In "Shooting an Elephant" Orwell struggles with his conscience quite a bit, and he shows this through the contradictions between what he says and what he does. For example, he feels that “imperialism was an evil thing” (13-14). Yet, he works for the very tyrannical government he claims to despise. Another being that, secretly, he is “all for the Burmese and … against their oppressors” (15-16). However, he states that “the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts” (27-28). And lastly, when encountering the elephant, he outright says he “did not want to shoot the elephant” (119) for “it always seems worse to kill a large animal” (122). But that’s exactly what he does in the end, like this, throughout the essay Orwell struggles with what he views as right and wrong. …show more content…
He goes on to say that “In a job like that you see the dirty work of [the] Empire at close quarters” (17). Things like “prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups” (17-18), the “cowed faces of the long-term convicts” (18-19), and “the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos” (19). Orwell clearly knows to see all this to be gross and wrong humane violations seeing as it “oppressed … [him] with an intolerable sense of guilt” (19-20). But his servitude to British Empire as an Englishman keeps him silent when he ought not
When you think of an intelligent and social animal, what do you think of? A chimp, a dolphin, or a dog? Actually, an elephant can be included as well. Elephants have been proven to show cognitive abilities through a new experiment and study where they tested elephants to see if they would work together to gain food. Three pieces of information that talk about this incredible new study are the article “Elephants Can Lend a Helping Hand” by Virginia Morell, the video ”Elephants Shows Cooperation” presented by Discovery News. Although these selections talk about the same topic, they are different in many ways. The video is different from the two texts because of the differences in the information
In "Shooting an Elephant", Orwell succumb to the expectation of the public which is to shoot the elephant dead even though it is against what he believes in.
Lee 1Yio Kyung (Joy) LeeRhetorical Analysis of an Essay“Shooting an Elephant”By George OrwellIn “Shooting an Elephant”, writer George Orwell illustrates a life-changing incident thatreflects more than just “shooting an elephant.” Orwell describes the scene of the killing of anelephant in Burma and articulates the sensations that he goes through during the short, butdramatic event. Rhetorically, Orwell uses various literary techniques to convey the emotion andsituational irony of the whole scene, which ultimately leads to a satirical presentation of imperialism. Through the vivid descriptions of the spectating crowd and a direct appeal with thenarrator’s pathos, Orwell succeeds in convincing the audience that imperialism not only has anegative
Rhetorical devices are very powerful and deceiving in writing. Metaphors, irony, similes, and etc, can portray an illimitable amount of themes and ideas but authors mainly use them to to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective. George Orwell, the author of Shooting an Elephant, is outstanding at utilizing metaphors and irony in his writings. Metaphors and irony are common and in the novel it is used a lot.
His use of ethos can also be seen throughout the essay. The quote, “ I was a sub-divisional police officer of the town... (Shooting an Elephant-Orwell)” appeals to the audiences credibility of the protagonist and his actions. Because of his job as a police officer it is explainable for him to carry a gun and to act upon what was necessary during the situation with the elephant. This plays a huge role with the message because as a police officer he must put his own decision and moral conscience aside and should follow the orders of the people and what the government expects him to do in that moment, even though it conflicts with what he thinks is “right” and “wrong”.
In a time when not only one’s right to live peacefully was denied, but also the autonomy to make decisions based on personal beliefs was restricted, individuals found themselves trapped in a moral maze, questioning every action they took. This statement deeply resonates in the essay Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell, which is based on his own experiences as a police officer in the British Empire. Taking place during British colonial rule in Burma in the early 20th century, the essay clearly shows the moral dilemma that Orwell faced in the colonial setting. In the story, the narrator finds himself in a scenario that will not only put his morality to the test but also highlight the conflict between his beliefs and societal expectations. Through
The reader sees a glimpse of Orwell's moral conscious when he displays his feelings of unrest at his unethical decision. He writes, "It seemed dreadful to see the great beast lying there, powerless to move and yet powerless to die"(526). The elephant suffers a prolonged, agonizing death because Orwell did not have a hunter's knowledge of how to kill the elephant; thus his shot penetrated the elephant in the wrong spot. As a result, the guilt grows and he "could not stand it any longer"(527) and left the site. Orwell realizes that he committed an atrocity. However he tries to defend his action. It seems that Orwell is trying to make himself feel better by justifying his wrongdoing. He
Orwell did no good by shooting the elephant. Many would agree with this statement. However, any utilitarian in Orwell’s position would have done the same thing. Orwell demonstrate his utilitarianism rational through his actions and thought process. By using the definitions provided in White’s “Why Doesn’t Batman Kill the Joker?” it can be proven that Orwell is indeed a utilitarian and not a Deontologist. The main character in “Shooting an Elephant” is George Orwell. The essay is an autobiography, about a conflicted British officer in Burma during British ruling, who refuses to yield to imperialism because he believes that it devours humanity. Nevertheless, by being a British guard the Burmese people don’t know that he takes part with them regarding imperialism, which causes disdain among them towards Orwell. The action begins when an elephant starts ravaging a bazaar, and he arrives on the scene preparing to kill the animal.
Despite his support for the Burmese, Orwell endured their overwhelming bitterness and hatred because of his British heritage: "the sneering faces . . . of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me . . got badly on my nerves" (p.3). Orwell sums up his feelings of guilt, coupled with his reaction against being hated: "All I knew was that 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" (4). Although part of him saw the British Raj as tyrannical, "with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts" (4). Orwell rationalizes his rage saying, "Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism" (4). Orwell realizes that tyrannical imperialism works against both the imperialists and the natives.
Have you ever been pressured into doing something you didn’t want to, but felt like you had no other option? The narrator in Orwell's, “Shooting an Elephant” had a very similar experience. He was pressed by the Burmese into committing a senseless killing that he did not deem necessary. This transformation of the main characters mentality and morals gives the audience a terrific example of characterization, which would not be possible without the effective use of point of view in Orwell's story.
In “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell retold an occasion where he was struggling to come to a final decision of whether to shoot the elephant or not. With his final decision, the elephant finally lay dying in front of thousands of people. He said that he was forced to shoot it because the Burmese people were expecting him to do that. In addition, he also explained that he had to do it “to avoid looking like a fool” in front of the crowd (14). At first glance, one would think that it makes sense for him to kill the elephant to save his face, but that was not the case. He effectively uses this incident to demonstrate the “real nature of imperialism” (3), whereas the elephant represents the British Empire.
Orwell makes a decision to save his pride rather than to follow his heart and he shoots the elephant, a decision which bothered him greatly throughout his life. Much of Orwell’s writings were written in response to Kipling’s writings. Kerr (2001) quoted Orwell as stating “I worshipped [him] at thirteen, loathed him at seventeen, enjoyed him at twenty, despised him at twenty-five and now again rather admire him” (para. 13) work. Orwell was often described by critics as having contradictory opinions regarding imperialism within his stories, this may be because of the love hate relationship that Orwell had with Kipling’s
To sum up the reasoning behind George Orwell shooting the elephant, one must conclude, that there had been put great pressure on his shoulders. He had two ways to go, both with major problems. Some might say he chose the right thing, while others will be opposed, but one thing is right. He did it for the better of
The language that was used to express how George Orwell was feeling leading up to him killing the elephant shows how he felt the situation should of been handled compared to how he actually handled it. “ I had no intention of shooting the elephant”(Orwell 112) in this phrasing Orwell is clearly saying before
In the essay, Orwell is hated by many people because he is recognized as a representative of the British government. He stated, “As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so” (par. 1). The Burmese people viewed Orwell as a human symbol of the oppression and subjugation from the British government. He has mixed feelings toward the Burmese people because he sees the poverty, beatings, and anger of the people. He believes he 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” (par. 2).