Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Shooting of the Elephant George Orwell
The Shooting of the Elephant George Orwell
Mccarthyism its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Shooting of the Elephant George Orwell
Sit. Stay. Shake. Speak. These are all commands that someone would voice to a dog, and expect it to follow accordingly. Dogs are known for their obedience and unbroken loyalty. They would do anything to please their masters; even put their selves in dangerous positions just to satisfy their authoritative masters. The question at hand is, would a human act just as obedient, no matter the circumstances? Some may deny that humans would be as accommodating as man’s best friend, but just a glimpse at past history could reveal otherwise. The Holocaust is a prime example of this notion of blind obedience. Nazi soldiers revealed they performed terrible acts, because they were just following orders. Many works of literature have also shed light …show more content…
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 …show more content…
In George Clooney’s nineteen fifties set film, Goodnight and Good Luck, a CBS news crew actively speaks out against Senator McCarthy and his views on ‘reforming’ America. This film, based on a true story, depicts a time when the United States was in a time of paranoia and its members were blindly following the advice of a source they believed would save them from communism. In the film, the head news anchor, Edward R. Murrow, along with his staff carefully argue against McCarthy and his ideals. They deliberately went against him on live television, despite all of the pressures from marketing and media to just conform to the senator. What sparked this rebuttal was the verdict by Senator McCarthy that Murrow was a communist. The crew felt the need to rightly inform the American people that Murrow was innocent, and that just like Murrow blameless people were being accused in spite of others. Many people were afraid to go against McCarthy strictly because of fear, but once the CBS news team took the initiative people were not afraid to challenge the senator and do what was morally
Murrow held on October 25, 1958 followed with a speech from him on the stage. The movie flashbacks to Murrow’s life as a journalist and the efforts made in his television program, See It Now. It provided insight into the issues that occurred inside the CBS News building such as the decisions that Murrow bypassed by his Chief, William S. Paley. In addition, the screen paused to provide information that read: “Throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s America was overwhelmed with concerns about the threat of communism. Senator Joseph McCarthy made a public accusation that more than two hundred ‘card-carrying’ communists had infiltrated the United States government. Few in the press were willing to stand up against McCarthy for fear they would be targets (SITE MOVIE).” This showed background information how the fear of communism was a big issue in the 1940’s and 1950’s. In addition, the movie included many visual references to the issue of communism from previous recordings that show how McCarthy acts and what he says about
Throughout the story, Orwell described how he was heavily pressured by the Burmese into shooting an elephant, stating that he became "... an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind" (Capote 583). Through Orwell's diction it became known that Orwell was hated by the majority of his residing village since he upheld the position of a sub divisional police officer for the British Raj in colonial Burma. Orwell was driven to killing the animal out of desperation of the public dropping all forms of hatred towards him. Although killing the elephant was against his will, Orwell went through with the deed earning a new profound identity known as the elephant
Every day, each individual will look back on decisions he or she have made and mature from those experiences. Though it takes time to realize these choices, the morals and knowledge obtained from them are priceless. In George Orwell’s nonfictional essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, a young Orwell was stationed in Burma for the British imperial forces, tasked to deal with an elephant who destroyed various parts of the village Moulmein while its owner was away. Backed by second thoughts and a crowd of thousands, he finds himself shooting the elephant and reflecting that it was not justified; however, it was a choice pushed by his duty and the people. Written with a fusion of his young and old self’s outlook on shooting the elephant, Orwell’s essay is a sensational read that captivates his audience and leaves them questioning his decision.
The film, Good Night, and Good Luck, discuss the main conflict between Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin and the staff of CBS news. This conflict was due to McCarthy’s anti-communist actions with the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. McCarthy was accusing various people of being involved with communism. Due to the minimal amount of media outlets these accusations made it near impossible for the people “blacklisted” to find work and destroying their quality of life to the point that many committed suicide (Sasanow, 1).
When he finial find the elephant Orwell say “I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him.” But when he lays his eyes on the crowd he changes his stance to “but I did not want to shoot the elephant.”(Orwell 199). He felt guilty for shooting the elephant when he describe that the elephant worth more alive than dead, but despite the many reason not to shoot the elephant, he took a shot. Orwell describes “when I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick …I fired again into the same spot…I fired a third time. That was the shot that did it for him.”(199) the shooting of the elephant represent the Burma people trying to stay alive and over powering by the
Although shooting the, now seemingly calm, “mad elephant” is morally wrong to George Orwell, in his narration of Shooting an Elephant, he has to do so as he is a representative, or more so a pawn, of the British authority in the occupied country of Burma. Being such, he wages a war with his inner self to seek which decision needs to be carried out. With two outcomes in mind, one being that he will be seen as a fool if he does not shoot the elephant and the other being an authority of the law by truly showing it and protecting the villagers, he has an epiphany. With such an authority, the law and someone’s moral conscience diverge. He then realizes what must be done and shoots the elephant to protect the imperialistic authority. As the excitement
Firebrand politicians, such as Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, saw an opportunity to encourage nationwide vigilantism by demonising Communist infiltrators. McCarthy’s contribution to the era of ‘containment’ was examined in George Clooney’s 2005 film Good Night and Good Luck. Of the piece, Clooney reflected, “I didn’t want this to be a polarising piece, I wanted it to be a factual one,” justifying his choice of docudrama for its creative innovation. By choosing a grey-scale palette, he represents the ‘black and white’ nature of the historical facts, allowing audiences to interpret his message independently. In a powerful closing monologue, presenter Edward Murrow reasons, “If anyone who criticises or opposes Senator McCarthy’s methods is a Communist, there must be an awful lot of Communists in this country.” This reflects the juxtaposition inherent in Murrow’s initial axiom, and trivialises the effects of McCarthy’s campaign in the public sphere. However, the film contrasts the initial mockery of the containment campaign with the effects the tension of clashing political paradigms had on the private lives of individuals. McCarthy’s inspired vigilantism rendered many unable to distinguish adverse political and personal values, igniting a nationwide ‘witch-hunt’ that superseded his campaign’s anti-Communist intentions. The suicide of Don Hollenbeck, a newscaster accused of being a Communist sympathiser, is shown first from his perspective, using point-of-view shots to create ambiguity, and universalise his actions. The darker, almost non-existent lighting reinforces the scene’s macabre tone, contrasting the well-lit boardroom where CBS colleagues mocked McCarthy in the previous scene. Ultimately, the
Edward R. Murrow’s profound impact on the field of journalism defines much of what the modern news media industry is today. Edward R. Murrow’s career offers aspiring journalist a detailed set of standards and moral codes in how a journalist should receive and report the news. The development of CBS is largely attributed to Murrow, and derives from his ambitious attitude in utilizing the television and radio to deliver the news. Murrow gained a stellar reputation in the minds of American’s during WWII by placing himself in the heart of the war, and delivering information through radio in his famous This is London broadcasts. His battles with Senator Joseph McCarthy are largely referred to as his most prominent achievement in which Murrow exposed the unfair practices of Senator McCarthy in his wild accusations on those in the American public of being affiliated with communism.
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
elephant: ?Here I was the white man with his gun, standing in front of the
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.
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 quest for power is one which has been etched into the minds of men throughout history. However, it can be said that true power is not a result of one’s actions but comes from the following one’s own beliefs without being influenced by others. This principle sets up the story for Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. The protagonist, Orwell himself, is a sub divisional police officer in Burma, a British colony. Orwell must try to find and use his inner power when he is faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant which has ravaged the Burman’s homes. The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell, as a colonist, should be in control. As well, the perspective and ideas given by Orwell show his true character and lessen the overall power set up for him. Lastly, the symbols shown are representations of traditional forms of power, but take on different implications in the story. In Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell uses setting, characterization and symbols to show that true power comes from following the dictates of one’s conscience.
With the introduction of televised broadcasting came a tremendous power for edifying, distracting, and manipulating the audience and therefore the nation. One well-spoken man alongside his dedicated staff recognized and successfully harnessed this power in its infancy to criticize and by extension encourage their audience to question the dishonest, fear-driven tactics of one Senator Joseph McCarthy. A historical drama set in 1953 entitled “Good Night and Good Luck” follows the story of famed CBS news broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, co-producer Fred Friendly, and reporter Joseph Wershba as they resist corporate and sponsorship pressures as well as disparage the Senator’s methods for attempting to rid the government of supposed Communist elements.
"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.