Discussion Topic
Hostility and Anti-European Sentiment in "Shooting an Elephant"
Summary:
In George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant," anti-European sentiment among the Burmese is a central theme, reflecting the negative impact of British colonial rule. The Burmese people express their resentment through petty annoyances rather than open rebellion, jeering and insulting Europeans from a distance. This hostility stems from the imposition of foreign laws and customs, which clashed with their traditions, leading to feelings of subjugation and powerlessness. The narrator, a British officer, feels the weight of this animosity, highlighting the moral complexities of imperialism.
Discuss the 'anti-European feeling' in 'Shooting an Elephant'.
George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant talks about how imperialism and colonialism negatively affected both the oppressed and the oppressors, albeit in different ways. In the first few lines of the story, the narrator acknowledges the fact that that the British rule over the Burmese people had made them bear deep and strong anti-European sentiments. The narrator is also aware that the local people of Burma hate him, and this makes him sad and uncomfortable.
… 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. I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter.
The narrator works as a police officer in Moulmein, Lower Burma during the time of British colonisation. Not only the Burmese people but the narrator too...
Unlock
This Answer NowStart your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
is against the British laws and policies in Burma. Throughout the story, he expresses how burdened he feels to be a part of the system that oppresses and subjugates the local people. He finds all of it "perplexing and upsetting". Through the narrator’s ambivalence in the British governance, his feeling of a deep sense of guilt doing his duties as well as his taking side of the Burmese people,Orwell shows how the anti-European feeling attacked not only those who were oppressed by the system but also those at the other side of the equation.
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…
References
Are there anti-European feelings in Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant"?
Anti-European feelings drive the narrative in "Shooting an Elephant." The story's narrator sets the tone in the first sentence by saying, "In lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people." These people, as he goes on to explain, are the native Burmese, who hate their European colonizers. The narrator says the "anti- European feeling was very bitter." Nobody has the nerve to openly rebel, but the native people do all sorts of small things that make the narrator's life, as a police officer and representative of the British empire, a misery: they trip him on the football (soccer) field while the referee looks the other and in the town, "hoot ...insults" at him when he is too far down the street to retaliate. He says the Buddhists priests are the worst: they seem to have nothing to do but "stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans."
It is this tense, hostile relationship between the narrator and the natives that leads him to feel he has no choice but the shoot the elephant, even though he knows it is the wrong thing to do. Europeans are not supposed to show fear in front of the natives. He shoots the elephant, even though it causes the animal to suffer, because he can't afford to lose face in front of the Burmese.
How does "Shooting an Elephant" portray the Burmese people's behavior towards Europeans?
George Orwell begins "Shooting an Elephant" with the observation that the Burmese people in Moulmein hated him and the other Europeans. They displayed this hatred not in open rebellion and violence, but in numerous petty annoyances. The Burmese would jeer at the Europeans from a safe distance, shout insults at them, and sometimes spit at them in crowded bazaars. When Orwell played in a football match, one of the Burmese players tripped him up, and the referee pretended not to notice, to the delight of the crowd.
Although the Burmese clearly resent the Europeans, they show them a certain grudging respect as figures of authority. This is why Orwell had to try so hard not to look foolish when faced with the runaway elephant. The large crowd of Burmese people that gathered to watch him deal with the situation wanted to see him shoot the elephant. This course of action did not make him popular, but it did fulfil what the crowd saw as his obligation in his role as an authority figure.
It is clear at the end of the essay that the Burmese people still hate Orwell and will continue to insult him and jeer at him, but at least he has done what a European is expected to do and has therefore avoided looking a fool.
Why were interactions between Burmese people and Europeans in "Shooting an Elephant" hostile?
The Burmese didn't appreciate British ingerence into their affairs since colonialism, as always, went hand in hand with imperialism and exploitation of the indigenous people. Who after all would want that kind of treatment, even if there were indeed intermittant windfalls, such as improved roads or better opportunities in education? The Burmese government had lent an ear to the sirens' song of false economic advancement via collaboration with the British Empire and thus had to stoop to bear the yoke of subservience as part of the price to pay:
Indeed, one of the chief consequences of Western imperial expansion in Asia (as in Africa) was that it brought industrialized and non-industrialized societies forcibly together in a world made ever smaller by technological progress and so provoked resentment between the ‘‘haves’’ and ‘‘have-nots.’’
- eNotes: shooting-elephant/historical-context
Note that both France and the Netherlands were on the scene as well, each of these three powers vying for its territory in an up-for-grabs geopolitical Monopoly game. The crash of '39 put an end to such speculation as the poles of power could no longer follow through with their plans for development in these regions.
A fair trade policy or equitable commerce ethic is difficult enough to practise today; at Orwell's time such an idea would not even have been conceivable. The "great white father" era was beating in full fervour and Orwell (Eric Blair) quickly became disheartened by the exploitation he witnessed (and even had been a part of for a time). The references below give more insight concerning this.
Why are the interactions between the Burmese and Europeans in "Shooting an Elephant" hostile?
Orwell is trying to point out the effects of colonialism on native peoples. The Europeans brought not only their government, but also their customs, expectations, laws and culture to Burma when they took over the country. These ideas often clashed with centuries old traditions and beliefs. Suddenly, the natives saw themselves as lower class citizens on whom the British were forced changes in laws and customs that they had never practiced. This forced change caused the Burmese to hate the English for bringing and enforcing foreign laws and customs on them. Because of the British military strength, they also saw themselves as helpless pawns in European issues that they had no interest in. So, when they could, they rebelled,often in little ways, which made the British uncomfortable.