The Case Of Shooting An Elephant By George Orwell

1839 WordsJul 27, 20178 Pages
The Use of the Other to Define Oneself A large number of successful authors have one common trait in their writing: they create a powerful narrative or argument through the concept of an other, a person or group who opposes the authors view. To choose one side of a conflict is to give an indication of what the persons beliefs, motivation, and identity are. In the case of Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell, he establishes his beliefs with the actions of Burmans, which he portrays as the others. He states that, “It was a bit of fun to them…it made me vaguely uneasy. I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself” (438). Orwells point is to make a sharp contrast between the narrator and the Burmans so that their values could be…show more content…
For a person to be a stranger, it means that a person knows nothing about them to truly trust them. Using the word take also establishes how they were forced against their will to give their belongings. Chief Seattle is trying to make the point that the others are the type of people who do not care about their kind and have little morals. In fact, the use of putting the setting at night is also significant because it demonstrates how white people know that their actions are wrong but are still willing to follow them. By setting up the attributes of the people, he can promote that he does not have the same qualities. In addition, he also adds the idea of modesty in his identity through the description of the white man leaving at night to take the belongings of others. Nevertheless, booth followers and critics of the idea of the other in writing will probably argue that Chief Seattle could have gotten his point across by just talking about the damage that has occurred to the environment with no mention of a culprit. Yet, it would leave people with an unsatisfied conscious because people like to put the blame on one person or a group of people. If a person did not add another group or person that opposes the author, it would remove the authors credibility and give them an artificial identity. In another section of the letter to President Pierce, Chief Seattle starts
Open Document