Saving Places - I Thought I Saw

This weeks english task was to analyze or interoperate the poem Saving Places - I Thought I Saw by 10 year old Hannah Tobin.

I thought i saw a fertile plain
Growing a crop of golden corn.
I thought i saw the sea again but -
Its probably just the light of dawn.


I thought i saw the proud elephant
Patrolling by the lake.
I thought i saw the boxing kangaroo

but -

It must have been a mistake.


I thought i saw the mighty buffalo, 
Stampeding through the forest.
I thought i saw a modest honey bee

but-

It could not have been - i promise.


I thought i saw the arrogant kingfisher,
Flashing his red-orange chest.
I thought i saw a bounding hare but -
Maybe my eyes just need rest.


All these things-
They could not be
They all died out because of me.

Hannah Tobin (10)


Hannah is a little young girl and she probably loves animals and wants to take care of the nature for future generations. Thats why she wrote a poem about environmental protection. The poem describes how humans can cause extinction of the animals, the sea and the landscape.

The poet has written the text full of emotions to capture the reader. She describes some characteristics with each animal so you get a picture and a sense of watching them alive. The first and the third sentence in each verse rhymes.

It looks like the person in the poem is living in the future and dreaming of a better world and how it use to be back in the days. But in her future there are no animals and sea because of all the pollution that people has caused and to much hunting of endangered species.

I think the little girl made this poem to show that if the pollution and hunting goes on thats how the world will end up. With no animals and sea, only dusty badlands.

The poet is afraid that the future is going to be like this and that she wrote the poem to warn everyone that if the humans keep doing what we do this is how the world will end up. She tries to raise awareness around the fact that everybody has a responsibility and should be involved in environment issues to save the Earth.

Earth environment

Pollution:
The people living today are destroying the environment by not using public transport, throwing thrash on the ground and not recycling their trash. Factories let out their toxic gas which destroys the soil, waters and rivers.
The ozone in the atmosphere begin to open holes because of air pollution and dangerous rays from the sun can hurt us trough them.







Wildlife:
Because of hunting and destroying of animal habitats, many species are about to be extinct.
This can also happen because of chemical waste from industry and farming.







Arne Næss:
A Norwegian philosoph and founder of "deep ecology" that was very concerned about the environment. Arne is of course against pollution and because of that he was working hard to stop it.

He said that all living things have the right to live and flourish. 

Vietnam war

Task
1. What the conflict is about:
The conflict was about North Vietnam that wanted South Vietnam to have a communistic leadership.
The whole country at that time was controlled by South Vietnam. 




2. Who the parties are: 
North Vietnam and their communistic allies was the attacking part and South Vietnam supported by USA and other anti-communistic nations was the defending part.




3. How the war is fought  
The war started when the FNL guerrilla (also called Viet Cong) supported by North Vietnam rebelled against the South Vietnamese government, trying to unite Vietnam under communistic leadership.
USA then got involved on the South Vietnamese side, fearing communism spreading in all of South Asia. The conflict then grew and spread to Cambodia and Laos.


North Vietnam fought most of the war in a way called guerrilla warfare. They had  a smaller amount of weapons, military equipment and they were less people and therefore they had to fight the war in a different way. Guerilla warfare is a way to fight a war using small mobile units against a bigger and better equipped enemy.


4. Information about the solution (if there was one).
In 1973 USA withdrew themselves out of the war. The main reason was that the american goverment didnt think they could win the war. There was also political pressure and the american people was tired of getting theire sons in home in coffins.  


In 1975 The South Vietnamese capital, Saigon was captured by North Vietnamese forces, which marked the end of the war.
North and South vietnam was reunited the year after.
The war led to that 5 million people died and was injured and of those were 3 million civilians.


Sources: Wikipedia were I searched for the Vietnam war

Refleksjons Notat

Vi fikk i oppgave på skolen å reflektere over en oppgave som handlet om stasi og informanter og derfor starter jeg med å forklare hva de to ordene betyr. 

- Stasi var det hemmelige sikkerhets politiet i Øst-Tyskland under den kalde krigen i årene 1950 - 1990.

De hadde som oppgave å overvåke og kontrolere hele Øst-Tyskland og alle som jobbet mot det komunistiske styre. De brøt seg inn i hus og plaserte avlytningsaparater slik at de kunne høre alt som skjedde og skrive rapporter om alles liv.
De hadde også Informanter, Informant er en person som gir informasjon til stasi og som kunne være de i familien din og vennene dine. For å få folk til å bli informanter fant stasi ett eller annet som de kunne presse personen med noe som den personen ikke ville skulle komme ut i offentlighet.  Informantene var delt inn i flere grupper og de fleste var kun angivere som var uofisielle medarbeidere for stasi.
Mellom 1950 og 1990 hadde stasi 600 000 medarbeidere og informanter.

Jeg fikk i oppgave å reflektere rundt  spørsmålet:

Du lever i Øst-Tyskland under den kalde krigen. Du har en datter som skal begynne på universitetet. Hun har gode karakterer og alt ligger til rette for at hun skal komme inn på Universitetet i Berlin. Så sier imidlertid Stasi at du må bli informant for dem ellers vil ikke din datter få plassen på universitetet. Hvilket valg tar du?

Svarene kan bli forskjellig utifra forskjellige etiske modeller. 
I følge plikt etikken, som har noe som kalles kategorisk imperativ må jeg velge enten eller. Det skal være likt for alle, så hvis jeg blir informant kan alle bli informanter.

Jeg ville ikke blitt innformant  deter galt å la andre lide for at jeg skal få det bedre. Dermed vil dattera mi ikke komme inn på universitetet hun ville gå på, men datteren min sin karriere er ikke så viktig at jeg er villig til å ødlegge noens liv, da kan andre ødelegge mitt liv med samme grunn og det er galt. Det er det som er riktig i følge pliktetikk.




Konsekvensetikken handler om å tenke hva som har størst konsikvens.
Hvis jeg hadde blitt informant på bestevennen min eller en annen person og hun/han hadde kjempet imot det komunistiske styre og jeg skulle rapportere det til stasi ville han/hun komme i fengsel og i værste fall blitt torturet og drept.
Derfor syntes jeg det er viktigere at folk rundt meg skal ha det bra og ikke må bli straffet enn at dattera mi som har gode karakterer skal komme inn på ett spesielt universitet hvis hun likegodt kan gå på andre valget sitt.

Men dersom jeg ikke hadde hatt noe valg og jeg måtte jobbe for stasi og jeg kunne velge mellom å være informant eller angiver ville jeg vært angiver. Fordi jeg ikke ville gå med den skyldfølelsen på meg at jeg hadde ødelagt noens liv ut ifra den innformasjonen som jeg gir til stasi.

Kilder:
Wikipedia
Nrk.no/kultur
Snl.no/stasi
Profesjonsetikk i skolen ( Frøydis Oma Ohnstad, høyskoleforlaget 2010 )