Subliminal Imperialism George Orwell immediately opens Shooting An Elephant by first laying down his perspective on British Imperialism. He states that it is corrupt and that he is against the British oppressors. Although a British officer himself at the time in Burma, he feels a obligated hatred and guilt towards not only himself, but his empire, and the “evil-spirited little beasts,” that inhabit it. Because of this, Orwell burdens only hostile feelings toward the British, Imperialism, and Britain's supposed justification for their actions in taking over Burma.In the essay he writes not only of his personal experience and the elephant, but also how metaphorical the experience is to Imperialism. The mood of the piece is set when Orwell renders the setting as a “cloudy, stuffy morning at the beginnings of the rains.” His tone of speech in turn is thought to be weak and discomforting.
But this is not what he would prefer to do. After he finds the big elephant he have gather a big audience of the locals that all are excited to see what he is going to do. He can feel that they would like him to shot the animal and he also starts to think that this could be an opportunity for him to get some popularity among the locals. So he decides to use all his bullets to shot the elephant, but the big animal is still not dead. This results in that the elephant gets a slow and very painful death.
Jade Paul Dr. Jackson AP Lang Period 7 15 September 2013 Murder For The Purpose of Image By the end of George Orwell’s essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, Orwell being a police officer representing the imperialistic government, makes a final decision to kill an elephant that has caused destruction throughout a village in Burma. Orwell was not respected by the people he was protecting and in his mind he was trying to keep peace throughout the village, but instead created a disturbance by being in Burma. The people look at Orwell as someone coming from the British government to contain the people and make sure violence and resistance does not outbreak. Orwell tries to change this image of himself in their eyes by killing the elephant but in reality it just inserted more fear into the people. The elephant was used as a display to the people that they should fear Orwell and his authority to intimidate the people.
The story concerns a colonial officer’s obligation to shoot a rogue elephant. George Orwell utilizes much symbolism to convey his strong anti-colonialist feelings. The situation and events that Orwell describes underscore the hostility between the administrators of the British Empire and their ‘‘native’’. On second paragraph, Orwell states police officer’s conflict: I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically--and secretly, of course--I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.
A crisis arose in which he was faced with a hard decision to make. An elephant had gone on a rampage in the village and had destroyed countless huts and even killed a man. When Orwell came upon the elephant, it was clear to him that it had calmed down and that the elephant would cause no more harm to anyone. Orwell was faced with a decision to either shoot the beast or wait until his master returned to get him. However, this decision was made much more complicated.
George was a British sub-divisional police officer in the town of Lower Burma, Moulmein. George was against imperialism; he believed it was an evil thing and the sooner he got rid of his job the better. One day he was asked by the sub-inspector to take care of a crazed elephant at the other end of town. It’s unfortunate that when he got there he decided, by pressure of a group, to shoot the elephant instead of letting it live. I have been in situations such as this and, over time, I have taught myself how to not give into the complications of life.
In Shooting an Elephant, the narrator is pressured, by a large group of people in order to please the people who allegedly hated him, to kill a wild elephant. This action clearly shows that not all people think life is precious because the man killed a living thing creature because he wanted to be accepted by the people. Reputation is portrayed as one of the most important things to humans, no matter what the stakes are, whether it’s putting your own life on the line or taking another humans life, such as the story goes as in “A Coward”. People will do almost anything to gain reputation, which I believe to be ridiculous. In “Shooting an Elephant” a man takes the life of an elephant to try and gain some
Although the author was working as a police officer for the British Emperor, he strongly opposed the idea of Imperialism. His opposition is expressed throughout the story. I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I checked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically- and secretly, of course- I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.
The narrator remarks on the squalor and poverty of the neighborhood, with its palm-leaf thatch on the huts and unplanned scattering of houses over a hillside. Conscience The narrator’s mental division points to conscience as one of the underlying themes of ‘‘Shooting an Elephant.’’ The narrator must do his duty as a colonial policeman. He despises the native Burmese for loathing and tormenting him as their foreign oppressor; yet he also perfectly well understands their loathing and tormenting; he even takes their side privately. His official position, rather than his moral disposition, compels the narrator to act in the way that he does, so as to uphold his office precisely by keeping the native Burmese in their... Shooting an elephant George Orwell, is the narrator of
While his people expected him to show kindness , he grew harder and harsher which eventually led to his own army and brother killing him. [source K &N] Europeans described Shaka as bloodthirsty and incapable of emotions other than hate and vengeance. Mr. Flynn’s account was only written years after his experience and was influenced by Nathaniel Isaacs who urged him to write about Shaka in a negative way, for the purpose of gaining control. In Apartheid the government influenced their people to think about Shaka as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the series “Shaka Zulu”. [source L & P] Shaka was an intelligent, determined with the motivation to protect and lead his people to victory, whatever the cost.