Introduction
In a narration of one of his experiences in Burma, George Orwell manages to bring out the irony of imperial rule, the perception of the local people and the strange relationship between the imperialists and local people. Although Orwell categorically outlines that he does not support imperialism, his actions demonstrate discontent towards the local people due to their apparent ignorance, their pathetic living conditions and their evident lack of ambition or enthusiasm in life. Orwell uses the details surrounding the shooting of the elephant to bring out the sarcasm of imperialism, and the vulnerability of the imperialists to the otherwise primitive locals that they purported to rule over and civilize. The subsequent collapse of imperialism only demonstrates that colonies were white elephants and that imperialists could have been better off without the humiliation experienced during the colonial years. The paper analyses how Orwell uses literal tools to emphasize on the satire as the locals and the imperialists attempt to co-exist.
Orientalism
The greatest sarcasm in Orwell’s narrative is that no European could have agreed that there were some significant aspects of orientalism in existent in Burma or even in the rest of the colonies. Orwell manages to outline how the imperialists, who were supposed to be the masters, were psychological slaves to the primitive and uncivilized locals. Imperialism was supposed to have been an easy maneuver by the civilized Europeans with little or no resistance from the locals. Orwell outlines various instances where the Burmese demonstrated complete contempt and open hatred for the Europeans. Phrases like “hideous laughter” and “sneering yellow faces” demonstrate the contempt the Burmese felt for the Europeans (Orwell, 2011). Orwell describes his hapless situation just before he shot the elephant to outline how the Europeans had psychologically been enslaved by imperialism. Orwell writes: “I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly” (Orwell, 2011).However, Orwell still leaves the reader with the conclusion that he employed orientalism in the narrative. Orwell describes the situation and culture of the people of Burma as being inferior and as a people who are unambitious and petty. Orwell desperately attempts to bring out the effects of imperialism on both sides but eventually he only manages to demonstrate that his criticism and discontent is leaning more towards the locals. Orwell is relieved after shooting the elephant because he can justify his actions by claiming that the elephant was extremely wild and had even killed the Indian Coolie. However, we are only able to discover the facts because Orwell is sincere in his story. Orwell manages to demonstrate the humiliating imperialism was for the Europeans. Eventually, he admits that he shot the elephant not because he had to, but because he had made the decision to act as the other imperialists.
Orwell’s Portrayal of the Local Community
Orwell portrays the local people as being ignorant and weak, and as victims of imperialism. The elephant is figuratively used to represent the community in general while the Burmese are used to represent the locals. The general realization is that the locals are not keen in developing or protecting their land, exposing its vulnerability to exploitations by the imperialists. Despite the fact that the elephant had grown wild and destructive to the point of killing, the locals did nothing but hand over the responsibility of dealing with the elephant to the imperialists. Orwell writes that the owner of the elephant had apparently gone in the wrong direction and was perhaps “twelve hours journey away.” Orwell continues to outline that the Burmese had no weapons to deal with the elephant implying that the locals did not have the necessary resources to handle their already problematic society (Orwell, 2011). Although Orwell agrees that imperialism is not good by stating that it is evil, his portrayal of the locals gives the impression that the locals deserved the kind of treatment they got from the imperialist. Orwell also portrays the locals as a people who are extremely primitive because they are unable to clearly and consistently give accurate reports of the whereabouts of the elephant. Orwell describes the look on the face of the dead Indian Coolie as full of agony, devilish and depressing. Orwell also manages to go to unnecessary details to describe the death of the elephant. All these aspects demonstrate a state of desperation and foolishness of the Burmese to the extent that they are ready to tolerate the slow and painful killing of the elephant, which figuratively represents the Burmese nation, in the hands of the imperialists.
Conclusion
The narrative, “Shooting an Elephant” serves as a perfect example of portraying the destructive nature of imperialism both to the Europeans and to the locals. Although Orwell tends to be prejudicial and perhaps oriental, the general realization is that imperialism was destructive. Imperialism turned the locals into slaves and imperialists into puppets of the locals. Eventually, the system led to the death of an elephant that would have been more resourceful had it been left alive. Figuratively, the elephant represents the colonized nations that were destroyed due to the foolishness and ignorance of the locals and the arrogance and brutality of the imperialists.
References
Orwell, G. (2011). Shooting an elephant. In R. J. DiYanni, Fifty great narratives(246-253) (4th ed.). New York: Longman.