Themes in the Shooting an Elephant: C.U. English Honours Notes
We are bringing one of the best notes which we had collected from the various sources on the internet. This note on the Shooting of the Elephant is best suited for the C.U. English Honours students preparing for the second year university examinations.
If you are looking forward to lay your hands on a great English Honours notes collection then don't forget to scroll down and check our exceptional product called 'Wise Notes'.
We also provide high quality C.U. English Honours notes with our exceptional collection called 'Wise Notes'. Buy it and boost your preparation for the upcoming examination. Wise Notes are available for First and Second Semester student at highly affordable price.
If you are looking forward to lay your hands on a great English Honours notes collection then don't forget to scroll down and check our exceptional product called 'Wise Notes'.
Themes in the Shooting an Elephant
Shooting an Elephant is an essay written by George Orwell first published in the autumn of 1936. The essay mainly describes a white British imperial police officer’s experience in Burma when he ought to encounter a ravaging elephant while he was on duty. The story is set in the British-conquered Burma, providing images and portrayal of imperialism during the era. The narrator describes the way he feels toward the natives and how the natives respond toward the European throughout his retelling of experiences. The description and portrayal of imperialism show that being a conqueror does not necessarily means total control—the conquered might as well control the conqueror in a different way—and being in charge of controlling simply means lending out freedom to the occupation.
As a police officer, the narrator was hated by many people. The beginning part of the work describes how bitter was the feeling of anti-European in Moulmein, the place in which the story takes place. The narrator actually thought that “imperialism was an evil thing,” and he was “all for the Burmese and all against the oppressors.” However, the attributes and the status in which he belong to make him a subject of hate, bait, and jeering. This sympathy toward the oppressed and the hate toward the oppressors “oppressed [him] with an intolerable sense of guilt.” These all show that the Europeans sent oversees as overseer are merely agents of the empire and some of them does not even like what they are doing, but the natives would not care about that as the anti-European sentiment already precedes in their mindset.
Imperialism was seen in many different views: some (mainly European, maybe) view it as a noble thing in which the empire brings culture, religion, and civilization for the savages, and some other view it as an evil thing—like the narrator of this story. It is considered as a cruel domination of less-powered nation by others who are stronger and more advanced. The narrator’s hate toward the empire is actually unsurprising. He does not get any benefit from the empire. What he gets is the position where everybody hates him, with high risks, and high level of stress, away from his home, where he can see the “dirty work of Empire at close quarter.” These descriptions show that imperialism is mainly the government’s interest but not the people’s.
However, despite his view toward the empire, and his previous statement of sympathy toward the Burmese, does not make him to like the natives as well. He said that “he was stuck between [his] hatred of the empire [he] served and [his] rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make [his] job impossible.” This statement obscured his alignment as he buried his last statement with this one. This vague alignment of the narrator shows the instability of personality which leads him to a personal conflict when he is faced with the situation where he should quickly decide whether to shoot the elephant or not.
This duplicity of thought finally brought him to a state of epiphany where he realizes how pointless his presence for his colony. He was only an “absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the yellow faces behind.” This fact actually apply also to his relationship with his empire, being merely an agent of imperialism who does not even like the empire, he is only a puppet which the empire used to control the colony. While facing the dilemma whether to shoot the elephant or not, he realizes that despite the fact that he is the European, now the natives are controlling him through the pressure. He finally concludes that “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.”
Imperialism is closely related to domination, this is what distinguishes imperialism and colonialism. Imperialism usually includes economical, political, or even military dominance over the colonized country, not to mention the territorial domination. When it comes to an event where the natives are the one who controls the conqueror, it is imperialism upside-down, and this essay shows that this is the nature of imperialism. An imperial agent such as the narrator of the story is nothing more than a puppet in-between the conqueror and the conquered. Ironically the status and alignment which the agent has does not help him to gain control over anything. He is at the same time controlled by the conqueror and the conquered, making him simply out of place:
Imperialism is closely related to domination, this is what distinguishes imperialism and colonialism. Imperialism usually includes economical, political, or even military dominance over the colonized country, not to mention the territorial domination. When it comes to an event where the natives are the one who controls the conqueror, it is imperialism upside-down, and this essay shows that this is the nature of imperialism. An imperial agent such as the narrator of the story is nothing more than a puppet in-between the conqueror and the conquered. Ironically the status and alignment which the agent has does not help him to gain control over anything. He is at the same time controlled by the conqueror and the conquered, making him simply out of place:
“And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.”
Why shoot an elephant? The reason why he shoots the elephant is simply “to avoid looking fool.” The native crowds expect him to shoot the elephant to get “a bit of entertainment.” He hates both the natives and the empire, now his whole life in the colonial country is all about avoiding the native’s jeers and that is what he exactly does. If he ran out, or do nothing about the elephant, the natives obviously will laugh at him. That is the only reason why he shot the elephant, why he does it against his better judgment.
Just like his view toward the Burmese, he has a difficulty in making his own mind. He did not want to shot the elephant, but he did not want the natives to laugh at him. He decided not to shot it, but the decision changes a minute later.
“But I did not want to shoot the elephant. . . . It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. . . . Besides, there was the beast’s owner to be considered. . . . But I had got to act quickly. I turned to some experienced-looking Burmans who had been there when we arrived, and asked them how the elephant had been behaving. They all said the same thing: he took no notice of you if you left him alone, but he might charge if you went too close to him.”
The passage above shows his consideration before he shot the elephant. However, this passage shows the reason why he finally chose to shot it:
“To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing — no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.”
Rather than high-powered advanced army and violence, this story shows how psychological pressure and social status have more power to control a man. The natives would not have a gut to raise a riot, because raising a riot obviously would cost them a lot, even their lives. However, by giving the European a social pressure they succeeded in gaining control over the European, consciously or not.
The most important part of the story, in my opinion, is the juxtaposition of power and control. It shows that to gain power does not necessarily mean gaining control. Control takes more than just power, and power takes careful control in order to be applied. In addition, like the narrator said in the story, being tyrant, which can also be interpreted as being one who have dominance and power against another, means destroying your own freedom. Power can be a double edged sword if not used properly. Excessive power means excessive pressure, and to follow the pressure means all those power are controlling the owner. The colonization does not affect the powerless natives only, but also the colonizer. As we can see from the story, excessive power ruins one’s better judgment and moral. The narrator had said that he could not stand to kill, or to watch the elephant dying, but in the end, given an invulnerable position in front of the law, and his successful attempt to maintain his pride, now he is glad that the Indian coolie is dead.
Boost Your CU English Honours Preparation with Wise Notes
We also provide high quality C.U. English Honours notes with our exceptional collection called 'Wise Notes'. Buy it and boost your preparation for the upcoming examination. Wise Notes are available for First and Second Semester student at highly affordable price.
Eager to buy Wise Notes: Click Here.
Wish to know more about Wise Notes: Click Here.
Get in touch with us for more information: Click Here.
