Nuremberg War Trials

This was a really interesting movie (even though I missed the first half). First, I must say that it is really weird to see Alec Baldwin so young and in such a serious role. He did a good job. I wonder what it must have been like for the actors playing Goering, Speer, and the others.
It was absolutely disgusting to listen to the one man (I forget his name) talk about the zyklon B. He basically compared people to lice! I just wiki-ed zyklon B. One of the "doctors" who oversaw the gassing described the effects on the body and it is so horrible, I can't even type it here.
The part of the movie that stuck out the most to me was the part where the psychologist was describing his "conclusions". His first conclusion was that Germany is a nation of people who take orders without question. I personally think "as a soldier it is my duty to follow orders" is a really lame excuse. In fact, it is no excuse at all--it is just the reason that they did what they did. It is ironic that they could be so preoccupied with duty and loyalty, but have a complete disregard for all morality, justice, and decency. And in a nation where "the 'no men' are buried six feet underground" didn't someone at one point have to disobey authority to obtain the power? Who decides who gets to break the rules? The second conclusion was that a lack of empathy is the source of evil. This could not be better said or more true. I totally agree. I actually thought of last night's Grey's Anatomy, where one of the doctors, as this (crazy) man is about to shoot her, starts rambling about herself--her name, age, details about her home and her family. She survives by trying to arouse empathy, make the shooter see how much she is just like him. During the Holocaust, some non-Jews turned against their friends--clearly lacking sympathy. but we should not forget that there were people who did have empathy and tried to save their friends.

Maz's AP Class

I'll start off by saying that I am so glad I took this class, and that when it came to scheduling last fall I had no other choice. It is wonderful! I have learned (and I am still learning, of course) so much!

If I had to pick a favorite unit/chapter...I would pick...well, I can't pick one! I liked the Enlightenment/Scientific Revoultion because of all of the scientific discoveries, and I think it's really interesting how the worldview/mentality/thought process changed so drastically (and it changed for the better). I liked the chapter on urbanization because I feel like we learned more about society and the daily lives of people than we did in other chapters. Also, the improvements in transportation, infrastructure, and sanitation certainly affect our quality of life today. I also really liked the "Age of Anxiety" because I really like the art from this period.

I thought we were going to have more projects, but there were not too many (I'm not complaining!). I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think the coolest project we did was the Exploration project. It took forever for us to do, but I really enjoyed learning about the LCROSS mission, and it's interesting to think about in terms of the explorations led by Vasco de Gama. And of course, the Industrial Revolution scavenger hunt was a lot of fun--I wish we could have done another one. I'm looking forward to the Meeting of the Minds. I remember hearing upperclassmen talking about it and seeing their costumes...now it's my turn!

Power of One was really good. I'm glad I had the opportunity to read it. However, I think in the future students could make PowerPoints (if they have to make them) on different aspects of the book and then share them with the rest of the class, instead of all doing essentially the same PowerPoint. That one took forever too:)

I must say that I've really enjoyed doing these blogs, and I wouldn't have minded doing them for at least another marking period. I much prefer blogging to typing my notes!

Finally, Maz: the one thing that sets this class apart from other classes is the teacher. Not only do you "know your stuff", but you always present the material with enthusiasm. It made me excited too, and it really makes all the difference. Thank you!

Andy Warhol

I know Andy Warhol is an American, but he influenced art worldwide. Who doesn't recognize these images? His art is fun...but in my opinion, that is all. The flowers and the colored faces are pretty, the colors pop (it's pop art after all) but it doesn't have meaning the way the work of Matisse or Picasso was meaningful. They used bright colors! Actually, looking at the faces of Marilyn Monroe, I think of Matisse's Woman with a Hat. He uses a variety of colors to paint her face, colors that one would not traditionally use to depict a face. But that is why- he is experimenting with emotion and light.


I visited the Warhol museum in Pittsburgh this summer. One thing that I thought was interesting was that this famous flower icon is actually a stolen image. He saw it in a nature magazine and reversed it (used a mirror image). The woman who actually took the picture could still tell that it was hers and got very angry!

Three Worlds: M. C. Escher

M. C. Escher's work is awesome. I could look at it all day. It's wild, it is surrealism but his figures seem realistic...until you take a closer look. He doesn't rely on bright colors or bold strokes--his work is intricate, exact, math-based, and he does crazy, wonderful things with perspective instead.
I chose this piece because I thought it was pretty, and there is a lot of truth in it. It does show three worlds--the one above the water, on the surface, and beneath the surface. (This goes SO well with this year's Cherry & White theme: "beneath the surface"!) And it briefly reminds me of the poem "How to Paint a Waterlily" by Ted Hughes, because the poem describes the world above and beneath a pond (but it's kind of gross because it talks about insects). We read it in English in the beginning of the year.
...I just love this! The way the trees are reflected in the water, and the fallen leaves are on top of the water, and so, on top of the reflection. It's not like you couldn't actually see this scene for real, if you were standing in the right position. It's really hard to explain why I like it. I just do. It's different from a lot of his other stuff: impossible architecture, explorations of infinity, and tessellations of animals.

Claes Oldenburg

I had never heard of Claes Oldenburg but apparently this swiss sculptor liked to make really big versions of relatively small everyday objects, and especially food. What I like about this particular piece was it's place on the water--the smooth simple curves and it's reflection below. I also like how the cherry appears to be defying gravity; it looks like it is going to roll down the spoon any second.

Connection Across Time: Ban on the "Voile Integrale" (Really, France? REALLY?!)

In France, it may soon be illegal for a woman to wear the burqa, an outfit including a face covering veil. Religious symbols are already banned in schools, preventing Muslim girls from wearing even the hijab. Supporters of the this proposed law argue that the veil is a symbol of oppression and indignity. In reality, modesty of dress is to protect one's dignity. Isn't a law preventing someone from dressing how they wish just as oppressive as a law forcing someone to dress a certain way? French women wearing the burqa or similar covering (chador, niqab, hijab) are probably choosing to wear it because they believe that they should. If the French government suspects that women are being forced to wear it, they should pass a law preventing that.
Only a very small percentage of women actually wear the burqa in France, so why does anybody care? Supporters point out that it is a "security issue" because faces cannot be identified by a "total veil" In an Op-Ed in The New York Times, Jean-Francois Cope says "How can you establish a relationship with a person who, by hiding a smile or a glance — those universal signs of our common humanity — refuses to exist in the eyes of others?...the niqab and burqa represent a refusal to exist as a person in the eyes of others. The person who wears one is no longer identifiable; she is a shadow among others, lacking individuality, avoiding responsibility." This is unfair because women choosing to wear the burqa are not necessarily shirking responsibility, they are honestly trying to do what they think is right. Who is the French government to tell them that they are wrong, that they are lacking individuality?
In France, Islam is the second religion (first being Catholicism) and only makes up 10% of the population. Also, France is a very secular nation. I think that the French are slightly afraid of people who are embracing their religion because they cling to their French culture so tightly, they want no outside influence.
During the Age of Imperialism, France was eager to colonize Northern Africa, and they certainly imposed their culture on native peoples. Many Francophone nations are in Africa! Now, after decolonization, when many immigrants come from Algeria, Morocco, and other former colonies, there is a problem with them maintaining part of their culture. Slightly hypocritical, n'est-ce pas?
Also, I think this ban will cause tension with largely Muslim nations in the Middle East, and probably Muslims around the world. I love the French language, the art, the music, the architecture, I'd love to visit, but this attitude makes me angry. A lot of women who wear veils may also feel the same way--they want to visit, to go to the museums in Paris, go shopping (they can still buy designer handbags and shoes, and jewelry, you know!) but if their clothing is banned, they won't come. This injures French tourism and the economy, but maybe not enough to make the French change their minds. I fear that this measure is really going to divide the world, not bring us together.

"America held captive to utopian ideology"

The article by Patrick Buchanan was very thought-provoking. America's super powers seem to be declining right now; we are not the nation we used to be, and I definitely think this has partly to do with the fact that Europe has lost respect for us (more specifically, George W. Bush was our president and then we re-elected him). The connection between 19th century America and the China today was very interesting, and I agree. Americans were not so concerned with human rights when we were overwhelmed by the notion of Manifest Destiny and we shoved aside and suppressed the Native Americans. But now we are calling China out on human rights. Is it fair because the people of the world have made progress when it comes to human rights---it's more of an "issue"? Or was our shady past not so long ago that we really have no place to be criticizing China? What I really take away from the article is America is like a slightly delusional old woman who is in no condition to be playing world police.
I must say that I blushed at the sentence "her educational system at the primary and secondary systems are in shambles". I've always thought that America was number one at everything (even though I really know we aren't) but it seemed as though regardless of how we ranked, we we certain to do well, to succeed, simply because we were America. It is not so. We have to compete with the rest of the world, and it starts in kindergarten.
"America, declaring racial, ethnic, and religious diversity as a strength, invites the world to swamp it's native born. And mostly poor, unskilled and uneducated, they are coming by the millions". I'm not racist, but the first thing I thought about was the rising Hispanic population, because a lot of immigrants come from Mexico. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, but at this point, we don't have jobs available. We are no longer the land of opportunity in that regard.