Answer:
That black people are treated differently than white people.
Answer:
the sisters played against each other tennis, but they did without spite.
Explanation:
The poet described about the kill of the Element is given below.
Explanation:
In the 1920s a young would-be poet, an ex-Etonian named Eric Blair, arrived as a Burma Police recruit and was posted to several places, culminating in Moulmein. Here he was accused of killing a timber company elephant, the chief of police saying he was a disgrace to Eton. Blair resigned while back in England on leave, and published several books under his assumed name, George Orwell.
In 1936 these were followed by what he called a “sketch” describing how, and more importantly why, he had killed a runaway elephant during his time in Moulmein, today known as Mawlamyine. By this time Orwell was highly regarded, and many were reluctant to accept that he had indeed killed an elephant. Six years later, however, a cashiered Burma Police captain named Herbert Robinson published a memoir in which he reported young Eric Blair (whom he called “the poet”) as saying back in the 1920s that he wanted to kill an elephant.
All the same, doubt has persisted among Orwell’s biographers. Neither Bernard Crick nor DJ Taylor believe he killed an elephant, Crick suggesting that he was merely influenced by a fashionable genre that blurred the line between fiction and autobiography.
To me, Orwell’s description of the great creature’s heartbreakingly slow death suggests an acute awareness of wrongdoing, as do his repeated protests: “I had no intention of shooting the elephant… I did not in the least want to shoot him … I did not want to shoot the elephant.” Though Orwell shifts the blame on to the imperialist system, I think the poet did shoot the elephant. But read the sketch and decide for yourself.
A watched pot never boils is a proverb. ... We will examine the meaning of the proverb a watched pot never boils, where it came from and some examples of its use in sentences. A watched pot never boils means that time seems to move more slowly when one is anticipating something or waiting for something to occur. I hope this helps <3
Since Richard Rodriguez is a writer that emphasized his origins as the son of Mexican immigrants, but nevertheless was raised by the American academia and society. In the essay of Hunger of Memory, he stated how after being part of a socially disadvantaged family, that although it was very close, the extreme public alienation, made him feel in disadvantage to other children as he grew up. Due to this, 30 years later he pays essential attention to how from being a socially aligned to a Mexican immigrant child, he grew up to be an average American man. He analyses his persona from that social point of view of being different in the race but similar in the customs. Hence, the author finds himself struggling with his identity.
A good example of it, it’s the manner he introduces his last name. A Spanish rooted last name, which may seem difficult to pronounce to a native English speaker. The moment the author introduces himself and tries to clarify its pronunciation to an American person, he mentions how his parents are no longer his parents in a cultural sense.
His parents belong to a different culture, his parents grew up in a different context, they were raised with different values and ways; in that sense, Rodriguez culturally sees himself as an American, his education was different to his parents’. He doesn’t see his parents as his culture-educators, he adamantly rejects the idea that he might be able to claim "unbroken ties" to his inherited culture to the ones of White Americans who would anoint him to play out for them some drama of ancestral reconciliation. As the author said, “Perhaps because I am marked by the indelible color they easily suppose that I am unchanged by social mobility, that I can claim unbroken ties with my past.”
