This afternoon, we discussed Ashis Nandy’s The Intimate Enemy and George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant. Both authors raised interesting points about the psychological toll that colonialism exacts on both coloniser and colonised, and we explored the various interpretations of Elephant in relation to Nandy’s theses of colonialism as developed from ageism and sexism in Britain.
Orwell’s story provides an empathetic rendering of the politics of power Nandy through the eyes of a disenchanted British police officer stationed in Burma who encounters an escaped elephant. He is trapped between his personal desire to leave the elephant in peace and the need to demonstrate to the Burmese the ‘manly’ resoluteness of a ruler by shooting it. This performative aspect of fulfilling a role affirms Nandy’s belief that colonialism begins with the internalisation of colonial role definitions (Nandy 6). Eventually, the narrator’s will is subordinated in favour of the crowd’s – “When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Orwell 152).
…show more content…
While Pei argued that the narrator should bear full accountability as he is ultimately motivated by his proud need “not to be laughed at” (Orwell 153), Siraj posited that we should blame not the colonisers or colonised but colonialism itself, which he saw as symbolised by the gun. Additionally, we considered how the elephant was also characterised by language markers of age and sex. Greene points out that it appeared “immensely old” (Orwell 154) at its deathbed while I suggested that Orwell’s transition from “it” to “he” (Orwell 152) after describing the elephant’s violent attack on the Dravidian coolie humanised the elephant along gender
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.
Orwell, George. “Shooting an Elephant.” Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. Ed. Sonia Orwell. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1950. 3-12.
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
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.
Britain conquered Burma over a period of 62 years (1824-1886). Burma wasn’t administered as a province of India until 1937, when it became a separate, self-governing colony. This is the arrangement of details surrounding George Orwell’s story of “Shooting An Elephant”. The reader finds oneself in the midst of a colonization struggle between the British and the Burmese. On one hand there is a “Burmese” elephant that needs to be contained, while on the other hand there is a growing number of people joining a crowd that seems to be an obstacle for an imperialist guard’s ability to take control of the situation. The very tension of the crowd following the imperialist guard is the “colonization effect” is felt. This crowd of Burmese civilians expect the guard to shoot and kill this elephant, hence the reason they followed him. The guard finds himself being pressured by the crowd to take care of shooting the elephant. It is this pressure that almost forces the guard to make a hasty, not necessarily the right decision about handling these circumstances. If the guard were to make an error in judgment in direct result from this pressure from the crowd, he would find himself caught in a very bad position. A guard, who is part of a coalition colonizing an area, in the middle (literally) of an angry mob of local civilians unwilling to accept the colonization brought on by this guard’s imperialistic philosophies.
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
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.
George Orwell’s essay, “Shooting an Elephant,” was written as an attack on British imperialism and totalitarianism. Orwell recounts an experience of shooting an escaped elephant from his time as a policeman in Burma during the British Raj, utilizing a remorseful, reflective tone. He observes that “When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (14), and that “He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (14). Orwell is not only correct in his assertion that totalitarianism is harmful, he further explains how it is detrimental to all those that are umbrellaed under it.
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 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.
In George Orwell’s “To Shoot an Elephant” the reader is teleported to Southeast Asia. They are taken to a time of British take over from the perspective of a young Englishman. As a police officer for a British colony in Burma, our narrator is in charge of keeping the peace. But due to the Imperialistic nature of the British Empire, the people of Burma give Englishmen a stigma. A stigma that causes our narrator to be jeered and laughed upon by the native people causing him to in turn have a hatred towards the Burmese.
The use of guns is to control the natives. In this suburb in Burma, only the British own and possess the guns, “The Burmese population has no weapon” (324) thus, is this which enable the British to appear as demi-gods toward the Burmese and rule over them. Also, the rifle represents the brute force which is at the disposition of the colonial British ruler. “I took my rifle…much too small to kill an elephant, but I thought the noise might be useful in terrorem” (324). This illustrates the dominance of the British Empire over the Burmese. The narrator uses the rifle for self-defense, “I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if is necessary” (326). When he kills the elephant it functions as a tool for violence. In addition, the rifle represents those people who easily follow the majority beliefs, but when the Burmese exhort Orwell to kill the elephant it deviates to a weapon “like a mad dog” (330). Then, the change of the rifle is not voluntary- it is rather dependent on circumstances, “I sent an orderly to a friend’s house nearby to borrow an elephant rifle” (325). Thus, Orwell shows how peer pressure occurs and proves relevance by stating how the Burmese pushed him into shooting the elephant. This is the result that peer pressure occurs. Additionally, Orwell warns of the repercussions of yielding to majority power by demonstrating the tragic fate of the rifle. The elephant is killed by
Orwell?s extraordinary style is never displayed well than through ?Shooting an Elephant,? where he seemingly blends his style and subject into one. The story deals with a tame elephant that all of a sudden turns bad and kills a black Dravidian coolie Indian. A policeman kills this elephant through his conscience because the Indians socially pressurized him greatly. He justified himself as he had killed elephant as a revenge for coolie.