To Shoot or not to Shoot

Since the dawn of time, the struggle for power has been the thriving force of human civilization. This struggle for power became the reason for the phenomenon of colonization which spanned almost five hundred years and left a mark on human history; a stain that can never be wiped off. The Europeans, in that time, did everything in their power to bring civilizations under their control, to take from others what they had no right to take, to make their opinion fact, through coercion or persuasion, through war and religion. But over time, as religion started to drift people apart, Literature became a tool for controlling and civilizing the working classes and in this way preventing rebellion (Eagleton, 1997: 36-39). In the Post-Colonial era, many literary novels and short stories were written, which represented cultures and societies in different ways from different perspectives. One such story is ‘Shooting an Elephant’ by George Orwell, which looks at the evils of colonialism through the representation of the colonists and the colonized, and the influence one has on the other.

Based on Orwell’s own personal experience_, ‘Shooting an Elephant’ follows the story of an English police officer called upon to shoot an aggressive elephant that was ravaging a Burmese town (Orwell, 1936). The elephant, which had gone ‘musth,’ a state characterized by extra testosterone secretion and contentious behavior, had killed an Indian coolie and as such, was uncontrollable and had to be stopped, with force if necessary, and the narrator, being a police officer, was asked to do the deed. As the narrator gets close to the elephant, followed by over two thousand native people, he contemplates leaving the animal alone, for it had seemed to calm down. However, with two thousand pairs of eyes peering at him, he felt pressured by the crowd to kill the elephant. Eventually, against his better judgment, the narrator shoots the elephant multiple times to avoid ‘looking the fool,’ and in the process crippling it but unable to kill it. The narrator then leaves the beast, unable to be in its presence as it continues to suffer and eventually die (Orwell, 1936).  While it might seem like a simple story, ‘Shooting an elephant’ brings to light the evil that is colonialism. Unlike Chinua Achebe who wrote about colonialism from the African point of view, Orwell, like Joseph Conrad in ‘Heart of Darkness,’ presents the moral dilemmas of the colonist.

An important aspect that brings out the evils of colonialism is the representation of the ‘White Man’ in the story. The British, who used force to take control of the Burmese people, are shown to be in charge, thereby reducing the Burmese people to an inferior status in their own country. They are represented by literacy. They are shown to be powerful people, whose job is to educate the natives. The superiority of the ‘White Man’ is evident in the fact that when the narrator shoots the elephant, one of the younger British men was heard to say that it was a ‘damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie (Orwell, 1936).’ The elephant in the story can be seen to represent the ‘stricken, shrunken; immensely old’ country of Burma, which, once powerful and great, has now been reduced to ‘senility’ by the bullets that came with colonialism, at the hands of the White Man. The narrator, by shooting the elephant, offers insight into the hollowness of colonialism, as he falls prey to imperialistic ethos.

As any coin has two sides, so too does the coin that is colonialism have two sides, the latter being the representation of the colonized-in this case the Burmese. The narrator, whether by accident or intent, introduces the concept of binary opposites. Where the British were shown to be civilized and superior, the natives are shown to be savage, barbaric ‘sneering yellow faces’ who seemed to have nothing to do ‘except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans (Orwell, 1936).’ Further on in the story, the narrator refers to the natives as ‘evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.’ The natives apparently spit at women, jeer at the police officers, and this builds up an unpleasant image of the people of Burma (Alam, 2006). This makes the Burmese a very repugnant set of characters for whom the readers get an immediate distaste, even though they are the ones being looked down on.

However, what is most interesting in Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’ is perhaps not the influence, coercive or otherwise, that the British have on the Burmese but rather, the influence that the colonized people have on the colonizers. The narrator introduces us to that idea of humiliation, of how the colonists will do whatever it takes to avoid ‘looking the fool.’ As the narrator gets closer to the elephant, he is presented with Hamlet’s dilemma of ‘To shoot or not to shoot.’ According to him, ‘every white man’s life in the east was one long struggle not to be laughed at,’ and it was for this reason that he shot the elephant even though he did not want to. He simply wanted to appease the native people. This presents the dichotomy of the ‘real self’ vs. the public image of one’s self. The narrator has to decide whether to do what he wants or what will get people to like him, and he chooses the latter. The fact that the Burmese can decide what the narrator, a white man must do, creates the irony of master becoming slave to ‘fulfill his racial and imperial obligations (Rezaul Karim, 1999).’ This can be seen to show how when imperialists colonize a country, they restrict the freedom of the natives and in so doing, unwittingly limit their own freedom in that they tend to avoid courses of action that could provoke the wrath of the native people. The narrator, at one point in the story, has an epiphany. He realizes that ‘when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys,’ and this goes on to show how the powerful can become powerless in the right circumstances (Orwell, 1936). In the end we see that to gain power does not necessarily mean gaining control.

We can see, then, how the postcolonial era brought about works of literature influenced by the European representations of themselves and the Orient. Where the White Man is represented by civility and literacy, the Orient is represented by savagery and imbecility. And yet, even in all this, we see how sometimes the ones in power are the ones in doubt. Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’ is just one example of this; one example from a long list of works depicting the world from a Eurocentric point of view. Francis Bacon once wrote, ‘Knowledge is power.’ Indeed, the Europeans used their knowledge to exert power over other cultures and people. Of all the wars that they won, the war of culture was the most defining, for it allowed them to depict things as they wanted to. It allowed them to give meanings to things as they wished. And it allowed them, most of all, to take advantage of those who simply came from a different place.

A Giant Leap for Thailand

          Rita Mae Brown, an American writer and feminist, once wrote, “Language exerts hidden power, like the moon on the tides.” The power of the English language, however, is in no way hidden. English is the second largest language in the world, spoken by about 358 million people worldwide, and it is also the world’s most important literary language (Brown, 1988). This fact, however, seems to escape the people of Thailand completely, where English language learning is held in low regard, with lack of proper curricula and inappropriate texts and teaching styles (Khamkhien, 2010). As a result of this ignorance, Thailand is deprived of the many advantages that proper English language learning has too offer. It is for this reason that I believe that English language learning should be prioritized in Thai schools because it leads to more effective communication, better job prospects, and helps in cognitive development.


          The ability to communicate effectively is important in all aspects of life, and prioritization of English language learning in Thai schools would empower the Thai youth with better communication skills. This is what the youth of Thailand need right now. A National survey conducted by the Ministry of Education in the years 1997 and 1998 showed that when assessed by ‘standardized benchmarks of achievement,’ Thai students did poorly in the skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking when compared to students from other Southeast Asian countries (Wiriyachitra in Khamkhien, 2010:184). Prioritization of English language learning, with proper curricula and competent teaching methods, could seek to change that, because it would mean that there would be more focus and better guidance in English language learning in Thai schools. This would allow Thai students to communicate with a wider range of people and communities. Not only that, prioritization would also expose the youth of Thailand to the culture and literature that make up the world’s most prominent and important literary language and as a result, open the doors to whole new possibilities for Thai students. Hence, prioritization of English language learning should become a reality in Thai schools.



          Apart from leading to more effective communication skills, prioritization of English language learning in Thai schools would also lead to better job prospects. Over the course of the past few years, employers of various companies have been seeking bilingual workers to work for them. According to Morsch (2009), a careerbuilder.com keyword search in 2009 turned up more than 6,000 job postings seeking bilingual and multilingual applicants, which was much more than the job postings for monolingual applicants. Better job prospects, in turn, could mean working in an area away from home that would, therefore, enlarge the geographical scope of one’s relationships, which is a welcome added benefit (Longren, n.d.). Moreover, Warschaw (2012) explained that companies today need people who can communicate to a certain extent in at least two languages ‘to see to the needs of their clients,’ since big multinational companies have clients in various countries. This would bridge the communication gap not just between the company and the client but also the employer and the employee. In that regard, Thai people with fluent English speaking skills would have significant advantages over those who can only communicate in one language.


          The main benefit of prioritization of English language learning in Thai schools, however, lies in the many effects bilingualism has on the human brain. The benefits of bilingualism on cognitive development have been demonstrated time and again. In the ‘Stroop task,’ where people are shown words of colors and are asked to name the color of the word’s font, bilinguals outperformed their monolingual counterparts and were faster at giving the correct answers, thereby proving that

bilingualism results in better inhibitory control and makes individuals better at switching between tasks and responding to their environments (Marian & Shook, 2012). Furthermore, a study led by neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, concluded that individuals who knew two or more languages had delayed onset of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (Gollan in Bhattacharjee, 2012). It is evident from this that the benefits of bilingualism also extend well into our old age. Apart from that, research has also shown that bilinguals have a stronger working memory, which makes them better at mental calculation, reading ‘and many other vital skills.’ (Morales et al in Dean, 2013). These facts go a long way in showing how prioritization of English language learning in Thai schools can be beneficial to Thai students, because it would make them adept at two languages and expose them to all the benefits of bilingualism.


           It is often said that the youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow, and for good reason too. As seen above, prioritization of English language learning in Thai schools would lead to smarter children and thus smarter, better leaders of tomorrow, which is only better for our country. Not only that, according to Kim (2013), the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center at the University of Montana trains young American military personnel about the languages and cultures of Afghanistan so that they can communicate with the local people and help to attain and maintain peace in such war-torn societies, instead of making a statement through violence. As far-fetched as it may sound, prioritization of English language in Thai schools could, therefore, actually help to improve relations with English-speaking countries. Would the skill of English speaking not then be an asset to our country? From what has been established above, should the opportunities to get better jobs, earn better pay and consequently lead better lives be ignored and neglected? After all, ignorance is not always bliss.


          Of course, there are limitations to any system, and prioritization of English language learning in Thai schools would be no exception. Some will argue that prioritization would divide us along ethnic lines and create a barrier between the people who speak English and the people who only know the vernacular language. This can especially happen if prioritization is not welcomed in society, and as a result, it could lead to segregation in society, which is not something we want. Moreover, prioritization could also stand against the culture of Thailand, where Thai has been the only important language for centuries. Be that as it may, the benefits of prioritization are numerous and it would be wrong to just assume that our country cannot adapt to change. We must not let our vanity cloud our understanding of the potential boon in English language learning in Thailand. The appeal to tradition, while it might be justified, however, also stands directly in the way of a better future for our country, and thus I believe that prioritization is a risk worth taking.


          Apart from that, it is often thought that learning two or more languages can lead to confusion and inefficiency in the languages. Many people believe that knowing more than one language means that we cannot focus on one language entirely and thus we won’t be as skillful in any language at all. On the contrary, research over the past decades have allayed these myths and shown that bilingualism, in fact, can make us more fluent in our mother language, as well as make us better at understanding even more languages. (Chipongian, 2000). The arguments don’t end there either for still other people believe that learning an extra language means heavier workload and thus, less time to study. However, while there might be heavier workload, we cannot dismiss the fact that proper time management, coupled with the benefits of bilingualism, would no doubt greatly help students with their studies. It is clear then, from all this, that if prioritization of English language in Thailand may have its limitations, its benefits will far outweigh those limitations.

           Today we live in a world where the English language is understood by a majority of the human population. In that regard, Thailand, for its lack of a proper English language education system, falls far behind other countries, but prioritization of English language learning in Thai schools could change that. With better communication skills, more job prospects and overall increased cognitive development, Thai students will find it far easier to live in this world torn by competition and rivalry. All that we have to do now is be sincere about learning the English language. We must prioritize English language learning in Thai schools. After all, George Orwell (1946), famed English novelist, in his collection of essays, ‘Politics and the English Language,’ once wrote, “The greatest enemy of clear language is insincerity.” So let us take that leap to sincerity. It will be a great leap for our people; A giant leap for Thailand.

References

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2012, march 17th). Why bilinguals are smarter. New York Times.
         Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-           bilingualism.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url= http%3A%2F%2Fquery.ny times.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26 region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry520%23%2Fadvantages+of+learning+foreign+languages&_r=1&


Brown, R.M (1998). Starting from Scratch. New York: Bantam Books.

Chipongian, L. (2000). The cognitive advantages of balanced bilingualism.


Brain Connection. Retrieved from http://brainconnection.positscience.com/-cognitive-advantages-of-balanced-bilingualism/


Dean, J. (2013). 10 superb psychological advantages of learning another language.
           Psyblog. Retrieved from http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/09/10-superb-psychological-         advantages-of-learning-another-language.php


Khamkhien, A. (2010). Teaching english speaking and english speaking tests
          in the thai context: A reflection from thai perspective. English Language Teaching. Vol 3(1) pp.    184-190.

Kim, A. (2013). The importance of learning foreign languages. Montana
          Public Radio. Retrieved from http://mtpr.org/post/importance-learning-foreign-languages


Longren, T. (n.d.). The advantages of learning foreign languages. Demand Media.
          Retrieved from http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/advantages-learning-foreign-languages-5367.html

Marian, V & Shook, A. (2012). The cognitive effects of being bilingual. The Dana
          Foundation. Retrieved from https://dana.org/Cerebrum/2012/The_Cognitive _Benefits_of_Being_Bilingual/


Morsch, L. (2009). Why it pays to be bilingual. Aol Jobs. Retrieved from
          http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/01/26/why-it-pays-to-be-bilingual/


Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language. Horizon. Vol 13(76) pp. 252-256.


Warschaw. C. (2012). Being bilingual - 3 ways being bilingual will help you get a
           job. Warschaw Learning Institute. Retrieved from http://www.warschaw learninginstitute.com/showPage.php?pg=BeingBilingual3WaysBeingBilingualWillHelpYouGetaJob

Leonardo and Michelangelo: Archetypes of the Renaissance Man

Each of us has our own opinion of what a "Renaissance man" truly is. Some say he is a paragon, perfect in one subject, while others argue that he is knowledgeable in many areas but adept at none. Time will wash away the fame of most of these people, but two people will be remembered forever for their unparalleled contributions to the development of western art: Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo Buonarroti. Born in Tuscany, Italy in 1452 and 1475 respectively, Leonardo and Michelangelo were both highly revered and respected by everyone who knew them (Gietmann, 1908). Even with all their differences, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci were both artistic innovators who, through their use of powerful imagery and their unconventional ways of creating art, can be considered two of the greatest European polymaths to have ever lived.

First and foremost, Leonardo and Michelangelo were both brilliant even at a young age. When he was small, Leonardo once made a painting of a monster spitting fire on a shield so terrifying that his father sold it to an art dealer who then sold it to the then Duke of Milan. He was then educated in the studio of the renowned Florentine painter, Verrocchio, where he was taught the art of drawing, painting, sculpting and modeling (Vasari, 1568). Similarly, Michelangelo’s talent in the artistic field was noticed by his father, who sent him off as an apprentice to the artist Dominico Ghirlandaio at the young age of thirteen. While there, he excited the admiration of his master by the life-like animation of this drawings, so much so that he received further training in the palace of the Medici at the school of sculptor (Gietmann, 1908). Indeed, they were both prodigies in the truest sense of the word.

Another similarity between the two men would be the exceptional quality of their work: flawless and admirable. Leonardo’s paintings adorn the walls of the Louvre museum in France, where they are looked at in awe everyday. His painting, the ‘Mona Lisa’ is probably the world’s most famous painting, and it is considered priceless, because of which it cannot be insured (“Mona Lisa”, n.d.). Another great masterpiece by Leonardo is his mural painting of the ‘Last Supper’. He took three years to create this mural and it is now the most reproduced work of art in the world (Suttle, 2013). Likewise, Michelangelo’s artwork was outstanding. He created two of the most influential works in fresco in the history of Western art: the scenes from Genesis on the ceiling and ‘The Last Judgment’ on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel in Rome (“Michelangelo: The Complete Works”, n.d.). His two most exemplary sculptures are the statues of David and Pietà, which have been carefully tended and preserved to ensure that future generations would be able to view and appreciate Michelangelo’s genius (“Michelangelo”, n.d.). The fact that their works are featured in the grandest churches and museums goes a long way in proving the exceptional quality of Leonardo and Michelangelo’s craftsmanship.

The main difference between Leonardo and Michelangelo, however, seems to lie in their styles and techniques of creating art. Leonardo da Vinci typically painted with oil paint that he made by hand from ground pigments. Later in his career, he worked with tempera made from egg whites. His work surface typically would be a canvas or board, or sometimes stone when painting a mural (“Leonardo Da Vinci’s life”, n.d.). Conversely, Michelangelo much preferred sculpting to painting, for his belief was that sculpture was the highest form of art. For him, sculpture was much more gratifying, and he loved getting his hands dirty and laboring in his works. Even when he painted, Michelangelo preferred frescoes to canvas painting. (“Comparing and Contrasting: Da Vinci and Michelangelo”, n.d.). Perhaps these differences in their styles are the reason for the diversification of art forms in Europe.

Leonardo and Michelangelo’s revolutionizing artistic techniques can, therefore, be said to have paved the way for the rise of western art forms. They were both creative geniuses who excelled from an early age and then throughout life, not just at art but also at various other fields like anatomy and architecture, because of which they can be called polymaths (“Polymath: ‘A Renaissance Man’”, n.d.). Even with their different styles, they managed to capture the attention of everyone who laid eyes on their works. It is for this reason that they are both considered ‘archetypes’ of the Renaissance Man. That being said, their ingenuity and their accomplishments will no doubt be remembered forever.

                              References

Comparing and Contrasting: Da Vinci and Michelangelo (n.d.) Anti Essays.                 Retrieved   from

The World Wide Web: http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/14646.html

Gietmann, G. (1908). Michelangelo Buonarroti. In The Catholic Encyclopedia.

 New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved from New Advent:

 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03059b.html

Leonardo Da Vinci's Life (n.d.) Retrieved from 

http://www.davincilife.com/article4-davinci-painting-technique.html

Michelangelo (n.d.) Retrieved from 

 http://www.history.com/topics/michelangelo

Michelangelo: The Complete Works (n.d.). Retrieved from   

 http://www.michelangelo-gallery.org/

Mona Lisa (n.d.) In Encyclopaedia Britannica online. Retrieved from

 http://www.global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/388735/Mona-Lisa

Polymath: ‘A Renaissance Man’ (n.d.) Retrieved from 

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/Polymath.html#Some

Suttle, Tim (2013). Ten Facts About DaVinci’s Last Supper on Maundy  

Thursday. Paperback Theology. Retrieved from

 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2013/03/ten-facts-about-davincis- last-supper-on-maundy-thursday.html

Vasari, Giorgio (1568). Lives of the Artists. Penguin Classics. Pp. 258–9.

Hysteria: A Wider Perspective...

19^th Century England was a time when men were in power and women were looked down upon. It was a time when men would get whatever they pleased and women were denied even their most basic rights, for example the right to education and the right to vote. The movie, ‘Hysteria’, is an account of the invention of a particular appliance that brought with it the emergence of women’s rights in the Victorian era. The movie is told through the eyes of a man by the name of Dr.Mortimer Granville. Dr. Mortimer is an ambitious medical doctor who wanted to use scientific methods to cure illnesses, in contrast to the old, orthodox ways of his colleagues. In this regard, he had a falling out with many people and thus his career was in jeopardy. It was at this time that he was accepted as an assistant to Dr. Robert Dalrymple, who specialized in treating womens' nervous disorders, particularly hysteria.

At the time, hysteria was regarded as one of the most serious of diseases, and it affected only women. It was described as excessive emotional outburst, causing women to lose self-control and behave uncontrollably. It was thought to be caused by disturbances of the uterus and many women were forced to have their uterus removed. Dr. Dalrymple, however, had a different way of combating this illness. His treatment considered rubbing or massaging the affected women between their legs such that their blood flow to their uterus increased, and this happened till the women achieved ‘hysterical paroxysm’ and their symptoms waned. Now Dr.Dalrymple had two daughters, Emily and Charlotte, and while Emily was a simple, educated girl studying phrenology, Charlotte was diagnosed with hysteria. She, however, dedicated her life to the poor and needy. Charlotte wanted to raise the standards of women in society. It was her dream that women should have equal rights as men, because at the time women were being suppressed by men and they were too scared to fight back for anything.

As time passed and Mortimer continued Dr.Dalrymple’s method of treatment, his hand became numb from all the massage he was doing and he couldn’t do any effective treatments. He was engaged to Emily Dalrymple at the time and his wedding had to be called off because Dr.Dalrymple fired him for his ineffective treatments. With no job and his hand still numb and hurt, Mortimer went to consult his good friend and well-wisher, Edmund St. John-Smythe, who happened to be toying with an electrically powered duster. Mortimer realized that when he put the duster to his hand, he instantly felt better and the pain reduced. He tweaked the device a little bit and as a result, he invented the vibrator.

It so happened that on the day he was to marry Emily, Charlotte was put in jail.

Mortimer defended her in court, saying that hysteria is a fiction. He said that it is nothing but a ‘diagnosis for women without opportunity, forced to spend their lives attending to domestic chores and selfish, prudish husbands who are unwilling or unable to make love to them properly or often enough’. From a sociological perspective, hysteria was a condition made up by the powerful to keep a check on the non-powerful. It was perhaps a way for men to make sure they had power and control over women. Francis Bacon once said, ‘Knowledge is power’. Perhaps this was true here because common knowledge of the 19^th Century said that hysteria was a real medical condition when in reality, it wasn’t. Women were being looked down upon for something that didn’t even exist. Such was society in the late 1880s.

After having successfully defended Charlotte in court, Mortimer realized that he was falling in love with her, for he felt that she was a woman like no other. By then, his invention had become so popular that Mortimer was becoming a very rich man. He, therefore, gave her the 2000 pounds she needed to help in the education of the poor children. In this way, Charlotte Darlymple was able to help play a part in the upliftment of women and lower class people in the Victorian era.

Apart from portraying the invention of a self-pleasuring tool for women, 'Hysteria' is also a social commentary on the class and gender roles of the era, exemplified in the binary opposite personalities of Dr. Dalrymple's daughters, Emily and Charlotte. Today, hysteria is not considered a medical ailment any longer. One can attribute this to Herbert Spencer's theory of 'Social Darwinism', saying that the notion of hysteria being a disease did not fit the ever-changing society. Today, it is nothing but a myth.