Killing The Elephant

532 Words2 Pages
“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
Open Document