Tag: history

  • Contagion of Fear: World War Z and the Collapse of Global Order: A College Essay Prompt

    Contagion of Fear: World War Z and the Collapse of Global Order: A College Essay Prompt

    Essay Prompt:

    In the film World War Z, the zombie apocalypse is more than a cinematic spectacle—it’s a fast-moving allegory for the collective anxieties plaguing our 21st-century world. As the undead swarm across borders and institutions collapse in real time, the movie confronts viewers with deep-rooted fears about globalization, pandemics, migration, misinformation, and the breakdown of social trust. The zombies are not just monsters—they are metaphors.

    This essay invites you to write a 1,700-word argumentative essay in which you analyze World War Z as a metaphor for mass anxiety. Using at least two of the research essays listed below, develop an argument that connects the film’s themes to contemporary global challenges such as:

    • The COVID-19 pandemic and fear of viral contagion
    • Global migration driven by war, poverty, and climate change
    • The dehumanization of “The Other” in politically polarized societies
    • The fragility of global cooperation in the face of crisis
    • The spread of weaponized misinformation and conspiracy

    Your thesis should not simply argue that World War Z is “about fear”—it should claim what kind of fear, why it matters, and what the film reveals about our modern condition. You may focus on one primary fear or compare multiple forms of crisis (e.g., pandemic vs. political polarization, or migration vs. misinformation).

    Use at least two of the following essays as research support:

    1. Jonathan Haidt, “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid” (The Atlantic)
      —A deep dive into how social media has fractured trust, created echo chambers, and undermined democratic cooperation.
    2. Ed Yong, “How the Pandemic Defeated America” (The Atlantic)
      —An autopsy of institutional failure and public distrust during COVID-19, including how the virus exposed deep structural weaknesses.
    3. Seyla Benhabib, “The Return of the Sovereign: Immigration and the Crisis of Globalization” (Project Syndicate)
      —Explores the backlash against global migration and the erosion of human rights amid rising nationalism.
    4. Zeynep Tufekci, “We’re Asking the Wrong Questions of Facebook” (The New York Times)
      —An analysis of how misinformation spreads virally, creating moral panics and damaging collective reasoning.

    Requirements:

    • Use MLA format
    • 1,700 words
    • Quote directly from World War Z (film dialogue, plot events, or visuals)
    • Integrate at least two sources above with citation
    • Present a counterargument and a rebuttal

    Here’s a 9-paragraph outline and three sample thesis statements to guide students toward deep, layered analysis of World War Z as metaphor.


    Three Sample Thesis Statements

    World War Z presents zombies not just as flesh-eating threats but as avatars of global panic—embodying fears of pandemics, mass migration, and social collapse. Through its globe-hopping narrative and relentless spread of infection, the film critiques a world increasingly unprepared to manage the fallout of interconnected crises, echoing Haidt’s concerns about fractured public trust and Yong’s analysis of institutional fragility.

    In World War Z, the zombie outbreak functions as a metaphor for weaponized misinformation and the breakdown of global cooperation, dramatizing how societies consumed by fear and tribalism respond not with solidarity, but with suspicion and violence. The film anticipates the moral failures detailed by Haidt and Tufekci, making it less about monsters than about our inability to face crisis without self-destructing.

    Far from a typical horror film, World War Z is a global parable of dehumanization and displacement, where zombies symbolize both contagious fear and the faceless masses of migration and poverty. As Benhabib argues, the return of nationalism and the fear of the “Other” has shattered international solidarity—anxiety the film visualizes through barricades, lockdowns, and apocalyptic border control.


    9-Paragraph Outline

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Hook: Use an arresting visual to frame our world’s current instability.
    • Context: Introduce World War Z as more than a thriller—it’s an allegory of global collapse.
    • Thesis: State your central argument about how the zombies symbolize a deeper, contemporary fear (e.g., pandemic panic, social polarization, migration anxiety, misinformation, etc.).

    Paragraph 2 – The Metaphorical Function of Zombies

    • Discuss the symbolic role of zombies in film generally (fear of the masses, disease, mindlessness).
    • Explain how World War Z updates the metaphor to reflect 21st-century global anxieties.

    Paragraph 3 – Global Crisis and Institutional Collapse

    • Analyze scenes showing governments falling apart, the UN being sidelined, the world reduced to reactive chaos.
    • Connect to Ed Yong’s argument about institutional failure during COVID-19.

    Paragraph 4 – Fear of Migration and the Dehumanized Other

    • Examine the treatment of human mobs, refugees, and zombies in border scenes (e.g., Jerusalem wall, flight panic).
    • Use Seyla Benhabib’s piece to discuss the rising fear of displacement and the collapse of asylum ethics.

    Paragraph 5 – The Spread of Misinformation and Breakdown of Truth

    • Point to the conspiracy theories and media confusion in the film’s early scenes.
    • Use Tufekci’s argument to show how misinformation spreads like a virus—and how that’s reflected in the zombie metaphor.

    Paragraph 6 – The Psychology of Polarization and Fear

    • Explore the emotional tone of the film: anxiety, distrust, hyper-individualism.
    • Connect to Haidt’s claim that polarization has eroded rational cooperation and heightened mass irrationality.

    Paragraph 7 – Counterargument

    • Some may argue that World War Z is just a fast-paced action flick with no real political message.
    • Rebut by showing how even its structure—a global chase from chaos to cure—mirrors real-world anxieties about global crisis management and ethical triage.

    Paragraph 8 – Deeper Implications of the Metaphor

    • Push the metaphor further: zombies as collapsed selves, media-driven mobs, people stripped of identity.
    • Reflect on how the film doesn’t just diagnose fear—it reflects our inability to reckon with complexity in a globalized age.

    Paragraph 9 – Conclusion

    • Reaffirm your thesis.
    • Leave the reader with a provocative final thought: maybe the zombies aren’t the dead—they’re us, stripped of cooperation, overwhelmed by fear, and marching blindly toward collapse.

  • Devotion and Deliverance: Frederick Douglass as Prophet of the Sunken Place

    Devotion and Deliverance: Frederick Douglass as Prophet of the Sunken Place

    Frederick Douglass was the first great American voice to name what Jordan Peele would later visualize as the Sunken Place—that paralyzing state of voicelessness, invisibility, and psychological captivity experienced by African Americans. Though Peele dramatizes the horror of this condition in his film Get Out, Douglass lived it. As an enslaved child denied literacy and identity, Douglass endured what he later described as a living death, a soul frozen beneath the surface of white supremacy’s illusion of order. His fight to reclaim his voice, his mind, and his humanity was nothing less than a jailbreak from the original Sunken Place—and once free, Douglass didn’t just climb out. He turned around and lit the way for others.

    Douglass’s genius wasn’t just in naming the horror but in refusing to let his people be forgotten. In his Narrative, he writes not only for white readers’ moral awakening but for Black readers’ spiritual survival. He wants them to know: I see you. I know what you’re going through. I made it out—and you can, too. His commitment was not just to truth-telling, but to emotional rescue. He becomes the voice for the voiceless, and more importantly, a memory for the disappeared. In every speech, every book, Douglass is saying to his people: You are not crazy. You are not alone. You are not invisible. I love you.

    This radical love—this refusal to forget or abandon the oppressed—is not only the essence of Douglass’s mission but the throughline of the African-American church and the great soul artists who emerged from its sanctuary. Aretha Franklin’s demand for “Respect” is not merely about gender or music—it is about soul-level recognition, the same Douglass demanded when he taught himself to read and stood before an audience to declare, I am a man. Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On?” is a lament and a prayer, echoing Douglass’s own grief at watching America devour its conscience while pretending to be virtuous.

    Earth, Wind, and Fire’s “Devotion” is a gospel-soaked anthem of uplift, a promise to stay true, stay grounded, and stay together. That’s the same spiritual contract Douglass wrote with his people: no matter how far he rose—dining with Lincoln, traveling to Europe—he never abandoned the struggle, never stopped fighting for those still trapped in the Sunken Place. The Commodores’ “Zoom” imagines flight from pain and confinement, a kind of cosmic exodus—but not a selfish escape. The dream is to rise and return with wisdom, strength, and hope. This is Douglass in every sense.

    Jordan Peele gave us the Sunken Place in high-definition horror, but Frederick Douglass mapped it out with ink and fire long before the screen could flicker. He understood that the greatest tragedy of oppression is not physical bondage but spiritual erasure. And he devoted every breath of his free life to pulling others out—through rhetoric, through writing, through relentless love.

    In the voices of Aretha, Marvin, Maurice White, and Lionel Richie, we hear Douglass’s echo: not just survival, not just resistance, but a deeply rooted refusal to abandon anyone to silence. These aren’t just songs. They are gospel calls to rise, to remember, and to remain devoted. In that sacred tradition, Douglass stands as the first great prophet of the Sunken Place—and the first to vow, with soul-deep conviction, I will not leave you there.

  • Comparing Resistance to the Sunken Place in the Movie Get Out and the Life of Frederick Douglass: 3 Essay Prompts

    Comparing Resistance to the Sunken Place in the Movie Get Out and the Life of Frederick Douglass: 3 Essay Prompts

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts suitable for a 9-paragraph essay that explore how Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Jordan Peele’s Get Out use the concept of the Sunken Place—whether literal or metaphorical—to reveal how racism dehumanizes, and how resistance can lead to liberation and agency.


    Prompt 1: The Fight to Reclaim the Self

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Get Out explore how slavery and racism rob people of their autonomy and identity, trapping them in a psychological “Sunken Place.” Write an argumentative essay analyzing how Douglass and Chris struggle to reclaim their personhood. Whose escape from the Sunken Place carries a more powerful message for modern audiences, and why?

    Key Themes to Consider:

    • Psychological captivity and dehumanization
    • Literacy and perception as tools of resistance
    • Voice vs. voicelessness
    • Breaking free—literal and symbolic escapes

    Prompt 2: Racism as Psychological Warfare

    Essay Prompt:
    Jordan Peele’s Get Out introduces the Sunken Place as a metaphor for the paralyzing effects of racism. Frederick Douglass’s memoir reveals how slavery functioned similarly—as a system designed to psychologically disarm and silence Black people. Write a 9-paragraph essay comparing how each text shows racism operating not just physically, but psychologically, and argue which representation is more effective in showing the true depth of racial oppression.

    Key Themes to Consider:

    • Mind control and learned helplessness
    • Surveillance, control, and social “hypnosis”
    • The role of silence and invisibility
    • Liberation through consciousness and rebellion

    Prompt 3: Resistance as a Path Out of the Sunken Place

    Essay Prompt:
    In both Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Get Out, the protagonists face overwhelming systems of control—but both find ways to resist. Write an argumentative essay analyzing how Douglass and Chris resist oppression and reclaim power. Which character’s resistance offers a more effective model for overcoming systemic injustice today?

    Key Themes to Consider:

    • Subversion, deception, and rebellion
    • Education vs. survival instinct
    • Heroism and moral courage
    • The journey from victimhood to agency

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts designed for a 9-paragraph essay that compares themes in Malcolm X (1992) and Black Panther (2018). Each prompt invites students to explore how the two films depict Black identity, resistance, and leadership while allowing room for critical thinking, comparison, and rebuttal:


    Prompt 1: Heroism and Resistance

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Malcolm X and Black Panther present Black protagonists who wrestle with systems of oppression and redefine what it means to be a hero. Write an argumentative essay comparing how Malcolm X and T’Challa evolve in their views on resistance and justice. Which film presents a more compelling vision of heroism in the face of racial oppression?

    Guiding Themes:

    • Radical vs. diplomatic resistance
    • Personal transformation as political awakening
    • The burden and responsibility of leadership
    • Sacrifice and moral complexity in defining heroism
  • Comparing Heroism and Resistance in the Movies Malcolm X and Black Panther: 3 Essay Prompts

    Comparing Heroism and Resistance in the Movies Malcolm X and Black Panther: 3 Essay Prompts

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts designed for a 9-paragraph essay that compares themes in Malcolm X (1992) and Black Panther (2018). Each prompt invites students to explore how the two films depict Black identity, resistance, and leadership while allowing room for critical thinking, comparison, and rebuttal:


    Prompt 1: Heroism and Resistance

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Malcolm X and Black Panther present Black protagonists who wrestle with systems of oppression and redefine what it means to be a hero. Write an argumentative essay comparing how Malcolm X and T’Challa evolve in their views on resistance and justice. Which film presents a more compelling vision of heroism in the face of racial oppression?

    Guiding Themes:

    • Radical vs. diplomatic resistance
    • Personal transformation as political awakening
    • The burden and responsibility of leadership
    • Sacrifice and moral complexity in defining heroism

    Prompt 2: Black Identity and Global Responsibility

    Essay Prompt:
    Malcolm X and Black Panther both challenge their audiences to rethink what it means to be Black in a global context. Using these two films, write an essay arguing whether the personal journey of Malcolm X or the political journey of Wakanda offers a more powerful vision for modern Black identity.

    Guiding Themes:

    • Pan-Africanism and global Black solidarity
    • The role of isolation vs. engagement with the world
    • Cultural pride, history, and reimagined futures
    • The tension between tradition and evolution

    Prompt 3: Rage, Revolution, and the Ethics of Power

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Malcolm X and Erik Killmonger are driven by rage born from historical injustice. Yet while one channels that rage into spiritual and political leadership, the other weaponizes it. Write an argumentative essay comparing how each film uses these characters to explore the ethics of power, revenge, and revolution.

    Guiding Themes:

    • Righteous anger vs. destructive rage
    • Violence as a political tool
    • Redemption, change, and moral ambiguity
    • Legacies of trauma and systemic injustice
  • College Essay Prompt: “Authenticity on the Menu: Rethinking Cultural Purity in Mexican and Chinese American Cuisine”

    College Essay Prompt: “Authenticity on the Menu: Rethinking Cultural Purity in Mexican and Chinese American Cuisine”


    Essay Prompt:

    In contemporary food discourse, cries of “inauthentic” are often used to police the boundaries of cultural identity. American Chinese food and modern Mexican cuisine are frequently accused of deviating from their traditional roots—dishes like General Tso’s chicken or Korean taco fusion provoke both celebration and scorn. But what does authenticity really mean in a country built on cultural convergence and adaptation?

    This essay invites you to explore the tensions between authenticity and adaptation in the evolution of Mexican and Chinese food in the United States. Rather than framing culinary transformation as a betrayal, consider how these cuisines have served as vehicles for survival, cultural expression, and even quiet resistance against exclusion and erasure.

    Drawing from:

    • Gustavo Arellano’s essay “Let White People Appropriate Mexican Food”
    • Ian Cheney’s documentary The Search for General Tso
    • Charles W. Hayford’s “Who’s Afraid of Chop Suey”
    • Cathy Erway’s “More Than ‘Just Takeout’”
    • Kelley Kwok’s “‘Not Real Chinese’: Why American Chinese Food Deserves Our Respect”
    • Jiayang Fan’s “Searching for America with General Tso”

    Your task is to defend, refute, or complicate the claim that criticizing Mexican and Chinese food for being “inauthentic” oversimplifies the realities of cultural exchange, economic survival, and creative resilience. Analyze how these foods reflect the lived experiences of immigrant communities negotiating belonging in a country often hostile to their presence.

    In your essay, define authenticity and explain how food operates as both cultural symbol and commodity. Should evolving cuisines be celebrated as testaments to resilience and ingenuity, or are there valid reasons to lament the loss of traditional culinary practices?

    You are encouraged to include personal anecdotes, cultural observations, or family histories if relevant—but maintain an argumentative, evidence-based tone throughout.


    Sample Thesis Statements


    Thesis 1:
    Labeling American Chinese and modern Mexican food as “inauthentic” not only ignores the histories of exclusion and survival that shaped these cuisines, but also reinforces a rigid, essentialist view of culture that fails to recognize adaptation as a legitimate—and necessary—form of expression.


    Thesis 2:
    While culinary purists may mourn the loss of tradition, dishes like orange chicken and carne asada fries should be understood not as betrayals of culture, but as inventive responses to racism, capitalism, and assimilation—proof that food evolves to meet the needs of those who cook it.


    Thesis 3:
    Though some modern interpretations of Mexican and Chinese cuisine risk diluting cultural meaning, dismissing them as inauthentic erases the labor, compromise, and strategy behind immigrant adaptation. These “inauthentic” dishes are often the only tools marginalized communities have to assert presence in the mainstream.


    10-Paragraph Essay Outline


    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Open with a vivid description of a “fusion” dish—e.g., General Tso’s chicken or a bulgogi taco.
    • Introduce the cultural tension: critics call it inauthentic, but fans see it as innovative.
    • Define authenticity as it relates to food—linked to heritage, but often idealized or frozen in time.
    • Introduce thesis: Adapted Mexican and Chinese dishes are more than just Americanized versions—they are creative, resilient responses to exclusion, shaped by economic and social realities.

    Paragraph 2 – The Myth of Culinary Purity

    • Discuss how cultures, including their cuisines, are never static—food evolves across borders, time, and necessity.
    • Reference Hayford’s essay: Chop Suey was mocked but also became a symbol of cultural hybridity.
    • Suggest that authenticity is a moving target, not a fixed standard.

    Paragraph 3 – Food as Survival Strategy

    • Show how immigrant communities adapted recipes to fit American ingredients, tastes, and economic constraints.
    • Use The Search for General Tso to illustrate how Chinese restaurant owners tailored menus to avoid discrimination while making a living.
    • Frame these adaptations as strategic—not sellouts, but survival tools.

    Paragraph 4 – Mexican Cuisine and Cultural Flexibility

    • Draw from Arellano’s argument: Mexican food has always been flexible and regionally diverse.
    • Discuss the rise of dishes like breakfast burritos or California burritos—not Mexican per se, but still rooted in Mexican technique and sensibility.
    • Argue that innovation doesn’t erase identity—it expands it.

    Paragraph 5 – Appropriation vs. Adaptation

    • Make distinctions between cultural appropriation (extraction without respect) and cultural adaptation (evolution from within).
    • Arellano’s essay defends white chefs cooking Mexican food, but notes the double standard when immigrants are excluded from credit or capital.
    • Emphasize the importance of who benefits from culinary success.

    Paragraph 6 – The Emotional Stakes of Authenticity

    • Explore why food carries such emotional weight—it connects to home, family, memory.
    • Reference Kelley Kwok’s essay on shame and pride in eating American Chinese food.
    • Acknowledge that critiques of authenticity often come from a place of longing, but may oversimplify how identity is preserved.

    Paragraph 7 – The Mainstreaming of “Ethnic” Food

    • Discuss how dishes once dismissed as “ethnic junk” have become trendy and profitable.
    • Use Jiayang Fan’s reflections to show how General Tso became a cultural ambassador—flawed, yes, but powerful.
    • Ask: Is mainstream acceptance a win for cultural visibility, or does it flatten the story?

    Paragraph 8 – Counterargument: The Loss of Tradition

    • Consider critics who argue that modern adaptations erase important culinary history.
    • Acknowledge the danger of cultural dilution—e.g., chain restaurants replacing traditional kitchens.
    • But rebut by arguing that tradition and innovation are not mutually exclusive; both can coexist.

    Paragraph 9 – Synthesis: Food as a Living Archive

    • Reassert that Mexican and Chinese American dishes are not lesser—they are living archives of migration, struggle, and creativity.
    • Argue that we should assess cuisine not just by fidelity to a past, but by how it reflects the realities of the present.
    • Draw from Erway’s piece on how takeout often contains rich, hidden histories of resilience.

    Paragraph 10 – Conclusion

    • Return to your opening image: that “inauthentic” fusion dish is a cultural text worth reading.
    • Reaffirm your thesis: to dismiss adapted food as inauthentic is to miss its ingenuity and the hard histories behind it.
    • End with a call to rethink what authenticity means—not as static preservation, but as cultural endurance through change.
  • 3 College Essay Prompts for a Comparison of Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X

    3 College Essay Prompts for a Comparison of Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X

    Here are three essay prompts tailored for a 1,700-word comparative analysis of Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X as literary heroes whose transformation through language empowered them to resist “The Sunken Place” and lead others toward justice:

    1.
    Prompt Title: Rewriting the Self: Douglass and Malcolm X as Architects of Liberation
    Prompt:
    Both Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X underwent radical personal transformations through their acquisition and use of language. In a well-developed essay, compare how Douglass in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X in The Autobiography of Malcolm X use reading, writing, and oratory as tools to escape what might be called “The Sunken Place”—a psychological and social condition of internalized oppression and learned helplessness. How does language serve as a weapon of self-reinvention and, ultimately, as a vehicle for leading others toward liberation?

    2.
    Prompt Title: From Silence to Speech: The Heroic Voice in Douglass and Malcolm X
    Prompt:
    In both Douglass’s and Malcolm X’s narratives, the journey from silence to speech marks the beginning of their heroism. Analyze how each man’s relationship to language—books, writing, and especially public speech—transforms them from passive subjects of oppression into active agents of change. How do their stories function as “literary transformations,” and how do they use their voices not just to escape the Sunken Place but to pull others out as well?

    3.
    Prompt Title: The Language of Resistance: Literary Heroism in Douglass and Malcolm X
    Prompt:
    Consider Douglass and Malcolm X as literary heroes whose weapon is not brute force but rhetorical and intellectual power. Both men begin in different forms of social invisibility and voicelessness, and both rise through literacy and speech to become revolutionary figures. In a comparative essay, explore how their mastery of language allowed them to diagnose the despair of systemic racism and to create a compelling counter-narrative of dignity, resistance, and hope.

  • Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm

    Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm

    Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm

    There’s an old saying: declaw a cat, and it can’t survive in the wild. But what happens when the cat doesn’t want to leave its velvet-cushioned cage? Welcome to Southern Charm, a reality show that parades a peculiar species—the overgrown man-child, trapped by privilege, mediocrity, and the reassuring hum of an ever-flowing bourbon decanter.

    These men, ranging from their thirties to their fifties, are not so much participants in life as they are well-dressed relics, embalmed in their own vices. Work is an abstract concept, something dabbled in between brunches and boat parties. Women are recreational pastimes, sampled and discarded like seasonal cocktails. And the ultimate validation? The cooing, slurred approval of their doting mothers, who, in between vodka tonics, assure their progeny that they are, indeed, true Southern gentlemen.

    But Southern Charm isn’t just about individual arrested development—it’s about a collective one. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the show’s occasional detours into the grotesque theater of old-money delusion. Take, for example, the time disgraced politician Thomas Ravenel dined with his father, Arthur, a former U.S. Representative. Over lunch, Arthur casually revealed his habit of quickly getting rid of five-dollar bills because Abraham Lincoln’s face still irks him. That’s right—Lincoln, the president who ended slavery, remains a personal affront to this withered artifact of the antebellum South.

    If I had to sum up Southern Charm in a single word, it would be imprisonment. These men are locked in a gilded purgatory, shackled by tradition, vice, and a desperate fear of anything beyond their insular Charleston bubble. They know their world is suffocating, yet they can’t—or won’t—leave it. And that’s what makes Southern Charm such a mesmerizing trainwreck: watching these men wriggle and rationalize, making their slow-motion deal with the devil, one bourbon at a time.

  • Bill Burr’s Drop Dead Years: Rage, Reflection, and the Long Road to Emotional Literacy

    Bill Burr’s Drop Dead Years: Rage, Reflection, and the Long Road to Emotional Literacy

    At 56 years old, Bill Burr strides onto the stage looking like a man who hasn’t just survived middle age but has trained for it—lean, sharp, and decked out in a blue sweatshirt, jeans, and sneakers, the unofficial uniform of a guy who’s seen some things but hasn’t yet gone full sweatpants. His latest special, Drop Dead Years (streaming on Hulu), finds him at a crossroads: He’s entered the danger zone—the phase of life where men his age can drop dead at any second. And so, standing before a Seattle crowd, a city he awards first prize in rain-soaked despair, he does what any man staring down mortality would do—he takes stock of his life.

    Burr has baggage, and he knows it. Anger issues? Check. Outdated, offensive language? His wife is on him about it. Emotionally repressed male conditioning? Oh, absolutely. For decades, he’s kept his demons on a leash by staying busy, but when the work stops, his personal hellscape begins. He decides to test a theory: After returning from a tour, instead of distracting himself with projects, he sits in a corner, stares at the TV, and marinates in his own misery. His wife, alarmed, asks if he’s okay. For the first time in his life, he admits the truth: I’m sad. A historic moment for a man raised on the doctrine of shut up and push through.

    But does Burr actually offer any solutions for his emotional demolition derby? Not really—at least not in the special. While he drops breadcrumbs in radio interviews about his self-improvement quest, including the occasional reference to psilocybin therapy, the special mostly stays in the realm of self-awareness rather than self-help. And don’t worry—the fangs are still sharp. Burr unloads on racist conservatives and hypocritical, self-congratulatory liberals with equal fervor, and despite the obvious political leanings of his Seattle audience, no one seems too offended. Maybe that’s part of Burr’s charm—he’s an equal-opportunity agitator, and the crowd knows they’re getting a sermon with a punchline, not a TED Talk.

    Here’s the thing: While I love Burr, I found Drop Dead Years a little… safe. The premise—that wisdom comes with age, that unchecked emotions can consume us, and that kindness and patience improve relationships—is undeniably true but hardly groundbreaking. The performance is solid, his honesty is refreshing, and his intelligence undeniable, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that he was more compelling when I heard him on Terry Gross’ Fresh Air a couple of weeks earlier. There, in a rare good-natured sparring match with the NPR icon, Burr revealed more of himself—and in funnier ways—than he did in his actual special.

    That said, Bill Burr is always worth watching. Even when he’s not at his absolute peak, he’s still one of the sharpest, most brutally honest voices in comedy. So, do I recommend Drop Dead Years? Absolutely. But if you want peak Burr, you might want to queue up that Fresh Air interview right after.

  • Teaching History Without Erasure: Frederick Douglass, Germany’s Reckoning, and the Power of Truth

    Teaching History Without Erasure: Frederick Douglass, Germany’s Reckoning, and the Power of Truth

    This is my second essay prompt in my freshman composition class:

    Teaching History Without Erasure: Frederick Douglass, Germany’s Reckoning, and the Power of Truth

    In recent years, fierce debates have erupted over how slavery, Jim Crow laws, and racial injustice should be taught in American classrooms. Some critics argue that these lessons have become excessively politicized, accusing educators of pushing a divisive narrative that portrays America as fundamentally irredeemable. They claim that such an approach fosters victimhood, undermines critical thinking, and turns education into a vehicle for ideological indoctrination.

    Others push back, arguing that this resistance is itself a form of historical distortion—an attempt to silence African-American voices and obscure painful but essential truths. They assert that teaching racial injustice is not about politics but about moral, psychological, and historical reckoning. Frederick Douglass’ writings offer a powerful counterpoint, illustrating how truth-telling about oppression is not an act of condemnation but one of empowerment. Much like Jordan Peele’s The Sunken Place concept, Douglass’ life reveals how acknowledging injustice can lead to personal agency, resistance, and the pursuit of justice. Similarly, Germany’s post-Holocaust reckoning provides a framework for confronting historical atrocities without fostering helplessness or national self-loathing.

    For this 1,700-word argumentative essay (MLA format required), analyze how Frederick Douglass’ personal fight against slavery and Germany’s effort to memorialize the Holocaust offer crucial lessons on addressing historical injustice. Drawing on Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave and Clint Smith’s essay “Monuments to the Unthinkable,” explore how bearing witness to historical truths can foster accountability, self-agency, and resilience. Consider how both examples highlight the importance of acknowledging past wrongs while also promoting national and individual growth.

    Essay Requirements:

    • Length: 1,700 words
    • Format: MLA (Modern Language Association)
    • Sources: Minimum of 4, cited in MLA format
    • Required Texts:
      • Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (available online as a PDF)
      • Clint Smith’s “Monuments to the Unthinkable”
      • PBS NewsHour YouTube video “Why Americans Are So Divided Over Teaching Critical Race Theory”
      • David Pilgrim’s YouTube video “The Jim Crow Museum”
      • Childish Gambino’s “This Is America” (Optional for thematic analysis)

    Key Focus Areas for Analysis:

    • How Douglass’ narrative challenges oppression and promotes self-agency
    • How Germany’s post-Holocaust reforms serve as a model for confronting historical injustice
    • The moral responsibility of societies to acknowledge past atrocities and ensure they are not repeated
    • How historical awareness empowers future generations to break cycles of injustice
    • Strategies for teaching history in a way that fosters accountability, growth, and resilience—without promoting victimhood or division

    This essay invites you to step beyond the surface of modern political debates and examine how history, when taught truthfully, can serve as a tool for both personal and societal transformation. How should we reckon with our past, and what can we learn from those who have done it well?

  • Reading A Clockwork Orange in Russia

    Reading A Clockwork Orange in Russia

    In my early twenties, I was holding a copy of A Clockwork Orange on an Aeroflot flight from New York to Moscow, and I was fairly certain I’d be arrested before I even touched Soviet soil. This was not the book I was supposed to be reading. My grandfather, a proud, card-carrying Communist, had made it clear that my in-flight reading should be Cities Without Crisis: The Soviet Union Through the Eyes of an American by Mike Davidow—a glowing, uncritical love letter to the USSR. According to Davidow, the Soviet Union was well on its way to utopia, a land where happy, apple-cheeked children played in clean, orderly cities, miraculously untouched by the crime, chaos, and moral decay of capitalist America.

    I had every intention of honoring my grandfather’s wishes. He had, after all, funded my spot on this Sputnik Peace Tour, a Cold War-era cultural exchange designed to showcase the Soviet Union’s superiority and convince impressionable American university students that their homeland was little more than a dilapidated shack compared to the Soviet skyscraper. My grandfather, who spent his golden years vacationing in Russia and Cuba and had personally befriended Fidel Castro, hoped I’d return to the States ready to sing the Soviet anthem on command, with a crimson hammer-and-sickle tattoo stretched across my chest.

    But try as I might, I couldn’t stomach Davidow’s propaganda. It read like an overlong infomercial scripted by a particularly humorless bureaucrat. Every page was predictable, every assertion dripping with a blind, almost devotional reverence for the Soviet system. By chapter three, my eyelids were growing heavier than a Soviet cement block. That’s when I ditched it for A Clockwork Orange, a novel that, in its satirical depiction of authoritarianism and mindless conformity, was just about the worst reading material one could bring on a goodwill trip to the USSR. My grandfather would have called it “reactionary,” but I wasn’t worried about him.

    No, my real concern was the Soviet customs officers waiting for us on the tarmac. They’d be rummaging through our luggage, sniffing out any hint of anti-Soviet subversion. And there I was, gripping a book that, if noticed, might earn me an all-expenses-paid trip to the kind of re-education program I had no interest in attending.

    When one of my fellow tourists, Jerry Gold, who was studying law at Brown University, saw me reading the subversive novel while sitting next to me on the plane, he warned me that the Soviet police would probably confiscate it when we got to the airport. “Not only will they take your book,” he said, “they will mark you as a troublemaker and keep tags on you throughout the entire trip. You must now constantly look over your shoulder for spies, my friend. And remember, if anyone wants to offer you good money for your jeans, it’s probably KGB. Selling Western commodities for the black market is a crime that could get you sent to a Soviet prison.”

    I’ll admit, I was a little anxious about some stern-faced Soviet officer confiscating A Clockwork Orange from my hands, but that concern quickly took a backseat to a far more immediate crisis: the inedible horrors being passed off as food on the Aeroflot flight. The demure flight attendants, clad in their stiff, no-nonsense uniforms, moved through the cabin with a grim efficiency, depositing onto our trays what could only be described as Cold War rations—waxy cheese triangles entombed in foil, anemic cold cuts that looked like they had lost a war of their own, limp lettuce gasping for dignity, and carrot slices so soggy they seemed to be pre-chewed. It was a meal that could single-handedly refute Mike Davidow’s utopian vision in Cities Without Crisis. His thesis—that the Soviet Union was building thriving cities free of strife—collapsed under the weight of this culinary travesty. Because if a nation’s food is a reflection of its prosperity, then a country that serves despair on a tray is, in fact, in crisis. And a man who fails to acknowledge that crisis is a fraud.

    Across the aisle, Jerry Gold, the kind of guy who exuded the unshakable self-assurance of someone who spent his summers at debate camp and his winters skiing in Vermont, curled his lip in disgust. A mop of reddish-brown hair and a constellation of freckles gave him the air of a scholarly leprechaun. He peeled back the foil on his cheese triangle with surgical precision, examined its plasticky surface like a jeweler appraising a fake diamond, and let out a slow, deliberate sigh. Then, in a display of Ivy League pragmatism, he took the industrial-grade brown napkin from his tray, folded it with the care of a man preparing for a high-stakes origami competition, and tucked it into the inner pocket of his coat. “You might want to do the same,” he advised me in a tone that suggested this was less a suggestion and more a survival strategy. I nodded, following suit, because when faced with Soviet airline cuisine, you learned to take advice from the man with a backup plan.

    “This could be the only toilet paper you’re going to have on this trip,” he said. “You would be wise to save all your napkins. They’re worth their weight in gold around here.”

    “That’s disgusting.”

    “Have you ever used an Eastern European toilet?”

    I shook my head.

    “A hole in the ground. An invitation to the deep knee bend. It’s a free Jack Lalanne workout every time you go to the shitter. Things can be rather primitive.”

    “For someone so hellbent on horrifying me on every aspect of this tour, can you please tell me why you decided to go on this trip?”

    “It’s college credit. It’s exotic. How many Americans can boast of having been inside the Soviet Union?” He forced down a bite of cheese and asked me why I was going on the tour. 

    “My grandfather is a card-carrying communist,” I said. “He’s trying to convert me.”

    “So he sent you to paradise.” He laughed, then pinched a cold cut, lifted it before his face, and scrutinized it carefully.

    “The food isn’t a winning argument,” I said. “Nor is the absence of toilet paper.”

    “There is a saying in the Soviet Union,” he said while tossing the uneaten cold cut on his tray. “If you see people standing in line, make sure you stand in it. People are always waiting in line for something.”

    His statement proved to be true. A week later when we were in a sweltering market in Kyiv, we saw forlorn citizens, mostly stoic-faced babushkas, standing in a long line to buy wrinkled room-temperature chickens with flies swarming over them. I kept thinking to myself, “Cities without crisis? Bullshit.” Little did I know, I was standing 62 miles from Chernobyl and that two years later the nuclear reactor would explode causing worldwide radioactive contamination. Cities without crisis indeed.

    But in 1984 as I witnessed long lines, food shortages, nonexistent toilet paper, and primitive toilets, I found something about the Soviet Union that struck me as almost admirable: Everywhere we went, markets, train stations, parks, and museums, there were government speakers playing classical music, much of it from Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev. I wanted to believe, as my grandfather would want me to, that the violin chamber pieces and piano sonatas were the Soviet Union’s idea of music for the masses based on the government cultivating sophisticated taste in its citizens. But a darker motive was that the music was part of the Soviet Union’s propaganda: Classical music from Russian composers was a way of rebuking the vulgarity and corruption of the West.