Analysis Of George Orwell 's ' Shooting An Elephant '

When Orwell was describing the burmese, he wrote “ the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves”. In term of pathos, he uses language in a disgusting way and makes it known that he hates and cannot stand it where he’s at. In the documentary, there’s the positive side of spreading values, prosperity and peace and in a way, imperialism. However, even though this rhetorical piece doesn’t directly relate to the documentary, this is the negative side of Imperialism and how it can impact even the oppressor. Also, in the documentary, it just talks about spreading democracy but what we are blinded to is what happens behind. When America goes into another country to spread democracy, we rarely pay attention to what happens there or what they are actually doing there. There is less care and attention to what goes on behind than compared to attention towards the surface of spreading democracy. Not only that but, also in the text, George Orwell faced continuous mockery and embarrassment in Burma and that resulted in bad suffering for him. In Burma, even as the oppressor, he faced a constant struggle to maintain his power and his authority in front of the Burmese. As a oppressor, one would expect them to have the power and be able to maintain authority in another country but in this text, there is the opposite that is very unexpected. Overall, George Orwell’s experience in Burma represented the other side of Imperialism, which was even the one governing is affected as much as the one who is getting

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.

Orwell portrays the vengeful feelings of the Burmese people, the colonized, towards British People, the conqueror. As he has worked as a British officer in Burma, he knows how the natives feel about the British. Of course, it was obvious that the Burmese did not welcome any kind of British presence, including Orwell himself. The Occidentals were extremely mistreated, such as being jeered, and the narrator understood that anti-European feeling was very “bitter” (Orwell, 313). He needed to deal adequately with the native society, even though he was a target of bullying. For instance, he used to get ripped up on the football field, ignored by the referee and mocked by the crowd (Orwell, 313). Hence, he is a victim of the natives’ behavior. Not only is he the target of the native’s behavior, but he is also the victim of the imperial system.

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

THESIS: Although Orwell is justified, legally shooting the elephant is wrong because, the elephants “must” period was over, the way the animal was shot caused the animal to suffer, and Orwell violated his own beliefs because of peer pressure.

In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell achieves two achievements : he shows us his personal experience and his expression while he was in Burma; he use the metaphor of the elephant to explain to describe what Burma looked like when it was under the British Imperialism. The special about this essay is that Orwell tells us a story not only to see the experience that he had in Burma; he also perfectly uses the metaphor of the elephant to give us deep information about the Imperialism. By going through this essay, we can deeply understand what he thinks in his head. He successfully uses the word choices and the sentences to express his feeling. By reading this essay, Orwell succeeds us with his mesmerizing sentences and shows us the

Throughout "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell, he addresses his  internal battle with the issues of morality and immorality. He writes of several situations that show his immoral doings. When George Orwell signed up for a five-year position as a British officer in Burma he was unaware of the moral struggle that he was going to face. Likewise, he has an internal clash between his moral conscious and his immoral actions. Therefore, Orwell becomes a puppet to the will of the Burmese by abandoning his thoughts of moral righteousness. This conflicts with the moral issue of relying upon other's morals, rather than one's own conscience.

In the memoir “Shooting an Elephant,” the author George Orwell conveys a frustrated tone towards the Burmese people through his use of harsh diction, imagery, and syntax. This is initially seen in his bout of self-pity regarding his job as a colonial police officer, where he expresses the “rage [he feels] against the evil-spirited little beasts (Orwell 1)” who he is in charge of, namely the Burmese. The diction utilized by Orwell in this statement is telling of his resentment of the Burmese people, and creates hateful imagery of them. Although Orwell has a position of authority amongst them, their lack of cooperation leaves him feeling powerless and hateful, an idea shown in his word choice. These feelings of abhorrence are again seen in his

The story begins with Orwell describing the transparent hatred the Burmans have towards

Have you ever been pressured into doing something you didn’t want to, but felt like you had no other option? The narrator in Orwell's, “Shooting an Elephant” had a very similar experience. He was pressed by the Burmese into committing a senseless killing that he did not deem necessary. This transformation of the main characters mentality and morals gives the audience a terrific example of characterization, which would not be possible without the effective use of point of view in Orwell's story.

Despite his support for the Burmese, Orwell endured their overwhelming bitterness and hatred because of his British heritage: "the sneering faces . . . of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me . . got badly on my nerves" (p.3). Orwell sums up his feelings of guilt, coupled with his reaction against being hated: "All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible" (4). Although part of him saw the British Raj as tyrannical, "with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts" (4). Orwell rationalizes his rage saying, "Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism" (4). Orwell realizes that tyrannical imperialism works against both the imperialists and the natives.

Prestige is all for them and they would do everything to get it. Maybe Orwell’s real impression of the Burmese wasn’t as positive as one could think while reading the passages about the behaviour of the English, sometimes he even seems to loathe the Burmese, but then again his Marxist ideas force him to write in favour of the socially disgraced. Orwell points out this conflict very consciously, as his own comment on his service in Burma proofs: “I was in the Indian Police for five years, and by the end of that time I hated the imperialism I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear. [...] I had reduced everything to the simple theory that the oppressed are always right and the oppressors are always wrong: a mistaken theory, but the natural result of being one of the oppressors yourself. I felt I had got to escape not merely from imperialism but from every form of man’s dominion over man." (George Orwell)

Burmese Days was one of George Orwell’s first books, and the intro states that “As a policeman in Burma, George Orwell saw the underbelly of the empire; not the triumphant bugles or bejewelled Maharajas, but the drunken sahibs pickled by heat and alcohol in mildewed clubs, the scarred and screaming Burmese in their prison cells” (Orwell Reader 2). The described Burma sounds repulsive and unappealing. George Orwell must have seen Burma in a very different light after working as a policeman. George Orwell always described himself as somewhat of a loner. Burmese Days speaks about George’s situation as “Unable to share his views with the enthusiastic empire builders around him, he retreated like John Flory, the main protagonist of Burmese Days ‘to live silent, alone consoling oneself in secret, sterile worlds.’”. (Orwell Reader 2). The social life of “John Flory” was very oppressive and there were many unspoken rules he had to follow. One such piece of evidence that supports this is in (Burmese Days 20) “Flory had been fifteen years in Burma, and in Burma one learned not to set oneself against public opinion”. He could be referring to his opinion against the empire. That seems to be the only thing he would want to hide from the public. The citizens of Burma stuck to themselves and in Burma, there was “A comforting theory that sticking to one’s job was the truest patriotism”. (Burmese Days 21) This sounds like the logic of an oppressed people, just laying low and doing what you

George Orwell works as the police subdivision of Moulmein, a city in the British colony of Burma. Because he is, like the rest of the English, a military occupier, he is hated by much of the village. Although the Burmese never carry out a complete revolt, they express their displeasure by harassing Europeans at every opportunity. He works in the management of miserable prisoners gives him a close-up view of "the dirty work of Europe" and makes him feel guilty for his role in colonialism. He has yet to understand that the British Empire is decreasing deteriorating, and will soon be replaced by even worse regimes. This conflicting mentality is typical of officers in the British Raj, he explains.