Aninda Ariestiana 180410100192 Kelas E

imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. stated the George Orwell, an ex police officer who had served the Indian Imperial Police in Burma. As a member of the imperialist, Orwell, in Shooting an Elephant expressed that being harassed by the natives of the land his Empire colonized was perplexing and upsetting. It was not that he had not seen it coming, such treatment he had accepted in Burma, as he was fully aware that having a position as important as a police officer who worked for the British Empire in a town in which anti-European feeling was bitter, he was fully exposed to the hate of the oppressed. It is more likely that some effects, either good or bad, had developed in Burma after being under the British rule for over a century. Concerning the previous statement, I am going to analyze the practice of imperialism and its impacts to the natives of Burma as shown in Shooting an Elephant, as well as how imperialism troubled the narrator, how he was worried about racial prejudice, his feeling towards the natives and the Empire he served through what seem to be his unbiased view on the natives and the oppressor. In the Rise and Fall of the Empire, theoretically imperialism is described as the principle, spirit or system of empire. In practice, according to Thomas Caswell, imperialism occurs when a stronger nation takes a full control over a weaker nation in order to dominate its political, cultural, and economic life. All of those three aspects of imperialism are shown in the essay. We can see the political domination of British 1

throughout the essay. The sign of how British had the political domination in Burma is the presence of the narrator, a white police officer who had a power over the natives in Burma. In this case, the narrator is a conventionalized figure of a sahib who has superiority over the natives of Burma, a master who has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. The natives hung on to him when the elephant attack takes place, as explained through the narration how Various Burmans stopped me on the way and told me about the elephants doings. Also how after he gets to the crime scene The Burmese sub inspector and some Indian constables were waiting for me in the quarter where the elephant had been seen. In my opinion, the Burmese sub inspector who had called him first to notify him about the elephant attack could have been doing some prevention act as to avoid further damage done by the beast, but as the narrator explains earlier in the narration The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it. it becomes quite clear that native Burmese, even though he got quite a position, had no power to defend themselves and had to seek help from foreign occupant to solve a problem in his own land. Further in the essay, we can see how the narrator had the advantage of being a worker under British Empire because after he killed an elephant, very worthy machinery, he could get away with the charge. His action is considered legal because a mad elephant deserved to be killed and even though the owner of the elephant was furious, he did not press charge because he was only an Indian and could do nothing.

Narrators presence and action throughout the essay show how much British dominated its colony. At the same time, the impact of British domination can also be seen in the narration. In the beginning of the essay, Orwell complains about how young Buddhist priests were the worst among all other group of Burmese. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans. While it is not explained thoroughly, looking at the historical background of the essay, I see a connection between Orwells description of the young Buddhist monks attitude towards foreign men with Dr. Constance Wilsons statement. According to Wilson, the nationalist movement in Southeast Asia is developed from three aspects, one of which being the indigenous religion. In Burmas case, the earliest movement of nationalism that aimed the restoration of the countrys independence was initiated by a group of the younger Burmese generation in the form of Young Mens Buddhist Association. He further adds that the principal of the association was to revitalize Buddhism in Burma and reducing Western influence. In my opinion, after decades of imperialism, young Buddhist in Burma wanted to create a new public opinion regarding the Western occupation in their land through their association. This way, the domination of British Empire would be reduced gradually. This is why Orwell despise the existence of young Buddhist priest, as they are the ones who might caused the sentiment on European among the younger generation, as Orwell also stated in his essay how bad the humiliation he received from the younglings, In the end the sneering yellow

faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance The occupation of British Empire also affects the economic aspect of Burma. It is shown through the core incident in the essay. The desperation for food as the result of poverty in the time of British rule was seen in the chain of events which eventually lead to the shooting. Orwell describes the natives who were very nonchalant about the elephant when it was merely destroying their houses but turned excited as they knew that the elephant was going to be shot, because they want the meat. George Orwell had written an article on the exploitation of a nation. In his article he explains the truth about how British Empire milked dry their colonies. One of the points that correspond with economic issue in Shooting an Elephant is how the system of employing the Burmese natives as civil servants had the advantage of reducing the budget as the natives had lower salaries than European. The lower life quality of the natives was clearly seen as the natives were bringing dahs and bucket even before the narrator left the scene, even before the elephant had died to collect the meat. The narrator was also told that the natives stripped the elephant down to the bones in a short period of time. The elephant which was a valuable asset to the natives no longer had a value as an investment. Instead being angry that a valuable asset was killed by a foreign man, the natives were excited because its dead meant a huge feast which is a rarity for them. Although the cultural aspect of British domination is unclear in Shooting an Elephant, Michael J. Cummings argues that the game of football that Orwell played

together with the natives shows a brief cultural aspect of the imperialism in the essay. Cummings states that football in the essay is a symbol of British imposition of their culture on their colony. In my opinion, concluding the game of football as British imposition on their colony is overly judgmental since football has various backgrounds of origin. However, considering that British is famously seen as footballs land of origin, Cummings claim about it being British imposition could be fair. Orwell as the author and possibly the narrator also has interesting view on both natives and their oppressor. As a white Englishman, Orwell willingly submitted to Indian Imperial Police to serve the Empire, therefore he should have been all for the Empire. In the first paragraph of his essay, Orwell expresses his disgust toward the treatment he is receiving from the natives, the insults hooted after me got badly on my nerves. After a sequence of bad experience with the Burmese however, in the second paragraph he states that imperialism is evil and that he was out of his job was secretly because he was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors. He goes on by saying that hates his job because he can see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters, possibly feels bad about the natives after having witnessed the horrific condition of the long term convicts in Burma. Thus far, it seems to me that Orwell in his essay is unbiased, despite the nasty treatment he received from the natives, he takes another perspective how he sort of realizes that he was an obvious target and was baited by the natives because he was a police officer. The anger and hatred of the natives were spilled all over him, a helpless police officer

who was only doing his job. Orwell further adds that he was trapped between his hatred of the Empire he served and his rage against the natives who were giving him hard time, how he thought British regime was unbreakable tyranny but at the same time he thinks the greatest joy in the world would be driving a bayonet through Buddhist priests guts. Again, several points in the essay about his views on both the Empire he was under and the natives seem to be unbiased because none of it gives a clear hint on which side Orwell was in. In my opinion, Orwell was not on either side, he was all for his ego as a white man from the beginning. He states distinction between him and the natives repeatedly by stating racial features. For example, in the beginning he says that he was aware of the humiliation In the end sneering yellow faces of young men also further down he describes how the will of those yellow faces behind. pushed him to shoot the elephant. However his action was not solely driven by the peer pressure or the urge of protecting the natives. He was also not doing his job because he knew perfectly that he should never shoot a working elephant if it could be avoided. He was confirming his superiority among the natives, as the white man with his gun in front of the unamred unarmed native crowd He was insecure about how the natives would think about him because according to him every white mans life in the East, was one struggle not to laughed at. and he could not live by the thought of the humiliation he would endure if he was failed and killed in front of the natives. He did the deed to avoid looking like a fool because a white man who works for the Empire in the land of the colony supposedly has the control and superiority over the natives.

All in all, the practice of imperialism can be seen throughout the narration of the essay and it affects the way the natives decide how to treat their oppressor who seem to be unbiased in his essay. However if I might quote Desmond Tutu If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. It becomes clear that Orwell was not completely against the Empire or for the natives. na