Compare and contrast the attitudes towards imperialism in Kipling's "White Man's
Burden" and Orwell's "Shooting the Elephant."
Kipling's "White Man's Burden," was written after the end of the Spanish-American War as pro-colonization propaganda. The Spanish-American War was fought over colonies like the Philippines, where the poem takes place. The piece glorifies the struggles of a white man, colonizing indigenous people. In George Orwell's piece, "Shooting the Elephant," the main character is a sub-divisional police officer, stationed in Burma. It is about his experience with the Burmese people, as a white man in authority. Both works describe the "white man's" experience with colonization but the complexity in "Shooting an Elephant," details
…show more content…
the experience of an actual colonizer and reveals a different attitude towards imperialism. Both pieces describe the burden colonizer face, living with an "inferior" group of people. In the first stanza, the poem details the difficulty the "White Man" faces, traveling to serve their captive's needs. They are the best of their kind and they are being sent to tame wild people, "Half-devil and half-child." In "Shooting the Elephant," the officer was sent to Burma and held a presence of authority in their society. He often referred to the Burmese people as "sullen", "devilish", and "evil-spirited little beasts." Although the officer had conflicting opinions about the morality of imperialism, he still referred to the Burmese as an inferior group, just as the narrator in "White Man's Burden." The pieces showed how colonizers viewed colonized people as an inferior race. Both pieces illustrate the superiority complex that the Europeans imposed on other cultures to justify their authority. The second stanza of "White Man's Burden," is about colonizers being tasked to handle threats. In the short story, the officer is the authority figure and is approached when an elephant killed a man. The Burmese hated him but still enabled the process of colonization by recognizing his power and trusting him to solve it. The officer asked for an elephant rifle and the Burmese took that as confirmation that he would kill the elephant. He didn't intend to do so but he had to stick by his communicated command, to maintain his authority, which is part of his burden as a white man. As the poem says, "by open speech and simple,". The police officer recognizes this as well. He didn't immediately intend to shoot the elephant. However, he knew that he could not seem afraid because colonizers were supposed to be unrelentingly confident in their authority. He maintained this façade to maintain his authority within their society and unnecessarily killed the elephant. Colonization was propelled by the confidence and arrogance that colonizers held when they believe they could better a different culture. Both pieces discuss the hatred colonizers felt from the indigenous people. The dynamic between the indigenous people and the colonizer is clear in the fifth stanza of the poem, "Take up the White Man's burden--/And reap his old reward:/The blame of those ye better." The white man must protect them and help them progress and his reward will be hatred. "Shooting an Elephant" corroborates this dynamic, the Burmese went to the officer when there was a rampant elephant, because they need his protection. However, when there is no threat, they trip him and spill betel juice on European women. He describes their treatment of him as, "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." Beyond that, the last stanza in poem details how thankless the white man is for his contribution. Indeed, the officer in the short story wasn't thanked for stabilizing the threat of a rampant elephant. The poem, "White Man's Burden" describes the dynamic between the colonizer and indigenous people and the weight of being a colonizer. "White Man's Burden" and "Shooting an Elephant" share similarities in describing the relationship between a colonizer and the colonized. However, there are nuances in "Shooting an Elephant" that distinguishes the complexities of the relationship. "White Man's Burden" can be seen as propaganda because it inflates the status of white men beyond what was reality. "Shooting an Elephant" takes readers through an experience of someone who participated in the colonization of a race of people. In "White Man's Burden," the men are described as the "best ye breed," however, the officer in the short story wasn't more qualified than the Burmese. He didn't have the skills that an authority figure in Burma needed. In fact, the villagers insulted and tripped him whenever they could. He wasn't particularly well trained to handle an elephant and had to get the proper equipment from someone in the village. He also admitted that he wasn't a good shot and there was a high chance of failure, if the elephant recognized him as a threat. When it came to killing the elephant, it took him five shots and half an hour to kill the elephant. In the poem, imperialism is seen as powered by the best of society, who are powerful enough to progress a society. He foils the heroic white man and is an average European who was thrown in to a country he wasn't equipped to establish authority in. The officer in "Shooting an Elephant" was motivated by insecurity, not from heroism and duty as described in "White Man's Burden." The officer forced himself to kill the elephant, against his better judgement. He knew that his reputation was all he had in the Burmese society. If he didn't kill the elephant, he would be perceived as weak by the crowd of people behind him. If he lost his authority, he could easily lose his life. The poem makes it seem that authority comes from a man's whiteness. The white man described is natural leader with a greater sense of purpose than the people he governs. However, the officer was governed by the will of the Burmese people. There is a difference in how both pieces view the motivating factor of imperialism. The poem makes it seem that white men naturally held authority. However, the short story shows that below the surface of authority, the masses hold more control. The threat of a rebellion of the social structure is more powerful than the social structure. In "Shooting an Elephant," the officer displays more complexity than the portrayal of white men in "White Man's Burden." In the poem, it is clear that the white man is a hero.
He selflessly burdens colonization, at his own expense, for ungrateful native people. However, that is not how imperialism is expressed in the short story. The officer despises colonization and is secretly sided with the Burmese people. He understands that he isn't the appropriate authority figure and acknowledges his inexperience and lack of education. He still dislikes the Burmese for how they treat him and refers to them using derogatory language. However, he recognizes his contribution in a larger global injustice, "The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who has been flogged with bamboos - all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt." He is also part of a third culture that developed over time between the colonizers and the colonized. They didn't live their lives separately, instead their lives inevitably blended together. The Burmese people also have more power than the indigenous people in "White Man's Burden." In the short story, the officer is driven by the Burmese, because he didn't want to face shame. He did what they wanted out of his own insecurity, but also for his safety. He was surrounded by a large group of people, that disliked him, and they were all willing him to kill the elephant and he understood that their will was more powerful than his
will. "Shooting an Elephant" and "White Man's Burden" are pieces that show similarities in describing the colonization process. The colonizer often felt a burden, serving as an authority figure in a different culture's society. Their authority was recognized but they were hated for having it. However, the pieces differ in their purpose and the complexity displayed. "White Man's Burden" served to glorify colonizers and their struggle. However, "Shooting an Elephant" describes an experience a colonizer had with the Burmese people and through that, it revealed insights about their dynamic that allowed for more depth in understanding the reality of imperialism.
The British police officer in Shooting an Elephant had never been respected by the Burman natives a day in his life. He was regularly mocked and cheated, even by the religious students of Burma, simply because he was one of the many enforcers of their imposed oppressor’s government. When the elephant went on a “must”, he found himself in an interesting position. The very natives who had always jeered and spat at him were cheering him on. Suddenly, he is faced with the choice between his personal morality and the ever so f...
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.
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.
In this story ,Orwell is taking part in imperialism by proving his power and dignity to the natives presenting imperialism metaphorically through the use of animals. He is using the elephant as a symbol of imperialism representing power as an untamed animal that has control over the village. He uses a large and very powerful animal to represent a significant metaphor for imperialism.. In doing so he leads to the understanding that the power behind imperialism is only as strong as its dominant rulers. Orwell?s moral values are challenged in many different ways, ironically enough while he too was the oppressor. He is faced with a very important decision of whether or not he should shoot the elephant. If he does so, he will be a hero to his people. In turn, he would be giving in to the imperial force behind the elephant that he finds so unjust and evil. If he lets the elephant go free and unharmed the natives will laugh at him and make him feel inferior for not being able to protect the...
The glorious days of the imperial giants have passed, marking the death of the infamous and grandiose era of imperialism. George Orwell's essay, Shooting an Elephant, deals with the evils of imperialism. The unjust shooting of an elephant in Orwell's story is the central focus from which Orwell builds his argument through the two dominant characters, the elephant and its executioner. The British officer, the executioner, acts as a symbol of the imperial country, while the elephant symbolizes the victim of imperialism. Together, the solider and the elephant turns this tragic anecdote into an attack on the institution of imperialism.
In “Shooting an Elephant” writer George Orwell illustrates the terrible episode that explains more than just the action of “shooting an elephant.” Orwell describes the scene of the killing of an elephant in Burma and reveals a number of emotions he experienced during the short, but traumatic event. Effectively, the writer uses many literary techniques to plant emotions and create tension in this scene, leading to an ironic presentation of imperialism. With each of the realistic descriptions of the observing multitude and the concrete appeal of the narrator’s pathos, Orwell thrives in persuading the audience that imperialism not only has a destructive impact on those being governed under the imperialists’ oppressive power, but also corrupts
The author desires to be accepted into the native's lives; no longer a social outcast. However, with this desire comes the knowledge that the group may or may not be correct in their brutal quest for blood. “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell demonstrates one man's moralistic battle between his own belief of preservation of life against that of the crowd of natives which spur him to kill the beast. The author is incited in his actions by the large, unanimous crowd looming eagerly behind him. The sheer size of the group of Burmese natives creates an illusion of strength in numbers that can be hard to fight.
Without actions, thoughts are just seeds without water, destined to die. Even with water, a plant may never reach its fullest potential. A plant could become six inches instead of six feet, it all depends on the amount of water. The seed that gets all the water it deserves will blossom and may never die, while the same seed that gets no water might as well never exist. Using water, seeds are transformed into plants. Seeds have grown into democracy, equality, and all that is good and bad in the world. In the end, it is all about the water (actions) that transforms the seed (ideas) to the kind of plant (result) that it will grow into. The quote by John Ruskin, “What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
In “Shooting an Elephant,” the main character, a “foreigner” in another country, who is hated by the native people. When put on the spot, when everyone was interested in him for once. He caves and does what everyone expects of him. I believe everyone, at one time or another has felt this way. I felt this way in middle school. The shortest, shyest, and slowest person in the grade, me. I don’t think my peers hated me, but I wasn’t the most popular person of whom everyone knew. I constantly felt pressured by my parents to get the perfect grades. I caved into the pressure and worked harder to get the good grades they wanted. Even though I had good enough grades to pass and feel good about, mainly high “B’s,” a couple “C’s,” and one “A.” Even though
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).
From the beginning of the narrative “Shooting An Elephant,” George Orwell creates a character with a diminished sense of self. The character narrates, “I was hated by large numbers of people -- the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me” (Orwell, 58). All he wants is attention and it is evident that even negative attention is better than being ignored. He hates working for the British as a sub-divisional police officer in the town of Moulmein. He even makes it known to the audience that, “Theoretically -- and secretly, of course -- I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British” (58). The character knows he does not want to be in this position, as a Anglo-Indian
George Orwell, other wise known as Eric Arthur Blair, is a well known British author. He spent a total of five years as an officer to the India Imperial police. This experience led him to resign and later become an author. In Orwell 's Shooting an Elephant, he describes this experience with the use of multiple symbolic characters. He uses items such as the gun used to shoot the elephant, the town’s people that watch him, and even the elephant itself to hold a specific symbolic meaning.
This essay will compare and contrast two different essays one is written by George Orwell “Shooting an Elephant” and “Am I Blue?” by Alice Walker. The settings of both places are different “Shooting an Elephant” takes place in a country in Asia called Burma. In “Am I Blue?” the setting takes place in a house in the country side that stood over the edge of the meadow near the mountains. The Characters in “Am I Blue?” are the white horse name blue and Walker, who spotted Blue from the window of her home.
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.