https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=PwlGVaANX54&ab_channel=JamesGiven

What does "must" mean in "Shooting an Elephant"?

In "Shooting an Elephant," the term "must" refers to a period of crazed behavior exhibited
periodically by a male elephant.

Must, as the narrator calls it, or musth, is a term that means a male elephant is
experiencing a huge surge of the hormone testosterone throughout his body. This leads
to aggressive behavior which can be dangerous to human beings.

What is the main point of the

essay "Shooting an Elephant"
by George Orwell?
One could argue that the main point of "Shooting an Elephant" is to

show how colonialism corrupts the soul: not just the souls of those

who are subject to colonial repression, but also the souls of the

colonists themselves.

The colonial policeman in the story—clearly based on Orwell

" is to show how colonialism corrupts the soul: not just the souls of those who are
subject to colonial repression, but also the souls of the colonists themselves.
himself—doesn't really want to kill the elephant. But he knows that he must do so in
order to satisfy the expectations of his superiors as well as those of the indigenous
Burmese. In this way, the policeman's soul has been corrupted by his duties as a
colonial functionary.
In the process, the policeman becomes someone he isn't. The indigenous people hate
him without knowing anything about him as a person. All they see is a colonial authority
figure. As such, they expect him to shoot the elephant. But the real man beneath the
uniform doesn't want to do that. He's still the same person he ever was, even though his
soul has been corrupted. The very fact that he's so uneasy about shooting the elephant
shows that he still retains something of his humanity, though how much longer that will
last after he's performed this latest act of duty is a matter of debate.

In "Shooting an Elephant,"
what do you think Orwell
means by "He wears a mask
and his face grows to fit it"?
In "Shooting an Elephant," when Orwell says "He wears a mask and
his face grows to fit it," he means that the more a person puts on a
"mask" by acting how they are expected to act, the more they
gradually transform into the image they present and the more their
behavior permanently changes.

In Orwell's short story "Shooting an Elephant ," ," a British police

officer stationed in Lower Burma succumbs to peer pressure from
the native people and shoots a harmless elephant against his will.
Moments before firing his rifle, the British officer experiences an
epiphany and recognizes the futility of colonial oppression. Orwell
writes,

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. I had got to shoot the elephant.
The mask the British officer wears refers to his reputation as a
resolute, callous master who is unsympathetic and always in control
of every situation. As an agent of the colonial regime, the British
officer recognizes that he must always maintain a certain
disposition, even if it means acting against his will in order to
uphold his expected standard. For example, the British officer
understands that the elephant is no longer a threat and that he
should simply wait for its mahout to return. However, he also knows
that he must behave a certain way in front of the native people,
who expect him to kill the beast.

The mask creates an internal conflict in the officer, who wrestles

with his conscience and struggles to live up to the expectations of
what his job demands. When the officer wears the symbolic mask,
he behaves like a callous enforcer and his character will eventually
change, transforming him into a new man. By continuing to perform
and act like a resolute oppressor, the British officer will become the
person he pretends to be on an everyday basis.

Or,

In this selection, the narrator highlights the problem with the sensibility and bureaucratic order that the
British established in Burma as a means to control the population. The population of Burma had followed
their own body of laws and customs for generations, only to have them replaced by the British. In
response, the Burmese people force the British to live up to the same standards. Much of the British
imperialist ideology is grounded in the idea that British culture and societal structure is superior to that of
the subjugated peoples. For them to break their own system of laws would call into question the
legitimacy of this imperialist argument.
As the narrator suggests, instead of reevaluating the imperialist ideology and coming to terms with the
notion that British societal structure may not in fact be superior to that of the Burmese, the British
representatives in Burma strive to consistently live up to these standards. The narrator states this attempt
as if it were itself a codified rule, saying, "For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life
trying to impress the 'natives'". His language shifts from that of a story teller to that of a judge or legal
professional. This law requires that every British person employed in the imperial project must represent
the standards that the British Empire suggests. The narrator then shortens this notion into the phrase,
"He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it". With this phrase, the narrator concretely refers to the
distance between British conceptions of their own superiority over their subject peoples with the reality of
the relationship. The face, the actual nature of the British people, must grow into an artificially
constructed mask of British imperial ideology.
Explain what Orwell means
by, "When the white man
turns tyrant, it is his own
freedom that he destroys."
It is very important to read this quote from Orwell's excellent essay

in context and to read what he says in the rest of the paragraph.

Orwell uses a simile to describe how the massive crowd witnessing

this situation is watching Orwell:

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 realised 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.
This comparison to a conjurer shows that the narrator feels that

people expect extraordinary and powerful action

from him. He has come to embody the myth of the all-powerful

Empire and cannot free himself from the role in

which he has been cast. The comparison helps Orwell show the

effect of colonialism on those empowered to carry it out.

This pressure sparks off an internal realisation in Orwell - he

sees that he is "seemingly the leading actor of the piece", but in

reality he is only "an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the

will of those yellow faces behind." This is when Orwell uses the

quote you have highlighted - in making himself the "Great

White Man", or "turning tyrant", the white man only gains for

himself the illusion of freedom whilst secretly annihilating it as

he is forced to play his role before his subjects. Note what

Orwell says after your quote:

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.

 It is this mask of white man's own making that restricts him so

utterly, as Orwell found in his dilemma with the elephant...

What does the elephant symbolize in "Shooting an

Elephant"?

Orwell uses the elephant metaphor to represent several elements.

1. It represents a death of his innocence so to speak. As a young

employee representing Britain in a foreign land, he did not first

realize the often negative impact his country had upon its subjects.

2. The death of the elephant also symbolizes a rebellion against the

rule of the British. The Burmese people clamor for the elephant's

death just as they long to see the death of the huge British Empire's

rule in their country.

3.The idea of the elephant dying slowly in a "world remote,"

demonstrates the death of British ideals and ultimate power.

Ironically, Orwell sees the British way of life being destroyed not in

Britain where humans might mourn their loss but in a far away land

where Britain tried to impose its customs upon others..

How is Orwell treated by the
local Burmese in "Shooting an
Elephant"?
In his reminiscent and reflective essay, "Shooting an Elephant,"

George Orwell finds his role as a British officer to symbolize colonial

authority. As such, the Burmese people react to him with animosity

and resentment.

The antipathy of the Burmese people manifests as the Burmese

people meeting Orwell ... with "sneering faces," or a Burmese

referee on the soccer field looking the other way when a nimble

Burmese player trips him. Young Burmese men

hurl insults at him after he has gone a safe distance past

them. Worst of all, Orwell states, are the Buddhist priests who

"seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and

jeer at Europeans."

Orwell realizes that to the Burmese he represents British colonial

authority and its oppression. When he responds to the call about a

rogue elephant, the crowd that forms eyes him with resentment,
disdain, and hatred. Witnessing these feelings, Orwell notes that

"[W]hen the white man turns tyrant, it is his own freedom that he

destroys."

Orwell finds himself compromised by his position, and he feels that

he must kill the elephant because "every white man's life in the East

was one long struggle not to be laughed at."

Orwell shoots the elephant "solely to avoid looking like a fool" since

he has appeared on the scene as a figure of British

authority. Upon later reflection, Orwell realizes he has

exhibited moral cowardice in killing the elephant, a walking

symbol of human nature that is sacrificed as an innocent victim of

the oppression of colonialism.

Why did Orwell decide to

shoot the elephant at last?
And why three times?

Throughout the short story, the narrator continually remarks that he

has no intentions of shooting the elephant. However, when the

British police officer requests an elephant gun to ensure his safety,

a large crowd begins to gather and follow him towards the elephant.

Upon spotting the elephant calmly eating grass by itself, the

narrator believes that there is absolutely no reason to take its life.

However, the police officer feels pressure from the crowd of

Burmese citizens to shoot the elephant. Being a figure of colonial

authority, the police officer feels the pressure to be perceived as

callous and resolute in his decision-making. He also does not want

to look like a fool in front of the Burmese citizens and decides to

shoot the majestic creature out of peer-pressure.

After his initial shot, the elephant remains standing, and the

narrator shoots it two more times. The British officer simply wants

to put the elephant out of its misery and end the uncomfortable

situation. The three shots are symbolically significant, as they can

be seen as representing the three Anglo-Burmese Wars. The

elephant's resilience, then, represents the Burmese citizens and

culture under the oppressive rule of the British. Despite the three

shots, the police officer continues to shoot the dying elephant

without ending its life. Later on, the officer receives word that it

took the elephant half an hour to die.

What rhetorical devices are
used in "Shooting an
Elephant"?

Rhetorical devices used in "Shooting an Elephant" include imagery,

simile, and irony, all of which emphasize the many injustices done

by the British Empire. For example, Orwell uses powerful similes to

describe the prolonged death of the elephant, likening its trunk to a

tree, before it trumpets for the last time. By using such

descriptions, Orwell evokes greater emotion from his readers, who

also recognize the irony of Orwell's position, as he didn't want to

shoot the elephant at all.

rhetorical devices are persuasive devices. Orwell, in this essay,

wants to persuade us that imperialism is a system that is

destructive towards everyone involved in it. One way he does this is

through the use of imagery . . Imagery is description that uses any

of the five sense of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. For

example, Orwell uses the vivid imagery of the narrator imagining

the pleasure he would experience if he could "drive a bayonet into a

Buddhist priest’s guts." This image shocks us in its savagery and

shows how imperialism dehumanizes the British who are caught up

in it.

Orwell uses , a comparison using the words , to show the power and

beauty of the dying elephant, swaying us to feel sympathy for the

creature. He has his narrator liken the elephant's legs to a "huge

rock toppling"; the elephant's trunk reaches "skyward like a tree,"

and his blood is like "red velvet." All of these similes impart dignity

to the dying animal.

Another rhetorical device Orwell employs is . It is ironic, or not what

we would expect, that a supposedly civilized British citizen would be

that the elephant had killed a man, because that act has exonerated

the narrator of all blame for killing the elephant. We recoil as we

realize that the narrator has become so callous that he is somewhat

comforted by the fact that the system can cover up the wrong he

has done, even at the cost of a life. He says,

I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in

the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the

elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I

had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.

In his essay, "Shooting an
Elephant," George Orwell
differentiates between the
views of the older and the
younger British officers.
What are their views, and why
is one view better than the
other?

In the final paragraph of his essay, "Shooting an Elephant," George

Orwell gives a description of the reactions of the unnamed

protagonist's fellow officer's to his (the character's) killing of an

elephant that allegedly went mad and trampled an Indian village

woman.
In the final paragraph of his essay, Orwell gives a description of the

reactions of the unnamed 's fellow officer's to his (the character's)

killing of an elephant that allegedly went mad and trampled an

Indian village woman. He says

Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the

shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, but he was only an

Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right

thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its

owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided.

The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn

shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant

was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie. And afterwards I

was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in

the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the

elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I

had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.

The unnamed officer's peers are divided between older officers and

younger officers, and each group holds opposite opinions to the

other. Where the older officers assure our protagonist that he was

in the right for putting down a potentially dangerous animal, the

younger officers believe that it would be better to let the animal

live. As for who is right and who is wrong, it comes down to a basic

interpretation of the text and the morals of the individual reader.

The younger officers are, indeed, difficult to sympathize with,

considering their extremely prejudiced language. They say quite

explicitly, "an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee

coolie," meaning that the elephant was more important than the

native person that it had killed. However, when looking at the text

as a whole, and the hatred and prejudice that the officers

experience at the hands of the Burmese people (in the beginning of

the text, Orwell explores the cruelties enacted by the natives in

reaction to the very strong "anti-British" feeling in the area), we can

understand the reactionary emotion behind it. In addition, Orwell's

character states, "as soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect

certainty that I ought not to shoot him... [a]nd at that distance,

peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a

cow. I thought then and I think now that his attack of "must" was

already passing off; in which case he would merely wander

harmlessly about until the mahout came back and caught him."

However, pressured by the Burmese people who had been the

cause of many of his torments, the protagonist has a strong desire

to appease the natives, and kills the animal anyway.

By contrast, the older officers had spent more time in the area,

dealing with these people, and therefore had a better sense of how

to remove themselves from the emotional aspects of the job. For

the safety of the officer (and to make the job easier), it is a wise

decision to gain the trust and respect of the people under their

protection. And as the elephant had already killed a man, it was the

right thing to do to put the elephant down. As for which is the

correct approach, or who was in the right, the question simply boils

down to the audience's moral code and interpretation of the text.

The fun thing about literature is that there is rarely a single "right"

answer, so long as you can back it up with evidence from the text.

In "Shooting an Elephant" by
George Orwell, how does
Orwell characterize "every
white man's life" in the East?

In his essay, “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell relates not only

the experience of shooting an escaped elephant, but also the

understanding that he gains while being a police officer in Burma.

As a police officer, Orwell is the immediate manifestation of the

British colonial government among.

In his Shooting an Elephant relates not only the experience of

shooting an escaped elephant, but also the understanding that he

gains while being a police officer in Burma. As a police officer, is

the immediate manifestation of the British colonial government

among the Burmese people with whom he interacts. From his

experiences, he grows to feel that his main struggle is “not to be

laughed at,” a struggle he generalizes to other white men in the

East.

Early in the essay, Orwell takes pains not only to describe his view

of his job, but also to give the reader an overview of how he is

received by the Burmese people around him. It is clear that Orwell,

a self-confessed critic of imperialism, is struggling with his role, and

the meaning of his role, as a representative of the British colonial

government in Burma. He knows that he is not really an important

piece of the governmental machine, but he also recognizes that he

is a prominent face of that government with the people in the

district in which he serves. This creates in Orwell a kind of

disassociation between what he believes and who he has to be.

This dissociation is highlighted when he decides to shoot the

elephant. He decides to shoot the elephant not because the

elephant is still a danger at the time he finds it, but rather because

he does not want to look foolish. He then understands that he is at

the mercy of the crowd around him, and that thus he is governed by

them rather than they being governed by him:

Orwell projects this lesson he has learned onto other people

situated the same as he is. It is, he believes, the fear of looking

foolish – the “one long struggle not to be laughed at” – that is the

primary burden that white men in the East bear.