More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical Analysis of Shooting an Elephant
Criticism of george orwell 1984
Discuss George Orwell's use of language
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critical Analysis of Shooting an Elephant
“The futility of the white man's dominion in the East” this is the main topic discussed by George Orwell in his book Shooting an elephant. In this case the two main characters within the story are the native Burmans and a white English man, being the English man a police officer. Both characters work with different characteristics in terms of how they relate with others and how they respond to others actions. This way, different situations were exposed to the characters in order to know their reactions regarding the other people. But the main situation of the story is as the name of the book presents when a police man is forced to shoot an elephant, but the main reason for this action was the pressure of a Burmese crowd following the British man, not the need of …show more content…
Taking in account that the word oppressed is used not in its literary sense but in a psychological meaning, the white man is psychologically dominated by the Burmese crowd. That was astonished of seen a white man shooting an elephant. Then, a relation is stated, while the police man controls the Burmese people by him role within the story, the Burmese people have the power to dominate the police man psychologically. Each social group represented use “power” in order to benefit themselves, in this case the police man use the power that him work gives him, while the Burmese crowd use to enjoy for some moment. The book shows how the Burmese people laugh of the police officer and how this affects his attitude, then how this affects his actions. But if you stop to analyze the role of each character in this specific situation you realize that who have a real social power is the police man that in this case loses him power because he’s alone. And, the Burmese people don’t have a significant social power, but then they gain some power because they are in
Therefore, without friction, the story would be uninteresting to the reader. Arguments, disputes, and struggles are the main causes of conflict. However, there are two categories which conflict falls under: individual and group conflict. Individual conflict revolves around man vs. man and man vs. self. The first sign of conflict in “Shooting an Elephant” represents man vs. self: “In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me” (Orwell 619). The importance of man vs. self-conflict in “Shooting an Elephant” is used to affect the reader’s emotions. For this reason, the reader feels compassionate towards the sub-divisional police officer. Man vs. man conflict is between the officer and the Burmese citizens: “a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter” (Orwell 620). There are several types of conflict and they each have a significant
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.
The essay “Shooting an Elephant,” was written by George Orwell. Orwell was a British author best known for his essays and novels. In “Shooting an Elephant,” the title essay of his 1950 collection, Orwell is a British Police Officer in Lower Burma. After an elephant comes rampaging through the village in must, killing an Indian man, Orwell is looked upon to take care of the problem. The intense scene causes Orwell to make a crucial decision, reflecting on the vicious imperialism with the military in Burma during this time. The author portrays his feelings through the theme of the narrative with feelings such as, guilt, hate, and pressured.
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.
In the essay titled, “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, he explains the culture of where he worked in Burma. He explains “a small incident” that he had to confront, while he was a police officer in Burma. A small crowd wants an elephant, who escaped from its cage, dead. They want to stop the elephant’s treacherous deeds. These include: the elephant killed a man, killed a cow, and it destroyed someone’s hut. Orwell goes out with a gun in search of the elephant, but doesn’t intend to shoot the elephant. When he goes out in search for the elephant, who has supposedly gone crazy, a crowd of many people follow him. The crowd wants him to shoot the elephant. In this essay, Orwell was challenged
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.
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...
George Orwell dramatically writes about his time in Burma as an Imperial Officer in his essay “Shooting an Elephant”. He communicates in detail how he disagrees with the concept of imperialism but likewise dislikes the taunting Burmese community. Orwell goes on to recount the time an elephant rampages the village and how enlightening of an experience it was. Symbolism is a heavy orchestrator in this essay, with Orwell relating the concept of imperialism to several events such as the elephant’s rampage, the dead coolie, and the actual shooting of the elephant.
The character, himself, is part of the British rule and is supposed to have all of the power. The Burmese, though, dangle the power in front of him. He is weak and unsure of himself, stating that he “wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (60). The character is not able to stand up for what he believes in -- that is, not shooting the elephant. There is a back and forth struggle in his mind about whether or not the elephant needs to be killed. Orwell’s character is fully aware that it is wrong and immoral to shoot an innocent creature, but eventually secedes to the demands of the Burmese, attempting to prove his cooperation and loyalty to those watching. In a way, the Burmese represent the pressures of society. Because of this, the audience can sympathize with the main character. There are always times when we, the readers, are unsure of ourselves, but we eventually make a decision. Whether we make the decision for ourselves or are assisted by others, in the end, we must take responsibility for our own actions. In a broader sense, Orwell’s character represents the internal conflict that everyone faces: should we conform to society or should we be our own
The use of guns is to control the natives. In this suburb in Burma, only the British own and possess the guns, “The Burmese population has no weapon” (324) thus, is this which enable the British to appear as demi-gods toward the Burmese and rule over them. Also, the rifle represents the brute force which is at the disposition of the colonial British ruler. “I took my rifle…much too small to kill an elephant, but I thought the noise might be useful in terrorem” (324). This illustrates the dominance of the British Empire over the Burmese. The narrator uses the rifle for self-defense, “I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if is necessary” (326). When he kills the elephant it functions as a tool for violence. In addition, the rifle represents those people who easily follow the majority beliefs, but when the Burmese exhort Orwell to kill the elephant it deviates to a weapon “like a mad dog” (330). Then, the change of the rifle is not voluntary- it is rather dependent on circumstances, “I sent an orderly to a friend’s house nearby to borrow an elephant rifle” (325). Thus, Orwell shows how peer pressure occurs and proves relevance by stating how the Burmese pushed him into shooting the elephant. This is the result that peer pressure occurs. Additionally, Orwell warns of the repercussions of yielding to majority power by demonstrating the tragic fate of the rifle. The elephant is killed by
"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.