Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the negative effects of imperialism
Impact of imperialism globally
The effects of imperialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What are the negative effects of imperialism
A sub-divisional European police officer of the town, Moulmein specifically lower Burma, found himself trapped in a deadlock. The young officer had an inner crisis between his integrity and his profession. He found himself feeling hated and ridiculed by the many residents of the town when all he was doing was performing his job. The ambivalent officer was sneered, tripped, and laughed at; He felt perplexed and agitated because he had come to know how he felt morally and politically about the world he lived in. The officer had decided that Imperialism was a horrible system of government but he thought the sooner he finished his duty, the faster he could get out of the circumstances around him. He was all for Burmese citizens retaliating against …show more content…
The conflicted Englishman was sought to end the life of an elephant that was terrorizing the many homes of Burmese civilians, but his biggest conflict wasn’t shooting an elephant, it was worrying about how the Burmese people would think of him if he didn’t shoot the large animal. This story argues that the abuse brought upon by Imperialism has taken its toll on the people of Burma and demonstrates how a destructive tyrant empire can cause a colonized and overpowered country to rebel and attack destructively after being oppressed for so long. In this essay, Imperialism serves as the destructive behavior and brutality brought upon a serene labor intended elephant, which symbolizes colonialism. For example, the Burmese people were colonized and abused by Great Britain, that after so many years of torment they became …show more content…
It is understandable how a animal used for labor can be used to portray the working class that were being abused and provoked just how some animals are taken advantage of. Now, although the officer had a sense of authority and military sovereignty, he was far from gaining respect from a country that was being overworked and stripped from their freedom. I also found it interesting that Orwell focused on the officer’s thoughts and his perspective on how he viewed the struggle. The officer knew morally and politically that the British Empire was in the wrong, but like many citizens that live in dictatorship countries, they really don’t speak up or go against their country simply because it easy for them to be imprisoned. In this short essay, Orwell demonstrates that it is inhumane for someone to kill an elephant. In addition, the British Empire can be seen as being inhumane for colonizing Burma and how they went about things. Furthermore, the officer’s elephant assassination exemplifies the way a forceful settling cycle can be placed upon a silenced country that no interest in being manipulated or abused. In conclusion, Orwell ends the story by writing about how the officer fires several shots into the elephant that after so much pain and agony the poor animal dies hours later. Orwell tries to explain that the animal was just trying to fight back after so many wrongs were done to
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...
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.
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
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.
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 Burmans’ hatred is bred from the oppressive British rule, thus rendering any “higher moral” claims moot. This culture clash is what drives Orwell to shoot the rampaging elephant. He commits this heinous act, not out of concern for the native peoples’ safety, or fulfilling his duty as a policeman, but because he is determined to not look a fool. He is so conflicted, and put under such an enormous amount of stress, that he desperately clings to his last flimsy scrap of dignity. He is living as a puppet of the empire and the laughing stock of the “coolies,” an existence that would be distasteful to anyone, but is utterly unbearable to Orwell. At his wit’s end, he is faced with a choice: his conscience or his self-consciousness. He chooses pride over principles and thus the Empire conquers another helpless hostage. In this vicious cycle of repression, no party is left untouched. The iron grasp the British exercise on the natives fuels their hatred for Orwell, which in turn causes Orwell to despise the very nation to which he owes his loyalty. There is not a shred of evidence to corroborate the claims of “higher moral beliefs” on the part of the Empire. Morals are meant to guide us to fight against oppression, not to turn a blind eye, and there is no morality in Shooting an
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
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).
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.
George Orwell’s novel Burmese Days, originally published in 1934, is a fictional account of daily life and struggle few British citizens stationed at a remote British outpost on the fringes of a jungle in upper Burma. The novel brings to light many issues that were commonly encountered as result of British imperialism and the subjugation of indigenous populations. The issues that arise in the novel revolve around racial tension, gender inequality, and political manipulation for economic gain and power. However, it becomes quite apparent the underlying issue for all the discord and havoc experienced within the text stems from one core issue—racial tension. The ethnocentric ideologies expressed by the British characters in Orwell’s novel caused
"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.