Anti-Authoritarianism In Lao Tzu's Tao Te Chin By Lao Tzu

As a European white man in the British colony of India, George Orwell, in his narrative essay Shooting an Elephant, describes one of his most memorable events while living in the Southeast Asian nation of Burma. Orwell’s purpose is to share the absolute horror of living in imperialism. He adopts a tense tone throughout his essay by using vivid description and gruesome imagery in order to relate the incident with the elephant to what it is like to live in imperialism.

On the other hand, Lao-tzu admits that being the best leader, partly depends on how people feel about him/her. As he said in his book, “Next best is a leader who is loved. Next one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised.” (Lao-tzu 17) There are many examples of how successful leaders can be when they are being loved by their people. It is a natural act that affects them in being let to stay in power or not. Similarly, governments at the moment face this fact too and as we see throughout the world, governments are being overthrown because of their people’s distaste and hate. That is

The consequence of imperialism is discussed in “Shooting an Elephant”; The victim of imperialism is not only the natives but also the narrator. Indeed, this essay is about the suffering and the struggling of Orwell who is torn between the Burmese’s actions and the Imperial System.

“Shooting an Elephant” is an essay written by George Orwell, who was an Assistant Superintendent in the British Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922 to 1927. The essay was published in 1936. Burma was occupied by the British over a period of 62 years (1823-1886) and it was directed as a province of India until it became a separate colony in 1937. In the essay, Orwell narrates the scene of the killing of an elephant in Burma and expresses the feelings that he goes through during the event. The writer’s theme is that imperialism is not an effective way of governing. It can be decoded through his

In “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell retold an occasion where he was struggling to come to a final decision of whether to shoot the elephant or not. With his final decision, the elephant finally lay dying in front of thousands of people. He said that he was forced to shoot it because the Burmese people were expecting him to do that. In addition, he also explained that he had to do it “to avoid looking like a fool” in front of the crowd (14). At first glance, one would think that it makes sense for him to kill the elephant to save his face, but that was not the case. He effectively uses this incident to demonstrate the “real nature of imperialism” (3), whereas the elephant represents the British Empire.

Distinguishing the differences between Lao-Tzu’s Tao-te Ching, written in the early sixth century B.C.E., and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince, composed in 1513, can be shown through major points that both pursue opposing opinions. Whether it is their view of war, their stand on leadership, or even how they believe the ruler should be perceived, Lao-Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli always seem to be on a different page. Through their pieces of work, one can see how their views differ. Between Lao-Tzu wanting nothing but peace and harmony and Machiavelli seeing a need for power and fear, both are on two very different ends of the spectrum.

Lao-tzu’s view of government is the master should not have optimal power over the people. He feels as though people should be ignorant of

Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of a Prince" both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders. The tactics that each writer chooses to present as a guide for the leader are almost opposite of each other. Today's American government would benefit from a combination of the two extreme ideas. Lao-Tzu's laissez-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale, home defense military is appealing to a liberal person. Machiavelli's attitude towards miserliness and lower taxes, while being always prepared for war, would appeal to a conservative person. The writers are in agreement on some issues, such as taxes, but other ideas,

The glorious days of the imperial giants have passed, marking the death of the infamous and grandiose era of imperialism. George Orwell's essay, Shooting an Elephant, deals with the evils of imperialism. The unjust shooting of an elephant in Orwell's story is the central focus from which Orwell builds his argument through the two dominant characters, the elephant and its executioner. The British officer, the executioner, acts as a symbol of the imperial country, while the elephant symbolizes the victim of imperialism. Together, the solider and the elephant turns this tragic anecdote into an attack on the institution of imperialism.

Orwell?s extraordinary style is never displayed better than through the metaphors he uses in this essay. He expresses his conflicting views regarding imperialism through three examples of oppression: by his country, by the Burmese, and by himself on the Burmese. Oppression is shown by Orwell through the burden of servitude placed upon him by England: Orwell himself, against his will, has oppressed many. British Imperialism dominated not only Burma, but also other countries that did not belong to England. At the time it may appear, from the outside, he shows us that the officers were helping the Burmese because they too were against oppressors; however, from the inside he demonstrates that they too were trying to annex other countries. Though Orwell?s handling of this subject is detailed, in the end, he subtly condemns imperialism. Orwell finds himself in a moral predicament no different than the ones placed on the white men in the East. He justifies his actions, driven by the instigation of the Burmese. Orwell also feels forced by the natives to kill the elephant, hindering his

Refraining from absolute negativity about Lao-Tzu’s work, the Tao does have many redeemable qualities. The emphasis Lao-Tzu places on the attainment of individual happiness is extremely honorable, however this doesn’t detract from the ineffectiveness Lao-Tzu encounters, as he is unable to come to well-grounded conclusion on the means for effective leadership. His advice to politicians is to only interfere when it is an absolute necessity; yet he takes this to a radical extreme advising leaders to pretty much do nothing. His ideas are taken to an extent where if human nature falters, which it

A prince must learn not to be limited to morality when unavoidable; a leader has to be able to use lies, force and deception if required in the world. Whether it is better to be feared or loved clearly addresses the reason for this.

Confucianism and Daoism are two influential schools of thoughts that have existed in ancient China around the 6th century BCE. The former, led by the politician and philosopher Confucius, proposed that humans live in society according to a set of predefined rules and that they transform society through political action. Whereas the latter, led by the philosopher Lao-Tzu, promoted the idea of inaction; people should go with the flow instead of taking action to control their lives and dominate their surroundings. Although, at first glance Daoism and Confucianism seem to be two opposing philosophies, a more in depth analysis of two of their key ideas –filial piety and education—reveals that they do share some similarities.

affective ruler should be loved and feared at the same time. But since its hard to be

In this way Lao Tzu's philosophy reached out to political rulers and advised them of how to govern their land. Thus Taoism, in a sense became a sort of political philosophy following these lines: "The Taoist has no ambitions, therefore he can never fail. He who never fails always succeeds. And he who always succeeds is all-powerful."