Shooting An Elephant The story “ Shooting An Elephant” by George Orwell is about a man who lives in Bruma as a police officer. Bruma is under British control and they are not aloud to own guns. Being a British officer, the narrator was aloud to own one at the time. The story is told in first person, as readers learn about a traumatizing experience the narrator had in his past. When the narrator heard the news about an elephant going wild and destroying most of the Burmese homes, he rushed to find the elephant and shoot it.
Do We Shoot Him of Not? “The Discussion of Shooting an Elephant” In the short essay Shooting an Elephant the author George Orwell discusses how her shot an elephant. The thing that most people don’t know about this short essay Shooting an Elephant is that it is not just about killing an elephant. In this short essay George Orwell discusses things about how he shot the elephant and also what the reason of why he shot the elephant. In the end of this essay the author decides that he should kill the elephant instead of letting it live.
The elephant is powerless and ultimately conquered, just as they are. The Burmans slight acts of rebellion by spitting and laughing at the British is represented by the elephant going “must”. Orwell 's self-imposed task of upholding the British Empire’s mask of control can be related to the Empire’s goal of controlling or “taming” Burmese society. Orwell is aware that his reputation reflects that of all the other Europeans. This awareness plays a role in his deciding to shoot the elephant because if he didn’t, the Burman’s would question British authority and think of them as weak (Orwell).
He shoots the elephant at the end of his inner conflict in order not to look like a fool to the locals, to show his feelings as an Anglo-Indian in Burma and as a European to be the hero of the locals. The essay perfectly describes how the imperialism destroy both the defeater and the defeated 's humanity. "I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind." The narrator illustrates how he lost his own control and gave it as a victim to the people who are staring at him with their “yellow faces” and excited looks. Speaking about George Orwell as a person who is in between the two choices; his own desires and the expectation, every human 's life is full of this kind of dilemmas.
A Critical Analysis of the Rhetorical Strategies Used in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”. In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”, the author begins with a definite statement about his views toward British Imperialism. Orwell uses pathos to appeal to the readers emotions about his situation and also uses logos when trying to decide on shooting the elephant. His powerful technique of illustrating the message, “Imperialism was an evil thing” and that it affects both the oppressor and the oppressed is effective with the use of description, classical appeals, extended metaphors, and rhetorical devices. Orwell begins his piece of writing with an extremely weak character that has been mocked and laughed at by the people of Burma.
In the story Of Mice and Men, four living things are killed. Two are shot in the back of the head, and the other two are killed by somebody else’s bare hands. As strange as it sounds, the killings were solutions for some characters and complications for others. In this story by John Steinbeck, there are many different realism elements that are relevant. These elements include a few specifics like the rejection of the idealized, larger-than-life hero of romantic literature, the avoidance of the exotic, sensational, and overly dramatic, and the focus on the ethical struggles and social issues of real-life situations.
Quote: “I 'm not a drug salesman. I 'm a writer." "What makes you think a writer isn 't a drug salesman?” (153) III. Opposing Argument a. Disarranged Plot: the ending of the book was very disordered and mocking. The quote that ended the book was, “If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing my nose at You Know Who.” (127) then the book is over and it leaves you confused on all the opportunities that may occur next and the audience is then lost.
Quora defines social injustice as "the elimination of various human rights from a broad variance of unfair treatment that creates negative outcomes for a minority, aggregate, or underserved population." It has been said that George Orwell loved to look for people and organizations to wage verbal war with, that he had a tendency to blow small issues out of proportion, but is that what he is doing in his piece Shooting An Elephant? Orwell grew up in India and knew firsthand the struggles the Indian people went through. Few people outside of India knew or cared what went on there. To Britain, India was nothing more than an untapped resource to bleed dry, and a people to extort (or to "convert" depending on whose side you believe).
As a result, he has an inner debate in believing if killing the animal was the right thing to do or not, “it seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him” (4) allows the readers to understand the importance of the elephant. Orwell describes the elephant as a “huge and costly piece of machinery” (3) and feels that it is
In the Mactan Island, the place where Magellan died, the Magellan shrine writes “Hero, on 27 April 1521, Lapulapu and his fellows repulsed the Spanish invaders, killing their leader Ferdinand Magellan. Thus Lapulapu became the first Filipino to ha l repelled European aggression.” Obviously, Magellan, in their eyes, is an invader instead of a man wanted to bring local into modern age. Moreover, whether his failure in the war with locals is excusable is unsettled. According to me, the answer is not. With the modern weapons and strong fire support from the ship, Magellan, as a leader of the armada, lost a battle that is impossible to lose.