Bias In Shooting An Elephant

“Although humans exhibit strong preferences for equity and moral prohibitions against harm in many context, people’s priorities change when there is an ‘us’ and ‘them’” (Saxe). Within society, many individuals are beginning to identify with various groups that begin to tear each other down, rather than lift each other up. The urge to fit in eventually overpowers the mind of one’s independence. The need to be accepted and to have the approval of others ultimately conflicts with one’s own morals and beliefs. Although individualism is highly praised, one’s surface attributes and appearance may have a negative connotation in that they are categorized as a specific stereotype, therefore these ideas will turn toxic as one is automatically grouped

As a European white man in the British colony of India, George Orwell, in his narrative essay Shooting an Elephant, describes one of his most memorable events while living in the Southeast Asian nation of Burma. Orwell’s purpose is to share the absolute horror of living in imperialism. He adopts a tense tone throughout his essay by using vivid description and gruesome imagery in order to relate the incident with the elephant to what it is like to live in imperialism.

By observing us children learn how to interact with others, accomplish goals, and get along in the world. We are the examples, and what many do not realize is that our non-verbal messages and actions are stronger than our verbal ones. Non-verbal communication consists of expressions, tone of voice, eye contact, and actions.  The way you listen, look, move, and react tells the other person whether or not you care, if you’re being truthful, and how well you’re listening. When your nonverbal signals match up with the words you’re saying, they increase trust, clarity, and rapport. When they don’t, they generate tension, mistrust, and confusion. There are many different types of nonverbal communication. Together, the following nonverbal signals and cues communicate your interest and investment in others.

The story of Shooting an Elephant is a short story that shows the internal struggle of a man who tries to figure out for himself if he values self respect more or others respect more. The main character is a European who works for the sub-divisional police in South East Asia. He is stationed in Burma where, even though he hates the people, he hopes the Burmese win the war. Hatred for the Burmese people is fueled by their mocking him and treatment towards him with absolutely no respect and little regard. In addition, even though the man shoots the elephant, he earlier stated that he had absolutely no resolve in him to shoot the elephant. His decision to not kill the elephant comes crumbling down when he realizes the Burmese will take notice of him if he shoots the elephant. Why would he care about what the Burmese thought of him if they hated him anyway? This is because his hatred for the Burmese is little in comparison to how much he wishes for respect and recognition. The

At the same time, the narrator is also the victim of the Imperialism System itself. Under the system, it seems that the British manipulate the Burmese, but in reality, it is the opposite situation. The Burmese had the control over the British, especially people like the author who worked in a country under colonization. Orwell

Most people believe that others have authority and control over their own actions. However, contrary to belief, authority controls people's actions. Peer pressure can have an effect on the decisions people make. In this short story, the policeman (the protagonist) is hated by the majority of people in the city of Moulmein. He is hated because he is secretly on the Burmese people’s side instead of the British. Along with conflict of the British and Burmese people, an elephant escapes and causes chaos throughout the city. It is killing people and destroying buildings. The policeman decides to step in and help, but he is faced with the peer pressure of the crowd to kill an elephant that he has no intention in killing. The protagonist is faced with lying to other people and regret for his actions. In, “Shooting an Elephant” George Orwell explains how the policeman struggles between the decisions of shooting an elephant to please the authoritarian crowd that can treat him better and accept him.

The sort of convenient racism allows people to hate one another for no good reason. The elephant, along with the two thousand Burmese, plays an even more depressing role when compared to the soldier. The elephant plays the "stricken, shrunken, immensely old" countries that have been stormed and conquered by imperialism, while the Burmese play its "helpless" people.(4,1) The once great and powerful elephant is reduced to "senility" by the bullets, just as the countries like India are crushed by the modern technology of the imperial countries. The "great beast," meaning both the elephant and the countries that it represents, becomes "powerless to move and yet powerless to die" under the hands of the white man.(4) The mob of Burmese people, the people of the colonized country, shows that imperialism has taken from them the confidence to defend their country. Instead of organizing to drive out imperialism, these people "spit betel juice" on white women to release their anger, and instead of saving an elephant that a fellow Burmese owned, they have decided to take its meat.(1) The people who are suppressed by imperialism become hateful and selfish in their struggle to survive in their dying country. Together, the officer, the Burmese, and the elephant portray imperialism as an institution that is only capable of harm.

The story “Shooting an Elephant” is told by an ongoing and first person narrator, who was committed to events he was faced with and obtained insight and wisdom from these adventures even though he struggled internally and externally.

All types of communication interaction involve two major components in terms of how people are perceived: verbal, and nonverbal. These cues such as facial expressions, posture, verbal intonations, and other body gestures accompany our words in order to create a clear message. Every person is continuously communicating even when they are not saying a word, thus, it is possible to send an exclusively non verbal message but it is not possible to send an exclusively verbal message. Nonverbal cues in the interaction are always more powerful indicators of what a speaker means and what the speaker feels because non verbal cues have not been learned and therefore are not manipulated. In the movie Victor Victoria, nonverbal cues

My writing assignment is to explain nonverbal communication “messages expressed by nonlinguistic means”. (Adler et al 431) so that you may understand that verbal communication is just a small part of the communication process and that through nonverbal communication you can communicate without even using words or by the way you say the words. Let me warn you that you need to be very careful when trying to interpret nonverbal communication, because nonverbal communication can be ambiguous. What I mean by that is nonverbal communication can have more than one meaning as you will see later in this writing assignment.

Nonverbal communication covers all aspects of communication beyond words. It is anything from body gestures to the way words are spoken. The tone, demeanor, hidden meaning behind words, mix that with body language and what is creates in nonverbal communication elements. Even clothes and personal appearance can send a nonverbal message. Nonverbal communication accounts for nearly 65-93% communication means (Wood, 2014). One area where nonverbal communication sent a negative, incorrect message is the movie Erin Brockovich. The clothing of the main character sent the message that she was uneducated, white trash. This could not be further from the truth. She was an intelligent, single mother who saw a problem where nobody else did.

Resentment of various types pervades “Shooting an Elephant,” from the beginning to the end. As a conspicuous agent of the foreign presence, a stranger-master, the narrator finds himself, “for the only time in [his] life,” automatically “hated by large numbers of people.” This hatred takes the form, in its non-crisis mode, of “an aimless, petty . . . anti-European feeling . . . very bitter,” expressed in opportunistic acts like spitting betel juice on the dress of a European woman crossing the bazaar, or deliberately fouling a European player during a British-Burmese soccer-match, while the referee (a Burman) conveniently turns his back. The fouled player is the narrator himself, whose misfortune on the playing-field occasions what he calls

The narrators actions change course based on what he believes to be right and wrong for both himself and the people of Burma. With the people around him watching his every move, the persona is stimulated to discover new ideas and speculate about Burma’s future possibilities. Whilst reading the audience is transported into the narrators shoes, concerned for what the outcomes of shooting the animal are and therefore leading to a personal discovery of morals and values. The reader is able to grasp the societal and cultural differences between the Burmese and British and in return able to generate and synthesis ideas and perspectives.

I have been told a few times that getting a second opinion is good, so as I read George Owell’s story “shooting an elephant,” I used three perspectives to try to analyze and understand the text. Each perspective shifted the focus of the material, and allowed me to see the world of Owell in different lights.

Why do people ever silence their opinions during group discussions? Do they fear to look unsupportive, or they not want to interfere with the unity of the group? The answer is multiple layered, yet simple: they are victims of groupthink. It is a state, when people are mentally pressured not to reason and act rationally, and are moving along with the rest of the group. People fear to look obstructive, when expressing ideas that contradict with the mainstream. It is some form of refusal of responsibility. In other words, people choose to stay neutral and not involved, whereas hope that someone else will take the responsibility and make the decision they fail to dare. People are engaged in groupthink subconsciously, meaning that a person does