When group A discussed Orwell’s use of racist terms and negative adjectives, they viewed many perspectives and deeply analyzed the purpose behind it. They decided that Orwell purposely used these terms, and that this emphasized his point and added pathos to his story. Pathos is a method to convince your audience by using emotion.According to both Zach and Natasia, Orwell adds racist terms such as, “sneering, yellow faces”(par. 1), in order to gain sympathy from his audience, the rich British, as they also feel negatively towards and superior to the Burmese. Although I agree with these ideas up to a point, I cannot accept their overall conclusion because using derogatory terms when speaking about the Burmese was normal of the British in this time. When Orwell calls the Burmese …show more content…
The use of this language causes the British to sympathise with Orwell, dispise that the British are being controlled by these beasts, and reassess their motives for imperialism, as the British clearly have no actual control over such troublesome devils. During this conversation, group A did not support their comments with text. Although they referenced the racist and negative language earlier in conversation, they should have grounded their arguments in the text to make them more concrete. For instance, when Janvi said that she thought that using negative adjectives and racist terms were ingrained in Orwell, due to the superiority complex of the British, she could have quoted Orwell saying, “the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts [...] ask any Anglo-Indian official”(par. 2). The use of such violent language, such as “guts” when referring to a peaceful religious figure, shows how the British officials have no sympathy towards the Burmese, or even think of them as