Feedback 28th January 2008

The Forty Third War takes place in the Central American country of Guatemala. Many Spanish words are spoken in the story, which broadly pinpoints that it is set in Central America. In the story, the volcano Atlcatl is mentioned frequently, and the country has many volcanoes that erupt periodically(CIA Factbook). Another clue we had was that the country was politically unstable. On researching we found that Guatemala has had many revolutions too, just like the country in the book. One of the main exports was bananas, and Uno's job whilst in the village was packing bananas onto a ship. Lastly, at the end of the story, Ignacio says that he shall cross into Mexico and then go on into the U.S. Guatemala is one of two countries that borders Mexico, but Belize has had political stability for many years(pg. 85, Collins). All this evidence combined tells us that the story was based in Guatemala.

We think that the author might not have given an absolute location for fear of retribution. Child soldiers are a sensitive subject and the use of them is usually denied by the government accused. The story portrays the revolutionary side, and does not say any positive thing for the government. If the absolute location was stated, the readers might jump to a conclusion and think that the scenario was real, and that the story was non-fiction.


"Guatemala." Collins Nations of the World Atlas. 1996.
"Guatemala." CIA World Factbook. 28 Jan. 2008 .

Decleration of Independance

When people feel they are being badly treated by the government, and want to brake away from the government, they must tell the government why they fell they are being badly treated. Everyone is equal and everyone has rights that cannot be taken away, these rights are life, liberty and happiness, when the government is taking away these rights that is when you should brake away. The king of England was bad to America and that is why you must now change work to change the government, but you my not change the government for small unimportant things, but only things that take away all of your rights.

King George the third, has done some terrible things to the people who he ruled over such as, cutting off trade with parts of the world, putting taxes on us without asking us first, thirdly took away our rights to be us judge by the trial by jury, he sent soldiers to the villages when we were peaceful without asking our permission first, finally he has transported us over seas for crimes we did not commit, as you can see these are terrible things, so we change our government.

King George the third is a king who’s character is only thought about when you think of the word tyrant, he is therefore not suitable to rule the people of America. We have tried to talk to the soldiers about how we felt we were being treated, however the refused to listen to what we were saying. We therefore declare that America is a free country however when in war with Britain we are enemies but when we are not we are peaceful and harmonious together. So from now on we the representatives of America declare that America now is a free country and not under the laws of King George the Third.

Feedback January 22, 2005

What are the main visual elements?
• Snake all chopped up
• Letters
• The words Join or Die

What issue is this political cartoon about?
The issue of the post is that America is being all chopped up into 13 colonies, so the snake is being all shared out between the 13 places, meaning that, america is being all chopped up to share between the 13 colonies.

What is the cartoonist’s opinion on this issue?
The cartoonist doesn’t like the 13 colonies because he compares it to a snake

What evidence in the cartoon supports your opinion on how the cartoonist feels?
Because he compares the 13 colonies to a snake, all chopped up. And because the cartoon says join or die, join the 13 colonies or someones going to kill

What other techniques could the cartoonist have used to make this cartoon more persuasive?
Maybe he could have used a scarier animal other than a snake, because it not very scary.

Feedback January 19th

We can trust To Be A Slave because, there are many people giving their own experiences on slavery and their all similar. Another reason that it could be trusted is that, the experiences all lead up to the same ending, that slavery was bad, however the book is biased. The book has no show on how people who thought it was a good thing were thinking, also it shows no side of the story on how the book benefited some people including some of the slaves. A second reason that it could be untrustworthy is the book could be untrustworthy because they could be made up experiences because some of the experiences are anonymous. ( P.G. 51 Lester) It also could be untrustworthy because the book was written after slavery, Julius Lester wasn’t actually alive during slavery time, his information was told to him or taught to him, he wasn’t there to see it at first hand, meaning that his information might have been biased in the first place, that is unfair because you need to look at both sides of the story before making a decision.

I am still not sure if I trust of don’t trust the book but more signs point at not.


Lester, Julius. To Be a Slave. New York: Dell, 1971.

Great Powers Game Debrief

My country was Ottoman Empire, it felt frustrating to build an empire because at the begining we could only get 4 things, so our country was weak at the start. USA and Great Britian had an advantage at the beginning of the game because, they got the most amount of economic points, so they could buy more and they were stronger. My empire was weaker than other empires because we had the least amount of economic points so we had the smallest amount of everything at the start, however as the game progressed we became more and more stronger and became the 4th strongest empire in the class.

It was more important to buy both industries and armies because, if you were declared war upon then you needed armies, and the more industries you brought the more economic points you gained.

We did well buying most of the time half industries and half armies because we then were prepared for war and gaining economic points. If we played again and did something differently I would not start of buying navies, because armies were stronger than navies and navies were only half of an army so you had to spend more to start a navy where as if you just brought armies you were stronger and not having to buy as much.

We were a smaller and less threating empire so we made alliances with everyone and they helped us when we needed them however one alliance could not be trusted Lucas and Jake (not sure what empire, italy I think) because they doubled crossed us they said they were our alliances but then turned around and then declared war on our half of the room!

5. What are three specific things you learned about conflict from this simulation?
I learnt that in real conflict its probally not the best idea to put all you're faith in your alliances because they can just change their mind if there is another empire thats offering them some payment or something better then they will just go with them. I also learnt that its good to have a strong army and a large income, finally I learnt that too be a strong empire its not just about having loads of colonize its also about having a strong army and income.