The Problems of Colonialism - Coursework Example

5.2 Evaluating Persuasive Arguments Shooting an Elephant Argument is pretty clear – colonialism is badbecause it forces people into roles. Statement that summarizes argument – “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” Argument is consistent in the narrator’s experiences. However, it is not as persuasive as it could be. Difficult to relate to modern experiences and questions about narrator’s decisions if he’d been older: “I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East.” No Witchcraft for Sale Argument is not very clear. The title helps make it clearer. The relationship between Gideon and the Farquars sums up the argument through the attitudes of Little Yellow Hair, “He could not bring himself to say he was sorry; but he could not bear to lose Gideon’s affection either.” The argument seems inconsistent on the surface – Gideon serves the Farquars, he is happy, they support his family – but consistent at a deeper level – Gideon makes strict distinction between himself and the white people. The argument is not very persuasive because it is difficult to understand an argument is being made. Jawaharlal Nehru The author’s argument is very clear trying to encourage Indians to work hard to overcome the problems of colonialism. A statement that seems to sum up the argument is, “We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again.” The arguments are very consistent but sound very repetitious The argument is persuasive because it continues to illustrate the many ways Indians need to overcome the past. The repetitiousness of the article detracts from it though because the reader begins seeking new information. Other clarifying statements: “It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.” ; “To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.” Essay The problems of colonialism are generally thought to have not been recognized in earlier times and are thus only now being discovered. However, there are many texts, both in fiction and non-fiction, that indicate the problems of colonialism were widely recognized and simply ignored in the face of tremendous profits and the ability to suppress. These texts reveal the inconsistencies of colonialism and its tendency to place the colonized people, regardless of their own values, abilities and talents, at a somehow sub-human status as if they were naturally intended to serve the desires and greed of the white people who came to rule over them. By examining several viewpoints of colonialism, one can begin to get a clearer understanding of how this particular social convention served to damage not only the indigenous people, but also the so-called conquering heroes, the colonizers themselves. Understanding colonialism from the perspective of the white man in the colonized country as in Orson Wells’ story, the exterior viewpoint of the colonized as in Doris Lessing’s story or from the actual perspective of the colonized as in Nehru’s article reveals that no one benefited from the arrangement. Orson Wells’ story about shooting an elephant makes a relatively clear argument about the negative affects of colonialism on the colonials. The author says, “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” In this statement, he associates the colonizing force, the white man, with tyrant, in which decisions are made for the benefit of the ruler rather than the ruled. At the same time, he indicates that the necessity of keeping up appearances is essential to maintain control but becomes a control in itself, turning the individual white man into something he is not. This is a consistent theme through most of the story because he talks about how he has to behave based on the expectations others have of him. The argument is only somewhat persuasive, though, because the reader sees it as a personal account and doesn’t necessarily place themselves in the same position. It is, after all, difficult to imagine oneself in such a situation. The author’s reactions and final shooting of the elephant are also considered to be elements of his youth because he talks about how his attitudes have changed with age. “I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East.” The final impression of the narrator as the story ends is that he might have made a different decision had he been older, more educated or present under different circumstances rather than as the representative of a colonizing country. Doris Lessing’s short story “No Witchcraft for Sale” is a less convincing argument regarding the dehumanizing forces of colonization because it is less clear that an argument is being made. The title suggests where the conflict might be found and, as the story unfolds, it becomes more obvious that Gideon’s ‘witchcraft’ is freely offered to his people. The field hand describes Gideon saying, “Now, there’s a doctor for you. He’s the son of a famous medicine man who used to be in these parts, and there’s nothing he cannot cure.” This is instantly followed by the seemingly required qualification that Gideon, as a black man, is automatically not as good as any white doctor, “but he’s good for us.” Gideon helps Little Yellow Hair because he seems to him to be like part of the family. The Farquars have treated him well and evidently value his knowledge and experience. When they attempt to convince him to sell his knowledge to the same people who would place him and all his people in chains, this becomes a strong wedge between them and demonstrates the problems of colonialism. “He spoke incredulously, as if he could not believe his old friends could so betray him.” While the argument seems inconsistent on the surface because of Gideon’s anxious willingness to serve the Farquars and then unwillingness to work with the white people, it is consistent when it is seen from the perspective of the old medicine man. Although it is difficult to understand that an argument is being made, it is clear that there is a problem in the changing relationship between Gideon and the small boy. After having frightened off Gideon’s nephew for no reason other than that “he’s just a little black boy”, Little Yellow Hair “could not bring himself to say he was sorry; but he could not bear to lose Gideon’s affection either.” Gideon’s repaired relationship with the family at the end of the story again seems to make the argument weak, yet it remains difficult to forget that a degree of separation has been introduced. Nehru’s article is largely a call for action to the people of India to meet the challenge before them of redefining themselves and their nation after colonialism is lifted. That colonialism has not been a beneficial element of their history is made clear when the author indicates “We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again.” Although much of the article is a celebration of the opportunities that are opening up to the nation, there are many hints that the reign of England over India has been characterized by severe suppression of the native population. Nehru says the emancipation of India “means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.” This is ironic because many of the elements considered important in a Western nation such as Britain, elements one would assume should be introduced into any region ruled by such a country, are listed as the goals of the now freed India: “To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.” While the argument is consistent and persuasive, it loses a good deal of its effectiveness by its monotonous repetition. Each of these texts reveals that the individual is highly damaged by the effects of colonialism. Wells experiences a loss of self in the face of having to live up to an ideal image of the sahib who must take definitive action rather than simply doing the right thing. My understanding of human nature indicates that anyone, regardless of age or social circumstance, will tend to go along with the will of the crowd, but the way Wells presents the story indicates that his need to shoot the elephant sprung from the need to not make the ‘white man’, as a social concept, appear foolish, not from the pressure of the crowd itself. Lessing’s story is more difficult to understand. The black man in the story seems to contradict himself in first befriending the family, then turning against them, and then befriending them again. A closer look reveals the separation that still exists between them at the end that didn’t exist in the beginning and the seeming contradiction forces the reader to take a closer look. Finally, Nehru’s perspective in his article reveals a strong current of disquiet and extreme suffering among the people that needs to be overcome, all of which was brought about as a direct result of colonialism and the devastation brought upon the people by the colonizing nation. From these texts, it is impossible to conclude anything other than that colonialism serves only to harm those involved in the practice, whether the colonized or the colonizer. Both are severely limited in what they can do and neither are able to do what is right or best for the nation at large. Read More