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?
Blog #1
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Glosser,
Jarrett, Morgan, Ruthie, and I are excited to work with you. Thank you for helping us with our blog!
Being invisible has positive and negative impacts. It just depends on the situation and the time. The characters, Josef, Isabel, and Mahmoud, had to make the choices of being invisible versus visible based on the current situations.
Being invisible could be positive because people may not notice others and may be less likely to become a victim of acquiring a beat down. In the novel, Refugee, by Alan Gratz, he explicitly stated on pages sixteen and seventeen, “From that day forward, Mahmoud and Khalid were marked. The two older boys became Mahmoud’s and Khalid’s own personal bullies, delivering repeated beat downs between classes and after school. That's when Mahmoud and Khalid had learned how valuable it was to be invisible.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that it may be important to make oneself invisible because in this situation if Mahmoud and Kahlid were not invisible, they may have been beaten or even killed. If Mahmoud and Khalid were to fight back, they would have been noticed, and it would have been harder for them to stay alive. It would also be useful to be invisible because one may not be targeted. On page twenty-six, Gratz explicitly stated, “Rifles boomed and Isabel ducked.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by explaining that Isabel was not the intended target, but the intended target was the rioters. If Isabel was not invisible, she would have a better chance of people targeting her. In the end, Morgan, Ruthie, Jarrett, and I understand that Gratz was probably pointing out that is certain situations decisions have to be made. The decision to be invisible was made to save their lives for a future life.
Even further, being invisible can be negative. It would be negative to be invisible because some people may be uncared for because their leaders and may not have treated them like they should have, specifically, not obtaining enough food, not solving the problems of poor agriculture, and not creating solutions. Gratz explicitly states on page seven, “The cat was hungry just like everyone else in Cuba.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that people were uncared for, and not many knew; that is why the refugee situation occurred and still may occur today. If the Cubans continued to choose invisibility, it could lead to their death. Invisibility can also be negative because some individuals could ignore others who practice different religions. For instance, Josef and his family were ignored when they were at the train station. Workers did not care to help them with their luggage or show them the right way; people just ignored them because they wore the Star of David. On page eighteen, Gratz explicitly stated, “The bright yellow star of David armbands the Laundaus wore were like magical talismans that made them disappear.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that Hitler’s plan was working. He hated Jews, and he found a way to force them out or kill them. Morgan, Ruthie, Jarrett, and I can guess that Hitler led by fear so those who practiced a different religion other than their own found themselves afraid so they ignored or treated people as though they did not exist. Hitler’s plan truly worked.
What did you think about our response? What is your opinion on invisibility? Morgan, Ruthie, Jarrett, and I look forward to reading your input.
Ruthie, Jarrett, Morgan and Walker,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your in-depth review of this question. I am happy to be working with all of you! I agree with your insight on the situation in Cuba and choosing invisibility could mean death. Isabel chose to no longer be invisible, and she showed that bravery and courage to go and ask for help and chose life over the possibility of invisibility. Isabel tried to be a “fixer” like on pg. 44. She was going to fix the problem by getting them a boat and then trading her trumpet for gas. She could not let her invisibility decide her fate. In this case, I see invisibility as a negative.
On the other hand, like you mentioned with Josef’s family, the invisibility is given to them. I think in Josef’s case, invisibility can be a positive, because Jews were targeted by the Nazi regime. If you are not seen by the Nazis, that can only be a positive to their survival.
For Mahmoud, his invisibility also ensured his safety. He was afraid, rightly so, of drawing attention to himself. I personally, have a hard time understanding this because of the country we live in and the freedoms it allows us to experience. I am grateful that we don’t have to choose to be invisible to survive.
In our country, I also see people who are trying to be invisible to escape reality. By this, I mean shutting out the world around them, so they don’t have to face challenges. Can you think of anyone like this? Anyone that may make decisions based on how they will be perceived or how much they will be seen? Thanks so much for a great first blog. I look forward to the rest!
Dear Mr. Glosser,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response! Morgan, Ruthie, Jarrett, and I appreciate the time you took to give your opinion! We can imagine many people try to be invisible to escape reality. We’re guessing most of the time it may be a poor decision that a person made while he/she was still a minor and has not made up for it yet.
Morgan, Ruthie, Jarrett, and I look forward to our next blog!
Blog #2
ReplyDeleteGratz included these interactions to show that all people are not evil and may want to help out. In the novel, Refugee, by Alan Gratz, many positive interactions are included. For example, on pages thirty-four through thirty-nine, the author explicitly stated, “ They came to the door of the Jewish train car, and the Hitler Youth spun Josef around. He glanced over his shoulder to make sure no one was listening. ‘What were you thinking?’ the boy whispered. Joseph 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?’” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that the Hitler Youth boy helped Josef in a way that gave Josef hope. One can infer that if the Hitler Youth would not have let him go, Josef would be in jail, and he may have lost all hope of escaping Hitler.
Not only did Josef feel hope after his interaction with the Hitler Youth, but Mahmoud may have felt hope too after meeting Mr. Nasseer. Gratz explicitly stated on pages 127 and 128, ‘‘You take a boat to Greece? Tonight?’ Mr. Nasseer asked. ‘Maybe,’ Mahmoud's father said. ‘If it's there.’ ‘I will take you to it,’ Mr. Nasseer said, ‘and if it’s not there, you can come back and stay with me.’ ‘You're very kind,’ Mom said.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that even strangers may be willing to help refugees out in desperate times making them feel comfortable. One can infer that Mr. Nasseer did not have to help Mahmoud's family, but he chose to out of kindness. This shows us that there are some who are willing to risk their safety in order to help and make change for others. This change may help families survive especially in times of struggle.
Even further, hope shown is on page 175 where Gratz explicitly stated,“‘I’m sorry,’ the officer said. ‘But you are not allowed to land. The Bahamian law forbids the entrance of illegal aliens to the Bahamas.’ Gratz further stated, “Behind the officers, one of the tourists who knew Spanish was translating for the others. Some of them looked upset and started arguing with the authorities.” Then, on pages 177-178, Gratz stated, “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 the café buying bottles of water and bags of chips and tossing them into everyone's hands on the boat. ‘Aspirin? Does anyone have aspirin? For my mother,’ Isabel begged. Upon the deck an old white woman understood. She quickly dug around in her big purse and tossed a bottle of pills to Isabel. ‘Thank you, thank you!’ Isabel cried. Her heart ached with gratitude towards these people.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by showing that there are some who can show empathy. They understand the feelings of another just like one mother to another mother. The tourists may not be in the same situation, but the feelings are understood. That is why they help. It shows that there are people who are sympathetic and there are those who are empathetic; this is why there is hope in our world.
Morgan, Ruthie, Jarrett, and I look forward to reading your response.
Hey everyone! I love your insights on this question. This is something that I feel pretty passionate about when it comes to be “grouped together”. I believe that Gratz was trying to show that there were indeed some who refused to follow blindly and spread hate. I believe there are so many examples of this in our world today. Can you think of anytime where you may have been lumped in with others even though you may not feel that way?
ReplyDeleteI look at our political climate right now, and it seems that many are trying to dig their heels in on their side but there are others who are open to possibilities and ideas but may get lumped in by where they live. For example, a person with a democratic outlook may get lost in a county like Crawford because the majority is Republican. I find this to be true with other area like Chicago, where it may be the reverse. This can also happen with race or sex as well. I like that you all were able to pick those parts out of the novel and understand that empathy can go a long way in these times.
Great response and I am looking forward to the next one!
Thank you for another great response. “Can you think of anytime where you may have been lumped in with others even though you may not feel that way?” Jarrett, Morgan, Ruthie, and I have all felt like we have been lumped together with people even though it did not feel right. It is just part of everyone's life at one point or another. We look forward to your next response!
ReplyDeleteBlog #3
ReplyDeleteThe point Gratz is trying to make is that people, in this case, refugees, are ignored until they do something differently than what the bystanders do. In the novel, Refugee, by Alan Gratz, on page 214, Gratz explicitly stated, “The thought hit him like a lightning bolt. 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 the refugees did something they did not 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 out in front of their cars, or prayed in front of their ferries-that’s when people couldn't ignore them any longer.’’ This evidence backs up our claim by proving that when Waleed and Mahmoud start praying by the other gentlemen, their actions were frowned upon frowned upon because the bystanders were not comfortable with this. We can infer that the bystanders were not comfortable with them praying because the bystanders may have never seen this before or it is not a practice they share. Sometimes, when a religious practice is not shared it may be frowned upon because it is different. This is the problem. Different is not always wrong. In the end, Gratz was trying to say that even if one is not comfortable with something, try to adapt and not judge a book by its cover.
This is one of my favorite responses from you all so far. “Different is not always wrong” is one of the truest statements that can be made in our world. There is so much fear of the unknown, that many decide that it is bad. You pulled the best quote from Refugee regarding this. I think Gratz also wants to point out that there is a connection between not understanding and disapproving. Gratz does an excellent job of underlying his words with something much deeper. I think that Josef is in the same situation as well. His family is put in a world where they have done nothing wrong other than being born into a Jewish family. I agree that adapting and accepting everyone is the first step in being comfortable with others.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the compliment on this response. :)
ReplyDeleteWe look forward to blog 4. We hope you have a great day!
Blog #4
ReplyDeleteDo you know how you are watching a sport and you are down by one and you think you are going to come back and win? Then, time runs out. You lose. It is the end of the world. You lose hope, right? That is exactly what Lito is inferring. Lito is inferring that if something does not happen, his daughter, granddaughter and unborn grandchild will not reach America, and if they do not reach America they will not be free. Gratz specifically stated on page 278, “Now row! Mañana is yours, my beautiful songbird. Go to Miami and be free!” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Lito is changing the world by sacrificing himself so his family and the Castillos can have freedom in America. We can infer that Lito regrets the choices he made while he was younger. Therefore, Lito feels bad for what he did to Josef and the others and to make up for it, he saved his family and the Castillos.
I think you are right on with your idea. I love your sports analogy that you used. That is a great way to reference what is happening in their life at this time. I think that all parents and grandparents want better for their children and grandchildren. I believe that is what Lito is referring to and wanting to push them towards a better life. I think Gratz is reminding us to take our lives in our own hands and make tomorrow the best we can. Also, I think that Lito had regrets for years because he didn't speak up or help the Jewish people. This time Lito could not let that abuse happen again. He wanted to make a stand and help his family. He gave his life so his family could continue to live. He didn't want to be silent or invisible anymore. Great job on this blog guys!!
ReplyDelete