The Role Of Imperialism In George Orwell's Shooting An Elephant

Imperialism is often viewed as a win-lose situation. However, the characteristics of imperialism are not so simple; rather, it involves paradoxical power plays that sometimes switch the typical roles of a dominant and submissive group. In the essay “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, the complications of imperialism are illustrated through the contradictions between the idea of his authority versus the reality of his authority.

In colonial Burma, the foreign, British minority ruled the large, local majority. In this setting, the British demonstrated its dominance and power through its gruesome treatment of the Burmese. Orwell described the locals as having “cowed faces” and “scarred buttocks” from Britain’s “unbreakable tyranny”. This exemplifies the typical imperialistic state- an oppressor and an oppressed. However, Orwell’s depiction of imperialism goes deeper than such a simplistic view. Orwell, who

possessed nearly absolute power over this colony, struggled with the shrewd, insubordinate comments from the Burmese. He had access to the most recent and powerful weapons, yet he felt obligated to earn the acceptance from the locals in order to maintain his power, worried he would not be respected otherwise. Subconsciously, he formed into a puppet, listened to the will of the majority, and lived in the illusion of possessing power.
His fear of disrespect from the Burmese was especially revealed during his encounter with a rouge elephant. An inspector ordered him to “do something” about a loose elephant who had gone “must”. After the elephant “inflicted violences” upon the town, including murdering an Indian coolie, he peacefully grazed in the patty fields. Seeing the elephant’s harmless nature, Orwell felt with “perfect certainty” that he was not to kill him. As the police officer, the call was his to make. However, an ever-growing crowd formed behind him, who “flocked out of [their] houses” to follow and watch him like a shepherd. With all eyes on him, he felt constrained to uphold his authority and prove his strength. He resolved to murder the elephant in order to avoid appearing weak and humiliating himself in front of the locals. He embodied a figurehead of their desires, contrary to the ability of high jurisdiction commonly associated with imperialism.
The Burmese population in particular was eager to see the elephant die due to the entertainment and satisfaction of seeing another suffer besides them. Orwell recounted they “had not shown much interest in the elephant when he was merely ravaging their homes, but it was different…that he was going to be shot”. When the elephant damaged their properties, they felt little concern because the British already constantly inflicted pain upon them. They grew accustomed to the physical agonies. With the British, they had little opportunity to strike back effectively, given the oppressor’s vast armory power. They could only subtly rebel through insubordinate comments or annoying actions against policemen like Orwell. However, with the elephant, they took interest in its murder, a real pain they could see with their own two eyes. For the time being, the Burmese were not the ones in misery, and they had the opportunity to witness the oppression of another who had wronged them. Similarly, in the Roman Empire, the citizens enjoyed watching and even cheering on gladiators who fought to the death. The common people experienced the illusion of power by witnessing others’ sufferings.
Orwell shot the elephant even as it tranquilly ate in the fields in order to avoid humiliation by those he supposedly conquered.

His murder of the innocent elephant and the Indian coolie represented the barbaric nature of imperialism. The expansionist essence of a country is supposed to epitomize prosperity and strength. However, the imperialists treated innocent people like savages and reverted to barbaric ways. Orwell and the Burmese population ignored the freshly dead coolie in the mud because they focused on the bigger picture- the elephant. To them, the corpse was just another casualty, but the main attraction was the rouge giant. Similarly, imperialist nature desires for more, more, more, never focusing on the small accomplishments but instead on the big important goal ahead. Orwell’s fear of becoming the laughing stock of the Burmese deterred him from acting humanely and sparing the elephant. However, he already typified the puppet of the local population, wielding to their whims in order to maintain the power he thought he

possessed.
Orwell observed the contradictions of the imperialistic nature, noticing “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys”. Even though he possessed the power to instill fear and obedience into the locals as the oppressor, he had little control over their actions. Instead, the wishes of the majority population influenced Orwell’s responses; rather than sparing the innocent elephant as he wished, the fear of humiliation drove him to act against his desires. Theoretically, Orwell beared the power to manipulate many aspects of the Burmese lives, but in reality, the Burmese people influenced the way he exerted his power.