage. He was a Roman Catholic Priest and an avid human rights activist. He went to great lengths to speak out against the inhumanities committed during Guatemalas civil war and tried to bring about the truth. His efforts eventually got him killed. He was murdered shortly after releasing an human rights report that contained information about human rights abuses that had been committed during the war.
I am part of a very ethnically diverse family. My mom is half Native American, and a mix of different European ethnicitys ( mainly English and Irish). My dad is Tongan, Samoan, Chinese, French, German, Swiss and Portuguese. So pretty much I'm a little bit of almost everything. I have never really felt out of place, although sometimes I get the feeling that I could fit in everywhere but at the same time nowhere. I wonder what people in Guatemala will think about a person like me. From the article it seems like you are either indigenous or not. I found it interesting that it talks about how an indigenous person can make the switch into ladino life, but not vice versa.
Throughout my time living in Hawaii I have seen beautiful example of how different peoples and cultures can live together and thrive. I have also seen examples of the opposite. People here are very proud of their cultures and often that gets in the way things.
2. The authors articulate specific things that really begin to define who and what Guatemala is. What is your reaction to how they portray Guatemala? Would you have chosen something else? why or why not?
What the authors said about Guatemala was an eye opener for me. It is interesting and irritating that the government is so hypocritical. Everything they use to attract attention and visitors to the country are all things that they look down upon in real life. They use the native people and culture only as a way to present the country in an exotic, appealing way to the outside world. I like the way that the portrayed Guatemala because it is very real and revealing.
3. What is your reaction to the U.S involvement in the War?
My reaction is one of extreme frustration and disappointment. We could have helped prevent many innocent lives from dying but instead we made it worse. It wasn't our place to step in especially since we didn't have the facts right. It was a stupid mistake, at least I hope it was a mistake.
4. Do some research on Bishop Juan Geradi. Speak to what you know and understand about who he was and how he formed Guatemala.
Bishop Juan Geradi seems to me to be a man of great courage. He was a Roman Catholic Priest and an avid human rights activist. He went to great lengths to speak out against the inhumanities committed during Guatemalas civil war and tried to bring about the truth. His efforts eventually got him killed. He was murdered shortly after releasing an human rights report that contained information about human rights abuses that had been committed during the war.
A Sense of Guatemala
1. Fischer and Hendrickson speaks of the importance of indentity. Notice how the whole beginning speaks of the two major ethnic groups (Indians and ladinos).How do you think this notion will affect you when you're in Guatemala? Do you think this notion applies to your life in Hawaii?
I really dont think the ethnic groups being split will really affect us. We'll be lucky (or unlucky) to even see it happen. From my understanding, there wont be many ladinos where we'll be staying. There is some racism here in Hawaii. The whole "haole" thing. It's a lot like the Indian and Ladino issue, but it's no where near as severe and hate related.
2.) The authors articulate specific things that really begin to define who and what Guatemala is. What is your reaction to how they portray Guatemala? Would you have chosen something else? Why or why not?
The government of Guatemala is corrupt and money hungry. They force the natives poor living conditions with no way of advancing onto something greater. They take everything that defines the people as who they are and turn it into a get rich quick scam.
The government is so screwed up that I dont know if I would be able to. But I would try to equalize the classes and take away segregation, giving the native people a chance of becoming something greater.
3. What is your reaction to the U.S. involvement in the war?
I dont understand why we intervened. The US had no reason to. The Guatemalan government was already overpowering the guerrillas, there was no need for us to step in and provide the government with even more weapons and training. I think there was more behind it...
4. Do some research on Bishop Juan Geradi. Speak to what you know and understand about who he was and how he formed Guatemala.
Juan Jose Gerardi Conedera was a Guatemalan Roman Catholic bishop and human rights defender. At the age of 24 he became a priest and served in many rural areas around Guatemala. He later became a bishop and focused most of his work on the indigenous communities. What he's best known for is his contribution to the REMHI and their release of Guatemala: Nunca mas which was a report that carried statements of thousands of witnesses and victims of repression during the Civil War, placing most of the blame on the government and the army. Two days after the publication, Gerardi was murdered in his own garage by army officers.
The men were later convicted of murder and sentenced to 30-year prison terms. This was the first time members of the military had faced trial before civilian courts.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
A Sense of Guatemala
1.) Fischer and Hendrickson speaks of the importance of indentity. Notice how the whole beginning speaks of the two major ethnic groups (Indians and ladinos).How do you think this notion will affect you when you're in Guatemala? Do you think this notion applies to your life in Hawaii?
I'm not sure if we'll even see any ladinos where we're be at. From the reading and our discussion, what I got out of it was that ladinos are more accepted by the Europeans more than the Indians. Hawaii has a similar notion compared to Guatemala. Here we have the Polynesians and the white people. I see a lot of racism between the two groups here so I assume that the two major ethnic groups are very similar to each other.
2.) The authors articulate specific things that really begin to define who and what Guatemala is. What is your reaction to how they portray Guatemala? Would you have chosen something else? Why or why not?
The way that the Guatemalan government portrays their country can technically be considered a scandal. The government looks down upon their country's roots. The government tries to attract tourist by setting themselves apart by having a unique culture that takes pride from their Mayan roots. Posters and pamphlets displays their country's amazing archaeological sites that try to lure in interested visitors to visit their country. The cause of all of this isn't to spread the culture of Guatemala, it is simply to make a profit from it. If I were to portray a country like Guatemala, I wouldn't portray it with a lie.
3.) What is your reaction to the U.S. involvement in the war?
The reaction that I got when I read about the U.S. involvement in the war was, " there's another conflict that our country should have left alone." The United States played a big role in helping the Guatemalan government with the massacres and extermintaion of the Indian people. Although our country may have thought that their intentions were for the good, I feel that we would have been more helpful by leaving Guatemala's people to deal with their own crisis. Our country didn't know what and who they were helping during the Guatemalan Civil War.
4.) Do some research on Bishop Juan Geradi. Speak of what you know and understand about who he was and how he formed Guatemala.
Bishop Juan Geradi was a Guatemalan Roman Catholic bishop and a human rights defender. He spoke openly about how the government was corrupt. In 1980 he was called to the Vatican to attend a synod. He was denied entry to return to Guatemala. He temporarily settled in Costa Rica until the military overthrows president Romeo Lucas Garcia, allowing him access back into Guatemala. He shaped Guatemala to where more human rights defender were encouraged to speak out and defend their people.
I'm not sure if we'll even see any ladinos where we're be at. From the reading and our discussion, what I got out of it was that ladinos are more accepted by the Europeans more than the Indians. Hawaii has a similar notion compared to Guatemala. Here we have the Polynesians and the white people. I see a lot of racism between the two groups here so I assume that the two major ethnic groups are very similar to each other.
2.) The authors articulate specific things that really begin to define who and what Guatemala is. What is your reaction to how they portray Guatemala? Would you have chosen something else? Why or why not?
The way that the Guatemalan government portrays their country can technically be considered a scandal. The government looks down upon their country's roots. The government tries to attract tourist by setting themselves apart by having a unique culture that takes pride from their Mayan roots. Posters and pamphlets displays their country's amazing archaeological sites that try to lure in interested visitors to visit their country. The cause of all of this isn't to spread the culture of Guatemala, it is simply to make a profit from it. If I were to portray a country like Guatemala, I wouldn't portray it with a lie.
3.) What is your reaction to the U.S. involvement in the war?
The reaction that I got when I read about the U.S. involvement in the war was, " there's another conflict that our country should have left alone." The United States played a big role in helping the Guatemalan government with the massacres and extermintaion of the Indian people. Although our country may have thought that their intentions were for the good, I feel that we would have been more helpful by leaving Guatemala's people to deal with their own crisis. Our country didn't know what and who they were helping during the Guatemalan Civil War.
4.) Do some research on Bishop Juan Geradi. Speak of what you know and understand about who he was and how he formed Guatemala.
Bishop Juan Geradi was a Guatemalan Roman Catholic bishop and a human rights defender. He spoke openly about how the government was corrupt. In 1980 he was called to the Vatican to attend a synod. He was denied entry to return to Guatemala. He temporarily settled in Costa Rica until the military overthrows president Romeo Lucas Garcia, allowing him access back into Guatemala. He shaped Guatemala to where more human rights defender were encouraged to speak out and defend their people.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
"I was in Lidice"
1. Why does the poet say that she has been to Lidice?
Julia Esquivel says that she was in Lidice because she saw what happened in Lidice, in her own country. The village of Lidice was not the only village that was experiencing the type of drastic deaths that is traumatic for most people.
2. The poet comments on how strange it is to look through atrocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in the atrocity?
Being in a massacre is much different then reliving through pictures and objects. I have never been in one obviously but I would imagine that there would be different emotions and your mind would be on different things. While living through a massacre you would be scared and worried about not only yourself but your family. You would feel confused and discombobulated in your own village. You would worry about the children and your loved ones. You would be devastated from seeing your loved ones die right in front of your face. You would have no time to think clearly because you would be crying and screaming uncontrollably. On the other hand if you were to look at it through a “window” you would be calm and be able to fully realize and understand your feelings. Personally I would be extremely sad and be able to grieve for those who lost their life. Living and experiencing something is very different from looking at it through a window.
3. Why does she reference the Pentagon and “false Western democracy?”
The poets’ reference to the “Super-Nazis” is a way to describe the military in Guatemala. The Pentagon is a reference to the power source that controls the military. Then the reference to “false Western democracy” is what the military is supposedly fighting for. So for a summary I think that the poet is trying to say that when she thinks about these super powers (the military) that go through a power source she is sad because they are fighting these battles in the name of democracy, when she knows that is not their real goal.
4. Include all relevant information about a massacre in Guatemala.
There were many massacres that happened during their Civil War but one in particular happened in the village of Plan de Sánchez on July 18,1982 . The military picked this village in particular because of the assumption that they were “harboring and supporting” guerrillas. 250 (mostly women and children) died while those who survived had to dig their graves. The people of that village were threatened not to say anything but after the war they tried to speak up but it was only dismissed by America.
"I was in Lucida"
1. Why does the author say that she has been to Lidice?
When I read this poem the first time I interpreted it a little bit differently then what the author actually meant. When she said "I was in Lidice" I didn't know that she really had been in Lidice, I thought that she was really in Guatemala and it reminded her of Lidice. I think the author says that she has been in Lidice because it is an event that people are fairly familiar with and know to be horrible. I think making a connection between Lidice and Guatemala the author paints a vivid picture in the readers head of what kind of horrors went on in Guatemala.
2. The poet comments on how strange it is to look through atrocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in the atrocity?
Simply hearing stories about something or looking at pictures of something is completely different from actually being there. You can only try to imagine what it was like but you can't actually know because you weren't there.
3. Esquivel writes, "And now, my heart in shreds,/ I think of the Super-Nazis/in the Pentagon/who created more then 200 Lidices/ In my little Guatemala/ Sheltered by the diplomatic marketplace,/ of false western democracy." What does she mean by this? why does she reference the the Pentagon and "false western democracy" Please expound on what you know and research any questions that you might have.
She is expressing the grief that she feels about the state of her home country. When she says "200 Lidices" she is talking about different massacres in Guatemala. She is implying that the American government is corrupts and paints a false image. America played a very big part in Guatemala's problems but got away with it because they tried to make it seem like they were doing something good, but in reality they were helping out the wrong side.
4. Esquivel speaks to the fact that massacres are not a new concept in Guatemala. DO some research about one massacre that has occurred in Guatemala. Be sure to include the location as well as how many people were affected.
The Panzoz massacre occurred on May 29, 1978. Up to to sixty Q'eqchi Indians(men, women, children, elderly) were killed during a peaceful protest after being fired on by the Guatemalan army. The protest was meant only to be a petition to the mayor for land reform; no harm meant. The government justified the massacre by claiming that the troops were trying to turn back a revolt of the peasants. This massacre was not an isolated event but sadly a part of a chain of similar atrocities.
When I read this poem the first time I interpreted it a little bit differently then what the author actually meant. When she said "I was in Lidice" I didn't know that she really had been in Lidice, I thought that she was really in Guatemala and it reminded her of Lidice. I think the author says that she has been in Lidice because it is an event that people are fairly familiar with and know to be horrible. I think making a connection between Lidice and Guatemala the author paints a vivid picture in the readers head of what kind of horrors went on in Guatemala.
2. The poet comments on how strange it is to look through atrocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in the atrocity?
Simply hearing stories about something or looking at pictures of something is completely different from actually being there. You can only try to imagine what it was like but you can't actually know because you weren't there.
3. Esquivel writes, "And now, my heart in shreds,/ I think of the Super-Nazis/in the Pentagon/who created more then 200 Lidices/ In my little Guatemala/ Sheltered by the diplomatic marketplace,/ of false western democracy." What does she mean by this? why does she reference the the Pentagon and "false western democracy" Please expound on what you know and research any questions that you might have.
She is expressing the grief that she feels about the state of her home country. When she says "200 Lidices" she is talking about different massacres in Guatemala. She is implying that the American government is corrupts and paints a false image. America played a very big part in Guatemala's problems but got away with it because they tried to make it seem like they were doing something good, but in reality they were helping out the wrong side.
4. Esquivel speaks to the fact that massacres are not a new concept in Guatemala. DO some research about one massacre that has occurred in Guatemala. Be sure to include the location as well as how many people were affected.
The Panzoz massacre occurred on May 29, 1978. Up to to sixty Q'eqchi Indians(men, women, children, elderly) were killed during a peaceful protest after being fired on by the Guatemalan army. The protest was meant only to be a petition to the mayor for land reform; no harm meant. The government justified the massacre by claiming that the troops were trying to turn back a revolt of the peasants. This massacre was not an isolated event but sadly a part of a chain of similar atrocities.
Friday, January 21, 2011
"I Was in Lucida" Blog Post
1. Why does the poet say that she has been to Lidice?
The author Julia Esquivel writes about her experience at the museum Lidice. She describes the sights and feelings she has while there and recognizes the similarities it has with what's going on in her own country of Guatemala.
2. The poet comments on how strange it is to look through atrocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in the atrocity?
Julia thinks it's very strange to view what it's like to see others suffer a way that is similar to what she's been through in Guatemala. She has experienced the suffering before, but watching it happen is a completely different thing.
3. Esquivel writes, "And now, my heart in shreds,/ I think of the Super-Nazis/ in the Pentagon/ who have created more than 200 Lidices? in my little Guatemala/ sheltered by the diplomatic marketplace/ of false Western Democracy." What does she mean by this? Why does she reference the Pentagon and "false Western Democracy?" Please expound what you already know and research any questions you might have.
Esquivel changes the subject to her own life and country. She taps into what's been going on in Guatemala and how the West, which is controlled by the Pentagon, has affected them. Licide is a terrible event that happened. But things like that are fairly common in Guatemala. Julia said there have been over 200 events just like it.
4. Esquivel speaks to the fact that massacres are not a new concept in Guatemala. Do some research and write about one particular massacre that has occurred in Guatemala. Be sure to include location as well as how many people were affected. What was the army's motive? Include all relevant information.
"I Was in Lucida"
1.) What does the poet say that she has been to Lidice?
Esquivel mentions that she is in Lidice because she's at a museum. She walks through the museum and sees all the horrid things that the Nazi's had done to the citizens of that village. She compares what she is seeing to the chaos that she experienced in Guatemala.
2.) The poet comments on how strange it is to look through strocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in the atrocity?\
The emotion is unique for the poet because she's seeing it from an outsiders perspective. Although they experienced the same tragedy, it was a different feeling for her to see it from a different way.
3.) Esquivel writes, "And now, my heart in shreds, I think of the Super-Nazis/ in the Pentagon/ who have created more than 200 Lidices/ in my Guatemala/ sheltered by thr diplomatic marketplace/ of false Western democracy." What does she mean by this? Why does she reference the Pentagon and "false Western democracy?" Please expound on what you already know and research any questions that you might have.
When the poet writes, "And now, my heart in shreds, /I think of the Super-Nazis/ in the Pentagon/ who have created more than 200 Lidices/ in my Guatemala/ sheltered by thr diplomatic marketplace/ of false Western democracy," she's thinking about the United States. The United States took a big part in the killings of the Guatemalan people buring the Guatemalan Civil War. Our country had no idea of who they made alliances with. Esquivel looks back of what her people experienced and is sick of the ammount of people who had died in the massacres that the United States was involved in.
4.) Esquivel speaks to the fact that massacres are not a new concept in Guatemala. Do some research and write about one particular massacre that has occurred in Guatemala. Be sure to include locations as well as how many people are affected. What was the army's motive? Include all relevant information.
The Dos Erres massacre on December 6, 1982 was under the "de facto" presidency of Efrain Rios Montt. It was a massacre in a village called Dos Erres where two hundred people - including women, the elderly, and children - were slaughtered. In October of 1982, guerillas ambushed an army convoy near Palestina. They had killed twenty one men and took all of their weapons (total of nineteen rifles). On December 4 1982, a total of fifty-eight of Guatemala's special force agents were flown into the area and ordered to dress like the guerillas and to kill all the guerrilla sympathisers. Later on that day, they forced every citizen in the village out of their houses. Killing every single one of them by; seperating children from their parents and killing them by bashing their heads against a tree, interrogating the men and killing them by penetrating their heads with a hammer, and raping the women and ripping out the foetusses of pregnant women.
Esquivel mentions that she is in Lidice because she's at a museum. She walks through the museum and sees all the horrid things that the Nazi's had done to the citizens of that village. She compares what she is seeing to the chaos that she experienced in Guatemala.
2.) The poet comments on how strange it is to look through strocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in the atrocity?\
The emotion is unique for the poet because she's seeing it from an outsiders perspective. Although they experienced the same tragedy, it was a different feeling for her to see it from a different way.
3.) Esquivel writes, "And now, my heart in shreds, I think of the Super-Nazis/ in the Pentagon/ who have created more than 200 Lidices/ in my Guatemala/ sheltered by thr diplomatic marketplace/ of false Western democracy." What does she mean by this? Why does she reference the Pentagon and "false Western democracy?" Please expound on what you already know and research any questions that you might have.
When the poet writes, "And now, my heart in shreds, /I think of the Super-Nazis/ in the Pentagon/ who have created more than 200 Lidices/ in my Guatemala/ sheltered by thr diplomatic marketplace/ of false Western democracy," she's thinking about the United States. The United States took a big part in the killings of the Guatemalan people buring the Guatemalan Civil War. Our country had no idea of who they made alliances with. Esquivel looks back of what her people experienced and is sick of the ammount of people who had died in the massacres that the United States was involved in.
4.) Esquivel speaks to the fact that massacres are not a new concept in Guatemala. Do some research and write about one particular massacre that has occurred in Guatemala. Be sure to include locations as well as how many people are affected. What was the army's motive? Include all relevant information.
The Dos Erres massacre on December 6, 1982 was under the "de facto" presidency of Efrain Rios Montt. It was a massacre in a village called Dos Erres where two hundred people - including women, the elderly, and children - were slaughtered. In October of 1982, guerillas ambushed an army convoy near Palestina. They had killed twenty one men and took all of their weapons (total of nineteen rifles). On December 4 1982, a total of fifty-eight of Guatemala's special force agents were flown into the area and ordered to dress like the guerillas and to kill all the guerrilla sympathisers. Later on that day, they forced every citizen in the village out of their houses. Killing every single one of them by; seperating children from their parents and killing them by bashing their heads against a tree, interrogating the men and killing them by penetrating their heads with a hammer, and raping the women and ripping out the foetusses of pregnant women.
"I Was in Lucida"
1. Why does the poet say that she has been to Lidice?
The poet says that she has been to Lidice to tell the readers about the horror and story she experienced and learned as a Guatemalan in exile in Lidice, Czechoslavakia.
2. The poet comments on how strange it is to look through atrocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in atrocity?
She makes the observation of foreign places and the strangeness of modern atrocity. The emotions are unique because she is curious of the assassinations and shows a kind of empathetic connection to the belonging and objects in the museum.
3. Esquivel writes, "And now, my heart in shreds,/ I think of the Super-Nazis/ in the Pentagon/ who have created more than 200 Lidices? in my little Guatemala/ sheltered by the diplomatic marketplace/ of false Western Democracy." What does she mean by this? Why does she reference the Pentagon and "false Western Democracy?" Please expound what you already know and research any questions you might have.
In hopes of appeasing Hitler, the western leaders acquiesced in his demand for the Czechoslovak territory known as the Sudetenland. Hitler disregarded the Munich settlement when he occupied the rump state of Czechoslovakia five months later, on March 15, 1939. The Nazi SS general Reinhard Heydrich was fatally wounded by a Czechoslovak commando team (parachuted from Britain) that had lain in wait for him at a turn in the road outside of Prague. In retaliation, the Nazis executed hundreds of Czech intellectuals and suspected resistance fighters, leveled the Czech town of Lidice, shooting its male inhabitants, deporting the women to a concentration camp, gassing most of the children, and sending a select few to German families for adoption
I believe that she mentions false Western Democracy representing United States and other governments involved that seem to be making things worse for the people.
4. Esquivel speaks to the fact that massacres are not a new concept in Guatemala. Do some research and write about one particular massacre that has occured in Guatemala. Be sure to include location as well as how many people were affected. What was the army's motive?
The Plan de Sánchez massacre took place in the Guatemalan village of Plan de Sanchez in July 1982. Over 250 people (mostly women and children, and almost exclusively ethnic Achi Maya) were abused and murdered by members of the armed forces. It was one of the most violent phases of Guatemala's Civil War, which pitted various groups of left wing insurgents against the government and the armed forces.
-Shannon Wong.
The poet says that she has been to Lidice to tell the readers about the horror and story she experienced and learned as a Guatemalan in exile in Lidice, Czechoslavakia.
2. The poet comments on how strange it is to look through atrocity through windows at museums. How is this emotion unique from actually being involved in atrocity?
She makes the observation of foreign places and the strangeness of modern atrocity. The emotions are unique because she is curious of the assassinations and shows a kind of empathetic connection to the belonging and objects in the museum.
3. Esquivel writes, "And now, my heart in shreds,/ I think of the Super-Nazis/ in the Pentagon/ who have created more than 200 Lidices? in my little Guatemala/ sheltered by the diplomatic marketplace/ of false Western Democracy." What does she mean by this? Why does she reference the Pentagon and "false Western Democracy?" Please expound what you already know and research any questions you might have.
In hopes of appeasing Hitler, the western leaders acquiesced in his demand for the Czechoslovak territory known as the Sudetenland. Hitler disregarded the Munich settlement when he occupied the rump state of Czechoslovakia five months later, on March 15, 1939. The Nazi SS general Reinhard Heydrich was fatally wounded by a Czechoslovak commando team (parachuted from Britain) that had lain in wait for him at a turn in the road outside of Prague. In retaliation, the Nazis executed hundreds of Czech intellectuals and suspected resistance fighters, leveled the Czech town of Lidice, shooting its male inhabitants, deporting the women to a concentration camp, gassing most of the children, and sending a select few to German families for adoption
I believe that she mentions false Western Democracy representing United States and other governments involved that seem to be making things worse for the people.
4. Esquivel speaks to the fact that massacres are not a new concept in Guatemala. Do some research and write about one particular massacre that has occured in Guatemala. Be sure to include location as well as how many people were affected. What was the army's motive?
The Plan de Sánchez massacre took place in the Guatemalan village of Plan de Sanchez in July 1982. Over 250 people (mostly women and children, and almost exclusively ethnic Achi Maya) were abused and murdered by members of the armed forces. It was one of the most violent phases of Guatemala's Civil War, which pitted various groups of left wing insurgents against the government and the armed forces.
-Shannon Wong.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
"I Was in Lidice" by Julia Esquivel
I was in Lidice.
I walked slowly
contemplating the roses.
Red and yellow roses,
white and pink,
and lilac.
Only roses
I stopped and drank thirstily
of this whole place, the houses,
stores, schools, and the Church.
I surveyed all
the green carpet
that covers the past
and felt death wafting
across my chilled skin.
Later,
I went into the museum
I saw the ID papers,
photographs
bits of timeworn clothing
fragments of eyeglasses
other belongings
of those who were assassinated.
I listened to the story
and relived the horror of children
crowded together,
their faces pale with hunger,
their eyes incredibly wide...
I heard the footsteps
of the Nazis
driving them to death...
Yes, I was in Lidice.
And now, my heart in shreds,
I think of the Super-Nazis
in the Pentagon
who have created more than 200 Lidices
in my little Guatemala
sheltered by the diplomatic marketplace
of false Western democracy.
Yes, I am familiar with Lidice.
I walked slowly
contemplating the roses.
Red and yellow roses,
white and pink,
and lilac.
Only roses
I stopped and drank thirstily
of this whole place, the houses,
stores, schools, and the Church.
I surveyed all
the green carpet
that covers the past
and felt death wafting
across my chilled skin.
Later,
I went into the museum
I saw the ID papers,
photographs
bits of timeworn clothing
fragments of eyeglasses
other belongings
of those who were assassinated.
I listened to the story
and relived the horror of children
crowded together,
their faces pale with hunger,
their eyes incredibly wide...
I heard the footsteps
of the Nazis
driving them to death...
Yes, I was in Lidice.
And now, my heart in shreds,
I think of the Super-Nazis
in the Pentagon
who have created more than 200 Lidices
in my little Guatemala
sheltered by the diplomatic marketplace
of false Western democracy.
Yes, I am familiar with Lidice.
The Cost of Short Term Missions
1. 1. Summarize what Jo Ann Van Engen is articulating in her article, “The Cost of Short Term Missions.”
I think what Jo Ann Van Engen is trying to say not that short term missions are bad but that they can be if they are not done the right way and with the right spirit. She talks about how missions used to be something that people would commit their whole lives to but now it seems like they have turned into nothing more than a reason to travel to a different country and come back feeling good about yourself. She explains that much of the work done by the groups that come over on short term missions could be done easily by the people of the country themselves, and better, for that matter . In most cases the amount of money groups spend on travel surpass the worth of the service they actually give. It would be much more beneficial to communities if this money were to go towards employment of the local people to do the jobs they came over to do. When I think about it this way it makes a lot of sense, I mean although I am sure the people are grateful for the service done for them, wouldn’t it be a lot more help to them if they were able to do the work themselves and get paid for it? Then they could have a freshly painted church AND money to provide for their families. It is much better to serve with the people then it is to serve for them.
Like I mentioned before short term missions are not always a bad thing. When they are done with the intention of creating long term relationships and actually making a connection with the community and the people they can be very good and successful both for the service groups and the people of the community.
2. 2. What is your reaction to the statement, “Everybody knows that short term missions benefit the people who come, not the people here.”
I can see how this statement could be true. I think it is sort of unavoidable for people that go on short term missions to gain something valuable but if they were the only ones to gain something then it sort of defeats the whole purpose and something must have gone wrong. I think maybe what goes wrong is that people do not go into these sort of things with humility. I have had experiences with people who live in poverty and they are some of the most humble people I know. When people in service groups go into different countries to serve and they do not already know humility they end up getting taught it by the local people. The tables are turned and the local people end up helping the visitors more then the visitors help them, but if the visitors were already humble or willing to be humble then the two peoples could then be able to learn from each other.
3. 3. What is your reaction to the authors commentary on visitor’s coming to the United States and serving?
I think that the author makes a very good point when she asked how we would feel if visitors came here to serve in the United States but they made no effort to find out about our culture and stuck with their on group, eating their own food, and staying in a nice hotel. I think this would make me very frustrated. I would probably feel like they thought they were better then me and ask why they even bother. I don’t want anybody’s help if they aren’t going to do it with an open heart. I also wouldn’t want anybody to make me feel like I am useless, like the man in the article who went to help the American service group build houses and they made him feel like he was simply in the way. It makes me irritated that people act like that. Service should never make a person feel like they are less then they are; Service is the action form of love. I think it serves the people more to let them know we truly care about them then it would if we painted all the churches in the country. When I am in Guatemala I want to experience it as it really is. I want to make connections with the people and learn about their culture and eat their food.
4. 4. What is the author suggesting that we do? Why is this important?
The author suggests that if we are planning to go on a short term mission that we should learn as much about the country we are visiting as possible. We should learn the culture, it’s history, the language, and customs. Ask yourself questions about the country and why you want to go there. She says that while we are there we should spend as much time with the local people as possible; even let them teach us a thing or two. Look for long lasting relationships. We should not leave our mission in Guatemala, when we return home we should continue to spread awareness and help the people there. This is the only way that a short term mission will actually be worth while for both the visitors and the local people.
5. 5. After reading this article, why do you want to go on this trip?
I want to go on this trip to learn more about what it really means to serve people. I want to make friends while I am there. I want to experience a different culture; a different way of life. I want to help people. I know that I will only be there for a short time so realistically I probably will not making any drastic changes in anybody life, but this is only the start of something good. I don’t want this experience to end when I come back home.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
"The Cost of Short Term Missions" Reflection
1. Summarize what Jo Ann Van Engen is articulation her article, "The Cost of Short Term Missions."
In Jo Ann Van Engen's article, she goes over short-term missions and whether they help the people of the country, or the people who are going on the mission. She believes most short-term missions really dont help the people that they were ment to help in the first place. The people would benefit a lot more if all of the money used for the short-term mission was given to the people instead. She said in her article, "The spring-break group spent their time and money painting and cleaning the orphanage in Honduras. That money could have paid two Honduras painters who desperately needed the work, with enough left over to hire four new teachers, build a new dormitory, and provide each child with new clothes." What she said right there made me question whether short-term missions were really worth it.
2. What is your reaction to the statement, "Everybody knows that short-term missions benefit the people who come, not the people here."
I think the statement "Everybody knows that short-term missions benefit the people who come, not the people here." is right or wrong and that we have the power to change it. I think most people who go on short-term missions believe it will be a fun vacation to a foreign country and that they will help save lives and spend no time learning about the country or the people living there. If we chose to spend our time learning who the people are and how we can really help them, then it will be worth it.
3. What was your reaction to the author's commentary on visitor's coming to the United States and serving?
I think it was a very good comparison. It would be very strange if people came to our town to live for a short time yet never explored the area they were in. If they just stayed in a place they were used to, then why come out in the first place? The same thing for Americas who go to foreign countries yet each American food and sleep in top notch hotels. Whats the point of going to help the people if you aren't willing to put your self next to them and witness the life they live.
4. What is the author suggesting that we do? Why is this important?
The author suggests that we put time and effort into learning more about the people and how we can really help them. She believes we should learn from them and have them teach us. She also suggests use to ask questions about their lives and the everyday problems they experience.
5. After reading this article, why do you want to go on this trip?
I want to go on this trip to experience the different side of life. I want to understand more about people in this world and how their everyday life is compared to the life I am used to. I want to learn from them and be able to help in any way they need it.
"The Cost of Short Term Missions" Reflection
(1Summarize what JoAnn Van Eugen is articulating in her article, "The Cost of Short Term Missions.") Jo Ann Van Eugen's main point in her paper was that short term missions are not the best things for the people in that country.
(2 What is your reaction to the statement, "Everybody knows that short-term missions benifit the people that come, not the people here.") When I read the statement about short term missions not helping the people there and then continued to read on, I never really thought about it in the way it was presented. I never thought about the workers in that country that could use the work or the money that we raise to go could last so much further there but in reality those are big issues. Many missions that go do NOT help the people of the country's lower class economy; they help themselves to a trip to another country and the country's rich with the money for the plane ticket.
(3 What was your reaction to the author's commentary on a visitor's coming to the United States and serving?) I really liked when the author switched the ropes and asked how we would feel. Often times being an American we do not think about the other side. We think "oh we are going to help the poor" when in reality they do not need temporary help. I would honestly be really upset if a group from Italy came to Hawaii and stayed in the nicest hotel and did nothing but stay in the hotel and talk with themselves. First of all I would feel bad for the investors that gave them money to come thinking that this group was going to help anyone and second I would feel bad for the group because they weren't going to get anything really meaningful out of their experience.
(4 What does the author suggesting that we do? Why is it important?) I think that the author is suggesting that when we go to these countries that we go as humble as possible. Instead of telling a native how to do it we watch. We should go from being the teacher to the student and instead of taking someone else's job to "paint a building" we should go as being there to learn as much as possible about the people, their lives, their culture, everything so that we can go back and share it and do more than just say "that experience was amazing". We should not be blinded with "look at how much we are helping them" and turn it into "WOW I really learned a lot while helping the locals." This creates less resentment and really helps both groups to learn about one another.
(5 After reading this article, why do you want to go on this trip?) My intentions for going to Guatemala are the same from when they started. Of course I want to help I mean who wouldn't but my ultimate goal was always to learn all I could about another culture and another group of people. I want to know the history of the land and of its people. Everyone has a story and there is nothing better than talking and learning their story. It not only shows that I care, but I get more knowledge and understanding of a specific time and person.
(2 What is your reaction to the statement, "Everybody knows that short-term missions benifit the people that come, not the people here.") When I read the statement about short term missions not helping the people there and then continued to read on, I never really thought about it in the way it was presented. I never thought about the workers in that country that could use the work or the money that we raise to go could last so much further there but in reality those are big issues. Many missions that go do NOT help the people of the country's lower class economy; they help themselves to a trip to another country and the country's rich with the money for the plane ticket.
(3 What was your reaction to the author's commentary on a visitor's coming to the United States and serving?) I really liked when the author switched the ropes and asked how we would feel. Often times being an American we do not think about the other side. We think "oh we are going to help the poor" when in reality they do not need temporary help. I would honestly be really upset if a group from Italy came to Hawaii and stayed in the nicest hotel and did nothing but stay in the hotel and talk with themselves. First of all I would feel bad for the investors that gave them money to come thinking that this group was going to help anyone and second I would feel bad for the group because they weren't going to get anything really meaningful out of their experience.
(4 What does the author suggesting that we do? Why is it important?) I think that the author is suggesting that when we go to these countries that we go as humble as possible. Instead of telling a native how to do it we watch. We should go from being the teacher to the student and instead of taking someone else's job to "paint a building" we should go as being there to learn as much as possible about the people, their lives, their culture, everything so that we can go back and share it and do more than just say "that experience was amazing". We should not be blinded with "look at how much we are helping them" and turn it into "WOW I really learned a lot while helping the locals." This creates less resentment and really helps both groups to learn about one another.
(5 After reading this article, why do you want to go on this trip?) My intentions for going to Guatemala are the same from when they started. Of course I want to help I mean who wouldn't but my ultimate goal was always to learn all I could about another culture and another group of people. I want to know the history of the land and of its people. Everyone has a story and there is nothing better than talking and learning their story. It not only shows that I care, but I get more knowledge and understanding of a specific time and person.
The Cost of Short Term Mission
1.) Summarize what Jo Ann Van Engen is articulating her article, "The Cost of Short Term Missions."
Jo Ann Van Engen talks about in her article how she believes that short-term mission groups benefit more out of the trip than the people they visited. Even though her reasons made me be in slight denial at first, it made a lot of since after thinking of it. She points out how mission groups spend so much money flying over and end up making a less impact than what is believed that they have done. She believes that the money used for the plane tickets should be used by donating it to impoverished countries like Guatemala where the people could put the money in better use. Jo Ann Van Engen makes good points how most short-term mission groups make less of an impact to help the poor. In the end she makes a conclusion of what she believes would make a better impact and benefit both groups in the situation. By doing extra researching and learning more about the others culture and history, it will help both groups and give a better result in benefiting everyone.
2.) What is your reaction to the statement, " Everybody knows that short-term missions benefit the people who came, not the people here."
My reaction at first was: what the heck is she talking about? After reading the article, it made much more sense. I understand everything she pointed out. I truly see how someone could think that mission groups would benefit more from the experience than the ones that need more of the benefits. Most mission groups can end up earning more of the benefits but their problem is that they didnt aknowledge what Jo Ann Van Engen talks about in her article. I believe that both groups can benefit from the experience as long as the more fortunates are aware and know how they can provide the others with a better and more helpful experience.
3.) What was your reaction to the author's commentary on visitor's coming to the United States and serving?
If visitors came over to our country to do service work but ate their own food, communicated amoung themselves, and never left their building, I would feel offended. I would be thankful that they thought of our people and spent their time and money to try to improve our daily lives but it would make me wonder how much they really cared for the people they are trying to help.
4.) What is the author suggesting that we do? Why is this important?
Jo Ann Van Engen suggests that if a group of people were to decide to travel to a different coutry to aid the poor, it would be best if they researched their culture, history, language, and everything else that influences the citizens in the country. By getting to know the coutry's history and culture, it would give the people like our group a better understanding to the people in the foreign country and it will help us to where they will benefit them more than us.
5.) After reading this article, why do you want to go on this trip?
For the longest time I've wanted to do something like this. After reading this article, it made me more aware and alert me that I need to know how I can actually help and make a greater impact to the people that I will be visiting in March. I want to go on this trip to help others in need. I know how it feels to be a person in need. I'm not saying that I know exactly what they've went through but I know it really helps when you know that there is someone there for you and wants to help you. I want to let them know that they dont have to go through this on their own. I want them to know that there are people like us that care and want to help.
Jo Ann Van Engen talks about in her article how she believes that short-term mission groups benefit more out of the trip than the people they visited. Even though her reasons made me be in slight denial at first, it made a lot of since after thinking of it. She points out how mission groups spend so much money flying over and end up making a less impact than what is believed that they have done. She believes that the money used for the plane tickets should be used by donating it to impoverished countries like Guatemala where the people could put the money in better use. Jo Ann Van Engen makes good points how most short-term mission groups make less of an impact to help the poor. In the end she makes a conclusion of what she believes would make a better impact and benefit both groups in the situation. By doing extra researching and learning more about the others culture and history, it will help both groups and give a better result in benefiting everyone.
2.) What is your reaction to the statement, " Everybody knows that short-term missions benefit the people who came, not the people here."
My reaction at first was: what the heck is she talking about? After reading the article, it made much more sense. I understand everything she pointed out. I truly see how someone could think that mission groups would benefit more from the experience than the ones that need more of the benefits. Most mission groups can end up earning more of the benefits but their problem is that they didnt aknowledge what Jo Ann Van Engen talks about in her article. I believe that both groups can benefit from the experience as long as the more fortunates are aware and know how they can provide the others with a better and more helpful experience.
3.) What was your reaction to the author's commentary on visitor's coming to the United States and serving?
If visitors came over to our country to do service work but ate their own food, communicated amoung themselves, and never left their building, I would feel offended. I would be thankful that they thought of our people and spent their time and money to try to improve our daily lives but it would make me wonder how much they really cared for the people they are trying to help.
4.) What is the author suggesting that we do? Why is this important?
Jo Ann Van Engen suggests that if a group of people were to decide to travel to a different coutry to aid the poor, it would be best if they researched their culture, history, language, and everything else that influences the citizens in the country. By getting to know the coutry's history and culture, it would give the people like our group a better understanding to the people in the foreign country and it will help us to where they will benefit them more than us.
5.) After reading this article, why do you want to go on this trip?
For the longest time I've wanted to do something like this. After reading this article, it made me more aware and alert me that I need to know how I can actually help and make a greater impact to the people that I will be visiting in March. I want to go on this trip to help others in need. I know how it feels to be a person in need. I'm not saying that I know exactly what they've went through but I know it really helps when you know that there is someone there for you and wants to help you. I want to let them know that they dont have to go through this on their own. I want them to know that there are people like us that care and want to help.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The Cost of Short Term Missions
1. Summarize what Ho Ann Van Engen is articulating her article.
Ho Ann Van Engen explains that short term missions are meant to benefit people who go on them but not the people they visit. People fundraise thousands to go on the missions for themselves and when they return they talk about what they saw and how it changed them instead of what they did. She explains that most short term missions have the same problems. They are expensive, raising the money is the more than some people in the area make in an entire year. Short term mission groups almost always do the work that could be done by the people of the country they visit. They are unable to do effective evangelism which is the goal of many groups.
2. What is your reaction to the statement "Everybody knows that short-term missions benefit the people who come, not the people here."
My reaction is that it's true, we will be affected and the people we visit probably won't change but it is a gained experience. The people who do short term missions are positively affected by the experience and will most likely be more appreciative of what they have and be interested in doing much more globally in service. Those missions will ripple to direct involvement and awareness inspiring and strongly motivating people and students to continue making change.
3. What was your reaction to the author's commentary on visitors coming to the United States and serving?
I think her message is clearly understandable. It is offensive if people came to the Salvation army and stayed in nice hotels and ate only what they brought. We don't need their help, we can help ourselves. I know that our short mission group, Kealakehe's Engineers of Unity, will not be that way. We will respect their culture and eat what they have to offer and work as hard as we can to help them. We wouldn't mean to come off as rich people building to make Guatemalans feel inadequate.
4. What is the author suggesting that we do? Why is this important?
The author suggests that we stop thinking about short term missions as service and think of them as a responsibility to learning. She says to send representatives to study what people are facing in those countries and figure out ways that we can help them. It's important to focus on learning because it should be a service learning project. "Even though short term missions are expensive and requires spending money that the third world countries could desperately use, the missions can be worth every penny if they mark the beginning of a long relationship."
5. After reading this article, why do you want to go on the trip?
I want to go on the trip for a hands on direct involvement with service learning. I'd like to experience moments with the people in Guatemala and learn their story and the struggles they face. That kind of knowledge will push my motivation to act harder in service and inspire me to do more in my life because there are bigger and worse things going on out there. That experience will make me want to change myself so i could take on small steps to changing the world.
-Shannon G Wong
Ho Ann Van Engen explains that short term missions are meant to benefit people who go on them but not the people they visit. People fundraise thousands to go on the missions for themselves and when they return they talk about what they saw and how it changed them instead of what they did. She explains that most short term missions have the same problems. They are expensive, raising the money is the more than some people in the area make in an entire year. Short term mission groups almost always do the work that could be done by the people of the country they visit. They are unable to do effective evangelism which is the goal of many groups.
2. What is your reaction to the statement "Everybody knows that short-term missions benefit the people who come, not the people here."
My reaction is that it's true, we will be affected and the people we visit probably won't change but it is a gained experience. The people who do short term missions are positively affected by the experience and will most likely be more appreciative of what they have and be interested in doing much more globally in service. Those missions will ripple to direct involvement and awareness inspiring and strongly motivating people and students to continue making change.
3. What was your reaction to the author's commentary on visitors coming to the United States and serving?
I think her message is clearly understandable. It is offensive if people came to the Salvation army and stayed in nice hotels and ate only what they brought. We don't need their help, we can help ourselves. I know that our short mission group, Kealakehe's Engineers of Unity, will not be that way. We will respect their culture and eat what they have to offer and work as hard as we can to help them. We wouldn't mean to come off as rich people building to make Guatemalans feel inadequate.
4. What is the author suggesting that we do? Why is this important?
The author suggests that we stop thinking about short term missions as service and think of them as a responsibility to learning. She says to send representatives to study what people are facing in those countries and figure out ways that we can help them. It's important to focus on learning because it should be a service learning project. "Even though short term missions are expensive and requires spending money that the third world countries could desperately use, the missions can be worth every penny if they mark the beginning of a long relationship."
5. After reading this article, why do you want to go on the trip?
I want to go on the trip for a hands on direct involvement with service learning. I'd like to experience moments with the people in Guatemala and learn their story and the struggles they face. That kind of knowledge will push my motivation to act harder in service and inspire me to do more in my life because there are bigger and worse things going on out there. That experience will make me want to change myself so i could take on small steps to changing the world.
-Shannon G Wong
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Aloha, Hola, and Welcome!
Hola and Bienvenidos (Hello and welcome) to the Kealakehe Ingenieros de la Unidad blog!
We enter into this experience of preparing for, studying for, traveling to, reflecting on, and acting alongside Guatemala and its people in hopes knowing what enlivens us with the kind of certainty and purpose Pedro Arrupe references above. It is a charge of life, and unquestionably a charge of education to discover where we derive value and meaning. We are a group of individuals who are in love with the idea of connecting to people who have stories different from our own, believing that we have something to both learn from and teach to others. We are a group of individuals who feel our imaginations seized when we consider the problems of poverty, racism, sickness, and injustice and seek solutions instead of offering laments. We want roots of learning, service, and solidarity to drive what gets us out of bed and equally to be what keeps us thoughtful in the evenings. We want to read about the realities of this world, the brutal as well as the beautiful. We want to be able to identify what breaks our heart about life and we want awareness for what amazes us, understanding that it will be the joy and gratitude found in our amazement that allows the broken heart to make the mend. We have entered into this because we believe that a service learning class and trip to Guatemala will positively impact us as students, citizens and people. Our confidence in that prospect is certain; what remains unknown is how all the details and dynamics of this project converge. This blog is intended to be a record of that creative process that will ultimately tell how all the pieces come together. It is intended to be an extension of the classroom as well as the field. It is intended to be a space for thought and a place for growth during this journey. It is ours and it is yours, so write, comment, read, think, imagine, suggest, question, consider and together let’s learn.
Thank you for taking the time to stop by and take a look at the blog. We so genuinely hope it is a medium that serves as an outlet for the intellectual, emotional, and human ponderings stirred by this experience.
Please find below the course description, goals, and logistics.
It is the purpose of this course for students to walk away with an understanding of the joy that derives from connecting to a community that has been able to survive its story and honor its heritage despite conditions of incredible struggle and sorrow. Students will broaden their perspective on issues of international importance. They will become scholars of indigenous identity, poverty, civil war, and the connected outcomes and resolutions whose impact on life in Guatemala is immeasurable. They will be guests in a community dedicated to positive development for the individuals, the local culture, and the international volunteers who come to share their respective story. It is the sincere hope that the participants of this course come to appreciate how service truly enriches life and they will take the skills and experiences gained from this connection to the San Lucas community and Guatemala to continue to make decisions and commit actions with respect and love for “the other” in mind.
We have outlined four major goals for this course:
Goals
1. Walk away with an understanding of joy amidst incredible perceived sorrow.
2. Exposure to a culture and country drastically diverse from that which is known here in Hawaii.
3. Gain awareness: the world is vaster than what we know. More direct involvement leads to greater understanding.
4. Continued solidarity.
The trip to Guatemala is the field work for the larger course being taught on service learning. Since students will be receiving school credit for the trip, there will be a substantial amount of work expected of students prior, during, and post the trip. Some of that work will be posted on this blog, and we hope that you will really take time to delve into all the work that they are doing.
It is with great excitement that we sign off on our first blog post.
Adios,
Mr. Courtney and Ms. Gasparka
“What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination will affect everything. It will decide what will get you out of bed in the mornings, what you will do with your evenings, how you spend your weekends, what you read, who you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude. Fall in love, stay in love, and it will decide everything.”
-Pedro Arrupe
We enter into this experience of preparing for, studying for, traveling to, reflecting on, and acting alongside Guatemala and its people in hopes knowing what enlivens us with the kind of certainty and purpose Pedro Arrupe references above. It is a charge of life, and unquestionably a charge of education to discover where we derive value and meaning. We are a group of individuals who are in love with the idea of connecting to people who have stories different from our own, believing that we have something to both learn from and teach to others. We are a group of individuals who feel our imaginations seized when we consider the problems of poverty, racism, sickness, and injustice and seek solutions instead of offering laments. We want roots of learning, service, and solidarity to drive what gets us out of bed and equally to be what keeps us thoughtful in the evenings. We want to read about the realities of this world, the brutal as well as the beautiful. We want to be able to identify what breaks our heart about life and we want awareness for what amazes us, understanding that it will be the joy and gratitude found in our amazement that allows the broken heart to make the mend. We have entered into this because we believe that a service learning class and trip to Guatemala will positively impact us as students, citizens and people. Our confidence in that prospect is certain; what remains unknown is how all the details and dynamics of this project converge. This blog is intended to be a record of that creative process that will ultimately tell how all the pieces come together. It is intended to be an extension of the classroom as well as the field. It is intended to be a space for thought and a place for growth during this journey. It is ours and it is yours, so write, comment, read, think, imagine, suggest, question, consider and together let’s learn.
Thank you for taking the time to stop by and take a look at the blog. We so genuinely hope it is a medium that serves as an outlet for the intellectual, emotional, and human ponderings stirred by this experience.
Please find below the course description, goals, and logistics.
It is the purpose of this course for students to walk away with an understanding of the joy that derives from connecting to a community that has been able to survive its story and honor its heritage despite conditions of incredible struggle and sorrow. Students will broaden their perspective on issues of international importance. They will become scholars of indigenous identity, poverty, civil war, and the connected outcomes and resolutions whose impact on life in Guatemala is immeasurable. They will be guests in a community dedicated to positive development for the individuals, the local culture, and the international volunteers who come to share their respective story. It is the sincere hope that the participants of this course come to appreciate how service truly enriches life and they will take the skills and experiences gained from this connection to the San Lucas community and Guatemala to continue to make decisions and commit actions with respect and love for “the other” in mind.
We have outlined four major goals for this course:
Goals
1. Walk away with an understanding of joy amidst incredible perceived sorrow.
2. Exposure to a culture and country drastically diverse from that which is known here in Hawaii.
3. Gain awareness: the world is vaster than what we know. More direct involvement leads to greater understanding.
4. Continued solidarity.
The trip to Guatemala is the field work for the larger course being taught on service learning. Since students will be receiving school credit for the trip, there will be a substantial amount of work expected of students prior, during, and post the trip. Some of that work will be posted on this blog, and we hope that you will really take time to delve into all the work that they are doing.
It is with great excitement that we sign off on our first blog post.
Adios,
Mr. Courtney and Ms. Gasparka
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)