Comparing George Orwell And Robert Delavignette - 1509 Words

George Orwell and Robert Delavignette both acted as agents for their imperial empires at the turn of the 20th century. While engaging in the similar task of representing a European dominating power, the two viewed the outcome of their own work in drastically different ways. Orwell believed that his British Empire was trapped in a vicious loop with no positive externalities, while Delavignette believed that his French Empire was on the vanguard of creating the future of government and administration. Interestingly, the core of their arguments seem to be similar, that the power of their respective empire’s was not as mighty as popular opinion may have suggested, and that, in turn, the colonized people had a greater influence than expected.†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"When I went back to metropolitan France, the very place where people thought they were doing something new in a big way, everything smelt stale and felt cramped. The fault lay with an impersonal, irresponsi ble, routine-ridden administration.† This for Delavignette created a need to limit the influence of the French in the colonized world, because he believed that an unchecked French influence would stifle the ability to create novel change. â€Å"I learned from him that even to keep a country going, a Commandant has to wage war on two fronts, against the natives and against the officials,† . Delavignette believed that by limiting the power of the Empire, and taking the best ideas from both the French and the Africans there was a chance for a positive net outcome: the creation of a new form of governance. Orwell too saw limitations in the abilities of his empire but his message ultimately differed because Orwell failed to see the silver linings that Delavignette found. Where Delavignette saw the imperial project as an opportunity Orwell saw a lose-lose situation and his work in Burma as futile. Orwell was trapped by his hatred of both the British imperial empire and the Burmese colonized people. â€Å"With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of