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 Mr. Quick,
ReplyDeleteThank you for volunteering your time to read our responses. Katelyn, Allison, Ava, and I look forward to working with you.
Blog #1
Invisibility could effect someone in a positive and negative way. A positive effect of being invisible could be possible survival. A negative effect of being invisible could be ruled by a dictator and not living life to its fullest. Freedoms could be taken away, and one could not speak out how he/she feels without the possibility of punishment or death. In the novel, Refugee, by Alan Gratz, he wrote about the theme of invisibility pointing out these positive and negative effects. The characters, Josef, Isabel, and Mahmoud lived lives unlike our own and had to make the choice of invisibility at this point in the novel.
To begin, a positive effect for being invisible was survival. For Josef, his father was visible because he went against the law to practice law. This put Josef’s father’s life at risk. Gratz explicitly stated on page three, “‘Aaron Landau,’ one of the Brownshirts said to Josef’s father, ‘you have continued to practice law despite the fact that Jews are forbidden to do so under the Civil Service Restoration Act of 1933. For this crime against the German people, you will be taken into protective custody.’” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that one’s life could be at risk if visible. We infer that Josef realized his father made himself visible, causing Josef to be invisible. Josef knew his fate if he followed his father’s footsteps. Therefore, being invisible was positive because it could keep Josef and his family alive.
Unfortunately, the negative effect of invisibility was not being able to speak out against the Brownshirts/Nazis. Many men and women were harmed/killed because they spoke up against Hitler or the Brownshirts. Gratz stated on page two, “Josef tried to hide in the corner of his bed, but shadowy hands snatched at him. Grabbed for him. He screamed even louder than his little sister, drowning her out. He kicked and flailed in a panic, but one of the shadows caught his ankle and dragged him face-first across his bed. This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that anyone could have been hurt because they screamed in panic or fought back. Allison, Katelyn, Ava, and I can guess that many people were punished because of speaking out and fighting for their rights and dignity. If people spoke up and fought back, the dictatorships could lose their power. In order to stop that, physical abuse and threats were used. People were afraid so many chose invisibility to survive.
ReplyDeleteFor Mahmoud, it was safer to be invisible too because he would not be noticed by bullies or Assad’s regime. It was a strategy to survive. Gratz explicitly wrote on page twelve, “To walk around getting noticed by the Syrian army or the rebels fighting was just inviting trouble.” This textual evidence backs our claim by proving that in Syria hiding in the shadows may keep people alive. Our guess is that Mahmoud lives in fear while in Syria because violence is always present. Allison, Katelyn, Ava, and I understand why Mahmoud would choose invisibility because he does not want to suffer. We cannot even imagine what it is like for children and adults today who live in Syria; invisibility makes sense to us in this situation.
For Isabel, she was visible which was positive because she was not accepting their fate. People were starving, but Isabel fought against that. Alan Gratz explicitly stated in the novel, Refugee, on pages seven and eight, “Her lunch hadn’t been much bigger than the cat’s - just a few beans and a small pile of rice”. Also, on page eight, Gratz wrote, “There had been rationing and food coupon books back when Isabel was little. But a few years ago, in 1989, the Soviet Union had fallen, and Cuba had hit rock bottom”. This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that there was not much food in Cuba to go around, and many of the Cubans were starving. So, if Isabel continues to be visible and escapes to the U.S., she would obtain the food she needed and may be able to live a better life. Logically speaking, America will be a better place for Isabel and her family because it for families who have food insecurity may be able to find resources to help them.
Allison, Ava, Katelyn, and I understand that it is difficult to put ourselves in these characters’ shoes. We have never had to try and be invisible in order to survive. What do you think?
Allison, Katelyn, Ava, and I look forward to reading your response.
Dear Julian, Katelyn, Allison, and Ava,
ReplyDeleteYou did a fantastic job describing the positives and negatives of being “invisible” for each of the characters in the book! I am impressed with how you have cited specific passages from the book to illustrate your points.
As I consider the positives to being invisible for each of the characters, I agree with your observation that for Mahmoud and Josef in particular, invisibility could almost be considered necessary for survival. The author describes the incident in Mahmoud’s past when he tried to stand up for his friend Khalid only to be severely beaten himself. This seems to have been an important turning point for Mahmoud in realizing that it was safer to be invisible. Similarly, when Josef protested and tried to stop the soldiers from dragging his father off to the concentration camp he very quickly learned that as you stated in your response “one’s life could be at risk if visible.” Isabel’s situation seems somewhat different. She seems to feel more comfortable speaking out and taking action. However, Isabel also saw her Papi and Lito beaten for participating in the protest and this must have had some impact on her and prompted her urgency in wanting to help her family escape Cuba.
One of the negative impacts I pondered can be illustrated by the passages where Gratz says “That’s when Mahmoud realized that together he and Khalid were bigger targets; alone, it was easier to be invisible” and then later he writes “It was better not to have friends in Syria in 2015.” It must be incredibly lonely for people in this situation who, like Mahmoud, avoid bonding or socializing with others because it may put their lives at risk. Our social bonds are part of our humanity and I believe Mahmoud was starting to lose touch with this. He avoided getting involved when he passed the boy getting attacked for his bread even though his heart was telling him it was wrong and he should do something. Mahmoud has had to harden himself from feeling empathy for others because if he acts on that empathy he could be injured or killed. He is starting to disconnect from he knows is right.
As you have written, it is difficult for us to imagine what these characters are going through. They are living under circumstances where their lives are constantly at risk if they do or say the wrong thing. Thankfully, like you I have never had to be invisible to survive. However, I do think there are some parallels with situations that we may experience or witness in our own lives. For example, might a student moving into a new school from another region or a foreign country feel threatened or so uncomfortable with unfamiliar people, language, and customs that he or she would want to become “invisible?” As another example, a student who has been bullied may want to become invisible to avoid the emotional pain.
I have just reached the part in the book where each of the characters is on their journey away from their home country. I am anxious to see what awaits Josef, Isabel, and Mahmoud! Thank you for your effort in writing such a thoughtful response to the first question and I look forward to your next post!
Sincerely,
Mr. Quick
Thank you so much. We really appreciate everything you have said about blog 1.
ReplyDeleteBlog 2
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Quick,
Thank you for responding to our first blog. Katelyn, Ava, Allison, and I look forward to your response on our second blog.
Gratz included the interaction between Josef and the Hitler Youth to show readers that not all Germans agreed with Hitler. There were some who chose to stay invisible in order to survive, but if there was an opportunity to quietly help, some did. Because of the Hitler Youth’s help, he may have saved Josef’s life and the life of his family. If Josef was caught sneaking around the train cars by anyone else, who knows what could have become of him. On page thirty-four, Gratz explicitly shows Josef’s luck by stating, “‘What were you thinking?’ the boy whispered. Josef couldn’t speak. The boy thrust the armband at Josef’s chest. ‘ Put that on. And don’t ever do that again,’ the Hitler Youth told Josef. ‘ Do you understand?’ ‘ I- Yes,’ Josef stammered. ‘ Thank You. Thankyouthankyouthankyou.’” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that this Hitler Youth boy understood the dangers that Josef could have faced if caught. If Josef was caught by a Hitler supporter, he could have been separated from his family and put into a camp of some sort and possibly killed in the camp. Ava, Allison, Katelyn and I infer that the Hitler Youth who did help Josef is not a true supporter of Hitler but just follows Hitler so his family or himself were not put into the horrible situations that their country saw every day. Logically speaking, the Hitler Youth put himself at risk to save Josef from the consequences. If the wrong person noticed him helping a Jewish boy, he would have possibly been punished because people who followed Hitler were not to help the Jewish, but to torture and kill them.
Gratz also wrote about interactions among the Fernandez family and the Castillo family, with the tourists at the Bahamas. The tourist provided water, chips, and medicine for the Fernandez and Castillo’s journey to the United States. One tourist saw the misery they were experiencing. This led to others feeling the same way. Soon, everybody was helping and the two families were filled with thankfulness. Gratz explicitly stated on page 177, “Before they could get the engine, restarted, one of the tourists tossed down a bottle of water to Señora Castillo. Soon the rest of the tourists were hurrying back and forth to the café, buying bottles of water and bags of chips and tossing them into everyone’s hands on the boat. ‘Aspirin? Does anyone have asprin? For my mother? Isabel begged. Up on the dock, an old white woman understood. She quickly dug around in her big purse and tossed a plastic bottle full of pills to Isabel.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by showing that the tourists at the Bahamas did not just provide the water, chips, and medicine; they also provided hope. This parallels with Josef and the Hitler Youth helping him and Samih Nasseer helping the Bishara family. We infer that the Bahama tourists did this act of kindness because they understood what was happening, and they wanted to give. Sympathetically speaking, they did this out of the kindness of their hearts. Gratz is trying to show us that helping others can really have a positive effect on the outcome of their journey.
ReplyDeleteRarely in the novel did people help the Bishara family. One of the few people who had a big part in Mahmoud’s journey was Samih Nasseer, a former refugee. He offered to drive the Bishara family to their “boat” and if it was not there, like the past times before, he offered a place to sleep. Gratz explicitly states on page 126, “ ‘My house is too small for all of you.’ The man said, ‘but I have a little car dealership, and you can stay in the office.’ ” Then, on page 127, “‘You take a boat to Greece? Tonight’ Mr. Nasseer said, `If it’s there.’ ‘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 back up our claim by proving that Mr. Nasseer offered them hope. Our guess is that Samih Nasseer did these kind deeds because when he was a refugee nobody helped him, and he wanted the Bishara family to have a better and easier experience in these difficult times, even though there is fighting everywhere. Logically speaking, Gratz is trying to show us that helping others go through scenarios you have experienced yourself, is easier for others.
Allison, Ava, Katelyn, and I understand the messages Gratz is trying to show us throughout the novel. The theme of the messages is to help others in rough times and provide things they might need if you are able. Even the smallest kindness can make a huge difference in someone’s life.
Dear Julian, Katelyn, Ava, and Allison,
ReplyDeleteThanks for another excellent response to the blog question! I enjoyed reading your observations and insights from the book.
I agree with your conclusions about the interaction between the Hitler Youth and Josef. The Hitler Youth boy was very likely dealing with his own struggle to survive. At that time and in that place, fear kept a lot of otherwise good and kind people from speaking out or taking action to stop the injustice and brutality they witnessed. They didn’t want to become the next victim of that brutality. We can’t always assume that we know what is in a person’s heart by their appearance or the group they associate with and such was the case with the Hitler Youth. Hopefully, you have never been in a life or death situation like these characters, but we can probably all identify with going along with a group, even if we don’t agree with the group, to avoid making ourselves a target. I hope that we can be like the young man Josef encountered and ultimately do the right thing.
When considering the Fernandez and Castillo families and their interactions with the tourists on the Bahamian beach, I was struck with the “contagious” nature of the kindness once the first tourist stepped up to help. It really just took one person coming forward to help to start a chain reaction resulting in the families having more provisions than they had when they started their journey. It made me wonder if the opposite could have been true as well – in other words if that first person to step up had been hateful to the families, would that have led to others acting in a hateful manner? As you stated in the final sentence of your post, I think Gratz included this scene to show that one person’s small act of kindness can grow exponentially and even have live-saving effects.
Finally, I agree that Mr. Nasser had empathy for Mahmoud’s family because he had been a refugee himself and understood what they were going through. I think Gratz included the story with Mr. Nasser as another illustration of the impact of one person’s kindness. As I think about the interaction as Gratz described it, the Bishara family seemed shocked to learn that Mr. Nasser had been a refugee but owned a car and had his own business and also that he had left his home country 67 years earlier. I believe Gratz may have included these details as an illustration of the hope for a better life that was motivating the Bishara family to make this dangerous journey.
You summed this up nicely in the last sentence of your blog post – I believe Gratz is showing that small acts of kindness can make a profound difference.
Keep up the great work and I will look forward to your next message!
Sincerely,
Mr. Quick
Thank you for responding to our blog 2. Allison, Katelyn, Ava, and I focused on the part that made you wonder, "...in other words if that first person to step up had been hateful to the families, would that have led to others acting in a hateful manner?" Interestingly, we wonder about this as well. If a few people agreed with the guard that they had to leave, everyone would have also agreed.
DeleteAllison, Katelyn, Ava, and I are excited for you to read our blog 3.
Dear Mr. Quick,
ReplyDeleteAllison, Katelyn, Ava, and I hope you are enjoying the novel, Refugee. We look forward to your response.
Throughout the novel, Refugee, Gratz points out many things to his readers such as invisibility to diversity. The point that Gratz is trying to make on page 214 when Mahmoud says, “They only see us when we do something wrong” is that nobody cares what someone does until it is considered “wrong.” They also do not notice others when they are doing the so-called “right” thing. When they do notice something they do not like about one’s actions, they start to judge. On page 213, Gratz showed this happening to Mahmoud, “As he kneeled and stood, kneeled and stood, Mahmoud was supposed to be focused only on his prayers. But he couldn’t help noticing the uneasy looks the tourists were giving them.” Also on page 214, Gratz explicitly stated, “Mahmoud couldn’t understand what they were saying, he could hear the disgust in their words. This wasn’t what the tourist had paid for. They were supposed to be on holiday, seeing ancient ruins and beautiful Greek beaches, not stepping over filthy, praying refugees.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving the tourists did not like when Mahmoud and other refugees kneeled to pray. They were also not supportive of their religious practice. The tourist did not want anything to do with the refugees, but when they did notice their actions, they chose to show their opinion. If Mahmoud would have been doing something they did not think was wrong, the people may not have snickered at them. We can infer that Mahmoud was realizing that maybe he should become visible instead of being invisible for his family's sake. In the novel, Mahmoud said how being invisible kept him alive in Syria, but being invisible in Europe might be the death of him and his family. Logically speaking, it seems no one wants to acknowledge the presence of others until he/she does something that he/she does not agree with. It seems to us that many people want other people to be just like them and do everything how they think it should be done. These people want power.
In Robinson schools, students are taught to understand and to support others’ choices. Outside of school, some students may become confused or pick up habits from adults or others who are uneducated about the topic diversity, like the tourists Mahmoud was experiencing. This could lead to the spread of false information. Basically, what we practice in school is not always practiced outside of school, and that is why we need to learn about diversity in school so we do understand differences and why those differences are important. In an additional article of diversity vs. uniformity, we have found by Randy L. Haupt of Pennsylvania State University, Haupt stated, “As such, we tend to gravitate toward home, or what makes us feel comfortable.” This means that we do things that we enjoy. Or to another topic what we believe in, in reference to religion. Mahmoud practiced his religion the way he was taught; it was natural, normal to him, but some of the tourists felt differently. Haupt also stated “Our differences make us interesting.” “But what kind of orchestra would it be if all the musicians were Mozarts?” “At the opposite extreme, what kind of an orchestra would it be if there were never any Mozarts.” Allison, Ava, Katelyn, and I infer Haupt is saying, there is a mixture of people who think the same and who think differently. Haupt and Gratz together are saying just because you and another do not believe or do not support the same thing does not make that person inferior...it makes them different. What would the world be if we were all the same? What do you think?
Dear Julian, Katelyn, Allison, and Ava,
ReplyDeleteThe passage you referenced in your response is an excellent illustration of the point Gratz is making to us. Marginalized people, such as the three families we follow in the book, are often ignored until they do something that interferes with the majority group’s perception of what is “normal” or right. When they do or say something that makes the majority group uncomfortable, this is when they are noticed – but not in a positive way. As you pointed out, Mahmoud eventually realized that acting out and making himself seen was ultimately the only way he could get out of his situation.
I appreciate that you feel your education in the Robinson Schools is encouraging you to recognize diversity as a positive and not a negative. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with all of the viewpoints of others, but it is important that we do not treat them as “invisible.” We can understand others without having to adopt the same viewpoints or practices. You did an excellent job citing an outside source to support this point (the Haupt article).
From your elementary school years, you may remember a program we have at Washington School called “Leader in Me.” This program is built around the 7 Habits of Happy Kids by Sean Covey. Habit 5 is “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” I think this idea is applicable here as well – we can make ourselves and our own thoughts and beliefs better understood by first understanding the views of others.
In response to the question in your last line – while I believe there are common beliefs that draw us all together as a human race, it would be a boring world if we were all the same.
Thanks for your response!
Sincerely,
Mr. Quick
Thank you for responding to our blog 3. As you mentioned in your response, we do remember the book, 7 Habits of Happy Kids by Sean Covey. We do agree with your statement of “there are common beliefs that draw us all together as a human race, it would be a boring world if we were all the same.”
DeleteWe look forward to blog 4 and hope you are enjoying the novel.
Blog 4
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think it meant when Gratz wrote on page 277, “I see it now, Chabela. All of it. The past, the present, the future. All my life, I kept waiting for things to get better. For the bright promise of mañana. But a funny thing happened while I was waiting for the world to change, Chabela: It didn’t. Because I didn’t change it. I’m not going to make the same mistake twice. Take care of your mother and baby brother for me.”? To us, this quote means that Lito is having flashbacks of when he sent Josef and the other passenger aboard the MS St. Louis back to Europe. Lito is saying that now he realizes that he did not give an opportunity for the promise of tomorrow for Josef and his family. So, Lito is going to give the opportunity for a promise of tomorrow for his family, by risking his life by jumping into the ocean to possibly be caught by the US Coast Guard. On page 276, Gratz explicitly states, “ Lito was crying now, distraught. ‘We sent them back to Europe and Hitler and the Holocaust. Back to their deaths. How many of them died because we turned them away? Because I was just doing my job?’ “This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving Lito regrets his decisions of sending the people back. We infer that Lito knows what he did was wrong, and he is going to try to fix it. He is doing this because he could not give the Jews freedom so he thinks jumping off the boat will give his family a chance to reach Miami. Logically speaking, at the beginning of the novel, Lito had no intentions of leaving Cuba. This could be because he thought about the MS St. Louis and did not want to risk being sent back. In the end, Gratz is trying to show us to be responsible for our actions. If we have regrets about something in the past, we need to do something to change it now.
Dear Allison, Ava, Julian, and Katelyn,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I am impressed by your insight! I agree that Lito is troubled by the parallels between his experience with the refugees on the MS St. Louis and his own family’s current situation. Even though he treated the MS St. Louis passengers with kindness and respect, he wasn’t able to do anything to help their situation. I am sure this was a feeling of guilt that he carried throughout his life but it came to the surface when his he and his family were the ones fleeing for their lives. Lito realized that he could not change the past but he could make a sacrifice that would make a difference for his family. There is a saying that often as people get older they regret not so much the things they have done but the things they have failed to do. This would seem to apply to Lito’s situation.
Thanks for another great post! I will look forward to reading your final post soon.
Sincerely,
Mr. Quick