I agree with Lucas when he says that such racist terms/ways of thinking have to be presented in order for Orwell to subvert/problematize them. Shouldn't we then be taking such remarks in the larger context of the story, or in trying to understand what Orwell was trying to achieve (e.g. subvert/problematize them), rather than looking at the lines individually? If we look at them out of context, sure, any reference to Burmese people as a homogenized 'sea of yellow faces' is indeed, as Achebe says, 'bloody racist'. But given that the narrator is an idiot (in many instances, e.g. he fails to fatally wound it several times, he cows to the need to not look a fool) who is, himself, a piece of evidence for us to 'grasp the hollowness' of colonialism- how seriously are we to take his words?
By 'how seriously', I don't mean to disregard them as unimportant- but rather, instead of reading them as merely racist lines (that they undoubtedly are), try to see how they function in the text as a larger whole? Just as the police officer is merely a cog in the machinery of imperialism, aren't these offensive lines a(n intentional) tool of Orwell's?
Please let me know what you guys think. I'm pretty confused as to how we're supposed to handle such lines in Orwell's texts (and maybe this' relevant for other course texts).
Thanks and enjoy the weekend!
Posts
5 comments:
Think of it, when you are reading the text, as an encounter with a human consciousness: somebody is speaking, and is telling you something of his experiences. He wants to share his thoughts with you, he wants to talk things out, and he is grateful you are there to listen to him. The last thing he needs is for you to judge him.
Kelly, this is an excellent question. I believe the answer will become clearer to you in the few weeks to come, when we read more texts of a similar nature.
Yisa: Thanks! Does analysis necessarily become a kind of judgement, though?
Dr. Koh: Thanks, I hope so!
Analysis isn't judgement per se. But I have difficulty sympathising with your view that he's an idiot - and in the veins of analysis, I don't really know what truly defines "an idiot", or how useful it is to proceed with that term. Perhaps your justifications - "he fails to fatally wound it several times, he cows to the need to not look a fool" - sounds to me like the logic a primary school child would use to call someone "bad": example, "because he won't let me his eraser."
Put yourself in his shoes. What would you have done? And if you think you would have committed the same actions as he did, would that make you "idiotic"?
Please don't take my comment personally.
Thanks for your comment- I will definitely mull over what you said. Oh and no worries, of course I do not take it personally.
Post a Comment