THE ANIMAL FARM: TO REBEL OR NOT TO REBEL? THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION.

The Animal Farm as many know, is a widely appreciated satirical piece of literature. Through the eyes and lives of animals, George Orwell openly mocks the privileges and discriminations of politics. In the book, animals in a typical barn who labour and toil in the farm owned by their cruel master, Mr Jones, take on a human response to oppression and rebel against his rule over them. A power struggle was sparked between man and beast when Old Major, an elder boar, shared his dream and visions with the rest of the mostly simple barn animals. After planting the seed of hope among them, he died leaving them a mission to carry out a revolution which occured much sooner than was intended. On the foundation of his final speech, seven commandments were born, all of which were slowly but surely rendered useless. The seventh, 'All animals are equal', was the first to be broken almost immediately and just as unintentionally with the decision that the pigs (which were perceived to be smartest of the bunch) would lead their fellow animals into a better world, a better England. Flawed as the decision was with all its good intentions, it laid the foundation for the destruction that was to come. As it is seen, the pigs in their own way also chose the best of themselves to 'represent', though at the time it was a natural selection. Following the natural order of all things related to leadership, or the lack thereof, Snowball and Napoleon competed for the position that would rule (lead) them all.

On two different occasions in the past when I'd attempted to read to the book, I was thrown off by its concept. I mistook it to be merely a story about barn animals and their march to freedom, but only one who has read the book (as I am assuming many have) could be patient enough to truly discover the purpose behind the actions portrayed through animals. In a not-so-deep investigation, one learns that deception and betrayal play a huge role in the plot development of the novella, however, I believe it is not so black and white. Again, I'm inclined to remind you, dear reader, that I am giving strictly personal views and opinions which I had when I finished the book and which I still have. These thoughts are solely mine and one must always remember that I am by no means certified in any level beyond my high school diploma and numerous school awarded literature prizes. Moving away from my credentials and fully satisfied with not-so-subtly tooting my own horn, I wish to discuss the horrors of the Animal Farm. I use the term 'horror' specifically because till this moment I get my fair share of goose-bumps when the thought of their means of deception occurs to me, quite like the feeling you get when you believe there to be a monster beneath your bed. It is one thing to be oppressed by an external force that is naturally, or artificially, stronger and it is another matter entirely to be deceived and manipulated into it by a fellow oppressed mate, a comrade.

'Four legs, good and two legs, bad', this was the rule, the commandment, the anthem to hate all humans, who were their source of misery to begin with. Their defense being that man is a thief who produces nothing himself but steals what treasures can be exploited from animals that are otherwise meant to be proud beasts of England. Now, on the surface, it is evident that Napoleon, horrible as he was, would not have been able to achieve the power that he had without a reasonable amount of cunning, but on closer inspection, one truly learns of the immense wickedness it takes one to deny his fellow brethren and side with their enemies in the oppression of his own kind. In this, we see what it truly meant to distort memories of simple folk using nothing but words and strong persuasion, to slyly erase all they stood for, all they bled to achieve, to convince them that slavery for themselves was indeed more satisfactory than slavery for another, and to completely disregard the life of another for nothing more than selfish reasons.

At this point, I'm almost certain you're confused, particularly those who have no idea on book I speak, and are probably wondering why I keep going on and on without truly landing. Well, this is because till a person grasps the meaning and intent behind another's actions would they be compelled to examine their own. Let's put it this way. Man oppressed animals, animals rebelled, animals won but were disorganized so animals needed (but didn't ask) for a leader, an animal (Napoleon) forced his way into leadership, animal leader was a worse oppressor than man, animals suffered more than before and were helpless. In that one simple sentence, all matters being true, it is clear how the entire situation relates horrifically to humans, and sure the Animal Farm fandom are going, 'Of course, George Orwell based it on human thinking in animal circumstances' but I beg you to identify the issue here. The problem isn't about the ordeals of the animals in Animal Farm due to the influence of human-like greed in their lives, no, it is about greed in the truest sense. Though seemingly one and the same, the two are glaringly different in the sense that though it seems the animals in Animal Farm are victims of their comrade's betrayal, it is in fact Napoleon that is the true victim.

And now you may conclude that I've officially lost my marbles, and that may very well be true but I must say this. The animals were exploited long before Napoleon, the revolution was merely a temporary fix for a permanent problem, it was simply a fleeting hope that their situation could be any different from what it originally was and perhaps it could have lasted longer under sincere leadership. If we speak ideally, then it might even have been permanent, but no, the world is not ideal, the lure of complete power is great, and Napoleon failed spectacularly in the test of common sense, this is the truth. In his bid to gain all for himself and other pigs loyal to him, he lost sight of his own true nature and that my friends was the greatest loss of all. Far greater and much more profound than living a forced life of servitude, the pig doomed himself to a life of solitude and mistaken identity. The animals, as they had already always been oppressed, had little to lose whether or not their oppressor walked on all fours but Napoleon lost the company of his Animal farm family, the comfort of standing in support of his own kind (animals), of simply knowing who he was and what it meant. No, he did not know and if he did, he had forgotten it completely to take on the habits of another (Man), the attitude and responses of a less desirable creature rather than accept the pure simple dignity in truly being a pig. Losing sight of the value and honour in his birth and identity, he opted for a life where Clover could no longer tell the difference between a pig and a man.

To understand this is to also understand that the heart behind Napoleon's loss is not strictly stemmed from greed, I believe there's more to it. The obsession with power and control and complete advantage over others is not the main reason neither is it the only one for his doomed fate. Taking my words with a grain of salt, please do try to view it from a different perspective, one in which all things are considered in a broad sense. It expresses that if there is love for and of all creatures, with two legs or four, there would be no need to differentiate between comrade or foe, no need to stand with a specific group on the basis of physical attributes, no need to rebel, and simply no need to lose one's sense of identity. In our today's world, George Orwell, gave us a priceless gift, and like many others, it testifies in discreet terms that the true solution to real problems, though as far-fetched and unattainable as it may seem to some, comes down to simply loving one another. In playing our part, caring for all, comrade or not, we put a flashlight under our beds and discover the 'horrors' are really just things we 'forget' to sweep away.