The Poverty and Oppression

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.

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.

Did you like this example?

1085

45