T-Chart For Shooting An Elephant

When Orwell was describing the burmese, he wrote “ 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”. In term of pathos, he uses language in a disgusting way and makes it known that he hates and cannot stand it where he’s at. In the documentary, there’s the positive side of spreading values, prosperity and peace and in a way, imperialism. However, even though this rhetorical piece doesn’t directly relate to the documentary, this is the negative side of Imperialism and how it can impact even the oppressor. Also, in the documentary, it just talks about spreading democracy but what we are blinded to is what happens behind. When America goes into another country to spread democracy, we rarely pay attention to what happens there or what they are actually doing there. There is less care and attention to what goes on behind than compared to attention towards the surface of spreading democracy. Not only that but, also in the text, George Orwell faced continuous mockery and embarrassment in Burma and that resulted in bad suffering for him. In Burma, even as the oppressor, he faced a constant struggle to maintain his power and his authority in front of the Burmese. As a oppressor, one would expect them to have the power and be able to maintain authority in another country but in this text, there is the opposite that is very unexpected. Overall, George Orwell’s experience in Burma represented the other side of Imperialism, which was even the one governing is affected as much as the one who is getting

George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’ (Orwel, 1936) represents a number of strangers being involved in a combined encounter. The situation throughout the essay represents the unjust British occupation of Burma, the hatred towards him as a British officer and the elephant symbolising the British. The part of the text chosen clearly exemplifies how a forced duty can lead to hatred. The text chosen displays that he is forced to encounter the Burmese people yet they despise him. Although the encounter with the Burmese improves with the arrival of the elephant, Orwell still has a sense of isolation. Throughout the text Orwell questions the presence of the British in the East exploring that the encounter with the Burmese should not have took place.

2. In paragraphs 3-5 Orwell is shown as searching for the elephant and discovering all the damage that the elephant has caused while on its rampage, and we see orwell eventually “sent an orderly to a friends house to borrow an elephant rifle”(page 2). After he receives this gun he is shown as socially pressured because all the burmese people expect him to “shoot the elephant” (page 3), but he doesn’t want to shoot the elephant himself. These details intensify the conflict because he originally got the rifle to defend himself, but now since all the burmese people already expect him to shoot the elephant he can’t really back down since he would be laughed at and mocked if he did. Orwell has to decide

The consequence of imperialism is discussed in “Shooting an Elephant”; The victim of imperialism is not only the natives but also the narrator. Indeed, this essay is about the suffering and the struggling of Orwell who is torn between the Burmese’s actions and the Imperial System.

“Shooting an Elephant” is an essay written by George Orwell, who was an Assistant Superintendent in the British Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922 to 1927. The essay was published in 1936. Burma was occupied by the British over a period of 62 years (1823-1886) and it was directed as a province of India until it became a separate colony in 1937. In the essay, Orwell narrates the scene of the killing of an elephant in Burma and expresses the feelings that he goes through during the event. The writer’s theme is that imperialism is not an effective way of governing. It can be decoded through his

“Shooting an Elephant” is a short anecdote written by George Orwell. The story depicts a young man, Orwell, who has to decide whether to bend the rules for his superiors or to follow his own path. George Orwell works as the sub-divisional police officer of Moulmein, a town in the British colony of Burma. He, along with the rest of the English military are disrespected by the Burmese due to the English invading their territory and taking over. Over time, Orwell, the narrator, has already begun to question the presence of the British in the Far East. He states, theoretically and secretly, he was “all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.” Orwell describes himself as “young and ill-educated,” bitterly hating his job. Orwell uses powerful imagery and diction to convey a depressing and sadistic tone to the story. At the end of the story, he faces a dilemma: to kill the elephant or not.

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?s extraordinary style is never displayed better than through the metaphors he uses in this essay. He expresses his conflicting views regarding imperialism through three examples of oppression: by his country, by the Burmese, and by himself on the Burmese. Oppression is shown by Orwell through the burden of servitude placed upon him by England: Orwell himself, against his will, has oppressed many. British Imperialism dominated not only Burma, but also other countries that did not belong to England. At the time it may appear, from the outside, he shows us that the officers were helping the Burmese because they too were against oppressors; however, from the inside he demonstrates that they too were trying to annex other countries. Though Orwell?s handling of this subject is detailed, in the end, he subtly condemns imperialism. Orwell finds himself in a moral predicament no different than the ones placed on the white men in the East. He justifies his actions, driven by the instigation of the Burmese. Orwell also feels forced by the natives to kill the elephant, hindering his

Starting in the late 19th century, mass imperialism defined the political structure of the world. To justify imperialist actions, scholars, government officials, and common people used science to show that Aryans are the superior race. Karl Pearson was a key proponent of survival of the fittest social theory, and promoted it to all Western Civilization. This way of thinking was apparent throughout Europe and other predominantly white places around the world. But what was it like on the ground in these colonized places and did the people their experience the same imperialistic principals? George Orwell was a sub-divisional police officer in British Moulmein, Burma and offers insight into what the situation was like on the ground. By comparing quotes from Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” and Pearson’s “National Life from the Standpoint of Science”, we can see that Orwell experienced the imperialist principles that Pearson describes. These principles include racial superiority, the need for inferior races to respect imperial power, and death of indigenous power.

"Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell is a story about Orwell 's experience as a police officer for the British Raj in frontier Burma. The exposition digs into an inward clash that Orwell encounters in his part of representing the British Empire and maintaining the law. At the opening of the narration, Orwell state, “Theoretically—and secretly, of course—I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British…” (Orwell, 1) by doing this, he clears up that he is against the British colonial undertaking in Burma. In unequivocal terms he says that he is in favor of the Burmese people, whom he feels are persecuted by colonial rule.

Theoretically - and secretly, of course - I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British" (p.3). Seeing the "dirty work" of the British Imperialists "oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt" (3).

Imperialism takes away individual’s freedoms and choices. Orwell emphasizes, “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Orwell, 2014, p. 230). When an individual turns despotic, they lose their freedom to do right. Even though the Burmese pressured him to shoot the elephant, he could have chosen not to shoot the elephant. Orwell explains many times that he did not want to shoot the elephant. Once he decided to shoot it, he could not go against his already made decision. Furthermore, imperialism takes away an oppressed nation’s independences. Orwell states, “I sent back for my small rifle and poured shot after shot into his heart and down his throat” (Orwell, 2014, p. 231). Imperialism takes away the oppressed nation’s values, the love of their culture, land, and resources by overpowering them. They have no voice in the government and no say about the rules that governs them. Imperialism destroys the freedoms of the individuals in the subjugating

The character in the essay even says “Theoretically- and secretly, of course- I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.” (Orwell Elephant 1) Throughout the essay there is also a tone of pity when speaking about natives. For example, “he was only an Indian and could do nothing” (Orwell Elephant 3), the tone that this is written in makes the reader sympathize with the natives far more than the British. The author does a brilliant job at using the authority figure to convey a sense of remorse for those living under imperialism.

Orwell employs symbolism as a major literary technique, aiding our understanding of his stance against colonialism and our understanding of the setting. From the start, it is clear that he represents the modern, the western industrial English, at complete odds with the rural and primitive Burmese. It is believed that the focal symbolic point would be the narrators stand against the elephant. In the paragraph in which the narrator fires at the elephant, it is seen as docile, not bothering anyone anymore and having only made a sporadic wrong. The narrator then fires at the quite calm elephant once, but it does not fall and so, while it is still weak, he fires two more shots, bringing the magnificent creature down. Burma (The country in which the story is situated) has a long history of wars with the British Empire before finally giving in to Colonialism; three wars to be exact. It can be seen in the history books that Burma only wronged the British in a minor way and in fact was not directly bothering the British Raj and much like the narrator, it

Prestige is all for them and they would do everything to get it. Maybe Orwell’s real impression of the Burmese wasn’t as positive as one could think while reading the passages about the behaviour of the English, sometimes he even seems to loathe the Burmese, but then again his Marxist ideas force him to write in favour of the socially disgraced. Orwell points out this conflict very consciously, as his own comment on his service in Burma proofs: “I was in the Indian Police for five years, and by the end of that time I hated the imperialism I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear. [...] I had reduced everything to the simple theory that the oppressed are always right and the oppressors are always wrong: a mistaken theory, but the natural result of being one of the oppressors yourself. I felt I had got to escape not merely from imperialism but from every form of man’s dominion over man." (George Orwell)