The Golden Elephant

(This is terribly rude but i'll say it). It seems as if George Orwell was meant to shoot that elephant. Why him? Why George Orwell, the author of political Animal Farm and utopic 1984? First of all he is a writer, which already means he will write about this. Second, he writes about controversial topics and uses analogies. He was meant to shoot that elephant.

Now, I suppose/hope you know that Shooting an Elephant was actually a true story and he used it as an analogy as well. 

I think this whole story is a big fallacy. A hasty generalization to be precise. He thinks (almost) everything evolves around him the whole time. He generalizes. The things he does are a result of his need to cause certain image. Orwell doesn't want to be seen as an idiot. This is clear as he is constantly saying things like "I was hated by large numbers of people" or "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool." 

"I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot." We do have to recognise that this was his time to shine, but all of them? 

This was an all or none moment. He could lose it all at the most slightest incorrect move he made, even with a correct one too. He didn't want to lose it all. That is why he acted in a way that permitted him to please the "yellow faces." Did he get what he wanted? 

The Visionary Isn't Perfect

LIES ARE THE SOLUTION.

This is not like a reverse-psychology kind of thing. It is the truth. It worked for Churchill and Gandhi. One thing I am sure about lies, is that they are definitely not the way people depict them to be: "one lie leads to another and suddenly you are in a big mess." I guess that is true for some people. But not for these two. Nor thousands of spokesmen and women that have persuaded their audience through lies. I don't think, either, that lies mean the resurrection of Satan. 

Let's start by the title: "Our Duty in India." The British's duty in India. It sounds a bit arrogant and shallow once you know that the article is about how Churchill tries to convince the British that it is a must for them to keep India under their control. He belittles Gandhi and the whole idea behind him. That is one thing a wise spokesperson should never do: compare and degrade. Although, since the audience often lacks of intelligence, this technique comes to be very effective. 

"If the British people are to lose their Indian Empire, they shall do so with their eyes open, and not be led blindfold into a trap." OH MY GOD HOW CONSIDERATE OF YOU! You want the Indian Empire to fall, but they must be lead correctly and be realistic about it! How thoughtful. Really. This makes Churchill look like the honest guy. I mean, it would just be unthinkable for Churchill to lead them into a blindfold trap. Thank you for being so honest about it. And yes, the Indian Empire should fall as you say it should. That is definitely a red herring. Churchill doesn't want do deal with destroying the Indian Empire, he want's to deal with being a good leader in the process. 

Let's not forget the importance of syntax in fallacies: "Mr. Gandhi," "our Indian Empire," etc. "Nothing will turn us from our path, or discourage us from our efforts; and by the time Mr. Gandhi has arrived here to receive the surrender of our Indian Empire, the Conservative party will not be so ready to have its name taken in vain." - Slippery slope all te way. What does being constant with what you believe in lead you to assume that Gandhi will surrender "your" empire? 

Yes, lies do work. In short term. 

Editing Gandhi's Newbie Writing

First of all I would like to clarify that correcting Gandhi’s writing doesn’t feel exactly assertive; he is master Gandhi. Yeah, I know he is human and makes mistakes and blah blah blah. But, c’mon, there’s a difference between him and Paris Hilton.

I'M AM PREPARED

That's the problem: trust. We are used to thinking that because of someone's trajectory they will turn out to be what we expect them to: perfect or not-perfect (sometimes). Well, as famous philosopher Hannah Montana said: nobody's perfect. Even Gandhi. He, as well as consumerist-adverts now a days, uses a persuasive method that isn't entirely correct in terms of rhetoric in this speech.

- Hasty generalization: "Nevertheless, I do feel, as the poor villagers felt about Mysore, that there is orderliness in the universe, there is an unalterable law governing everything and every being that exists or lives." He doesn't give us enough examples when he refers to what the poor villagers of Mysore felt. I'm sure not all of them felt the same way and maybe it doesn't relate to with what he felt. This could also qualify in a "misinterpreting the evidence" fallacy because the examples don't support the conclusion. 

- Wrong ending: "It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being and thanks to the marvellous researches of Sir J. C. Bose it can now be proved that even matter is life." He begins the sentence speaking about a law and he ends it by saying that some-guy proved something related with the law. The beginning doesn't lead to the end. It looks more as if he were promoting Sir J. C. Bose's work rather than arguing  the state of the law he just mentioned. 

- Fallacy of ignorance: "He who would in his own person test the fact of God's presence can do so by a living faith and since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love." To believe God exists, you must have faith and base yourself on truth and love, is what he is saying. Since he can prove his argument with the example from the people of Mysore, his conclusion is absolute: to know there is a God you must have faith. There's just a itty bitty problem...WHAT IF I DON'T WANT TO? What now huh? 

Fallacies are really hard to deal with, for the read and the writer. Sometimes, the author's purpose isn't to fool people with a fallacy, since they are at times hard to avoid. We must not be fooled by them. They are not entirely bad. This doesn't mean we must let them go, we have to be trained and prepared readers just like the writer si for us. 

I bet I have more fallacies than Gandhi in this entry...
"First of all I would like to clarify that correcting Gandhi’s spelling doesn’t feel exactly assertive; he is master Gandhi. Yeah, I know he is human and makes mistakes and blah blah blah. But, c’mon, there’s a difference between him and Paris Hilton." - FALLACY ALERT!