Work Cited
Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. 1949.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtcnN jYW5sYXN8Z3g6MTQ1NjQzODg2N2VjNjljMg

Baraka, Amiri. Dutchman pdf. Harper Perennial, 1964. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/1882546/mod_resource/content/1/Dutchman.pdf

Question 1: Why does Hobbes believe all humans are equal in the state of nature? In what ways can those who are physically weaker than others compensate for their weakness? According to Hobbes, is this equality good or bad? Why?

    Hobbes believes that nature made all men equal in terms of body and mind even if some may be stronger or smarter, they are all equalized by machinery and weaponry. All men have access to weapons that could kill anyone. Those who physically are weaker than others can use weapons and intelligence to compensate for their weakness. According to Hobbes, this equality is bad because at the basic level, all men have access to violent means as well as conniving methods of overcoming another, so man in its natural state is not good. Hobbes mentions that all men are out to get each other in order to make themselves the alpha person.

Question 2: What makes people enemies in the state of nature? Is it possible to avoid this enmity? Why or why not?

    Diffidence, or distrust, is what makes people enemies in the state of nature since man in its natural state will never allow others to get close to them because there is no trust. Interest creates conflict between men so they will become enemies if their interests align. It is not possible to avoid this enmity, according to Hobbes, because man will not want to feel threatened or inferior to someone else who may hold power over them. Man will do what they need to in order to make sure there is no other power of another that will endanger him.

Question 5: According to Hobbes, how do people living in civilized states “degenerate into a civil war”? Why should people avoid doing this at all costs?

    According to Hobbes, people in civilized states “degenerate into a civil war” by “the manner of life” (Leviathan, Chapter 13). This manner of life was living in fear of a common power to fear. People should avoid this at all costs because Hobbes mentions that in this situation, man would have their weapons pointing at their enemies which would then lead to war because there has to be someone ruling over another; this is the struggle for power.

Question 6: Why does Hobbes state that justice cannot exist in the state of nature? What conditions are necessary for it to exist?

    Hobbes states that justice cannot exist in the state of nature because it is “every man against every man” so there is nothing that can be “unjust”. Hobbes continues by saying there is no difference between right and wrong because if there “is no common power” then there is no law. Without laws, there is also no justice. So there needs to be laws under a common power in order for justice to exist. 

Question 8: Which of Hobbes’s passages appeal most to logic, or logos? Which appeals most to emotion, or pathos? Which of these two modes of persuasion (p. 649) are the most important to the presentation of his argument?

    Hobbes’ passage in which he is explaining that when two men want the same interest that they both cannot have simultaneously, they become enemies, is what appeals most to emotion. The passage about Hobbes explaining the three principal causes of competition appeals most to logic. The mode of persuasion that is most important to his argument is logos because that is where the facts lie within since Hobbes does mention some concrete evidence seen in history that strengthens his argument.

Luke, Chapter 16 of New Testament (Page 541)

Question 1: Why does Jesus illustrate his point with a servant’s dishonest actions? Is the steward acting righteously or simply acting wisely? How do the two kinds of actions differ?

    Jesus illustrates his point with a servant’s dishonest actions in order for it to be as relatable and easy to understand as possible to those of the working class. The steward serves his master, just like how Jesus’ followers should serve God, their master. The steward is not acting wisely but may believe he is acting righteously as well as acting prudently. He believes his actions are justified and acts cautiously to help his future self as much as he can since he would be unemployed soon. To act righteously is to act without guilt or sin and to act wisely is to act from experience and knowledge. 

Question 2: Why does the faithless servant partially forgive the debts of his master’s debtors? Why does the master commend him for doing so? Are the servant’s reasons for forgiving the debts the same ones for which Jesus praises him?

    The faithless servant partially forgives the debts of his master’s debtors while he still holds access to his master’s accounts in hopes of those debtors owing the servant later on with hospitality after being fired. The servant’s reasons for forgiving the debts are not the same ones for which Jesus praises him. The servant only forgave the debtors in exchange for something he wants later in the future, not because he believes in forgiveness being morally right. The servant acted in ways where there would be something to benefit him in the future.

Question 3: What ultimate point about material wealth is made in the Parable of the unjust Steward? What uses of wealth does the parable condemn? What uses of wealth does it encourage? What “true riches” does Jesus refer to in verse 11?

    The ultimate point about material wealth in the Parable of the Unjust Steward is that money shouldn’t buy relationships and that you cannot serve two gods, money and God. This parable emphasizes that humans should learn to use what God has given and entrusted to them in the best manner possible. This parable condemns using wealth in order to make deals with others. It also condemns cheating other’s out of their wealth. It encourages managing wealth honestly without letting it become a priority above God. In verse 11, Jesus refers to anything real and not a material wealth as “true riches”. For example, whatever god gifted you in terms of talents or qualities can be seen as “true riches”; it is not materialistic but yet has to be something that one has to use wisely. Another example is children; God entrusts you with his children, so if you cannot be trusted with material riches that do matter, you wouldn't be trusted with riches that matter like the youth.

Question 4: In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, why does Lazarus end up in heaven? How does earthly lifestyle relate to eternal destination? According to these two parables, which is the more spiritually admirable and rewarding earthly condition: wealth or poverty? 

    Lazarus ends up in heaven because he did not indulge in worldly pleasures like the rich man. He suffered in life with poverty and in return was rewarded with the pleasures of heaven. How you live your life will determine your eternal destination. If one lives a faithful life and focuses on faith and God as much as possible, they will end up in heaven. If one lives a life where they are distracted by materialistic items and do not live out their faith in God, they will most likely not end up in heaven. According to these two parables, it is more spiritually admirable and rewarding to live in poverty since Lazarus was the only one that made it to heaven while the rest either were preoccupied with their riches or cheating people out of their money in exchange for their wants or needs to be fulfilled by others. 

Dorothea Lange “Migrant Mother” (Page 568)

Question 1: What does the woman in Dorothea Lange’s photograph appear to be looking at? What is she looking away from? What might the direction of her gaze communicate about her state of mind?

    The woman in Dorothea Lange’s photograph appears to be looking at the surrounding fields, most likely pea fields since the photograph became known as “Destitute pea pickers in California”. She is looking away from the camera. The direction of her gaze portrays her worry about her work, family and future. She does hard labor in the fields aiming to keep her family fed and supported. She appears to look worried about the future because of the impacts that the great depression had on her family. She lives in poverty and hopes to make herself and her family to the next meal, to the next day.

Question 2: Why do you think the two older children in the picture have their faces turned away from the camera? What effect might the photographer herself have had on the picture?

    I think that the two older children have their faces turned away to keep their identity a secret since they are minors but also out of fear or embarrassment for the circumstances they live in. They rely on their mother heavily and lean on her physically and metaphorically. This also shows their tiredness of the fields. The photographer’s effect on the picture was showing the poverty and effects of the great depression on families in order to support the Farm Security Administration which would help families, like the woman pictured, who were affected by the great depression.

Question 3: From what is visible in the picture, what can you tell about the baby that the mother is holding?

    From what is pictured, the baby that the mother is holding appears to have a dirty face, so the farm workers most likely did not have access to keeping themselves clean. The baby also seems to be asleep in the mother’s arm and is probably cold since it is wearing a coat.

Joseph Stiglitz “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society” (Page 594)

Question 1: What does Stiglitz see as the government's role in creating economic inequality? How can the government address the problems that arise from this equality?

    Stiglitz believes that the government’s role in creating economic inequality was the lack of regulating economic activity. In short, the government should restrict or do what it can in order for there not to be a top 1% or inequality in society when it comes to wealth. The government can address the problems that arise from this equality by regulating market forces or creating economic laws that help the majority to be equal on some level.

Question 2: How do differences in power lead to differences in economic opportunity? How, according to Stiglitz, do people who have power use that power to tilt the economic playing field to their advantage?

    If you have a significant amount of power, economic laws can work in your favor. If you do not have much power, the economic laws and market will hurt your economic opportunity. So the rich get richer and the poor suffer. Those who hold power can create economic opportunities for themselves by manipulating economic laws to fit their agenda in any way that it could benefit them. 

Question 3: What does Stiglitz mean by “marginal productivity theory”? To what extent does this theory hold true in our society?

    Marginal Productivity Theory means that those who had a non-generic skill were of more value because they could contribute in niche ways, so they deserved a larger income for the rarity of their skill. Whereas, someone who could do what everyone else could do wouldn't have a greater income since they could be easily replaced. This theory holds true in our society because people go to college to get degrees in niche subjects, which leads to a greater income. For example, someone who graduates and specializes as an anesthesiologist would have a much larger income because their skill is not something that is acquired by many people in comparison to an entry level job where anyone could fulfill those requirements.

Question 4: What is the difference between “wealth transfer” and “wealth creation”? Which one leads to greater degree of economic inequality?

    Wealth transfer is when one takes wealth that was created by another away from another and wealth creation means that someone created their wealth from the bottom to the top. Wealth transfer leads to a greater degree of economic inequality because in the process of wealth being taken away, wealth itself gets destroyed because then the value of products gets messed up.

Question 5: How does Stiglitz define “rent seeking”? What are some examples of ways that government actions allow some people to generate revenue without expending any labor or assuming any costs?

    Stiglitz defines “rent seeking” as any one who has an income without doing any work. Some examples of this include obtaining land with oil at below market prices in which you could sell the oil for income without having to do labor. Selling government products for more than they are valued at is also a form of rent seeking, as well as, banks acting out predatory lending on uninformed customers. A more simple way of obtaining an income without doing labor is being a landlord in which you charge tenants rent.

Question 6: What kinds of innovations tend to produce the greatest wealth? What kinds tend to produce the wealthiest people? Are they the same? Why or why not?

    The geniuses at business are those who exploit market power and manipulate economic laws to their advantage in order to produce the greatest wealth. Lawyers tend to produce the wealthiest people since they are able to manipulate the law and find loopholes for their rich clients to maintain and expand their riches. They can help the rich avoid heavy taxation so they remain the rich and top 1%. Lawyers and geniuses at business are the same because lawyers find loopholes for their client’s businesses and get paid for it by their rich genius clients. Those genius businessmen most likely obtained the already well established business from someone else so they found loopholes to get what they want as easily as they could. Both kinds of innovators use the market and economic law in order to benefit from it and remain at the top.

William Hogarth “Gin Lane” (Page 548)

Question 3: How are children generally treated in Gin Lane? What might Hogarth be suggesting by these portrayals?

    The children in Gin Lane are generally being mistreated. One child is seen being disregarded as its mother chooses to hold her gin snuff, so the helpless child is falling over the ledge. This shows what the mother’s priorities are, which isn’t her child when it should be. By this portrayal, Hogarth is suggesting that gin clouds one’s judgment and causes one to be addicted to the point where they neglect their dependents specifically. Another child is shown with its mother forcing gin down the child’s throat. This act would get the child drunk and alcohol is not meant for kids since it’ll negatively impact their cognitive development. Hogarth shows the lack of care from the mother to the child and it’s well being. The mother does not care if the gin will stunt their child. There is another child on the ground watching his mother being put into a coffin. With this imagery, Hogarth is showing that gin kills people and those deaths affect others who were close to the deceased. The child now has to grow up motherless since gin took their mother to the grave. One last child is impaled and being waved around by a man. Hogarth is portraying that gin affects the children the most. Gin kills the youth either physically or metaphorically. The act that the man is parading around with the impaled child shows that it is known how the children are affected yet is being brushed off as if it isn’t of importance. With this painting, Hogarth is trying to stress the dangers of gin and also how it affects the youth the most in order to appeal to the emotions and compassion of parents who want to look out for their children.

My dad felt it was his duty to migrate his family to the United States in search of better opportunities for his children. Due to financial issues, he came to the United States with my mom and started his own small company. He worked with his small village of employees during the week to maintain a profitable company and went to church with my mom on Sundays to maintain a good conscience and morals. My dad is a man of God, believes lying is morally wrong, and that money does not justify morally wrong behavior. This ideology set the standard that my dad would raise his kids well under regarding work ethic. My dad believes that genuine hard work will always get anyone to where they want to go. His definition of “genuine hard work” includes creating wealth righteously and never giving up on reaching a goal. He also believes in pushing his children to have the most success they can because with the stepping stone he set, his kids should surpass his successes. My siblings and I grew up with this as the basis for our favorable work ethic. We strived to be well-rounded individuals who had faith in a God and were committed to doing genuine hard work to achieve what our parents never could. Religious and economic circumstances determine a favorable work ethic. 
Firstly, religion is one of the earliest aspects of circumstances that encouraged a specific type of work ethic that would be favorable to most due to the popularity of religion throughout history. Since religion, specifically Christianity and Catholicism, was popular amongst most of society, it had leverage to impact their many followers in any way they wanted to. Christianity and Catholicism had parables in the bible to teach lessons and morals to believers, morals which in turn would affect a person’s work ethic. A strong example of religion encouraging an unfavorable work ethic is within the “Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus” from the Book of Luke in the New Testament. In this parable, the lesson to readers is not to worship money or be consumed with materialistic wants like the rich man did because that is how someone will end up in hell. Instead, to get to heaven, focus on only faith in God and stay in the conditions set. This is implied within the verse, “But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.” (New Testament). This parable shows two extremes regarding wealth and the difference between having and not having a work ethic. Although the main message is to worship God, not money, this parable still encourages an unfavorable work ethic. It shows Lazarus is okay with staying in his poor circumstances when he could have some motivation to seek a better way of life while still maintaining his faith in God. This parable dismisses the idea of having a balance of being well off in terms of money and faith simultaneously. At the very least, balancing these extremes would encourage a more favorable work ethic than just committing to the extreme. 
In contrast, in the “Parable of the Unjust Steward” from the Book of Luke in the New Testament, religion encourages a favorable work ethic by shaming the act of cheating people out of their wealth. “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” is the verse that projects the lesson to be learned (New Testament). The main message of this parable is that one should not take the wealth that is not rightfully theirs to take and that one should be trustworthy with worldly goods that are God-given. Jesus is teaching that lying is a sin and that if his followers cannot be trusted with materialistic goods that do not matter, they cannot be trusted with what matters. Regardless, the shrewd steward made poor financial decisions since he had to forgive debts by cheating his master out of his wealth to gain favors. The shrewd steward hoped to make “friends,” implied, “And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” (New Testament). The verse is trying to teach that one should not forge friendships based on money because then there is a risk of uncertainty. However, though this steward is doing many sinful acts, his work ethic is that of a hustler. A hustler can arguably be a good work ethic because this is a person who is looking out for themselves so that they may advance in life to be considered successful. Having a good work ethic is to have a goal to work towards by just means if possible.
Additionally, economic circumstances play a huge role in determining the work ethic of many, and specific aspects of it can influence whether it will be a favorable work ethic that results for each person. In Joseph Stiglitz’s “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society,” he mentions how skill affects the economic circumstance of a person, “marginal productivity theory,” to support his argument about inequality within society (Stiglitz 596). “If someone has a scarce and valuable skill, the market will reward him amply, because of his greater contribution to output. If he has no skills, his income will be low,” is how Stiglitz explained this theory which is still prevalent in society today (Stiglitz 596). This theory encourages a favorable work ethic because it calls for competition and motivates society. The average person would want a more significant income if possible, so they would provide society with a scarce or niche skill so that they may enjoy benefits like wealth and security. This societal expectation reminds the ordinary worker who does not have a niche skill that they do not have a secure job because they can be replaced with other average people who also acquire basic working skills. Stiglitz also wrote about how “rent-seeking” encourages inequality in society since some are profiting from doing no physical labor. “Not all rent-seeking uses government to extract money from ordinary citizens. The private sector can excel on its own, extracting rents from the public, for instance, through monopolistic practices and exploiting those who are less informed and educated, exemplified by the banks’ predatory lending.” Stiglitz mentions the example of “extracting rent from the public” (Stiglitz 599). The example of charging rent for one to live in a space shows an unfavorable work ethic in terms of it being morally unjust since the lesser is being taken advantage of. However, it also encourages a favorable work ethic because of efficiency in which one could be dedicating their energy to labor while maintaining that side income where no work is needed. Overall, with rent-seeking, the one with leverage is the only one who benefits, not the latter. Stiglitz also says that “there are two ways to become wealthy: to create wealth or to take wealth away from others. The former adds to society. The latter typically subtracts from it, for in the process of taking it away, wealth gets destroyed” (Stiglitz 597). wealth that would be most beneficial should be created, in Stiglitz’s case being “creating wealth.” Stealing wealth does not benefit many, which both Stiglitz and religion can agree on since it is morally dishonest and could harm the economy. 
Society indirectly appreciates that when these two aspects collide, it results in a beneficial and favorable work ethic for many. This is best shown through Michael Novak’s “How Christianity Created Capitalism,” in which he gives several examples to prove how religion affected the economy significantly. Novak includes a quote from historian Randall Collins stating that “It was the church more than any other agency that put in place what Weber called the preconditions of capitalism: the rule of law and a bureaucracy for resolving disputes rationally; a specialized and mobile labor force; the institutional permanence that allows for transgenerational investment and sustained intellectual and physical efforts, together with the accumulation of long-term capital; and a zest for discovery, enterprise, wealth creation, and new undertakings.” (Novak). Novak includes this example that states that religion was able to set conditions with the economy to encourage many religious followers to strive to succeed and benefit in capitalist society through wealth creation, like how Stiglitz mentioned. Another concrete example of how both religion and economic circumstances work together to benefit society overall is the Cistercians. Novak informs that the Cistercians “became famous as entrepreneurs” through their strict lifestyle and faith in their religion (Novak). The Cistercians successfully removed all sinful distractions and successfully learned to maneuver the economy to create economic opportunities for themselves. This favorable work ethic revolves around using intellect to be knowledgeable on economic matters to be as successful as possible in society without taking advantage of the less fortunate or being dishonest to gain leverage. The Cistercians focused on efficiency as well, “Being few in number, the Cistercians needed labor-saving devices” (Novak). This encouraged good work ethic to be resourceful and motivated to find efficient methods to obtain revenue, even though less physical labor would be present with machines. Novak effectively uses the Cistercians as an example to show how religion impacted the economy. 
In brief, religion and economic circumstances will determine whether one will have a favorable work ethic, even though there is a gray area where favorable and unfavorable subjectively overlap. A favorable work ethic allows one to do well and not just lie helpless in poverty as Lazarus did. It is also most favorable when wealth is created, not robbed, because then no one will be cheated out of what is theirs, as well as to maintain the security of a healthier-than-usual economical society. Within the gray area, however, lies being efficient by having multiple incomes through doing nothing physically at the expense of the less fortunate, which would affect one’s morality. Nevertheless, there is a way to be as efficient as possible without risk to one’s morality, as shown through the Cistercians, which could eliminate that gray area for a favorable work ethic for all. Overall, a good work ethic is needed. If society did not have anyone with a favorable work ethic, then society would consist of monopolistic, tyranist, unjust folk as well as vengeful and unmotivated citizens.

Work Cited

Austin, Michael. Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 3rd ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.PDF. 

Luke. “New Testament: Chapter 16”

Novak, Michael. “How Christianity Created Capitalism.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & 

Company, 23 Dec. 1999, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB945912385717198338. 

Stiglitz, Joseph. “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society”

Both my maternal and paternal grandparents were affected by the Mexican Revolution, as were my parents and me. None of us were alive during the Mexican Revolution; however, my grandparents’ parents were. My great-grandparents lived through the Mexican Revolution and ended up traumatized by this event. They could not be the ideal parents my grandparents needed because they never had the opportunity to process their trauma so that it would not have affected other people. So, my grandparents missed out on loving parents and were left with soldiers who wanted to raise soldiers. My grandparents then lived as soldiers, never showing weakness or emotion and fighting every battle alone. My grandparents raised little soldiers as well, who then raised me. My most recent family lineage lacked a healthy example of being in touch with emotions and showing love or affection. One historical event affected not just those who lived through the event but every generation that came after that. Many historical events indirectly affected those who were not even alive during the event. For example, the Holocaust is one of the most significant known tragedies that led to the genocide of Jewish people. Adolf Hitler, the leader of the German Nazi party, orchestrated to have approximately six million Jewish people murdered. Hitler also orchestrated the ruining of every Jewish generation that came after this event. The Holocaust negatively affected the Jewish victims, the world at that time, and every generation that came after a Holocaust survivor. 
Many works about the Holocaust often show the aftereffects on those who did not even experience the event personally. Art Spiegleman’s Maus I: A Survivor’s Tale is an example of an art piece that tells the story of the Holocaust and includes its aftereffects. In Maus, Spiegelman tells the story of his father surviving the Holocaust in comic book form. He switches from the present scenes to past scenes in order to show his father from multiple perspectives. Spiegleman shows the aftereffects of the Holocaust on his father, who lived the Holocaust, and himself, the offspring of a Holocaust survivor, in the present scenes specifically. With Vladek, Art Spiegleman’s father, the aftereffects of the Holocaust consisted of health issues, behavioral issues, and trauma. His father developed diabetes and is seen on multiple occasions counting his pills and emphasizing being healthy. Vladek is counting his pills and then says, “For my condition I must fight to save myself” ( I, 26). This not only shows that his health deteriorated after the Holocaust but also that he is still in the mentality of being a fighter, a survivor. A child in this environment would also develop the mentality of only looking out for themselves. This mentality would alienate a child because his father is only looking out for himself and his wife; hence the relationship between Vladek and Spiegleman feels distant. 
Additionally, Vladek’s other behavior consists of being stingy and trying to hoard as much of his money as he can. For example, Vladek is attempting to return an opened cereal box because he wants his money’s worth and does not want to waste food ( I, 89). The hunting of the Jews and the concentration camps made Vladek value food and money more because it was limited, and he had to worry about trading valuables for his next meal. This mentality carried on to his family’s life, where Spiegelman had to be mindful of finishing his plate of food. Another instance would be saving his money because Vladek would hint that during the Holocaust, he had no food or money to make Art feel guilty for not valuing food or money. Vladek shaming Art for spending money is evident when he says, “You and Mala, you don’t know or make money, only to make it disappear” ( II, 102). This behavior is standard for people who experience the trauma of everything wrongfully being taken away from them. There was no valid reason justifiable for Jewish people to be robbed of their belongings and their lives.
Furthermore, one specific example that predominantly highlights how Art Spiegleman was affected by the Holocaust is in the comic he wrote about his mother called “Prisoner on the Hell Planet.””” Art Spiegelman depicts himself in striped pajamas, like the type of pajamas used in the Holocaust, which shows that what he was going through was similar to what a Jew experienced during the Holocaust (Maus I, 100). This detail also could imply that the Holocaust was such a significant factor in his life that he felt he also experienced what his parents experienced. This comic was about Spiegleman’s mother, who was heavily affected by the Holocaust, and her suicide. In this comic, Spiegelman shows his guilt and belief that he was at fault for his mother’s death. The first two comic book squares include the thought that Speigleman had, being: ‘They think it’s my fault!!’, in regards to the cause of his mother’s death, and includes other thoughts like “menopausal, depression, Hitler did it!, Mommy, Bitch” ( I, 103). The audience can infer from this comic strip that Spiegelman blames himself for the death of his mother but also blames Hitler, menopause, and depression. Also, the phrases’ mommy’ and ‘bitch’ contradict each other and show that Speigleman was fond of his mother but that he also resented her because her trauma from the Holocaust debilitated her quality of being a good mother. So, through the trickle-down effect, the Holocaust affected Spiegleman’s parents, who then affected him to the point where he had to find professional help, an act his parents never could do.
So, even though Art Spiegleman did not live through the Holocaust, he was still affected heavily by it. At the beginning of chapter two of Maus II, Spiegleman shows how immersing himself in his father’s story and writing it affected him. He spiraled down into a mental breakdown after the passing of his father and included sayings like, “I can’t believe I’m gonna be a father in a couple of months. My father’s ghost still hangs over me … Artie, baby. Check out this licensing deal. You get 50% of the profits. We’ll make a million. Your dad would be proud!” while making himself smaller in each frame ( II, 42). He also drew his human body form wearing a mouse mask, implying that he spent so much time on this story of the Holocaust that he is struggling to differentiate his reality from his work (Maus II, 42). After this mental breakdown scene, Art Spiegleman goes to his therapist, where Spiegleman’s survivor’s guilt is prevalent. 
When Art Spiegelman goes to his therapy session, he mentions, “Mainly I remember arguing with him… And being told that I couldn’t do anything as well as he could,”. His therapist responds, “And now that you’re becoming successful, you feel bad about proving your father wrong” ( II, 44). Spiegleman acknowledges how his father belittled him and made him feel bad because he would never know what it felt like to survive the Holocaust; he lives with survivor’s guilt. His therapist also asks Art Spiegleman, “Then you think it’s admirable to survive. Does that mean it’s not admirable to survive?” ( II, 45). He asks this to help Spiegleman realize that he has been invalidating the idea of surviving just as his father had invalidated his feelings about how horrible his life was. Art Spiegelman never felt safe to feel anything within his family, but at least he was safer than any Jew during the Holocaust.
Overall, Art Spiegelman is a survivor of the Holocaust. He was affected by the Holocaust because it debilitated him from being a mentally stable human being. The Holocaust gave him survivor’s guilt and made him ignorant of the aftereffects on his father until Spiegleman realized his errors. So, throughout this novel, it was clear what was right, helping the Jewish survive, and what was wrong, the Jewish being wrongfully targeted by the Germans. Nevertheless, in terms of Art Spiegleman and his father, they differ in morals. Due to the Holocaust, Vladek believes he can do what he wants even if it is socially thought of as wrong, like returning opened food. Due to the Holocaust, Art Spiegleman believes he is morally right in most cases with his father since the Holocaust clouded his father’s judgment. So because Spiegleman believes he is right, he invalidates his father’s experience while simultaneously trying to share and glorify his father’s story. As a result, the relationship between Vladek and his son was messy. The Holocaust was messy. So, Art Spiegleman as a person was also messy, and through the trickle-down effect, the Holocaust led to his metaphorical ruining. The Holocaust would also affect any of Spiegleman’s offspring unless Spiegleman, himself, broke this effect. This event affected over six million Jews. The Holocaust affects every generation after that; Spiegleman is proof of that. 

Works cited

Spiegelman, Art. Maus: A Survivor’s Tale I: My Father Bleeds History. Penguin Books, 1987.

Spiegelman, Art. Maus: A Survivor’s Tale II: A Survivor's Tale II: and Here My Troubles Began. 

Bt Bound, 1992.

The Darwinian evolutionary theory of “survival of the fittest'', wars that have happened throughout history, and family dynamics, all display competition and partnership. Competition is a natural event that happens between humans and it dictated the life of Willy and his family which led them to their collapse. In Arthur Miller’s, Death of a Salesman, he shows a sufficient amount of competition being present through his characters’ family dynamics, economic state, and states of mind. Within Willy’s family dynamic, there is a partnership between the parents where Linda, the wife, is on the same page as her husband, Willy. There is also the partnership between the brothers who are there for each other to support one another as well as to potentially go into business together to combat their family's economic state. Nevertheless, this partnership of brotherhood also was affected by competition in which Happy, the younger son, competed with his older brother, Biff, for their parent's attention and approval. This unhealthy competition is seen in Act one during one of Willy’s hallucinations where Happy was trying to win the attention of his father, meanwhile, Biff was effortlessly receiving that attention, by saying, “I’m losing weight, you notice, pop?”, as he is on his back pedaling (Act 1). Miller shows how competition negatively impacts individuals since Happy ended up becoming a cad who sought female attention and never seems fulfilled in life since he never got the attention he craved from his parents. Also, the concept of employment and unemployment which is based on competition and partnerships is one great factor that affects Willy and his family. All the men of this family are competing in the world to advance financially and in turn, the rejection and failures affect their economic status as well as their mental health. This is seen in Act Two when Biff is talking to Happy about what happened with Oliver and how he could not get him to invest in the Loman partnership. Biff says, “He walked away. I saw him for one minute. I got so mad I could've torn the walls down! How the hell did I ever get the idea I was a salesman there? I even believed myself that I'd been a salesman for him! And then he gave me one look and I realized what a ridiculous lie my whole life has been! We've been talking in a dream for fifteen years. I was a shipping clerk”(Act 2). This shows how Biff’s mental health was affected by his economic failures as well as shows how the struggle and competition to advance financially takes a huge toll on a person. Willy is also affected in this same way since he is struggling to make money and compete with other salesmen in the economic world to provide for his wife and family. Willy’s well being suffered significantly because of competition. Competition can ruin lives if you are on the unwanted receiving end.

One prominent archetype used in this play as well as is seen in the lives of many in society is the stereotype of the “golden child”. The golden child is known as the child who can do no wrong in the eyes of a parent. They are the favorite child and this leaves competition to be had since the other children will want to compete for this spot. The use of the golden child, Biff, is a good portrayal of how self-sabotage can heavily affect relationships. From this play, I relate to Happy with the act of trying to gain the attention and praise of a parent since growing up my sister was the golden child, like Biff. I was the overlooked or forgotten child who sought to make my parents proud, like Happy, but never was triumphant. This type of relationship personally harmed my relationship with myself, my sibling, and my parents, and I had yet to see the extent of the damage that was actually present. So, this play showed the overall effects of competition between siblings,and in a way gave me a reality check to be able to make different choices. To address the second half of this theme which is partnership, I learned that I can work well with others than I typically would in the past. I am the type to want to work alone but in this scene assignment, I was able to prove to myself that I can work with others. Finally, this assignment challenged the creative aspect which is something I usually would struggle with. I was learning to prioritize what was most important to put out within one scene or so as well as brainstorming with my group. This assignment also influenced me to challenge myself to come up with ideas that could potentially set my group’s project apart from the others. I enjoyed that this assignment encouraged creativity and the ability to be concise, which are good skills to have in the real world.

Response to Compare and Contrast Essay with "Death of a Salesman" and "Dutchman"

This past Thanksgiving break I dedicated Sunday night to this class as well as the time slot of this class. The rest of my time was dedicated to being with my family and relaxing from school work. That Sunday night I fell asleep from exhaustion from traveling and woke up around 1am and drank too much coffee. I worked on the rough draft for three hours straight and was very motivated/inspired while writing. The most difficult part of my writing process was just deciding what I wanted to compare and contrast. Once I chose my topic I assessed if I could talk about said topic for an entire essay as needed to. Then I structured my essay so that I would have good flow. I struggled with my introduction paragraph the most because it is always difficult to get started and get the ball rolling. After I got past that writing block I was typing away till I met the word limit. It is obvious my time management is not the best but regardless, the assignment will always get done with maximum effort that I can produce too. I tend to work better at night regardless so I don’t think I would ever work on an essay during the day. My best work is done at night. The strike did not affect my writing process nor did my family obligations because I am able to compartmentalize my tasks. As for finishing this essay for the final draft, I struggled to sit myself down and finish. Realistically what could have taken me two hours, was dragged out to six hours by my doing. In other words, writing the essay was not a struggle because I knew what I wanted to write and how I wanted to express my thoughts; sitting down and having that self control was the struggle with this essay. The only other struggle was figuring out how to cite quotes and the plays but overall, I did my best with what I knew I could do. 

Response to Work Ethic Essay 

This essay was a particular difficult task to complete since there was so much material to read and comprehend before being able to write anything. I struggled the most and spent the most time on reading and understanding “from Leviathan”  by Thomas Hobbes. I am particularly proud at how much dedication and effort I had with making sure I understood this text specifically. A lot of the text we had to read for this assignment appeared to be challenging but once we overcame them, as a class, my knowledge feels richer now having these texts in my library. I’ve grown an appreciation for this type of selection of writing. Since I had this appreciation, I was inspired to write passionately about the topic of work ethic. One of the more difficult aspects of this topic for me was finding a thesis that resonated with me the most since I needed to take a stance as opposed to just analyzing like how I am used to doing. I was able to form my own opinion and structure my essay. I personally believe that a lot of my strengths in terms of writing lies in structure and obtaining a certain flow throughout my essays. I also utilized this essay to bring in a personal element by talking about my personal life and mentioning where my passion for this topic originates from. I particularly enjoyed this essay mostly because I was passionate, as well as interested, about the topic and I felt I was writing a more sophisticated paper than I would typically be accustomed to doing. 

Response to Maus

Self reflection on Maus Essay: I struggled heavily with the first essay. I’ve written about the topic many times before in highschool and felt I couldn’t come up with anything original that I felt inspired to write about. It felt like writer’s block I suppose. So, I ended up pushing it off and doing any and all other hw that wasn’t this essay. I lost time doing this and also lost time just thinking for hours about what to write about that I felt drawn to. I ended up restarting from the beginning at the last minute and it was very stressful to say the least. It was not my proudest work whatsoever because I know I could have turned in something way better that I would have shown off if I could. I’m glad I was able to turn something in of value but if I could do it over again, I would do it differently. I’m very surprised at the grade I received. I had all the necessary details of an essay but my flow could have been better and I wish I had more passion for what I was writing because that passion shines through. If I was back in highschool, I feel I would have received a much lower grade. I’m grateful that I revived the grade that I did but it messes with my mind how the expectations on writers differ from my personal highschool experience to college. So, the topic troubled me greatly, but I did not give up. I could have done better.