An Examination of Revenge and Forgiveness
An Examination of Revenge and ForgivenessThis project asked us to contemplate the question: What is the better option, revenge or forgiveness? The point of this project was to defend a claim in a Socratic Seminar. In order to do this my group and I had to analyze a large amount of evidence concerning instances of revenge and forgiveness and then construct a claim on this topic. Our evidence came from Shakespeare's The Tempest and 4 news articles.
The first thing we did in this project was watch a documentary by Trevor Nunn, a Shakespeare enthusiast, that explained the main themes of The Tempest. Through watching this documentary, I came to understand the main theme of The Tempest which explored whether that the main character, Prospero, would take his revenge on his enemies or forgive them. This documentary was helpful because it introduced me to the main ideas of the play before I had to read it.
The next thing we did in this project was read The Tempest and take notes on each scene. In my notes, I recorded the main characters in each scene, the main events in the scene and quotes about revenge, bullying and forgiveness. Taking these notes helped me to better understand the relationships between the characters and understand the progression of Prospero's feelings toward his enemies. This step was also helpful in gathering evidence to support the development of my group’s claim.
After we finished reading and analyzing The Tempest, Mr. Marshall gave us 4 news sources that demonstrated either revenge or forgiveness. The first was an article about the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp, where American soldiers killed all of the Nazi SS officers. The second article was about Eva Moses Kor, a holocaust survivor who later forgave the Nazi who did experiments on her, Hans Münch. The third article was about the LA riots. For this event we read an article written in 1993 about the riots as well as watching a short youtube documentary of the violence. We focused on the event that started the riots, the police beating of Rodney King and the beating of Reginald Denny by several black men. The fourth article was about Mary Johnson, a mother who forgave the man who killed her son, Oshea Israel, and how both of them came to form a healthy relationship.
After we finished reading each article, we did a "silent discussion". Mr. Marshall gave each table a large piece of paper on which to write their thoughts about what they read and discuss, through writing, our views with others. Next, our table groups came up with claims related to revenge, forgiveness, justice and fairness. My table came up with the following claim: “Forgiveness, although it may not always result in justice, is always necessary for the people involved to move on. Revenge, although it may result in justice, creates a cycle of death and destruction.”
After each table had finished constructing their claim, each group wrote their claim on the white board. Once each claim was on the board, Mr. Marshall helped us to revise them so that they were clearer and more concise. After my group talked with Mr. Marshall we shortened our claim to: “Forgiveness, although it may not result in justice, is necessary for the people involved to move on.” After Mr. Marshall had helped shape 3 strong claims, people moved around to the claim they liked the most. 2 people joined our claim group and none left. Once we had all of our group members, we gathered as much evidence to support our claim from the 4 news articles provided as well as from quotes from The Tempest.
Finally, after we had collected all of our data, we had the Socratic Seminar. In this seminar, each group argued their point and used all the evidence they had accumulated to argue their point.
I enjoyed this project very much. I found the topic interesting to investigate and I enjoyed arguing my claim. My 2 favorite parts of this project were reading the articles and silent discussions as well as doing the final Socratic Seminar. I enjoyed the silent discussions because it was exciting to use evidence from the article, as well as my own opinion to argue with my classmates. The silent discussions were not as strict as the Socratic Seminar about backing up everything I said with textual evidence so I could state my opinions even if they were not completely supported by the article. I enjoyed the way the conversation evolved as people argued broader but related issues. The article was a starting point for a bigger discussion. During the Socratic Seminar I liked being able to argue for my claim and challenge the claims of the other groups. I liked the rules of rules of the socratic seminar because no one could argue something you were not prepared to counter. It was a challenging but fun culmination of all of the work that I had done during this project.
The first thing we did in this project was watch a documentary by Trevor Nunn, a Shakespeare enthusiast, that explained the main themes of The Tempest. Through watching this documentary, I came to understand the main theme of The Tempest which explored whether that the main character, Prospero, would take his revenge on his enemies or forgive them. This documentary was helpful because it introduced me to the main ideas of the play before I had to read it.
The next thing we did in this project was read The Tempest and take notes on each scene. In my notes, I recorded the main characters in each scene, the main events in the scene and quotes about revenge, bullying and forgiveness. Taking these notes helped me to better understand the relationships between the characters and understand the progression of Prospero's feelings toward his enemies. This step was also helpful in gathering evidence to support the development of my group’s claim.
After we finished reading and analyzing The Tempest, Mr. Marshall gave us 4 news sources that demonstrated either revenge or forgiveness. The first was an article about the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp, where American soldiers killed all of the Nazi SS officers. The second article was about Eva Moses Kor, a holocaust survivor who later forgave the Nazi who did experiments on her, Hans Münch. The third article was about the LA riots. For this event we read an article written in 1993 about the riots as well as watching a short youtube documentary of the violence. We focused on the event that started the riots, the police beating of Rodney King and the beating of Reginald Denny by several black men. The fourth article was about Mary Johnson, a mother who forgave the man who killed her son, Oshea Israel, and how both of them came to form a healthy relationship.
After we finished reading each article, we did a "silent discussion". Mr. Marshall gave each table a large piece of paper on which to write their thoughts about what they read and discuss, through writing, our views with others. Next, our table groups came up with claims related to revenge, forgiveness, justice and fairness. My table came up with the following claim: “Forgiveness, although it may not always result in justice, is always necessary for the people involved to move on. Revenge, although it may result in justice, creates a cycle of death and destruction.”
After each table had finished constructing their claim, each group wrote their claim on the white board. Once each claim was on the board, Mr. Marshall helped us to revise them so that they were clearer and more concise. After my group talked with Mr. Marshall we shortened our claim to: “Forgiveness, although it may not result in justice, is necessary for the people involved to move on.” After Mr. Marshall had helped shape 3 strong claims, people moved around to the claim they liked the most. 2 people joined our claim group and none left. Once we had all of our group members, we gathered as much evidence to support our claim from the 4 news articles provided as well as from quotes from The Tempest.
Finally, after we had collected all of our data, we had the Socratic Seminar. In this seminar, each group argued their point and used all the evidence they had accumulated to argue their point.
I enjoyed this project very much. I found the topic interesting to investigate and I enjoyed arguing my claim. My 2 favorite parts of this project were reading the articles and silent discussions as well as doing the final Socratic Seminar. I enjoyed the silent discussions because it was exciting to use evidence from the article, as well as my own opinion to argue with my classmates. The silent discussions were not as strict as the Socratic Seminar about backing up everything I said with textual evidence so I could state my opinions even if they were not completely supported by the article. I enjoyed the way the conversation evolved as people argued broader but related issues. The article was a starting point for a bigger discussion. During the Socratic Seminar I liked being able to argue for my claim and challenge the claims of the other groups. I liked the rules of rules of the socratic seminar because no one could argue something you were not prepared to counter. It was a challenging but fun culmination of all of the work that I had done during this project.