“Killing the Elephant”: “It was obvious that the elephant would never rise again, but he was not dead” (155) Right in the beginning of this essay, we as the readers realize that the Burmese people harbour discontent “against their oppressors the Britain” (148), and this feeling is exacerbated when it was shown that the Burmese “had no weapons and were quite helpless” (149) against the rampaging elephant. The elephant serves as symbol of the Burmese as they were both “chained up” (149). After years of oppression, the rampaging elephant shows the inevitability of the Burmese people revolting against their oppressors. However, just like the elephant’s tantrum that started unpredictably, Orwell, the European oppressor, can just as easily silence it with a rifle. It is unfortunate that a few shots can inflict enough fear to silence people who wanted justice. But what is worse is that the everlasting wound would ensure that oppressed groups “would never rise again” (155). “Marrakech”: "It is the most willing creature on earth, it follows its master like a dog and does not need either bridle or halter" "This wretched boy, who is a French citizen […] actually has feelings of reverence before a white skin. He has been taught that the white race are his masters, and he still believes it" …show more content…
But afterwards, when I started to read about the boy who looked at Orwell with “respect,” it alluded me back to Orwell’s initial impression of a similarly impoverished animal. They both share the attitude of blind-loyalty. Both the boy and the donkey unquestionably follow their “master” because they grew up feeling inferior and were dehumanized. This social injustice is further accentuated when people like the boy actually “believes” that race determines who are masters or servants; he blindly conforms to racism and slavery when they should exist in the first
Although shooting the, now seemingly calm, “mad elephant” is morally wrong to George Orwell, in his narration of Shooting an Elephant, he has to do so as he is a representative, or more so a pawn, of the British authority in the occupied country of Burma. Being such, he wages a war with his inner self to seek which decision needs to be carried out. With two outcomes in mind, one being that he will be seen as a fool if he does not shoot the elephant and the other being an authority of the law by truly showing it and protecting the villagers, he has an epiphany. With such an authority, the law and someone’s moral conscience diverge. He then realizes what must be done and shoots the elephant to protect the imperialistic authority. As the excitement
George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is a short story that not only shows cultural divides and how they affect our actions, but also how that cultural prejudice may also affect other parties, even if, in this story, that other party may only be an elephant. Orwell shows the play for power between the Burmese and the narrator, a white British police-officer. It shows the severe prejudice between the British who had claimed Burma, and the Burmese who held a deep resentment of the British occupation. Three messages, or three themes, from Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” are prejudice, cultural divide, and power.
The author desires to be accepted into the native's lives; no longer a social outcast. However, with this desire comes the knowledge that the group may or may not be correct in their brutal quest for blood. “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell demonstrates one man's moralistic battle between his own belief of preservation of life against that of the crowd of natives which spur him to kill the beast. The author is incited in his actions by the large, unanimous crowd looming eagerly behind him. The sheer size of the group of Burmese natives creates an illusion of strength in numbers that can be hard to fight.
The quest for power is one which has been etched into the minds of men throughout history. However, it can be said that true power is not a result of one’s actions but comes from the following one’s own beliefs without being influenced by others. This principle sets up the story for Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. The protagonist, Orwell himself, is a sub divisional police officer in Burma, a British colony. Orwell must try to find and use his inner power when he is faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant which has ravaged the Burman’s homes. The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell, as a colonist, should be in control. As well, the perspective and ideas given by Orwell show his true character and lessen the overall power set up for him. Lastly, the symbols shown are representations of traditional forms of power, but take on different implications in the story. In Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell uses setting, characterization and symbols to show that true power comes from following the dictates of one’s conscience.
A police officer in the British Raj, the supposedly 'unbreakable'; ruling force, was afraid. With his gun aimed at a elephant's head, he was faced with the decision to pull the trigger. That officer was George Orwell, and he writes about his experience in his short story, 'Shooting an Elephant';. To save face, he shrugged it off as his desire to 'avoid looking the fool'; (George Orwell, 283). In truth, the atmosphere of fear and pressure overwhelmed him. His inner struggle over the guilt of being involved in the subjugation of a people added to this strain, and he made a decision he would later regret enough to write this story.
The Elephant is something to marvel at there is no animal quite like them. Between its shear size (the largest terrestrial mammal alive today), the familiar emotions they share with humans such as mourning for their dead, or their unique features like their large trunks, tusks, and ears, there is nothing that compares. These are some reasons why this large beautiful animal should not be taken for granted in today’s society. Unfortunately they have been between the illegal poaching for ivory, human elephant conflict regarding land usage, and environmental factors; they have become endangered.
In “Shooting an Elephant” writer George Orwell illustrates the terrible episode that explains more than just the action of “shooting an elephant.” Orwell describes the scene of the killing of an elephant in Burma and reveals a number of emotions he experienced during the short, but traumatic event. Effectively, the writer uses many literary techniques to plant emotions and create tension in this scene, leading to an ironic presentation of imperialism. With each of the realistic descriptions of the observing multitude and the concrete appeal of the narrator’s pathos, Orwell thrives in persuading the audience that imperialism not only has a destructive impact on those being governed under the imperialists’ oppressive power, but also corrupts
Every day, each individual will look back on decisions he or she have made and mature from those experiences. Though it takes time to realize these choices, the morals and knowledge obtained from them are priceless. In George Orwell’s nonfictional essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, a young Orwell was stationed in Burma for the British imperial forces, tasked to deal with an elephant who destroyed various parts of the village Moulmein while its owner was away. Backed by second thoughts and a crowd of thousands, he finds himself shooting the elephant and reflecting that it was not justified; however, it was a choice pushed by his duty and the people. Written with a fusion of his young and old self’s outlook on shooting the elephant, Orwell’s essay is a sensational read that captivates his audience and leaves them questioning his decision.
In George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, Orwell suggests just that; one can form his own ideals, but they will either be changed by the media (symbolized in his essay by the Burmese natives) or constructed from...
The British police officer in Shooting an Elephant had never been respected by the Burman natives a day in his life. He was regularly mocked and cheated, even by the religious students of Burma, simply because he was one of the many enforcers of their imposed oppressor’s government. When the elephant went on a “must”, he found himself in an interesting position. The very natives who had always jeered and spat at him were cheering him on. Suddenly, he is faced with the choice between his personal morality and the ever so f...
Just Be Yourself (Three Messages from Elephant and Sale) The author of Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell, included different types of irony in his text. Not only did he use verbal irony, which is saying something that contradicts with one means or believes, but he also used situational irony which occurs when something happens that contradicts the expectations of characters, readers, or audience. Doris Lessing, the author of No Witchcraft for Sale did the same thing as Orwell.
George Orwell’s novel Burmese Days, originally published in 1934, is a fictional account of daily life and struggle few British citizens stationed at a remote British outpost on the fringes of a jungle in upper Burma. The novel brings to light many issues that were commonly encountered as result of British imperialism and the subjugation of indigenous populations. The issues that arise in the novel revolve around racial tension, gender inequality, and political manipulation for economic gain and power. However, it becomes quite apparent the underlying issue for all the discord and havoc experienced within the text stems from one core issue—racial tension. The ethnocentric ideologies expressed by the British characters in Orwell’s novel caused
An author often writes a novel as a warning to mankind. In Animal Farm, George Orwell creates a world of animals that allegorically represent man. The intelligent pigs take advantage of the uneducated lower animals and take control of the farm. By showing the steady increase of the pigs' intellectual exploitation of the lower animals, Orwell warns the reader of the importance of an education.
Like the elephant, the empire is dominant. The elephant, an enormous being in the animal kingdom, represents the British Empire in its magnitude. The size represents power as it is assumed that the two are insuppressible. Also, the elephant and the British empire, both share hideousness in the effect it causes in Burma. 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. Also, the elephant symbolizes the economy of the oppressor, as well as the oppressed. This animal is a “working elephant” (326) in Burma, and for the colonial power. The Burmese are also working animals because they are hard workers and involuntarily are following the rules of the British empire.
"Shooting an Elephant" is perhaps one of the most anthologized essays in the English language. It is a splendid essay and a terrific model for a theme of narration. The point of the story happens very much in our normal life, in fact everyday. People do crazy and sometimes illegal moves to get a certain group or person to finally give them respect. George Orwell describes an internal conflict between his personal morals and his duty to his country to the white man's reputation. The author's purpose is to explain the audience (who is both English and Burmese) about the kind of life he is living in Burma, about the conditions, circumstances he is facing and to tell the British Empire what he think about their imperialism and his growing displeasure for the imperial domination of British Empire.