Shooting an Elephant

Eric Chan
Professor Dowdy
English1A
December 5, 2009
Shooting an Elephant Argumentation

          According to George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”, he reveals that he believes in anti-imperialism and feels trapped between his occupation as a police officer and his interest for the Burmese people. During this period, there was intense anti-European animosity. As a police officer, Orwell was often criticized for being seen as an imperial oppressor. From Orwell’s standpoint, he faces a tough decision on whether to remain true to his beliefs and prefer personal conscience. In the essay, his duty was to end the tyranny of a loose elephant. Since his duty was to enforce peace in the village; Orwell was pressured by both the Burmese people and the government to kill the elephant. On the other hand, Orwell honestly doesn’t believe that there was a need for killing the elephant. Orwell was in conflict with himself about whether he should be going against his moral beliefs. He also believed that he had to show solidarity as a man of authority. Even though he feels manipulated by everyone, he unwillingly chose to end the life of the elephant. In the end, Orwell’s decision to cease the life of the elephant was the only legitimate way to end the fear and mayhem throughout the village.
          In disagreement with George Orwell’s essay, it wasn’t a tough decision to end the life of the elephant. There were many reasons why he should have done what he did. A reason was the destruction of properties and also taking people’s life away. The elephant already trampled a hut, killed a cow and a man, destroyed a government garbage van, and also destroyed a fruit stand. With all these reason, it was necessary to maintain order and stop this from happening. If he hadn’t killed the elephant, more disasters would’ve struck. The elephant would continue to rampage the village and kill again if Orwell was unable to contain it.
          Having a role as a police officer... [continues]

Read full essay