The Ethos of Ethnicity and the Will of Despotic Power

In George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, he encounters a situation which evokes several questions; why is our narrator in lower Burma, serving as an officer over masses of Burmese? Why is he forced to “think out [his] problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East (implying here that not many in his minority could hope to sympathize or debate while in control of a massive majority)”? [1]

Orwell despised British Imperialism. His position a remote despotism, he finds himself losing the will to instruct and command as the population of Burmese Indians he is surrounded by impose an overbearing will opon him. What can this outsider, this white Englishman far from home possibly do to show possession of Ethos in the minds of these masses? An ethnic Anglo-Saxon could possess no right to direct word and law on the Burmese. The only reason they listen is the rifle slung upon him. Orwell acknowledges this, serving as the turning point in his discussed thought process.

Ethnicity plays a significant part in all matters of Rhetoric; where you are from, the traditions you hold, and the color of your skin will supplant assumption made by others of what you come from, as well, your intentions and their suspicious company in the minds of such masses.

An elephant gun is a rifle of unworldly caliber, designed for the killing of its namesake. Imagine a lightweight cannon with a five round clip.

Orwell finds himself lying on a dirt knoll looking down upon an elephant. The animal freed only hours earlier by a fit of rage resulting resulting in resulting in a broken cage. The elephant had killed a man already bursting through a market. There was no question it had to die in the moment, though not because it had killed a man.

Orwell had no intention of killing the elephant. The starving masses laid their eyes on the rifle, and George’s aim quivered at their weight. They could not help but imagine him a “conjurer about to perform a trick”. Expecting our narrator to conjure a months’ worth of food. Orwell determined the elephant will charge him if shots are fired; yet, he does not fear for his life because of the elephant, he fears death in this moment because of the many hungy Burmese – praying, begging, and demanding with sullen glares that he kill it.

“I was not thinking of my own skin, only of the watchful yellow faces behind me.”

The English for decades on the peninsula had been shooting and killing whatever did not cooperate. Naturally he was expected to kill the elephant, and it was far too late to shoulder the rifle at this point.

Sweating down the barrel, a trigger-finger forced to act places a massive bullet through the elephant’s ear, only wounding the animal as it screamed. The elephant was stricken, and George watched as thousands of Burmese clambered downhill into the market to dissect the animal while it continued to breathe.

At that moment, Orwell “first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the White man’s dominion in the East”. He fully acknowledges the tornado of dishonesty, the futile lies and egoism that eventually killed western European imperialism. There was no feasible way to impose their will on the masses. Not while the clicks of a telegraph gave orders to soldiers a thousand miles from home to click their triggers.

Eventually imperialists must “impress” the natives, and in doing so lose their own governing will. It must cater to the will of many oppressed yet vastly overpowering peoples. This paradox rocked Orwell to his core and forced him to re-think the times he’d spent in Spain fighting fascists. Years in Burma fighting his own ideologies. There was no purpose for him within these realms let alone governing these peoples. The color of his skin dictated exactly what he needed to do and say in order to keep a perceived control over the colonized. The truth is, they had no real power over the Burmese as individuals.

The will of the masses forces the imperialist to conform to behavior which evokes response beneficial to the Crown. The imperialist soldier’s rhetorical strategy is dictated by color of skin; as what he comes from grants expectations from the Burmese and what he says and does is dominated by the watchful eye, the outnumbering wills of the Natives.

Upon Orwell’s return to his post, the younger men offered that “it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a Coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any Coringhee Coolie”.

The British officers’ remarks prove the nature, and eventual devolution of imperialism. They admit in nihilistic ignorance a sheer lack in mode of prevention, lest Orwell been killed by an angry mob of elephant-hungry Burmese. Yet they still assert a perceived dominance over masses of people whom dictate every move and word of the imperialist executor.

The British had no place in India, and the collective personal wills of their officers were anything but that – no. They were servants of body to the minds in masses of “Coringhee Coolies” and their collective wills, which must be conformed to in preservation of the empire.

Today, ethnicity is used as a tool more often than it it is exposed as a weakness. Rhetoric in politics around the world is dictated massively by color of skin. A black man on CNN is expected to denounce Donald Trump, lest he face the wrath of some betrayed population who assume his own will. A White man has no place in racial rhetoric; and, it is not a question of whether he should or not – he does not have a choice.

The minorities make up a greater whole. Their wills collective, as the Burmese to the English will naturally be imposed; dictating every word, action, or result when an alien holds power. The “utter silence imposed” resounds in politics today, as the properties of ethnicity in a logical persuasive argument removes the white man from his power over any minority, for without conformation of their wills, he shall be ousted rightfully and dutifully by the masses who see his white skin as a symbol of discernibly negative Ethos in manners of minority rights, oppression, and racial violence. Again, it is not whether he should be able to speak his true mind; but that he has no choice morally. The only decision to be made in regard to spoken word and action are entirely determined by the collective will of oppressed minorities.

This is not racism, it is nature. Every powerful Kingdom, Empire, State, and National entity must give control of their wills and intent to that of the governed, lest they be ousted.

Reference: Shooting an Elephant (1936), by George Orwell.

Emotion in Argument – or How to Adapt to an Audience

I believe emotion, not statistics, the most determinant figure of outcome within arguments, be it for a harmless purpose or a horrid one. The use of emotion in popular arguments from Plato to the forty-fifth President of the United States has always been examined in relation to human nature, rights, philosophy, rhetoric, and almost everything else dominates (exempting most mathematics) the spotlight. The powerful attempt to gain favor through expression of collected logic. Yet stepping onto a podium, the man who begins with expression of emotion sets up failure. All established emotions will generate preconceived ideas about the true purpose behind a speech. Conversely, the man who gathers facts, which innately generate emotion upon presentation, then follows by offering an emotional stance regarding the information, will truly extract the pathos he so desires.

The approach to the latter tactic is to actively eliminate emotional judgment from any information before building arguments around them. One must search for facts, data, language and statements which are tailored to his argument. After doing this, the man must organize them in a way so to build tension, until the audience is ready to accept increasingly extreme emotion. The facts and statements must be presented perfectly, or tension will not be built in the speaker’s advantage. Once such tension is built, the audience will be hungry for the speaker’s emotional stance on the subject matter. By waiting for this perfect moment to release emotion, the audience is ripened for memorable impact.

Release of emotional stance is easier said than done, and mastery of timing is an art practiced religiously by all rhetoricians and speakers. When the audience is most susceptible, the speaker must carefully, yet explosively release his emotional stance on the matter so to invade the mind and memory of the audience. This timing creates a framework, or “box” that the audience will be inclined to reason within, however so subtly. Audiences of present and public debates are far more easily caught in emotion, which may serve to reason why popular figures like election candidates save their most impactful statements for moments of planned and stable spotlight. A controlled situation would obviously suit its controller, and so we see the most grandiose and prideful moments of political campaigns during the heat of the election. A speaker is at the highest advantage when emotions are at their height, or a breaking point.

The opposite effect can be reached when lacking timing. When emotion is released from the onset, it creates a box which is difficult for the speaker to remain within. There needs to be room left to avoid contradiction of one’s own emotional stance on a subject. Likened, a child’s tantrum, followed by a thought-out argument conceived in some closed off time-out window for said tantrum is a classically ineffective method of argument…

It may be human nature to feel emotion before a full analysis of a statement, but all it takes to defy that is to build enough tension by piling on facts which further compress the spring. It is also important to “word” the facts, or perfectly arrange one’s delivery so as to elicit a range of emotions. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough, as it takes a lifetime for many to achieve perfection of speech. Most believe argumentation is more about finding the right kind of material to support your arguments, but truthfully, it is the formulation, and manipulation of the argument which affects its outcome greatly. Since philosophy was conceived, less focus on what is being said and more deliberation of how to say it or when, where, why, and who has generally been a winning tactic, yet; when opponents are matched in their understanding of speech debate can become stagnant.

So just to be present and clear, there is an obvious advantage to studying philosophy, rhetoric, and speech-craft as a whole. Why have those subjects not been forced upon children in generations past? Rhetoric and Philosophy were two principle schools of tutelage since Socrates, to the Polish Empire, and ending dangerously close to centralized education.

Think about what we truly need to learn to better ourselves, not what most are confined to believe will better them or the public good as a whole.

Perfecting an Argument: Locke’s State of Nature

Leading up the American Revolution, John Locke pieced together one of the finest governmental treatises the world had yet seen. It was shocking, anti-tradition, and defied the very being of the despot Kings of Europe. Locke developed numerous insights in efforts to dissolve tyrannical government structure, the most important of which remains the backbone of democracy. The revolutionary rhetoric which is “Natural Law”, described very advanced human rights in the 1600’s, eventually paving the way for American Federalism and a free democratic republic. Existing by virtue of nature, it provides jurisdiction on its own where society does not exist to enforce law. Natural Law is less-so an established doctrine, more-so a property of human communal life that Locke rhetorically professed as a re-discovery, not an invention of thought. Labeling Natural Law as an invention would render it useless by the very nature of it. In other words, it’s always been there, and it’s always been meant to uphold, the people were just so repressed by government that they never knew a world in which such Natural Rights were granted upon birth.

The Magna Carta – a sort-of metaphysical constitution – upheld Britain’s intergovernmental policy since early days of the parliamentary system; it was a collection of case law and prerogative measures which in the end were decidedly beneficial to whoever held power. The fatal flaw of the Magna Carta was evident in the language. The rights are granted by the Magna Carta itself; a document formed and held in government practice, implying rulers possessed the ability to revoke such rights. This principle is precisely what Locke sought to fight, appealing to divine right instead. As far as the world knew at that point, the only birth rights were inheritance matters, and the King was the only man in the world with a true divine right to everything under his jurisdiction. Stating that all men possess innate, natural birthright to certain freedoms was outright blasphemous in this age, if not treasonous.

Natural law plays a most notable performance within the layout of property rights. Every human has a right to what is born with, as well as the work of his hands. For example, when a man picks an apple, the apple becomes his; yet he must not abuse the source, lest he steals a neighbor’s right to pick apples. This opposed a system where everything belongs to the King –apples or armies- regardless of creator or proprietor. The property rights laid out by Locke extensively cover that property is not just material; property is values, family, religion, life, comfort, and a long list of everything a human is born into metaphysically. Locke’s prolific and almost frivolous rejection of all established notions of what powers the throne possessed caused a dramatic shift in thinking. Locke wasn’t even the worst in terms of rabble-rousing, but his idea of Natural Right under the umbrella of all of humanity’s primeval judge, jury, and executioner that is Natural Law cracked a hole in the thick walls of repression built over centuries of tyranny. Eventually, the public awoke to a realization of “a long, painful train of abuses.”

The discussion of the State of War within the State of Nature is touchier than one might think. Locke defines a State of War as the moment one man places himself in a position of power above another. At that exact moment, a State of War exists, and all those who join or aid the opposing party in any fashion are just as guilty as the theif. “No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. For Men being all the workmanship of the [God]; All the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one anothers pleasure.” This excerpt from the Second Treatise describes the natural state of aggression, which is to only be used to overpower those whom place themselves in positions of power over any other. Locke presses that aggression in the name of conquest or tyranny over another is punishable by Natural Law. Whether a King conquers lands or a beggar stole a gold coin. No human may ever put himself in the position to remove power from another and use it as his own, as this is the root of inequality. (Locke, 271. 9-15)

Following a declared State of War is the cold reality of Natural Law punishment, wherein another man has more power and influence; the only way to take your freedom back is to destroy him. Hence, Locke births the Right of Destruction, one of many paradoxes in the State of Nature and its’ laws. The paradox exists because in the State of Nature, a man may not kill another man for that would be stealing his property, therefore the man whom stole must be punished fairly and proportionally, and in the case of murder, murder was the penalty. “It being reasonable and just I should have a Right to destroy that which threatens me with Destruction” (Locke, 278. 7-8). In the case of tyrannical power, ultimate destruction of whatever institution grips such power is the only solution. This results in mass deaths during political revolutions, but is necessary because Natural Law also states that no man shall let himself live under tyranny, and no man shall ever give up the ownership of his life unto another. The many twisting and turning rhetorically perfected linguistics of Locke’s Naturalism pioneered the new age of democracy in which the first and foremost priority of every citizen was to perpetuate freedom and equality among all men.

Personally, I’ve never read into a document in which rhetoric is so carefully planned out; structured as a perfect argument, leaving few loopholes in major assertions such as property rights and the State of Nature as a whole. A precise emphasis on the State of Nature being an inherent property of life- at its core- is the most widely-encompassing declaration of freedom in the 17^th century. This is why it was so crucial that Locke restated, re-emphasized, and bulwarked his rhetoric concerning the State of Nature. This logically and biblically driven argument could not allow a single hole in its rationale. Locke dug through centuries of evidence, much of which was biblical; however, in Locke’s time Kings possessed divine celestial power rooted in the Bible, therefore biblical arguments were essential to undermine the claims of the throne. For example, the King’s divine right was derived from the assertion that he was a descendent of Adam; although Locke argued Adam was never King of the World, let alone England. Therefore some man came upon the isles with a scepter, unjustly violating the State of Nature and its’ laws by placing himself in a position of power above others. The end result was a denunciation of any right the King had to the throne of England, let alone Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and any colonies scattered globally.

Source Material: Two Treatises: Book Two, Second Treatise on Government by John Locke.

Thoughts on Assisted Suicide

“I hope that when the time comes I am treated with compassion and allowed to pass on to the next phase of life’s journey in the manner of my choice.” (NPR) – Stated by Desmond Tutu, a former Anglican Bishop of South Africa. It is yet to be mentioned by a state figure that the right to die is divine, or a natural law. The use of these words is important as natural law is something that is not given by a government or authority figure; it is something we are born with. This is the belief of many proponents of assisted suicide. It is my belief as well. This must be the basis of assisted suicide law if and when it is put into effect. If a government simply gives this right without stating that it is a birth given right, it implies that the government can also take it away.

Death is by nature, the great equalizer of humanity. Every human is destined to die, but the question is whether we are too close to “playing God” if we decide that humans can choose to die freely. The further technology evolves, humans must evolve with it, yet we as a species are terrified of ourselves gaining too much control of our fate, overpowering some cosmic law that states we must be taken on a rollercoaster ride through existence, and circumstance is a product of fate. It is considered grossly taboo at this point to imply that we could simply edit how a human is born, or create and destroy life by our own choice.

It is a highly interesting development that an upstanding priest has stated these words because so much of the world still adheres to the morals of their church. The church states the word of God, and if God is okay with those under this man’s teachings to come closer to His power, then so be it. The struggle in this scenario is that that there exists no majority Christian state controlled by the clergy any longer. Sure, they tend to follow the morals of the church, but the government sets the laws of the land.

I believe – from a less religious standpoint – that the right to die should be granted to those in pain. I do not believe there is a glorious heaven to ascend to but rather peace and a chance to return your energy to the Earth. We put dogs down in pain, we shoot horses with broken legs, and I’ve seen firsthand the slit throat of a cat left to bleed out and die, given to me to dissect in an anatomy class. These aren’t atrocities; rather they are an end to loneliness and pain whether chronic or mental. Humans would be in the same position if we were not at the top of the food chain. We were given the ability to think of death, and therefore we should have the right to make a conscious decision about it.

The one thing we must avoid is a cultist or religious collusion that could wipe out groups of people influenced by a figure with a grasp on their minds. Take Heaven’s Gate as an example, or Jonestown. There is a movie coming out soon that dives into this topic called The Discovery, about Humans discovering there is a beautiful afterlife, soon after people are killing themselves by the masses. Therein lies the only issue with assisted suicide in my belief, people can be controlled and made to do things on a whim of hope.

William Moore January 25^th 2017