More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the essay Shooting an Elephant - by George Orwell
Critical analysis of shooting an elephant by george orwell
Impact of colonialism on indigenous people
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Imperialism is often viewed as a win-lose situation. However, the characteristics of imperialism are not so simple; rather, it involves paradoxical power plays that sometimes switch the typical roles of a dominant and submissive group. In the essay “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, the complications of imperialism are illustrated through the contradictions between the idea of his authority versus the reality of his authority.
In colonial Burma, the foreign, British minority ruled the large, local majority. In this setting, the British demonstrated its dominance and power through its gruesome treatment of the Burmese. Orwell described the locals as having “cowed faces” and “scarred buttocks” from Britain’s “unbreakable tyranny”. This exemplifies the typical imperialistic state- an oppressor and an oppressed. However, Orwell’s depiction of imperialism goes deeper than such a simplistic view. Orwell, who
…show more content…
His murder of the innocent elephant and the Indian coolie represented the barbaric nature of imperialism. The expansionist essence of a country is supposed to epitomize prosperity and strength. However, the imperialists treated innocent people like savages and reverted to barbaric ways. Orwell and the Burmese population ignored the freshly dead coolie in the mud because they focused on the bigger picture- the elephant. To them, the corpse was just another casualty, but the main attraction was the rouge giant. Similarly, imperialist nature desires for more, more, more, never focusing on the small accomplishments but instead on the big important goal ahead. Orwell’s fear of becoming the laughing stock of the Burmese deterred him from acting humanely and sparing the elephant. However, he already typified the puppet of the local population, wielding to their whims in order to maintain the power he thought he
In 1922, Orwell began working as the assistant superintendent of police in Myaungmya, Burma, and this is where his hatred toward imperialism and its tyrannical rule over the underdogs in society developed. He felt guilty torturing and flogging unwilling subjects. The community had taken too much power over the individual, and the imperialist society commanded Orwell to enforce this injustice: “I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny…with another part I thought the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts. Feelings like these are normal by-products of imperialism” (qtd. in Lewis 41). Obviously, imperialism had affected Orwell to the point where he developed animosity towards the Burmese. As a policeman doing “the dirty work of the Empire” (qtd. in Lewis 41), Orwell acquired a hatred for imperialism, a belief that is focused on dominion over other individuals.
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 ...
Britain conquered Burma over a period of 62 years (1824-1886). Burma wasn’t administered as a province of India until 1937, when it became a separate, self-governing colony. This is the arrangement of details surrounding George Orwell’s story of “Shooting An Elephant”. The reader finds oneself in the midst of a colonization struggle between the British and the Burmese. On one hand there is a “Burmese” elephant that needs to be contained, while on the other hand there is a growing number of people joining a crowd that seems to be an obstacle for an imperialist guard’s ability to take control of the situation. The very tension of the crowd following the imperialist guard is the “colonization effect” is felt. This crowd of Burmese civilians expect the guard to shoot and kill this elephant, hence the reason they followed him. The guard finds himself being pressured by the crowd to take care of shooting the elephant. It is this pressure that almost forces the guard to make a hasty, not necessarily the right decision about handling these circumstances. If the guard were to make an error in judgment in direct result from this pressure from the crowd, he would find himself caught in a very bad position. A guard, who is part of a coalition colonizing an area, in the middle (literally) of an angry mob of local civilians unwilling to accept the colonization brought on by this guard’s imperialistic philosophies.
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
Looking back upon his experience as an officer of the imperialistic regime, Orwell recalls a crucial morning when he is asked to deal with an elephant that has escaped from its "mahout" or caretaker, and "has gone must" (310). On this day Orwell realizes that he is unable to make choices according to his own beliefs but must act according to the demands of the "natives" who have been deprived of their own country. Orwell acknowledges that "imperialism [is] an evil thing and the sooner [he] chucked up [his] job and got out of it the better" (310). He is constantly reminded of the abuse inflicted upon the native people as he observes at first hand the "wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the gray, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, and the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos" (310). Very prevalent is the anti-European sentiment among the "natives" of Burma; this prejudice nearly makes his job impossible. T...
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
In the essay ?Shooting an Elephant? by George Orwell, the author uses metaphors to represent his feelings on imperialism, the internal conflict between his personal morals, and his duty to his country. Orwell demonstrates his perspectives and feelings about imperialism.and its effects on his duty to the white man?s reputation. He seemingly blends his opinions and subjects into one, making the style of this essay generally very simple but also keeps it strong enough to merit numerous interpretations. Orwell expresses his conflicting views regarding imperialism throughout the essay by using three examples of oppression and by deliberatly using his introspection on imperialism.
Many would just think it to be an animal that went on a rampage but there is a meaning behind it. It’s death by Orwell shows the British Empire’s fall by its own officials. When Orwell talked about the “must” he was referring to the British Empire enforcing their dominance over the Burmese. Shooting the elephant was a difficult choice on Orwell’s part. He did not want to shoot it for he saw no threat once the must went away. The ones that wanted him to shoot it was the thousands of people behind him all excited to see him fire the rifle. “I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly” (Orwell 327). What that decision really represented was the British official working in the British colony. Orwell was the state, and the people were the people they serve. He either had to make the state happy, or the people he served
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...
When he finial find the elephant Orwell say “I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him.” But when he lays his eyes on the crowd he changes his stance to “but I did not want to shoot the elephant.”(Orwell 199). He felt guilty for shooting the elephant when he describe that the elephant worth more alive than dead, but despite the many reason not to shoot the elephant, he took a shot. Orwell describes “when I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick …I fired again into the same spot…I fired a third time. That was the shot that did it for him.”(199) the shooting of the elephant represent the Burma people trying to stay alive and over powering by 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
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.
Burma was imperialized during a time of political unrest over the wealth of the country through rich, natural resources. George Orwell, an experienced British officer and renowned novelist, uses his experience as an officer there to illustrate his claim that “imperialism is an evil thing” in his short story, “Shooting an Elephant.” (181) Imperialism is an extension of power that is common to industrialized nations because it allows powerful countries to go into troubled communities and help them advance, while at the same time gain access to their valuable resources. Robert Johnson, historian and college professor, states in his book British Imperialism, “Imperialism might describe political domination, economic exploitation and military subjugation.” Orwell uses this piece to exemplify the consequences of imperialism in countries such as Burma.