why is shooting an elephant classified as a reflective essay

A Summary and Analysis of George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

‘Shooting an Elephant’ is a 1936 essay by George Orwell (1903-50), about his time as a young policeman in Burma, which was then part of the British empire. The essay explores an apparent paradox about the behaviour of Europeans, who supposedly have the power over their colonial subjects.

Before we offer an analysis of Orwell’s essay, it might be worth providing a short summary of ‘Shooting an Elephant’, which you can read here .

Orwell begins by relating some of his memories from his time as a young police officer working in Burma. Although the extent to which the essay is autobiographical has been disputed, we will refer to the narrator as Orwell himself, for ease of reference.

He, like other British and European people in imperial Burma, was held in contempt by the native populace, with Burmese men tripping him up during football matches between the Europeans and Burmans, and the local Buddhist priests loudly insulting their European colonisers on the streets.

Orwell tells us that these experiences instilled in him two things: it confirmed his view, which he had already formed, that imperialism was evil, but it also inspired a hatred of the enmity between the European imperialists and their native subjects. Of course, these two things are related, and Orwell understands why the Buddhist priests hate living under European rule. He is sympathetic towards such a view, but it isn’t pleasant when you yourself are personally the object of ridicule or contempt.

He finds himself caught in the middle between ‘hatred of the empire’ he served and his ‘rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make [his] job impossible’.

The main story which Orwell relates takes place in Moulmein, in Lower Burma. An elephant, one of the tame elephants which the locals own and use, has given its rider or mahout the slip, and has been wreaking havoc throughout the bazaar. It has destroyed a hut, killed a cow, and raided some fruit stalls for food. Orwell picks up his rifle and gets on his pony to go and see what he can do.

He knows the rifle won’t be good enough to kill the elephant, but he hopes that firing the gun might scare the animal. Orwell discovers that the elephant has just trampled a man, a coolie or native labourer, to the ground, killing him. Orwell sends his pony away and calls for an elephant rifle which would be more effective against such a big animal. Going in search of the elephant, Orwell finds it coolly eating some grass, looking as harmless as a cow.

It has calmed down, but by this point a crowd of thousands of local Burmese people has amassed, and is watching Orwell intently. Even though he sees no need to kill the animal now it no longer poses a threat to anyone, he realises that the locals expect him to dispatch it, and he will lose ‘face’ – both personally and as an imperial representative – if he does not do what the crowd expects.

So he shoots the elephant from a safe distance, marvelling at how long the animal takes to die. He acknowledges at the end of the essay that he only shot the elephant because he did not wish to look like a fool.

‘Shooting an Elephant’ is obviously about more than Orwell’s killing of the elephant: the whole incident was, he tells us, ‘a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic governments act.’

The surprise is that despotic governments don’t merely impose their iron boot upon people without caring what their poor subjects think of them, but rather that despots do care about how they are judged and viewed by their subjects.

Among other things, then, ‘Shooting an Elephant’ is about how those in power act when they are aware that they have an audience. It is about how so much of our behaviour is shaped, not by what we want to do, nor even by what we think is the right thing to do, but by what others will think of us .

Orwell confesses that he had spent his whole life trying to avoid being laughed at, and this is one of his key motivations when dealing with the elephant: not to invite ridicule or laughter from the Burmese people watching him.

To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing – no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.

Note how ‘my whole life’ immediately widens to ‘every white man’s life in the East’: this is not just Orwell’s psychology but the psychology of every imperial agent. Orwell goes on to imagine what grisly death he would face if he shot the elephant and missed, and he was trampled like the hapless coolie the elephant had killed: ‘And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do.’

The stiff upper lip of this final phrase is British imperialism personified. Being trampled to death by the elephant might be something that Orwell could live with (as it were); but being laughed at? And, worse still, laughed at by the ‘natives’? Unthinkable …

And from this point, Orwell extrapolates his own experience to consider the colonial experience at large: the white European may think he is in charge of his colonial subjects, but ironically – even paradoxically – the coloniser loses his own freedom when he takes it upon himself to subjugate and rule another people:

I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the ‘natives,’ and so in every crisis he has got to do what the ‘natives’ expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.

So, at the heart of ‘Shooting an Elephant’ are two intriguing paradoxes: imperial rulers and despots actually care deeply about how their colonised subjects view them (even if they don’t care about those subjects), and the one who colonises loses his own freedom when he takes away the freedom of his colonial subjects, because he is forced to play the role of the ‘sahib’ or gentleman, setting an example for the ‘natives’, and, indeed, ‘trying to impress’ them. He is the alien in their land, which helps to explain this second paradox, but the first is more elusive.

However, even this paradox is perhaps explicable. As Orwell says, aware of the absurdity of the scene: ‘Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.’

The Burmese natives are the ones with the real power in this scene, both because they are the natives and because they outnumber the lone policeman, by several thousand to one. He may have a gun, but they have the numbers. He is performing for a crowd, and the most powerful elephant gun in the world wouldn’t be enough to give him power over the situation.

There is a certain inevitability conveyed by Orwell’s clever repetitions (‘I did not in the least want to shoot him … They had seen the rifle and were all shouting excitedly that I was going to shoot the elephant … I had no intention of shooting the elephant … I did not in the least want to shoot him … But I did not want to shoot the elephant’), which show how the idea of shooting the elephant gradually becomes apparent to the young Orwell.

These repetitions also convey how powerless he feels over what is happening, even though he acknowledges it to be unjust (when the elephant no longer poses a threat to anyone) as well as financially wasteful (Orwell also draws attention to the pragmatic fact that the elephant while alive is worth around a hundred pounds, whereas his tusks would only fetch around five pounds).

But he does it anyway, in an act that is purely for show, and which goes against his own will and instinct.

Discover more about Orwell’s non-fiction with our analysis of his ‘A Hanging’ , our discussion of his essay on political language , and our thoughts on his autobiographical essay, ‘Why I Write’ .

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

8 thoughts on “A Summary and Analysis of George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’”

Absolutely fascinating and very though provoking. Thank you.

Thanks, Caroline! Very kind

One biographer claimed that the incident never took place and is pure fiction created to make the points you mention. Is there any proof that it actually happened ?

• Pingback: 10 of the Best Works by George Orwell – Interesting Literature
• Pingback: The Best George Orwell Essays Everyone Should Read – Interesting Literature

Circuses – it still goes on, tragically. https://robinsaikia.org/2021/04/04/elephants-in-venice-1954/

Hmm now I make another connection here. A degree of the hypocrisy of human society. In a sense, the Burmese were ‘owned’ by their imperial masters – personified by Orwell – but the Elephant was owned by the Burmese. the Burmese hate Orwell for being the imperialist and yet they expect him to shoot their elephant who is itself forced into a role it clearly didn’t like. I know it is all very post-modernist to consider things from a non-human point of view, but there seems a very obvious mirroring here.

• Pingback: A Summary and Analysis of George Orwell’s ‘A Hanging’ – Interesting Literature

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Shooting an Elephant

George orwell, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

Reflection in the Personal Essay: George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" as Exemplar

• Michael W. Cox
• Johns Hopkins University Press
• Volume 83, Number 2, July 2021
• pp. 119-126
• 10.1353/cea.2021.0014
• View Citation

Additional Information

Although "Shooting an Elephant" is a first-person account, I like to point out to my students that the essay is not about the author; it is about Empire or, if they prefer, imperialism…. The essay tends to be a revelation for a certain kind of student used to learning political science in a textbook. As well, students with an interest in rhetoric are drawn to Orwell's integration of storyline and polemic. Literature majors who know a little postcolonial theory are often thrilled to see it brought to life in nonfiction—and they are also the ones most likely to have read 1984 and Animal Farm , the postwar works that made Orwell a household name. However, some students, writing majors in particular, are often more interested in personal journeys than in bringing news to the world about the things it needs to fix, so they are drawn to the passages where Orwell is principal actor in an exotic locale. For such students, "Shooting an Elephant" is all about the author. They have a point, of course. To an extent, it is. That is part of what makes a personal essay personal.

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

George Orwell's Essay on his Life in Burma: "Shooting An Elephant"

George Orwell confronted an Asian elephant like this one in the story recounted for this lesson plan.

Library of Congress

Eric A. Blair, better known by his pen name, George Orwell, is today best known for his last two novels, the anti-totalitarian works Animal Farm and 1984 . He was also an accomplished and experienced essayist, writing on topics as diverse as anti-Semitism in England, Rudyard Kipling, Salvador Dali, and nationalism. Among his most powerful essays is the 1931 autobiographical essay "Shooting an Elephant," which Orwell based on his experience as a police officer in colonial Burma.

This lesson plan is designed to help students read Orwell's essay both as a work of literature and as a window into the historical context about which it was written. This lesson plan may be used in both the History and Social Studies classroom and the Literature and Language Arts classroom.

Guiding Questions

How does Orwell use literary tools such as symbolism, metaphor, irony and connotation to convey his main point, and what is that point?

What is Orwell's argument or message, and what persuasive tools does he use to make it?

Learning Objectives

Analyze Orwell's essay within its appropriate cultural and historical context.

Evaluate the main points of this essay.

Discuss Orwell's use of persuasive tools such as symbolism, metaphor, and irony in this essay, and explain how he uses each of these tools to convey his argument or message.

Lesson Plan Details

The essay "Shooting an Elephant" is set in a town in southern Burma during the colonial period. The country that is today Burma (Myanmar) was, during the time of Orwell's experiences in the colony, a province of India, itself a British colony. Prior to British intervention in the nineteenth century Burma was a sovereign kingdom. After three wars between British forces and the Burmese, beginning with the First Anglo-Burmese War in 1824-26, followed by the Second Anglo-Burmese War of 1852, the country fell under British control after its defeat in the Third Anglo-Burmese War in 1885. Burma was subsumed under the administration of British India, becoming a province of that colony in 1886. It would remain an Indian province until it was granted the status of an individual British colony in 1937. Burma would gain its independence in January 1948.

Eric A. Blair was born in Mohitari, India, in 1903 to parents in the Indian Civil Service. His education brought him to England where he would study at Eton College ("college" in England is roughly equivalent to a US high school). However, he was unable to win a scholarship to continue his studies at the university level. With few opportunities available, he would follow his parents' path into service for the British Empire, joining the Indian Imperial Police in 1922. He would be stationed in what is today Burma (Myanmar) until 1927 when he would quit the imperial civil service in disgust. His experiences as a policeman for the Empire would form the basis of his early writing, including the novel Burmese Days as well as the essay "Shooting an Elephant." These experiences would continue to influence his world view and his writing until his death in 1950.

• Review George Orwell's Shooting an Elephant . The text is available through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Center for the Liberal Arts .
• Familiarize yourself with the historical context of Orwell's story, as well as the biographical circumstances that placed him in Burma as a police officer. Additional information on Burmese history , the British Empire in India and the biography of George Orwell can be accessed through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Internet Public Library.
• Review metaphor , imagery , irony , symbolism and connotative and denotative language. The definitions for each of these terms can be found through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Internet Public Library.

Activity 1. British Bobbies in Burma

It was once said that the sun never set on the British Empire, whose territory touched every continent on earth. English imperialism evolved through several phases, including the early colonization of North America, to its involvement in South Asia, the colonization of Australia and New Zealand, its role in the nineteenth century scramble for Africa, involvement with politics in the Middle East, and its expansion into Southeast Asia. At the height of its power in the early twentieth century the British Empire had control over nearly two-fifths of the world's land mass and governed an empire of between 300 and 400 million people. It is the addition of the Southeast Asian countries today known as Burma (Myanmar), Malaysia and Singapore that set the stage for Orwell's vignette from the life of a colonial official.

• Review with students the history of the British Empire. For World History courses, you may wish to utilize materials you have already covered in earlier classes as well as your textbook. You may also wish to use the overview of the British Empire that is available through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Internet Public Library.
• Ask students to look at this late nineteenth century map of the British Empire . Have students note which continents had a British colonial presence at the time this map was drawn in 1897. Next, ask students to read through the list of territories which were part of the British Empire in 1921 . Again, ask students to note which continents had a British colonial presence that year. Both the map and the list of territories are available through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Internet Public Library.
• Ask students to read the history of British involvement in Burma available through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Internet Public Library.
• Introduce students to Eric Blair, the man who would take the pen name George Orwell. You may wish to do so by reading the background information above to the class, or by reading a short biography of the writer available through the EDSITEment-reviewed Internet Public Library. Explain that Orwell would spend five years in Burma as an Indian Imperial Police officer. This experience allowed him to see the workings of the British Empire on a daily and very personal level.

Activity 2. The Reluctant Imperialist

Ask students to read George Orwell's essay " Shooting an Elephant " available through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Center for the Liberal Arts . Ask students to take notes as they read of their first impressions, questions that may arise, or their reactions to the story. Ask them to also note any metaphors, symbolism or examples of irony in the text.

• How does Orwell feel about the British presence in Burma? How does he feel about his job with the Indian Imperial police? What are some of the internal conflicts Orwell describes feeling in his role as a colonial police officer? How do you know?
• He wrote and published this essay a number of years after he had left the civil service. How does Orwell describe his feelings about the British Empire, and about his role in it, both at the time he took part in the incident described, and at the time of writing the essay, after having had the opportunity to reflect upon these experiences? Ask students to point to examples in the text which support their view.
• What did Orwell mean by the following sentence: It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism -- the real motives for which despotic governments act .

"All this was perplexing and upsetting. For at that time 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. As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear. In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. 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 flogged with bamboos—all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt. But I could get nothing into perspective. I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East… All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum *, upon the will of the prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts. Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty." * In saecula saeculorum is a liturgical term meaning "for ever and ever"

• Orwell states that he was against the British in their oppression of the Burmese. However, Orwell himself was British, and in his role as a police officer he was part of the oppression he is speaking against. How can he be against the British and their empire when he is a British officer of the empire?
• What does Orwell mean when he writes that he was "theoretically… all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors." Why does he use the word "theoretically" in this sentence, and what does he mean by it?
• How does this "theoretical" belief conflict with his actual feelings? Does he show empathy or sympathy for the Burmese in his description of this incident? Does he show a lack of sympathy? Both? Ask students to focus on the kind of language Orwell uses. How does he convey these feelings through his use of language?
• Does Orwell believe these conflicting feelings can be reconciled? Why or why not?
• What does he mean by "the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East"?

"I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter. No one had the guts to raise a riot, but if a European woman went through the bazaars alone somebody would probably spit betel juice over her dress. As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. 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. This happened more than once. 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, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. 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 ."

• Knowing that Orwell had sympathy for the position of the Burmese under colonialism, how does it make you feel to read the description of the way in which he was treated as a policeman?
• Why do you think the Burmese insulted and laughed at him?
• The first sentence of this paragraph is "In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people- the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me." What does he mean when he says he was "important enough" to be hated?
• As a colonial police officer Orwell was both a visible and accessible symbol to many Burmese. What did he symbolize to the Burmese?
• Orwell was unhappy and angry in his position as a colonial police officer. Why? At whom was his anger directed? What did the Burmese symbolize to Orwell?

Activity 3. The Price of Saving Face

Orwell states "As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him." Later he says "… I did not want to shoot the elephant." Despite feeling that he ought not take this course of action, and feeling that he wished not to take this course, he also feels compelled to shoot the animal. In this activity students will be asked to discuss the reasons why Orwell felt he had to kill the elephant.

"It was perfectly clear to me what I ought to do. I ought to walk up to within, say, twenty-five yards of the elephant and test his behavior. If he charged, I could shoot; if he took no notice of me, it would be safe to leave him until the mahout came back. But also I knew that I was going to do no such thing. I was a poor shot with a rifle and the ground was soft mud into which one would sink at every step. If the elephant charged and I missed him, I should have about as much chance as a toad under a steam-roller. But even then I was not thinking particularly of my own skin, only the watchful yellow faces behind. For at that moment, with the crowd watching me, I was not afraid in the ordinary sense, as I would have been if I had been alone … The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probably that some of them would laugh. That would never do."

• Orwell repeatedly states in the text that he does not want to shoot the elephant. In addition, by the time that he has found the elephant, the animal has become calm and has ceased to be an immediate danger. Despite this, Orwell feels compelled to execute the creature. Why?
• Orwell makes it clear in this essay that he was not a particularly talented rifleman. In the excerpt above he explains that by attempting to shoot the elephant he was putting himself into grave danger. But it is not a fear for his "own skin" which compels him to go through with this course of action. Instead, it was a fear outside of "the ordinary sense." What did Orwell fear?
• In colonial Burma a small number of British civil servants, officers and military personnel were vastly outnumbered by their colonial subjects. They were able to maintain control, in part, because they possessed superior firepower -- a point made clear when Orwell states that the "Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against (the elephant)." Yet, Orwell's description of the relationship between the Burmese and Europeans indicates that the division of power was not necessarily that simple. How did the Burmese resist their colonial masters through non-violent means? Ask students to show examples from the text to support their ideas.
• Ask students to explain how they would feel and what they would do were they in Orwell's position.

Activity 4. Reading Between the Lines

"But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd… They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching. And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd—seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives," and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it ..."

• In this passage Orwell uses a series of metaphors: "seemingly the lead actor," "an absurd puppet," "he wears a mask," "a conjurer about to perform a trick." as well as comparing the colonial official to a "posing dummy." Ask students to examine this series of metaphors individually as well as collectively in order to find the overarching metaphor for the entire incident.
• If Orwell is "seemingly the lead actor," who is the audience? What is the 'part' he is playing?
• If he is "an absurd puppet," then who is the puppeteer? Does Orwell as the puppet have only one person or group pulling his strings, or is there more than one puppet master?
• How are the metaphors of the "absurd puppet" and the "posing dummy" similar?
• How does his description of himself seemingly the lead actor make this metaphor similar to the "absurd puppet" of the next phrase?
• How is Orwell's description of the colonial official as 'wearing a mask' similar to his own part in this situation as the "lead actor"?
• Each of these metaphors has a theatrical basis. In the following paragraph he even 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." What is the 'theater' in which this 'scene' is being 'played'? What is the 'play'?

How does Orwell use metaphors in order to describe a people and a situation geographically and culturally unfamiliar understandable to his readers? Irony

"…The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do."

• When irony is employed by a writer the true intent of his or her words is covered up or even contradicted by the words that are used. Where is irony employed in this excerpt, and what is Orwell's true intent?
• The use of irony often also presumes there being two audiences who will read or hear the delivery of the ironic phrase differently. One audience will hear only the literal meaning of the words, while another audience will hear the intent that lies beneath. Who are the two audiences to whom Orwell is speaking?

Connotation and Denotation

In this section a series of sentences and phrases will be supplied which should provide examples for students to discuss the differences between the connotative and denotative meanings. Explain that denotative meanings are generally the literal meaning of the word, while connotative meanings are the "coloring" attached to words beyond their literal meaning. For example, the "army of people" Orwell refers to in his essay bring to mind not only a large group of people, but also a military and oppositional force. Ask students to explain the connotative and denotative meanings of the following words or phrases using this organizational chart .

• One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening .
• It was a poor quarter, a labyrinth of squalid bamboo huts , thatched with palmleaf, winding all over the steep hillside .
• I marched down the hill, looking and feeling a fool, with the rifle over my shoulder and an ever-growing army of people jostling at my heels.
• They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching.
• He wears a mask , and his face grows to fit it.

Activity 5. Persuasive Perspectives

Orwell was both an accomplished and a prolific essayist whose work covered a large number of topics. Many of his essays are written as third person commentaries or reviews, such as his "Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels." Orwell often chose to include himself in his essays, writing from a first person perspective, such as that employed in one of his most famous essays, "Politics and the English Language."

In these works Orwell uses the first person perspective as a rhetorical strategy for supporting his argument. For example, he opens his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" with the following lines:

"Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent, and our language- so the argument runs- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism … Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes."

In the paragraph which follows the above excerpt Orwell switches from the first person plural to the first person singular. By the second paragraph, however, he has already included his audience in his argument: we cannot do anything; our civilization is decadent. If we disagree with these sentiments, then we are ready to follow Orwell's argument over the following ten pages.

While he does not use the inclusive "we" in "Shooting an Elephant," Orwell's use of the first person perspective is a rhetorical strategy. Discuss with students Orwell's decision to utilize the first person perspective rather than the third person perspective. You might ask question such as:

• How does seeing the incident through both the eyes of Eric Blair, the young colonial police officer, and George Orwell, the reflective essayist, support Orwell's argument?
• How does the story change by having the narrator not only present, but active, in the action of the story?
• How does the use of the first person perspective create a sense of sympathy or understanding for Orwell's position?
• If time permits you may wish to ask students to re-write a section of "Shooting an Elephant" from a different perspective- such as in the third person. What is gained by this shift in perspective? What is lost?

Ask students to write a short essay about one of the following two topics. Students should be sure to support their answers with examples from the text.

• Explain Orwell's use of language, and of rhetorical tools such as the first person perspective, metaphor, symbolism, irony, connotative and denotative language, in his commentary on the colonial project. How does Orwell use language to bring his audience into the immediacy of his world as a colonial police officer?
• The litany of examples of cruelties, insults and moral bankruptcy extend from the Buddhist priests, to the market sellers, the referee, the young British officials who declare the worth of the elephant far above that of an Indian coolie, to Orwell himself. While this essay contains anger and bitterness, is not simply a nihilistic diatribe. In what ways did the project of empire affect all parties involved in the shooting of an elephant?
• George Orwell wrote a second essay called A Hanging about his time as a police officer with the Indian Imperial Police. In addition, Orwell's first novel, Burmese Days , give a fictionalized account of his time in Burma. The essay and the novel are available through the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource Internet Public Library.
• George Orwell was not the only writer to discuss imperialism in his work. Another well known British author, Rudyard Kipling, also made imperialism the focus of some of his works, and the backdrop to many others. Both Orwell and Kipling were born in India to English parents (Kipling was born in Bombay in 1865), and both returned to India after their educations. Despite similar backgrounds their descriptions of empire and their ideas on the moral foundations of the project of empire were quite different. Have students investigate the views of empire by each of these authors through a comparative reading of Orwell's Shooting an Elephant and Kipling's famous poem urging American imperialism in the Philippines, The White Man's Burden . Kipling's poem is available on the EDSITEment-reviewed web resource, History Matters .

Selected EDSITEment Websites

• Burmese history
• History of British Empire in India
• 1897 map of British Empire
• List of British Territories in 1921
• British involvement in Burma
• Biography of George Orwell (Eric Blair)
• Connotation
• Shooting an Elephant
• Burmese Days
• The White Man's Burden

Materials & Media

"shooting an elephant" organizational chart, related on edsitement, animal farm : allegory and the art of persuasion, allegory in painting, fiction and nonfiction for ap english literature and composition, edsitement's recommended reading list for college-bound students.

(92) 336 3216666

[email protected]

• Shooting an Elephant

Read our complete notes on the essay “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell. Our notes cover Shooting an Elephant summary and detailed analysis.

Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell Summary

The narrator of the essay starts with describing the hate he is confronted with in a town in Burma. He says that he is a sub-divisional police officer and is hated by the locals in “aimless, petty kind of way”. He also confesses to being on the wrong side of the history as he explains the inhuman tortures of the British Raj on the local prisoners.

After describing his conditions, he starts telling a story of a fine morning which he considers as “enlightening”. He is told on the phone about an elephant which has shattered his fetters and gone mad, intimidating the localities and causing destructions. The mahout i.e. went in the incorrect way searching for the elephant and now is almost twelve hour’s journey away. The Burmese are unable to stop the elephant as no one in their whole population has a gun or any other weapon and seems to be quite helpless in front of the merciless elephant.

After the phone call, Orwell goes out to search the elephant. While asking in the neighborhood for where they have last sighted the elephant, he suddenly hears yells from a little distance away and immediately follows it.  Going towards the elephant he finds a dead labor around the corner lying in the mud, being a victim of the elephant’s brutality. After seeing the dead labor, he sends orderly to bring him a gun that should be strong enough to kill an elephant.

In the meanwhile, Orwell is informed by the local people about the location of the elephant that was in the paddy field. After seeing the gun in Orwell’s hand, a large number of local people start following him, even those who were previously uninterested in the incident. All of them are only interested and getting excited about the shooting of the elephant. In the field, Orwell sees the elephant calmly gazing and decided not to kill it as it would be wrong to kill such a peaceful creature and to kill it will be like abolishing ‘a huge and costly piece of machinery’.

However, when he gazes back at the mob behind, it has expanded to a thousand and is still expanding, supposing him to fire the elephant. To them, Orwell is like a magician and is tasked with amusing them. By the first thought, he realizes that he is unable to resist the crowd’s wish to kill the elephant and the right price of white westerner’s takeover of the Position is white gentlemen’s independence. He seems to be a kind of “puppet” that is guaranteed to fulfill their subject’s expectancy.

Consequently, Orwell decides to shoot the elephant or in another case, the crowd will laugh at him, which was intolerable to him. At first, he thinks to see the response of the elephant after slightly approaching it, however, it seems dangerous and would make the crowd laugh at him which was utterly humiliating for him. To avoid undesirable awkwardness, he has to kill the elephant. He pointed the gun at the brain of the elephant and fires.

As Orwell fires, the crowd breaks out in anticipation. Being hit by the shot, the elephant bends towards its lap and starts dribbling. Orwell fires the second shot, the elephant appears worse but doesn’t die. As he fires the final gunshot, the elephant shouts it out and falls, fast-moving in the field where he was placed. The elephant is still alive while Orwell shot him more and more but it seems to him that it has no effect on it. The elephant seems to be in great agony and is “helpless to live yet helpless to die”. Orwell, being unable to see the elephant to suffer, go away from the sight. He later heard that the elephant took almost half an hour to pass away and villagers take the meal off its bone shortly after its death.

Orwell’s killing of the monster remained a huge controversy. The owner of the elephant stayed heated, but then again as he was Indian, he has no legal alternative. The aged old people agreed with the Orwell’s killing of the elephant but for the younger one, it appears to be unsuitable to murder an elephant as it killed a coolie– a manual labor. For them, the life of an elephant was additional worth than a life of a coolie. On the one hand, Orwell thinks that he is fortunate that the monster murdered a coolie as it will give his act a lawful clarification while on the other hand, he wonders that anyone among his companions would assume that he murdered the elephant just not to look a fool.

Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell Literary Analysis

About the author:.

George Orwell was one of the most prominent writers of the twentieth century who was well-known for his essays, novels, and articles. His works were most of the times focused on social and political issues. His work is prominent among his contemporary writers because he changed the minds of people regarding the poor. His subject matters are; the miseries of the poor, their oppression by the elite class, and the ills of the British colonialism.

Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell is a satirical essay on the British Imperialism.

The story is a first-person narrative in which the narrator describes his confused state of mind and his inability to decide and act without hesitation. The narrator is a symbol of British colonialism in Burma who, through a window to his thoughts, allegorically gives us an insight into the conflicting ideals of the system.

The essay is embedded with powerful imagery and metaphors. The tone of the essay is not static as it changes from a sadistic tone to a comic tone from time to time. The elephant in the story is the representation of the true inner self of the narrator. He has to kill it against his will in order to maintain the artificial persona he has to bear as a ruler.

The narrator has a sort of hatred for almost all the people that surround him. He hates the Burmese and calls them “evil spirited beasts”, he hates his job, he hates his superiors, he hates British colonialism and even hates himself sometimes for not being able to act according to his will.

On the surface, the essay is a narration of an everyday incident in a town but represents a very grave picture on a deeper level. Orwell satirizes the inhumane behavior of the colonizers towards the colonized and does so very efficiently by using the metaphor of the elephant.

The metaphor of the elephant can be interpreted in many ways. The elephant can also be considered to stand for the job of the narrator which has created a havoc in his life (as the elephant has created in the town). The narrator wants to get rid of it through any possible way and is ready to do anything to put an end to this misery. Also, the elephant is powerful and so is the narrator because of his position but both of them are puppets in the hands of their masters. Plus, they both are creating miseries in the lives of the locals.

Yet another interpretation of this metaphor can be that the elephant symbolizes the local colonized people. The colonizers are ready to kill any local who revolts against their rule just as the narrator kills the elephant which has defied the orders of its master.

Shooting an Elephant Main Themes

Following is the major theme of the essay Shooting an Elephant.

Ills of British Imperialism:

George Orwell, in the narrative essay Shooting an Elephant, expresses his feelings towards British imperialism. The British Raj did not care for anything but for their own material wealth and their ruling personas. The rulers were ready to take the life of any local who dared to stand or speak against their oppression. This behavior of the rulers made the locals full of hatred and mistrust. Therefore, a big gap was created between the colonizers and the colonized which was bad for both of them.

This theme strikes the reader throughout the essay. For instance, the narrator talks about “the dirty work of the empire”. He narrates the conditions of the prisoners in cells who are tortured in an inhumane way. This shows the behavior of the British Raj towards those who dared to stand against their oppression.

The narrator also uses bad adjectives for the locals like “yellow-faced” and even expresses his wish to kill one of them. He does on purpose i.e. to reflect on the point that the colonizers considered the colonizing low humans or probably lower than humans.

More From George Orwell

• Animal Farm

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.4: “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 22488

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

In “Shooting an Elephant,” author George Orwell finds himself in a position of authority as an Indian community encounters a rampaging elephant.

Click on the link to view the essay:  “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell

As you are reading, identify the following:

• The “situation”
• The “complications”
• The “lesson” the author learned from the experience

Why Is Shooting An Elephant By George Orwell Classified As A Reflective Essay

George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is a searing and powerful indictment of British imperialism. The essay, which was first published in 1936, describes Orwell’s experience as a colonial police officer in Burma and his eventual realization that the imperial system was unjust and immoral.

Orwell begins by telling the story of how he was called upon to shoot an elephant that had gone rogue and killed a man. Even though he did not want to kill the animal, he felt that he had no choice because it was his duty as a colonial policeman. As he stood there with gun in hand, ready to kill the creature, Orwell realized that he hated the British empire and everything it stood for.

This experience led Orwell to reflect on the nature of imperialism and its effects on both the colonized and the colonizers. He came to the conclusion that imperialism is a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many, and that it is ultimately doomed to fail.

Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is an important political essay that offers a vivid glimpse into the realities of colonialism. It is also a personal story about one man’s complex relationship with an empire that he both served and despised.

He feels that “It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant,” because it would deprive the owners of their main source of income and would be unethical. However, he then looks at the coolie’s body and decides that he must make some kind of compromise with the animal.

Orwell then proceeds to shoot the elephant three more times, by which point it has fallen to the ground and is clearly dying. In his essay, Orwell reflects on how this event encapsulates his experience as a colonial administrator in British-occupied Burma.

Orwell begins by discussing his personal feelings on imperialism and confessing that he sometimes does enjoy the power that comes with being a colonial administrator. He talks about how the British imperialists see themselves as “civilizing” the native population, but in reality they are often just exploiting them. However, he also acknowledges that there are some benefits to imperialism, such as the advancement of infrastructure and education.

Orwell then goes on to describe the incident that served as the basis for his essay. He was called to deal with an elephant that had gone on a rampage, and when he arrived he found that the animal had already killed a man. He initially hesitated to shoot the elephant, as he knew that it would be expensive for the owner and would cause unnecessary suffering. However, he eventually decided to kill the animal because he felt that it was his duty as a colonial administrator.

However, he claims that “he does not want to shoot him” and confesses after firing the elephant that he was relieved because it cleared him legally and justified his acts. He then admits that he had no choice but to fire it since “the people expected [him] to do it,” and “[h]e’d gotten himself into a hole.”

The narrator confesses that he, and every white male in the East, spent his life attempting to impress or at least avoid being laughed at by the Burmese. He acknowledges that this is why he decided to shoot the elephant, not out of a desire to preserve the innocent or maintain order, as others have suggested.

Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is a reflection on imperialism and the British Empire’s presence in Burma. The story is narrated by an Englishman who is working as a colonial police officer in Moulmein, a town in British-occupied Burma. The unnamed narrator is confronted with a difficult situation when he is called to deal with an elephant that has gone rogue and killed a local man. He does not want to kill the animal, but feels pressure from the Burmese people to do so. Ultimately, he decides to shoot the elephant, but is left feeling frustrated and regretful about his decision.

Shooting an Elephant was written by George Orwell while he was stationed in Burma; thus the tale takes place there, in Burma, Myanmar. The tale is set during a critical time in British history when high rises were being built. In order to express his feelings indirectly, Orwell turned to symbols. An elephant is one of the most popular symbols.

Elephant as a symbol of British imperialism. The essay mainly focuses on the inner conflict of the narrator, a young British Imperial police officer who is forced to shoot an elephant against his own will.

The story is set in Burma, Myanmar, during the British colonial period. At that time, Burma was a province of British India. The British had been ruling Burma for nearly sixty years, and the Burmese people were increasingly resentful of their rule.

Orwell himself was a young British imperial police officer in Burma at the time. He was not particularly happy with his job, but he did not openly express his discontent. He was required to uphold the law and maintain order, even though he sympathized with the Burmese people.

One day, a huge elephant went on a rampage in a village, destroying property and killing a man. The villagers begged Orwell to shoot the elephant, but he was hesitant to do so. He did not want to kill the animal, but he felt that he had no choice.

Orwell eventually shot the elephant, but he felt great remorse afterwards. He realized that he had killed the animal for no good reason, and that the whole incident was a symbol of British imperialism.

Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is not just a story about shooting an elephant. It is also a reflection on imperialism and its effects on both the oppressors and the oppressed.

“I do not know what the elephant symbolizes. The empire is comparable to an elephant, as Orwell explains in his narrative sentence about the elephant’s death. Orwell uses narrational sentences to describe the elephant when it dies. These phrases illustrate that the elephant represents the British Empire. One might have guessed him to be thousands of years old. (5)”

It was not, of course, a wild elephant, but a tame one which had gone “must.” It had been chained up, as tame elephants always are when their attack of must is due, but on the morning of the day it went must it had broken its chain and escaped. (1)”The mahout, the Burmese driver, was shouting to make them clear out of the way: he saw that I intended to shoot the elephant whether anyone liked it or not. The crowd grew very agitated.(3)”I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool. (4) “And immediately afterwards I heard two shots. They were firing at the elephant’s heart, just behind the left shoulder. (7)”

It was not dying, it was already dead. I had come too late. The wretched beast had made its last gasp and lay trundling on its side among the trampled grass with its muddy trunk near me, looking more like a huge land-crab than anything else.(8)” From these sentences, we can find out that Orwell uses the animal to symbolize British Empire. When it dies, it means the empire is finished; when people are shooting at it, it means people don’t like the empire anymore.

More Essays

• Shooting An Elephant George Orwell Summary
• Did George Orwell Want To Kill The Elephant Analysis Essay
• Shooting An Elephant Analysis Essay
• What Is George Orwell’s Message In The Novel Animal Farm
• Animal Farm by George Orwell
• Elephant Run Summary
• Satirical Allegory In George Orwell’s Animal Farm Essay
• Utopia In George Orwell’s 1984 Essay
• Essay about The Power Of Dictatorship In George Orwell’s Animal Farm
• Narrative Violence In George Orwell’s Animal Farm Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Imperialism in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction.

Various principles of domestic and foreign policy have evolved throughout human history. Driven by many factors that benefit their country, rulers have taken action that they believe is necessary to improve its well-being. The apogee of this policy is the desire to subdue and conquer new countries and territories, which has been named imperialism. This critical writing paper will discuss the text of “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell (1936), which represents the author’s personal experience and his feelings in the context of this imperialism. An argument of the paper states that conveying an opinion on a topic that concerns the author through personal experiences is an effective method for transmitting their point of view to the reader. To illustrate how imperialism affects a person’s will and consciousness, the author tells the story of an elephant they shot with a gun. The text depicts imperialism as not only some of the basest vices of the person but as a trigger of forcing other people unconsciously to follow it unless they have the fortitude to resist it.

The Topic That the Text Explores

The text explores the topic of imperialism and the ability to make the right decision independently. As a way to broadcast the vices of imperialism, the author of the text uses their memories and talks about their feelings. Due to this approach, the reader can get acquainted with what the author experienced during a certain period of their life and why the topic of imperialism is important to them. Moreover, it is essential to emphasize that the author pays special attention to the transmission of their negative memories in order to reflect all the drawbacks of imperialism. An example is the author’s words concerning their supposed enjoyment of driving a bayonet into the guts of a Buddhist priest (Orwell). According to Orwell, “feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism” (1). Hence, such a vivid example of their own experience from life allows the author to reflect on situations that demonstrate the flaws of the concept of imperialism, which is the topic of the text.

Author’s Attitude about The Issue and The Way They Express Their Opinion

The author of the text has a great aversion to the vices and principles of imperialism. It is expressed in their description of the behavior of the British people, who took imperialism as the basis of life outside of the country. However, it is essential to note that the author makes no definite conclusion regarding this topic. Instead, they tell a story from their own life, to which most of the text is devoted. Thankfully, in the story with the elephant, the reader can trace the sequence of the author’s thoughts and the logic of their actions in the context of imperialism.

The elephant that fled from its master and destroyed the villagers’ homes became dangerous to humans and had to be shot. The author deliberately emphasizes the people’s desire to kill the elephant and the pressure they put on them. As Orwell states, “I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly” (3). The reader can notice how the author’s opinion changed from confidence not to kill an elephant to indulging people’s will to kill him to not seem weak and indecisive. According to Orwell, “I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” (5). Therefore, the author highlights the critical defect of imperialism, which consists of unconscious adherence to imperialism, even with the understanding of its cruelty and inhumanity.

In conclusion, it is important to stress that due to the descriptive part of the text devoted to the author’s life experience, the reader can immerse in the events described and assess changes in the author’s thinking process. This way of writing about imperialism allows a qualitative and detailed reflection of the author’s argument. The text demonstrates that imperialism negatively influences people’s thinking and forces them to follow its rules regardless of their own opinions and consciousness.

Orwell, George. “Shooting an elephant.” The Orwell Foundation. Autumn, 1936.

• George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" Short Story
• Society's Self-Reflection: "Shooting an Elephant" and "The Real Story of Ah Q"
• "Shooting the Elephant" a Story by George Orwell
• The Skipper in The Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
• The Novel "Persuasion" by Jane Austen
• Confronting Fear in Rowling's Wizarding World
• Fairytale Elements in Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
• Heathcliff, Villain and Hero, in Bronte's Wuthering Heights
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, May 23). Imperialism in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”. https://ivypanda.com/essays/imperialism-in-orwells-shooting-an-elephant/

"Imperialism in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”." IvyPanda , 23 May 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/imperialism-in-orwells-shooting-an-elephant/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Imperialism in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”'. 23 May.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Imperialism in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”." May 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/imperialism-in-orwells-shooting-an-elephant/.

1. IvyPanda . "Imperialism in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”." May 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/imperialism-in-orwells-shooting-an-elephant/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Imperialism in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”." May 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/imperialism-in-orwells-shooting-an-elephant/.

Reflective Essay

Learning tips, tricks and hints

Why Is Shooting An Elephant Classified As A Reflective Essay?

Why is Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell classified as a reflective essay? There are a number of theories on what constitutes an essay, but they all boil down to the purpose and use of the essay. An essay is an essay, whether it is written to entertain, to inform, to express, or to inform.

This book’s essay is a reflective essay about the dangers of war, and about war. It is a reflection on why the people who write essays are required to read this book. It’s a commentary on the importance of learning about the world around you, and the dangers you could be exposed to.

In fact, there are many points where one might question if it is possible to draw lessons from the text of the book – in particular, one of the main points by George Orwell is that war, especially war between nations can destroy a society. If an enemy nation were to invade your country, what would happen to your political system, your cultural traditions, your way of life? If that nation were to take over your country, would you have an ability to resist that change? Could you fight off such a foreign invasion and maintain your freedoms?

One can only conclude then, that reading The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell is one of the best decisions an individual could make. It is not only an interesting novel but also a reflection on the power of the mind. In the book, it is argued that the human mind is so powerful that it can manipulate itself into believing just about anything it wishes to see. Therefore, an intelligent human being would be capable of thinking up a list of reasons to kill a million people, rather than one.

And therefore, it’s difficult to argue that George Orwell is not an interesting author, at least when he writes such an insightful piece. He offers up many ideas in his essay, and they are some that are worthy of consideration. But, in the end, they are thoughts, and not the answers that one needs to make a decision.

George Orwell, in his essay, tries to answer the question as to why war is such a good idea. It is because the war will benefit society and the mankind that will fight it. It will make the world a better place. And, he argues, it will protect the people that are on the front lines from the danger.

It is not a moral argument, because, it is not about war. People will decide to fight, but whether they will do so out of a desire for justice, or because they wish to win. No matter what one’s moral views are about war, the moral reasoning is still a subjective issue.

There are no universal morals in any case, and there is nothing to be gained from one’s morality by fighting, no matter how it might be expressed. It’s only a question that need to be answered, and that should be answered by considering both sides and what each side stands to gain.

And, in order to do this, one must look at each side with its own eyes. One must look at each individual with his or her own eyes. It does not matter if one believes the war is right. One must consider it from the eyes of the other side and not from ones own.

These are the only steps that one can take in considering such actions. And, since the essay is not an argument, it is not even possible to know whether one’s own point of view on the war is correct.

What one must be sure of is one’s ability to understand. and the ability to think critically. It is the ability to think objectively, to look at what one sees and then apply one’s own logic and reason to that. If one cannot, then one has already missed the entire point of the argument.