George Orwell's Essay Showing Regret for Shooting an Elephant

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.

EXTRA:Moments later he says, “ I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” By shooting the elephant against his own will in order to please those he should have control over, Orwell displays to us how harsh imperialism really is. In addition it shows that imperialism at times takes away the freedom of not only the oppressed but the oppressor as

Orwell describes the native Burmese people, who have been gathering behind him, as a “sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-face all happy and excited over this bit of fun; all certain that the elephant was going to be shot” (Orwell). This imagery of an immense crowd swirling and stirring like a sea would before a storm, depicts the sense of power these defenseless native people had over Orwell and his mental state. As the essay proceeds, Orwell is overwhelmed by an unparalleled force pressuring him to shoot the elephant. “[He] could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly” (Orwell). As Orwell’s attempts to conclude upon the infamous question of whether or not to take the life of this elephant, he comes to the realization of the power of the “white man in the East.”

Orwell writes, “If the elephant charged and I missed him, I should have about as much chance as a toad under a steam-roller.” (3). Orwell’s use of the phrase adds to the dramatic humor of the situation, and creates a better understanding of his conflicting opinions on his situation. Preceding this statement is an internal argument within which Orwell debates whether he should shoot the elephant or not. To connect this statement back to the symbol of the elephant representing imperialism it shows that if he were to go against the European imperialist he would surely lose everything he had and possibly his life depending on the person, but right after the quote above Orwell writes about not thinking particularly of his own skin but of the natives behind him. Meaning he wasn’t thinking so much about saving himself but rather saving those around him. “He was breathing very rhythmically with long rattling gasps, his great mound of a side painfully rising and falling” (4), this quote within it’s self is a metaphor as well as imagery. It is a metaphor for how imperialists may be overthrown but influences can never be forgotten, through this it gives us a better understanding a picture of the scene and Orwell's feelings during this

In this situation, the elephant represents the colonization of the British in Burma. Since the elephant has its’ liberty restricted the end result: the elephant is violent and rebels in response to being shackled. The elephant showcases the rejection of imperialism through the narrator's feelings. Orwell’s attitude affects his job because when he was called to take care of the elephant incident, he does not take a standpoint on either the people or the

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

The elephant, in this case, represent imperialism. Orwell, being in the middle of imperialism and the Burmese people, did not want to destroy imperialism in the first place even though he does not like the way it treated the innocent Burmese people. However, seeing the elephant destroying Burmese’s homes and lives, he finally realized what imperialism had done to the people of Burma. The Indian man who died represent the fact that Burmese people are weak against the British; they are poor and have neither strength nor “the gut to raise a riot” (1) against imperialism regardless of how much they hated it. Even though he did not kill imperialism like the way he did to the elephant, he believes that it will be destroy one day for the evil thing that they had done. As illustrated by Orwell,

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

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.

Orwell recalls an event that happened to him while he was a British police officer in Burma. One day in Burma, Orwell receives a report that an elephant has gone a “must”. While investigating, he hears the screams of terrified children. Orwell rushes to the scene and discovers the corpse of an Indian with obvious elephant foot markings all over his body. When Orwell finally tracks down the elephant, “he was tearing up bunches of grass, beating them against his knees to clean them and stuffing them into his mouth” (Orwell 279). Orwell immediately realizes he shouldn’t shoot it, because the elephant is tame and calm. In addition to the behavior of the elephant, Orwell also considers how shooting the elephant would affect its owner, because a working elephant is worth 100 euros alive versus a measly 5 euros dead. Although Orwell believes the elephant is “no more dangerous than a cow”, he ultimately chooses to let his perceived thoughts of the crowd force him to take action opposite of his personal beliefs (Orwell 280). Instead of reaping the benefits of his beliefs, Orwell pays a consequence for his

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

Orwell was called by sub-inspector, from the other side of the town, to come take care of the elephant. At the end, Orwell ends up shooting the elephant when he really does not want to. To begin with, Orwell shot the elephant because he was pressured in doing so. After the laborer was found dead, one of the Burmese told Orwell that the elephant was by the paddy fields. Once the Burmese heard Orwell ask to be brought a rifle, they were excited and followed him to the paddy field.

Through this grim tone, Orwell explains his encounter with a “must” elephant that has killed a man, and because of his crime, the Burmese locals request Orwell to shoot and kill the elephant. Describing the gruesome scene,

Orwell employs symbolism as a major literary technique, aiding our understanding of his stance against colonialism and our understanding of the setting. From the start, it is clear that he represents the modern, the western industrial English, at complete odds with the rural and primitive Burmese. It is believed that the focal symbolic point would be the narrators stand against the elephant. In the paragraph in which the narrator fires at the elephant, it is seen as docile, not bothering anyone anymore and having only made a sporadic wrong. The narrator then fires at the quite calm elephant once, but it does not fall and so, while it is still weak, he fires two more shots, bringing the magnificent creature down. Burma (The country in which the story is situated) has a long history of wars with the British Empire before finally giving in to Colonialism; three wars to be exact. It can be seen in the history books that Burma only wronged the British in a minor way and in fact was not directly bothering the British Raj and much like the narrator, it