Why Pair the "Story of an Hour" and "A Doll's House"?

I think these two stories have many similarities. First of all, Ibsen and Chopin wrote both of these stories during the Victorian era where piety and women's duty to a man were societal norms. Both of these stories go against that with social realism. In a Doll's House, the people talk about blackmail and forgery committed by a woman. Nora, the protagonist, even considers leaving her family or committing suicide. These would not have been talked about in that day and age. Also, in the Story of an Hour, Mrs. Mallard is relieved when she finds out her husband has died. This would have been very controversial because women were supposed to love their husbands and want nothing more than marriage. However, her case brings to light the limited freedoms women had being married in the Victorian era. Both of these stories have the theme of social realism which brings to the stage things people would not talk about. Nora and Mrs. Mallard are also very comparable because they both want individual freedoms and not be controlled by men. Mrs. Mallard wants to live here life to the fullest without a husband when she hears of his death, but is shocked and dies due to shock when she hears he is still alive. Nora wants to do things on her own and not rely on Helmer. She hates the fact that she owes Krogstad money. Both these tales detail how very little liberty women had in the Victorian era and they make people think about topics that are not openly discussed. 

Taboo

I believe there are many taboos that exist in our culture these days. Some current taboos, or things one does not simply talk about, are money dealings, racism, smoking, and pornography. For these, many people still talk about them and do them, but they are not that present. People don't talk about each other's dealings with money, especially if it's a little shady. You don't ask someone how much something was or how much they make. It's interesting because money dealings have been taboo for a long time now. A while ago, it was scandalous for women to wear dresses and someone to be acquitted of money laundering. While one has changed, the latter is still true. People can talk about racism openly, it's just taboo to actually be and do racist things. It's also morally wrong, but there were times and places where doing racist things was ok. It's now taboo to smoke in public places, as you don't really see people doing that anymore. Porn is also something most people talk about. Most don't want to acknowledge that many young teenagers and kids watch it, but we know it's there. Taboos can go away over time as people can gain more exposure to them, but some are just morally irresponsible and should remain taboos such as racism. Taboos can be good because it can sometimes be a peer pressure to do the right things. Such as smoking, if society looks down up on it, less and less people are likely to do it. 

Worst Travel Experience

I've had some pretty bad travel experiences in my many years, but the most recent one that comes to mind that was pretty bad was flying back from India in December 2010. It was a really long flight, about 18 hours, from Dubai to Houston. I was sitting in the very last row and we were caught in the middle of a winter storm. It's always the worst being the back during turbulence. The first few hours were all right and the weather wasn't too bad. But then, I checked the little flight tracker on the monitor and saw that we were above the North Pole. Can't be good, I thought to myself. I felt a little turbulence and they passed out the dinner. Not a good choice there. The seatbelt sign went on and the captain told the flight attendants to take their seats. Now, usually it's alright during turbulence and the attendants are up and about. But when the captain asks them to sit down, you know things just got real. I felt the first bump. Whoah! Then it got worse. The plane was dipping down and the meals were flying everywhere. This continued for about half an hour and people were screaming. I looked outside and saw lightning crack and wind. I saw the wind! I felt extremely hot and just wanted it to be over. I thought this was the end. I was too young to die! After a while, after the plane got over mainland, things started to simmer down a little bit. There was less bumps and the plane was flying smoothly. I was still paranoid though that I would feel another huge dip. To this day, that trip has made a little timid of getting on long flights and very uneasy at the thought of turbulence. 

"The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of Lower Niger"

At the end of Things Fall Apart, the District Commissioner decides to write a book about his experiences in bringing 'civilization' to the 'barbaric' peoples. He names the book The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of Lower Niger. By using the word pacification, he believes the Africans are an angry people whose warlike ways must be quelled and stopped. When the word primitive is used, it is implied that these Africans are less than people and are savages. The commissioner shows no respect for Okonkwo's death, besides the fact it would make interesting reading for the people back home. And he also believes his story just makes up a small part of his larger tale. He believes a paragraph or so is sufficient enough to tell Okonkwo's story. Saying the District Commissioner is going to use this title for his book, Achebe portrays the colonizing forces in Africa in a bad light. He shows they are inconsiderate and uncaring for the mess Achebe believes the white man has created in Africa. They are only concerned with glory for themselves back home and how they pacified these primitive people, how Achebe thinks the white man believes they saved the barbarians. 

"America has a responsibility to all"

1. The American government should intervene in the protests against the oppressive regimes and help the protestors. The author believes America firmly stands for liberty and justice for all and it's their duties as the facilitators of that to help these people.
2. The author assumes that the United States is the police force of the world and it's their responsibility to stop this. He also assumes that the United States has done nothing to stop the atrocities of President Assad.
3. I accept that the United States stands for liberty and justice, but I don't believe they should police the world. I also need more factual evidence from the author on how the United States has done nothing to stop Assad. I don't believe the author should assume all readers will believe these premises because there are differing opinions against them. He also needs more evidence to support his argument. I agree with his premises, but I don't accept them.
4. I agree with the author's position to a certain degree. Because America views itself as a defender of peace, they should help the Syrian people achieve liberty. But America should not intervene to the level that is harmful or destructive. Obama should help them out, but the Syrian people should be able to decide what's best for their country. If Assad is being a tyrant, he should be removed and the masses can choose the course of direction. 

"Blood is for the animal, words are for the man."-Chelsea Wu

Men should not use violent means to carry out their actions, but instead use words and peaceful means.

The evil dictator of the Republic of Wadiya was ruling their country with an iron fist. His country had a horrible economy, social injustice, and an overall lack of liberty. His punishments to the people were nothing short of criminal. Two men headed a group, the Freedom Fighters, to overthrow the evil dictator. Their names were A. Smith and B. Smith. B. Smith wanted to overthrow the government by assembling an army and having a revolution against the evil dictator. A. Smith was re-known journalist and wrote anti-government literature. He believed in throwing over the government by nonviolent protest. When A heard of B's plans, he told him "Blood is for the animal, words are for the man."