Killing an elephant analysis. Killing Elephant In America Analysis 2022-12-27
Killing an elephant analysis Rating:
In "Killing an Elephant," George Orwell tells the story of his experience as a colonial officer in Burma, where he is faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to shoot an old, sick elephant that has become a nuisance to the local community. The essay is a reflection on the complexities of imperialism and the moral dilemmas that arise when one is in a position of power over others.
Orwell begins the essay by describing the background of the situation, explaining that the elephant had become a problem because it was old and in pain, and was therefore causing damage to the village and its crops. He then describes his own initial reluctance to shoot the elephant, despite the urging of the villagers and his own duty as a colonial officer. Orwell writes, "I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British." This statement reveals Orwell's own internal conflict and his desire to do what is just and fair, rather than simply following orders or fulfilling his duty as a representative of the British Empire.
However, Orwell ultimately decides to shoot the elephant, citing the pressure from the villagers and his own role as a colonial officer. He writes, "I had no intention of shooting the elephant—I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary—and it is always unnerving to have a crowd following you." This passage reveals the complicated dynamics of imperialism, as Orwell is caught between his own values and the expectations of those around him. He is torn between his desire to do what is right and his duty as a colonial officer, and ultimately decides to shoot the elephant in order to maintain order and prevent further damage to the village.
Throughout the essay, Orwell grapples with the ethics of imperialism and the moral dilemmas that come with being in a position of power over others. He writes, "Shooting an elephant is not an act of wickedness, but it is an act of foolishness." This statement reflects Orwell's own understanding of the inherent flaws in imperialism and the ways in which it can lead to misguided and ultimately harmful actions.
In conclusion, "Killing an Elephant" is a thought-provoking reflection on the complexities of imperialism and the moral dilemmas that arise when one is in a position of power. Through his portrayal of his own internal conflict and decision to shoot the elephant, Orwell highlights the difficulties of navigating the expectations and duties of colonialism and the importance of considering the larger ethical implications of one's actions.
Shooting an Elephant Summary & Analysis
Then another and another. He taught that if the elephant were kept alive, it worth at least a hundred pound. He resentsÂ BritishÂ presenceÂ within theÂ country. The narrator described that he had decided by that time that he was against imperialism, so he was on the side of the Burmese people. Over and over, the narrator declared that he did not want to shoot the elephant. In contrast, Engkent narrates the story using dialogues between him and his mother. He is told on the phone about an elephant which has shattered his fetters and gone mad, intimidating the localities and causing destructions.
Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell Summary & Analysis
Orwell confesses that he had spent his whole life trying to avoid being laughed at, and this is one of his key motivations when dealing with the elephant: not to invite ridicule or laughter from the Burmese people watching him. Account for the motives that led him to shoot. He classified shooting the elephant as being on the same scale as murdering a person. It has destroyed a hut, killed a cow, and raided some fruit stalls for food. The narrator has a sort of hatred for almost all the people that surround him. Yet, Orwell only brought the weapon as selfdefense with no malicious intentions to end its life.
The crowd sighs in anticipation. This ends up being a crucial mistake because now the Burmese think, now that he has an elephant gun, he has decided to kill the elephant. He shows how imperialism took the best out him. The main story which Orwell relates takes place in Moulmein, in Lower Burma. He loads the gun, lies on the road, and takes aim at the elephant. In the short story Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell discusses the strength of European imperialism, specifically in Lower Burma. He narrates the conditions of the prisoners in cells who are tortured in an inhumane way.
If he does shoot the elephant he will be a hero to the people: if he decides not to shoot the elephant, he would be giving in to the imperial force behind the elephant which he finds so unfair and evil. In reality, he was just scared and ended up doing what the crowd expected him to do. The theÂ event ofÂ each dayÂ when allÂ of thoseÂ conflicted emotions manifest themselves and Orwell faces them and understands them. The rulers were ready to take the life of any local who dared to stand or speak against their oppression. He was reported that one elephant had lost its …show more content… The crowd expected him to kill the elephant and he felt that he was obliged to act in this way.
It's unclear whether or not it's autobiographical, but the story Orwell tells aligns with uncanny detail to his experience as a British officer in the southeast Asian colony of Burma now Myanmar. Like how during his younger days, Orwell made poor choices, which lead him to act foolishly. Also, the elephant is powerful and so is the narrator because of his position but both of them are puppets in the hands of their masters. While he was doing his job he faced many difficulties because of local people's anti- European attitude. In the rice field, the elephant lay injured, one gunshot wound was certainly not enough to kill it. His actions received mixed responses. He saysÂ it mightÂ be like murder.
Killing The Elephant By George Orwell Character Analysis
These bullets do nothing; the elephant continues to breathe torturously. While Orwell was indeed posted as a British officer in Burma from 1922 to 1927, the author remains ambiguous as to the veracity of his tale. Orwell picks up his rifle and gets on his pony to go and see what he can do. He learns later that it took half an hour for the elephant to die. . Eventually, under this pressure he acted against his own wish and he killed it. The younger ones feel thatÂ it is aÂ shame to shoot an elephant for killing a Burmese collie.
The mutilated corpse appears to have been in excruciating pain. How Killing Elephants Finances Terror in Africa Bryan Christy, in his August 2015 National Geographic article entitled "How Killing Elephants Finances Terror in Africa" explores how terrorists groups in Africa are funded financially by the illegal sale of ivory, by the slaughter of elephants. In the end, Orwell states that he had only done it to avoid looking like a fool in front of the many people that once humiliated him. Morgan Di Donato English II Honors Mrs. In my opinion, the theme for this story was listen to yourself.
Did George Orwell Want To Kill The Elephant Analysis Essay Essay
The essay delves into an inner conflict that Orwell experiences in his role of representingÂ the BritishÂ Empire and upholding the law. He has yet to understand that the British empire is waning, and will soon be replaced with even worse regimes. This motive is not right. He cannot tolerate mistreatment from the Burmese, even though he understands that he, as a colonist, is in the wrong. It was a story about courage, judgment, and the pressure of peers. The narrator introduces himself as a British officer assigned to a post in Burma. His entire mission as a colonialist, he says, is not to be laughed at—thus, sparing the elephant is not an option.
This one statement clearly proves that from the beginning Orwell was instantly against shooting the elephant. Some of them said it was right thing to do, while others said that it was a Rhetorical Analysis Of George Orwell's Shooting An Elephant 1139 Words 5 Pages The speaker George Orwell, who was a member of the British Imperial Police for five years and discovered he did not like many aspects of British Imperialism. The only person who can have an insight look and empathy into what it felt like to be oppressed is Orwell, who lived in Burma for five years. Orwell decides that the best way to handle the situation would be to approach the elephant to test its temperament and only harm the animal if it behaved aggressively. He is the alien in their land, which helps to explain this second paradox, but the first is more elusive. The story is told in first person, as readers learn about a traumatizing experience the narrator had in his past. The elephant had caused havoc, destroyed property and killed a man.
Ethics and conformity go hand in hand; it is hard to talk about one subject without involving the other. Furthermore, after Orwell shot the elephant one is able to tell that he had emotions of extreme guilt because he immediately walks away, disgusted at the terrible decision he had just made. When observing the animal from a distance, Orwell describes it as peaceful and calm and tries to look for reasons not to shoot the creature. The Burmese people constituted the majority of the population, but they were under the home rule. I found it boring, pointless, and just another "hasn't -this -happened -to -you" story about nothing.