More handpicked essays just for you.
Shooting an elephant critical essay
Critical Analysis of Shooting an Elephant
Negative effects of British colonization
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
After the Industrial Revolution, the act of stronger countries taking control of weaker countries became a common practice of colonization or Imperialism. When one think of “Imperialism” they might think of the country and the people that have been taken over. Their resources are being taken, their people are being mistreated so of course people will feel bad for the conquered countries. What people don't know is that imperialism is a double edge sword. In the story “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, we are shown Orwell's view on British's Imperialism, though the British empire found use in Imperialism, Orwell found faults and that it hurts the conqueror as much as it hurts the conquered.
“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).
The British colonized Burma thinking that they would take advantage of the country's resources but instead they lead them to much more then money and people. The first Anglo-Burmese war cost the British a lot in money and in men. It was the most expensive war in British Indian history costing them up to 5 million pounds that is equivalent to 8424000 US dollars. They also lost 15,000 British and I...
... middle of paper ...
...e disappeared and they now know nothing but the mask they wore to keep the natives happy. In the end the elephant wouldn't die so easily, just like oppressed countries will not die so easily to their oppressors. The oppressors must give themselves up to, “avoid looking like a fool”(699).
In the end imperialism hurts not only the weak but it hurts the one using it, like a double edge sword bouncing back at you. The oppressed people those their freedom to govern their own country, have to face the abuse of the oppressors, and watch as the lives they once knew start to change before their eyes. But they are not the only ones to see change happening, the oppressors as well must see this change. To keep their chain link to the oppressed, the oppressors must change the way they do things from the inside their countries and show a different face outside of their country.
Imperialism is the domination of a weaker country by a stronger country. For instance Britain dominated India and China in the mid 1880s to the beginning of the 20th century. Imperialism has had both a positive and negative effects on the countries involved. Britain was imperialistic for many reasons, it could dominate because it had the technology and power to do so. They also needed land to acquire raw materials for growing markets.
Immediately upon seeing the elephant, Orwell makes it clear that it would be in the wrong to shoot. By this point, however, a large crowd of Burmese are pointedly watching and waiting for action to be taken. When Orwell does shoot the elephant it is merely because of this expectation. Orwell emphasizes this by writing, "And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man 's dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind" (Orwell, 327). After he shoots the elephant, the elephant proceeds to die slowly and torturously mainly due to Orwell 's lack of experience killing large animals. Orwell clearly intends to make it difficult to read about the elephant 's death in an attempt to force the reader to grasp the barbarity of the situation. This barbarity is a symbol of the brutality of Britain 's imperialistic takeover of Burma. Afterward, the Burmese population take over the elephant by using all materials it can provide. This is also an example of how an oppressed state can lead to
The essay “Shooting an Elephant,” was written by George Orwell. Orwell was a British author best known for his essays and novels. In “Shooting an Elephant,” the title essay of his 1950 collection, Orwell is a British Police Officer in Lower Burma. After an elephant comes rampaging through the village in must, killing an Indian man, Orwell is looked upon to take care of the problem. The intense scene causes Orwell to make a crucial decision, reflecting on the vicious imperialism with the military in Burma during this time. The author portrays his feelings through the theme of the narrative with feelings such as, guilt, hate, and pressured.
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 Burmese people fought three wars and ended up seceding their social, economic and political life to the British despots. The extended metaphor in “Shooting an Elephant” is covert and blaring. The elephant and the British are one in abusive power. When the elephant raids the market place it symbolizes the exploitation and obliteration of the Asian economy under the British Raj. When the elephant kills the “coolie” it symbolizes the slave-like conditions that the British forced upon the Burmese peoples. The final resting position of the dead “coolie” symbolizes the innocence of the Burmese peoples, as he was in a crucifixion-like pose similar to Christ’s “final” resting place. The involvement of the Burmese people in football is a symbol of the imposition of British culture and the attempted obliteration of the native
Imperialism has had a hand in changing the history of many countries that, otherwise, may very well be different now if it wasn’t for imperialism. Imperialism dates back to the late 1800’s. Imperialism is when a country or large power, usually for its own benefit, tries to extend its influence and power into other countries. Many times, imperialism had a negative effect on the country that was being affected by it, and caused the people to revolt, or resist the ruling power. Such was the case with the French ruling power in Vietnam, eventually causing a revolt and a war.
Orwell uses the elephant as a metaphor for Imperialism in Burma; the elephant representing Burma and it’s struggle to stay alive. Burma, as you can say, was “powerless to move and yet powerless to die.” The imperialism set in the country was unable to advance and soon enough, was able to pass on to a better
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.
George Orwell the author of "Shooting an Elephant" wrote this story to show the real side of Imperialism. George wanted everyone who read this story of what he experienced and saw from Imperial rule. Now he said " Theoretically — and secretly, of course — I was all for the Burmese (1)", which states he isn't the bad guy the Burmese see him to be. Therefore proves his point that Imperialism makes it seem like every person that is not controlled by it that they must be the white men of the Earth. So that's why he talks about his experiences, because Imperialism takes your life away just like that elephants life was taken away. Because it broke free of its chains holing it in its place.
When he finally came upon the elephant, peacefully eating outside of town it no longer posed a threat. However, a large group of Burman’s had formed behind him, and they were now expecting him to kill the
Imperialism is often the focal point of failure, the main cause cited in any discussion of the problems in modern day Africa, Asia, or the Middle East. It is blamed for civil unrest, wars, famine, destruction of culture, and unfair and unnatural division of land. Charley Reese, a writer and editor for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971-2001, wrote in Kipling’s Back, “The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests.” Perhaps Reese in his attempt to discredit imperialism as an, “arrogant and racist … attitude” stumbled upon the true value of imperialism. Imperialism is not pleasant. It has systematically destroyed cultures, killed citizens, and plundered countries. But it is the effect that imperialism has as a whole, the net total of its influence, that reveals its positive effect on not only the imperial nation, but also on the world as a whole. Imperialism contributed in three major ways: the increased liquid capital, especially among richer industrial nations, the introduction of modern innovations to impoverished and primitive countries or regions, and the establishment of a worldwide system of trade, commerce, and intertwined communities, which eventually evolved into modern globalization.
George Orwell dramatically writes about his time in Burma as an Imperial Officer in his essay “Shooting an Elephant”. He communicates in detail how he disagrees with the concept of imperialism but likewise dislikes the taunting Burmese community. Orwell goes on to recount the time an elephant rampages the village and how enlightening of an experience it was. Symbolism is a heavy orchestrator in this essay, with Orwell relating the concept of imperialism to several events such as the elephant’s rampage, the dead coolie, and the actual shooting of the elephant.
Throughout history, imperialism has led countries to extend their rule over weaker countries and then colonized those countries to expand their own power. Imperialism allows the ruling countries to use the weaker countries for their resources. Colonizing other countries would then lead to growth and a better reputation for the dominating country. There are many examples of imperialism throughout European history. When many European countries “scrambled” for Africa, it seemed as though Africa had no say in anything. During the 19th century, Europe found a way to use Africa for their own growth and power. Using Africa for their resources, the Europeans colonized Africa without a second thought. European imperialism in Africa had a negative impact because of social disarray, cultural loss, and death it caused.
Right in the beginning of this essay, we as the readers realize that the Burmese people harbour discontent “against their oppressors the Britain” (148), and this feeling is exacerbated when it was shown that the Burmese “had no weapons and were quite helpless” (149) against the rampaging elephant. The elephant serves as symbol of the Burmese as they were both “chained up” (149). After years of oppression, the rampaging elephant shows the inevitability of the Burmese people revolting against their oppressors. However, just like the elephant’s tantrum that started unpredictably, Orwell, the European oppressor, can just as easily silence it with a rifle. It is unfortunate that a few shots can inflict enough fear to silence people who wanted justice. But what is worse is that the everlasting wound would ensure that oppressed groups “would never rise again” (155).
Morally, I think this story clearly states that people would do anything to avoid being embarrassed. From my understanding, I think that this story teaches us that we should be open to hear people?s opinions but we should follow our instincts. We should not allow others to make the decisions for us. The police officers just shoot the elephant because people wanted him to do so. This essay is trying to help us to see that we should look at the pros and cons of an issue rather than making a quick decision that can affect someone. I cannot condemn the author for shooting the elephant, though he knew it was wrong. Nor can I condemn him for giving in to the natives and not sticking to his guns. He does not want to appear foolish to others like all of us do.