Burmese Days Analysis

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

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.

In the Photograph Album of Cashmere& Ladakh,1886, H.W.B depicts the age of imperialism through his photography of the 1st Batallion East Surrey Regiment of Great Britain. The photos allow one to make observations without any biased inputs such as writings. Using one’s own

The victims are the burmese people and not orwell because while orwell was indeed “hated...jeered at…” and also “targeted.. as a police officer” (page1), the burmese people faced even harsher treatment than just being hated. The burmese people faced physical punishment and were even treated badly. They were “huddled in stinking cages” and even “flogged with bamboos” (page 1) which obviously shows them to be treated worse than how they treated orwell since the most they could do to him was trip him.

Logos is used to show logic and persuade an audience by reason. When the author talks about the irony and the reality of imperialism, he compares himself to the figure of a sahib. The comparison to the sahib is a term that was used to name aristocratic rulers. It is an important symbol of their cultural image. British imperialism is a hostile environment and does not justify exploitation by controlling the Burmese people. The story sets the tone of the author’s story to be un-comforting. This story shows his flaws and how he taunts others, even his own people of Burma.

Language can be a powerful tool which can build individuals up but it can also tear them down. When reading Literature through a post-colonial lens it can give us the needed tools to provide or grasp the information in order to reveal the bigger picture in the story. “Post-colonialism examines the manner in which emerging societies grapple with the challenges of self- determination.” (Aladren, 2013) In one way we can see that approach of colonist being conveyed through the native tongue which tends to be taught to its subjects. Such examples can be seen in Shakespeare’s The Tempest (Act1 & 2) and the The Epic of Gilgamesh which illustrates how a “savage” can be domesticated simply by learning the imperialist language. As the subjects Caliban and Enkidu encounter these dominating issues due to the situation they face once they are introduce to oppressors culture.

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.

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

The British colonization of Burma created a racial boundary that had the Burmese dealing with white European supremacy since day one. It is evident throughout George Orwell’s novel, Burmese Days, that the main theme is the superiority of the white Europeans over the non-white Burmese. The white Europeans are extremely racist, sexist, and self centered. The social class system in this novel seems to be a two-tier system. The top tier being the white European elite, while the bottom tier seems to be the rest. The non-white Burmese people constituted the rest. These non-whites are considered second nature to the Europeans and hold such titles and jobs as peasants and servants. Elizabeth often refers them to as “beastly”. She is an

Despite his support for the Burmese, Orwell endured their overwhelming bitterness and hatred because of his British heritage: "the sneering faces . . . of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me . . got badly on my nerves" (p.3). Orwell sums up his feelings of guilt, coupled with his reaction against being hated: "All I knew was that 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" (4). Although part of him saw the British Raj as tyrannical, "with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts" (4). Orwell rationalizes his rage saying, "Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism" (4). Orwell realizes that tyrannical imperialism works against both the imperialists and the natives.

In one of George Orwell’s famous works The Road to Wigan Pier the man famously quoted “In order to hate imperialism, you have to be a part of it. (goodreads.com)” This quote symbolizes George Orwell’s attitude toward imperialism that is clearly expressed in two of his most famous essays, Shooting an Elephant and A Hanging. The quote also makes one think about what being a part of imperialism really means; For example, in both stories George Orwell’s character is portrayed as an English figure of authority in the occupied area of Burma. In both of George Orwell’s writings the groups of people that are split from each other are the British and native Indians. Orwell used many Symbols throughout his two famous writings to describe

In fact, by attempting to glamourize suffering by portraying it superficially, writers may lose the connection with us that appreciates literature. Instead, what we are left with is an over extended attempt to glorify suffering, or hide it within a guise of reality that is too savage to be true. Instead of the appreciative feeling that reality imbues within me as a reader, I am left with a sense of disgust, confusion and dissatisfaction. This feeling almost overwhelmed me while reading Adiga’s “The White Tiger” and it tainted my experience with the book. Adiga had written the novel without any firsthand experience in the rural areas of India to which his main character referred to as the darkness. Instead, being of a higher class, his accounts were based on second or third hand experiences which do not adequately depict the lower class’ realities. I found the following depiction of India’s ghettos both farcically unrealistic and eventually

Prestige is all for them and they would do everything to get it. Maybe Orwell’s real impression of the Burmese wasn’t as positive as one could think while reading the passages about the behaviour of the English, sometimes he even seems to loathe the Burmese, but then again his Marxist ideas force him to write in favour of the socially disgraced. Orwell points out this conflict very consciously, as his own comment on his service in Burma proofs: “I was in the Indian Police for five years, and by the end of that time I hated the imperialism I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear. [...] I had reduced everything to the simple theory that the oppressed are always right and the oppressors are always wrong: a mistaken theory, but the natural result of being one of the oppressors yourself. I felt I had got to escape not merely from imperialism but from every form of man’s dominion over man." (George Orwell)

much on the net about Burmese Days that one can look over when getting ready to write an essay. I have provided one I wrote that is about 2 1/2 pages long and outlines some basic themes as well as analyzes the main character. Tell me what you guys think:

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