Themes are the fundamental and often universal ideas explored in a literary work. The Jungle is not a thematically nuanced or complicated novel: Sinclair opts not to explore the psychology of capitalism; instead, he simply presents a long litany of the ugly effects of capitalism on the world. When socialism is introduced, it is shown to be as good as capitalism is evil; whereas capitalism destroys the many for the benefit of the few, socialism works for the benefit of everyone.
Narrated in the third person by an unnamed narrator the reader realises after reading the story that Kenyatta may be exploring the theme of greed. It is as though Mr Elephant is making no contribution to the friendship but rather is taking all that he can.
This may be important as each animal mentioned in the story symbolises European colonizers and Kenyatta may be suggesting that just as Mr Elephant is taking things which are not his. So too did the European colonizers when they colonized Africa. It might also be important to mention that just as each animal in the story symbolises the European colonizers.
The man in the story symbolises the individual Africans who were affected by the brutality and corruption of the European colonizers. How corrupt the animals are in the story is noticeable by the fact that they all take the side of Mr Elephant.
No consideration is given to the man in the story. If anything he has no rights despite the fact that he built the hut for himself. They took the European colonizers at face value and did not imagine that they could in reality be stripping the land of its natural resources.
Resources that did not belong to the colonizers but which they profited by. If anything African people were under the control of the colonizers and viewed upon as second class citizens. In reality they had no rights. Something that is clearer to the reader by the way that the man in the story is treated in court.
Despite the fact that Mr Elephant is lying about what happens. The man does not regain possession of his hut. The fact that Mr Elephant lies could also be important as Kenyatta may be highlighting the fact that the colonizers could not be trusted.
Their primary goal appears to have been to take advantage of those who lived in Africa and to write laws which suited themselves and that were unfair to African people. The title of the story may also be significant as Kenyatta may be using irony to suggest that though the colonizers might have considered themselves to be civilized or gentlemen.
The reality was very much different. None of the animals or colonizers in the story would be considered to be gentlemen. They have no honour and are self-serving. With their number one priority being what they themselves can get out of Africa.The Gentlemen of the Jungle By Jomo Kenyatta Once upon a time an elephant made a friendship with a man.
One day a heavy thunderstorm broke out, the. Gentlemen of the Jungle, the fable he penned during the early s, was an illuminating insight into the indignities endured by the victims of European colonialism.
While the Kikuyu tribal lands. The Gentlemen of the Jungle By Jomo Kenyatta Once upon a time an elephant made a friendship with a man.
One day a heavy thunderstorm broke out, the. “The Gentlemen of the Jungle” by Jomo Kenyatta tells the story of a man living in his hut in the jungle who is approached by his friend, the Elephant, during a rainstorm, who asks for shelter for its trump. These were the ancestors, the chiefs, the scholars, the bush men and women, the weak, the strong, and the brave.
Let us examine such work of wisdom by Jomo Kenyatta in his short story: "The Getnlemen of The Jungle." As a Pan-African and great political leader, Kenyatta became the first president of independent Kenya back in /5(7).
Lack of character development, inconsistency in tone and voice, and the loss of narrative at the end are just a few of the criticisms raised against The Jungle. This lack of aesthetics mixed with an unpopular message resulted in a lack of respect for The Jungle in literary circles.
Throughout most of the twentieth century, most critics considered Sinclair's book as either propaganda or muckraking — no more and .