Opinion of The Plague (The Plague 2)

Well thanks Camus for your slow paced, death abundant, depressing, and unenticing read. But what do I expect from a book about the Black Death, peace and flowers? Nah, I knew what I was getting into, but I didn't understand why the read was so boring this time around. I enjoyed the stranger, I enjoy philosophy, but I dread the Plague for some reason. To fully absorb the context of each page I'd have to reread it. It felt like half-ass reading to me because everything between the lines was full of boredom and depression. Text that was irrelevant and characters though you tried to make them interesting, had nothing to them because they were all effected by the Plague nearly the same. Besides Cottard who enjoyed his freedom of not being imprisoned.

I didn't hate the story, I didn't hate the book, I just plainly hated the read and the non-relating text within the read. Maybe I have bad taste, sorry Camus. But unlike the Stranger my attention span for absorbing the text was 5 pages every time I picked up the book.

What I did like was the realistic view of how people would react at first to such an epidemic. Shock > Denial > Panic > Abandon Hope > Blow all their expenses > Live the final days of their life to the best it can be.

I think that is as realistic as it can get, and when something like the Plague occurs, it's only instinct to run and isolate rather than stand and fight, which I think from the beginning would have saved all those people. Also in every plague book there's gotta be someone like Paneloux who blames it on God and his smiting on the sinners in the world. Yes, I know it happened in real life and people believed it, but it really was an ignorant claim that God is punishing all for the sins of some. I also think that the fact that Camus had to state that there was a Christian boy who died made Paneloux's views invalid was unnecessary because the people should see the absurdity in his claims from the start.

Is Man An Idea? (The Plague 1)

Rambert states "man is an idea if he is incapable of love."

I think all man are capable of loving. Therefore, I'm siding with Rieux in that man is not an idea. We see humanity, 6.974 billion people living in the world as of 2011, and if death passed through majority of that number, would one fight for those people or the idea of a person's right to living in the world. I for one would choose to fight for the people who currently live here and not the idea that we should be living because I still have yet to know that.

Rambert says Tarrou is incapable of dying for an idea. Taking man being an idea out of the picture, I think any true man can die for the ones he loves. Tarrou can definitely die for people he cares about, more so than any other man on the street can fight against the plague for the "greater good" of humanity. If everyone came together, not fighting for the idea of man that doesn't exist, and fought for the brothers and sisters around them, wouldn't there have been a chance to combat the illness? So is man an idea? Yes. But is that idea worth fighting for? No. The people who are close to you, and take part in making that idea a whole are the ones worth fighting for.

Open Letter to Parents

Parenting is hard, I think we get to see that come around fifteen years of growing up and seeing the stupid things we've done in the past. But as a parent one has to just let it go, we're kids and we learn from our mistakes. Not everything can be taught solely from listening and following you, we just want to be our own person and learn from that. So don't make us do anything we don't want to do, push us in the directions you want, and if we like it so be it. Don't force those vegetables down our throats, that's what the Gummy Flinstone vitamins are for. Punishment is okay for drugs, grades, and alcohol, but don't punish your kids over stuff you couldn't do as a child. That excuse is ridiculous and times have changed, it's time to let go, kids should be able to sleep over their best friends' houses, and they should also be allowed to go out once in a while with friends if they really hadn't done anything wrong.

To my parents, I've been on the lucky end of the stick, I think. Everything you've done to or for me helped me be my own person, you didn't push too hard, but just enough. Mom has let me be responsible and make many of my own choices. Dad you've been hard on me my whole childhood, from schools to sports to health, and its paid off, I know now why you did it and it made me better in the end. So you guys did your job, I turned out okay I guess.

As long as your child does their work in school, does what they like to do, and stays out of trouble, what other means is there to parent them on? To all the parents who's kids fit those 3 things, I think you've succeeded your job in being a parent. Thanks.

Civics

Dogs really are a man's best friend. But to not pick up after your dog's crap in the grass in the park or in the middle of the damn sidewalk is wrong. There are civic duties people are entitled to. Not picking up after your dog is one of them that annoys me the most when one is ignorant not to do a simple task owning a dog requires you to do. Nobody wants to clean up after you or your dog so why make them do it? Take for example you or your child are in a restaurant or public place, hell a Starbucks. And one of you throws up all over the place. Is the owner/barista really expected to clean that up after you? Nobody really wants to, and not picking up your dog's sh!t is the equivalence of just getting up and leaving that Starbucks after soiling it with the remnants of last night's dinner.

There are duties that are expected of the ordinary person. Like chores that our parents give us. I think that shows us as kids that there are certain duties that we have to do. Now instead of within the household there are duties to society to just be a decent human being and pick up after your dog.

Is Poverty A Choice

Some people cannot choose whether they are in poverty or not. Being born into it or living in an area that is stricken by it are examples of not being able to choose. But the idea of the choice to remain in poverty is in the person's freedom. I believe anyone can get out of poverty if they try. Although some areas can be typically a lot harder, ex: Southie. I think it is not entirely their fault that they are in that state of poverty.

Like the Phillipines, still stricken with poverty because the U.S Government deemed they were unfit to run their country by themselves after fighting against Spain for their independence.Because of outside factors, they remain in poverty and are struggling to better their economy. There are people that rose out of that poverty but it is their will and determination to do so. I believe being homeless is a choice. If they are unable to take the money they receive from begging and find a job, they choose to just keep begging. It is their inability to get out of poverty and that is why poverty is a choice. 

Integration:Separation

The U.S is known for being an integrated country, and "because their government is just and as there is nothing to render them wretched, there is nothing to engender riots and tumults." (Rights of Man, Paine) This quote was made prior to the civil war, and so this defines England's perspective in particular of the United States. Have we ever met those standards that Thomas Paine held to us? I think not. Although we are integrated racism still exists. Would it have been better to be separated instead of segregated? Maybe we would've saved the feelings of a lot of people, but it would have been a lot harder to make the transition to integration if we were separated to start with. Racism can't be stopped in society, because it is taken into account with everything we do with others. Stereotypes advertised all throughout media, are taken seriously even by professionals. Chicago is a more racist city than we know. Beatings and violence over domestic disputes can be considered acts of racism when we look at it. One can see it as being at the wrong place at the wrong time but the majority will tend to look at the situation oh a gang of (so & so race) beat up a couple kids of (so & so race) in the North or the South side. As long as their are two different races there will be people who see it as a racial dispute and wrongful act of violence.

Integration is a decision for most people. I believe that the people who fear integration should move to their homeland and be ignorant there. If they have the nerve to go to America and complain about integration its just sad because America isn't 'theirs'. That is why racism is so frowned upon. America has always been seen as the well diverse country that doesn't care about color or religion. Yet there are still people here that enforce that there should be separation. Which just outright disgusts me.

Malcolm X

"I believe one should forgive the person or persons who have committed atrocities against oneself and mankind. But this does no necessarily mean one should forget about the atrocities committed." (The Dalai Lama)

I don't think I'm in any position to speak about racism in general for others, because I have never gone through it. I can say however that it does exist still today, although it's light. Racism is still there, amongst our friends, family, and complete strangers. Can we really help it? Can we stop it? I don't know the solution to that but Malcolm X did a phenomenal job in showing the wrongdoings him and his brethren had faced due to it. 

The first 12 chapters of his autobiography leading to him being imprisoned was depressing. How his father was murdered, family separated, and the life he was forced to lead because of it. Personally I wouldn't know what to do when faced with racism. I'd probably feel anger. But there would be this question in my mind, constantly, "why?".

Malcolm X is more than justified for his actions through everything he's been through. Throughout the reading, it was just frustrating how the people would be so immoral to oppress him and his people. He has the right to call his enemy the devil, he has the right to use violence but instead doesn't. His attempts at resolving these conflicts were intelligent, rallying people to his side with ethos, logos and pathos.