"The Power of Detail in Writing" assignment

    1. I believe Nguyen's purpose in writing the piece was to talk about culture and nostalgia as a whole, through the lens of Twinkies. They talk about being a child, and using Twinkies as an "in" to assimilate into a foreign culture. They bring up how outdated some of the word-usage/iconography was even when they, as a child, were eating them.

    2. A food item (in this case, a beverage) that is important to me is Dutch Bro's chocolate milk. I doubt it is as important to me as Twinkies are to Nguyen, I just really, really love the taste of it. When I read about nectar in Greek mythology, a divine beverage that grants immortality and is reserved for the gods, I imagine that it tastes like Dutch Bro's chocolate milk.

    Now, with a glowing review like that, you may think to yourself "oh, maybe I should try some!", what a FOOL you are! I did not compare it to nectar for the taste alone. No, just like how nectar is reserved for the gods of old, Dutch Bro's chocolate milk is reserved for those in the southern/western regions of America. The nearest Dutch Bros. and I are separated by the entire state of Iowa and about 1/3rd of Missouri. Me and Dutch Bros. chocolate milk are like lovers separated by an ocean, except we cannot send letters to each other because chocolate milk can't read or write.

    If I were to have one wish, I would wish for infinite wishes, and among those infinite wishes would be one for Dutch Bros. to be as abundant and widespread as Twinkies were in their heyday.

    1: Orwell's perspective on the true nature of imperialism is that the imperialist will become trapped by the expectations of those they oppress (though I disagree on this), the thing that makes him realize this is the pressure he feels by the Burmans to shoot the elephant, despite his reluctance.

    2: "When I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick – one never does when a shot goes home – but I heard the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd. In that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even for the bullet to get there, a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant." In this passage, he gives in to peer pressure and shoots the elephant, which had since stopped its rampage. He uses creative language in the way he describes the elephant being shot, referring to it as having been badly changed in some way. This description evokes imagery of muscles tensing, pupils shrinking, and the overall image of the elephant shifting slightly into an uncanny, "wrong" form. this ties back in to his advice on creating imagery and sensations

    3: This one is a loaded question, being a white guy in America, I've never experienced racism myself (systemic or individual). So my opinions on this should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Having said that, my answer to "was Orwell a racist" is... kinda? The casual usage of racial slurs is definitely racist. Though on the other hand, he makes it clear early on that he was against the oppressive British and for the oppressed Burmese, even if he disliked the Burman individuals he encountered. His dislike of the individuals stems from their mistreatment from him, but as the teller of the story, his perspective is biased. We don't know if the harassment he endured was uncalled for, or in response to something he did first. We don't know if the cruelty was truly as bad as it was described or if he exaggerated the actions of the community to make himself seem more justified in his opinion of them. If we take everything at face-value with 100% trust in his retelling, then I would say that, while he used racist language, his heart was with the oppressed, and so I don't think he's racist.

    As for the coward aspect, yeah, I think it was cowardly for him to shoot the elephant. Though I, and probably many other people, would have done the same given the circumstances.

    4: A year or two ago, I was taking college algebra. It was largely uneventful, I don't even remember what we were learning about the day that it happened. Towards the front of the class, a guy is sitting in a chair at an otherwise empty table. Another guy walks in from the door near the front of the classroom, an event I barely notice as it's so trivial.
    The man walking in tries to pass by the guy sitting at the desk. Desk-guy silently moves his chair out so that the man cannot pass, immediately, my passive perception of these two switches to active hypervigilance, and I feel other's also clock the situation. The unspoken rules of polite society have been breached, this is unnatural.
    The pit in my stomach deepens when, instead of silently walking back and going around the table (which would result in only minimal awkwardness), the man asks desk-guy if he can pass. I know the answer before desk-guy even says it, this impasse has created conflict. The man trying to get by is, for the most part, very chill about the situation, and just wants to get by. Desk-guy, on the other hand, appears to have been having a bad day (or he was just born with a stick up his ass), and starts raising his voice.
    At this point, the teacher notices this and tries to defuse the situation with a quick "just let him pass" or "just go around" (I forgot which). This does little to help, with the authority rendered hapless to reestablish social order, my silent panic intensifies. I don't recall if things got physical, but they were both eventually sent outside the classroom. A thick air of tension lingered in the class like a room-sized blob of Jell-O, even after they were gone.
    This may seem benign to you, the reader, but something about an unplanned disruption to the routine, especially conflict, genuinely shakes me to my core (It's probably my autism.)