Deven Benitez Blog Post #2 Topic #1

Deven Benitez

Topic #1

 In both “A Rose for Emily” and “Shooting an Elephant” similar characteristics were presented in that a sense of power, superiority, or prejudice toward other races from whites was common. The 1930’s was no easy time for anyone in the Unites states because it was in the midst of the Great Depression. Being a southern white was a lot easier than being an African American at this time though. Even though slavery was abolished racism still remained prominent in the south. Whites just thought they were superior to the African Americans. Whites demanded that African Americans be fired if a white man was looking for a job. Even though slavery was so long ago it seems to have left a lasting mark on how southern whites felt towards African Americans. For example, “By the time economic incentives to coerce black labor subsided with the introduction of machinery to harvest cotton in the 1930s, anti-black sentiment was culturally entrenched among local whites” (Susan Hagen). This is even evident in the writing back in the 1930s. In “A Rose for Emily” the character is centered around a white female who comes from a time where prejudice was considered normal. It is evident in the writing that Faulkner was trying to show how southern whites treated African Americans at the time. For example, “We had long since given up trying to get information from the Negro”.  You can see here that the character has been stripped of his human qualities. He can even be thought of as property in this story as he seems to do everything for Miss Emily. Another example showing the prejudice against African Americans is right in the beginning when Faulkner writes, “Alive Miss Emily had been a tradition…no Negro woman should appear on the street without an apron-remitted her taxes”. It just goes to show that African Americans were seen as people to work (aka property) and whites were celebrated. This was a similar situation in Britain/Burma in the 1930s. British invaded Burma for a desire of the teak, oil, and rubies in Burma. They ultimately justified there action by saying the place was run by a tyrant who was going to help France which was a lie. They were taking over them and civilizing the savages you can say. Even though the economy was growing under British rule almost all the wealth was in the hands of the British. It was obvious that the Burmese did not like the British as there were a series of protest and strikes against the British. It was also evident that the British really had no respect for the Burmese either as in the story, “Shooting an elephant”. It is centered around a man working as a police officer in Burma for the British. He hates his job, but is in a conflict between what he thinks is right. Orwell writes, “In the end the sneering yellow faces or young men that met me everywhere the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance got badly on my nerves”. This just shows the hatred between the two and the superior attitude the British had toward the Burmese. Saying racist things that are meant to insult them. Also in the end of the story a man says, “An elephant is worth more than a damn Coringhee coolie”. He is saying just because this elephant killed a coolie doesn’t mean it should have been killed, but if it were to have killed a British man it would have been a different story. Both stories share a power dynamic that has a sense that the white man is better than everyone else and represents the other races in a low way that almost makes them seem less human. There is a difference in each case though in that in America the whites didn’t really justify their reasons for acting superior and putting down others. In Britain they made up a reason to feel superior or act like there trying to help others when all the really wanted were the resources that the people they felt superior to had.