Colonialism and Imperialism Exposed in Shooting an Elephant and Heart of Darkness

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.

The story, written in first person, gives insight of the narrator’s thought process. It is well conveyed that Orwell is very unhappy with his current position and is working for something he doesn’t believe in, which allows his audience to feel sympathetic to his current situation. His dilemma is clearly presented- whether he should shoot the elephant or not- which provides a universal theme of a personal battle, to choose what one believes is right, or whether to conform with society. Ultimately, this provides an emotional connection between Orwell and the reader, as they can relate to the feeling, which gives them a better understanding of the story’s main point. The shooting of the elephant itself also provokes an emotional response from the audience, as Orwell employs the element of death in a powerful and symbolic way. It is well persuaded throughout the story that he believed the elephant did not deserve to die, and the death itself is portrayed as devastating to him..” (Orwell, 5). The remorseful tone in this ending sentence exposes to the audience that just because something appears to be socially acceptable does not mean in any way that it is right for us to do, in which this case, the guilt exposed to the reader illustrates the negative consequences of social

He repeats over and again that he did not want to shoot the elephant. He confesses, “It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. I had never shot an elephant and never wanted to.” Orwell gives emotional reasons for being against the idea of shooting the animal and not rational. He generalizes all elephants to have a “preoccupied grandmotherly air” and compares the elephant to a cow. The writer uses the simile, “They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick.” to explain the pressure he had from the crowd watching him. Orwell remarks that regardless of his decision to shoot the elephant, he cannot change the thinking of the public about him. Orwell was moved by the hefty crowd that followed him. He was left with no choice other than to shoot the elephant because that was what the crowd expected of him and this scene signifies the failure of imperialism which is the writer’s overall theme. The sentence, “I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East.” helps explain to the reader the real failure of imperialism. Orwell insists that although the white man in the East has power which is symbolized by the rifle, he is still not allowed to make use of it in accordance with his will. He is classifying imperialism as a hollow and futile way of governance. The Englishmen

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

Upon seeing the rifle, a huge crowd started to follow him. He had no intention to kill the elephant. However, the crowd was expecting him to shoot it. They did not want to kill it because it had destroyed the bazaar, but rather to enjoy the fun and to get the elephant meat. The crowd’s expectation leaves Orwell no choice but to shoot the elephant. He points out that he had to shoot it to “impress the ‘natives’” (7). If he had not done it, the crowd would have laugh at him, and it would hurt his pride as a white man living in the East. In the end, he decided to trigger the gun and shot the elephant.

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.

Imagine being placed in a situation that holds the fate of a breathing elephant, the largest land animal in the world. Would you spare its life or begin the end of it in a blink of an eye? In Eric Arthur Blair’s essay Shooting An Elephant, George Orwell, arguably Blair himself, was once confronted with this very question. As an English police officer in Burma during the Age of Imperialism, Orwell was called upon to investigate an aggressive elephant that was ravaging a local bazaar and later discovered, even killed a man. When he finally located the mammal, “at that distance, peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow” (Orwell 2). Orwell’s immediate thoughts were that he ought not to shoot the creature “I had no intention of shooting the elephant--I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary” (2). However, Orwell’s initial thoughts would not be put into action. Orwell would later go on to kill the elephant with three shots aimed at the brain as over two thousand native people

The animal is a working animal and to do work is to engage in a recognizably social activity; the animal belongs, as Orwell later discloses, to an Indian, a person below the British in the local hierarchy but above the Burmese, a person of some wealth, for the elephant is the equivalent of “a huge and costly piece of machinery” in the local economy (par. 4). Orwell recognizes the facts from both sides of this situation: (1) the elephant should be killed because of

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

In conclusion George Orwell essay “ Shooting An Elephant” expresses through his language that pride was something that pushed him to pull the trigger even though if it had been him alone he would have never pulled it.  He also showed  through his use of colour language and imagery the regret he feels for shooting the

In Joseph Conrad’s book, Heart of Darkness, the globe is imagined as one where there are those that are civilized and those that are considered “savages” and “barbarians” by the civilized people. These civilized people are the Europeans, and the so-called “savages” are the African slaves.

The novella, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, is a piece that pushed the envelope of its time due to an oppositional stance on the forced imperialism of primitive and/or impoverished countries. The protagonist of this story is the self-proclaimed explorer, Marlow, who decides to leave the heart of light and purity (Europe) and take a job as a steamboat captain in the dark jungles of the Congo Free State in Africa. Upon his arrival, Marlow begins to see the impact of Belgium’s intrusion on the Congo by means of implementing slavery, commandeering ivory (a valuable resource), and presenting a negative attitude toward the primitive population. Marlow eventually becomes obsessed with an ivory

. By the type of language and the choice of words that the author used to write his essay, it is very likely that it was written for the British people, to make them aware of the injustice and cruelty of Imperialism in the colonies. The author’s aim is to make the reader feel disturbed and uneasy by describing in detail his negative experiences in India. This rhetorical analysis explores the success of the author in portraying the negative impact that Imperialism had on those being governed under it, but also on the impact on those in power. The way Orwell used the words for describing the scene of shooting the elephant, his aim was to get the reader’s mind to understand the injustice of Britain’s rule over the natives. While Shooting an

    In the opening of his novel, Heart of Darkness, Conrad, through Marlow, establishes his thoughts on colonialism. He says that conquerors only use brute force, "nothing to boast of" because it arises, by accident, from another's weakness. Marlow compares his subsequent tale of colonialism with that of the Roman colonization of Northern Europe and the fascination associated with such an endeavor. However, Marlow challenges this viewpoint by painting a heinous picture of the horrors of colonialist ventures as we delve deeper into the recesses of the novel. Here we find that Marlow sees colonization as "robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at

Marlow tells his shipmates on the boat (the Nelly) that the natives passed him “within six inches, without a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages” (16). Marlow’s story of his experience exhibits how the Europeans captured the natives and forced them to work; to strip their homeland of its resources and natural beauty. When the Europeans colonize Africa, they do not want to help the African people, but exploit them and put them to work for their own desire of obtaining ivory, rubber, and other resources and goods. As the Europeans imperialize the area, they do not build culture or assist in the development of the Congo region, but break down culture as they enslave the natives and take away their rights, along with stripping the area of resources and natural, earthly beauty, which is conveyed through the cruel physical treatment towards the natives. This treatment is also presented through the literary devices that Conrad decides to use to reveal the experiences of the natives to the