Reaction to "Shooting an Elephant"
“Shooting an Elephant”
In “Shooting an Elephant” George Orwell is not liked by the Burmese people because he is the representation of their oppressors, the British. He gets his chance to be the hero when an elephant gets loose and causes destruction and the people need him to kill the beast. What would have happened if he didn’t shoot the elephant? Why Orwell feel so awful about killing the elephant? Orwell decides to kill the elephant, but does he do it for the right reason?
In Orwell’s essay he talks about dealing with conflict within himself and how he dealt with it. He uses the example of when he had to shoot an elephant. The townspeople hated him because he ruled over them for the British, and they didn’t like him being a police officer in their home. However, Orwell had to help the people when the elephant got loose and destroyed part of the village and killed a man. Orwell contemplated within himself on whether or not to kill the elephant. On the one hand it belonged to someone who had paid a lot of money for the elephant, but on the other hand the elephant was out of control and harming people. In the end Orwell decided to shoot the elephant, but only as a way to show his authority with the British government so he wouldn’t look weak.
Orwell contemplated the idea of not shooting the elephant and what would have happened if he didn’t shoot it. Orwell thought that if he didn’t shoot the elephant the people would have rioted against him and overthrown him. If Orwell didn’t shoot the elephant the people would have been upset, but rioting seems doubtful. Orwell felt that he was outnumbered by the Burmese people and needed to shoot the elephant to keep them at bay, but the Burmese people always outnumber Orwell. It isn’t like not shooting the elephant would be the first thing he did that the Burmese people didn’t agree with. If the Burmese really wanted to overthrow Orwell then they would have overthrown him after the first thing he did to them that they
In “Shooting an Elephant” George Orwell is not liked by the Burmese people because he is the representation of their oppressors, the British. He gets his chance to be the hero when an elephant gets loose and causes destruction and the people need him to kill the beast. What would have happened if he didn’t shoot the elephant? Why Orwell feel so awful about killing the elephant? Orwell decides to kill the elephant, but does he do it for the right reason?
In Orwell’s essay he talks about dealing with conflict within himself and how he dealt with it. He uses the example of when he had to shoot an elephant. The townspeople hated him because he ruled over them for the British, and they didn’t like him being a police officer in their home. However, Orwell had to help the people when the elephant got loose and destroyed part of the village and killed a man. Orwell contemplated within himself on whether or not to kill the elephant. On the one hand it belonged to someone who had paid a lot of money for the elephant, but on the other hand the elephant was out of control and harming people. In the end Orwell decided to shoot the elephant, but only as a way to show his authority with the British government so he wouldn’t look weak.
Orwell contemplated the idea of not shooting the elephant and what would have happened if he didn’t shoot it. Orwell thought that if he didn’t shoot the elephant the people would have rioted against him and overthrown him. If Orwell didn’t shoot the elephant the people would have been upset, but rioting seems doubtful. Orwell felt that he was outnumbered by the Burmese people and needed to shoot the elephant to keep them at bay, but the Burmese people always outnumber Orwell. It isn’t like not shooting the elephant would be the first thing he did that the Burmese people didn’t agree with. If the Burmese really wanted to overthrow Orwell then they would have overthrown him after the first thing he did to them that they