Have you ever agreed to something in a group that you would never have agreed to on your own? First of all, let's say you like football and participate in a team. Someone in a group one day says that football is “gay”, or is not as good as another sport like football. If you looked around, a lot of people would start to agree, and eventually you would too. Why? As shown through the conflicts between characters in the book Animal Farm, by George Orwell, the reasoning and ideals of a group are much easier to manipulate than those of an individual. When he talks to Squealer alone, Boxer clings to his ideals and is not easily convinced by Squealer. “What is the gun for?” said Boxer. "To celebrate our victory!" Squealer exclaimed. «What victory?» said Boxer. His knees were bleeding, he had lost a shoe and broken his hoof, and a dozen bullets had lodged in his hind leg. “What victory, comrade? Have we not driven the enemy from our soil, the sacred soil of Animal Farm?" "But they destroyed the windmill. And we had been working on it for two years!” What does it matter?... «Then we have regained what we had before» said Gondrano. "This is our victory," said Squealer... But when the animals waved the flag, and heard the cannon shot again - seven times it was fired in all - and heard the speech Napoleon made, congratulating them on their conduct , it seemed to them, after all, that they had achieved a great victory (pages 105-106).Boxer is not entirely convinced by the pigs that the victory was theirs to celebrate. It is only later, when the entire group sees the celebrations of their victory organized by the pigs, that they are manipulated into believing that it was indeed a victory. Only Boxer (though not much of a thinker) could have... middle of paper... surely they knew their beloved Leader, Comrade Napoleon, better than that? But the explanation was really very simple. The van was previously owned by the gutter and had been purchased by the vet, who had not yet cleared the name. Thus the error was born (pages 124-125). The dispute is resolved quickly and the group easily accepts the explanation. Immediately everyone starts thinking that it was such a crazy coincidence. Benjamin, however, is never mentioned after the explanation. Groups like these did not necessarily behave like the individuals highlighted in the book. Imagine being a citizen after a revolution like this. The new government would probably change things after things were set up a certain way. How would you behave as an individual? Better yet, how would you behave in a group?