George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant allows us the opportunity to witness the thoughts of the dominator as he interacts with those he dominates. James Scott would refer to what we read as Orwell’s hidden transcript; we got to see both how he acted as a British officer doing his job, and also how he truly felt, as he shot the elephant simply to avoid being made look like a fool in front of the Burmese. Naturally, seeing Orwell’s hidden transcript readers might sympathize with how he felt powerless with the gun in his hand, and how “two thousand wills” seemed to be exerting a force over him that drove him to act (Orwell, 3). However, if we actually consider the role of the Burmese in this power dynamic, this is not the case.

Consider two less important characters: the elephant owner and the elephant’s victim. The owner, according to Orwell, “was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing” (Orwell, 4). His ability to seek legal retribution was nonexistent because of his race. By not allowing the elephant owner to air his grievances, we see Gaventa’s second dimension of power where the powerful control by setting the agenda. Furthermore, some of Orwell’s peers declared that it was a “damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie,” suggesting that the native victim was less than equal in his oppressors’ eyes (Orwell, 4). Thus, while Orwell’s narrative is compelling in demonstrating the power of the oppressed over the oppressor, their titles are still just that, and in most every place in this colonial society, it is the English oppressor who has power over the natives.