In “Shooting the Elephant” by George Orwell, the power appears to be unequally divided between the British Empire, and the Burmese citizens. Orwell himself, a British officer, wields almost no power. In vastly different ways, Orwell is subservient to both the British officials, who are known to be his superiors, and also the Burmese citizens, who he is supposed to have power over. The British Empire has direct power over the Burmese citizens, as Orwell states, “I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British”. The British clearly have power over the Burmese, but the fact that this statement by Orwell was modified to be “theoretically and secretly” expresses the power that the British had over him as well. This relates back to Scott’s argument that the oppressed are conscious of their oppression and secretly condemn it. In addition, the Burmese have power over Orwell through their expectations of how he, and the rest of the British officials, should act.\u00a0 Orwell admits that he “did not want to shoot the elephant” and he only ended up shooting it “to avoid looking like a fool.”\u00a0 Orwell was bound by what the Burmese thought an officer should do, so he had to comply despite it not being what he wanted, which is a form of power being exerted. The little power Orwell has does not come from his status as a British officer, rather it stems from the fact that he is human. Ultimately, the elephant died and the gun was in Orwell’s hands, displaying the power humans exert over all other animals in the world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In “Shooting the Elephant” by George Orwell, the power appears to be unequally divided between the British Empire, and the Burmese citizens. Orwell himself, a British officer, wields almost no power. In vastly different ways, Orwell is subservient to both … Continue reading