Shooting An Elephant Imperialism

Predetermined Decision

Pressure may be a positive or negative impact on people depending on the situation. It can be an influence that may feel compelling to do something uncomfortable. To a teenager, being surrounded by thousands of people would be an influence especially in a hostile environment. It is very unlikely that a competent and opinionated individual would sacrifice their beliefs and morals in order to adapt to the circumstance at hand. In the short essay Shooting an Elephant, written by George Orwell, identifies the issues of imperialism and stress has on the narrator. As well as addressing attention seeking motives. The short story takes place in Moulmein, in lower Burma. The British government expanded colonies into south Asia.

At that time, Burma was still recovering from colonialism and because of the colonization, the people of Burma were offended by what the narrator represented. The narrator, a British police officer, exemplifies struggle and hesitation towards imperialism. Imperialistic ideas consumed society to lack respect articulated through the efforts of the Burmese people. “For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically – and secretly; of course – I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British” (Orwell 1). Orwell’s use of language directly clarifies the narrator’s awkward position. Because of the narrator’s job and stigma of where he came from, the Burmese people already had a predetermined assumption; Just because the narrator is a police officer and works for the British government, the Burmese feel the need to insult him. When in actuality the narrator did not agree with expansion and was with the Burmese people.

When the incident had occurred. The narrator discovered that an elephant was destroying a bazaar. He then arrives to the occurrence on a pony and took his old 44. Winchester, which is too minute to kill an elephant, but the sound would at least be intimidating. A tamed elephant had gone into a destructive frenzy due to an exudation. On the previous night, the elephant broke out of its chain and ran loose. There was a scattered knowledge of which direction the elephant had gone. Eventually, the narrator had found a man’s dead body irregularly laid out in the mud. He then borrowed an elephant rifle and five cartridges. At that moment, the entire Burmese population had gathered to watch the narrator take out the elephant. Due to pure enjoyment and the need for food, the Burmese people thought it was now a necessity for the beast to be shot. With over two thousand people surrounding the narrator, still had a choice. By that time the elephant had finished its destructive episode. There would be no other motive to shoot the beast other than to gain acceptance by the villagers. While many could argue the narrator in Shooting an Elephant is justified in slaying the elephant, closer analysis proves otherwise. The narrator is evidently stuck between both constructs of the British and Burmese people towards his understanding of each society, but he shot the elephant for the wrong reasons.
Orwell’s use of symbolism is displayed in the narration:
Here was I, the white man with his gun, the futility of the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowed—seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the “natives,” and so in every crisis he has got to do what the “natives” expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. (Orwell 3)
Imperialism controlled the Burmese people.

Even though the narrator didn’t want to shoot the elephant at first, he did it anyways to prevent any aggravation the villagers had and ultimately benefited the British from further mockery. Although it is noticeable that imperialism and colonialism ruined native populations such as Burma, it is ironic that the narrator is chained by fulfilling ideas that aren’t his. Without shooting the elephant, the narrator would have continued to be ridiculed by the Burmese people. The elephant rifle gave him power and a different acknowledgment, rather than the daily police treatment they usually gave him. Even though it was legal for the narrator to shoot the elephant, and the owner did not control their property, it was an absurd reason to have shot the elephant. “I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” (Orwell 4). The narrator did not shoot the elephant to protect himself or the Burmese people since the elephant presented no risk or danger to anyone after its must. It is satirical that the narrator did not want to appear as a fool but because his motives were a fallacy, it made him immature to want acceptance instead of having moral judgment. The narrator acted out of emotion and sought approval instead of operating as a police officer. According to the narrator, any publicity is good publicity. It is bigger than the shooting. Not only did the people of Burma experience destruction through imperialism, but also the narrator lost his humanity. The speaker appears partial because he receives word from the older men who approves of the shooting and hears from younger men who believe the elephant is worth more than the coolie who got stomped on. Afterwards, he then continues to justify the shooting, instead of realizing how irresponsible it was to shoot the elephant out of careless

action.