emmaburan99

Tuesday I had a wonderful day! My class and I visited Asker International School, and it was very exciting. The school is an elementary school and we were supposed to spend time with children from 1st to 5th grade. As it is an international school everyone speaks english, so it was informative for us, because we had to speak english all day. Our first task when we arrived at the school was to read with a couple of first graders. It would be normal for a child to be shy and a bit scared, but these kids were so interested and excited to meet us, and not at all scared to read for us. Next we went to a fifth grader class. They had prepared a dance which they showed us. The fifth graders also had a task to present a certain theme in which they had chosen themselves. They did such an amazing job with this task, and their sources were so wide and presice. Two girls talked about cancer, and they went to Rikshospitalet to intervju two doctors, as well as they raised money for an organization by selling cakes. I was really surprised with the work and effort they had put into this project. Lastly we went outside to play with the kids. It was a lot of fun because the kids had so much energy as well as the weather was really nice so it was wonderful spending outside.

The thing I liked the most about this school was the teachers. They were so dedicated to the students, and they really showed us that they cared for everyone. When we were outside, playing, I noticed that the teachers knew all of the names of the students. It seemed very personal, and that the teachers had a relationship to the kids. This was very good to see, because I felt like the kids were being taken cared of.

To be honest I thought this day would be a bit boring, and a lot more challenging for my class and I, but luckily I was vey positively surprised. I had a great day, and I know my class did as well. The children were interested and energetic, and they made our day very good. It was a nice experience, and I would like to visit the school again in the future. Beneath you will see some photos from the day.

-Emma

The author of the book “Will Grayson, Will Grayson” is John Green and David Leviathan. Green and Leviathan are both award winning, New York Times  bestselling authors, so this aroused my interest of the book. The book tells us about the life of two teenage boys, and this is why there are two authors. They write the story of one teenager each. John Green has written several popular books, like “The fault in our stars” and “Looking for Alaska”, which I have both read, and were really pleased with. This is also why i wanted to read this book, because i have a very good impression of the author, and his writing style.

-Emma

I just came home from the army, and i wanted to celebrate with some wine. I was pretty drunk when I met my old friend Tony. We were about to buy some hamburgers from a stand when a cop hit me in the face. I did not understand why, but I figured it might have been because I was drinking in a place it wasn’t allowed. The next day, Tony and I, were driving when we noticed that the same cop were following us. Both Tony and I had brought something to protect us within case we needed it. Tony brought two arrowheads while I brought a 30-30 rifle. I never intended to use the gun, I only wanted to alert him. I pulled over and stepped out of the car, but i left the rifle in the car with Tony. Before I knew it the cop lied on the ground with blood streaming out of his body. It was Tony who had shoot him.

-Emma

In the movie “girl rising” we meet a young girl, Senna. She tells us about her mother and father who worked in a gold mine in the mountains of Peru. The thing that had the greatest impact on me wasn’t really in the film, but when our teacher made us think about how the gold and diamonds we wear have been found by people like Senna’s parents. As the consumers we should think more about how we have an impact on their lives. Maybe we can do something to make their situation better. Personally I haven’t really ever though about the fact that someone actually have to put their life in danger so that we can have nice jewelries to wear. It puts things in a great perspective, and I believe that we need to be more apprehensive about this.

-Emma

Task B

The long walk to freedom was challenging in many ways. The desperate and frightening every-day of the Africans lead to not only conflicts between the blacks and the white people. Eventually it emerged conflicts between the black people as well, which lead to civil wars. The disagreements of how to achieve a free and democratic South Africa lead to distinctions between the people, and between Nelson – and Winnie Mandela as well.

It is well known that Nelson Mandela was a peaceful man, who believed that the best way to achieve freedom was by fighting in a non-violent way. In the beginning of their marriage, Nelson- and Winnie Mandela, seemed to have had the same views on how to achieve their goal. Even though Winnie wasn’t particularly interested or enthusiastic about politics, Nelson encouraged her to be involved in it. Sadly, Mandela wasn’t able to control the entire black community. Even though the majority was on his side, some people wanted to fight fire with fire. As it turned out, in the end, Winnie was one of these people.

In the fight between the black- and the white people a lot of temper and horror was developed, especially in the black districts. The oppression of the black community created strong feelings among them, and as the humans we are some people believed that the best way to demonstrate was by using violence. Nelson Mandela and his wife turned out to have had a very different political opinion. She believed in “us” versus “them”, which later turned into a more egocentric “I”. He, on the other hand, believed in a vision of “we”. In the end, Winnie Mandela’s, vision had huge consequences, and a lot of people died due to her decisions.

I believe that some of the reasons for the differences between Winnie- and Nelson Mandela might have been that Nelson Mandela was distant from their house and their children a lot. Both when he was on missions, but mostly during his stay on Robben Island. While he was in prison Winnie had several visits from the police, where they rummaged her house. I believe that Winnie developed an other, and a more extreme, type of hate for the government and the white people, than what Nelson did. While he was away in prison a lot of damage happened, but he wasn’t there to experience it. This might have had an affection of him, because he wasn’t able to see any photos or videos of the scene. This might have been a good thing, because when he eventually was released from prison he hadn’t lost his ground view. He was able to turn around his people, and continue his fight in a non violent- way.

On the other hand, I think that when you are present in a battle this terrible you see things in perspective. I can imagine that it wasn’t easy for anyone to see friends and family laying dead on the streets, and feeling like they could have done more to prevent it. To fight tanks, guns and power with words and boycotts doesn’t seem very effective. Winnie, among others, probably felt like she was giving away her freedom, and so she wanted to make her people stronger. This was by using violence and oppose every case Nelson Mandela stood for initially.

– Emma

The two speeches “A rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world” and “Tryst with destiny”, performed by Nelson Mandela and Jawaharlal Nehru are two speeches we hold very highly today. Wise words come from two men who have affected not only their home country, but also the rest of the world in a great matter.

In the speeches both Mandela and Nehru use long sentences and include several descriptive words in each sentence. I believe they use these descriptive words for us to fully understand the message, and to give us a wider description of what they want to promote. As well as they intend to persuade their audience with their words. Both speeches endorse the human rights and the rights which belong to the country. Nelson focuses more on the fellowship of the people, where there will be “a united, democratic, non-racial and non-sexist South- Africa.” While Nehru talks about how there should be freedom to every man and woman.  They were both great followers of Gandhi, and his non- violent way of demonstrating, and we can find comparisons of this in both speeches.

The biggest difference between the two speeches is that Mandela’s speech includes how South- Africa has become, and will continue to grow into. Among with others, Mandela already fought for what he later achieved, which was a united country. Nehru’s speech on the other hand includes how India one day will become. “We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell” and “At the stroke of midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom” are both quotes from his speech. Unlike Mandela’s speech Nehru talks about what will happen in the future, and what they will fight for to accomplice their goal.

The two speeches are very relevant for us today considering the men behind them has become great role models all over the world. Their goal, to achieve peace and democracy, has affected others to carry on their work.  They have both made a great impact o nus, and they hace thought us about how we can make a difference in the world, in a peaceful way.

-Emma

In the story, a day’s wait, written by Nobel prize winner Ernest Hemingway we meet a nine-year-old boy who lives in America. One day the boy falls ill with influenza, and the story tells about the misunderstanding between the boy and the narrator of this story, his father.

The short story focuses about Schatz, the nine-year-old boy, who spends a whole day in bed due to illness. Schatz father calls for the doctor, who takes the boys temperature, and it turns out to be one hundred and two degrees. Schatz is given some medicines and is told that there is nothing to worry about, unless the temperature goes over one hundred and four degrees. The boy stays in bed, but it seems like he is not quite present. He stares out in the air, and does not pay attention to his surroundings. After a while the father takes the Irish setter out for a walk, but when he returns back home Schatz refuses to let him in to the room, fearing his father would become ill as well.
In the end the boy asks “how long will it take before I die?” His father answers confused “people don’t die with a fever of one hundred and two”. The dialogue goes on, but it turns out that some boys in Schatz French class had told him that you can’t live with a temperature of forty- four degrees, and he had one hundred and two. Schatz had prepared him self for the death all day, but little did he know that they use a different thermometer than the boys in his class. On Schatz thermometer ninety- eight is normal, while thirty- seven is normal on theirs.

In this story Hemingway uses long sentences for descriptions, and short sentences in dialogues. He also relies his on realistic dialogues as a method of characterization. Hemingway’s writing style is simple and direct, for instance he writes dialogues like the characters actually would have talked. This story is a good example of Hemingway’s writing style. He is personal, direct and he doesn’t exaggerate for effect. He writes as it is, and as the situation most likely would have been in real life.

As one of the first writers, Hemingway expressed his ideas in new and different ways, especially his way of writing dialogues. This was because he rebelled against the traditional Victorian literary style. Among others he was called “the lost generation”, based on their new writing style. This has been an inspiration to many other writers. You can say that he had an influential style of writing.

This short story is based on a similar event in Hemingway’ s life, where his son had a high fever and acted in a similar way as Schatz does in the story. This is an example of how facts can become fiction. I believe that it might have helped him knowing how he should express himself, and make it more realistic, considering he has experienced it himself.

This short story shows us that a clear misunderstanding appears between the boy and the father. They talk about, what Hemingway has described as, “it” together, not knowing that they have two different views on what “it” is. The boy is talking about death, while his father believes they are talking about the disease. An example is when the father asks his son why he doesn’t go to sleep. The son answers “You don’t have to stay in here with me, Papa, if it bothers you”. “It doesn’t bother me” replies the father, unaware that the son is talking about his death. I can only imagine that the son feels like his father doesn’t care for him, while Schatz tries to be brave and not show any fear. He attempts to suffer in silence.

Since the narrator voice is the father we are forced to see everything through his point of view, and we never get the chance to learn about the son’s thoughts. Although Hemingway writes direct and simple, he makes the reader use his or her imagination to understand his thoughts. In “a day’s wait” he challenges us to use our imagination to understand how Schultz think. This is a subtle part of the story.

The purpose of this story is to understand the importance of how a misunderstanding can have real consequences. And also how it may lead to many changes in Schatz mind. Even though Schatz father shows concern for his son, he fails to understand the misunderstanding, and the fair in Schatz mind. The story also tells us about the son’s heroism, and how he attempts to show no fear even though he believes he will die.

Personally I liked this short story because it initiates several important themes, all which we can learn something about. Like for example how a misunderstanding can lead to a conflict, and how we should try to be more open about our thoughts in stead of suffering in silence.

-Emma

I believe that word brave is relative in this matter. To  suffer in silence isn’t brave in my opinion. It is, on the other hand, brave to serve the country, or to stand up against bullies. Wether you choose to suffer in silence or not is a matter of personal preferences. Some people prefers to open up and talk to other people about their problems, while others are a bit more closed, and prefers to keep their problems to their self.

To answer the question, my opinion is that it isn’t brave to suffer in silence, because I think that you will have a greater advantage if you open up to someone else rather than  if you keep everything to yourself. Other people can help you get other points of views, and help you evaluate what you should do next. In fact I believe that it takes more courage to tell someone else about your problems, than not to.

-Emma

 

The last couple of months there has been a debate lately on wether or not there should be auditions to be accepted as a member to a “russebuss”. The discussions are based on the fact that some people feel excluded for not being approved. Others say that if an audition doesn’t find place there will occur conflicts, and a poor atmosphere.

I belive that this conflict is based on a misconception. First of all i think that the word “audition” is way too extreme. The youths arrange settings where people can meet up for a night, for example a party or a pizza night.  The essence with this is for the core group to see how well people get along with each other. To prevent misunderstanding; the core group isn’t necessarily the bosses of the bus. They are just the people who decided to start a bus, and as a follower of this they get to decide the first people who gets accepted to the bus.
The “auditions” are being arranged for everyones best interest. If some people doesn’t get along very well with the rest of the group it won’t be fun for neither them nor the rest of the group to have them on the bus. This can lead to conflicts and a poor atmosphere, as i mentioned earlier. The “russetid” is about being with your friends and celebrating, but if you deep down don’t really like the other people on the bus it won’t be a fun time. This is why there are “auditions”, to make sure that everyone will have the best celebration time as possible. On the other hand these “auditions” can lead to exclusion, and this is the real problem. I understand that the the person  who is, for example the only one, who is not a part of a bus can feel like they are not included, and this is what I belive is what we need to focus on.

To prevent people from feeling left out  we can be better at not being so dependent on only inviting the bus to different arranges. We need to start inviting people who are not at a bus, or even if they are on a bus, but not on your bus. This will led to a more including environment.

My opinion on this discussion is that i believe that “auditions” has its good and bad sides, but in order to make a bus where everyone gets along i think that “auditions” are a good way to achieve this.

-Emma

I chose to analyse the poem “Bought and sold” by Benjamin Zephaniah. When I first read the headline the thought that came to me was that the value of your things doesn’t add up to the value of selling it.  I believe that we focus too much about how much money we can earn instead of the meaning the things have to us personally. Comparing it to this poem it is more important to have a strong voice, and your own meanings, than a prize and no personal voice.

Benjamin writes about how people changes their attitude, and their voice just for the sake of money and awards. This provokes him, and me as well. It is not right that people are being awarded by writing what other people wants to hear, in stead of what they truly mean. The OBE’s compromise writers and poets. It makes them believe that the award has a bigger meaning than their work.

This is a personal experience for him, because he was asked to accept the OBE himself, but he turned it down. He felt that it was wrong to receive the prize from the queen truly because he has respect for his culture. When he heard the word empire he thought of slavery, and brutality and how the blacks were saved by their white masters. He didn’t like the thought of that once again the white queen and prime minister would compromise his possibilities. Benjamin didn’t want to receive the prize simply because it contradicts to all of his work. He was a free writer, and he didn’t want to compromise his voice in order to receive a pointless prize. It wouldn’t help him, nor inspire him, it would only ruin his future work by not being able to write about the cases that intrigued him. At least not being able to tell his whole reflection.