“And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly” (4). The presumption that a ruler has absolute power over the people is proven as invalid once the ruler is dictated by the wills of the commonalty. Because of this shift in power, the speaker recognizes how a tyrant does not always have control over the masses. In “Shooting an Elephant,” by George Orwell, he reveals that imperialism, a way of governing in which powerful countries seek to seize control and extend their authority over weaker countries, destroys the freedom of not just the Burmese, but also the imperialists as well. In order
…show more content…
To illustrate, the elephant “... caught him [the coolie] with its trunk, put its foot on his back and ground him into the earth… He was lying on his belly with arms crucified and head sharply twisted to one side” (2). Crucifixion entails prolonged tortured death for the purpose of maintaining control of the people by instilling fear; therefore, because the elephant crucifies the coolie, the elephant exerts power over the Burmese. The coolie’s prostrate and defenseless position on his belly plus the elephant’s foot pressing into his back, analogous to British oppression of the natives, further prove to the reader that the elephant logically represents British imperialism. Moreover, the speaker, a British police officer who does not want to shoot an elephant is “...seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality...only an absurd puppet... pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind” (4). The speaker’s position of power in the community ought to solidify his role as leading actor, or protagonist who drives the action; however, Orwell compares the speaker to a powerless puppet. Since the reader knows that puppets lack agency and are controlled by an outside force, in this case the Burmese, the metaphor logically persuades the reader that the …show more content…
Particularly, Orwell illustrates,“The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos— all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt” (1). By describing the harsh living conditions of the Burmese prisoners, the reader visualizes how the prisoners were dehumanized and treated like wild animals held captive in unsanitary cages; and by employing these sensory details, it evokes an emotional response in the reader to feel sympathy towards the suffering convicts. Simultaneously, the author supports his claim of how tyranny destroys one’s freedom by depicting how imperialists oppress the people, yet ironically are oppressed with guilt; therefore proving how the imperialists’ guilt causes them to lack the freedom to see themselves as an absolute ruler. Moreover, the speaker states, “I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job the better” (1). The phrase, “chucked up,” is an example of colloquialism implemented by the speaker to create an emotional connection with the audience; with this, he makes himself more relatable and creates a friendly conversational atmosphere. Also, given that the phrase, “chucked up,” is a phrase commonly used by the British, one can conclude that the audience is
To illustrate, the elephant “... caught him [the coolie] with its trunk, put its foot on his back and ground him into the earth… He was lying on his belly with arms crucified and head sharply twisted to one side” (2). Crucifixion entails prolonged tortured death for the purpose of maintaining control of the people by instilling fear; therefore, because the elephant crucifies the coolie, the elephant exerts power over the Burmese. The coolie’s prostrate and defenseless position on his belly plus the elephant’s foot pressing into his back, analogous to British oppression of the natives, further prove to the reader that the elephant logically represents British imperialism. Moreover, the speaker, a British police officer who does not want to shoot an elephant is “...seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality...only an absurd puppet... pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind” (4). The speaker’s position of power in the community ought to solidify his role as leading actor, or protagonist who drives the action; however, Orwell compares the speaker to a powerless puppet. Since the reader knows that puppets lack agency and are controlled by an outside force, in this case the Burmese, the metaphor logically persuades the reader that the …show more content…
Particularly, Orwell illustrates,“The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos— all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt” (1). By describing the harsh living conditions of the Burmese prisoners, the reader visualizes how the prisoners were dehumanized and treated like wild animals held captive in unsanitary cages; and by employing these sensory details, it evokes an emotional response in the reader to feel sympathy towards the suffering convicts. Simultaneously, the author supports his claim of how tyranny destroys one’s freedom by depicting how imperialists oppress the people, yet ironically are oppressed with guilt; therefore proving how the imperialists’ guilt causes them to lack the freedom to see themselves as an absolute ruler. Moreover, the speaker states, “I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job the better” (1). The phrase, “chucked up,” is an example of colloquialism implemented by the speaker to create an emotional connection with the audience; with this, he makes himself more relatable and creates a friendly conversational atmosphere. Also, given that the phrase, “chucked up,” is a phrase commonly used by the British, one can conclude that the audience is