Lennie is not the smartest guy you can think of, actually he is quite stupid for his age.
He works at ranches, or atleast the work he can find - and travels around with his friend George. Lennie does not always have control over his actions, and gets often in trouble for them.
But does he really mean any harm by them?
We are in the 1930's, and Lennie travels around with his friend George. Lennie often forgets what people tell him, and is not that bright. The thing people see as a threat in Lennie, is his size. He is a really big, strong, and good-hearted man. George describes him with the following sentence: "He ain't bright, but he's a hell of a good worken. As strong as a bull." to their new boss. That's actually correct. People think that if they insult Lennie, he will beat them up, but Lennie has a big heart and does not want to end up in a situation lke that. What keeps Lennie working on this ranch, is his dream. George told him, every night before they went to sleep, about the big house, the farm, animals, and all the money they were going to earn - all through having a little bit of patience. Lennie was overexcited about all of this, and it really shows the happy character he is in the book. Even though Lennie is the big-hearted guy, he is very unlucky about several things. As the friendy guy he is, he loves tending pets, and he always wanted a puppy. George finds one for him, and if Lennie promises him that he will take good care of it, he can get the rabbits he always wanted. Here is were Lennie makes a mistake, and can not do anything about it. Lennie kills the little puppy, and is quite afraid of George's reaction. Of course he never ment to, the fact is that he was a bit too strong, and the petting got a little bit out of hand.
Lennie's dream is similar to the Amercian Dream, wich was a large topic at the time. Although Lennie wante to fullfill his dream, he was not able to make it, because of the little problem he had, acting like a little child. I think he deserved to fullfill his dream, he was nothing but good at heart.
I guess life is unfair if you are a little bit different than the others around you. He was a dreamer, just like anybody else at the time.
Sources: The book (Of mice and men) and the papers you handed out :)
torsdag 17. november 2011
onsdag 21. september 2011
Hvordan hadde jeg løst problemstillingen?
Idag fikk vi en oppgave på skolen av RLE-læreren vår, at vi skulle reflektere rundt en problemstilling.
Problemstillingen er som følgende:
- 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 i rette for at hun skal komme inn. Så sier imidlertid Stasi at du må bli informant ellers får hun ikke plassen.
1) Hva er valgmulighetene?
Jeg kan godta forespørslenen om å bli informant, eller jeg kan takke nei, ødelegge utdanningskarrieren til min datter, og rissikere min egen og familiens sikkerhet.
2) Hva ville du gjort?
-Jeg ville tenkt med konsekvensetikk. Som mor, ville jeg selvfølgelig ha gjort alt for at min datter skulle få en utdanning.
Bare tenk på det slik: selv om Stasi sier at barnet mitt ikke ville fått plass på universitetet om jeg nektet, vet jeg aldri om det ligger noe mer bak det. De kunne ta fra meg jobben, eller de kunne trakassere familien min og eller liknende. Så derfor, hadde jeg tatt sjansen på å bli informant.
-Hvis jeg hadde tenkt pliktetikk hadde situasjonen blitt litt mer anderledes. Det hadde blitt vanskeligere for meg og velge, siden jeg har da som plikt om å gjøre det Stasi sier, siden de var "departamentet for statens sikkerthet". Men datteren min er fortsatt datteren min, og plikten om å støtte min familie ville jeg ha sagt - kommer aller først.
~ Å være informant innebærer at du må hjelpe Stasi med å få inn flere folk i fengselet.
Her er to eksempler:
- Jeg ser en mann som slår sin kone.
- Jeg har sett flere mennesker som kjører på rødt lys. (som i mine tanker er en helt meningsløs grunn til å fengsle noen)
Dette informerer jeg da om til Stasi, og de tar hånd om det hvordan de vil.
Men hvis jeg skulle takket ja til denne jobben, hadde jeg prøvd å informere dem så lite så mulig, eller så lite så mulig for å ikke fengsle uskyldige mennesker. Det ville spart meg fra å være så mye innblandet, men likevell gjøre tjenesten de ba meg om. Men jeg hadde fortsatt følt meg litt usikker hadde jeg ikke? Hvis Stasi fant ut at jeg egentlig ikke gjorde noe særlig god jobb?
Da ser jeg på det som å både hjelpe Stasi på egentlig en litt slu måte, vite at min datter får en utdanning, og klare å holde familien trygg.
.jpg)
Bildet er herfra (:
Kilder.. uhm hodet mitt!
Problemstillingen er som følgende:
- 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 i rette for at hun skal komme inn. Så sier imidlertid Stasi at du må bli informant ellers får hun ikke plassen.
1) Hva er valgmulighetene?
Jeg kan godta forespørslenen om å bli informant, eller jeg kan takke nei, ødelegge utdanningskarrieren til min datter, og rissikere min egen og familiens sikkerhet.
2) Hva ville du gjort?
-Jeg ville tenkt med konsekvensetikk. Som mor, ville jeg selvfølgelig ha gjort alt for at min datter skulle få en utdanning.
Bare tenk på det slik: selv om Stasi sier at barnet mitt ikke ville fått plass på universitetet om jeg nektet, vet jeg aldri om det ligger noe mer bak det. De kunne ta fra meg jobben, eller de kunne trakassere familien min og eller liknende. Så derfor, hadde jeg tatt sjansen på å bli informant.
-Hvis jeg hadde tenkt pliktetikk hadde situasjonen blitt litt mer anderledes. Det hadde blitt vanskeligere for meg og velge, siden jeg har da som plikt om å gjøre det Stasi sier, siden de var "departamentet for statens sikkerthet". Men datteren min er fortsatt datteren min, og plikten om å støtte min familie ville jeg ha sagt - kommer aller først.
~ Å være informant innebærer at du må hjelpe Stasi med å få inn flere folk i fengselet.
Her er to eksempler:
- Jeg ser en mann som slår sin kone.
- Jeg har sett flere mennesker som kjører på rødt lys. (som i mine tanker er en helt meningsløs grunn til å fengsle noen)
Dette informerer jeg da om til Stasi, og de tar hånd om det hvordan de vil.
Men hvis jeg skulle takket ja til denne jobben, hadde jeg prøvd å informere dem så lite så mulig, eller så lite så mulig for å ikke fengsle uskyldige mennesker. Det ville spart meg fra å være så mye innblandet, men likevell gjøre tjenesten de ba meg om. Men jeg hadde fortsatt følt meg litt usikker hadde jeg ikke? Hvis Stasi fant ut at jeg egentlig ikke gjorde noe særlig god jobb?
Da ser jeg på det som å både hjelpe Stasi på egentlig en litt slu måte, vite at min datter får en utdanning, og klare å holde familien trygg.
Bildet er herfra (:
Kilder.. uhm hodet mitt!
onsdag 7. september 2011
The Vietnam War
Through the Vietnam War, both the winners and the losers suffered after.Vietnam was left crushed, and it has taken years for it to get back on its feet. Alot of people died, and familys were left hurt, loosing one or more family members. The war lasted from 1 November 1955 - 30 April 1975 (19 years, 180 days).
1)
-This happend when Ngo Dinh Diem was becoming the prime minister. When Diem got to the top and became the president of Vietnam, he obviously abused his power by sending people to kill his enemies. He also sent innocent people to jail for no actual reason. On the other hand, that's when the United States stopped supporting Diem and his actions.
2/3)
- Vietnam was spilt into two separate parts: The communist north and the democratic south. This was was followed by the First Indochina War and was fought between North Vietnam, that was supported by its communist allies. The South Vietnam was supported by the United States and other non-communist nations. The United States ended up sending millions of soldiers to Vietnam to prevent communism from spreading more around other countries.
- The Vietnam War can be regarded as a people's war, because the guerilla fighters were not that easy to dustinguish from the civillian population. And that's because they were good at what they were doing. The guerilla fighters could easily retreat into the jungle, and with their hit-and-run attacks that involved guerillas striking at government outposts.
4) Finally when the southerns couldn't stand it anymore, Diem got killed on the 1st of May, 1963. The population of South Vietnam celebrated their vicotry and their country got reunited.
After the war, countries like Indonesia, The Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia stayed free of communism.
Sources: Buzzle og Wikipedia.
1)
-This happend when Ngo Dinh Diem was becoming the prime minister. When Diem got to the top and became the president of Vietnam, he obviously abused his power by sending people to kill his enemies. He also sent innocent people to jail for no actual reason. On the other hand, that's when the United States stopped supporting Diem and his actions.
2/3)
- Vietnam was spilt into two separate parts: The communist north and the democratic south. This was was followed by the First Indochina War and was fought between North Vietnam, that was supported by its communist allies. The South Vietnam was supported by the United States and other non-communist nations. The United States ended up sending millions of soldiers to Vietnam to prevent communism from spreading more around other countries.
- The Vietnam War can be regarded as a people's war, because the guerilla fighters were not that easy to dustinguish from the civillian population. And that's because they were good at what they were doing. The guerilla fighters could easily retreat into the jungle, and with their hit-and-run attacks that involved guerillas striking at government outposts.
4) Finally when the southerns couldn't stand it anymore, Diem got killed on the 1st of May, 1963. The population of South Vietnam celebrated their vicotry and their country got reunited.
After the war, countries like Indonesia, The Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia stayed free of communism.
Sources: Buzzle og Wikipedia.
Abonner på:
Kommentarer (Atom)