Orwell's Personal Narrative

George Orwell and Thomas Jefferson explicitly express their dislike with British imperialism in their respective works Shooting an Elephant and The Declaration of Independence, yet Orwell and Jefferson have contrasting tactics and opinions in their writing. In Orwell’s autobiographical essay, he typically focuses on himself, but in Jefferson’s condemning piece, he focuses on the American people. The persuasive devices that they utilize give their writing a distinct emotion, and the persuasive devices are applied in their writings differently. Orwell’s and Jefferson’s salient rhetorical usage is employed to convey their personal thoughts and main point. Even though Orwell and Jefferson share the same topic of condemning the British rule, the

For instance, in “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell claims that when a white man becomes tyrant, he destroys his own freedom. In order to prove his purpose, Orwell establishes authority through personal details, shifts in verb tense, and a reflective tone; appeals to logic with metaphor and analogy; and creates an emotional connection with the audience through a self-deprecating tone and vivid imagery. In the opening of “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell appeals to authority through personal details and shifts in verb tense that create a reflective tone. Specifically, the speaker first introduces himself: “I was sub-divisional police officer of the town…” (1). The detail about the speaker’s status in Burma signifies that he has first hand experience with imperialism.

His mind altered from “I ought not to shoot him” to “I had got to do it” and also to “But I did not want to shoot the elephant”. All of those depictions related to the “immense” crown that had followed the narrator expecting him to kill the elephant. This can be analyzed from his own words: “I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind”. “And he also realizes that to shoot the elephant would be not only unnecessary but quite immoral. But he is not a free agent; he is part of the impartial system (Ingle,

Analysis of George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” The argument in George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” is that imperialism can make a person go against their own beliefs in order to attain personal goals and authority. The essay discusses the evils of imperialism through Orwell’s experience with the oppressed people of Burma and his encounter with the elephant. Because of the fact that Orwell is a sub-divisional police officer in Burma he was able to establish a concrete and trustworthy evidences about the argument on imperialism. As a police officer, he was able to experience the hatred of the Burmese and the evils of imperialism himself. At the beginning of his essay he talks about his life in Burma, how he “was an obvious target” of all the insults, hideous laughter, and the sneers.

“He took them because elephants had a devastating effect upon horses who hated and feared their smell. They could also cause chaos among soldiers who had never before seen these huge creatures close up.” (Over the Alps with elephants, Rogers) Hannibal basically took them as a surprise strategy against his enemy and succeeded. Even beyond his surprise march over the Alps, and shocking war elephants, Hannibal Barca’s name is forever tied with the battle of Cannae. In this battle Hannibal designed a plan which caused “the double encirclement of a Roman army in 216 BC that has set the standard ever since for the perfect tactical victory.” (Sometimes the crowning achievements of great military commanders are not the most famous one,

Orwell centers his essay around the shooting of an elephant, when the elephant really represents British imperialism. Orwell uses the ravaging of the bazaar to represent the British empire ravaging Burma. This contrasts with Wallace’s essay, as in Wallace’s essay, he plainly elaborates on the debate whether it is “all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for [humans’] gustatory pleasure” (Wallace 9). Nevertheless, the arguments the authors propose are not outright impassioned arguments for animal rights. Rather, the arguments presented are mere descriptions of the mistreatment and death of an elephant and a lobster.

The first one is about bad social morality and problem social classification, but it’s .more focusing on Alexei Ivanovich’s life experience, includings his emotions experience and his gambling. The second one is talking about the chaos in India. This is an old saying, “Heroes emerge in troubled times,” these two men’s wants the adventures and have their dream to be the king. They would be the king successfully and continue to be the king, but they didn’t, just like the name of the book said. Two books have a lot similar points and are different, but they are worth to read at

As seen in chapters one to three, Okonkwo is a very powerful/angered man, driven by hatred and fear, but it appears that he will defend his village throughout this story as European colonization takes over. The Ibo tribe itself is very strong and powerful, to the point where other tribes are very scared of them. So, when European colonization begins, it can be predicted that the Ibo tribe and Okonkwo won’t put up with the foreigners taking over, but based on history, the Europeans will use enough force to take over. Throughout “Things Fall Apart,” Achebe will prompt how the Ibo culture is different in ways of the society lived in

Saint Michael is seen overpowering the dragon, which connects with what Naim is saying in his article. In his article, he states that common people and micropowers are actually overpowering authority by using the three revolutions he stated. For example, in the article Naim analyzes the phenomenon of micropowers; “Micropowers should be aberrations. Because they lack scale, coordination, resources, and a preexisting reputation, they should not even make it into the game, or at least they should be quickly squashed or absorbed by a dominant rival. But the reverse is increasingly true: The micropowers are beating the megaplayers.” (Naim,1) Basically, micropowers should be nonexistent due to its size and resources, but somehow are challenging

The reliance gave the warriors a reason for demand, and in return, the Natives wanted the British to keep a substantial army on the Niagara Peninsula, a dangerously exposed position if the Americans gain naval control of the lake. British officer Edward Baynes explained that a withdrawal “would have lost us all our wavering friends and would have proved destructive to our Indian alliance.” British officers making decisions to keep the Native Alliance together was perhaps not the best military tactic for the war at that time. This is where conflicting war aims prevented the alliance from operating smoothly. The British were stretched to the limits at home dealing with the Napoleon War and were now being forced to use their already few resources to protect an alliance they needed in order to defend Canada had caused great tension and strain between the Native-British

The stopping of the neutral war ships were the most unsatisfactory because it meant that they now had a trading alliance with Britain. The anti-federalist feared that the ties with Britain would strengthen the Federalist Party and promote aristocracy.