The book Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell focuses on the main theme of men in poverty versus society. George Orwell, who is a penniless British writer, establishes various arguments to substantiate that homeless people are far from lackadaisical; a man becomes poor through bad luck; the only thing that differentiates a homeless man from a rich man is money; and the same system that criticizes them for being poor and depending on others generosity is the same system which oppresses them and keeps them from upgrading their social position. The author validates his arguments over the common misunderstandings of the poor by writing about the main character’s experiences and the experiences of the men around him struck with the misfortune of poverty.
Orwell, alongside Boris, spend many depressing months unwillingly unemployed. They are forced into a cycle which they cannot get out of. A lack of work leads to a lack of money which leads to a lack of good appearance which leads again to unemployment. Looking malnourished with worn out clothes, according to Orwell, is deadly. He writes, “It is fatal to look hungry. It makes people want to kick you (51).” Since they have no money, they are forced to pawn their belongings in hopes of little money for bread and margarine; consequently, they are rejected by employers. Throughout the main character’s time in Paris, the author proves how men in poverty, opposed to what wealthy people believe, are poor because of their luck and society.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
They are not in their condition by choice. In contrast, they work harder than people with money; their only ruination is being unable to work themselves to better positions. The author also proves this point by writing about the life of a plongeur. He compares the plongeur to “. . . a modern slave. . . no freer than if he were bought and sold. His work is servile and without art; he is paid just enough to keep him alive; his only holiday is the sack. . . If plongeurs thought at all, they would long ago have formed a union and gone on strike for better treatment. But they do not think, because they have no leisure for it; their life has made slaves of them (116).” A plongeur is a representation of the countless unnecessary and dehumanizing jobs given to poor men which hinder them from advancing.
This job is not only inhumane, but the only option to leave hunger and homelessness behind. Through this system, the poor stay poor. As Orwell encounters poverty once again after moving back to London, he notices the oppression of homeless men, or tramps, by society. He says, “We [upper class] know that poverty is unpleasant; in fact, since it is so remote, we rather enjoy harrowing ourselves with the thought of its unpleasantness. But don’t expect us to do anything about it. . . The present state of affairs suits us, and we are not going to take the risk of setting you free, even by an extra hour a day . . .(119).” While in London, he sees many upper class men think like this.
When he was homeless with Paddy, the British Government prohibited tramps to stay more than one night at a spike. Because of this, tramps had to travel great distances the next day, with an already depleted energy source, to get to another spike. For a tramp, not only was this a waste of time and energy, but it was also a system to keep them from wanting anything else but food. Orwell realizes that the government has the power to make a change, but their laws serve the wealthy. As well as in lodging houses, they choose to stay rich by preying on the homeless rather than helping them out of their poverty. Society tries to avoid the reality of a homeless man by constantly telling themselves that they chose their life and if they wanted to become better, they could easily get a job.
Society then starts to believe their own lies to the point where they begin to detest tramps. Orwell also disproves the idea that tramps are in poverty because of choice; additionally, today’s rich man can be tomorrow’s homeless man. Bozo, Paddy’s best friend, became poor after an accident caused him to become crippled. Poverty found him through bad luck; Bozo did not purposely try to become poor. However, society still despises him regardless. Orwell writes, “Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised?–for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable.
In all the modem talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except ‘Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it’? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised (174).” This shows how society labels any man an outcast when they don’t make enough money to meet their standard. Because of this, men in poverty are oftentimes avoided and lacked upon with a lack of commiseration. In conclusion, the book is well organized and skillfully written. Orwell thoroughly describes his encounters with poverty and oppression at these two European cities. The author uses his own personal experience as well as the men around him to prove his arguments. Overall, the book does an excellent job in portraying the actual lives of tramps and disproving common misguided beliefs over them.
However, although Orwell did experience poverty, he did, and could not, portray the actual reality of a homeless man. While all other tramps carried diminished hope, Orwell’s prison of hardship was temporary and endurable. Orwell knew that his life as a tramp would cease once his employer came back. Many tramps in London do not have this luxury; they do not have a member of society to fall back to. Their life as a tramp is indefinite. Though Orwell does an excellent job portraying the suffrage of tramps, his knowledge of the fact that he would not be a tramp for long devalues his experiences.
The Systemic Oppression Latinos
What makes religion so difficult to define is the notion that it is not just one single thing. Since the creation of the world, mankind has established a disposition towards faith and worship. For the most part, religion is identified at as a set of beliefs and practices that outline the relationship between human beings and the divine. Catherine Albanese, a religious scholar, believes that every religion contains four key characteristics and takes form in two categories. Religion is encompassed by creed, code, cultus, and community that fall within ordinary and extraordinary religion. Ordinary religion shows people how to live within boundaries while extraordinary religion helps individuals transcend from their concerns.
Religion and spirituality are fluid forces of nature because there are countless forms that vary from region to region. Pico Iyer, a travel novelist, states that devoutness is so free flowing that “spirituality is water, and religion is tea.” Latin America, a region exposed to oppression, exhibits high levels of spirituality and displays a dynamic religion. Particularly in Latin American, religion is framework that is grounded from the mixture of many components and suffering. Latino Religion extends its roots laced with oppression and protrudes them into daily Latino lifestyle. Karl Marx, a German philosopher, argues that religion is born from oppression, when in fact, oppression amplifies and transforms religion.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
Karl Marx argues that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless word, the soul of the soulless conditions.” Marx believes that religion is a byproduct of the unhappiness produced through oppressive realities. Marx, like Albanese understood religion as a natural instinct of people which positioned itself towards a rightful sense purpose. I don’t think Karl Marx was saying religion was necessarily wrong, but when forced onto a group, it can be used by the power structure in such a way to control the oppressed. Rather than criticizing religion which tries to provide solace, what we have by Marx, is a critique of society that has become heartless. Today, Marx would go onto say that Catholicism is a “tea” the Latin America community don’t want, and should not drink, but eventually turn to. What Marx fails to realize is that this cup of tea which was brought over by an oppressor, is now in ownership of the oppressed.
When Christianity was first introduced into the Latin American region, intense levels of oppression were introduced. Catholicism in Latin America, a “tea” brewed from conquest and colonization, has a deep founded history that can be traced back to the earliest civilizations and the age of exploration. The Spanish conquistadors, led by Hernan Cortes, waged war on the Aztec empire in 1519 in attempts to spread Christianity and attain new disciples to the faith. In 1521 the Spanish claimed the Aztec empire for themselves and the Christian religion. The Spanish were on a quest to magnify the Christian faith. The Spaniards came to absorb the drop of “water” expressed by the Aztec people on their journey to continue filling their cup of Catholic tea.
Marx would argue that in Latino religion, the Spanish conquistadors are the oppressors who held power, and exerted force to oppress the Aztec empire. In their attempt to convert the “savage” indigenous tribes toward the “one true faith” under organized Catholicism, they bestowed suffering on community of individuals who shared a common faith and placed them into the confinements in their cup of tea. Marx claims that Catholicism in Latin America is an “opium” because it was an addictive hope that appealed to the masses. From Marx’s perspective, converting to Christianity was a medicine that saved an indigenous person from death. Although the cup of steaming hot tea brought by the Spanish empire “burned,” the Aztec tribe, their community overcame the pain in attempt to preserve their traditions, and this is how modern day Catholicism in Latin America was awakened.
Tonantzin, an Aztec mother goddess, who took the form of the Virgin Mary met Juan Diego, a Mexican Native, on Tepeyac Hill. Her appearance to Juan Diego, an indigenous convert to Roman Catholicism, was a symbol of a breakthrough of oppression and preservation of traditional faith. She was a medium that transformed the traditional Aztec religion into what is modern day Catholicism in Latin America. She infused indigenous Aztec beliefs and practices with Spanish Catholicism. Christian religion in Latin America became prominent from then on. The mother goddess became known as the Virgin of Guadalupe, a religious bridge that fused two different cultures together, transformed traditional Aztec religion while provided solace and hope.
What the Spanish, and Marx both fail to realize is that the composition of the tea in the catholic cup brought over by the Spanish empire changed. Two religions, neither ‘born’ from oppression, which stemmed from communal beliefs and practices, mixed. The Spanish hoped to fill their cup of tea, yet what they did not witness was that their catholic cup of tea changed its structure and transformed its flavor. It had a new “ingredient” added into it. Science today proves that no two natural bodies of water are the same. The bodies of water take shape in the landscape they are exposed to, as do religions from region to region. When minerals and other compounds, which reflect beliefs and practices, of two bodies of water religions mix, the composition changes. The Aztec community, as seen in “The Other Conquest,” were actually converting the Spanish into their traditions and customs, thus creating a new ordinary faith which was an extension of their traditional beliefs mixed with Spanish Catholicism.
Latin American religion was not only transformed by oppression, it was also amplified. Santa Muerte, an amplification of Latin American religion stems itself from the mixture of Catholicism and indigenous practices. It is an extraordinary faith that ultimately binds itself to Latinos because they consider themselves to be the “Sons of Malinche.” They are an orphan’s community that has witnessed the purity of its faith be altered and transformed which began with the destruction and forced conversion by the Spanish Empire. They feel as though they had no sense of belonging, and were stuck in “borderlands.” The symbolic icon of this religious violation is Doña Malinche, the Aztec mistress of Cortés during his spiritual crusade. As a violated woman, she represents the indigenous community as a whole.
Paz, a religious scholar, states that the Latin American people “have not forgiven La Malinche for her betrayal,” because she can be connected to the origin myth of the modern mestizo community. This religious violation toward the Latino community shaped a new tragic outlook toward life for Latinos. As Marx argues, the modern Mexican community realizes that the world is “heartless” because they witnessed oppression and suffering. Yet their disposition of faith was not born from oppression, becoming the “heart of a heartless world,” rather it was amplified by endured suffering. It stems itself from the roots of indigenous Aztec beliefs which were grounded in everyday life. This new religious amplification left Latin American communities believing that suffering and death are inevitable, which created an extension of the Christian faith that revolves around hardship and death.
A misconception by Marx is assuming that people look to religion to cure suffering. Marx claims that religion helps people forget why they are in pain, but does not fix the core cause of people’s suffering. His belief is that religion deals with symptoms of oppression, but ultimately fails to cure it. While religion can be a comfort in hard oppressive times, it can also be prominent in people’s lives who are not expressing suffering. I believe that religion is amplified during oppression, but also present when suffering is not experienced. Marx may argue that religion is the heart of a heartless world, but religion is also the heart of a compassionate world. It is the core, and the central system that drives individuals toward a connection with a higher divinity.
Marx argues that “religion is the opium of the people,” claiming that it is addictive. Marx claims that realistic conditions of the world oppress individuals to the point where they turn to religion because it might provide relief. Marx fails to realize that the indigenous Aztec tribe already had an established religion devoted to the appreciation of a higher power, which was altered by oppression. As Albanese would say, their religion came naturally, and was toward a higher divinity. The Indigenous Aztecs united under one collective devotion to magnify their faith toward god where they were not considered an “oppressed creature.” Thus, the religious crusade by the Spanish Empire which induced oppression, altered, amplified, and constructed the Latin American religions we see today.
