Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe - Book Critique

“That man was one of the greatest men in Umuofia. You drove him to kill himself; and now he will be buried like a dog…” (208)

Things Fall Apart is an unbiased fiction book that provides a great view of the Ibo culture and its interaction with the “white man.” In the beginning of the book, we take a look at the life of Okonkwo in the clan Umuofia. It is noticeable that the role of man is violent but heroic, and you must act that way or you will not be considered a man. We find Okonkwo beating his wives, which also shows that the Ibo believe in polygamy. They are also polytheistic, believing that everyone has their own god, which they call chi.

They have an oracle who is believed to be in close contact with one of the gods, and he is approached when help and advice is needed. Once in a while they have large parties, and unfortunately Okonkwo shot a woman in the clan. This is very bad for his ego because he is well known throughout Umuofia, and being sent to his mother’s clan, Mbanta, would weaken his connection with his people, and he would be forgotten. He is banished for seven years, and during this time, the white men came into Umuofia and built a Catholic Church and schools in the area. Once he returned they were already settled, and this was good news for some, like Okonkwo’s son, Nwoye. But, there are still others with Okonkwo that are upset. Okonkwo gets in trouble and is whipped by the Commissioner, and this just later angered him more. He kills one of the Commissioner’s men, and then he kills himself.

Okonkwo is a very strong representation of the Ibo culture. After seeing his father, Unoka, “fail” in life, he didn’t want that to happen to him, so he wanted to be a well-known warrior and be respected. He would constantly act violently, but violence was what he stood for. The culture accepted this attitude, but when the white man saw people acting like this, he thought it was a corrupt community. I personally do not like Okonkwo, but I respect him for his representation of his culture, and he should have the right to stand for it. The white men did bring the culture benefits, but their rules took away the purpose of the people’s lives like that of Okonkwo’s. Okonkwo commits suicide because his life vision has died, and his son went off with the Christians. His life was deeply immersed in the culture for so long, and when it was gone, he had no choice.

Here is my poem that shows what life was like for Okonkwo when the white men came:

He’s trying to be a man,

Trying to be a warrior.

Afraid of being Unoka once more.

A man from another planet,

He returns to find home inside out.

Who he knew to be Is now worth nothing.

He’s trying to find a scent that is no more.
He doesn’t understand why Nwoye has gone.

His life is like a car without fuel

On a “not a through” street

That is only one way

An ape living in Antarctica.
His fright of realization

That feels like extermination.

A game that no one will play.

The church devoured his title.

He can no longer live – no way.

The white men of the Catholic Church were both a positive and negative influence. Mr. Brown, for example, was a very pleasant man, and he applied what he knew about the Ibo culture to the Church, bridging connections, which resulted in followers from the clan. This decision that the people of Umuofia made only gave them opportunities, and especially for the women. However, another white man, Mr. Smith, was not compromising. He saw blacks as corrupt, evil people. His goal with the Ibo culture was more to fix them and change them from their “evil ways” instead of help them. Even though they have helped some of them, they have destroyed the Ibo culture even if they meant to or not.

This book could open the eyes of many people. History has been written in the way that gives glory to the conqueror, and doesn’t ever tell the other side of the story. Chinua Achebe wrote Things Fall Apartin the way that shows you what really happened, but never gives you his opinion. There might be many people that haven’t heard the overview of this sort of story, and might think exactly what Mr. Smith thinks – that the Ibo culture was evil and corrupt. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know about the Ibo and also discover they are not cultureless. This book definitely will change the way people think for the better.

Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. Anchor Books, New York. 1959.

The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz - Book Critique

“BE IMPECCABLE WITH YOUR WORD. DON’T TAKE THINGS PERSONALLY. DON’T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. ALWAYS DO YOUR BEST.” - Don Miguel Ruiz

The Four Agreements is a small book about how the Toltecs live and think. Don Miguel Ruiz compiled all the information about he and his family act within this culture. It is called the Four Agreements because he simplified this Toltec wisdom into four rules- be impeccable with your word, don’t take things personally, don’t make assumptions, and always do your best. If you follow through with these agreements, even if you make mistakes, you will eventually reach heaven, in the emotional sense of the word.

Let me explain briefly the meaning of each of the agreements. To be impeccable with your word means to speak without sin, and by sin he means doing something that will in the end cause someone pain. In other words, mean what you say. Not taking things personally means don’t believe things that people say about you or something you care about because it is only the truth through the eyes who is seeing or noticing it, and it doesn’t mean it’s the real truth. Miguel also suggests not believing what you tell yourself, because that can also cause emotional poison. Don’t make assumptions because what ever you conclude in your head most likely isn’t the truth and can cause conflict with other people. When couples make assumptions, it can result in a break-up or a divorce. Always doing your best means enjoying what you do because that brings out the best in you. If you have a bad attitude and you try your best, it is quite overwhelming and stressful.

I liked this book because it was short and simple, and I can very easily believe that this book can change people’s lives. However, this is a self-help book, and will only be effective for those who are looking for help and take action in what they do. It is also useful for people who are looking for knowledge and information on the Toltec way.

Hard Times by Charles Dickens - Book Critique

"You are not impulsive, you are not romantic, you are accustomed to view everything from the strong dispassionate ground of reason and calculation. From that ground alone, I know you will view and consider what I am going to communicate." –Mr. Gradgrind

Hard Times, by Charles Dickens, is written in the industrializing Coketown, England. Thomas Gradgrind, the father of Louisa and Thomas, is a rational, fact-loving man. Along with his good friend Josiah Bounderby, another rational, fact-loving man, he drills factuality into the people around him. Bounderby asserts that he was born in a ditch, his mother left him when he was young, his abusive grandmother raised him, and he made his fortune from nothing. A student at the school, Cecilia “Sissy” Jupe, is abandoned by her carnie father. Mr. Gradgrind decides to take her in so she can learn to be less fanciful. Sissy becomes friends with Louisa, Mr. Gradgrind’s daughter, who desperately yearns for a more creative and free existence. Bounderby has his eye on Louisa while the whole of this is going on. She gives in and marries Mr. Bounderby like a good girl would. However, she is still deeply unhappy with her bland, factual life. Meanwhile, a factory worker, Stephen Blackpool, is also deeply unhappy with his life of bland factuality. He is in love with Rachael, another factory worker, but is unable to marry her because he is already married to a drunkard who often goes missing for months or even years at a time. Later, it is established that only rich men can get divorces and he is stuck with his current wretched wife. One day, Blackpool meets an odd old woman outside of Bounderby’s house. Ms. Pegler tells him that once a year she comes into Coketown and waits outside Bounderby’s house. She is not even positive he will come out, but she waits one day every year. Back at Stone Lodge, Mr. Gradgrind’s house, Thomas, Gradgrind’s son, is apprenticed to Coketown’s bank. Thomas is somewhat unreliable however because he robs the bank. He is forced to flee Coketown when his family finds out. With the help of Louisa and his father, Thomas escapes but he is never able to see his family again. Around Stephen Blackpool, there is a union being formed. However, Blackpool does not want to join the union because he believes a strike would further develop the tension between employees and employers. Blackpool falls in Old Hell Shaft, a mining pit outside of Coketown. After an emotional goodbye with Rachael, Stephen Blackpool dies. James Harthouse, a young, rich man from London, comes to become a political disciple to Gradgrind. He discovers Louisa whom he decides to woo and corrupt. Of course, Louisa decides she wants the sophisticated, young man instead of the bland, old man who she married. Louisa goes to her father and breaks down in front of him. She tells him she has made a mistake in marrying a man she doesn’t love and she wishes she had a less structured and factual life. Gradgrind realizes he has made mistakes in depending on factuality and he begins helping the poor instead of supporting his factual agenda. All the while, Bounderby is stressing his fact-based agenda and hunting down the thief, Thomas. In his investigation of young Thomas, Bounderby comes across Ms. Pegler who is revealed as his loving mother whom he banished from visiting him, also his whole story of being born in a ditch, abandoned by his mother, having an abusive grandmother, and a hand-crafted fortune, was exposed as a sham. Later, Bounderby dies alone and unsupported because of a “fit” in the streets of Coketown. Cecila Jupe, the abandoned girl who Gradgrind adopted, obtained a happy family. After Bounderby died, Louisa never remarried but was adopted by Cecilia’s new family, finally having a happy, and free family.

Obviously, Dickens wrote this book in order to show people how the Industrial Revolution was actually worsening many people’s lives at the time. Factory workers didn't have any rights to protect them. Even though they grew up with most likely no education, they were required to work twelve-hour days, and if the machines handicapped them, they weren't supported and would have to deal with it on their own. But generally, people at the time were put into a different mindset than before. They seemed to lose the thought of creativity, emotion, imagination, and faith, turning them into the very machines they created. Fact, reasoning, and calculation come from the left hemisphere of the brain. Before factories, many of the factory workers were people who were very intact with the right hemisphere of the brain, where they were advanced in their specific craft. All of this seems to have come and gone in America and Europe, but those trends from a few centuries ago have practically moved into China, where sweatshop workers have yet to attain laws to protect them. These same problems very well might be in full effect in other countries for a couple centuries to come.

Charles Dickens’ writing style is very descriptive. In his book Hard Times he goes in to depth with just about everything; he is very precise. An example is two characters in the book, Mr. Sleary and Stephen Blackpool. He uses a writing technique with words that are pronounced as the character would if they were talking in real life. Stephen Blackpool has a deep accent, an example of his talking is “I’ve tried a long time, and ’ta’nt got better. But thou’rt right; ’t might mak fok talk, even of thee…”. An example of how Mr. Sleary talks is, “Your thervant! Thith ith a bad piethe of bithnith, thith ith.” As you can see he uses extreme detail in his writing, which makes the book somewhat difficult to decipher what he is try to get at, or say. He also uses a humorous style and suspense to keep you sitting on the edge of your seat.
This story should be remembered because this book can teach about the real world. Mr. Gradgrind is a man that teaches nothing but facts. He believes that all things imaginary should not be mentioned, everything he wants is facts. This gives us an idea for the real world. In the real world are not be any excuses in jobs, you have to give bosses want they want. You have to grow up into the real world. Also, when Louisa married Mr. Bounderby, it causes family fights, jealousy and many other problems, which gives the idea that during life many obstacles are going to mess you up. This book gives a lot of clues for the real world. This book should be remembered for a long time.

Though Hard Times is quite a difficult read there were certain aspects which make Charles Dickens’ writing unique and intriguing. As the book start out, a conversation arises between several different characters. We thought that the beginning was a good way to start it now that we have finished the book, but as we were reading towards the beginning we had no idea what the first conversation had to do with the rest of the story. Something that Dickens’ did well in his writing was taking the problems of the industrial revolution and creating them into a type of story for readers to comprehend and enjoy. For some characters in this book he used a different type of language to try and describe what a particular character was like. For example: “I ha’ coom, to ask yo yor advice. I need’t overmuch. I were married on Eas’r Monday nineteen year sin, long and dree…” (75) that was the character of Stephen Blackpool, one important character. We thought that this use of language was effective because it got us to really listen and understand the text, since we would have to pay closer attention to the words to understand them.

Out of many of the classic books Hard Times is a great book. Even though to some it may not be as interesting as a comic book or adventure book. It is one that tells history in an interesting way. This book would be best read by young adults, in high school or above that think a high level reading is for them. For one thing, the reader has to be able to pay attention because as in many books it has its up’s and down’s in the story plot. Overall it has worked up to its acclaimed title as an American Bestseller and classic.

The Stranger by Albert Camus - Book Critique

"What did other people’s deaths or a mother’s love matter to me; what did his God or the lives people choose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we’re all elected by the same fate, me and billions of privileged people like him who also called themselves my brothers? Couldn’t he see, couldn’t he see that? Everybody was privileged. There were only privileged people. The others would all be condemned one day. And he would be condemned, too. What would it matter if he were accused of murder and then executed because he didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral? Salamano’s dog was worth just as much as his wife." (121)

It’s not that often that characters like this our found in fiction stories. Monsieur Meuersalt’s life is quite dark and dull, but his personality and his reactions to things that happen are very interesting and unique. The book is based on the philosophy called existentialism, which states that individuals are responsible for all meaning in their own lives. “The Stranger” is a perfect name for this character, as his thought system seems alien. The situations he was involved in were awkward, but his responses to them were even more so. However, the character’s ideas are certainly noteworthy. It raises some questions as well, for example: “Should this man be punished for we he physically does, even though it wasn’t really his intention? Shouldn’t his thought system backfire and cause misery and self-punishment if it would be truly harmful to anyone?

The book starts off with Meuersalt’s mother dying, where he had tearless eyes at the funeral. Later, he finds a girlfriend, Marie, who he often thought he wanted during pleasurable moments at the beach and the movies. But, Marie asked him once if he wanted to marry her, and he said that would be fine. She questioned him again, asking him if he would marry another woman if she asked to marry as well, and he said yes. Within this time, he made friends with Raymond; a man who justified the abuse of his own girlfriend when he thought it was needed. Raymond asked Meuersalt to write him a letter to his girlfriend, who Raymond thought was cheating on him. Raymond wanted her to feel bad for what she’s “done,” and Meuersalt went ahead and wrote this “hate letter” for him.

Later on, Raymond, Meuersalt and Marie went to a barbecue on the beach with Raymond’s friends. On the way, they ran into two Arabs on the street that Raymond had fought with before, and they later encountered each other again on the beach. Masson, Raymond and Meuersalt almost ambushed the two Arabs (while Raymond carried a gun), but they ran away and Meuersalt took the gun from Raymond for safety. They all headed back toward the barbecue, but Meuersalt took a different route. He claimed it was very hot, and he felt pressured by it as it was beating down on him. He ascended a flight of stairs and ran into one of the Arabs on a bench a few steps in front of him. The heat forced him to continue forward, and the Arab pulled out a knife while Meuersalt raised his gun and shot several bullets at him.
A lot of these actions seemed careless and pointless to Meuersalt, but the court found him to be quite a strange character. The would likely think, “Why didn’t he cry when his mother died? Why did he write such hateful letters for people? Why did he shoot this man?” These things make it look like he was very hateful. Towards the end, Meuersalt’s chaplain, a man with strong Christian faith, was upset that Meuersalt didn’t believe in God, but claimed he would pray for him anyway. This made Meuersalt furious, since he doesn’t feel that he should be prayed for or that any man should be concerned with someone else’s life. He didn’t feel guilty or upset about his life so far, except for the fact that he was in prison. He thought that everyone was privileged, and that was all that people should know. He knew he could care less if someone did the same thing as he did. He goes far even to declare that his neighbor’s dog is equal in value as his neighbor’s wife. He observed that everyone would be condemned anyway, and we all have the same fate.

Even though Meuersalt seems to be so strange, what is it that we can learn from this? We can basically say that this shows existentialism through the thought that everyone should be concerned with himself or herself, since our life is all up to ourselves, and no one else. If someone was to do what Meuersalt did, he would say it’s their problem, not his. Even though Meuersalt’s life seems valueless, we know that the way we think and what we do is up to us, and punishment only comes from ourselves. Otherwise, punishers will be punishing themselves as well. This book is one of the strangest but most interesting of its kind, and brings up many questions that could change the way we see our lives.

I recommend this book to everyone, but specifically to people who like to contemplate the validity of the world’s morals and punishments. The world tends to judge people more on what they do than what or how they think. This book is very controversial, and is focused on this point of thinking/action. We are too worried about other people’s lives when we should worry about our own. The Stranger is not really for people who prefer fiction genres like science fiction, fantasy, and mystery, since those tend to make people daydream. Nevertheless, this book can free people from the seeming burdens and worries that the world presents to us, and can reveal our tendency towards prejudging and blaming others. You will find that this “stranger” has something to prove: that he is not as strange as we think.

Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Vintage International. New York. 1988.

1984 by George Orwell - Book Critique

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

This book seems to have been written in fear. The totalitarian governments seemed to be quite frightening, and George Orwell shows us what it could have led to. Everyday people would easily be caught in the situation that Winston ended up in, but it is interesting to think of how other people would react in the same situation. This book is not a fairy tale, but it is so realistic that it is a possibility. My main question is this: if this were to happen, how could we escape the struggle?

Winston's situation seems hopeless in the end. When he got together with Julia to get by the structured controlling system, he thought everything would work out. He even had O'Brien reassure him that they would "meet in the place where there is no darkness." It was only until he found out that O'Brien set him up that he couldn't resist surrendering to Big Brother. His early hope was that the proles would be able to overthrow the Party, even though he saw them completely brainwashed and unable to explain the past truly. They seemed to work like robots, lifeless and inhuman. Things like newspeak and doublethink were diminishing any freedom for intellectual truth: "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." After having a romantic relationship with Julia and later being caught by O'Brien and put "in the place where there is no darkness," his fear of torture forced him to betray Julia and start to love Big Brother. George Orwell's psychological point was that physical pain can control the human emotions. The limitations of the body can potentially overpower you.

1984 is a brilliant work, as an individual usually could find no way out of it. All of their personal freedoms are taken away and their emotions suppressed. Pleasures seemed impossible because the physical situation is always watched through the telescreens. People are forced to act the way the Party wants them to, as their jobs are to change everything in favor of them. This control can be seen in the book's saying, "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." No one is able to remember what happened in the past because of this, and this gives the feeling of being blind and helpless. Where is the freedom at all?

For me, I didn't feel that I would be imprisoned or limited by this situation. Knowing the past isn't an issue for me, and neither is the future. Freedom can only be found in the present moment, and it can't be taken away from you. It is only fear, hate, etc. that gives such a limiting feeling. The physical situation and the limitation of the body means for most that there is no power, peace, freedom, or pleasures. What is so funny is that people overlook the immediate! The power to be is so much grander than physical pleasures, and love for Big Brother wouldn't be a problem if you were all-loving and all-embracing. The Party is not against that at all. There wouldn't be a reason to rebel because their would be no sense of limitation or control! You could feel like you are Big Brother, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Physical pleasures cannot pass the power of all-encompassing, unconditional love. War would eventually stop this way if everybody was able to stay present. "Who controls the past controls the future," but that wouldn't matter anymore!

I recommend everyone to read this book, whether they find themselves potentially trapped in the same situation as Winston or if they find the way out. You can never find perfection in political systems, so worrying about that will only lead to fear and realizing the limitations of the body. Valuing the same things as Winston did could unfortunately lead to similar struggles. However, I challenge everyone to read this book and find a working freedom from the 1984 situation for their own lives. I believe I found the escape route and I would love for people to apply it, but I would also like to hear another method to freedom.

Orwell, George. 1984. Penguin Books. USA. 1949.

Project IN-Action > Camp Darfur

THE FINAL REFLECTION

This project was the most unique in the process and in the final event. This could be one of my favorite projects ever, since we are actually making a difference. Another aspect of the project that I liked was that we had free reign in deciding how it all comes together. Our highest goal was to raise awareness, and we did plenty of work in order to make that happen.

At first, we were assigned into random groups to investigate the main genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries. My group was assigned the the current genocide in Darfur, and I attended an event in UCSD called "Reach Out to Darfur." This was the first time I learned about genocide and how it continues to happen to this day, and it moved me. After that, we wrote essays and compiled them onto our personally-created websites. I was happy to be able to create an in-depth website on an interesting subject, since it is the most efficient way to offer awareness for the world as a whole.

After we made poster boards for Exhibition Night to display our progress, we started preparing for Camp Darfur. We continued to create more work in the same groups, and developed an action plan. My group, who consists of Jennika Esoy, Sean Fennell, Carolina Martinez and myself, decided to focus on technology, contacting, and media for our action plan. At the same time, we assigned ourselves roles for developing the contents of our tents. We had struggles throughout this process, but it came all together in the end.

Another smaller project within this was to write a letter to four different people, including senators, representatives, and the president, to inform them about the current situation in Darfur. We also had other people sign our letters, which made each of us come up with 44 letters. As a whole team, we sent out roughly 1,950 letters. There were a group of people who thought it was going to do nothing. Nevertheless, by the time that the letters were received, President Bush did a follow-up speech on Darfur and sent his Plan B into action. I don't really understand how pessimism helps at all.

Once we finished our letters, our action plans, and our tent, we were ready to set it all up for Camp Darfur. About 500 people came in both days, and I was happy to have our wonderful last-minute speakers. What the Sudanese-American speakers said to us, I think, is perhaps the clearest call for help that we can get for Darfur. Their peaceful personalities show that it isn't really a battle but truly a genocide. I hope that survivors of the genocide will be unstained by the darkness of the past, and be able to continue their lives peacefully.

Besides this, I didn't care if a lot of people came or if they didn't come. The effort must be made if we want a difference. I am not going to act or think a certain way because everyone else does; this usually leads to ignorance. Therefore, I was happy that we actually did make a difference, even though some people still remain pessimistic.

"Not On Our Watch": Chapters 7-9

INDIFFERENCE AND ACTIVISM

I think this whole movement is great, and that it should be focused on more than the lives of celebrities. I thought it was interesting how celebrities are talked about sixty-five times as much as situations like Darfur have been discussed. I realize that America has a long ways to go.

I can't stand things that serve as life-wasting. We still have are problems everyday if we sit in front of the TV and stare at the screen. Seven years of life are wasted on average watching TV. Our joy and happiness shouldn't depend on worldly things. If we must watch something, let's at least put things that have relative significance on the screen. Darfur is a good example.

But for me, I don't think that how these activists live their lives is how I want to live mine. I don't want to be angry with something, in the same way as the "Overcoming Indifference" prayer in the book prays to be outraged. Non-acceptance of how things are will make it so you never actually accept how things are. We will be restless our whole lives. Yes, the activists might be accepting once the problem in Darfur is solved, but there will be unlimited amounts of future genocides waiting for them. So, what's the point in making a difference if it never stops?

Activists are like people who get hurt all the time and complain about it. They need their band-aids in their back pocket all the time. They keep on falling down and getting gashes and cuts on their arms and legs (which resembles genocides and wars) and then they cry about it. They make sure that they make are upset about it every time (Overcoming Indifference Prayer) and they use their quick band-aid treatment every time as well(techniques to stop genocide). This happens over and over and over again, as seen with all the genocides and wars in history. So, what's the solution? Stop falling down! That's it! You don't need band-aids in your back pocket anymore! You are free from all troubles!

That is the reason why I don't like the world's techniques to stop world conflicts. My focus, instead of using the band-aid, is to stop falling down and getting hurt. How do we do that? Acceptance of every present situation. Fear, anger, outrage, stress, etc. have never worked and never will. Those are used if you like problems, like falling down and getting hurt. They even have an Oprah quote in the book, and it says "You get from the world what you give to the world." Alright, so they say they are giving peace. But outrage is not peace! Why are we praying to be outraged? Pray for peace! Live peacefully! Then you will get peace from the world.

Darfur, Darfur...

I think it's great that people our stating how they really feel about this project as a whole, so I'll do the same thing.

I think that this project is a lot more interesting than anything else we can do academically, and I'm not complaining at all. The reason that people are trying to complain about the project is probably because they can, and that it requires our own motivation in order to do this. However, I would hate having to learn more facts about wars, genocides, conflicts, or anything historically if it wasn't going to make a difference. Of course, it would be considered academic if it was that way. But jeez, come on, why are we learning about these things? So we can apply them to out lives! This is getting straight to the point.

Even though I'm not really inspired by these activists, I think it's easy enough to help people. And the attitude that you can't make a difference is very limiting; it kind of shows that people don't want to be bothered when they themselves are fortunate to even have food and shelter. I'm not worried about other people's indifference or whatever, I just want to say what I would prefer to do in my situation. If I didn't care to help needy people like those in Darfur, what else do I really have to do? It's not that hard, just write a couple of letters. Tell people about this problem in Africa. I'm not sure if I'm going to continue my effort to prevent war in Darfur, but I'm willing to help nevertheless.

What I'm going to continue doing is not trying to disturb anyone's lives around me. I want to get inner peace first, because working towards outer peace will not work if you don't have the inner first. Hopefully others realize this is the only true way to stop genocide once and for all. This is the most benefiting thing for the world. It is also important to help others only if you plan to help everyone. Otherwise, there will always be conflicts.

Well, that's all I have to say.

New Blog!

Feel free to check out my new personal blog at http://aumburtson.blogspot.com/

"Not On Our Watch": Chapters 5-6

John and Don were indeed able to convince me this far: we, as the United States of America as a whole, we have the power to stop this, as discussed in the end of chapter 6. The everyday citizens have an equal part and representation in stopping the Darfur genocide. It's kind of like Spiderman: with great power comes great responsibility. We can do a lot, and the rest of the world holds us responsible for things like this. However, if we do stop this genocide, another issue will come up. We can solve this issue, solve any struggle, and say to ourselves, "I'm such a hero!"... just as Spiderman would. But guess what? Here comes another problem! Spiderman would say, "Okay, well maybe I'll do what I did last time. My spider-webs have worked before, so I can probably defeat this villain in the same way I have done before and win." John and Don have even proved for us in Chapter 5 that the Rwandan genocide is very similar to the Darfurian genocide. So, why don't we do what we have always done? Go ahead, we'll have another problem later.

I am ready to look for a permanent solution. We have to stop these problems from even potentially arising. There have been too many genocides in history, and I think its time to discuss the end of genocide. Genocide isn't going to just stop happening if we keep on using these virtually identical solutions. Genocide just doesn't happen as a computer virus would. There is something outer of order, and it starts in our minds. Hackers are full of pride, disrespect, and hate. It is their nature to make problems. So let's not have any of these negative emotions. If we watch how we automatically think and respond to things, we can eventually sweep away these emotions. Then, there is no more potentiality for genocides, wars, fights, upsets, or ignorance. This is the only way: discontinue the planting of these seeds, and they will never grow and arise from the ground. And it starts with you.

Not On Our Watch: Reflective Blog Statement #1

After talking to Jaclyn in our divided groups, we both realized that there is something seriously missing from this situation. Genocide has been happening for such a long time, indeed before our recorded incidents of genocide. It is still happening right now. How do we stop it? "Oh, we should be doing the same thing as we have before. They have worked in the past, right?" Yes, they have worked in the past. But how many years did it take until another genocide happened? It doesn't matter that they go by different names and are in different places; genocide is genocide. There's no point in trying to stop a specific genocide when another one comes up not too long afterwards. We have to stop genocide from happening at all. The thing is, we love fear and hate too much; people claim it to be human instinct, and we can't get rid of it. If that's the case, too bad. Genocide will never stop happening. If that's the attitude we want, so be it. We can have it forever. It's not until everyone starts loving love that we will have peace.

"Not On Our Watch": Chapters 3-4

In these chapters, the authors go into detail on what led to the genocide and what the situation is like in Darfur. I can see that the Darfur genocide is not that different from what has been happening in Sudan all along - it is really just a continuation of the same nightmare. Don, John, and many others have reported horrible things that are happening there today. Children are thrown into fires, women and girls raped/gang raped, men killed, complete villages burned, bodies thrown in water wells, and many others. Many people have had their families killed, leaving them with no one, no home, no food and water, and severe injuries.

What is really even more sad about this is that all history is a continuation of what has happened. Darfur is a continuation of the past, and we keep on responding the same way. As a whole, our thought systems are the same as they've ever been, and this explains why the same thing still happens again and again. Fear is our basic emotion instead of love, and that's why these negative things keep on happening. If we aren't always experiencing love through our days, weeks, months, and years, then we will not be awake. We will be immersed in situations like Darfur, where we see hell instead of a bad dream.

By action, we are stopping Darfur. By thought, we allow it to be written in our future. People will be just as frightened in a couple decades about another genocide the same way that we are frightened now with Darfur.

"Not On Our Watch": Chapters 1-2

I think that these two men are great, considering that they are motivated to do something that can help people (temporarily.) However, they aren't really my role models. Don't get me wrong, though; I think that the effort to resolve the Darfur conflict is something that I am motivated to do. I also belive that we can do it. Don Cheadle and John Prendergast propose solutions to this problem. But, even if we do end the conflict and Darfur, it is not going to stop all genocides to happen. This "Never Again" idea is only a hope. The world is still addicted to these habits, and John unfortunately shows that he is addicted to it, too. He openly states that he is angry with this situation and that the US isn't doing anything about it. What's ironic about this is that anger is what causes genocide. We can easily say that genocide resembles darkness, so anger is as well. In order to get rid of darkness, we need light. Anger is obviously not light, no matter how it's used. Bringing darkness into darkness does nothing. So, John and Don have to us how to act for this situation, but not how to think. So if we want peace, we can't bring an angry attitude. Our minds are still stuck in the world of change, which means that peace in the world won't be permanent. Our situation will be a pattern of "bad" and "good" repeating into the future, as it has been in the past. The subtitle "The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond" shouldn't have the "and Beyond" part in it, since the book isn't focused on keeping peace in the long run. If we would like genocide to be stopped once and for all, we must bring unconditional love and peace to the whole universe, including the attackers and the indifferent.

The Trip to LA to See Genocide

When we went up to Los Angeles to attend a conversation with Don Cheadle and John Prendergast, I was shocked again with how the Holocaust Museum showed me more of what I didn't see yet, but the main event seemed very reassuring. I am pretty confident that we can and will stop this genocide considering how many options and how much power we have. But, I know that settling this conflict is only temporary in the sense that we will have more genocides in the future.

Don and John support the urge to make this happen "never again," but it's obvious that their proposed techniques are not permanent. They say that we should look at past successful techniques and apply them now, even those methods didn't stop genocide once and for all.

It's the same kind of issue when we get headaches. Our tendency is to take medication to make it go away, and that's fine. But, it's definitely not the last headache we have. It will come up again in the future, if it's just a day or a month or even a year. When it happens again, we will take the medication again! The process will repeat forever. This is exactly what we are doing with genocides. We are constantly taking the pill, and it will make it go away temporarily.

Instead of waiting to solve an effect like a small headache or a violent genocide with the same steps, we have to look at the cause. If we don't, we will inevitably repeat an effect with the same cause. For example, stress causes headaches. If we realized we were stressed and change how our mind functions, then we will never have a headache again as long as we keep our mind functioning without stress. For genocide, the problem comes from hate or a desire to be separate. If we watched ourselves getting angry, afraid, or any other negative emotion, we could stop genocide once and for all.

From here, I propose that we should continue our past techniques as long as it doesn't disturb our minds with negative thought, feelings, and emotions. If we keep our thinking this way, we can slowly help influence the cleansing of all minds. Then, we are no longer pulled down by other people's negative emotions. At that point, it would get a lot better, since everyone wants peace in the world and peace in mind. In my opinion, this is the permanent solution to genocide.

Bring out yer dead!

Dialectic Journal #3 for Night, by Elie Wiesel


"'Throw out all the dead! All corpses outside!' The living rejoiced. The would be more room. Volunteers set to work. They felt those who were still crouching. 'Here's one! Take him!' They undressed him, the survivors avidly sharing out his clothes then two 'gravediggers' took him, one by the head and one by the feet, and threw him out of the wagon like a sack of flour."

I don't believe it! This is even worse than Monty Python's Holy Grail! There's one scene in that movie when everyone brings out the people who died overnight, and then there was a guy who didn't want to let his father go. But in this book, people were rejoicing that the dead were being thrown out of the train! They seriously didn't have anything, not even space to move or air to breathe! They were so deprived of everything that they were happy people were dying, because it means more space and more clothing to warm up from the snow. And they were on that train for three days! In the end, out of 100 people on Wiesel's wagon, only twelve survived. I don't believe that the SS can let people die so easily and not even show any compassion. This is as dark as it gets. But if we never contemplate what happened during the Holocaust, we wouldn't ever care about the duality of the world.

An Observation Everyone Should Make.

Dialectic Journal #2 for Night, by Elie Wiesel

"Yes, man is very stong, greater than God. When You were decieved by Adam and Eve, You drove them out of Paradise. When Noah's generation displeased You, You brought down the Flood. When Sodom no longer found favor in Your eyes, You made the sky rain down fire and sulphur. But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do? They pray before You! They praise Your name!"

Through the old Testament, God can seem even more sinister than man (which is why Wiesel must have said that man was greater). And then, during World War Two, there is nothing that the Jews even did wrong! Even if there is such thing as the Justice of God, then why is the "punishment" on the Jews instead of the Nazis? Something here isn't right. Is it true that God is love? If he is, then he can't be fear as well! You cant be good AND evil! The Jews are praising God while all of these things are happening! If I believed that God was doing this to the Jews, I would find no reason to believe in him. WWII looks like Hell on Earth, and Elie Wiesel's point here is a very strong and important one. I believe that everyone should seek the answer to this statement.

Is Punishment Love?

Dialectic Journal #1 for Night, by Elie Wiesel

"Some talked of God, of his mysterious ways, of the sins of the Jewish people, and of their future deliverance. But I had ceased to pray. How I sympathized with Job! I did not deny God's existence, but I doubted his absolute justice.
Akiba Drumer said: 'God is testing us. He wants to find out whether we can dominate our base instincts and kill the Satan within us. We have no right to despair. And if he punishes us relentlessly, it's a sign that He loves us all the more.'"

Concentration camps would seriously force you to think through your religious belief systems. Babies being thrown into fire, daily beatings, and total manipulation. To them, it's God saying, "I'll beat the hell out of you, but I love you more than you think." Isn't that a little twisted? Seeing God as the ruler of the universe must mean that Satan is God the Father as well. So much punishment and pain can be experienced in this world, and it makes you wonder how involved God really is in the world. This book, if taken from the stance of Wiesel and his fellow Jews, makes you not only afraid of the world, but afraid of God. It is hard for them to blame God for being so ruthless, but they can't deny that God is involved in it. It is not pleasant at all for me to imagine living and thinking like they did at the time of the Holocaust.

Perils of Indifference

"What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?"

I agree with Wiesel when he questions if indifference should be seen as a virtue, since there is no situation when it is helpful. However, I don't think that is sinful, since making decisions should be only for the individual. No one is called to do anything, but when someone acts with indifference, they must know that they made a mistake if they feel guilty. It is not an evil thing to do, but one might feel that way if they they take this action (I mean, inaction). Condemnation towards those who act indifferently is not right to do either; anger and hate is basically the same thing as feeling guilty anyway. It is best if these emotions are never experienced because they are never positive and never feel good in the long run. Indifference is not positive, but should not be looked on as negative because this will provoke condemnation towards those who act indifferently.

Is the Past Good or Bad for Us?

This post is a response to Nelson's comment on focusing on the past:

"Today, during class we had a class discussion about All Quiet on the Western Front and war in general. We talked about different aspects of war, we talked about WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, and wars in general. After the discussion I came to the computer to write my reflection (about a subject that I already forgot) and Lucien told me that he was pretty annoyed about the fact that everytime we talk about war it goes back to past crimes and leaders. He told me that he was pretty annoyed about us not talking about wars NOW; it always goes back to Alexander, it always goes back to Hitler; WWI. Me, I believe he is right in the sense that war is NOT a thing of the past. War is currently waged in the Middle East, and in Africa, but for some reason we talk about Hitler and not Bush (or the US senate for that matter). We talk about the Holocaust and not Darfur, and even though the Holocaust was bigger, Darfur is present. And even though history is important; I believe that the present is more so."

In terms of decisions made in the world, we seem to be more successful when we refer to the past to make future decisions. We cannot understand how to make political decisions in the present if we know nothing about the past and have no experience in the matter. If we don't pay attention to the past, we will never make smart decisions for the present and future. It's like trying to walk a catwalk for the first time without a rope. You won't make it! Making decisions based off knowledge from past experiences is also like maturity. We mature because we stop doing things or thinking certain ways when we were immature. If we don't look at the past, then we're babies forever.

One thing about the past that is actually bad is how we feel about things that happen. The emotions, if we hold onto them, will stay with us forever. Our stress and worry about the past affects our present and future life, even though there is no reason to hold on to the bad memories since it's not happening! I think the problem we're having with the issues today and why they're repeating comes from this fact. The people of the world hold on to memories that make them afraid of the present and future instead of looking at the memories (which cannot affect us because they're not happening) and making intellectual goals by assessing the mistakes.

AQOTWF End Reflection

1. What is ironic, or dramatically unexpected about the novel's ending?

I thought he wasn't going to die. I thought he was going to have to live with all the pain like many people do. However, he died when it was all quiet on the western front! This shows how Remarque really feels about his life. He knows that he's not going to kill himself (life is too valuable) but he wouldn't mind to die, since he won't have the pain and memories anymore. But, it is very ironic that he would die at a time when the war became a lot less intense. He was a soldier, that made it through the heat of war virtually untouched, and ends up dying when the war is calm.

2. What images of the novel are lingering in your mind? Explain why these images made a lasting impression on you.

Many of his thoughts, feelings and images really affected me. I liked his human animal analogy, and also when he noticed that he wouldn't hesitate to kill his father if he was on the opposing side - war is that powerful! Some of the images and memories I liked were when he had to end a French soldier's life and decided to send money to his family (if he would live) and also when a German soldier became paranoid and started banging his head on the wall.


3. Do you think Paul can claim to speak for an entire "lost generation" when he speaks of the effects of war? In Paul's opinion war ruins those who survive as must as those who die. Do you think his fellow soldiers felt the same way about war?

Thanks for Remarque, we get to see the true side of war for a soldier. It definitely portrays the overall feeling of the war for the "lost generation." Remarque stresses that it's actually worse to live than die. However, Paul's experience was actually less intense than other. He said enough with his happy death. For other soldiers, their experience might have been twice as painful and fearful.

The Seminar

I thought the blog was very interesting because we brought up some controversial questions.

I liked that we were able to identify leader's and soldier's involvement, contribution, and opinion on the war. The leaders seemed to build up opposing forces and attack once a conflict rises to the surface. However, the soldiers were less violent than the leaders since they just wanted to serve the country. They've been treated like pawn pieces in a chess game, except now the pawn pieces aren't happy with who they're forced to take down. The soldiers wanted a truce whenever possible, and that's why the Christmas Truce inevitably happened.

Another interesting subject we focused on was deciding if countries (like America) should run over and "help" other countries with their problems. We came up with two different answers. One was that we should help anyone in the world because it is the right and moral thing to do. However, we also realized that sometimes people don't want help from anyone, even though that help is ideal. The other opinion was that, since people might not want help, we should make sure we as a country are completely happy. If we're not, we get mixed ideas of what decisions benefit someone and which one's don't. So until we perfect our lives, there's no point in trying to help someone that will be pissed if you help them.

I Love the Last Paragraph!

It's kinda funny, but I feel relieved too:

"He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come."

This is at the very end of the book, after all of Paul's horrible experiences. He just died...

I feel the same struggle as Paul did in the book through my own experiences with the bipolar disorder. I think back about all the pain I went through or all the things that I thought happened, and it's not very pleasant. However, since it's a really cloudy past anyways, it's easier for me to forget it. I haven't dismissed it completely yet, but I'm happy it's over with. That's how I think about the situation with Paul - he had so many negative experiences and memories over the time at war, and he wanted to dismiss all of it but couldn't. He tried to live with it, but death seemed to be the only way to end the pain. I'm quite lucky that I have been able to let go of my memories, but I also know that they were nowhere as intense as Paul's. That's why I react to the book so much. Some of my neighborhood friend's fathers were in the Vietnam War, and life doesn't look so great for them. This might sound weird, but I'm happy for Paul.

God-Only-Knows-What-Devils!

Here's one of my favorite quotes from the middle of the book:

"The blast of hand-grenades impinges powerfully on our arms and legs; crouching like cats we run on, overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils; this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance. If your own father came over with them you would not hesitate to fling a bomb at him."

This happened in the middle of the book, before he's all alone. It shows how much war changes someone.

At this point in war, it doesn't even look like hatred for the other side. Of course, fathers aren't usually hated, so if your father happened to be out there in the field, you wouldn't stop to think about who you're about to kill? It isn't at all about hatred , it just became a game of survival. These were sane men, just like anyone else, and they've been forced to become what no one wants to be. When I'm reading this book, I can't help but get caught up in all the pain that Paul and his friends have to go through. Once you're there, it is no turning back. It's really hard for war veterans to forget things like this. I get all these negative emotions from reading the book, and I can't imagine what it would be like to actually be there.

The Burtsonian Philosophy

Burtsonian philosophy tries to demonstrate that duality is not as effective, reasonable, and loving as unity. Duality, as we see this world, is not our true nature. As Thomas Hobbes states that we, by nature in this world, are all selfish and greedy. This is true, since our universe is seen through separation of objects, which creates physical space. In world nature, every living species needs to fend for itself and oppose something else. Once humans were able to conquer all other species, it no longer became a game of survival. We still, of course, needed food and shelter, but now we all want physical possessions and money as well.
Everyone, in my philosophy, deserves the same amount of respect, and this respect should be given to everyone by everyone. Everyone should have the right to live, which means there will be no situations where a life should be taken away by law. Everyone will be given enough food to live as healthy as possible. Everyone will have the opportunity to own a house and live in privacy. Also, everyone will have access to any information they need that people would produce and share publicly.
My philosophy runs off of the belief that everyone has a say in the government; no matter what their ethnicity is, sexual orientation, or even if they’re prisoners. However, since not everyone knows what’s best for the people as a whole, there will be elected representatives (and anyone could take this position) that will make decisions for the people. Any laws presented by our leader and his/her informers can only be accepted if the majority population agrees. Votes are counted by population instead of by states, so everyone’s voice overall will be heard. Anyone can choose or choose not to vote. People, however, like to collaborate because they can work better together and are able to live and get what they need if it is a joint effort. Interdependence offers so much more opportunities to everyone.
Here is my philosophy that I made for the "Create Your Own Philosophy" extra-credit assignment:

There is still a problem in society because of the way people act and think, and mere laws can’t change these. It seems that everyone has some sort of guilt and fear that can never get rid of, because if it was truly gone, everyone would obviously be much happier and would also love everyone more. The problem is that people constantly try to get rid of this guilt by throwing it on others and blaming them at any possible time for things they did. Now, we have all made mistakes, and no one is perfect in anyone’s eyes. So, why continue the condemnation? Some people either always blame or always blame themselves, and this is what leads to murder, rape, suicide, etc.
This brings to light the solution. What is really the meaning of life? To reach a state of complete happiness, nirvana, revelation, etc. We are all really the same mind, and we need to accept that to reach the perfect state. People must constantly forgive everything and stop being so critical of what they see around them. Whenever we condemn others, we are still condemning ourselves subconsciously since we are still the same mind. Living off fear will never help people realize the meaning of life and what they should do with it. It is up to the people to make the correct decisions that will benefit them as well as everyone else they interact with. Forgiveness will essentially solve all these problems.

Less than Unnatural

Read through chapter 7 for Monday. Now let's be a little creative!!! Write a minimum of a ten line monologue to perform in drama class on Monday. Write and in turn deliver the monologue (speech) as if you were a character in All Quiet on the Western Front. Be passionate, be thoughtful, be CREATIVE.

A monologue is a speech that one actor delivers in a play. Before you get started, consider these questions!!!

WHERE IS THIS PERSON SPEAKING?
WHO IS LISTENING?
WHAT IS THE MAIN THING THEY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT?

I found a soldier on the ground next to my bed in the barracks. He is completely still. He has a journal between the fingers in his right hand, and I decided to open it to his last entry. The words are faded from teardrops. I decide to read what it says:

"How can this be? I can feel it deep inside, and I know nothing is right. So much fear, so much dis-ease. When I was home, I thought I had everything wrong. Service sounded like the right the to do. But now, I'm even more disconnected, and my simplest needs are not being fulfilled. There's no love, all pain. I'll never wake from this nightmare that will haunt me for the rest of my days. People screaming with their limbs torn apart. I used to not believe in hell, but it now feels too real to dismiss. Animals of the same species don't kill each other, so why should use humans be doing this for power? I don't want to be right, I just want to be happy. Is there really any love in the world? I can't take it anymore. I am completely intact, but my mind is beyond repair. This intensiveness will never be healed. I have lost my chance to truly understand the purpose of life."

What is Reality?

I've had some experiences in my life that have really made me start questioning things. I now realize how powerful the mind can be, and this could be a positive or negative thing. For me, sadly, it isn't always so pleasant.

When I was ten years old, I somehow was able to make my lower stomach start hurting by just thinking about it. The more I became afraid of it, it would hurt worse. I also have this thing where if I think something or someone will make me sick, my mouth and throat will start hurting. Sometimes I would respond to static, touch, or sound and the top of my head would tingle.

On top of that, during the first quarter of 2006 I was associated with bipolar disorder after my first manic episode. When I was at the peak of my mania at the hospital, I would start hearing things that weren't there, and other people could easily tell I was in a delusional state. I know that this was the case, but isn't it strange how things can seem just as real as reality?

Other cases where we won't know if what we're experiencing is real or not is when we lucid dream or when we will experience virtual reality. Anyone would swear that it's real until they come out of it!

It seems that our reality is something that people perceive together, and that is what makes up our world. But, since we all believe this to be reality, is it still truly real? If we can believe things are our reality on our own (like all of the experiences I mentioned), how do we know what true reality is?

Subconscious Actions

Read through chapter 4 (up to page 75). In this chapter Paul states:

"At the sound of the first droning of the shells we rush back, in one part of our being, a thousand years. By the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected. It is not conscious; it is far quicker, much more sure, less fallible, than consciousness. . . . It is this other, this second sight in us, that has thrown us to the ground and saved us, without our knowing how. . . . We march up, moody or good-tempered soldiers—we reach the zone where the front begins and become on the instant human animals."

Why would Paul characterize himself and his comrades as "human animals"?

Your task: Discuss the meaning of this quotation and the experiences the boys are enduring internally. In addition to your posting, comment on one other student's post."

Animals always live off of instinct. There isn't much thinking or contemplating going on by them, which means that what they do every day is exactly the same. They find shelter, eat, reproduce, and are always ready to respond to danger.

Paul characterized soldiers as human animals because they react to danger so quickly that they don't even consciously decide to duck and cover. Since animals are so used to doing the same thing, they start to automatically do things without thinking about them.

We have acquired these instincts in the form of subconscious actions,and these actions will develop if we continue to do something repetitive. For example, if it wasn't for the development of instinct, or subconscious actions, it would take me forever to type up this post since I would have to think consciously about every button I press!

This is quite fascinating because some of our subconscious actions have developed over lifetimes into instincts so we won't have to learn them all over again! This is what Paul is talking about, which means that humans must have been through the same type of life-threatening situations many times before.

One big point that Paul was trying to make is that war seems to be less than human, since killing is a far step back into our past instincts. Humans have moved on and have become intellectual beings, and it is like the soldiers are being thrown back in time to when humans needed to fight to live. However, it is not necessary that we have to fight other people in war in order to live! That's animal thinking!

Here are two quotes that I also found interesting in the book:

"I glance at my boots. They are big and clumsy, the breeches are tucked into them, and standing up one looks well-built and powerful in these great drainpipes. But when we go bathing and strip, suddenly we have slender legs again and slight shoulders. We are no longer soldiers but little more than boys; no one would believe that we could carry packs. It is a strange moment when we stand naked; then we become civilians, and almost feel ourselves to be so." Page 29.

"In himself man is essentially a beast, only he butters it over like a slice of bread with a little decorum. The army is based on that; one man must always have power over the other. The mischief is merely that each one has much too much power." Page 44.

My First Post?

YAY I FIXED IT! I only have one blog now!

Response to Napolean and the French Revolution

After Napoleon abdicates in 1814, the revolution is officially over, and Louis XVIII is crowned King of France. Can you believe it? The monarchy returns!!! In light of our investigation of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era, evaluate the legacy of the French Revolution. Do you believe it was a success or a failure? Your response should be atleast 150 words.

Before Napolean, things seemed to progress positively for the third estate people of france. They were able to fight the monarchy and attain rights of equality. But, when it came to Napolean, it didn't progress completely negatively, but it came out a different way.

Napolean was a selfish man. He was like everyone else, so he had the same basic concerns as the majority population. Even though he did fight for the rights of his people, he had special beliefs and preferences as well. He made France just the way he wanted to see it. Hence, he did support equality under law, religious rights, ethnic respect, cheap food, paved roads, and others, but he also allowed beating wives, denied equal women's rights, and didn't support employees.

However, he did present some new ideas that did support the people further than the earlier part of the french revolution, and thats why I would say that he made a step further for france. But, I don't think he preserved the legacy of the French Revolution in its fullest. He is the equivalent of a tyrant, but a true tyrant offers no new positive ideas, which shows how Napolean isn't utterly a tyrant. He was a good man, but he was quite selfish and his strange beliefs and influences made it so we can't consider him a hero.