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. Siler,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to read our response. Chole, Paige, Wyatt, and I really appreciate it.
Blog #1
Depending on the situation, invisibility can be both positive and negative. Being invisible can be a positive because it could keep one safe. But, being invisible could also be a negative if tragedy struck a person, he/she would go unnoticed and no one would know that he/she needed assistance.
To begin, in the novel, Refugee, Alan Gratz explicitly stated on page twelve, “To walk around getting noticed by the Syrian army or the rebels fighting them was just inviting trouble.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving being invisible can protect him harm. One can infer that in order to stay safe, Mahmoud chooses to be invisible and blend in with others. Logic tells us that as long as Mahmoud remains invisible, he will survive.
In Isabel’s story, being invisible could have had a negative effect on her family if she would have remained invisible. On page forty-four, Gratz stated, “Without saying anything, Isabel ran next door to the Castillo's house.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that since Isabel made herself visible, her family was helped when they were in need of a boat. One can infer that if Isabel had remained invisible, her family would not have been able to leave Cuba. Logic tells us that if Isabel’s family had remained in Cuba, her father would have been arrested. This truly would have been a negative effect on her family.
In the end, the question of invisibility is truly a difficult one. Alan Gratz is using the theme of invisibility to show the reader that no matter the time period, invisibility remains. People have the choice to be invisible or be visible. There are positive effects and negative effects of both.
What is your opinion on invisibility? We look forward to your response.
Wow! That is an amazing and well thought out answer! Great job! I completely agree with your argument that invisibility can have both positive and negative effects on both individuals and groups of people.
ReplyDeleteAs you stated so well, Mahmoud felt that remaining invisible would protect him and keep him from being noticed by either the Syrian army or the rebels. For a young boy like Mahmoud, remaining invisible was a way of staying safe and not drawing attention to himself. It is hard for us to imagine living in a culture such as this where people literally walk around afraid for their lives, worry about bombs and attacks daily, and are not free to make their own choices. The novel made me very grateful for the country that we live in and the freedoms that we enjoy.
On the other hand, in the case of Isabel sometimes being visible is a true sign of courage that allows people to stand up for themselves and others and to find solutions to problems that they could never find if they were to remain invisible. Isabel was very brave to risk the anger of her family and the rejection of her neighbors by asking for help. In this case,her family was helped when they were in need of a boat because of Isabel's bravery.
This reminds me of times at school when students actually are brave and make themselves visible when they stand up for someone else and go to a teacher to report unfair treatment or unkind behavior. In these cases being invisible may be safer but being visible is a courageous thing to do.
I thought of Josef and his family as well. They had to constantly try to be invisible as Jews in Nazi Germany. The violence and anger of the Brownshirt attack on their home on pgs. 1 - 5 again reminded me of the gratitude I have to be living in a free society. Josef literally had no choice but to remain invisible at times because of the threat of the concentration camps.
I enjoy reading your answers! Can't wait to read more! I have two students who just finished this book and they loved it! They tell me there is an amazing surprise ending! So far, they haven't given it away. :)
Dear Mrs. Siler,
DeleteThank you for your response! Chole, Paige, Wyatt, and I really appreciate your ideas and thoughts. We look forward to our next blog.
Blog 2
ReplyDeleteDear Mrs. Siler,
Chole, Chase, Paige, and I are excited for you to read our response.
Gratz wrote about the interactions between these characters because he wants his readers to understand that there are people out there who will help especially in difficult times. For Josef, Gratz included the interaction between Josef and the Hitler Youth to prove that the boy in the Hitler Youth only served to survive. He did not believe in Hitler’s rule of law. In fact, the Hitler Youth was invisible, but he tried to help Josef in a small way. This small way made a huge difference for Josef and his family. On page thirty-four, “‘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 not all Germans followed Hitler. We can guess that there were probably many people who did not believe in Hitler. Overall, Gratz most likely wants his readers to understand this, and he most likely wants his readers to understand that the smallest bit of help can change someone’s future.
For Mahmoud, the interaction between his family and Mr. Nasseer proves that some people who can relate to others may make a positive impact. On page127, Gratz explicitly states, “‘I know what it’s like. I am a refugee too, from Palestine.’” Gratz later states on the same page, “‘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 proving that people who have lived similar lives can relate in ways others cannot. We understand that not everyone can relate to others’ circumstances, but people need to try to empathize or walk a mile in someone’s shoes. Having this mindset may help people in their time of need.
For Isabel, the tourists showed great compassion. On page 177, Gratz stated, “Before they could get the engine restarted, one of the tourists tossed down a bottle of water to Señora Castillo. Soon 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 proving that if people show compassion, it could make a positive difference, especially in a life or death situation. If we are witnessing someone in distress or in a life or death situation, we know we would consider defying authority in order to help those in need. People need to show compassion. Starvation and illness must not be ignored. What do you think?
I agree with your claim that people can make an important difference in the lives of others when they recognize one another's humanity and even shared experiences and then take action to help another person in need. I was so touched by the idea that the Hitler youth would actually risk talking to and helping Josef even though it had to be potentially dangerous for him to do so.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that Mr. Nasseer was so important to Mahmoud's family and the fact that he referenced that he was also a refugee made him seem more relatable to the the family and seemed to improve their level of trust as well. It's so interesting to look at these interactions and think about how people are really just people and even in the most dangerous or scary situations, there are good people who really do want to do the right thing and are guided by their own morals and values to try to do just those things.
The people who tried to help Isabel's mother were an example to me of kindness and compassion. They could have turned away and gone on with their own lives but they tried to help out and provide water and medicine for her mother who was about to give birth to a child.
I think the author included these events to help the readers understand his theme which is that there are positive events and helpful people in every situation we face.
Blog Two Response
DeleteThank you for your response to blog 2. Chole, Paige, Chase, and I agree. People can make a positive difference in the world. We look forward to blogging with you soon.
Blog 3
ReplyDeleteGratz is pointing out that some people may make assumptions and judge others. Some may judge others because of what he/she believes in. This is wrong, and Gratz is pointing out that we need to learn about other peoples’ situations before we judge. People also need to learn to tolerate others. In the novel, Refugee, on pages 213 and 214, Gratz explicitly stated, “The vacationers dropped their voices, and even though Mahmoud couldn’t understand what they were saying, he could hear the disgust in their words. This wasn’t what the tourists had paid for. They were supposed to be on holiday, seeing ancient ruins and beautiful Greek beaches, not stepping over filthy, praying refugees.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving these particular tourists believed they were higher class and better than the people on the ferry and that also made these tourists look at the refugees differently. These tourists also made an assumption about the refugees before understanding their situation. This is wrong because people need to understand how they feel and what they have been through. Our guess is that Gratz wants us to understand someone’s situation before making a judgement. We need to walk a mile in someone’s shoes before making an assumption.
I think you are right on target when you see that Grantz is talking about judging others when he says "They only see us when we do something they don't want us to do." Mahmoud is realizing that people become uncomfortable with people who are different than them and may feel threatened when they don't understand another person's viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteLearning to see the viewpoints of others and to have empathy for their circumstances is important to us as people. I liked your statement that we need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before making assumptions. This is true in so many situations in life. Even in our daily lives at work or school, if we try to understand the people we come in contact with and try to avoid judging them, we will be able to have less conflict, more cooperation, and give and receive more kindness. If we seek to first understand another before being understood ourselves, it will be easier to come to a place of peace.
I look forward to reading more from you!
Thank you for your response. We appreciate all of the time that you take with our blog responses.
ReplyDeleteBlog #4
ReplyDeleteLito is trying to infer that he does not want to make the same mistake he did on the St. Louis. Lito kept having flashbacks of when he was a young officer of the Cuban police force on board the St. Louis. Lito felt down and sorrowful of the time on the ship with Josef and his family. On page 276, Gratz explicitly stated, “The Jewish people were just seeking asylum, just like us, they needed a place to hide from Hitler. The Nazis. Mañana we told them, but we never did. Gratz also explicitly stated, “We sent them back to Europe, and Hitler and the Holocaust. This evidence proves that Lito was feeling some sort of depression and sorrow for the Jews on the St. Louis. These statements also show that Lito never forgave himself for what he did on the St. Louis. Lito could not let this happen again; therefore, he jumped into the ocean and distracted the U.S. Coast Guard so Isabel and the Castios could reach the beach of Florida. Lito also jumped in because he could not go back in time and fix things, and he wants to help his family. On page 188, Gratz said wearily, “Mañana” and he started to tear up about the memory of the St. Louis. Again, on page 205, Lito said, “Mañana” again and Isabel started to notice it. In the end, Lito does not want Isabel to make the same mistake he did. Living with regrets such as these are so difficult to live with so make the changes you need to in order to hopefully live your life without a deep regret.
Your answers are always so well thought out and well written! I totally agree with you that Lito feels sorrow for his part in sending the Jews on the St. Louis back to Germany and the concentration camps. You can see that when Lito continues to repeat "manana" because he realizes that he and his family are now hoping for the freedom of tomorrow just as the Jews on the St. Louis were.
ReplyDeleteWhen Lito risks his own life and freedom to jump into the water as a decoy so that his family can get to America, he is making a sacrifice that to him is his part in making a change for his family.
This sacrifice results in Lito going back to Cuba without his family. It reminds me of our current problem with the epidemic today and the small sacrifices we are being called to make in convenience and routines. We should feel as Lito did that it is a noble responsibility to sacrifice and help make changes in our communities which can not only help save lives but create a solution to the problem as well.
I hope we can blog again this year! Stay safe!