Analysis Of Elephant By George Orwell

George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’ (Orwel, 1936) represents a number of strangers being involved in a combined encounter. The situation throughout the essay represents the unjust British occupation of Burma, the hatred towards him as a British officer and the elephant symbolising the British. The part of the text chosen clearly exemplifies how a forced duty can lead to hatred. The text chosen displays that he is forced to encounter the Burmese people yet they despise him. Although the encounter with the Burmese improves with the arrival of the elephant, Orwell still has a sense of isolation. Throughout the text Orwell questions the presence of the British in the East exploring that the encounter with the Burmese should not have took place.

One day, an incident takes place that exhibits Orwell “the real nature of imperialism.” A domesticated elephant has escaped from its chains and gone berserk, threatening villagers and property. The only person capable of controlling the elephant—its “mahout”—went looking for the elephant in the wrong direction, and happens to be twelve hours away. Thus, Orwell goes to the neighborhood where the elephant was last seen, but the inhabitants give such conflicting reports, as a result, Orwell nearly concludes the whole thing a hoax. Suddenly, he hears an uproar nearby and

However, any power given to him through the imperialistic setting is lost, because Orwell exists as a part of a minority in Burma. With this dilemma, Orwell notices the difficulties that come with an authoritative figure in a foreign country as, “[Orwell] was hated by a large number of people- the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” (144) Due to this hatred, Orwell finds his job to impose order futile because the Burmese people seem to have a tighter grasp on Orwell than Orwell himself. The Burmans appear to be enforcing their power over Orwell through their majority and he experiences this when, “A nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way.” (144) These acts that the Burmans commit show that power appears to exist in the hands of the Burmese majority rather than Orwell. By placing a colonist within a colony, the writer establishes the feeling that power should lie in the hand of the colonist. However, this concept is shattered because Orwell possesses no power though the colonial setting because of the fact that the Burmese appear to be in control. The lack of power present in the surroundings further enforces the fact that true power cannot come from one’s conquest or authority but only from within.

George Orwell began the essay with his perspective on British domination. He stated that it is evil and alongside of that it is oppressive. He felt hatred and guilt toward himself and the Burmese people. The people of Burma did not feel threatened because the narrator of the story had killed the elephant. The Burmese people have lost their dignity and integrity while trying to fight off the British imperialism. Orwell uses allegories to describe his experience of the British imperialism and he had his own view of the matter of slaying the elephant. He successfully used ethos, pathos, and logos by attracting the audience to read his story. He had to make a scene in the story to make the people of Burma feel the same emotion. The elephant was the one reason why it makes this story emotional. He used logos to show that he can kill the elephant even if he does not want to so that it does not make him look fool.

Two of Orwell’s first literary works were his essays regarding his experiences as a policeman in Burma during imperialization from Europe. These essays include “A Hanging” and “Shooting an Elephant.” In these essays, he shows his clear disagreement of oppression, even while working for the oppressors. Orwell writes

All the fuss, actions he was encouraged to make, lead back to his job he had to do, which was one he despised. Orwell’s introduction makes it very clear he doesn't not like being a police officer and especially does not like imperialism. “For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better.” (Orwell,1963,pg. 1) He wanted nothing to do with imperialism, he was all for the Burmese. He didn't believe in the cruel ways the British had forced him to act on. His words are spread among many sentences created this harsh tone. He was furious he was considered part of the imperialism. He was in the group though, and being part of this came with responsibility and standards. Orwell had to prove he was worthy and could hold up his end

When Orwell found the elephant the “must” period seemed to be over. “must” is when a bull elephant becomes highly aggressive due to a rise in reproductive hormones. Testosterone can rise 60 times higher than normal.

He finds the elephant to be more important than the people because he finds a similarity with the elephant. He is very similar to the elephant because the narrator is compelled to do a job that he hates on impulse, and he watches death and causes a lot of agony in the Burmese people’s live. This is related to how the elephant went on rage and tried to wipe out any of the Burmese people who got in its path. He uses the phrase “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirted little beast who tried to make my job impossible” (Orwell 2). As Orwell finds the value of the elephant, he finds no value in the people; the elephant and him share the interest that they are hard workers and cannot handle what they have to do in

Orwell uses this metaphor of an elephant’s rage and destruction of homes, theft of food shelves, and even killings as an example to the inner working of imperialism. Metaphorically, Orwell expands his argument about how imperialism is tyrannical towards to the Burmese people by comparing an elephant’s rage to the British Empire’s invasion of Burma and its destruction of the native life. Similarly, the elephant’s theft of food represents the oppressed of the British Empire’s imperialism has brought upon the Burmese people. They try to implement their aim of domination upon Burma without any care upon the Burmese way of life. This event not only makes the oppressed country become the victims of the imperialism, but it also is the foundation of Orwell’s dilemma regarding the killing of an elephant or the peer pressure he feels towards killing. In short, the use of metaphorical devices found throughout Orwell’s narrative help emphasizing the similarities of imperialism to that of an elephant ravaging through a town, illustrating the true effects it has upon the Burmese people.

Orwell next faces the moral dilemma of whether or not to shoot the elephant. At first, it is clear that he does not feel the internal urge to shoot the elephant: "It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him" (Orwell.525). However, Orwell's virtue becomes dwarfed as the Burmese's "two thousand wills [press him] forward"(524) to kill the elephant. At this point there is an obvious role reversal as the Burmese begin to strongly influence Orwells decisions. Because he constantly dwells on what the crowd will think of him he shoots the elephant. Thus submitting to the will of the people and committing the immoral deed of abandoning ones own conscious because of the pressure of others.

Causing Orwell to gain peer pressure towards him actually ‘having no choice but to kill the beast’ (137). Even though the people of Burma called for his help, they still expect him to shoot down the animal even if Orwell ‘doesn’t intend to’ (136) do so. Yet he was told what the elephant had done, which was: ‘ravaging the bazaar’ (134), ‘destroyed someone’s bamboo hut, killed a cow, raided fruit stands and devoured the stock, turned a van over and inflicted violence upon it…, squished a man’s dead body sprawled onto the floor’

What’s a cop without the respect of the townspeople. So, Orwell did what anyone in his position would have done. Although Orwell killing the elephant was “justified” The unimportant small majority of people and the owner knew that the elephant meant no harm course the younger generation hated Orwell while his older advisory salute and praise him. In Pg.30 it states “Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, Legally, I have done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed like a mad dog if its owner fails to control it.”

Orwell abandons his morals and kills the elephant to garner the approval of the Burmans. He feels compelled to shoot the animal because the Burmans "did not like me, but with the magical rifle in

Finally, Orwell makes the final and most fatal of all his contradictions: Betrayal. The first time Orwell talks about the elephant in the essay, he talks about a firearm of some sort while always mentioning somewhere how he doesn’t want to shoot the elephant. He even says later in the essay: “As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him” (2). Orwell claimed he knew in his heart and mind that morally, he should not end the elephant. However, Orwell does in fact end the elephant. While Orwell describes the animal’s reaction, he adds: “An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him. One could have imagined him thousands of years old” (3). Orwell had betrayed his morality to impress the crowd, which he summarized as “...Any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” (4). Not only did Orwell shoot the elephant, he betrayed his moral code; that he “ought not to shoot him (the Elephant)”. He had sinned. In Inferno, The deepest level of hell, the 9th circle, has been reserved for people who commit treason. This further connects “Shooting an Elephant” to the idea of Orwell’s personal hell. Orwell was in his own personal hell when he shot the elephant, and landed himself in the deepest pit of it. His agony shows when he describes the wounded elephant and says: “...The tortured breathing continued without a pause… I felt that I had got to put an

Orwell employs symbolism as a major literary technique, aiding our understanding of his stance against colonialism and our understanding of the setting. From the start, it is clear that he represents the modern, the western industrial English, at complete odds with the rural and primitive Burmese. It is believed that the focal symbolic point would be the narrators stand against the elephant. In the paragraph in which the narrator fires at the elephant, it is seen as docile, not bothering anyone anymore and having only made a sporadic wrong. The narrator then fires at the quite calm elephant once, but it does not fall and so, while it is still weak, he fires two more shots, bringing the magnificent creature down. Burma (The country in which the story is situated) has a long history of wars with the British Empire before finally giving in to Colonialism; three wars to be exact. It can be seen in the history books that Burma only wronged the British in a minor way and in fact was not directly bothering the British Raj and much like the narrator, it