Reynolds Representation Of Indigenous People In George Orwell's 'Shooting An Elephant'

855 Words2 Pages

Body 1 –Reynolds representation of Indigenous people (Victimised)
Henry Reynolds represents the Indigenous as being victimised due to his own political agenda. This is conveyed through the anecdote at the start of the memoir where he describes two Indigenous girls in jail due to them swearing at their teacher. The juxtaposition of the “…thick concrete walls and the little thin girls” emphasises the over-exaggerated reactions of the individuals to the two girls swearing. The juxtaposition clearly demonstrates the victimisation of the two little girls using two opposite epithets “thick” and “thin” to evoke sympathetic feelings for the two Indigenous girls. This is coupled with another anecdote where Reynolds talks about the head of DNA as being …show more content…

George Orwell’s short story “Shooting an Elephant” conveys Orwell as a police officer in Burma where he is asked to come and help deal with an elephant that has gone on a rampage. Initially, Orwell demonstrates the victimisation of the Europeans through the anecdote of him playing on a sporting field. In this anecdote, Orwell is tripped and the referee “looked the other way”, this event is shown to bring “hideous laughter”. The use of the epithet “hideous” evokes sympathetic feelings towards Orwell. He is also able to evoke sympathy towards the end through the metaphor “wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” Orwell shows that he is only a “puppet” for the Burmese people when he goes to kill the elephant. The Europeans is seen as a performer through the epithet of “puppet” who is forced to undertake this role in society and act in as told by the Burmese …show more content…

During the first chapter, Reynolds use of colloquial language such as “ Migloos” and “Whitefellas “ shows that he sympathises with the two girls in jail. By sympathising with one side, he aligns himself to the side of the Indigenous and therefore loses objectivity. Reynolds also attempts to portray the director of DNA unfavourably using negative epithets such as “favoured” in the quote “dispensing charity to favoured families”. By portraying negative aspects of the director he again aligns with the aboriginals that don’t get as much help as the “favoured families”. By aligning himself with one side he portrays two separate perspectives which are opposite forcing the audience to also choose a side, this is portrayed in the argument of whether the taking over of Australia was an invasion or peaceful. By using two opposite epithets “invasion” and “peaceful” helps to show two different points of views. Reynolds is able to bring controversy into his text which influences opinion as well as being able to promote social debate, therefore, providing his work with

Open Document