George Orwell Doesn T Like The Act Of Imperialism

The first portion of Orwell’s piece is filled with his hatred for imperialism and the “evil-spirited little beasts” (para. 2) that torment him. Orwell hated the imperialism in Burma and “those who tried to make [his] job impossible” (para. 2). You can see his true anger and hatred when he uses diction like “petty”, “sneering”, “wretched”, “intolerable”, and “rage” (para. 1,2) when he’s describing some of his encounters in Burma. Most of all, Orwell just wanted to be liked and respected. He is tired of being punished for the actions of the British empire. He states that like “every white man,.. in the East” (para. 7) he was just living “one long struggle [to] not be laughed at” (para. 7). Orwell’s change in tone forces a change in the reader’s perception of the situation. When he shifts from enraged hatred and hostility towards the eastern world to a desperate want to be liked by the burmans, the reader also has a shift. They go from not only despising imperialism but

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.

Can a hero still be a hero although he succumbs to his weakness? What if he becomes the very thing he was against or want to eradicate? In our modern world, we find many examples of heroes in stories, movies, and even the news that usually have a positive connotation related to them, and many of their story arcs usually have a positive resolution, similar to the classic romantic stories long ago. The author George Orwell completely flips the notion of the classic hero on its head, but does it well enough that it makes us question what is a true hero.

The consequence of imperialism is discussed in “Shooting an Elephant”; The victim of imperialism is not only the natives but also the narrator. Indeed, this essay is about the suffering and the struggling of Orwell who is torn between the Burmese’s actions and the Imperial System.

“Shooting an Elephant” is a short anecdote written by George Orwell. The story depicts a young man, Orwell, who has to decide whether to bend the rules for his superiors or to follow his own path. George Orwell works as the sub-divisional police officer of Moulmein, a town in the British colony of Burma. He, along with the rest of the English military are disrespected by the Burmese due to the English invading their territory and taking over. Over time, Orwell, the narrator, has already begun to question the presence of the British in the Far East. He states, theoretically and secretly, he was “all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.” Orwell describes himself as “young and ill-educated,” bitterly hating his job. Orwell uses powerful imagery and diction to convey a depressing and sadistic tone to the story. At the end of the story, he faces a dilemma: to kill the elephant or not.

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.

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

Orwell?s extraordinary style is never displayed better than through the metaphors he uses in this essay. He expresses his conflicting views regarding imperialism through three examples of oppression: by his country, by the Burmese, and by himself on the Burmese. Oppression is shown by Orwell through the burden of servitude placed upon him by England: Orwell himself, against his will, has oppressed many. British Imperialism dominated not only Burma, but also other countries that did not belong to England. At the time it may appear, from the outside, he shows us that the officers were helping the Burmese because they too were against oppressors; however, from the inside he demonstrates that they too were trying to annex other countries. Though Orwell?s handling of this subject is detailed, in the end, he subtly condemns imperialism. Orwell finds himself in a moral predicament no different than the ones placed on the white men in the East. He justifies his actions, driven by the instigation of the Burmese. Orwell also feels forced by the natives to kill the elephant, hindering his

The first rhetorical strategy that Orwell utilizes in his essay is his personal experiences of imperialism in Burma in order to appeal to ethos and show the audience that he has witnessed the repercussions of imperialism. Orwell first showcases his hatred towards imperialism by stating “The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans” (Orwell 1). By showing that the native people were

As society has progressed, the evolution of imperialism has come to a point where people see it has pure history. It has vanished from our daily lives as we have not recently witness a country trying to dominate another. In “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, we are able to envision the lives of the Burmese as they were involuntarily controlled by the British. In the early 1900’s we are told a true story of Orwell himself where he was once established in Burma was apart of his military service. During his service, he describes his living situation by noting that the army as well as himself were not appreciated. He mentions, “As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so.”(1) One day he

In the story Orwell writes "I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British" (Orwell 3). In this story Orwell is a police officer for the British empire and he explains in his quote he is in fact against the British. On the contrary, the Burmese people treat Orwell terribly, for the mere reason of him being a British police officer. Orwell states "I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter," (Orwell 3). This clearly states that the Burmese do not like him, whether he liked them or not. Owen then described in the text, certain situation where they would disrespect a European "No one had the guts

Beyond the use of metaphorical techniques, Orwell also uses vivid imagery to the strongest extent, to further his stand against the imperial forces. Under the oppression of British imperialism, the Burmese people become “wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts” (Orwell 285). Orwell applies

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.

Many authors bring in the theme of politics into their work in order to make their creations more appealing and as a form of expressing their personal views. George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-four” is a novel that contains many political messages to the world. Orwell felt that part of his role as a writer is to serve as a voice of conscience to our society by trying to express the truth as he saw it. The novel was written in a crucial time period in modern history after the Second World War and at the beginning of the Cold War. One can see that the book was influenced by current events of its time mixed with Orwell’s standpoint. He focuses on three major political issues that effect society, which are the dangers of war, class differences

Days without food, nights without shelter and clothes without buttons are reality for homeless people around the world. Many are incapable of escaping their poverty and can not seem to find a way out of their bleak oppression. The few that do escape often help each other find a way to make their lives better and do not forget how to maintain friendships. George Orwell’s novel, Down and Out in Paris and London, displays the ability of those in poverty to escape their horrific lot in life through friendships and connections. The common goal of shelter and freedom from oppression bonds many of the lower class. Many in poverty work together to find the best means to achieve their common