Jessie Cyrus’ Memoir: War Can’t Take It All
Jessie Cyrus
Left handed, born premature, and having a culture that is almost non-existent. I feel both special and alienated at the same time. I’m always asked, “What are you? Where are you from?” I have a tendency to respond with some sarcasm, “Well you see I’m a human that was produced by my mother and father, and my place of birth is Jordan Valley Hospital.” Then they say, “No, not that, what is your nationality, or why are you brown?” “Guess,” is my usual response, and I get everything under the sun. I’ve had people call me African American, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan, Japanese and Hispanic, with the latter two being the most frequent. I’ve had at least twenty different languages spoken to me because I look like so many nationalities. There have been times when I am at the bus stop, and I will be getting yelled at in Mandarin or Spanish, but I don’t respond because I didn’t know it was directed at me. When I do realize it is directed toward me is when they start getting very flustered, and they look at me with disgust. Out of all the nationalities and all the languages spoken to me I have never had someone come up and guess my true nationality. I am Native American, American Indian, Indigenous People, Indian, or Native; with so many names I still identify myself with just two tribes, Navajo and Seminole. After I quit being stubborn, and finally tell someone what I am, they ask me a set of questions. What’s your tribe? Where are they located? Can you speak the language? What’s the culture like? I can answer all of these questions with ease, but one of them I hate answering every time.
When I was younger, I was always told, “If you’re native you should be able to speak the language.” I always felt that I was stuck in between a rock and a hard place because I was native, I couldn’t speak the language, plus I only knew a little about the culture. The reason I couldn’t speak it was because of a war that decimated my tribe’s culture. Life was a lot different than it is nowadays because people are a lot more accepting of other people’s cultures and values now. On top of that there is alienation by the tribe itself. During my youth, the tribe would exclude those that were not raised in the reservation, and they refused to give them any chance of learning the language. I had to learn this lesson the hard way because I actually thought they would accept me, but I realized the persecution comes from both sides.
My realization of the tribes’ alienation happened when I was five years old, going back to the land of Oklahoma. Many people thought that place was barren, but it was a lovely place that had the scent of nature all around it. I remember the lush green hills, skyscraping trees, and sound of the animals animating the countryside. I was barely tall enough to be at my grandma’s hip and I was as imaginative as a kid could be. Our purpose there was to experience our Seminole days, which was a week of our cultural celebration. As a kid, I tried to talk to everyone I could, so I attempted to speak to the people in my tribe. They told me, “Can you talk white man?” I was very confused by this statement, but realized they were referring to how I was “raised” in their eyes. They then spoke to me in Seminole, and I said nothing in response. I felt lost because I was being called a white man, and they kept making fun of me. They told me, “You’re not Seminole if you can’t speak to us.” I learned later that those kids were mad because I won an award earlier in that week since my family was in high regard because of my grandma.
I told my grandma about the events that transpired. “Why can’t we speak the language, Grandma?” She told me, “Jessie, the language is just one way to express your love for the culture.” The traditions and values we learn as people are more important than what language we speak. She told me, “Grandson, your goal is to carry on our traditions and carry it on to your kids, letting them know to pass it on to their kids.” I realized that I should be proud of my heritage even if I can’t speak the language. I need to teach my kids so they can understand where they come from. At the age of 18, I was honored by my tribe and was told “We are proud of you for carrying on your culture.” They honored my efforts for keeping my culture alive and being interested in where I came from. My grandma told me, “You will be just like me, passing on the traditions to future generations.” She then followed it with, “Grandson, I am very proud of you, when I am dead and gone I know you will be an example for our people.” She continues to be a big influence in my life and is one of the reasons why I strive for success. I want to show that it is possible for anyone to be proud of where they come from, and live their traditions while still being successful. The actions of war can take a language, but they cannot away take someone’s heritage.
When I was younger, I was always told, “If you’re native you should be able to speak the language.” I always felt that I was stuck in between a rock and a hard place because I was native, I couldn’t speak the language, plus I only knew a little about the culture. The reason I couldn’t speak it was because of a war that decimated my tribe’s culture. Life was a lot different than it is nowadays because people are a lot more accepting of other people’s cultures and values now. On top of that there is alienation by the tribe itself. During my youth, the tribe would exclude those that were not raised in the reservation, and they refused to give them any chance of learning the language. I had to learn this lesson the hard way because I actually thought they would accept me, but I realized the persecution comes from both sides.
My realization of the tribes’ alienation happened when I was five years old, going back to the land of Oklahoma. Many people thought that place was barren, but it was a lovely place that had the scent of nature all around it. I remember the lush green hills, skyscraping trees, and sound of the animals animating the countryside. I was barely tall enough to be at my grandma’s hip and I was as imaginative as a kid could be. Our purpose there was to experience our Seminole days, which was a week of our cultural celebration. As a kid, I tried to talk to everyone I could, so I attempted to speak to the people in my tribe. They told me, “Can you talk white man?” I was very confused by this statement, but realized they were referring to how I was “raised” in their eyes. They then spoke to me in Seminole, and I said nothing in response. I felt lost because I was being called a white man, and they kept making fun of me. They told me, “You’re not Seminole if you can’t speak to us.” I learned later that those kids were mad because I won an award earlier in that week since my family was in high regard because of my grandma.
I told my grandma about the events that transpired. “Why can’t we speak the language, Grandma?” She told me, “Jessie, the language is just one way to express your love for the culture.” The traditions and values we learn as people are more important than what language we speak. She told me, “Grandson, your goal is to carry on our traditions and carry it on to your kids, letting them know to pass it on to their kids.” I realized that I should be proud of my heritage even if I can’t speak the language. I need to teach my kids so they can understand where they come from. At the age of 18, I was honored by my tribe and was told “We are proud of you for carrying on your culture.” They honored my efforts for keeping my culture alive and being interested in where I came from. My grandma told me, “You will be just like me, passing on the traditions to future generations.” She then followed it with, “Grandson, I am very proud of you, when I am dead and gone I know you will be an example for our people.” She continues to be a big influence in my life and is one of the reasons why I strive for success. I want to show that it is possible for anyone to be proud of where they come from, and live their traditions while still being successful. The actions of war can take a language, but they cannot away take someone’s heritage.
What Do Movies Teach Today?
Lyudmyla Polishchuk
I grew up watching old movies; they were more meaningful with more human values. Those movies had real friendship, real love, where people knew the meaning of the word "honor." Before I watched a movie and wanted to keep a copy in my collection for future generations. I was watching WWII movies not because it was blood and action, but because actors were acting so I forgot that I was watching a movie. You actually kind of knew those people, felt their pain, saw their mistakes, and loved with them. Those actors could act, so in the end of the movie tears would cover the viewer’s face. Those tears could be joyful or sad tears but it would not matter because you would feel emotions from the performance. After the movie you wipe those tears and understand that you would like to accomplish something heroically too, to save loved ones and other people. After watching these movies you feel love and you want to love, and it does not matter what type of love it is going to be, whether it be love for a woman, for a motherland, or for a society. Just love because you live, because you have no war, you live and enjoy living, you enjoy your relatives, people close to you, you have food to eat and a place to sleep, and there are no sounds of war on streets where you live.
But Hollywood has changed, and not for the better. One very famous movie director, Quentin Tarantino, who directed Inglorious Bastards, thinks that people now like to see violence and tons of blood on a screen. In comparison to classic movies, he used very famous and talented actors, but after watching the movie I didn't get any morality or patriotism as values from it. I got only scenes of violence, cruelty, lots of blood, and sometimes sadism. The entire movie was based on revenge and hate. Characters in this movie just soaked the screen with blood.
There are a few modern exceptions to the blood and violence. For example, in the movie Pearl Harbor, which took place at the same time period, during WWII, I have found real human values. The main movie characters are flying to Japan for revenge, but this does not really look like a terrible bloody revenge. It rather looks more like patriotism and love for their country. This movie does not show too much blood and intestines, but it shows real friendship, and people’s pain of war, where viewers can truly feel it. This movie teaches you to forgive when not everything is fair, but even in those unfair cases people have to keep their honor and pride.
Historically, much of Hollywood film was similar to Pearl Harbor. Filmmakers made genuine movies to show you how real friends can betray you and sometimes enemies can be real humans. There is no bad or good; there are people who choose to be good or bad. When you watch those movies you know for sure which side you would like to choose, to go through pain, to accomplish heroic things like those people from the movie. You know for sure what friendship is and how to forgive people, because we are all humans and we make mistakes. This makes us different from animals. In those movies you understand that love is not only sex. It is feelings for which people can risk their lives to save loved ones.
I honestly think that because of those movies, the great scenarios and great acting of those actors, I gained many good life values. Now I am really scared for my kids and my future grandkids, because if now there is a movie about war, it must have lots of blood with intestines coming out. When there is love it must be with sex only, with swearing and alcohol. When I watch a movie about war right now I do not feel that emotional pain anymore, I just feel nausea and smell blood. Most importantly, I feel that I do not want to see this movie anymore and pay my money for it. They just want to show human errors and tons of blood.
For example, in the movies Kill Bill or Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Tarantino, a movie screen gets soaked wet with the blood of killed people. Severed hands and intestines are very visual and cannot be forgotten for a long time after viewing them. We all already know that war is a mistake full of death. We only see history from the negative angle. Where are positive emotions and teaching human values? Where are actors playing in a way to make you forget that you are watching a movie? The modern movie companies are not thinking how to show moral and human values, but desire to make only more money. Maybe actors are acting that way because they are getting paid to do so, not because they cannot act artistically.
One example of terrible acting is in the famous modern blockbuster Transformers. The actress’ name is Megan Fox. I was not very much impressed with her acting whatsoever; honestly, I truly thought she was not chosen as an actress at all. Except a pretty face, I didn't see any values she added to the movie. I would say that a very talented actress but not always pretty could act so you will not notice that actress is not pretty because you will fill sympathy for her and due to her professional acting she could hide her façade behind her play, but lately movie directors are choosing a pretty façade versus talent.
I ask myself a question: is life only about money? Modern movies suggest that the answer is yes. Are we only going to be friends with powerful people, with the people who are rich, get married to people with power and money, and choose a profession only to make more money, but not satisfy our emotional needs? Movies with large budgets and tons of advertisements with very little movie art sometimes can make a fortune for the movie company, but movies with a little budget and true art cannot go to a big screen at all. Thankfully there is the Sundance Festival and YouTube for those movies for the public to enjoy.
I honestly would like to believe that showing old movies to my kids will help me to teach my kids human values: values where there is a meaningful life with positive emotions, values where evil will be defied, and love will grow inside people. This year’s movie Django Unchained by Quentin Tarantino is nominated for an Academy Award, so I still ask myself the question, "What will movies be like in ten years?" If movie industries will keep the style of Transformers, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained I feel very sorry for my kids. Movies have power. They have a power to teach us, and they can teach us good or bad. Movie directors like Quentin Tarantino should use a power of cinematograph to teach a movie auditory good things and bring positive emotions.
But Hollywood has changed, and not for the better. One very famous movie director, Quentin Tarantino, who directed Inglorious Bastards, thinks that people now like to see violence and tons of blood on a screen. In comparison to classic movies, he used very famous and talented actors, but after watching the movie I didn't get any morality or patriotism as values from it. I got only scenes of violence, cruelty, lots of blood, and sometimes sadism. The entire movie was based on revenge and hate. Characters in this movie just soaked the screen with blood.
There are a few modern exceptions to the blood and violence. For example, in the movie Pearl Harbor, which took place at the same time period, during WWII, I have found real human values. The main movie characters are flying to Japan for revenge, but this does not really look like a terrible bloody revenge. It rather looks more like patriotism and love for their country. This movie does not show too much blood and intestines, but it shows real friendship, and people’s pain of war, where viewers can truly feel it. This movie teaches you to forgive when not everything is fair, but even in those unfair cases people have to keep their honor and pride.
Historically, much of Hollywood film was similar to Pearl Harbor. Filmmakers made genuine movies to show you how real friends can betray you and sometimes enemies can be real humans. There is no bad or good; there are people who choose to be good or bad. When you watch those movies you know for sure which side you would like to choose, to go through pain, to accomplish heroic things like those people from the movie. You know for sure what friendship is and how to forgive people, because we are all humans and we make mistakes. This makes us different from animals. In those movies you understand that love is not only sex. It is feelings for which people can risk their lives to save loved ones.
I honestly think that because of those movies, the great scenarios and great acting of those actors, I gained many good life values. Now I am really scared for my kids and my future grandkids, because if now there is a movie about war, it must have lots of blood with intestines coming out. When there is love it must be with sex only, with swearing and alcohol. When I watch a movie about war right now I do not feel that emotional pain anymore, I just feel nausea and smell blood. Most importantly, I feel that I do not want to see this movie anymore and pay my money for it. They just want to show human errors and tons of blood.
For example, in the movies Kill Bill or Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Tarantino, a movie screen gets soaked wet with the blood of killed people. Severed hands and intestines are very visual and cannot be forgotten for a long time after viewing them. We all already know that war is a mistake full of death. We only see history from the negative angle. Where are positive emotions and teaching human values? Where are actors playing in a way to make you forget that you are watching a movie? The modern movie companies are not thinking how to show moral and human values, but desire to make only more money. Maybe actors are acting that way because they are getting paid to do so, not because they cannot act artistically.
One example of terrible acting is in the famous modern blockbuster Transformers. The actress’ name is Megan Fox. I was not very much impressed with her acting whatsoever; honestly, I truly thought she was not chosen as an actress at all. Except a pretty face, I didn't see any values she added to the movie. I would say that a very talented actress but not always pretty could act so you will not notice that actress is not pretty because you will fill sympathy for her and due to her professional acting she could hide her façade behind her play, but lately movie directors are choosing a pretty façade versus talent.
I ask myself a question: is life only about money? Modern movies suggest that the answer is yes. Are we only going to be friends with powerful people, with the people who are rich, get married to people with power and money, and choose a profession only to make more money, but not satisfy our emotional needs? Movies with large budgets and tons of advertisements with very little movie art sometimes can make a fortune for the movie company, but movies with a little budget and true art cannot go to a big screen at all. Thankfully there is the Sundance Festival and YouTube for those movies for the public to enjoy.
I honestly would like to believe that showing old movies to my kids will help me to teach my kids human values: values where there is a meaningful life with positive emotions, values where evil will be defied, and love will grow inside people. This year’s movie Django Unchained by Quentin Tarantino is nominated for an Academy Award, so I still ask myself the question, "What will movies be like in ten years?" If movie industries will keep the style of Transformers, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained I feel very sorry for my kids. Movies have power. They have a power to teach us, and they can teach us good or bad. Movie directors like Quentin Tarantino should use a power of cinematograph to teach a movie auditory good things and bring positive emotions.
Hotel Rwanda
Simon Richards
This was a very well put together movie. I found it to be inspiring and captivating. The story is easy to follow and you never feel like it is dragging something out or getting dull. In my review, I will be exploring two main aspects. Frist, I will take a look at what events in the movie are historically accurate and, second, I will explore aspects that were inaccurate and perhaps why they were put in the movie anyways.
What They Got Right:
The opening of the movie is a radio broadcast from a Hutu extremist station talking about the Tutsi rebels, calling them “cockroaches” and telling the Hutu people to “crush them under your boot.” This was a common sentiment at the time since the country was being run by the Hutu and they were at war with a rebel group of Tutsi called the Rwandan Patriotic Front or RPF. In another scene, a news crew man, played by Joaquin Phoenix, is talking to a local reporter about the reason for the hatred between the two groups in Rwanda and asks him how it all started. The reporter explains that it was the Belgians who created the division by taking people who had “thinner noses and lighter skin” and placing them in power, these were the Tutsi, and they oppressed the others who were Hutu. This truly did occur when the Belgians classified the races and chose those who essentially looked more like white men to lead the country. At one point in the movie, just after the massacre begins, the main character, Paul Rosesabagina, played by Don Cheadle, is taken with his family and friends by the Hutu military; he is given a gun and told to kill them all because they are all Tutsi and he is a Hutu. This is when he starts bribing the military to leave them alone and saves his family and friends. Paul did have a similar encounter where he was told to kill several Tutsi that he knew and was able to bribe the soldiers with beer and money to allow them to live; this event was one of the first where he used his skills he had learned while being a hotel manager to save people. There were several other moments in the movie that were true to history which makes this movie a good source for someone trying to get a glimpse of what went on in Rwanda during the 100 day genocide.
What They Didn’t Get So Right:
One of the first things I noticed that was not accurate is when Paul is buying supplies from one of his venders, George Rutagonda. In the movie’s account, a man driving a fork lift drops the crate he is lifting, spilling out machetes at which Paul is shocked but says nothing and George plays off as nothing. The truth is that the machetes used in the genocide were not brought in by private parties – they were bought and shipped in by the government. It may seem like a small detail but the movie’s portrayal made it seem like it was the regular people planning the genocide, not the government. Throughout the movie, Paul deals with a general named Bizimungu. I did not come across his name during my research and so I am not sure if he was a real general, but the movie depicts him as if he is the only person with any power and he is the only one in the Hutu army that Paul ever deals with. I’m sure the movie chose to represent the genocide as the result of one man for the ease of storytelling. However, Paul actually dealt with many people in power in the Hutu army because several Hutu extremists had Tutsi family that they sent to him to take care of; this gave Paul more pull with the army and he was better able to keep the people at his hotel safe (Spalding, 34).
Though the creators of this film used their artistic license in a few areas, it was still a great film with good historical accuracy and entertainment value. I would recommend this to anyone who is looking for a film that will inform them more about genocide or even those just interested in other places in the world about which they may not have much knowledge. However, I will give a warning as well that it is not for the faint hearted. Some of the detail of the massacres is graphic and made my stomach turn a few times. That aside, by the end of the movie you will shed a tear or two, I know I did, and you will want to know more about what happened in that small, distant place called Rwanda.
What They Got Right:
The opening of the movie is a radio broadcast from a Hutu extremist station talking about the Tutsi rebels, calling them “cockroaches” and telling the Hutu people to “crush them under your boot.” This was a common sentiment at the time since the country was being run by the Hutu and they were at war with a rebel group of Tutsi called the Rwandan Patriotic Front or RPF. In another scene, a news crew man, played by Joaquin Phoenix, is talking to a local reporter about the reason for the hatred between the two groups in Rwanda and asks him how it all started. The reporter explains that it was the Belgians who created the division by taking people who had “thinner noses and lighter skin” and placing them in power, these were the Tutsi, and they oppressed the others who were Hutu. This truly did occur when the Belgians classified the races and chose those who essentially looked more like white men to lead the country. At one point in the movie, just after the massacre begins, the main character, Paul Rosesabagina, played by Don Cheadle, is taken with his family and friends by the Hutu military; he is given a gun and told to kill them all because they are all Tutsi and he is a Hutu. This is when he starts bribing the military to leave them alone and saves his family and friends. Paul did have a similar encounter where he was told to kill several Tutsi that he knew and was able to bribe the soldiers with beer and money to allow them to live; this event was one of the first where he used his skills he had learned while being a hotel manager to save people. There were several other moments in the movie that were true to history which makes this movie a good source for someone trying to get a glimpse of what went on in Rwanda during the 100 day genocide.
What They Didn’t Get So Right:
One of the first things I noticed that was not accurate is when Paul is buying supplies from one of his venders, George Rutagonda. In the movie’s account, a man driving a fork lift drops the crate he is lifting, spilling out machetes at which Paul is shocked but says nothing and George plays off as nothing. The truth is that the machetes used in the genocide were not brought in by private parties – they were bought and shipped in by the government. It may seem like a small detail but the movie’s portrayal made it seem like it was the regular people planning the genocide, not the government. Throughout the movie, Paul deals with a general named Bizimungu. I did not come across his name during my research and so I am not sure if he was a real general, but the movie depicts him as if he is the only person with any power and he is the only one in the Hutu army that Paul ever deals with. I’m sure the movie chose to represent the genocide as the result of one man for the ease of storytelling. However, Paul actually dealt with many people in power in the Hutu army because several Hutu extremists had Tutsi family that they sent to him to take care of; this gave Paul more pull with the army and he was better able to keep the people at his hotel safe (Spalding, 34).
Though the creators of this film used their artistic license in a few areas, it was still a great film with good historical accuracy and entertainment value. I would recommend this to anyone who is looking for a film that will inform them more about genocide or even those just interested in other places in the world about which they may not have much knowledge. However, I will give a warning as well that it is not for the faint hearted. Some of the detail of the massacres is graphic and made my stomach turn a few times. That aside, by the end of the movie you will shed a tear or two, I know I did, and you will want to know more about what happened in that small, distant place called Rwanda.
Is There an End to The conflict Between Palestine and Israel?
Noor Al Dulaimi
On March 21, 2013, president Obama visited Ramallah, the West Bank, and told the Palestinians that they deserve “a state of their own.” Obama said that Israel must help in order to create an independent Palestine. President Mahmoud Abbas, in the West Bank, told President Obama that peace can only be reached with negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Israelis are not willing to negotiate because they do not want to compromise and give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. President Obama’s visit failed, like all the other visits before him. Bahjat Shehada, a Palestinian coordinator and translator for the German Embassy in Ramallah, said, "Obama's visit is nothing, it's just politics. All the U.S. presidents come here and nothing happens” (O’Brien). This conflict started with the Balfour Declaration November 2, 1917. Arthur James Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild, who was the most influential of all Jewish families and the wealthiest in Great Britain, declaring his support for establishing a Jewish homeland in the area known as Palestine ("The Balfour Declaration.").
Jews from all around the world became very excited, and they were more than ready to live in their promised land. “The millennia old Jewish goal was the land of Israel within its biblical borders” (“The Palestine/Israel Conflict”). Palestine was an Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century: “In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire” (“The Palestine/Israel Conflict”). That created a problem because Palestine belonged to the Arabs, and then all the sudden groups of Jews came up saying that they were promised to have that land! The Palestinians never opposed having the Jewish people live with them because they were already living with different kinds of religions peacefully, including both Jews and Christians. The Palestinians opposed the way the Israelis came to Palestine. They came under the shadow of the British guns; they did not come with the will to live peacefully with the Palestinians. President Obama’s visit was destined to fail, not because of the Palestinians refusal to have peace and share the land with the Israelis, but because of the Israelis reluctance to compromise.
The Jewish people were expected to take the entire Palestinian land, and make it a nation of Jews. Their plan was to make the Arab Christians and Muslims leave Palestine. They were disappointed to see the Palestinians refusal to leave. When the Israelis came into Palestine, they started to pay double the amount of money for the houses of the Palestinians to tempt them to leave their homes. Some accepted their offers and left to neighboring countries like Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt and they settled there. Many refused their offer. When they did the Israelis started to bother them in every possible way. Many Palestinians, those in their 60’s or older, remember being forced to leave their homes. Some of them still hold the keys of their homes, hoping one day they will return. Many remember the terror of how they were forced to leave. They were forced to go to the West Bank and Gaza, where they found small shelters in refugee camps that became their homes for thirty-five years or more ("The Palestine/Israel Conflict.").
A lot of people around the world blame the Palestinians for what is happening to them because they think that the Palestinians are refusing to live with the Israelis. They think that Palestinians are the terrorists that started this fight from the beginning. However, people should look deeply into history and see the truth.
How would America react if a group of people, who are supported by a strong country, come and say, “This is our land, and your house is mine, and you do not have any rights here what so ever?” Would Americans give up everything that they and their ancestors have built for them and leave?
The Israelis debate that they were granted to take Palestine because it is their promised land, that they deserve to have it after the massacre that happened in Germany, and also because Great Britain promised to help them. But what right did Great Britain have to grant the Israelis somebody else’s country? The Jews have experienced racist anti-Semitism in many European countries including Great Britain. They were subjects to regular discrimination, planned slaughter, and murder. The only place in the entire world that Jews were neither discriminated against nor murdered was the Muslim world. When Christianity established its powers in Spain and Andalusia, in the western range of the Islamic empire, when the Muslims left, the Jews left with them. They feared the Christian anti-Semitism, which would be released in the wake of the withdrawal of the Islamic civilization in the west. That is why a lot of Jews are found even today, and before establishing the state of Israel, in countries like Morocco and along the North African coast. Under the protection of Muslims, the Jews were able to leave Europe and go to live in North Africa.
Palestine was wiped off the map when Britain granted the Israelis somebody else’s country rather than trying to solve the issue by asking the Palestinians to share their land with them. Jews had been living side by side with Christians and Muslims for centuries without wide scale discrimination or violence. Christian anti-Semitism in Europe, which massacred six million Jews, was paid for not by the Christian countries of Europe that either practiced or ignored to that anti-Semitism, but was paid by the people who were completely innocent of that holocaust and had never killed the Jews. That is offensive to the pain and injury suffered by a people whose country was wiped off the map, who were scattered into exile to make a Zionist idea possible, which was granted to European Jews by Britain (Eastaugh).
Is God a state agent? Most of the religions started in the Middle East, from Judaism to Islam. Palestine is not owned by the religion. If it is, then it would belong to Jews, Christians, and even Muslims. The land belongs to the people who lived centuries building it and watched it grow. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all lived together peacefully in Palestine for centuries. They have all contributed to building Palestine, and each religion has the right to live in Palestine because it is the home of history. The Dome of the Rock is an important site in Palestine for Muslims, as well as Jews. Also, the Holy Sepulcher is an important site for Christians (Alashhab).
Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have an equal right to live in Palestine peacefully. However, if the Israelis are adamant to not compromise, there won't be a peace between the two sides. The Palestinians have proved over centuries that they could live with the Jews. Now it is time for the Israelis to show their good will to share the land, or compromise in order to have peace.
Jews from all around the world became very excited, and they were more than ready to live in their promised land. “The millennia old Jewish goal was the land of Israel within its biblical borders” (“The Palestine/Israel Conflict”). Palestine was an Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century: “In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire” (“The Palestine/Israel Conflict”). That created a problem because Palestine belonged to the Arabs, and then all the sudden groups of Jews came up saying that they were promised to have that land! The Palestinians never opposed having the Jewish people live with them because they were already living with different kinds of religions peacefully, including both Jews and Christians. The Palestinians opposed the way the Israelis came to Palestine. They came under the shadow of the British guns; they did not come with the will to live peacefully with the Palestinians. President Obama’s visit was destined to fail, not because of the Palestinians refusal to have peace and share the land with the Israelis, but because of the Israelis reluctance to compromise.
The Jewish people were expected to take the entire Palestinian land, and make it a nation of Jews. Their plan was to make the Arab Christians and Muslims leave Palestine. They were disappointed to see the Palestinians refusal to leave. When the Israelis came into Palestine, they started to pay double the amount of money for the houses of the Palestinians to tempt them to leave their homes. Some accepted their offers and left to neighboring countries like Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt and they settled there. Many refused their offer. When they did the Israelis started to bother them in every possible way. Many Palestinians, those in their 60’s or older, remember being forced to leave their homes. Some of them still hold the keys of their homes, hoping one day they will return. Many remember the terror of how they were forced to leave. They were forced to go to the West Bank and Gaza, where they found small shelters in refugee camps that became their homes for thirty-five years or more ("The Palestine/Israel Conflict.").
A lot of people around the world blame the Palestinians for what is happening to them because they think that the Palestinians are refusing to live with the Israelis. They think that Palestinians are the terrorists that started this fight from the beginning. However, people should look deeply into history and see the truth.
How would America react if a group of people, who are supported by a strong country, come and say, “This is our land, and your house is mine, and you do not have any rights here what so ever?” Would Americans give up everything that they and their ancestors have built for them and leave?
The Israelis debate that they were granted to take Palestine because it is their promised land, that they deserve to have it after the massacre that happened in Germany, and also because Great Britain promised to help them. But what right did Great Britain have to grant the Israelis somebody else’s country? The Jews have experienced racist anti-Semitism in many European countries including Great Britain. They were subjects to regular discrimination, planned slaughter, and murder. The only place in the entire world that Jews were neither discriminated against nor murdered was the Muslim world. When Christianity established its powers in Spain and Andalusia, in the western range of the Islamic empire, when the Muslims left, the Jews left with them. They feared the Christian anti-Semitism, which would be released in the wake of the withdrawal of the Islamic civilization in the west. That is why a lot of Jews are found even today, and before establishing the state of Israel, in countries like Morocco and along the North African coast. Under the protection of Muslims, the Jews were able to leave Europe and go to live in North Africa.
Palestine was wiped off the map when Britain granted the Israelis somebody else’s country rather than trying to solve the issue by asking the Palestinians to share their land with them. Jews had been living side by side with Christians and Muslims for centuries without wide scale discrimination or violence. Christian anti-Semitism in Europe, which massacred six million Jews, was paid for not by the Christian countries of Europe that either practiced or ignored to that anti-Semitism, but was paid by the people who were completely innocent of that holocaust and had never killed the Jews. That is offensive to the pain and injury suffered by a people whose country was wiped off the map, who were scattered into exile to make a Zionist idea possible, which was granted to European Jews by Britain (Eastaugh).
Is God a state agent? Most of the religions started in the Middle East, from Judaism to Islam. Palestine is not owned by the religion. If it is, then it would belong to Jews, Christians, and even Muslims. The land belongs to the people who lived centuries building it and watched it grow. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all lived together peacefully in Palestine for centuries. They have all contributed to building Palestine, and each religion has the right to live in Palestine because it is the home of history. The Dome of the Rock is an important site in Palestine for Muslims, as well as Jews. Also, the Holy Sepulcher is an important site for Christians (Alashhab).
Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have an equal right to live in Palestine peacefully. However, if the Israelis are adamant to not compromise, there won't be a peace between the two sides. The Palestinians have proved over centuries that they could live with the Jews. Now it is time for the Israelis to show their good will to share the land, or compromise in order to have peace.
Life is Beautiful Movie Review
Ashleigh Ripley
“This is a simple story, but not an easy one to tell. Like a fable, there is sorrow. And, like a fable, it is full of wonder and happiness.” The film opens up with Joshua explaining to the audience that he is about to tell a story that, though difficult to tell, needs to be told.
Life is Beautiful is set during the Second World War during which the Holocaust had taken place. The point of view of the movie was to point out a new way of looking at the historical issue. I think this movie was to not only give some historical information about the event but to also teach us lessons in some other areas as well like the love between a father and son. I think the director purposefully chose to demonstrate this in the context of some very selective times, the Holocaust.
In Life is Beautiful, Guido Orefice, a Jewish waiter is trying to win the heart of Dora, a non-Jewish school teacher. At first she doesn’t give him much attention but she soon falls in love with him, and they get married. They end up having a son, Joshua.
One day, Dora returns to an empty house on Joshua's Birthday. Guido and Joshua have been taken to a Jewish concentration camp. Dora does a selfless act and asks to be taken too so she won’t be separated from her family. Guido wants to protect his son so badly that he tells him that the whole thing is part of a game. If he does what he says, he can win a prize if he gets the most points, a real life tank. One day Joshua earned points for hiding in an electrical box to get away from the German soldiers. Guido is so focused on keeping Joshua safe that he risks his own life to convince Joshua of the “game” they are playing that he makes an announcement over the loud speaker of the “winning team.”
The director of this film deals with the Holocaust in an unusual fashion. Life is Beautiful is introduced as a fable during the beginning of the movie. But what exactly is a fable? A fable is “a short tale to teach a moral lesson”(Online Etymology Dictionary). Guido’s love for his son was a prime example of how a father’s love for his child is so unbreakable even through the toughest situations. He was prepared to do anything to keep his son alive even if it risked his own life. The father kept the awful truth from the little boy and made a game out of it, to see who can get to 1000 points first to win a real tank. Telling him that the activities in the concentration camp are a game allows Joshua to survive and deal with a situation that he is probably too young to understand. He also teaches Joshua a lesson about finding a way to look at even the worst situations and make the best of them, although I don’t think Joshua really realizes this until he’s older. I think Guido's commitment to keep up his son's spirits throughout this ordeal is also inspiring to the other men. His focus is mainly on his son but maybe that’s why he is so inspiring to other people because it shows them that there are things to keep your hopes up for.
At the end of the movie Joshua becomes an actual winner of “the game” that his father has made up. When an American tank pulls up and gives him a ride, he realizes his father wasn’t lying about winning a real tank. When the Americans give him a ride he then finds his mom walking with the other survivors and tells her that they “won.” The outcome of this movie is sad, but that little boy realized what a wonderful father he had. I also think that’s why Joshua is a winner because not only did he survive the Holocaust but he was also shown the love of his father. His father did everything out of pure love, and that is what I think is beautiful.
What exactly does the title of this film mean, Life is Beautiful? As the audience of this film, I can bring my own interpretation of its meaning. Certain factors can influence a response especially since this movie deals with such an emotional event like the Holocaust. This movie wasn’t to just show factual events in time, it was to teach a lesson of love and to show that life really is beautiful.
The movie, Life is Beautiful did not change the way I view the Holocaust in any way. I still think that this was a bad moment in history that should never have happened. I viewed this movie as just another film that portrays love with a slight comedic twist. If the director wanted to make just another movie about the Holocaust he would have made another “Schindler’s List” type script but he didn’t. He wanted to turn the Holocaust scene into a film that depicts a tragi-comic love story. As a comedian (the director) his way was to not show the direct seriousness of the events but just to evoke them. After watching this film, I realized that it has less to do with the Holocaust and more to do with feelings and the relationship between a father and his son should have. The Holocaust presents the ultimate backdrop for this that provides the ability to bring those deep dimensions to the movie. Acknowledging the need to carefully balance the tragedy and the comedic aspects of what the story has turned into, the director uses this creative device of the game, that not only allows that, but lures the audience deeper into the story and its well-thought out characters. I don’t care much for movies with subtitles but if it can still capture my attention, then I consider it a really good movie. This was one of those movies that leave you with a positive message instead of a negative one: Life is Beautiful.
Not only did the director make a comedy out of a tragic event, but he also softened the concentration camp and the Nazis instead of dwelling on the documented horrors that many, if not most, people are familiar with. Unlike the usual American films that start loud and end the same way, this one in a sense, switches part way through. The second half of the movie focuses more on the characters than on what confronts them. By doing this, the director turns a horrific event into something of a comedy. A tragicomedy is “an incident, or series of incidents, of mixed tragic and comic character” (Online Etymology Dictionary). In this movie there is no major darkening of tone. The concentration camp portion of the film gleams at us just as innocently as the prior events of this movie. I know that the director puts horrors before us like starvation, and ultimately mass murder but it is hard to fully comprehend the significance of those events from this movie by the way he portrays them. I think the director wanted to approach this in a different way. Having Joshua, as a young child going through this event, he may not have known what was actually taking place so the account, which is the film, shows a lack of violence. Even though you know what is going on from what you have been taught in school there is no filming of violence. Without the violence the atmosphere isn’t as dark as you would think it would be. The usual American film shows lots of violence and gore and it was nice to see a movie that wasn’t trying to capture an audience through its action.
Life is Beautiful is set during the Second World War during which the Holocaust had taken place. The point of view of the movie was to point out a new way of looking at the historical issue. I think this movie was to not only give some historical information about the event but to also teach us lessons in some other areas as well like the love between a father and son. I think the director purposefully chose to demonstrate this in the context of some very selective times, the Holocaust.
In Life is Beautiful, Guido Orefice, a Jewish waiter is trying to win the heart of Dora, a non-Jewish school teacher. At first she doesn’t give him much attention but she soon falls in love with him, and they get married. They end up having a son, Joshua.
One day, Dora returns to an empty house on Joshua's Birthday. Guido and Joshua have been taken to a Jewish concentration camp. Dora does a selfless act and asks to be taken too so she won’t be separated from her family. Guido wants to protect his son so badly that he tells him that the whole thing is part of a game. If he does what he says, he can win a prize if he gets the most points, a real life tank. One day Joshua earned points for hiding in an electrical box to get away from the German soldiers. Guido is so focused on keeping Joshua safe that he risks his own life to convince Joshua of the “game” they are playing that he makes an announcement over the loud speaker of the “winning team.”
The director of this film deals with the Holocaust in an unusual fashion. Life is Beautiful is introduced as a fable during the beginning of the movie. But what exactly is a fable? A fable is “a short tale to teach a moral lesson”(Online Etymology Dictionary). Guido’s love for his son was a prime example of how a father’s love for his child is so unbreakable even through the toughest situations. He was prepared to do anything to keep his son alive even if it risked his own life. The father kept the awful truth from the little boy and made a game out of it, to see who can get to 1000 points first to win a real tank. Telling him that the activities in the concentration camp are a game allows Joshua to survive and deal with a situation that he is probably too young to understand. He also teaches Joshua a lesson about finding a way to look at even the worst situations and make the best of them, although I don’t think Joshua really realizes this until he’s older. I think Guido's commitment to keep up his son's spirits throughout this ordeal is also inspiring to the other men. His focus is mainly on his son but maybe that’s why he is so inspiring to other people because it shows them that there are things to keep your hopes up for.
At the end of the movie Joshua becomes an actual winner of “the game” that his father has made up. When an American tank pulls up and gives him a ride, he realizes his father wasn’t lying about winning a real tank. When the Americans give him a ride he then finds his mom walking with the other survivors and tells her that they “won.” The outcome of this movie is sad, but that little boy realized what a wonderful father he had. I also think that’s why Joshua is a winner because not only did he survive the Holocaust but he was also shown the love of his father. His father did everything out of pure love, and that is what I think is beautiful.
What exactly does the title of this film mean, Life is Beautiful? As the audience of this film, I can bring my own interpretation of its meaning. Certain factors can influence a response especially since this movie deals with such an emotional event like the Holocaust. This movie wasn’t to just show factual events in time, it was to teach a lesson of love and to show that life really is beautiful.
The movie, Life is Beautiful did not change the way I view the Holocaust in any way. I still think that this was a bad moment in history that should never have happened. I viewed this movie as just another film that portrays love with a slight comedic twist. If the director wanted to make just another movie about the Holocaust he would have made another “Schindler’s List” type script but he didn’t. He wanted to turn the Holocaust scene into a film that depicts a tragi-comic love story. As a comedian (the director) his way was to not show the direct seriousness of the events but just to evoke them. After watching this film, I realized that it has less to do with the Holocaust and more to do with feelings and the relationship between a father and his son should have. The Holocaust presents the ultimate backdrop for this that provides the ability to bring those deep dimensions to the movie. Acknowledging the need to carefully balance the tragedy and the comedic aspects of what the story has turned into, the director uses this creative device of the game, that not only allows that, but lures the audience deeper into the story and its well-thought out characters. I don’t care much for movies with subtitles but if it can still capture my attention, then I consider it a really good movie. This was one of those movies that leave you with a positive message instead of a negative one: Life is Beautiful.
Not only did the director make a comedy out of a tragic event, but he also softened the concentration camp and the Nazis instead of dwelling on the documented horrors that many, if not most, people are familiar with. Unlike the usual American films that start loud and end the same way, this one in a sense, switches part way through. The second half of the movie focuses more on the characters than on what confronts them. By doing this, the director turns a horrific event into something of a comedy. A tragicomedy is “an incident, or series of incidents, of mixed tragic and comic character” (Online Etymology Dictionary). In this movie there is no major darkening of tone. The concentration camp portion of the film gleams at us just as innocently as the prior events of this movie. I know that the director puts horrors before us like starvation, and ultimately mass murder but it is hard to fully comprehend the significance of those events from this movie by the way he portrays them. I think the director wanted to approach this in a different way. Having Joshua, as a young child going through this event, he may not have known what was actually taking place so the account, which is the film, shows a lack of violence. Even though you know what is going on from what you have been taught in school there is no filming of violence. Without the violence the atmosphere isn’t as dark as you would think it would be. The usual American film shows lots of violence and gore and it was nice to see a movie that wasn’t trying to capture an audience through its action.