Shooting an Elephant
In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”, there is an obvious emphasis on the nature of imperialism. At first glance of this short story, it seems to be only a narrative of an incident involving an English police officer in Burma in which an elephant is shot dead. After further analysis though, it can be inferred that this narrative is seemingly the author’s insight on the “real” nature of imperialism. It is often believed that early European’s aim in colonizing third-world countries was to expand their empire and gain wealth through exploiting natural resources and that their rule was supreme and based off their own will. I believe that in “Shooting an Elephant” George Orwell suggests that the actions of imperialism are more the result of Europeans fulfilling expectations.
“Shooting an Elephant” begins with the author describing his current situation as being an English police officer in Burma during the time of English rule and his terrible relationship with the natives. On the first page of the text, as he begins to tell the story involving the elephant, the author states the incident that occurred was “enlightening” and that it gave him insight into the real nature of imperialism and the “real motives for which despotic governments act”. This last quoted phrase from the text introduces a key concept of this narrative, and that is “real motives”. From the text, it is concluded that the narrator of the story ends up shooting the “rampant” elephant, resulting in its death after some time. The main conflict arising from this incident is the narrator’s true motive to commit the act. It is stated that, upon hearing that an elephant was “ravaging a bazaar”, the narrator grabs his rifle, which is much too small to kill an elephant and could be useful in “terrorem”. So originally, it can be inferred that the narrator had no intent of ever shooting the elephant. It is only upon seeing the body of a dead native killed by the elephant that the narrator decides to requests an orderly to retrieve an “elephant rifle” from nearby friend’s house. It is only upon his receiving of this “elephant rifle” that the idea of actually killing the elephant becomes realistic.
After receiving the rifle, the narrator goes off to find the elephant and is followed by flocks of natives all shouting that the narrator is going to “shoot the elephant”. Upon actually seeing the elephant and how innocent it appears, the narrator concludes that he should not shoot the elephant. He then turns around to see the hundreds of Burmese natives who had been following him, all of whom expected him to kill the elephant. He concludes that he must kill the elephant, because as the “white man”, it is expected of him. It is at this moment that he has an epiphany, through which the futility of imperialism is revealed to him. He states that “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys”. The quote just stated, I believe, represents the true essence of what George Orwell is trying to encapsulate in this narrative. Once the Europeans colonize these third-world countries, they inherit all the problems that exist within that country and they must act accordingly to alleviate those problems. In doing so, the Europeans are expected to act in certain ways, based off the expectations of the natives. So in times of crises their actions must be based off what the natives expect them to do, in order for their rule to “appear” resolute and definite.
So where does the true power lie? The Europeans may possess the power of rule and use of force, but their actions must always be based off the expectations of the native peoples, in order to fulfill their role because, as Orwell states, “it is the condition of his (Europeans) rule that he shall spend his life trying to impress the natives”. So in the truest essence, the power lies within the natives because they manifest these expectations that must be fulfilled, thus turning the Europeans into “puppets pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind”.