In Orwell\u2019s classic account, the possessor of power seems to be counterintuitive. On one hand, Orwell explicitly states that the crowd behind him propelled him to kill the elephant. On the other hand, Orwell was the so-called officer with the rifle. He was the man who \u201cruled\u201d over the crowd behind him. Orwell states the crowd\u2019s ability to exert power over him, the \u201cruler,\u201d as the downfall of European imperialism in the east. Despite the fact that Orwell was the officer with the gun he was obligated to act by his position. I tend to agree with Orwell\u2019s account in this regard. He perfectly states it as being an \u201cabsurd puppet\u201d for this crowd that he has supposed dominion over. To Orwell, this is the price paid to rule over another body of people. The ruler has to wear a mask to rule them, but in turn, his true face starts to grow to become the mask. In the matter of killing the elephant, Orwell had no control over it. It was either kill the elephant or look the fool in the eyes of the Burmese. I must agree with these points because the ruling does come at a price. Obviously, this price is not as heavy as the price paid by those being ruled, but the ruler does lose some freedoms and personal identity when they choose to rule.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Orwell\u2019s classic account, the possessor of power seems to be counterintuitive. On one hand, Orwell explicitly states that the crowd behind him propelled him to kill the elephant. On the other hand, Orwell was the so-called officer with the … Continue reading