More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of 1984 by George Orwell
Analysis of 1984 by George Orwell
Effect of imperialism on third world countries
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of 1984 by George Orwell
In many human relationships, a power dynamic exists. The struggle to obtain a sense of dominance over others rests in human nature. Therefore, large groups of people can become subjugated by a power hungry dictator or group of people. George Orwell’s short story, “Shooting an Elephant,” exhibits such a dynamic between Imperial Britain and Burma. In this case, the British empire oppresses the third-world country of Burma by sending police officers to watch over them. However, one of the policemen, Orwell himself, sees the British government for their despicable nature, but also dislikes the Burmese because of their contemptuous attitude towards him. As a result, Orwell remains in a middle ground: he can choose to take advantage of his superiority as a policeman or become a victim of the Burmese’s ridicule. As the story progresses, Orwell becomes pressured by the Burmese commoners, against his will, to kill a rampant elephant, which reveals the true nature of the existing power dynamic between them. Orwell behaves as the Burmese would expect a European officer to because he feels that he must …show more content…
On the surface, it seems as if Orwell has power over the Burmese because of his occupation, but he does not have their respect. As stated in the beginning of the story, “... the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves.” When the Burmese spot a chance to mock Orwell, they do so because it gives them a way to shift the power dynamic in a subtle manner without receiving any consequences. Because the Burmese do not have any declared powers, they must create covert ways to control their oppressors, which includes mocking Orwell. It may seem as though Britain has ultimate power over Burma, but even just one weak link can break a steel chain, with Orwell as the weak
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 state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell should have control over the Burmese. Orwell is a British colonial officer in Burma, which is under the control of the British, and because of this he should have authority and control over the Burmans. The presence of the empire is established when Orwell explains that, “with one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny...upon the will of the prostrate people; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s gut.” (144) This ideal imperialistic circumstance, where ...
Some two thousand Burmese were trailing right behind Police Officer Orwell, expecting to get vengeance for the man that the elephant killed. Orwell is first pressured just by their mere presence. Only a few moments pass before Orwell comes to terms with what he thinks is the best alternative as he stated, “And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly.” (327) In addition, he felt subjected to shoot the animal; the Burmese were finally supporting him, and he couldn 't give that up even if that meant doing something against his better
He is not well liked by the local people and states secretly that he is all for the Burman people, and that he opposes the British’s implications. During his time there, an elephant in ‘must’ starts rampaging through the colonization. There is not much responsibility Orwell undertakes until the elephant kills a man. At that point, he decides to pursue the elephant. After his tracking, he finds the elephant and notes that it was peacefully eating and had a sort of “grandmotherly air” with it. He does not feel the need to confront the elephant anymore, until he sees the locals waiting for him to take action. He reluctantly calls for a large rifle and shoots the now peaceful beast. The elephant does not die right away, and even after Orwell has fired multiple rounds into it, the animal continues to suffer in pain. Orwell cannot bare the sight of it, and walks away feeling as though he has just murdered such a gentle creature. At the end of the story, it is revealed that Orwell acted the way he did because he wanted to save face with the Burman people and with the Imperialists. He was acting in accordance to what he believed others would want him to do, and not thinking with his own conscious. He was carelessly and blindly following the chain of command, without a second
“Shooting an Elephant” highlights the act of Imperialism by the British on the country of Burma. Burma had an unstable government, this is what prompted Britain to try to colonize the country (British Colonialism in Burma par 1). After a series of Anglo-Burmese wars that lasted a total of six years, Britain had finally colonized Burma and ruled them from 1924 to 1948. Britain took over country for resources of tin, lumber and opium, but also they had already taken over nearby India and felt the need to take over Burma not only for their resources but also because their unstable government made it easy to take over (Making of Modern Burma pg 17).
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 Burmans’ hatred is bred from the oppressive British rule, thus rendering any “higher moral” claims moot. This culture clash is what drives Orwell to shoot the rampaging elephant. He commits this heinous act, not out of concern for the native peoples’ safety, or fulfilling his duty as a policeman, but because he is determined to not look a fool. He is so conflicted, and put under such an enormous amount of stress, that he desperately clings to his last flimsy scrap of dignity. He is living as a puppet of the empire and the laughing stock of the “coolies,” an existence that would be distasteful to anyone, but is utterly unbearable to Orwell. At his wit’s end, he is faced with a choice: his conscience or his self-consciousness. He chooses pride over principles and thus the Empire conquers another helpless hostage. In this vicious cycle of repression, no party is left untouched. The iron grasp the British exercise on the natives fuels their hatred for Orwell, which in turn causes Orwell to despise the very nation to which he owes his loyalty. There is not a shred of evidence to corroborate the claims of “higher moral beliefs” on the part of the Empire. Morals are meant to guide us to fight against oppression, not to turn a blind eye, and there is no morality in Shooting an
Orwell speaks of how he is so against imperialism, but gives in to the natives by shooting the elephant to prove he is strong and to avoid humiliation. He implies that he does not want to be thought of as British, but he does not want to be thought the fool either. Orwell makes his decision to shoot the elephant appear to be reasonable but underneath it all he questions his actions just as he questions those of the British. He despised both the British Empire as well as the Burmese natives, making everything more complicated and complex. In his essy he shows us that the elephant represents imperialism; therefore, the slow destruction of the elephant must represent the slow demise of British Imperialism.
The two external conflicts Orwell faces is being hated by the Burmese people and hating the British Empire. In “Shooting an Elephant”, Orwell elaborates on how much the Burmese people hates him. He tells us about the situation of the Burman tripping him on the football field, and the
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
During Orwell's time in India he is exposed to several unethical situations. As an imperial officer, Orwell is often harassed, "I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe"(Orwell 521). Therefore, Orwell's initial feelings are fear and rage toward the Burmese. He displays his hate in wanting " to drive a bayonet into the Buddhist priest's guts"(522). However, thou...
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.
Orwell is an unhappy young policeman who lives in mental isolation. He hates British imperialism, he hates Burmese natives, and he hates his job. He is completely alone with his thoughts since he cannot share his idea that "imperialism was an evil thing" with his countrymen. Orwell sees the British rule as "an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down. . . upon the will of prostate peoples" because he observes firsthand the cruel imprisonments and whippings that the British use to enforce their control. Nor can he talk to the Burmese because of the "utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East." This "utter silence" results from the reasoning behind imperialism that says, "Our cultures are different. My culture has more power than your culture. Therefore, my culture is superior in every way, and it will rule yours." If one is a member of a superior culture, one must not make jokes, share confidences, or indicate in any way that a member of the inferior culture is one's equal. A wall, invisible but impenetrable, stands between the British and the Burmese. His hatred for...
"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.