In the short story Orwell faces a choice, a lesser of two evils scenario where he must either decide to shoot an Elephant that killed a man because it was provoked or follow his better judgement and not kill a defenceless animal. A Lot of people would argue against his decision of killing the animal because he states the main reason he killed it was because he didn’t want to appear weak or foolish in front of the citizens that already despise him. If the perspective was changed to the eyes of one of the Burmese bystanders then you would have an entirely different conflict to think about. This person is in great fear of the elephant because it might destroy their home or even kill someone who is dear to them next and they are putting their life’s safety in the hands of a person they criticize on a daily basis. They want to see the elephant executed to prevent further havoc and no one would argue with the reasoning behind their mindset.
In his essay, “Shooting an Elephant” George Orwell describes his experience of killing an elephants when he was an officer in Burma. He explains how the local Burmese hated him and saw him as the authority of the repressive white British. He mentions that he also had the same feeling about the local Burmese. Even though he hated the Thyestean imperialism but he also hated what he called the yellow-faced and evil-spirted Burmese people. One day, he was told that an elephant was destroying the bazaar and killing people.
We all know that he shoots the elephant was because thousands of people were watching behind him and expects him to do what is ought to do. He does not shoot the elephant, the British empire would also be at loss to. Even more, he has struggled a lot not to be laughed at by the people of Burmese and in an instant, it would be a historical momentum for him if chose the elephant over his pride. The main purpose of the riffle bringing it with him was just a protection from the elephant that it might cause trouble again. But then again, it was a mistake for him to bring the rifle because people mistook it in a different way.
There are many uncivilized leaders and it is hard to choose just one, but barbarism is the opposite of a civil monarchy. In literature, there are many examples of inhuman leaders, including Frank R. Stockton's barbaric king in "The Lady, or the Tiger?". The king is half barbaric and created a legal system that is dishonest and is used for the satisfaction of the viewers. Due to the absence of a government's influence the king’s inhumanity is extremely evident. The king is uncivilized because of his arbitrary and barbaric justice system and his lack of government in his kingdom.
Orwell centers his essay around the shooting of an elephant, when the elephant really represents British imperialism. Orwell uses the ravaging of the bazaar to represent the British empire ravaging Burma. This contrasts with Wallace’s essay, as in Wallace’s essay, he plainly elaborates on the debate whether it is “all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for [humans’] gustatory pleasure” (Wallace 9). Nevertheless, the arguments the authors propose are not outright impassioned arguments for animal rights. Rather, the arguments presented are mere descriptions of the mistreatment and death of an elephant and a lobster.
Therefore, having such an occupation of reporting on current articles he feels entitled to his opinion and feels that he's able to express that with people. 3. Goer thinks that pandas "don't have a right to exist" and has given a downright negative analysis of these animals. Goer clearly thinks that Pandas have no place or existence for the Adelaide zoos as they are said to be "Stupid, useless animals who don't help themselves to survive." Goer has also outlined that Pandas are expensive, strange,
To begin with, the rampage would not have happened if it were not for the thief. “A gem-studded goblet; it gained him nothing,/Though with a thief’s wiles he had outwitted/The sleeping dragon; that drove him into a rage,/As the people of that country would soon discover” (2217-20). Notice the word sleeping; the creature was not endangering anyone before the criminal act. Imagine if it were a human being getting robbed while they were asleep; there is no doubt that they would be in rage. In addition, the serpent was only defending its’ territory that was earlier violated, similar to any normal animal behavior.
When we think of the 1956 classic “Godzilla: King of the Monsters”, we think of a terrible black and white film about a lizard monster plagued with horrible overdubbing. The audience after finishing the film may feel as if they got nothing from the movie but what they don’t know is that what hides below Godzilla’s faults is an in depth analysis of humans, our shortcomings, and the concept of death. The American remake of the film cut scenes from the Japanese film as a way to introduce Steve Martin to the audience, giving us someone to sympathize with, and minimizing the reason for Godzilla resurfacing and terrorizing the city due to the recent atomic bombings of Japanese cities Nagasaki and Hiroshima during World War II by Americans. Atomic Bombs are only mentioned once as a
Orwell, when faced with shooting an elephant which was no longer causing problems, decided that the right thing to do was just let the elephant be. Orwell’s approach was shown through his original intents for the elephant rifle he had sent for upon hearing the true location of the elephant: “I had no intention of shooting the elephant – I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary” (311). Orwell’s main view toward the elephant at this point is merely defensive. As he turned to face the crowd behind him, Orwell was pushed to reconsider: “And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all… I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward” (311). Imperialism actually places the ruled as rulers and makes those in power as the powerless by the removal of their freedom of choice.
His mind altered from “I ought not to shoot him” to “I had got to do it” and also to “But I did not want to shoot the elephant”. All of those depictions related to the “immense” crown that had followed the narrator expecting him to kill the elephant. This can be analyzed from his own words: “I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind”. “And he also realizes that to shoot the elephant would be not only unnecessary but quite immoral. But he is not a free agent; he is part of the impartial system (Ingle,