In the beginning chapters of the novel, Refugee, Alan Gratz introduces his characters, Josef, Isabel, and Mahmoud, as well as their current situations in their homelands at specific time periods. Gratz specifically writes about Mahmoud blending in as a cloak of invisibility to help him survive his situation. He writes about Josef and those who wear the yellow Star of David armbands as being invisible and how the Cubans were unseen, forgotten and starving. How could it be positive and how could it be negative to be invisible in these situations?
Throughout the novel, Gratz writes about interactions between the Hitler Youth and Josef, Mr. Nasser and the Bishara family, and the Fernandez family, the Castillo family, and the tourists at the Bahamas. Why did Gratz include these interactions?
Dear Mrs. Hoalt,
ReplyDeleteThank you for working with us. Spencer, Daymeon, Hannah, and I look forward to receiving your response.
It could be positive to be invisible because by being invisible, people are not a target. It could be negative, however, to be invisible in these situations because one could not do anything to change what is going on. Occasionally, people feel the need to hide and to cover themselves from people in order to protect themselves. This is simple fight-or-flight code. If one were to fly, the problem continues. But, if people were to fight, they could be injured or wounded. On page seventeen of Refugee by Alan Gratz, he explicitly stated, “‘I should do something,’ he whispered. But he knew better. Head down, hoodie up, eyes on the ground. The trick was to be invisible. Blend in. Disappear.” Also, on page eighteen, Alan explicitly states, “The bright yellow armband the Laudaus wore were like talismans that made them disappear.” Another piece of evidence is on page sixteen, which is explicitly stated as, “With a battle cry that would have made Wolverine proud, Mahmoud launched himself at Khalid’s attackers, and was beat up as badly as Khalid.” On page twelve, Gratz also states, “To walk around getting noticed by the Syrian army was just inviting trouble.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that being invisible is better than being visible. Mahmoud may be protected by invisibility, but how long can he keep it up? Although, being invisible can be a horrible way of protecting himself/herself because the problem is not solved. Using the same evidence stated in the previous answer, this shows that even though the characters were possibly protected, the mistreatment was not stopped and many deaths and future beatings could have been avoided. It can always be positive and negative to be invisible, but one should always protect himself/herself.
What do you think about our beliefs on the state of invisibility? Spencer, Daymeon, Hannah, and I are eager to read your response.
Hi Group 1! Thanks for your response! I think you found some good evidence to support your belief that invisibility helped the characters more. What did you think about becoming more visible? Did you find any evidence that being invisible was negative? I thought visibility was important to Isabel. Did you feel being invisible was as important to her as the others?
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting when Josef thought he could become ‘invisible’ in the “German” part of the train, (p. 21) by removing his armband. It was successful for a little while, but then when he dropped his arm band he outed himself. Fortunately the Hitler Youth boy was understanding in that situation and did not punish him. Why do you think he did that?
Do you think about invisibility vs. visibility in our world today? I know our situations aren’t like Mahmoud, Josef, and Isabel’s, but do you have times when you try to be invisible or seen? I think Gratz is doing a nice job of creating 3 separate scenarios that are different due to the time periods, but so similar about being invisible. It makes me think of refugees in 2020. I think living in southern Illinois it is easier for me to put refugees in the back of my mind, but it is a good reminder of what many people are going through. I will look forward to hearing from you again! Happy reading!
Blog #1 Response
ReplyDeleteDear Mrs. Hoalt,
Thank you for responding to us! To answer your first question, Daymeon, Spencer, Hannah, and I believe that being invisible could be both negative and positive. It could be negative because being invisible can rob someone of specific experiences in his/her life, and make him/her feel unwanted or left out. Although, invisibility could be positive because the person who is hiding is always protected and safe. Becoming more visible, however, could help out others that need it and also make someone feel achieved because they made a difference or helped someone out. Spencer, Daymeon, Hannah, and I do not think that invisibility was as important to Isabel as it was to Josef and Mahmoud because she was not in as much danger as the other two. Yes, she was starving and yes, her neighbors and family were rioting, but she did not have people coming to her house and telling her she had two weeks to live. Also, the Hitler Youth could have taken Josef back to the cabin because he does not believe in Hitler’s rules, but may have been forced to join the following. In our day-to-day life, we all seem to have times that we shy away from people and try not to be noticed, such as hiding at our desk when the teacher asks a question, because we may not know the answer or are too embarrassed to share our response, in case we’re wrong. Sometimes, being a student can be difficult.
Once again, thank you for responding!
Blog 2
ReplyDeleteGratz included the interactions between the Hitler Youth, Mr. Nasseer, and the tourists because he wanted to show that even when horrific events happen, there may be decent people who will help along the way. On page thirty-four of Refugee, Gratz wrote about the interaction between Josef and the Hitler Youth. The Hitler Youth escorts Josef back to his compartment instead of giving him to the Gestapo, which explains our claim by proving that the Hitler Youth cares for Jews in secret. Also, on page 127, Gratz explicitly states, “‘I will take you to it.’ Mr. Nasseer said, ‘and if it is not there, you can come back and stay with me.’” This textual evidence backs up our claim by showing that kind people exist and can be helpful in tough times. Another piece of evidence is on page 177. A tourist in the Bahamas gives Isabel aspirin for her mother. This tourist showed kindness even though she could have ignored the problem since it did not affect her; the tourist could have chosen invisibility. Daymeon, Spencer, Hannah, and I can infer that the message Gratz is trying to get across is that there are still caring people. To prove that point in the Hitler Youth situation, not all Germans followed Hitler. The boy obviously did not agree with Hitler’s rule of law, but followed anyways most likely to stay alive. Also, Mr. Nasseer could have ignored Mahmoud just like the taxi driver did, but he chose to help the family because he was put through the same experience as Mahmoud’s family and did not want them to suffer as much as they could have. This shows that Nasseer did not think the refugees should have been forced to leave, and that the war was not necessary. Even further, the owners of the resort in the Bahamas could have sent the refugees away and chose to be invisible, but they wanted to make the tourists happy in order to make more money and keep business. In the end, Isabel, Mahmoud, and Josef could have ended up in disastrous situations had it not been for the kind hearts of strangers.Gratz is telling us that generalizations and stereotypes should be fought against instead of being accepted. Not everyone who seems to follow a rule or a law may agree, but could be forced into following the opinions of stronger positions. What are your thoughts?
Hello Group 1! I was glad to hear from you again. I hope you have been enjoying Refugee. I think you are right that Gratz has worked hard to remind us there can be good in all people, even people who have to abide by laws that are horrible. You had some nice textual evidence backing your claim. I thought it was interesting that there were such varying levels of ‘good deeds' in these 3 scenarios. Something as simple as water and aspirin vs. Mr. Nasser giving them that much needed ride to the boat vs. Josef being spared. Do you think any of the people in those situations should have done more for the characters in the book? It is interesting to go back to our first question of invisibility also and think about if those characters had remained invisible and not helped how the novel would have changed.
ReplyDeleteI think it is easy to see the good deeds done in the book and how helpful they were to the families in the book. What do you think about your daily life? I would think you all have scenarios throughout your days that you wish someone would show you some extra kindness or situations where you have shown kindness to others. When I look back to my own childhood something I often think about was if I was as kind to others as I should have been. I encourage you this week to think about others and see the good in them as well as be that kind person to others. See the good, be the good. I look forward to hearing from you again!
Mrs. Hoalt
Blog 2 Response
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response, Mrs. Hoalt! We enjoy corresponding with you! To answer your question, Hannah, Spencer, Daymeon, and I think that the helpful citizens could have done more for the refugees, but may have been scared of what the consequences would be. The citizens also may not have thought about the other things they could have done to help and only did what they thought of at the time. To answer your second question, we do, in fact, witness good deeds by other people, just maybe not as severe as the ones done by the citizens in the novel. We look forward to reading your response!
Blog #3
ReplyDeleteDear Mrs. Hoalt,
The point Gratz is trying to make when he wrote, “They only see us when we do something they don’t want us to do” is that people accepted refugees when they were not “bothering” them, but once they came into the country, a problem occurred, which shows that they never really accepted refugees. On page 213 of Refugee by Alan Gratz, he explicitly states, “As he kneeled and stood, kneeled and stood, Mahmoud was supposed to be focused only on his prayers. But he couldn’t help notice the uneasy looks the tourists were giving them. The frowns of displeasure. Like Mashmoud and his brother and this man were doing something wrong.” Also, on page 214 of Refugee, Gratz explicitly stated, “When they stayed where they were supposed to be-in the ruins of Aleppo or behind the fences of a refugee camp-people could forget about them. But when refugees did something they didn’t want them to do-when they tried to cross the border into their country, or slept on the front stoops of their shops, or jumped in front of their cars, or prayed on the decks of ferries-that’s when people couldn’t ignore any longer.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving some people choose to ignore the right things done by others, but once someone does something that he/she believes affects them, and is wrong to them, he/she starts to care. Hannah, Daymeon, Spencer, and I can infer that Gratz feels as though people need to have more acceptance of races and need to stop judging people who they are not accustomed or used to being around.We can conclude that Gratz is saying that it is hard to have empathy if one has never experienced the conflict, but we should always accept people. What do you think?
I agree - I think he is showing that refugees aren’t being accepted. They are maybe being tolerated for awhile, but once someone does something unexpected (to us) they lose their invisibility and are sneered at or thought differently of. Although when I think of the part of the book that you sited, Mahmoud only mentioned that they were doing their prayers and got frowns of displeasure, but in reality I bet they were very dirty and probably smelly. That may have been more the focus of the frowns of displeasure rather than the unexpected behavior of prayer. Education is important for gaining more acceptance. If people were more educated as to what is really going on in the world I think people would have more understanding, acceptance, and tolerance.
ReplyDeleteDuring the reading of the book I had to keep reminding myself which character was the focus of the chapter because they were all going through similar, yet different struggles. It’s hard for me to imagine these types of things are really going on in the world today. 80 years ago, ok, but not today! If we had empathy towards refugees and really heard their stories and got to know them I think there are a lot of things we, as Americans, could do. Gratz is really opening my mind to refugees. How about you all?
Dear Mrs. Hoalt,
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding! We enjoy corresponding with you. Hannah, Daymeon, Spencer and I didn’t know that the refugee crisis was going on until we read the book and discussed it. We all believe that, had the citizens of Hungary and other nations been educated on the refugees’ situation, they would have been more accepting and understanding. We look forward to Blog 4!
Blog 4
ReplyDeleteLito was inferring that if he did not do something to stop the coastguard, what happened to Josef and his family would have happened to Isabel and her family. On page 221 of Refugee by Alan Gratz, he explicitly stated, “I wish from the bottom of my heart that you will leave soon, Little Man,’ Officer Padron said again. ‘Im sorry. I'm just doing my job.’ Josef looked deep into Officer Padron’s eyes, searching for some sign of help, some hint of sympathy. Officer Padron just looked away.” Also, on page 277, Gratz said, “I’m not going to make the same mistake twice. But a funny thing happened when I was waiting for the world to change; it didn’t.” This textual evidence proves our claim by showing that Lito was invisible when Josef was on the ship, and he did not want that to happen again with Isabel. We can infer that Lito ignored Josef; therefore, he never promised Josef tomorrow, and he did not want to make that mistake again for Chabela and her family. Lito is telling Isabel to take action and not wait for change, while believing that he was the reason that Josef and his family were separated from their father. Lito’s selflessness was his redemption and payback for what happened on the St. Louis; furthermore, he gave Isabel mañana.
Yes! It all came together there at the end, didn't it!? Lito saved his family by sacrificing himself and becoming visible to the Coastguard. Do you think he could have made a difference to Josef all those years ago? Or would he have had enough power to save them? I think Gratz is reminding us to take our lives in our own hands and make tomorrow the best we can. I remember back at the beginning of the book on page 42 when Lito claimed, "There's no reason to go throwing yourself onto a raft in the ocean. You can just lie low for awhile." His point of view changed a lot throughout the book. What do you think was the biggest reason he changed his mind to take matters into his own hands?
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding! We believe that Lito chose to take action and become visible because he realized that no one was going to change his life for him and that he had to make the change for himself. However, given the circumstances of Lito’s position, we do not believe he would have had enough power to save all of the people on the ship considering he was just a police officer. However, Lito could have done more for Josef and his family on the ship in Cuba, like tricking the captain that they were his family or he could have snuck them off the ship.
ReplyDelete