Respond below each post in the comments. If you are a student receiving credit for your blog posts here, please provide your name so your professor can grade your participation.
Lost boys and not lost girls because boys are defined as having the ability to rebel and they may become threats to the existing government or organization. Girls are considered unable to rebel men's force and they can be used as labor for the existing government or organization.
I agree. Although I am sure that "girls" are completly capable of rebelling and becoming a threat, history tends to disagree. It has always been the "boys" who have the violent tendencies and urges that is utilized in rebellion. And perhaps the lost boys are easier to manipulate with guns and power. By being easily controlled these boys are, unfortunately, ideal in creating a violent, rebellious army.
i think it has more to do with the fact that the boys were not around as much when the villages were attacked. many girls who were captured were sold into slavery. in addition, girls in the refugee camps were usually considered family (for the help they would provide to the home) and therefore, were not a priority to resettle in the US.
Week of September 27th "Why lost boys and not lost girls?"
Unlike the boys, the girls were looked down upon in society. Girls were known to be weak and only good for labor. The boys on the other hand were much more capable to take the harsh physical circumstances and easier to provoke when it came to rebelling.
1. Why the lost boys and not lost girls? a. I believe it was the lost boys over the lost girls because of the amount. Although there were many, most girls were sold into slavery. Along with this idea, the Dinka culture promotes men as fighters, not woman, thus making the lost boys an easier target for recruitment into the SPLA. This was a big part of the book, the idea that so many refugees in the camp would be recruited and die in training because of the harsh conditions. So although the girls were an element in this civil war, it was the Lost Boys who provided the numbers and ability to serve the rebel cause.
-Boys were probably out venturing and when they saw the danger approach they fled and hid for their life. Girls, on the other hand, who were probably at home with their mothers, were kidnapped by the raiders in order to be used.
-I think it was lost boys over lost girls since boys were thought to be much more fit for the SPLA. Boys are fighters, which was appealing to the SPLA. The girls, on the other hand, were slaves and were just put to work, as they were considered unable to fight with the men.
Week of September 20th? "Why lost boys and not lost girls?"
I deem it was lost boys over lost girls because more boys were recruited into the SPLA. The majority of girls were sold into slavery and/or killed. Like Dani Katz mentioned, in general, especially in the Dinka culture, men are looked at as fighters and protectors. This fact made the boys ideal candidates to help fight for the rebels cause. The story is depicted through a survivors experience of what happened, and he was a boy. He explains and depicts the deaths and struggles of other young boys, who like him, were recruited for the SPLA while living in the refugee camps.
It was Lost Boys and not Lost Girls because of the large number. The main group was made of boys and it took a while for any girls to actually join and, even then, the number was significantly low. They may not have liked the term "Lost People," either.
I think it is the lost boys, rather than the lost girls, because the boys were the ones that were most appealing to the SPLA due to their strong stature and fighting mentality. When they went to the villages they had little use for the grown men and would only capture women and children. Then they would tie up the girls and usually sell them into slavery and the boys would be recruited into the army.
Meredith Prescott kf3977 Why lost boys and not lost girls? Lost boys and not lost girls because girls were known to be weak and only good for work and labor (slavery). This can be relatable to our society today, as many men today think women are weak. The lost boys fit the criteria better for the SPLA and since men are fighters and more aggressive, they are more appealing to the SPLA. Men in this novel were able to rebel and could be considered a threat to the government. Girls did not have the status to rebel.
Why lost boys and not lost girls? I strongly believe the book focuses on lost boys as oppose to lost girls because boys are expected to be masculine, aggressive, tough, daring, and dominant. Boys are far more appropriate for the SPLA because they fit the part as intimidating figures and are built to fight.
There were lost boys not lost girls because it was a large group of thousands of boys making the journey out of Uganda rather than girls. The boys were the ones being stolen and taken in a child soldiers. Females were of little importance to the LRA.
This was because in this culture boys or men are seen as agresors or “stronger” they are seen as the protectors, and for this reason the spla would recruit them. Also the girls weren’t seen as warriors so they were usually sold into slavery or killed leaving only the boys behind to be recruited into the army.
I think it has to do with the fact that there were more boys than girls. Also, boys were seen as fighters and warriors, not the girls. Boys were also seen as more important in that culture. That and "lost people" sounds weird. Maybe "lost children"?
I think it is lost boys over lost girls because boys are stronger than girls are. The boys are more valuable to the SPLA and were sought after. The boys are often more rebellious and would be able to survive on their own. Girls are often kidnapped and sold into slavery so by having the lost boys, it is a different outlook.
I feel that this difference in name is because of the gender inequality that still exists in Sudan and Africa. Women in Sudan are deprived of their right to voice an opinion and act in their own judgement. While men in Sudan have all of the power and say in their country. Also, males are typically conceived as stronger than female, therefore they could stand up and rebel to the SPLA forces. The Sudanese do not believe in gender equality and can be seen in their belief that Sudanese women in America have too much power and voice in society.
Lost boys not girls because the girls were kept home because they could not work as much as the boys could. The boys are stronger then the women. The girls were sold into slavery instead.
It was the lost boys and not the lost girls because the girls were not looked at like the boys. The girls were looked at as beneath the boys in society. Also, although there were more girls, most were sold into slavery while the boys were capable of working for the SPLA.
I believe it is more lost boys over girls simply due to the traditional differences between guys and girls. guys are typically stronger, more independent, and more capable of rebelling and fighting. Girls, on the other hand, are known to be more vulnerable to slavery and abuse. Although it is recognized in free countries that females are strong willed as well, the Sudanese do not hold equality with as much importance.
"Why lost boys and not lost girls?" I believe it was lost boys instead of lost girls because at this point of time there was a conflict going on between different groups, which included the SPLA and the government army. Boys were needed to fight for the rebel armies, since they are usually stronger and were given the role of protecting their ethnic ideologies. Women did not have much freedom at all and in the book, Eggers, discusses how Sudanese men were actually upset of how much freedom women had in America. Also boys were more wanted in society because they had seemed to contribute more. They could fight for themselves and protect their culture (which is why there were ultimately more lost boys and not girls), they could own land and make money to support a family.
I believe that it was the lost boys and not the lost girls because the boys were the ones who were capable of fighting and and were eager of the rebellion. The girls were often sold as slaves or were considered too weak to fight battles. Throughout history, the people fighting wars have mostly been men. Women are always thought of as being too weak for fighting. I believe that the women were oppressed. All that was expected out of them was labor and obedience to men. They were not expected to get involved in what was deemed to be mens affairs such as the rebellion of the SPLA. KF0648
1. Why lost boys and not lost girls? a. They chose lost boys and not lose girls because there was a greater number of boys, and their societies valued males over females. While many women were sold into slavery, boys were in abundance and a seemingly perfect target. They are seen as warriors and mentally strong, unlike women. Their society valued the male capabilities, and women were second-class in comparison.
Why lost boys and not lost girls? -The boys were being used for the rebel cause in the SPLA, and the view of men in the Dinka society was that they were the strong and powerful ones who would be able to fight in a war. The girls were not seen as warriors and most of them were sold to slavery, killed or raped. They were not viewed as able to fight for the SPLA so they were left behind and the boys came what to be known as the lost boys on their journey. KF7055
Why lost boys and not lost girls? Lost boys and not lost girls because lost boys are perceived to have more violent tendencies than girls. Boys are, in general, understood to be rebellious and would probably make better fighters. Girls were viewed as weak, which is why they were taken into slavery.
Why lost boys and not lost girls? -I believe it was lost boys not lost girls because most girls were sold into slavery. In addition, men are often seen, especially in their culture, more so as “fighters” and more easily provoked to rebel as opposed to girls. Girls were more often seen as good for work and labor, hence, why they were often sold into slavery.
The lost girls didn't make as many trips into America, and their story was left untold for a long time. While it's true that the males were valued over females in their society, it was the western people who created the idea of "Lost Boys" because at the time they hadn't seen or heard from the girls who went through similar ordeals.
Respond below each post in the comments. If you are a student receiving credit for your blog posts here, please provide your name so your professor can grade your participation.
Lost boys and not lost girls because boys are defined as having the ability to rebel and they may become threats to the existing government or organization. Girls are considered unable to rebel men's force and they can be used as labor for the existing government or organization.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Although I am sure that "girls" are completly capable of rebelling and becoming a threat, history tends to disagree. It has always been the "boys" who have the violent tendencies and urges that is utilized in rebellion. And perhaps the lost boys are easier to manipulate with guns and power. By being easily controlled these boys are, unfortunately, ideal in creating a violent, rebellious army.
ReplyDeletei think it has more to do with the fact that the boys were not around as much when the villages were attacked. many girls who were captured were sold into slavery. in addition, girls in the refugee camps were usually considered family (for the help they would provide to the home) and therefore, were not a priority to resettle in the US.
ReplyDeleteWeek of September 27th
ReplyDelete"Why lost boys and not lost girls?"
Unlike the boys, the girls were looked down upon in society. Girls were known to be weak and only good for labor. The boys on the other hand were much more capable to take the harsh physical circumstances and easier to provoke when it came to rebelling.
KF3905
Week of September 20
ReplyDelete1. Why the lost boys and not lost girls?
a. I believe it was the lost boys over the lost girls because of the amount. Although there were many, most girls were sold into slavery. Along with this idea, the Dinka culture promotes men as fighters, not woman, thus making the lost boys an easier target for recruitment into the SPLA. This was a big part of the book, the idea that so many refugees in the camp would be recruited and die in training because of the harsh conditions. So although the girls were an element in this civil war, it was the Lost Boys who provided the numbers and ability to serve the rebel cause.
KF9833
-Boys were probably out venturing and when they saw the danger approach they fled and hid for their life. Girls, on the other hand, who were probably at home with their mothers, were kidnapped by the raiders in order to be used.
ReplyDelete-I think it was lost boys over lost girls since boys were thought to be much more fit for the SPLA. Boys are fighters, which was appealing to the SPLA. The girls, on the other hand, were slaves and were just put to work, as they were considered unable to fight with the men.
ReplyDeleteKF1154
Week of September 20th?
ReplyDelete"Why lost boys and not lost girls?"
I deem it was lost boys over lost girls because more boys were recruited into the SPLA. The majority of girls were sold into slavery and/or killed. Like Dani Katz mentioned, in general, especially in the Dinka culture, men are looked at as fighters and protectors. This fact made the boys ideal candidates to help fight for the rebels cause. The story is depicted through a survivors experience of what happened, and he was a boy. He explains and depicts the deaths and struggles of other young boys, who like him, were recruited for the SPLA while living in the refugee camps.
KF9739
KF9739
It was Lost Boys and not Lost Girls because of the large number. The main group was made of boys and it took a while for any girls to actually join and, even then, the number was significantly low. They may not have liked the term "Lost People," either.
ReplyDeleteKrystal Moore
I think it is the lost boys, rather than the lost girls, because the boys were the ones that were most appealing to the SPLA due to their strong stature and fighting mentality. When they went to the villages they had little use for the grown men and would only capture women and children. Then they would tie up the girls and usually sell them into slavery and the boys would be recruited into the army.
ReplyDeletekf7990
Meredith Prescott
ReplyDeletekf3977
Why lost boys and not lost girls?
Lost boys and not lost girls because girls were known to be weak and only good for work and labor (slavery). This can be relatable to our society today, as many men today think women are weak. The lost boys fit the criteria better for the SPLA and since men are fighters and more aggressive, they are more appealing to the SPLA. Men in this novel were able to rebel and could be considered a threat to the government. Girls did not have the status to rebel.
Week of September 20
ReplyDeleteWhy lost boys and not lost girls?
I strongly believe the book focuses on lost boys as oppose to lost girls because boys are expected to be masculine, aggressive, tough, daring, and dominant. Boys are far more appropriate for the SPLA because they fit the part as intimidating figures and are built to fight.
KF9170
Morgan Granger
ReplyDeleteThere were lost boys not lost girls because it was a large group of thousands of boys making the journey out of Uganda rather than girls. The boys were the ones being stolen and taken in a child soldiers. Females were of little importance to the LRA.
KF5073
Why lost boys and not lost girls?
ReplyDeleteThis was because in this culture boys or men are seen as agresors or “stronger” they are seen as the protectors, and for this reason the spla would recruit them. Also the girls weren’t seen as warriors so they were usually sold into slavery or killed leaving only the boys behind to be recruited into the army.
I think it has to do with the fact that there were more boys than girls. Also, boys were seen as fighters and warriors, not the girls. Boys were also seen as more important in that culture. That and "lost people" sounds weird. Maybe "lost children"?
ReplyDelete-Christopher Boggs
I think it is lost boys over lost girls because boys are stronger than girls are. The boys are more valuable to the SPLA and were sought after. The boys are often more rebellious and would be able to survive on their own. Girls are often kidnapped and sold into slavery so by having the lost boys, it is a different outlook.
ReplyDeleteKF6849
Shane Hassin KF8993
ReplyDeleteI feel that this difference in name is because of the gender inequality that still exists in Sudan and Africa. Women in Sudan are deprived of their right to voice an opinion and act in their own judgement. While men in Sudan have all of the power and say in their country. Also, males are typically conceived as stronger than female, therefore they could stand up and rebel to the SPLA forces. The Sudanese do not believe in gender equality and can be seen in their belief that Sudanese women in America have too much power and voice in society.
KF8993
Clayton Aptekar
ReplyDeleteLost boys not girls because the girls were kept home because they could not work as much as the boys could. The boys are stronger then the women. The girls were sold into slavery instead.
It was the lost boys and not the lost girls because the girls were not looked at like the boys. The girls were looked at as beneath the boys in society. Also, although there were more girls, most were sold into slavery while the boys were capable of working for the SPLA.
ReplyDeleteKF3892
I believe it is more lost boys over girls simply due to the traditional differences between guys and girls. guys are typically stronger, more independent, and more capable of rebelling and fighting. Girls, on the other hand, are known to be more vulnerable to slavery and abuse. Although it is recognized in free countries that females are strong willed as well, the Sudanese do not hold equality with as much importance.
ReplyDeleteKF5461
"Why lost boys and not lost girls?"
ReplyDeleteI believe it was lost boys instead of lost girls because at this point of time there was a conflict going on between different groups, which included the SPLA and the government army. Boys were needed to fight for the rebel armies, since they are usually stronger and were given the role of protecting their ethnic ideologies. Women did not have much freedom at all and in the book, Eggers, discusses how Sudanese men were actually upset of how much freedom women had in America. Also boys were more wanted in society because they had seemed to contribute more. They could fight for themselves and protect their culture (which is why there were ultimately more lost boys and not girls), they could own land and make money to support a family.
KF2940
I believe that it was the lost boys and not the lost girls because the boys were the ones who were capable of fighting and and were eager of the rebellion. The girls were often sold as slaves or were considered too weak to fight battles. Throughout history, the people fighting wars have mostly been men. Women are always thought of as being too weak for fighting. I believe that the women were oppressed. All that was expected out of them was labor and obedience to men. They were not expected to get involved in what was deemed to be mens affairs such as the rebellion of the SPLA.
ReplyDeleteKF0648
Jordan Capon - KF2303
ReplyDelete1. Why lost boys and not lost girls?
a. They chose lost boys and not lose girls because there was a greater number of boys, and their societies valued males over females. While many women were sold into slavery, boys were in abundance and a seemingly perfect target. They are seen as warriors and mentally strong, unlike women. Their society valued the male capabilities, and women were second-class in comparison.
Why lost boys and not lost girls?
ReplyDelete-The boys were being used for the rebel cause in the SPLA, and the view of men in the Dinka society was that they were the strong and powerful ones who would be able to fight in a war. The girls were not seen as warriors and most of them were sold to slavery, killed or raped. They were not viewed as able to fight for the SPLA so they were left behind and the boys came what to be known as the lost boys on their journey.
KF7055
Why lost boys and not lost girls?
ReplyDeleteLost boys and not lost girls because lost boys are perceived to have more violent tendencies than girls. Boys are, in general, understood to be rebellious and would probably make better fighters. Girls were viewed as weak, which is why they were taken into slavery.
KF0578
Deb Hewlett
Why lost boys and not lost girls?
ReplyDelete-I believe it was lost boys not lost girls because most girls were sold into slavery. In addition, men are often seen, especially in their culture, more so as “fighters” and more easily provoked to rebel as opposed to girls. Girls were more often seen as good for work and labor, hence, why they were often sold into slavery.
KF4242
The lost girls didn't make as many trips into America, and their story was left untold for a long time. While it's true that the males were valued over females in their society, it was the western people who created the idea of "Lost Boys" because at the time they hadn't seen or heard from the girls who went through similar ordeals.
ReplyDelete