To create a comparison between the elephant and the empire, the author describes the elephant as wild and terrorizing when the “elephant was ravaging the bazaar” (324); thus, it symbolizes the British Empire is restraining the economy of the Burmese. When the elephant kills the Indian laborer, it represents the British oppressing the Burmese. On the other hand, the elephant is a symbol of colonialism. Like the natives of Burma who have been colonized and who abuse Orwell, the elephant has a destructive behavior by being provoked and oppressed “it had been chained up” (324). Despite the fact of its aggressive behavior and the Burmese’ more astute rebelliousness could be undeniably good things, they are doing their best given the oppressive conditions, both the Burmese and the elephant have to endure.
To create a comparison between the elephant and the empire, the author describes the elephant as wild and terrorizing when the “elephant was ravaging the bazaar” (324); thus, it symbolizes the British Empire is restraining the economy of the Burmese. When the elephant kills the Indian laborer, it represents the British oppressing the Burmese. On the other hand, the elephant is a symbol of colonialism. Like the natives of Burma who have been colonized and who abuse Orwell, the elephant has a destructive behavior by being provoked and oppressed “it had been chained up” (324). Despite the fact of its aggressive behavior and the Burmese’ more astute rebelliousness could be undeniably good things, they are making their best given the oppressive conditions, both the Burmese and the elephant have to endure.
To create a comparison between the elephant and the empire, the author describes the elephant as wild and terrorizing when the “elephant was ravaging the bazaar” (324); thus, it symbolizes the British Empire is restraining the economy of the Burmese. When the elephant kills the Indian laborer, it represents the British oppressing the Burmese. On the other hand, the elephant is a symbol of colonialism. Like the natives of Burma who have been colonized and who abuse Orwell, the elephant has a destructive behavior by being provoked and oppressed “it had been chained up” (324). Despite the fact of its aggressive behavior and the Burmese’ more astute rebelliousness could be undeniably good things, they are doing their best given the oppressive conditions, both the Burmese and the elephant have to endure.
In George Orwell's essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, Imperialism is the evil in the story. The unjust shooting of an elephant in Orwell's story is the central focus from which Orwell builds his argument through the two dominant characters, the elephant and its executioner. Shooting an Elephant was written by George Orwell. Even though the narrator is not stated, in a sense the narrator of the story is Orwell when he first started his carrier as a British Officer. In the story, the narrator is a British Officer who is always getting made fun of in the town of Burma.
“He was lying on his belly, with arms crucified and head sharply twisted to one side. His face was coated with mud, the eyes wide open, the teeth bared and grinning with an expression of unendurable agony.” (Orwell 788) The connection between th... ... middle of paper ... ...an elephant for killing a coolie because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie” showing that not only do they think its a shame to kill an elephant, but they are describing the indian as less human than the elephant. None of the officers were present when the main character had decided to shoot the elephant and didn’t see that he was going to make a fool of himself. The shot to the elephant was the end of imperialism in the story and that the narrative was just a puppet of the Burmese by the end. Orwell really helps us grasp how evil imperialism is.
In George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant, the narrator is the main character of the story trapped in his own environment between righteousness and authority. He is unsure of his path on whether to defend the people of Burma from the oppression of the British ruling in which he serves that can lead him to losing his job as sub-divisional town of Burma, India. Orwell personally relates to the narrator that is reflected in his writing allowing the reader to get a glimpse of his political views. In the short story Orwell like the narrator was an Anglo-Indian official, a term used to describe all British people of mixed Indian and British descent. According to an article from the BBC, Orwell was an imperial police officer in Burma India.
George Orwell’s essay, “Shooting an Elephant,” was written as an attack on British imperialism and totalitarianism. Orwell recounts an experience of shooting an escaped elephant from his time as a policeman in Burma during the British Raj, utilizing a remorseful, reflective tone. He observes that “When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (14), and that “He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (14). Orwell is not only correct in his assertion that totalitarianism is harmful, he further explains how it is detrimental to all those that are umbrellaed under it. The most prevalent example of tyranny harming both oppressor and oppressed in recent reading is Frederick Douglass’ piece, “Learning to Read and Write.” Douglass explains how his mistress was initially kind and tender-hearted, but being a slave owner transformed her into a monster.
In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell gives his opinion on imperialism when he says, “I was hated by large numbers of people—the only time in my life that I was I have been important enough for this to happen to me. I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter” (1). The main sentences in his first paragraph indicate the terrible way of imperialism and its bit-by-bit destructive consequences for both sides of the condition. His job handling with the Burmese gave him a closer look view of “the dirty work of Empire” and gave him an unbearable sense of guilt. Orwell knew he was stuck with hatred for the empire that he severed and his wrath against the people who made his job tougher.
In 1936 George Orwell wrote a short story titled "Shooting an Elephant.” In it he discusses a fictional story of a man who kills an elephant and the implications that arise afterward. He relates it to British Imperialism and uses the individual's experiences as a reference to larger experiences that we all face. Many issues of the societal pressures and morality of killing arise over the death of the elephant as well as how the narrator’s identity was altered by his environment. While it appears to be a story of a rampant elephant being euthanized, George Orwell uses the story as an analogy to describe man's inner struggle between acceptance, morality, and the pursuit of power. The narrator of "Shooting an Elephant" grows to fit an invisible mask, meant to prevent himself from appearing foolish to those around him.
In the essay, Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell illustrates his experiences as a British police officer in Lower Burma, and reflects it to the nature of imperialism. Since “anti-European feeling was very bitter” due to the British Empire’s dictatorship in Burma, Orwell is being treated disrespectfully by the Burmese (12). This allows him to hate his job and the British Empire. However, the incident of shooting of an elephant gives him a “better glimpse … of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic government act” (13). Through his life experiences as a British man, Orwell efficiently demonstrates the negative effects of imperialism on individuals and society.