More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of American colonialism on native people
Effect of American colonialism on native people
Negative impact of imperialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effect of American colonialism on native people
Inducting Imperialism
Introduction
Burma was imperialized during a time of political unrest over the wealth of the country through rich, natural resources. George Orwell, an experienced British officer and renowned novelist, uses his experience as an officer there to illustrate his claim that “imperialism is an evil thing” in his short story, “Shooting an Elephant.” (181) Imperialism is an extension of power that is common to industrialized nations because it allows powerful countries to go into troubled communities and help them advance, while at the same time gain access to their valuable resources. Robert Johnson, historian and college professor, states in his book British Imperialism, “Imperialism might describe political domination, economic exploitation and military subjugation.” Orwell uses this piece to exemplify the consequences of imperialism in countries such as Burma.
Summary
The narrator of George Orwell’s short story faces internal conflict while stationed as a British officer in Burma. His obligation to the organization he is a part of is to help the Burmese catch up to the industrialized
…show more content…
After calling for an elephant rifle, the narrator finds a crowd beginning to form as he approaches the creature. His objective was never to kill the now peaceful creature, but with the hot glare on him he became subdue to their wishes. The Burmese people were hungry and wanted entertainment, and the narrator wanted to ease the tensions between the two groups for at least the time being. He did not kill the elephant because it was the righteous thing to do, but he did it to avoid looking like a fool. The massive animal, now powerless, took nearly a half hour to die. The narrator’s actions were justified due to the Indians death, but his regret stems from the realization that he too was powerless and his actions were only the result of his
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 1800’s staged the universal dissemination and climax of British imperialism, thereby destructing and reconstructing the world into a new order. It is ordinary to depict the British as overindulgent consumerists, and the natives as magnanimous servers of the Empire, though history suggests that imperialism was not a mere black and white affair. It is certain that imperialism unjustly exhausted global resources and is therefore deserving of its condemnation. Yet, actual experiences of the time, as told by British men propel the reader to reevaluate the role of British moral authority during colonial times. The Man Who Would Be King (1888) by Rudyard Kipling and Shooting An Elephant (1936) by George Orwell are two such commentaries on imperialism in British India. The former is a novelette, narrated by a newspaper man and tells the journey of two determined Englishmen (Carnehan and Dravot) from inconspicuous “loafers” in India to godlike kings in Kafiristan. The latter recounts the story of a young British officer (Orwell), who served as a police to the Indian Imperial Police in Lower Burma. Kipling and Orwell narrate similar overarching themes such as the injustice of British imperialism and its inflicted misery both on the conquered and on the conqueror. Their motives and reactions to imperialism, however, are highly varied given their external conflicts with the Empire and the natives also vary. These stories by Orwell and Kipling conclude as symbolic mockeries of imperialism and its ultimate failure, thereby portraying the mixed elements of British nationalism during imperialism.
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 the essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, George Orwell retells his experiences and feelings of being disrespected as a sub-divisional police officer in Moulmein, Burma. Early one morning, In the lower part of Burma, an elephant was reported ravaging the bazaar. As Orwell’s curiosity persuades him to go investigate the elephant, the author sees the damage that the elephant left behind. He prepares out of fear to “murder” the elephant with an elephant rifle. In doing this he excited the Burmese, who led a crowd behind Orwell, encouraging him to shoot the elephant who was now no more harmless than a cow. Orwell’s diction and actions, shows a complex tone towards the natives through his loyalties, his use of racist slurs, and his struggle with power and control.
George Orwell dramatically writes about his time in Burma as an Imperial Officer in his essay “Shooting an Elephant”. He communicates in detail how he disagrees with the concept of imperialism but likewise dislikes the taunting Burmese community. Orwell goes on to recount the time an elephant rampages the village and how enlightening of an experience it was. Symbolism is a heavy orchestrator in this essay, with Orwell relating the concept of imperialism to several events such as the elephant’s rampage, the dead coolie, and the actual shooting of the elephant.
In the essay, Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell illustrates his experiences as a British police officer in Lower Burma, and reflects it to the nature of imperialism. Since “anti-European feeling was very bitter” due to the British Empire’s dictatorship in Burma, Orwell is being treated disrespectfully by the Burmese (12). This allows him to hate his job and the British Empire. However, the incident of shooting of an elephant gives him a “better glimpse … of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic government act” (13). Through his life experiences as a British man, Orwell efficiently demonstrates the negative effects of imperialism on individuals and society.
The importance in the shooting of the elephant lies in how the incident depicts the different aspects of imperialism. In this essay, the elephant and the British officer help prove that imperialism is a double-edge sword. The shooting of the elephant is the incident that reveals that imperialism inflicts damage on both parties in a imperialistic relationship. The British officer, Orwell, displays many aspects of the being the "absurd puppet" under the institution of imperialism.(3) He is the evidence that "every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at."(3) His experience with the natives conveys how imperialism harms the imperialistic countries as well as their colonies. To give reason to their forceful colonization, the imperialists must strip themselves of their own freedom as they constantly try to "impress the natives" to prove the superiority of the white man.(3) Colonists find the need to become racist against the natives because it is convenient for the colonists to patr...
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
In George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, Orwell suggests just that; one can form his own ideals, but they will either be changed by the media (symbolized in his essay by the Burmese natives) or constructed from...
Imperialism is a double edged sword which has been wielded by nations around the world for centuries but which serves no purpose but to harm all it touches. Orwell described the beginning of the end of the empire as a hollowness, and the futility of the British dominion in the colony of Burma, as a sea of yellow faces momentarily watching to see the elephant killed. The Burmese people hated Britain and saw the empire as a mad elephant, a good for nothing beast in need of destruction. At the moment in time when the British Empire had outlived its days of glory, it was described as when the white man has turned into a mad tyrant that it is his own freedom that he has destroyed. It would take several more years for the British Empire to let go of the colonies. The empire would never again stretch across the globe never to see the sun set upon it, but it was also far from dead. The spirits of the British people and the colonized territories endured a slow and painful tug of war before it was done. There was much more agony for both sides. Mr. Kipling wrote of eloquently of the selfishness of Imperialism, as did Mr. Twain, and how it ravages all involved. Nothing is left untouched by the ruthlessness of war, so take heed with the selfishness in the building of empires, for the harm it will bring to you in the
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.