The famous political satirist and anti-imperialist writer, George Orwell, in his short story, “Shooting an Elephant,” recounts an unforgettable experience about shooting an elephant at the request of the masses in Burma. This great literary work was published in 1936, a period of imperialist prevalence when the Burmese were quite hostile toward the British oppressors. The story’s protagonist, who is a British colonial policeman in Burma, is not respected by the local people. Not just depicting his inner struggle about killing the elephant, Orwell attempts through this story to arrest the audience’s attention to the essence of imperialism. Filled with a strong theme of colonialism, Orwell perceives that both of the conquered and conqueror’s freedom are warped, which is the thing that disgusts him the most. Orwell achieves this by employing an ingenious setting, contradictory inner conflict, evocative plots, and rich literary devices.

“Shooting an Elephant,” this short story has been deeply analyzed by various critics from different angles. As the post-colonialism critic Paul (2005) points out, “George Orwell’s accounts of British colonial rule in Burma have been said, not least by the author, to express his revulsion at that regime.” Hence, the reflection of the British rule in Burma and the hatred of colonialism is an essence supporting factor in this story as a classic. However, Paul also provided a unique critical perspective – in addition to portraying imperialist rulers as morally deficient people, Orwell also described the indigenous people as resolutely inferior creatures (16). In the academic journal Thoughts on a Dead Elephant, Watson (1997) offers a more realistic historical perspective to analyze this story. He notes that “Shooting an Elephant” is a powerful clarification of many misunderstandings of colonialism (358). Orwell’s account of the shooting incident clarifies the three prejudices about imperialism, that is, it is impoverished by decolonization, can always rule the colonies in a high position, and involves racial and cultural disdain. Face up to the status of India’s independence, Hong Kong and Macao return to China, and the independence in the Philippines for nearly 80 years, this short story exceeded the wildest expectations of the 1930s, accurately predicting the decline of imperialism (360). Unlike the previous two experts, in the journal Landscape and the mask of self in George Orwell’s “Shooting an elephant” Tyner (2005) has a unique approach – he opposes simply categorizing this story as literary embodiment against British Colonialism. Instead, he discusses that “of a loss of self in a de-humanizing landscape and the realization that with the masks of colonialism and the colonizer likewise becomes non-existent” (266). His life experiences in Myanmar have shaped the political motives, a sense of guilt, in this story. Orwell contributes this story to readers to understand the position of humanity in the extreme totalitarian world (262). It is valuable to analyze this article from post-colonial criticism, historical perspective, and the dialectics of self and landscape. Personally, I prefer to express my idea on this short story from the perspective of post-colonialism.

The theme of colonialism is shown by Orwell through the realist setting of this story. He uses many sophisticated vocabularies – words from Hindu and Greek (bazaars, saecula seculorum, and mahout) – hinting he is writing for well-educated people. George Orwell immediately begins the story by stating where the narrator lives– Moulmein, Burma. If the readers are who know the real history, then they will leave a preliminary impression in the mind that “this article may be related to colonialism.” For those audiences who don’t grasp the colonial history of Burma, he immediately makes their connection to this story and British imperialism and colonization in the words that followed such as “sub-divisional police officer” and “anti-European” (Orwell 1). Within such an explanation, there is a surge of ethos, as the author explains his identity and builds up his credibility. Through robust and straightforward diction, Orwell shows the “poor” experience of living in Myanmar as the protagonist of the imperialist police. One such description is given at the story’s onset where the narrative reflects the protagonist’s embarrassing situation clearly and accurately: “When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter” (Orwell 1). A similar use of setting description is in the scene where depicts the dirty and cruel work of England imperialism. It is illustrated by the sentence “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 bogged with bamboos” (Orwell 1). Clearly, by adopting the satiric and candid tone, it serves the purpose of pushing the readers to look deeply at the extreme destruction of imperialism. Through the setting of the contemptible colonialism and the despised protagonist, Orwell lays a strong foundation for the reason why killing the elephant and the narrator’s ambivalence. Thus, he can guide the readers to further consider the real purpose of this story – the hatred and condemnation of colonialism.

The protagonist’s inner struggle to trigger the audience’s sympathy, build their interest, and strengthen their perception of the nature of imperialism. The complicated mental state is made possible through substantial uses of anadiplosis. An example of this includes the author’s repeating about his unwillingness to shoot the innocent elephant: “But I did not want to shoot the elephant”, “It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him”, “ I did not in the least want to shoot him”, “I ought not to shoot him” (Orwell 3)… With the repeated techniques, the author emphasizes the post of his imperialist policemen only gave him one choice, that is, killing the elephant by using the gun. Vividly, these words reflect the harm caused by British colonialism – when the white man turns tyrant, it is his own freedom that he destroys. Orwell mentions the words “intolerable” and “unendurable” to convey a sense that he just likes a “puppet” of the Burmese. Actually, the inner struggle is a major conflict that triggers the audience’s interest and sympathy. By depicting many scenarios that the narrator encountered in Burma, an extremely ironic picture is presented to readers. On the one hand, feeling it’s wrong to try to conquer other countries, Orwell doesn’t want to kill the wild and innocent elephant. On the other hand, by being expected by the Burmese to shoot the elephant to demonstrate the authority of imperialism, Orwell has no choice but to kill the elephant. Through such use of allegory, Orwell can send a powerful message to his audience: more severe than the cruelty of colonialism, under such an unhealthy colonial system, both colonized people and colonialists become extremely numb and stupid.

It is plain to say that “Shooting an Elephant” is a story as heavy as it is enthralling. Filled with the realistic setting and the inner emotional process, this literature work takes the reader on a journey through the mind of how an imperialist policeman killed an elephant against his will in order to save face in front of the locals of Myanmar. Post-colonialism becomes applicable to the story when Orwell begins to describe his position to the readers. “I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically – and secretly, of course – I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British”. Seeing the “dirty work” of the British Imperialists “oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt” (Orwell 3). Obviously, it parlays to applying post-colonialism smoothly. Colonialism, especially in formerly colonized states, is regarded as evil and despicable behavior. Orwell reaffirms this kind of feeling as he goes on about his true reaction regarding the colonization and the Burmese people’s resentment.

The short story is heavily loaded with literary devices. Orwell makes heavy use of similes. In one paragraph, he states that “The thick blood welled out of him like red velvet, but still he did not die” (4). To emphasize the elephant died innocently, the author compares the thick blood with the beautiful red velvet in a satirical tone. In describing the scene where he shot the elephant, Orwell states “The crowd grew very still, and a deep, low, happy sigh, as of people who see the theatre curtain go up at last, breathed from innumerable throats” (3). The quiet crowds and the curtains that are pulled up are similes for the story. Orwell once said that as a colonial police officer, he had to play a role for the Burmese people. In this short story, the readers view the relationship between the performer and the actual audience. Moreover, symbolism is used as well which expresses Orwell’s attitude of hatred. Through the story of shooting the elephant, as a symbol, Orwell tries to reveal the profound understanding of the nature of imperialism. “Policeman” is another demonstrated symbol. As a policeman, the narrator’s presence has symbolic power in Burmese society. He clearly explained this in the article: the Burmese people immediately despised him, mocked him, and expected him to represent the imperial performance he symbolized. When he plans to shoot the elephant, he is the police representing the British colonial authorities. Locals want him to show this authority. If he fails, the British Empire project will fail. In this way, the police maintain the authoritative image they represent.

As we can say that, Orwell uses the quite proper experience to verify his points, strengthen his credibility, and reveal the evils of imperialism. Orwell as a political satirist is very accomplished. The whole literary story, with the use of abundant embellishment, the complexity of subconscious minds, and the technique of symbolism, simile, and allegory, empowers the readers to gain an insight into the wickedness of imperialism. Readers logically follow the author’s argument and realize the innocence of the elephant by the experience the author shows. As far as I am concerned, this short story, because of its strong anti-colonialism, provides a very powerful perspective for us to face up to the colonialism issue.

Works Cited

George Orwell: Shooting an Elephant. http://orwell.ru/library/articles/elephant/english/e_eleph. Accessed 5 May 2019.

Melia, Paul. “Imperial Orwell.” Atlantics (0210-6124), vol. 37, no. 2, 2015, pp. 11–25. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,cpid&custid=keaninf&db=aph&AN=111875840&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Tyner, James A. “Landscape and the Mask of Self in George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant.’” Area, vol. 37, no. 3, Sept. 2005, pp. 260–267. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00629.x.

Watson, George. “Thoughts on a Dead Elephant.” The Hudson Review, vol. 50, no. 3, 1997, pp. 358–366. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3853175.