George Orwell, Shooting an ElephantEssay title: George Orwell, Shooting an ElephantGeorge Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is an essay about a British police officer living in Lower Burma who goes through the trial and error process of making the right decisions while still trying to maintain an image and position of authority. The officer is hated by the Burmese people, which is clearly shown when he would play football. The Burmese were extremely unfair to the officer due to the fact he was part of the Imperialist group which was oppressing Burma. (para. 1) Although the officer is hated he feels “Imperialism, [is] an evil thing” and he “[is] all for the Burmese and against their oppressors, the British,” his own kind. (para. 2)
The sentence of the paragraph that is shown to be a paraphrase of the sentence from the essay is quoted as follows:
“As a result of his actions, the Burmese state has suffered the most persecution, torture and human rights abuses.”
The first half is ambiguous and the words that are quoted are the following:
“In this world we must never forget the victims who suffer or lose their lives, we must always hope for them or for their loved ones.”
There is no specific reference to the sentence from the essay which says that there is still a sense of persecution and the use of words which do not capture the whole truth of the Burmese state. In order to avoid this ambiguity and uncertainty, the final sentence, shown to be the paraphrase of the sentence, is not ambiguous. There are other sentences in the work that have been paraphrased with differing interpretations. There is a need to consider what the meaning is here, what the phrase would be in relation to, and what the phrase actually means. As a result, I suggest that we look at the phrase “imperialism”:
Imperialism was a system, political or social, in which the country was subjected to the brutal and brutal effects of colonialism – through the imposition of military policies, colonial law and colonial rules which did not allow for the rule of law.
There are other issues to consider. Here the statement is not ambiguous and the phrase refers to a single colonial policy which is the most oppressive and torturous. Other colonial policies may not be the most oppressive.
I do not think that I am at a loss for what to say here. Is there anything that I can do that can prevent the abuse from continuing?
What I would like to say is that one can take a second to understand and consider the implications of this essay and if one does, then not only can one avoid being taken to a world without laws and rules on how to behave, but may at the very least see an avenue in which one can improve one’s lives.
I shall attempt to summarize what has gone before – namely, that the words and phrases used in the two sentences have two meanings, in that there is no need for other people to see that this is not what the author is dealing with: this is not what is going on. It merely means that there is no way to make changes and that we have no need to talk about change.
1/ There is a difference between “Imperialism” and “military rule” – that is a law which is written down, not enforced. As a consequence, the British have developed in its country an ideology which excludes other countries from having their own laws because of their nationality,
When an incident occurs the officer is summoned to regulate. An elephant has gone into a state of “must” in a remote location littered with poor Burmese citizens. (para. 3) On the way to find the beast the officer sees a man lying in the mud, brutally mauled and dead. After seeing this “devilish” looking man he starts to ponder that he may actually have to kill this elephant if he is in danger. Rifle in hand and a crowd behind he continues his journey. (para. 4) The officer realizes the crowd is excited at the thought he is going to kill this elephant. Killing the elephant would provide entertainment and food for them. At the bottom of the hill the officer and crowd behind see the elephant across the road “peacefully eating.” The officer knows the elephant has passed it’s stage of “must” and not to shoot it. He decides to observe the elephant to see if the state of “must” has truly passed instead of shooting it. (para. 5 & 6) The officer has made up his mind until he “glances” at the immense crowd cheering him on and feels uneasy about his decision. The crowd would be angry and hate the British officer more if he did not shoot. The officer is faced with the decision of either shooting the elephant and pleasing the Burmese while appearing strong and dominating as a British