Point Of View Of 1984 By George Orwell

When Orwell was describing the burmese, he wrote “ the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves”. In term of pathos, he uses language in a disgusting way and makes it known that he hates and cannot stand it where he’s at. In the documentary, there’s the positive side of spreading values, prosperity and peace and in a way, imperialism. However, even though this rhetorical piece doesn’t directly relate to the documentary, this is the negative side of Imperialism and how it can impact even the oppressor. Also, in the documentary, it just talks about spreading democracy but what we are blinded to is what happens behind. When America goes into another country to spread democracy, we rarely pay attention to what happens there or what they are actually doing there. There is less care and attention to what goes on behind than compared to attention towards the surface of spreading democracy. Not only that but, also in the text, George Orwell faced continuous mockery and embarrassment in Burma and that resulted in bad suffering for him. In Burma, even as the oppressor, he faced a constant struggle to maintain his power and his authority in front of the Burmese. As a oppressor, one would expect them to have the power and be able to maintain authority in another country but in this text, there is the opposite that is very unexpected. Overall, George Orwell’s experience in Burma represented the other side of Imperialism, which was even the one governing is affected as much as the one who is getting

The first portion of Orwell’s piece is filled with his hatred for imperialism and the “evil-spirited little beasts” (para. 2) that torment him. Orwell hated the imperialism in Burma and “those who tried to make [his] job impossible” (para. 2). You can see his true anger and hatred when he uses diction like “petty”, “sneering”, “wretched”, “intolerable”, and “rage” (para. 1,2) when he’s describing some of his encounters in Burma. Most of all, Orwell just wanted to be liked and respected. He is tired of being punished for the actions of the British empire. He states that like “every white man,.. in the East” (para. 7) he was just living “one long struggle [to] not be laughed at” (para. 7). Orwell’s change in tone forces a change in the reader’s perception of the situation. When he shifts from enraged hatred and hostility towards the eastern world to a desperate want to be liked by the burmans, the reader also has a shift. They go from not only despising imperialism but

George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’ (Orwel, 1936) represents a number of strangers being involved in a combined encounter. The situation throughout the essay represents the unjust British occupation of Burma, the hatred towards him as a British officer and the elephant symbolising the British. The part of the text chosen clearly exemplifies how a forced duty can lead to hatred. The text chosen displays that he is forced to encounter the Burmese people yet they despise him. Although the encounter with the Burmese improves with the arrival of the elephant, Orwell still has a sense of isolation. Throughout the text Orwell questions the presence of the British in the East exploring that the encounter with the Burmese should not have took place.

Orwell portrays the vengeful feelings of the Burmese people, the colonized, towards British People, the conqueror. As he has worked as a British officer in Burma, he knows how the natives feel about the British. Of course, it was obvious that the Burmese did not welcome any kind of British presence, including Orwell himself. The Occidentals were extremely mistreated, such as being jeered, and the narrator understood that anti-European feeling was very “bitter” (Orwell, 313). He needed to deal adequately with the native society, even though he was a target of bullying. For instance, he used to get ripped up on the football field, ignored by the referee and mocked by the crowd (Orwell, 313). Hence, he is a victim of the natives’ behavior. Not only is he the target of the native’s behavior, but he is also the victim of the imperial system.

He exemplifies this through a metaphor used when approaching the elephant with the rifle, describing that he “was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces” (152). Orwell explains that “the Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless” (149) and yet, even with the rifle in his hand he feels equally as powerless. This metaphor details the true nature of imperialism and the reliance on the perception of power rather than actual possession of it. In this situation, Orwell is forced to maintain the perception of power as he cannot “trail feebly away, having done nothing … [as] the crowd would laugh at [him]” (152). This crowd of people dictates his actions because he must constantly project the image of power and confidence. Any doubt threatens the strength of Orwell and in turn the empire. Each of these yellow faces holds a string and with their expectations and desires moves Orwell to shoot the elephant. This metaphor creates a vivid image for the reader of Orwell’s helplessness and the obligations that bind him to take action. One may assume that those obligations lie with the Empire, as he is their officer, however it’s the Burmese who pull his strings. Specifically, Orwell is emphasizing to readers the fragility of British power and how the role of power pressures one to act according to the will of those

Orwell begins his essay, Shooting an Elephant, by explaining the actions of the Burmese people and by expressing his contempt for imperialism. He appeals to the empathy of the audience by stating the actions of the Burmese people: “if a European woman went

However, any power given to him through the imperialistic setting is lost, because Orwell exists as a part of a minority in Burma. With this dilemma, Orwell notices the difficulties that come with an authoritative figure in a foreign country as, “[Orwell] was hated by a large number of people- the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” (144) Due to this hatred, Orwell finds his job to impose order futile because the Burmese people seem to have a tighter grasp on Orwell than Orwell himself. The Burmans appear to be enforcing their power over Orwell through their majority and he experiences this when, “A nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way.” (144) These acts that the Burmans commit show that power appears to exist in the hands of the Burmese majority rather than Orwell. By placing a colonist within a colony, the writer establishes the feeling that power should lie in the hand of the colonist. However, this concept is shattered because Orwell possesses no power though the colonial setting because of the fact that the Burmese appear to be in control. The lack of power present in the surroundings further enforces the fact that true power cannot come from one’s conquest or authority but only from within.

Two of Orwell’s first literary works were his essays regarding his experiences as a policeman in Burma during imperialization from Europe. These essays include “A Hanging” and “Shooting an Elephant.” In these essays, he shows his clear disagreement of oppression, even while working for the oppressors. Orwell writes

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

The first rhetorical strategy that Orwell utilizes in his essay is his personal experiences of imperialism in Burma in order to appeal to ethos and show the audience that he has witnessed the repercussions of imperialism. Orwell first showcases his hatred towards imperialism by stating “The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans” (Orwell 1). By showing that the native people were

Orwell sets a mood of resentment in the exposition by revealing the animosity felt by the natives about foreign rule. He starts off the story stating, “IN MOULMEIN, IN LOWER BURMA, I was hated by large numbers of people--the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me” (Orwell 1). In the first sentence of the story, Orwell reveals the negative mood and setting, which signifies their utmost importance. This bitter aura shows that Orwell is unpopular with the natives, and tensions between them runs high. In fact these feelings are so detrimental to Orwell, he almost goes insane.

Orwell’s initial descriptions of Burman natives contrast European racism with human empathy, humanizing the narrator and showing internal struggle. Orwell emphasizes this conflict in “I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible” (Paragraph 2). Orwell hates the oppressive nature of the British Empire, yet also disdains the Burmans and feels superiority over them. His moral conscience recognizes imperialism as inhumane, leading for Orwell to despise his duty as the enforcer of it. Orwell feels confined to his role as a helpless enforcer of imperialism, yet hates the Burmans and denotes them as “evil-spirited little beasts”

It was evident that Orwell had no control over Burmese people and this where he becomes understandable to the reader why Orwell is symbolic. Orwell is symbolic in the essay because he is aware of the injustice that is being done to the Burmese people but he has chosen to be neutral. Besides, by staying neutral Orwell is assisting oppressor to continue doing the bad deed and he is living a symbolic life of cruel British rules. George Orwell shows that he is neutral because he is not raising any voice against the vindictive rules that are being applied to the village

George Orwell was born in 1903 in India, during the time of the British colonial rule. He was brought to England at a young age by his mother and educated there. Orwell moved to Burma in 1922, where he served as an assistant superintendent of police for five years before he resigned because of his growing dislike for British Imperialism or colonialism. He became a writer in 1927 and wrote one of his essays, “A Hanging”, in 1931, which is a prime example of an essay where he demonstrates his feelings

Hopelessness, deep and gaping ever lasting hopelessness. If the course of humanity fails to change, to this everyone will succumb. That is the message that George Orwell has left for the future, and it would be in humanity's best interest to heed. Winston Smith of 1984 lived in a world that had been consumed by the everlasting abyss of injustice. Eventually this world became too much for our hopeful protagonist and thus, like the future that is bound to a horrific fate, he succumbed. “It was like swimming against a current that swept you backwards however hard you struggled, and then suddenly deciding to turn round and go with the current instead of opposing it” (Orwell 248). No one in this world is any different than Winston, they will follow his path like all of those before them, following the five stages of Kübler-Ross. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance make up the cycle that every feeble life will follow and that Winston grew to know all too well.