Irony In George Orwell's 'Shooting An Elephant'

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.

George Orwell, a journalist and an author of 1903 through 1950, is not only the author of “Shooting an Elephant,” but surprisingly, he is also the narrator and the main character. Orwell’s narrative essay of 1936 takes place in squalid, British-occupied Moulmein, lower Burma. To begin, in the opening of his piece, Orwell describes himself as a young, British police officer who, ironically, despises the British imperial project in Burma. Although he secretly sides with the Burmese, he is resentful of the way they torment him. Eventually, a previously chained elephant is introduced to the essay. It is when this elephant escapes that it begins ravaging Moulmein. After concluding

Orwell portrays the vengeful feelings of the Burmese people, the colonized, towards British People, the conqueror. As he has worked as a British officer in Burma, he knows how the natives feel about the British. Of course, it was obvious that the Burmese did not welcome any kind of British presence, including Orwell himself. The Occidentals were extremely mistreated, such as being jeered, and the narrator understood that anti-European feeling was very “bitter” (Orwell, 313). He needed to deal adequately with the native society, even though he was a target of bullying. For instance, he used to get ripped up on the football field, ignored by the referee and mocked by the crowd (Orwell, 313). Hence, he is a victim of the natives’ behavior. Not only is he the target of the native’s behavior, but he is also the victim of the imperial system.

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

The author is introduced as a police officer who is sympathetic to the Burmese people. This is not a rare feeling among off duty British police officers according to Orwell. Ironically, the people hate Orwell, because he is a police officer and a representation of the British. It is clear the Burmese don’t like Europeans. Orwell says a European woman would probably get spit on if she was alone at the markets. This hate is understandable, because the Burmese people were conquered. This resentment is transferred to Orwell in verbal abuse on the street and physical abuse on the football field. This is interesting because even before the elephant Orwell is conflicted with his role and his beliefs.

Orwell repeats the he does not want to kill it and the readers sympathize with

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

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’s initial descriptions of Burman natives contrast European racism with human empathy, humanizing the narrator and showing internal struggle. Orwell emphasizes this conflict in “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” (Paragraph 2). Orwell hates the oppressive nature of the British Empire, yet also disdains the Burmans and feels superiority over them. His moral conscience recognizes imperialism as inhumane, leading for Orwell to despise his duty as the enforcer of it. Orwell feels confined to his role as a helpless enforcer of imperialism, yet hates the Burmans and denotes them as “evil-spirited little beasts”

In the essay, “Shooting an Elephant” , written by George Orwell, the protagonist, the narrator, is faced with a conflict of shooting or letting the violent elephant live. The narrator is a British policeman who is made fun of and disrespected by the locals in the village. The story opens up saying “In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people…. Was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so...nimble Burman tripped me up…” (Orwell 1) The elephant in this short story symbolizes the imperialistic British empire. The elephant soon starts to cause a riot and the narrator is prepared to kill it. When the time comes, and all the locals are watching, Orwell is stuck at a crossroad of what to do.

Have you ever been pressured into doing something you didn’t want to, but felt like you had no other option? The narrator in Orwell's, “Shooting an Elephant” had a very similar experience. He was pressed by the Burmese into committing a senseless killing that he did not deem necessary. This transformation of the main characters mentality and morals gives the audience a terrific example of characterization, which would not be possible without the effective use of point of view in Orwell's story.

Through the essay, with the use of particular emotional words and sentences, the audience can perceive Orwell’s feelings and emotions, by the memorable amount of pathos over his essay. Orwell goes on describing the cruel reality the Burmese people lived in by describing, with the use of dramatic and lively words, the terrible situations, and consequences of Imperialism. Giving more reasons for his logos, Orwell at the same time uses pathos to emotionally involve

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