People Will Read Again! Curtailing the Detriments of Excessive Television - Eric Douglas Statzer

People Will Read Again! Curtailing the Detriments of Excessive Television

Written By: Eric Douglas Statzer

     In an age where television is the predominant form of home entertainment, the screen is a dominant force of influential communication. With billions of dollars devoted to the advertising intertwined within the programming, television drives the subconscious inconspicuously, sometimes manipulatively. The research and dedication to the science of television advertising is remarkable, as over the course of time companies have vastly improved the efficiency of television advertising, and have nearly perfected the ability to target specific demographics. Mankind has been influenced, persuaded, even coerced for thousands of years, but at no time in history has its efficacy been so powerful and so prevalent as with television. With the priority of persuasion and the keen ability to influence, television advertising has evolved as a prolific form of communication, and the freedoms to engage in what’s known as commercial speech are protected by the First Amendment.

     Considering this, one can easily imagine the ability businesses have conveying their products, services, and messages. The industries that are dominant in the television advertising sector are very well known to all of us: automotive, alcohol, credit cards, movies, prescription drugs, are amongst a few. Even within the programming: sitcoms, reality shows, series, and movies that air, advertising is prevalent. Whether in the form of a message representing a certain political or religious stance, or even as simple as product placement: a pack of Virginia Slims on the nightstand at bedtime, almost every aspect of television is representing more than just a script, far more than just wholesome entertainment. Furthermore, the emergence of reality television has also become a major influence in today’s world, specifically popular culture. From the conduct, attitudes, behavior and demeanor of the characters, to the clothes they wear and the styles they portray, reality television has almost single handedly shaped an entire generation. These performers are advertising simply by marketing their lifestyles.

This specific type of “lifestyle marketing” isn’t found only in reality television, but in almost every scripted television show on the air. Characters are specifically created to portray a certain disposition and temperament that can positively or negatively influence those who view them. With the understood effects of television in its entirety, the question looms: has television affected the American society for better or worse?

     Known for her writing about families in modern society, Marie Winn wrote a book in 1977: The Plug-In Drug: Television, Children, and the Family. In that book she quotes a writer from 1949: “Television is going to be a real asset in every home where there are children.” (Winn 438) Today the average home has more television sets than people, and the influence on our children has never been greater. Winn writes from the perspectives of early television critics: “The splintering of the multiple-set family was something the early writers did not foresee. Nor did anyone imagine the number of hours children would eventually devote to television, the changes television would effect upon child-rearing methods, the increasing domination of family schedules by children’s viewing requirements – in short, the power of television to dominate family life.” (439) The average child spends more time in front of a television set today than at any time since its inception, and today’s programming is not as wholesome and ethical as it once was. Granted, television has its advantages for children including and almost entirely limited to educational programming, but the detriments greatly outweigh the benefits. Television has an impactful contribution to family life, but not in a positive effect. It has indeed affected American society for worse.

     Our children are regarded as the most vulnerable demographic thus television advertising has aggressively targeted this group for decades. The influential effects have been so detrimental that governments across the world have stepped in and implemented regulations on the industry regarding the intentional targeting of children from toddlers to adolescence. Eric Schlosser is a famed journalist and writer known for work such as Fast Food Nation and Kid Kustomers. In Kid Kustomers, Schlosser writes about the direct targeting and influence today’s television-marketing campaigns have on children. He writes about what companies recognize as “cradle-to-grave” strategies where pioneers such as Ray Kroc and Walt Disney realized that “children often recognize a brand logo before they can recognize their own name.” (Schlosser 354) Regulations only restrict the blatantly aggressive marketing toward children, and many of today’s manipulative marketing is disguised in forms such as product placement. 5.2 million dollars was spent in 2006 on product placement that was specifically geared toward those aged 2-17 years.

     Aggressors prey on the vulnerable, the vulnerable then adapt to anything the aggressors portray as mainstream, and for the rest of their lives that certain brand recognition is imbedded in them. Children in particular favor cartoons, and four years after R.J. Reynolds introduced Joe Camel in the 1980s, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study that found nearly every American six-year-old child could recognize this hip cartoon mascot who was just as recognizable to them as Mickey Mouse. The same association found that 1 out of every 3 cigarettes sold to minors were Camels. (Brody) This is a prime example of the aggressors preying on the vulnerable. Subsequently, the Joe Camel ad campaign was discontinued. Furthermore, cigarette commercials have been banned in the United States since 1970. Just imagine the effects of childhood smoking if Joe Camel had been allowed in a children’s cartoon series as a recurring character. His swagger as he stretches out in his beach chair and lights up a cigarette after an adventurous stroll down the sandy shore in his khaki shorts and sleeveless tee, he’s the idolized epitome of manliness, the paragon of cool.

This subliminal and manipulative campaign exposes the dangers and vulnerability in advertising to children and teens also. With the understood effects of advertising within television programming, we now better understand the negative impact this instrument has on society.

     With television exposure at an all-time high, its influence has had a multitude of negative effects: increased childhood obesity due to lack of exercise; aggressive behavior due to exposure to television violence; and with many television characters depicting risky behaviors, addiction to smoking and drinking is also a major concern. Prime-time television airs an average of over twenty violent acts per hour on children’s programming, and by the age of twelve the average American child will have seen 8,000 murders in the media. “With well over one thousand studies, the Conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.” (TV Bloodbath) Children are becoming desensitized to violence and the evil in the world due to excessive television.

Marie Winn wrote: “Culture generally has been transformed by television. Participation in church and community activities has diminished, and television has considerably caused this decline. Through the changes it has made in family life, television emerges as the important influence in children’s lives today.” (Winn 439)

     Too much television is proven to be unhealthy to a developing child as the first two years of a child’s life are critical for neurological development. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children under the age of two should not watch any television at all, and those older than two should watch no more than one to two hours a day of quality, educational, programming. Television can interfere with the physical and social development of a child. It prevents a child from socially interacting with others, including parents and family. “Recent research makes it clear that young children learn a lot more efficiently from real interactions – with people and things – than from situations appearing on video screen.” (Carey) It causes social isolation that limits their peer integration forming a dependency on television to fill that social void.

     Television has devalued the quality of life amongst families as well. Parents now accept a television-dominated family life. Marie Winn asks: “Isn’t there a better family life available than this dismal, mechanized arrangement of children watching television for however long is allowed them, evening after evening?” (Winn 441) It has developed into a caretaking institution where “the children have their regular schedule of television programs and bedtime, and the parents have their peaceful dinner together.” (Winn 441) The ordinary daily family life and bonding has been destroyed by this powerful, yet detrimental medium. The shift from television being merely a box in the living room, used as an occasional form of home entertainment, to revolutionizing culture and family life from a sedentary existence, has brought about great implications for the modern family. For children, the change is prevalent: eating patterns, bedtimes and evening routines, reading, writing, sports, church attendance, all suffer from the dependency of television and the habitual viewing habits that are widespread. As for family, bonding and communication suffer, and many families no longer have seated dinners together without the television on simultaneously. For worse, it has become the centerpiece of the American living room and the nucleus of the home.

     The disadvantageous effects of too much television have been clearly identified. Any sensible person would agree that it’s harmful to our children, families, and our culture, and has segmented society. But television is not entirely unwholesome to the human race, and the twentieth century has proven television to be an asset in terms of communication and outreach, awareness and knowledge. It is the abuse of television that has cast a negative light upon such a marvelous technology. It is the infatuation of television that has caused it to be deemed unhealthy, and people have incorporated the belief that television reflects society’s true values and standards, that it candidly portrays our cultural landscape. It is the lack of personal responsibility in parenting that has allowed our children to become besotted with the need for television as the predominant source of entertainment.

     The need for a change is evident but is it achievable? Will this generation finally grasp the importance and necessity of this change? The consequence of societies’ infatuation with television has already wreaked havoc in too many ways. It is up to us to curtail this downward spiral of moral and ethical standards caused by the ostentatious programming that floods the airwaves of television today. It is our responsibility to manage the accessibility of television to our children and then fill that new void with what was once cherished: communication, recreation, community involvement, outreach and creativity. We must rise from this lethargic state and pull the plug on excessive television. Society will then experience a new emphasis on individuality, morality, culture, and freedom. People will read again!

Works Cited

Winn, Marie. “Television: The Plug-In Drug.” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology. Ed. Samuel Cohen. 3rd ed. Boston and New York: Bedford, 2011, 438-446. Print.

Schlosser, Eric. “Kid Kustomers.” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology. Ed. Samuel Cohen. 3rd ed. Boston and New York: Bedford, 2011, 353-357. Print.

Brody, Jane E. “Smoking Among Children Is Linked To Cartoon Camel in Advertisements.” www.NYTimes.com. American Medical Association. 11 Dec. 1991. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

“TV Bloodbath: Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV.” A PRC State of the Television Industry Report. www.ParentsTV.org. n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

Carey, Benedict. “Parents Urged Again to Limit TV for Youngest.” www.NYTimes.com. American Academy of Pediatrics. 18 October, 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2011

The Crises of Dual Identities - Eric Douglas Statzer

The Crises of Dual Identities

- Eric Douglas Statzer

            Rooted in America’s Declaration of Independence is the idea of the American dream, a national ethos of the United States. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is the framework of the United States of America, and through it created the ideals that with hard work, regardless of social status or circumstances of birth, one has an opportunity for prosperity and success. For immigrants, the adaptation to the American society and culture can be a formidable challenge, yet very rewarding. The difficulty to preserve the intimacy with one’s native culture when immersed in the depths of American culture is clearly prevalent. With an immigration rate higher than any country in the world by a wide margin, the United States is the Empire of Liberty and prosperity. Whether immigrants cling to their ancestral traditions, language, and customs, or whether they fully adapt to the American mainstream, they will endure a crisis of identity and will surely undertake a challenging task of personal development and enlightenment when chasing the American dream.

            Richard Rodriguez’s “Aria: Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood” details how a young boy, growing up in the United States amongst a white, English speaking society, struggles to manage two separate identities each affiliated with a different language. One, identified as being intimate and personal, is his identity when he is speaking his native language of Spanish with his family. The second is his identity as a child, born from Mexican immigrants, struggling to learn English amongst a multitude of los gringos, a Spanish term he uses to describe a white, English speaking person. Rodriquez writes of his struggles of being educated in a bilingual environment, portraying them in detail to support his stance against bilingual education. He details the difficulties he endures while trying to adapt to the English speaking language, which is imperative to the American culture that will enable him to encapsulate the true opportunity of capturing the American dream. He advocates against bilingual education mainly because of his experiences with how it alienates him from one world or the other, yet he fully understands the importance of adapting to the English speaking culture in order to flourish in society. Reluctantly in doing so he alienates his native identity, looses that intimacy that was once shared with his close family and friends, and initiates a sense of betrayal from his relatives in the process of fully adapting to his public, English speaking identity.

            The identity struggles are evident in Rodriquez’s writing. “It is not healthy to distinguish public words from private sounds so easily. I remained cloistered by sounds, timid and shy in public, too dependent on voices at home.” (312) Aria serves as a framework to study the experiences of others similar to Rodriguez’s such as immigrating to America or adapting to unfamiliar surroundings. We can also use it to analyze and interpret relationships, whether between people, or even humans and their environment. We can then closely examine the issues, struggles, and situations of others using his detailed examples of public identity, private identity, and intimacy.

            Comparable struggles can be found in the writings of Bharati Mukherjee’s “Two Ways to Belong in America.” Mukherjee writes a story about the differences between her and her sister Mira’s adaptation to the culture of America. These are two women from India having lived in the United States for 35 years, Bharati, deciding to fully embrace the benefits of United States citizenship, and Mira, who has refused. “After 36 years as a legal immigrant to this country, she clings passionately to her Indian citizenship and hopes to go home to India when she retires.” (281) As for Bharati, she fully embraces the oath of citizenship, the culture of the United States, and the American dream. “By choosing a husband who was not my father’s selection, I was opting for fluidity, self-invention, blue jeans, and T-shirts, and renouncing 3,000 years (at least) of caste-observant, “pure culture” marriage in the Mukherjee family.” (281) This explicitly details traits and characteristics of Bharati’s public identity including her embracing the popular culture, fashion, and freedom that American culture offers. Rodriguez distinguishes in his memoir the differences in private versus the public identity and Bharati is fully immersed in the culture of America having achieved public identity, as Rodriguez reluctantly did. Bharati achieves a public identity by embracing all that America has to offer, language and culture, even citizenship. “America spoke to me – I married it – I embraced the demotion from expatriate aristocrat to immigrant nobody, surrendering those thousands of years of “pure culture,” the saris, the delightfully accented English.” (282)

            With Rodriguez, achieving public identity came at the expense of his private identity. During his early childhood Rodriguez speaks to his siblings and parents comfortably at home, in his true native tongue. “During those years when I was first conscious of hearing, my mother and father addressed me only in Spanish; in Spanish I learned to reply. By contrast, English, rarely heard in the house, was the language I came to associate with gringos.” And it was in school where English was an imperative form of learned communication. His teachers even encouraged his parents to speak English in the home so that he would better adapt to the language, thus adapting to the culture and identity of public. In doing so, this separated him from the intimacy that he had longed coveted; this alienated him from his roots, and forced him to forfeit his private identity. The very same thing seems to occur in Bharati’s life, she alienates her roots, and forfeits her cultural connections, rituals, and family expectations to embrace a new, public identity. “I need to feel like a part of the community I have adopted. I need to put roots down, to vote and make the difference that I can.” (283)

            In contrast and for reasons of comparison, Mira is a prime example of one who maintains two separate identities, never fully embracing her public identity. On one hand she lives, works, and dedicates herself to a position in America teaching children. She speaks fluent English, pays her taxes, and invests her time, energy, and talent to the benefit of the American preschool system. This is the most apparent form of her public identity. On the other hand she has refused to become a United States citizen, and has no interest in embracing the culture of America. Her sister says it well: “but we probably pitied one another. She, for the lack of structure in my life, the erasure of Indianness, the absence of an unvarying daily core. I, for the narrowness of her perspective, her uninvolvement with the mythic depths or the superficial pop culture of this society.” (281) Mira’s passion for her roots and native culture has enabled her to stay intimate and comfortable within her private identity. “I feel some kind of irrational attachment to India that I don’t to America.” (282) She is fully at peace in her private identity and loyal to her native cultural background.

            Taking an initiative to interpret a challenging comparison between human’s relationship with nature in the past and present, much is learned while analyzing Rachel Carson’s “The Obligation to Endure.” Through the convictions of Richard Rodriguez and his theory about private and public identity, we can identify considerable differences in the way humans interact with their surroundings today compared to centuries past. “Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species – man – acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world.” (83) This specific reference is something on which to focus. It explains that at no time over the history of human existence has man impacted nature such as it has in the last century. “It took hundreds of millions of years to produce the life that now inhabits the earth – eons of time in which that developing and evolving and diversifying life reached a state of adjustment and balance with its surroundings.” (84) This is the explanation of how adaptation occurred in the past from as far back as the hunters and gatherers, to the present day chemical based, mass farming procedures that are permanently contaminating and endangering nature.

            The private identity of the human race is characterized by trends during these ancient times, when humans were one and the same with nature and the environment. Men and women actively sought out food and shelter in moderate gains without destroying the ecosystem. Living off the land and sourcing human necessities naturally met the basic needs of mankind. The primitive agricultural practices in the preceding centuries are characteristics of the private identity that Rodriguez explains as being intimate and personal. Humans were intimate and personal with nature and the environment and because of that intimacy, nature and the environment was able to adapt, adjust, and balance over time. “The environment, rigorously shaping and directing the life it supported, contained elements that were hostile as well as supporting… Given time – time not in years but in millennia – life adjusts, and a balance has been reached.” (84) This personal relationship between humans and nature benefitted nature well, and essentially humans also. Even though food, shelter, and necessities were more difficult to acquire, humans were living in a more natural nature, without the contamination and impurities that are prevalent in today’s world that ultimately affect human health and wellness.

            Carson, who is considered the mother of the modern American environmental movement, continues her essay writing about the detrimental effects humans have recently had on nature. Again looking through the scope of Rodriguez’s theory of separate identities, two entirely different worlds, the current practices by humans fall on the opposite end of the spectrum. We will now explore this quickly evolving relationship between humans and nature in the present. “During the past quarter century this power has not only increased to one of disturbing magnitude but it has changed in character.” (84) Over time human identity has evolved from the intimate and private explained previously, to a more widespread, rampant, public distinctiveness. We notice in Carson’s writing a sense of ubiquity, specifically in the following text, “In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world – the very nature of its life.” We as humans are destroying the earth, and it is in this public identity that we do so. The struggle between identities has come at a cost, not only to nature and the environment, but human health also.

            Richard Rodriguez and Bharati Mukherjee achieved public identity because in this character they found it easier to adapt to the culture of America, thus easier to capture the essence of the American dream. Humans have achieved public identity because in this character we find it easier to mass-produce food and create artificial products by the use of lethal materials and dangerous chemicals. “They are the synthetic creations of man’s inventive mind, brewed in his laboratories, and having no counterparts in nature. (85) We are living in an age of industry dominance and making money is an immense priority, even at the cost of human welfare. With Rodriguez and Mukherjee the public identity came only at the cost of their own personal, private identities and their intimacy and cultural connections of the past. Both are able to manage well in their new public character and the popular culture, language, and American characteristics are unaltered in any fraction. For the human race, the public identity comes at the expense of its private, intimate relationship with nature and the environment, and also at the expense of nature, the environment, and the overall health and vitality of the earth. “To adjust to these chemicals would require time on the scale that is nature’s; it would require not merely the years of a man’s life but the life of generations… Among them are many that are used in man’s war against nature.” (85)

            In the crises of multiple identities one must consider the most vital characteristics and cherish the most important aspects. In Mira Mukherjee’s case, managing two separate identities fit her well. Though never fully embracing her public identity, she dabbled in some, but only few of the characteristics, language being one. For Rodriguez, reluctantly adapting to his public identity served him well, as it did for Bharati, who willfully embraced it, both capturing the American dream. As for the human race, we should revaluate the identity into which we have evolved, for it is destroying everything from our ecosystem to our health and vitality. We must preserve the intimacy that was once endured to perpetuate the vigor that is still sustained.

Works Cited

Jefferson, Thomas. “The Declaration of Independence.” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology. Ed. Samuel Cohen. 3^rd ed. Boston and New York: Bedford, 2011, 191-195. Print.

Rodriquez, Richard. “Aria: A Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood.” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology. Ed. Samuel Cohen. 3^rd ed. Boston and New York: Bedford, 2011, 408-416. Print.

Mukherjee, Bharati. “Two Ways to Belong in America.” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology. Ed. Samuel             Cohen. 3^rd ed. Boston and New York: Bedford, 2011, 408-416. Print.

Carson, Rachel. “The Obligation to Endure.” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology. Ed. Samuel Cohen.             3^rd ed. Boston and New York: Bedford, 2011, 83-90. Print.

The Murderous Analogy of Imperialism - Eric Douglas Statzer

The Murderous Analogy of Imperialism

- Eric Douglas Statzer

    Great Britain’s imperialism was a dominant force across much of the world in the early 20^th century. Politically and economically they ruled many nations across the globe, some by military force. Far greater than most, was that of Britain’s possession of India, known as the Jewel of the Crown. In “Shooting an Elephant” George Orwell narrates a remarkable incident of euthanizing an elephant that becomes a formidable moment of sudden revelation and insight. Through his detailed portrayal of a dramatic fashion, paired with a pragmatic form of literary insight, he conveys the sardonic presentation of imperialism in Burma. He aids the reader in comprehending the anguish and distress of not only the imperialized people, but also the oppressors themselves.

    A necessary and inspired element of this story is a closer look at the life of the writer. Born Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name George Orwell, this British novelist developed “Orwellian” styled writing, known to identify conditions being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. His satirical fiction expressed powerful opinion and addressed major political movements in the early 20^th century including fascism, communism, and imperialism.

    Published in 1936, the essay follows the antagonist Orwell himself. As an English police officer in the town of Moulmein in Lower Burma, he was a prime target of ridicule and hated amongst the town. There was a bitter, anti-European tone that resonated throughout the country, and his position of authority only fueled in the enticement. Orwell despised his job and longed for a time when he would be leaving it behind. Secretly, he was against imperialism and the oppression of the Burmese people, but to the town people he was a white man with a gun.

    “It was a cloudy, stuffy morning at the beginning of the rains.” (286) The setting sets the tone for the story, a gloomy day in Moulmein. Orwell gets a call from a fellow officer on the other end of town, a tamed elephant has broken free from his chains and has gotten loose in the town, ravaging the local bazaars and causing a wild commotion amongst the unarmed townspeople. Orwell grabs his .44 Winchester, a very popular hunting rifle, yet knowingly not powerful enough to bring down a beast such as an elephant, and heads toward the town center. He’s hoping the noise alone will be enough to scare the crazed, ravaging animal away.

    Once he arrives at the scene he encounters confusion and discrepancies about the elephant. People claim seeing the elephant go one way, some the other, even some claiming to have not seen an elephant at all. Orwell states, “That is invariably the case in the East; a story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to the scene of events the vaguer it becomes.” (286) As he has almost convinced himself that there is not even an elephant at all he suddenly hears yelling voices from a distance. An old woman with a switch in her hand is chasing a crowd of children from around a hut. As it was obvious there was something behind the hut for the children not to see, Orwell rounds the hut to find an Indian man’s dead body trampled into the mud. Dead for no longer than minutes, the man had unfortunately crossed paths with the savage beast and was pinned down in a crucified position, head sharply twisted to one side, and left dead with a face of unendurable agony.

    Upon finding the dead man, Orwell immediately sent for an elephant rifle and had then heard that the elephant was nearby in the paddy fields. “As I started forward practically the whole population of the quarter flocked out of the houses and followed me.” (287) Armed and finally within view of the beast, he realized the elephant was finished with his tantrum and “knew with perfect certainty that [he] ought not to shoot him.” (287) This is where Orwell really begins to utilize literary imagery, irony, and rhetoric to further his argument, depicting the satirical presentation of imperialism. When he takes a moment to look back at the immense crowed of natives that followed, he recounts seeing a “sea of yellow faces” (288) yearning for action, expecting the elephant to be shot. Even though Orwell did not want to shoot the elephant, now peacefully eating in the paddy fields, “suddenly [he] realized that [he] should have to shoot the elephant after all.” (288) As Orwell contemplates his options, he realizes that he, as a leader and “white man” pressured by the will of the “yellow faced” crowd, has to maintain authority and manifest strength as with the controversial nature of the leaders of an imperialist government.

    “It was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East.” (288) Even though Orwell seemed to be the epitome of power and the leader of such a vast congregation, he feels oppressed himself by the people and their wills, pressuring him to do something that in his heart is not right. He compares his demeaned position and the humiliated role to that of an actor or even a puppet, “seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” (288) This irony displays Orwell’s repugnance and profound disapproval of the hollowness and burden of the British colonization of India. And this man “becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib.” (288) Orwell feels that he is nothing more than a hollow ruler representing a faithless dominance from afar.

    It seemed to Orwell that shooting the elephant would be murder, but in the end he yields surrender to the incessant compulsion. “And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.” (288) The shooting of the elephant precedes a thorough description of the agonizing death the animal suffers. The emphasis on the death of the elephant is vivid, graphic, and even grotesque, but its necessary details paint a picture of distasteful reality in the minds of the readers, who are imposed to equate the details to the tribulations of imperialism.

    After the shot Orwell recounts, “I did not hear the bang or feel the kick – one never does when a shot goes home – but I heard the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd.” (290) The people were thrilled at his collapse of will power and jubilant about the killing of the beast, failing to grasp the immorality in the death itself. Orwell was fooled just as the people of Burma are fooled into believing their oppression is actually for their benefit. The devilish roar that Orwell describes paints a picture of evil dominance much like the powers from the controlling governments of imperialist dominance. Orwell continues to narrate the death:

“a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant. He neither stirred nor fell, but every line of his body had altered. He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralyzed him without knocking him down. At last, after what seemed a long time – it might have been five seconds, I dare say – he sagged flabbily to his knees. His mouth slobbered. An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him. One could have imagined him thousands of years old. I fired again into the same spot. At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to his feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping. I fired a third time. That was the shot that did for him. You could see the agony of it jolt his whole body and knock that last remnant of strength from his legs. But in falling he seemed for a moment to rise, for as his hind legs collapsed beneath him he seemed to tower upward like a huge rock toppling, his trunk reaching skywards like a tree. He trumpeted, for the first and only time. And then down he came, his belly towards me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I lay.” (290)

    Analyzing Orwell’s description of the agony endured and the striving to stand tall again and again, the elephant is easily perceived as a resilient creature of great magnitude. Even after multiple shots the beast desperately fights to compose himself and rise again. Resilience of countries subdued to the evils of imperialism can be compared to that of the elephant’s during his agonizing death. Imperialism has many aspects of enslavement and empires are known for their human rights abuse, wars, and exploitation of weaker countries. In many ways this still continues in the world today. Whether it is the occupying of foreign lands, interests in oil or natural resources, even land and power, it is prevalent all over the world. The oppressed nations today still show resilience like that of the elephant and the fight for freedom is ubiquitous.

    After Orwell’s third shot, the elephant seemed for a moment to rise, which is ironic because at the same time his hind legs were falling from beneath him. It only seems as if the elephant is rising because he puts every last shred of strength into reaching up with his trunk toward the sky for one last howl. Imperialism destroys countries and disintegrates national pride, but unity prevails. And like the trunk reaching toward the skies for the last time, people unite and fight for what is natural, freedom.

Works Cited

           

            Orwell, George. “Shooting an Elephant.” 50 Essays. 3^rd ed. Samuel Cohen.

Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. 284-291. Print.