Dear Goodwell Nzou, I am writing this letter to contend in contradiction of your article that was published on 5th August, 2015 in The New York Times titled, “In Zimbabwe, We don’t cry for lions”, in which you disapproved of the American Doctor being portrayed as the villain. Your article speaks about how the lions are at fault and how the lions are a ‘menace’ to villagers like you, but the real problem is not the lions but some of the people only. Your article on The New York Times did get a lot of support from most of the readers but they do not know how we have provoked and instigated the lions and wild animals to come out of their habitat and attack nearby villages. I agree to your point that the lions are a threat to villager living in …show more content…
And now after killing Cecil the lion he has not shown up in the public as he is afraid as he knows that the killing was illegal any ways as he took Cecil off the reserve. And as you said in your article, ‘my excitement doused when I realized that the lion killer was being painted as the villain’ goes against the point of that this kill was illegitimate. As you talked about an animal being sacred to specific clans and that yours is Nzou, which is the elephant clan, and how you don’t eat elephant meat but don’t mind people killing elephants. Show how these clans are backward and also how they contrast their own statement of letting it get killed but it is also sacred and that your clan cannot eat its flesh. Wild animals do not attack until and unless they sense fear and harm as per studies. When you lost your leg due to the snakebite, the snake must have had bitten you because it sensed danger and wanted to protect itself. Like that each animal will do anything for its survival like the lions would come to the village and eat the chickens, sheep, cows and once or twice human
This adds to the reader’s sympathy because he didn’t provoke the man’s attack and did nothing to deserve what happened to him. He was punished despite being completely innocent. Though the snake does not pose a direct threat, he is an extremely powerful creature and a great asset to the beauty of nature. He “felt no necessity of getting out of anybody’s path,” showing his confidence in himself. Though he is confident, he is not arrogant. He does not cower at the sight of the man, nor does he try to threaten him. He simply stands his ground confidently, waiting for the man to dictate his next move. This trait of the snake causes the reader to respect him and appreciate his position of power, reinforcing their sympathetic feelings. The snake’s death was slow and painful, and the author described all of the gruesome details in order to further affect the reader. The man himself admits that “it was a nasty sight”. First, he hacked about in the paper bag bush until he “dragged
In the society today, big game hunting is restricted you can not just kill animals randomly just for fun. Laws are put in place to stop this from happening. This shows a link between the story and real life. Many people are hunters who do not care about animals but we have to show to them the significance of what they are doing. Besides what is the difference between man and
The snake was not aware of the man’s intentions was cautious but not yet preparing for an attack. The rattlesnake “lay ridged” through its mistrust of the man did not feel threatened so his “body was undulant” not preparing for an attack. Because of its natural instincts the snake was wary of the man’s presence but did not feel provoked enough to set up a defense. The usual instincts would have been to give a strong attack but choose not to do so. Still attentive to the man’s possible actions, the snake presents him with a warning for both their sake. Therefore as the man raised his weapon the snake set up its rattling and “shook his fair but furious signal” warning the man he “made an unprovoked attack”. The snake had not planned on attacking the man so instead of reacting swiftly the snake had given the man a warning. By doing so the snake shows its value of life because he left the man chance in avoiding an outcome with death for either side. Consequently having misjudged the man’s intent it is left with little time to protect itself from an unexpected attack. With the man suddenly attacking the snake with a hoe it “struck passionately” until it “was soon dead”. As a result of not being able to assemble an attack the snake is left with it’s only chance of winning by striking hard but with ineffective moves. Thus readers feel sympathy for the snake because it had not called for an attack that would have taken either
“Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell demonstrates one man's moralistic battle between his own belief of preservation of life against that of the crowd of natives which spur him to kill the beast. The author is incited in his actions by the large, unanimous crowd looming eagerly behind him. The sheer size of the group of Burmese natives can create an illusion of strength in numbers that can be hard to fight. The author knew, on one hand, that the conclusion to shoot the beast is immoral, however, from a social standpoint, agreement with the group meant survival in their territory. Failure to comply with what is expected could result in punishment in the form of embarrassment. The author writes “to come all that way, rifle in ...
During the summer of 2015, a well known lion named Cecil was killed in Zimbabwe by an American dentist, Dr. Walter James Palmer. A major uproar was caused in the media, especially since Palmer did not even hunt on legal hunting grounds. “Dr. Palmer admitted to killing Cecil and sent a statement to the Minneapolis Star Tribune stating he believed all
The killing of Zimbabwe's most well-known and much-photographed lion, affectionately named Cecil, ignited a firestorm of controversy and debate. This essay will explore hunting and trapping, both play key roles in maintaining a balance in the animal kingdom. Both sports have been a tradition since the beginning of mankind. Men needed to hunt and trap to feed their families and stay alive. For some people that is still true today and others it is a hobby that has become a passion.
The action of the snake at the beginning of the encounter was portrayed in a calm and collective fashion. The snake “held his ground in calm watchfulness; he was not even rattling yet, much less was he coiled.” The raw and unfiltered statement of the snake action made it clear to the audience that the snake did not make the attack or even attempted to look like he was on guard. To the readers, this meant the snake was not sending an danger signal. No danger signal from the snake but a hoe was aimed at it meant that attack toward the snake was unprovoked. The realization of the fact that the snake wanted nothing to bother with this man’s life helped the readers to understand the snake’s point of view, even though limited. In addition to the intention of the snake, the details of the reactions from snake to the attack of the reader help understand the snake’s feeling and instinct at that moment. The panic of the snake by the way “he struck passionately once more at the hoe…” could be sympathized by the readers through the description of its action. The feeling of fear and survival instinct was something a lot of audience thought could only belong to human. The reader got a rude awakening with fact that this snake’s feelings of terror and its desire to live was just so similar to a human. Even though it was a creature no human can relate to, at that moment, every reader could step into its place and imagined the horror of knowing that it can die and death will come very soon. Sympathy for the snake was not an anticipated feeling and sensation for the readers. The reader expected to feel apathy or hatred toward the snake because of the negative connotation that went along with the animal. However, the empathy for the snake was introduced through the calm and collected description of the snake’s action as well as the intense desire of it to
Through the snake’s intelligence, his fair treatment of the man, and his gruesome death, the author evokes compassion in the reader. When the man firsts comes across the snake, his instinct is not to attack, but to “watch what [the man] would do,” and “[hold] his ground in calm watchfulness” as he “[waits] for [the narrator] to show [his] intentions.” The snake’s neutral approach reveals his intelligence and his confidence. He is aware of his power; knows that in one swift move he can easily kill the narrator. But instead of doing so, he keeps a calm exterior, understanding that the man has yet to provoke him, and therefore there is no reason to attack. Furthermore, though the
A social outrage has broken recently amid the scandal of Cecil the Lion’s death. Cecil was illegally hunted and killed by the American dentist Walter Palmer. Since then, it has caused the world to change their minds on the effects of trophy hunting. Succeeding the death of the renowned lion, a recent poll in America displays that on a three to one margin, the respondents said they would rather be tourists in a country that prohibits trophy hunting, instead of one that does not. The debate is ascending as more hunters proudly present their ‘trophy’ on social media. Many nature conservatives and animal protection agencies are raising awareness because of the fact that Cecil died in a meaningless and violent manner.The problem is not only in America, but around the globe. Trophy hunting should be illegal in the world because it is merely killing animals without a meaningful purpose, and it produces harmful effects to the environment.
The comparison of the rattlesnake to a bigger, more frightening, and yet less deadly creature makes the former seem dangerous. While a blacksnake would “flee at the sight of a man”, the rattler proved its fearlessness with the way he “held his ground”. The rattler is cocky, and for good reason, because his poison could kill the man much easier than the theoretical blacksnake could. The man is in a life-threatening situation and the reader is likely to sympathize with his fear and worry. The author uses violent diction when describing the snake to make us see him as a vicious creature, in need of killing to keep others safe. Even dead, the rattler “may still bite”. He needs to be kept as far as possible from people - especially vulnerable people, such as young children - in order to protect them. The author includes this hostile wording to bring awareness to the fact that the snake is remorseless, even in death, and that taking its life is noble and just. Finally, the snake’s “little song of death” is personified negatively by the man to show that the snake is the villain in the story. Life is, according to the rattlesnake, “dear and would be dearly sold”. It comes to light in this phrase that the snake is looking for revenge from the man’s actions. The rattler is not as innocent as he may have initially seemed. As he attempts at the man’s life to bring
Every day, each individual will look back on decisions he or she have made and mature from those experiences. Though it takes time to realize these choices, the morals and knowledge obtained from them are priceless. In George Orwell’s nonfictional essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, a young Orwell was stationed in Burma for the British imperial forces, tasked to deal with an elephant who destroyed various parts of the village Moulmein while its owner was away. Backed by second thoughts and a crowd of thousands, he finds himself shooting the elephant and reflecting that it was not justified; however, it was a choice pushed by his duty and the people. Written with a fusion of his young and old self’s outlook on shooting the elephant, Orwell’s essay is a sensational read that captivates his audience and leaves them questioning his decision.
The British police officer in Shooting an Elephant had never been respected by the Burman natives a day in his life. He was regularly mocked and cheated, even by the religious students of Burma, simply because he was one of the many enforcers of their imposed oppressor’s government. When the elephant went on a “must”, he found himself in an interesting position. The very natives who had always jeered and spat at him were cheering him on. Suddenly, he is faced with the choice between his personal morality and the ever so f...
... Nature, including human beings, is `red in tooth and claw'; we are all `killers' in one way or another. Also, the fear which inhabits both human and snake (allowing us, generally, to avoid each other), and which acts as the catalyst for this poem, also precipitates retaliation. Instinct, it seems, won't be gainsaid by morality; as in war, our confrontation with Nature has its origins in some irrational `logic' of the soul. The intangibility of fear, as expressed in the imagery of the poem, is seen by the poet to spring from the same source as the snake, namely the earth - or, rather, what the earth symbolizes, our primitive past embedded in our subconsciouness. By revealing the kinship of feelings that permeates all Nature, Judith Wright universalises the experience of this poem.
Morally, I think this story clearly states that people would do anything to avoid being embarrassed. From my understanding, I think that this story teaches us that we should be open to hear people?s opinions but we should follow our instincts. We should not allow others to make the decisions for us. The police officers just shoot the elephant because people wanted him to do so. This essay is trying to help us to see that we should look at the pros and cons of an issue rather than making a quick decision that can affect someone. I cannot condemn the author for shooting the elephant, though he knew it was wrong. Nor can I condemn him for giving in to the natives and not sticking to his guns. He does not want to appear foolish to others like all of us do.
Unfortunately, we are possibly undergoing “the greatest percentage loss of elephants in history” (Ruggiero). Without the proper conservation of elephant survival, we will see a drastic shift in the environment. Due to lack of the lack of management and resources in the conservation programs has led to a further increase in poaching which has triggered to drastic decline in elephant populations. According to the Huffington Post, a reputable news source, it reports, “an estimated 22,000 elephants were illegally killed across Africa in 2012”. In February alone there were as many as “650 elephants killed in a matter of days”