George Orwell Imperialism

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.

George Orwell describes to us in “Shooting an elephant” the struggle that his character faces when to win the mobs approval and respect when he shoots down an innocent animal and sacrifices what he believes to be right. Orwell is a police officer in Moulmein, during the period of the British occupation of Burma. An escaped elephant gives him the opportunity to prove himself in front of his people and to be able to become a “somebody” on the social

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.

He exemplifies this through a metaphor used when approaching the elephant with the rifle, describing that he “was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces” (152). Orwell explains that “the Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless” (149) and yet, even with the rifle in his hand he feels equally as powerless. This metaphor details the true nature of imperialism and the reliance on the perception of power rather than actual possession of it. In this situation, Orwell is forced to maintain the perception of power as he cannot “trail feebly away, having done nothing … [as] the crowd would laugh at [him]” (152). This crowd of people dictates his actions because he must constantly project the image of power and confidence. Any doubt threatens the strength of Orwell and in turn the empire. Each of these yellow faces holds a string and with their expectations and desires moves Orwell to shoot the elephant. This metaphor creates a vivid image for the reader of Orwell’s helplessness and the obligations that bind him to take action. One may assume that those obligations lie with the Empire, as he is their officer, however it’s the Burmese who pull his strings. Specifically, Orwell is emphasizing to readers the fragility of British power and how the role of power pressures one to act according to the will of those

“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.

In “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell retold an occasion where he was struggling to come to a final decision of whether to shoot the elephant or not. With his final decision, the elephant finally lay dying in front of thousands of people. He said that he was forced to shoot it because the Burmese people were expecting him to do that. In addition, he also explained that he had to do it “to avoid looking like a fool” in front of the crowd (14). At first glance, one would think that it makes sense for him to kill the elephant to save his face, but that was not the case. He effectively uses this incident to demonstrate the “real nature of imperialism” (3), whereas the elephant represents the British Empire.

The quest for power is one which has been etched into the minds of men throughout history. However, it can be said that true power is not a result of one’s actions but comes from the following one’s own beliefs without being influenced by others. This principle sets up the story for Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. The protagonist, Orwell himself, is a sub divisional police officer in Burma, a British colony. Orwell must try to find and use his inner power when he is faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant which has ravaged the Burman’s homes. The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell, as a colonist, should be in control. As well, the perspective and ideas given by Orwell

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

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.

George Orwell works in Moulmein, a small town in the British Colony of Burma, as their sub-divisional police officer. The mood of the essay is set when Orwell illustrates the setting to be a “cloudy, stuffy morning are the beginnings of the rains”. This in turn sets the tone of Orwell’s story to be weak and uncomfortable. The Burmese express their hate for Europeans every opportunity they get, without causing a riot. Unfortunately, Orwell’s military supremacy and symbolic authority don’t earn him any power to stop the abuse. As Orwell walks down the street, Burmese yell out unpleasant thoughts and even trip him at the soccer games. Orwell says the Buddhist Priests are the worst of all Burmese people to torment him.

Starting in the late 19th century, mass imperialism defined the political structure of the world. To justify imperialist actions, scholars, government officials, and common people used science to show that Aryans are the superior race. Karl Pearson was a key proponent of survival of the fittest social theory, and promoted it to all Western Civilization. This way of thinking was apparent throughout Europe and other predominantly white places around the world. But what was it like on the ground in these colonized places and did the people their experience the same imperialistic principals? George Orwell was a sub-divisional police officer in British Moulmein, Burma and offers insight into what the situation was like on the ground. By comparing quotes from Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” and Pearson’s “National Life from the Standpoint of Science”, we can see that Orwell experienced the imperialist principles that Pearson describes. These principles include racial superiority, the need for inferior races to respect imperial power, and death of indigenous power.

Shooting an Elephant, by George Orwell, is a short story about British colonialism in South Asia, during the 1900s. Orwell was inspired to write this story from his own experiences as part of the Indian Imperial Police for the British Empire (Eilers). Most readers often forget that law enforcers do not follow orders blindly and that they do contemplate the orders that are given to them. Orwell’s accounts gives readers a unique perspective of the dichotomy of living as an enforcer for the oppressive British rule, alongside the oppressed, but tantalizing Burmese. This short story is not only about an elephant being shot, but also about shifts in power and the importance of nationalism in colonial

Orwell who is a imperial police officer in Burma talks about his experience in being face to face with imperialism and colonialism. In the first sentence Orwell speaks about how “I was hated by large groups of people”, though its not the actual Orwell the people of Burma hate,but, its only the uniform that they hate. What the uniform means to the people of Burma is that they are bad people who all they want is power through brut force. Orwell quickly disfigures any chance of him liking imperialism/ colonialism on the people of Burma saying “all this was perplexing and upsetting. 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” while Orwell also goes on to say “i was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British”. By Orwell implying that he's “all for the people of Burma” he would rather see freedom across Burma rather than seeing the people of Burma oppressed but Britain.

“His anti-imperialist convictions were derived from his experiences as a police officer in Burma from 1922 to 1927. Once there, doing "the dirty work of empire," he became increasingly aware of the great evil in which he was participating” (Imperialism 1). This experience is shown in the short story Shooting an Elephant, Orwell narrates the incidents and his actions. The course of events which take place in the story are not that remarkable, although with the skill of the author’s writing it succeeds in bringing out the troubles of imperialism and powerful white men. Orwell shows that those who are content in their cozy royal homes should face the truth about the ways they are making their own existences worthless. In order to retain authority, they have lost control over their personal measures. Their obsession to rule and repress the natives of the countries backfired. Without their knowledge they had also come to the same helpless state as the natives, because they no longer owned their own decisions. “When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He became a hollow, posing dummy,” (Orwell 4). Orwell presents the truth of the consequences of Europe’s ruthless colonialism which eventually caused the fall of much of European global rule. With the defeat of places such as Germany and Italy, and devastation of France and Britain in the two World Wars, Europe's iron grasp over the rest of the world loosened. Because of this, one can say that there is no end to this anxiety. The party, the tormentor, and the tormented are all respectively worried and nervous. It is understandable why the people are stressed. What is more complicated is the psyche of the tormentor: it has a constant fear of losing power and control. This tendency of human nature is something that the authors of this period could not

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.