The Burmese and British are very different types of people that have some of the same feelings. For example the British think that the Burmese are lesser people. Both the Burmese and the British hate each other for this. George Orwell is stuck in the middle of these different types of people and their feelings. Orwell has many perplexing feelings that were the same and different than both the Burmese and British.
The British peoples hearts are bitter and filled with hate; because of this they feel superior over the Burmese. The British people feel bitter about the fact that they have to live around and police over these people that they feel superior over. The older of the India Imperial Police Officers agree with Orwell killing the elephant
…show more content…
The Burmese are trapped in their own country with these people that hate them. This makes the Burmese people bitter towards the British. "The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it" (Orwell, 324). This quote does not only mean that the Burmese are helpless against an elephant but this also means that they were helpless against the British. The Burmese hate the British for invading their home. Life as they knew it is now over and this will cause anyone to be bitter and hateful. George Orwell as an officer himself but from India is feeling perplexed about his bitterness and hate. Orwell said, "with part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny. As something clamped down, in saecula saeulorum, upon the will of the prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddist Priest's guts" (323). Orwell feels that the Burmese are being treated poorly and for this he is bitter but he works for the British and feels that their power may never end. He hates the fact that the Burmese hate him since he is secretly on their side. He says, "in the end 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" (Orwell, 323). Orwell has these feelings for both sides
Orwell uses irony within the passage. For example, “I often wondered whether any of the [other Europeans] grasped that ii had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.” He is being ironic because he didn’t want to shoot the elephant. He went against his own morals to protect his reputation from the people. This only shows that Orwell isn’t the one in command, it’s the Burmans. Additionally, when the author states, “For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life
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.
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell portrays a dystopian society that is controlled by a totalitarian dictatorship. Through his book, Orwell describes many aspects of society that existed in the late 40’s when he was writing. He used his book to make statements about the serious problems that people were facing in countries that were living under actual totalitarian rule. Through the writing of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell clearly depicts the negative aspects of the post-war period and what totalitarianism would look like when taken to its absolute extreme.
Since the beginning of time man has tried to build vast empires to control the globe. Manifest Destiny has been sown into our human nature creating in us the desire to conquer. In the United States, we are accustomed to a safe democratic government where everyone has a voice and freedoms, but what if it all changed? What would it even look like for America to be stripped of all our freedoms, rights, and liberties? We think this is crazy and could never happen, but George Orwell illustrates, throughout his novel 1984, the possible dangers of complete government control. Even though this exaggerated society seems farfetched, many of his fictional governmental qualities are starting to line up with our government today.
Some two thousand Burmese were trailing right behind Police Officer Orwell, expecting to get vengeance for the man that the elephant killed. Orwell is first pressured just by their mere presence. Only a few moments pass before Orwell comes to terms with what he thinks is the best alternative as he stated, “And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly.” (327) In addition, he felt subjected to shoot the animal; the Burmese were finally supporting him, and he couldn 't give that up even if that meant doing something against his better
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
Over time, Westerners came in contact with the natives. In the book Burmese Days by George Orwell, the author tells the story of the Western dominance in Burma. During the early 20th Century, the British Westerners gained control of Burman civilizations. A group of about ten British individuals maintain control of over 2,000 natives. Each character has different reasons and methods for wanting control. The locals accepted European dominance because the Europeans had strategies to legitimize their dominance. The local Burmese people viewed the Europeans in different ways. Elizabeth, Mr. and Mrs. Lakersteen, Dr. Veraswami, U Po Kyin, and Ma Hla May all have specialized reasons for maintaining
Orwell speaks of how he is so against imperialism, but gives in to the natives by shooting the elephant to prove he is strong and to avoid humiliation. He implies that he does not want to be thought of as British, but he does not want to be thought the fool either. Orwell makes his decision to shoot the elephant appear to be reasonable but underneath it all he questions his actions just as he questions those of the British. He despised both the British Empire as well as the Burmese natives, making everything more complicated and complex. In his essy he shows us that the elephant represents imperialism; therefore, the slow destruction of the elephant must represent the slow demise of British Imperialism.
I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool." So ends George Orwell's poignant reminiscence of an incident representing the imperialist British in Burma. Unlike Soyinka, who wrote about colonialism from the African's point of view, Orwell, like Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness, presents the moral dilemmas of the imperialist. Orwell served with the Imperialist Police in Burma while it was still part of the British Commonwealth and Empire. His service from 1922 to 1927 burdened himwith a sense of guilt about British colonialism as well a need to make some personal expiation for it (Norton 2259). "Shooting an Elephant" chronicles an incident in which Orwell confronts a moral dilemma and abandons his morals to escape the mockery of the native Burmans. He repeatedly shoots and kills an elephant which had ravaged a bazaar and scared many Burmans even though "As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him" (6).
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
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 ...
In the dystopian novel, 1984, written by George Orwell explained that government is taking over people’s thoughts and believes. The book also says that technologies are used to track people and their daily activities. In today’s world, many people are not realizing that the technologies especially mobile devices that they are using are used to watch over their actions and their privacy is also being harmed by the government. Technologies have taken society closer to the world of Big Brother which could lead to government having too much power over society and its freedom.
George Orwell’s 1984 is best recognized as the most compelling warning disseminated against totalitarian governments, markedly due to its writing shortly after the uprising of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. However, the century of 1984 has come and gone; over 30 years later, Orwell’s prophecy has failed to emerge. In fact, the majority of the world is now run by democracy, the polar opposite of the oligarchy depicted in the novel. Recent events seem to invalidate the political prophecy of 1984 altogether. However, it is perhaps hasty to relegate the prophetic societal relevance of the novel.
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.
"Shooting an Elephant" is perhaps one of the most anthologized essays in the English language. It is a splendid essay and a terrific model for a theme of narration. The point of the story happens very much in our normal life, in fact everyday. People do crazy and sometimes illegal moves to get a certain group or person to finally give them respect. George Orwell describes an internal conflict between his personal morals and his duty to his country to the white man's reputation. The author's purpose is to explain the audience (who is both English and Burmese) about the kind of life he is living in Burma, about the conditions, circumstances he is facing and to tell the British Empire what he think about their imperialism and his growing displeasure for the imperial domination of British Empire.