After the harsh criticism in my last draft of your story “The Shooting of an Elephant”, you have really improved the fluency of the writing and overall flow of the plot. I believe “The shooting of an elephant” portrays the values of power, morals and ethics. Throughout, you express these values with great success, which casts this story as an emotional one that touches upon some of the most influential themes that can be conveyed through narrative writing, amplified through manipulating the setting and language. Throughout your story, themes and ideas are exemplified well. Firstly there is power; examples of warped conceptions of power are regularly implemented throughout, as to provide the audience with an understanding of your unusual surroundings in the country of Burma. This is evident from the beginning of the story, when you set the scene regarding the …show more content…
Here you describe how, despite your authoritative figure, you are constantly disrespected by the locals as they hurl insults and even physically abuse you through foul tackles whilst playing football. It is well established that the power dynamics in colonial Burma are far from differences in race. You express the fact that although you hold an authoritative stature, you are still powerless to cease the abuse received by the oppressed Burmese locals. Through this, the idea of the twisted power is well demonstrated. Another important theme that you portray, is judgement based on morals and principles, and is most prevalent during the mental conflict you experience during the climax of the story. The elephant encouraged the locals by ravaging the bazaar and you are called by the locals to kill the animal. Through the text, your thoughts portray to the reader as you contemplate killing the elephant to gain respect and more power over the locals. Despite these thoughts, you realise that to kill the
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...
My Struggle for Freedom and Survival in Burma. New York: Free Press, 2009. Print. 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
This character wants to prove himself so in "Shooting an Elephant" he goes against his own morals ,in order to please the crowd, and kills the elephant. In this story, the elephant symbolises morality and consiciousness ,while the crowd symbolises imperialism. This story proves how imperialism lives in culture and can corrupt anybody in subject to that
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.
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.
After analyzing the evidence shown in “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, it becomes evident that the victims in this essay are the Burmese. The British imperialised Burma and took control of the Burmese, which in result created a bitter Anti-European stigma within Burma. The Burmese were jailed, forced to cram in the ill kept cages of their lock-ups, and beat with bamboos. They were thought to be worthless, as the British claimed that “an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie” (5). This statement proves how the British believed the Burmese to be inferior to them, and overall unskilled people. Although Orwell claims that the Burmese often jeered at him and he was often targeted by them, it is evident that he is overall not the true victim of the story. Orwell himself states that he “was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British” (1). This shows that in actuality the Burmese were the victims to the British imperialists and Orwell.
Orwell (1936) began his narrative complaining of the animosity of the local population, but quickly moved to his own hatred of his position as a representative of the British imperial government. Though secretly sympathetic to the locals and their resentment of European intrusion into their country, he could not openly express or act upon that sentiment, and thus experienced the same derision as his countrymen. Recognizing the superior military capability of their occupiers, the Burmans limited their expression of this resentment to “safe” actions, from a plausibly accidental missed call in the course of a sporting event to insults and sneers on the public streets. (Orwell, 1936)
“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 short story by George Orwell “Shooting an Elephant” brings into sharp light the nature of humanity, the narcissism and callousness we exhibit when it comes to creatures we consider to be a rogue animal. Within the story a rogue elephant going through a bought of “must” has escaped its owner, gotten into a town and caused damage and a death. At the point that help arrives the elephant is no longer being a terror, and is peacefully eating grass, and yet finds itself shot anyway, and left to die an agonizingly slow and painful death. The narrator of the story explains that he did not want to look foolish and be laughed at as his ultimate reason for killing the animal. This leaves the audience wondering, should that elephant really have been killed, and why do we immediately kill animals before trying to help them?
“Shooting an Elephant” The Essay Connection. Ed. Lynn Bloom, 3rd edition. DC Heath and Company (Lexington), 1991: 305–312. Raffaele, Paul.
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 ...
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.