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. Staller,
ReplyDeleteOlivia, Sallee, Ava, and I would like to thank you for taking time out of your day to help us with this project.
Blog #1
In the beginning chapters of the novel, Refugee, Alan Gratz introduced his characters, Josef, Isabel, and Mahmoud, as well as their current situations in their homelands at specific time periods. Gratz specifically wrote about Mahmoud blending in as ‘a cloak of invisibility’ to help him survive his situation. He wrote about Josef and those who wear the yellow Star of David armbands as being invisible and how the Cubans were unseen, forgotten, and starving. Depending on the situations, being invisible could be positive and/or negative.
To begin, invisibility for Joseph and Mahmoud proves to be positive. In Josef’s situation, he could sneak around and not be caught, especially when he took off the Star of David armband. In the novel, Refugee, by Alan Gratz, he explicitly stated on page twenty, “Without these stupid armbands, without the letter J stamped on his passport, would anyone know he was Jewish?” Again, on pages twenty-one and twenty-two, Gratz explicitly stated, “The next car was the dining car. People sat at little tables, smoking, eating, and drinking as they chatted or read the newspaper or played cards. The man at the concession stand sold newspapers, and Josef took one and put a coin on the counter. The concession stand man smiled. “‘Buying a newspaper for your father?’ he asked Josef.”
“No, thought Josef. My father just got out of a concentration camp.”
“‘No. For me,’ Josef said instead. ‘I want to be a journalist one day.’”
“‘Good!’ the news agent said. ‘We need more writers.’”
“He waved a hand at all the magazines and newspapers. ‘So I have more things to sell!’” In Mahmoud’s situation, he was bullied and his home country was under attack so in order to survive, Mahmoud chose invisibility. On page seventeen, Gratz explicitly stated, “Head down, hoodie up, eyes on the ground. The trick was to be invisible. Blend in. Disappear.” These pieces of textual evidence with Josef and Mahmoud back up our claims by verifying that being invisible can save one’s life. Olivia, Sallee, Ava, and I cannot even imagine what life was like or even to this day in Syria. The four of us have never had to deal with the problems that Josef and Mahmoud dealt with everyday. We realize that we are lucky to live in America where we can be free.
On the other hand, invisibility for Josef, Isabel, and Mahmoud can be negative. In Josef’s situation, he can starve to death from being invisible. On the website, “The atlantic.com”, by Alan Taylor, he explicitly stated about the concentration camp Dachau, “More than 200,000 people were detained between 1933 and 1945, and 31,591 deaths were declared, most from disease, malnutrition, and suicide.” In Isabel’s situation, her hometown, Havana, had a riot because the people did not have all the materials they needed to survive; the people were fighting for their survival. On page eight in the novel, Refugee, Gratz, explicitly stated, “Without Russias gas, they couldn't run the tractors to change the fields over to food, and without extra food, the Cuban people began to starve.” In Mahmoud’s situation, he found himself dealing with food insecurity just like the Cubans in 1994. They Syrians were starving and fighting for survival. In the novel, Refugee, by Alan Gratz, he explicitly stated on page seventeen, “He was stocky, his shoulders wide and muscular despite the food shortages.” These pieces of textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that if people choose invisibility, it could ultimately kill them. That is probably why people are fighting back. Dictators like Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Assad do not like that because they want power, so when people fight back, they could lose that power. So, what do these leaders do? They lead by fear, and unfortunately that is why some people choose invisibility.
ReplyDeleteAfter debating this, Ava, Olivia, Sallee, and I deduce that from what we know now, it appears at this point in the novel, the positives outweigh the negatives by a basketful. Overall, Alan Gratz is trying to tell us that invisibility in certain situations can be more helpful. We do understand that if people choose invisibility that change may never happen, but sometimes in life versus death situations, invisibility may be the answer.
What do you think? Ava, Olivia, Sallee, and I look forward to your response.
Response #1
DeleteDear Ava, Olivia, Sallee, and the author of your blog (I did not see your name mentioned in your post),
Hello and thank you for including me in your community reading project. I’m looking forward to our
conversations!
After reading the first few chapters of the book and reviewing your response to the question “How
could invisibility be both positive and negative” for the book’s three main characters, I do agree with the
examples you have offered. A positive - Mahmoud’s invisibility helped him avoid bullying. And a
negative – Isabel’s invisibility might lead her to neglect and starvation.
However, I noticed something different about all three character’s invisibility that causes me to
challenge some of your statements. What I noticed as being different is the cause of their invisibility.
Mahmoud’s invisibility was a result of his deliberate actions. As you reference, he kept his “Head down,
hoodie up, eyes on the ground”. But what was the cause of Josef’s invisibility (and was he invisible when
he was touring the German section of the train)? On page 18, when he donned the Star of David, did
Josef himself create his own invisibility? What about Isabel? Did she choose her invisibility?
When you stated above that invisibility “can save one’s life”, I think you may be correct in Mahmoud’s
case, but what about Josef? If you don’t see him, acknowledge him, recognize him as another human
being, what might it be easy for you to do to him?
Besides the potential for physical neglect and possible starvation, I also notice some other, more subtle
negatives to making oneself invisible. What effect did Mahmoud’s invisibility have on his friendships?
How, in the first paragraph of page 17, did it affect Khalid’s participation in class and his subsequent
education? Do you think these less severe results still have lifelong consequences?
Dear Mr. Staller,
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding. Here are the answers to your questions:
Blog One Responses
Hi Mr. Staller! Here are the answers to your question:
1.What was the cause of Josef’s invisibility? The cause of Josef’s invisibility was the hatred that Hitler created. This hatred created physical, emotional, and mental turmoil.
2.Was he invisible when he was touring the German section of the train? Josef was invisible when touring the German section of the train; he blended in and was treated like a German. Josef’s real self was hidden when he took off his armband.
3.When he donned the Star of David, did Josef himself create his own invisibility? No, Josef did not create his own invisibility when he donned the Star of David. The invisibility was created for him.
4. What about Isabel? Did she choose her invisibility? Isabel did not choose her invisibility either. The Cuban government made her and other Cubans invisible.
5. What about Josef? If you don’t see him acknowledge him, recognize him as another human being, what might be easy for you to do to him? If Josef is not acknowledged or recognized, he will be forgotten. This is probably what Gratz is trying to tell us. That is why we need to make sure no one is invisible.
6.What effect did Mahmoud’s invisibility have on his friendships? Mahmoud lost connections with people his own age. He lost companionship, friendships, and he lost a piece of himself.
7.How,in the first paragraph of page seventeen did it affect Khalid’s participation in class and his subsequent education? It affected Khalid negatively because if you don’t participate, are you really learning? It negatively impacted his education and therefore, his future.
8. Do you think these less severe results still have lifelong consequences? Absolutely! It will be his overall future. That is why invisibility can be dangerous.
Also, the author's name is Duke Thompson. We look forward to receiving your response for blog 2!
Blog Two
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel, Gratz wrote about interactions between the Hitler Youth and Josef, Mr. Nasseer and the Bishara family, and the Fernandez family, the Castillo family, and the tourists at the Bahamas. Gratz included these interactions because he wanted to show that there is hope. Gratz makes the characters feel like there is no hope left and nothing will improve. But then, Gratz presents hope through the act of kindness presented in some parts of the novel. Gratz explicitly states on pages thirty-four and thirty-five, “They came to a compartment with a man in the uniform of the Gestapo, the Nazis’ Secret State Police, and Josef stumbled. The Gestapo man looked up at them through the window in his door. No. Not here. Not now. Not like this, Josef prayed- and the Hitler Youth boy pushed Josef in the past. 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. 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 symbolizing that the Hitler Youth boy let Joseph go free, because he has sympathy for Josef. Our guess is that this sympathy is why the Hitler Youth helped. It is evident he did not agree with Hitler’s actions, and this was his way where he could help. Some people had to be invisible to survive. This may be the case for this particular boy who was in the Hitler Youth. It shows us that not all Germans agreed and some even tried to help. These people gave hope to those who suffered from Hitler’s wrath. Gratz is telling us not to stereotype. Learn about people and learn about their actions before making a judgement.
With Mahmoud, Gratz includes an interaction where a character can relate. Because of this, he helped the Bishara family which helped them move on. On page 127, Gratz explicitly stated, “‘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 is not there, you can come back and stay with me.’” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that if Mahmoud’s family does not get on the boat, then Mr. Nasseer would gladly have taken them into his home. Again, Gratz is showing his readers that people who have been in similar circumstances may be the ones who help the most. Sometimes, the smallest bit of hope can make the biggest difference. It is important to try to relate to others whether someone has experienced the same situation or not. It seems that those who try to relate, treat others with kindness and respect.
With Isabel, Gratz includes the interaction where the tourists show their generosity by giving Isabel and the Castillo’s family supplies for the rest of their journey. This helped the two families have hope to get to Miami. On page 177, Gratz explicitly stated, “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.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by presenting that the tourists give the two families a sliver of hope. One again, Gratz presents kindness in the smallest actions, and the smallest actions make the biggest impact. Our guess is that Gratz is trying to tell his readers to think about this. We had a discussion about this. If we were in the Bahamas and witnessed a group of people in a small boat sail to shore, and they were in distress, we would try to help, even if we may have to defy authority. It is all about compassion for other human beings. What do you think?
Hello Duke, Ava, Olivia and Sallee!
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with your assessment as to why the author, Alan Gratz, included the interactions between the main characters and the some of the people that they encounter on their journeys. Despite the evil and turmoil surrounding these families, somewhere, in some small fashion, the good qualities that make us human still exist. And you are right, the compassion, sympathy, empathy, kindness, and generosity shown by these strangers do promote one of the most important virtues we possess – hope.
Now on to the tricky question you offer – should someone perform an act of compassion (or an act of resistance?) to the point of defying authority or what you may consider to be an unjust law? This question might seem simple at first. Yes, out of compassion I would have done the same as you and provided food, water and supplies to Isabel’s family. The personal reward seems high and the consequences appear to be minimal in this case.
However, I also acknowledge that we live in a country that is governed by laws, and most laws are generated for sound reasons, to serve the greater good of all our citizens, and we should strive to abide by them. I also know that failing to follow the law may result in some level of discipline or punishment (especially in the case of the Hitler Youth, the potential punishment for not following German law may have been severe).
So, where do we draw the line? If you consider a law unjust are you willing to challenge it to the point of civil disobedience? And if so, are you willing to accept the potential consequences?
Blog Three
ReplyDeleteThe point Gratz is trying to make to his readers is that there are some people who do not take into consideration what refugees actually go through and what their daily struggles are. In the novel, Refugee, by Alan Gratz, he explicitly stated on pages 213 and 214, “As he kneeled and stood, kneeled and stood, Mahmoud was supposed to be focused only on his prayers. But he couldn’t help but notice the uneasy looks the tourists were giving them. The frowns of displeasure. Like Mahmoud and his brother and this man were doing something wrong. 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. They only see us when we do something they don’t want us to do, Mahmoud realized,” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that refugees are invisible until they do something that affects other peoples’ lives. These particular tourists made an assumption based on what they saw. They did not put themselves in the shoes of the refugees. It shows that people who lack empathy, sympathy, or compassion can hurt others. Gratz wants his readers to try to understand other people’s situations before making a judgement.
What are your thoughts?
Blog 2 Response
ReplyDeleteHere is the answer to your question:
You asked a great question…”So, where do we draw the line?” This is tough because it depends on the law and who it affects. For example, if a law is unjust, we would challenge it to make it right. For example, there was a law made in 2020 in Oregon dealing with cyclists breezing through stop signs. We do not agree with this law because of the safety precautions. The law states that instead of cyclists stopping at the stop signs and blinking red lights, they are now treated as yield signs. We believe that the cyclists should come to a complete stop at a stop sign or blinking red light before continuing. Again, this law needs to be challenged because people could be killed. In this case, we would fight for it and deal with the consequences.
Hello again everyone!
ReplyDeleteI think your conclusion of the author’s intended point when he writes “They only see us when we do something they don’t want us to do” is correct. Sometimes we only see people who are different from ourselves when they are perceived to somehow negatively impact our lives, even in the smallest way.
When we lack compassion and sympathy for people who are different from us we can be hurtful. Some people may act in this fashion due to a lack of goodwill on their part. For others it might be an innocent, reflexive behavior. Nonetheless, they both negatively affect others.
You are right in that we should not judge others without knowing the circumstances that have brought them to their current condition. In the case of the characters in Mr. Gratz’s book, none of them chose poverty or homelessness. All were forced to emigrate due to events well beyond their control.
In your lives I expect that all of you have witnessed something similar to the plight of the refugees in our book, albeit in a much less severe condition. Has there ever been a new kid in your school, on your home street, or maybe on one of your sports teams who was different from you? If so, I’m certain that the child’s own actions or choices did not bring about this change. So, how did you react towards them? What was their response?
Blog 3 Response
ReplyDeleteHello! Here are the answers to your questions,
Has there ever been a new kid in your school, on your home street, or maybe on one of your sports teams who was different from you
The answer to your question is yes. The way we reacted to them was with kindness. Our teachers always tell us that we need to treat others the way we treat ourselves. The way they responded was always very good. Some kids in our grade have created great friendships with the new kids coming to our school.
Blog #4
ReplyDeleteHello Mr. Staller,
On page 277, Gratz wrote, “ I see it now, Chabela. All of it, the past, the present, the future. All my life, I was 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.” What is Lito inferring? Lito is inferring back to when he was on the MS St. Louis with all of the Jewish refugees. He is inferring back to this specific time because of that one word, mañana. When passengers on the MS St. Louis asked Lito and the other officers when they could leave the boat and go into Cuba, all they could say is mañana. What happened to the Jewish refugees, he did not want to happen to his family who are now refugees too. Lito knew that tomorrow was not promised to the the passengers on the MS St. Louis and felt guilty about not helping more. So he decided to give his family a chance for a new day in the U.S., he decided to give them mañana. That is why he jumped off the boat to distract the Coast Guard, to give his family a chance for a new life.
Hello Duke, Ava, Olivia and Sallee!
ReplyDeleteGreat summary! Yes, I agree, Lito was lamenting his actions (or inactions) during the times of his life when it may have been possible for him positively affect the lives of others. Do you also think that when the author states “A calm came over Lito” that Lito had come to some sort of personal reckoning for his apparent feelings of guilt or regret for having lived a life of waiting for tomorrow instead of acting today?
Lito’s experience is a good opportunity for our own self-reflection. I’m sure everyone has a story about when they took a risk for the benefit of another, but also when maybe they stood down out of fear or caution. I think this duality within us is one of the things that make us human. What do you think?
Response Blog #4
DeleteHello!
Here are the answers to your questions:
We also believe that when the author states, “A calm came over Lito” that Lito had come to a sort of personal reckoning for his apparent feelings of guilt or regret for having lived a life of waiting for tomorrow instead of acting today. Lito realized that there is no promise of tomorrow, and if he does not live his best day today, then he might not get a chance at tomorrow, or the following days left of his life.
We think that yes, this duality that makes us question our actions makes us human. Most people do not take action on most things because they are scared or scared of the consequences.