Swayed by both British and Burmese forces, Orwell developed ambivalent feelings toward both groups. Pitying the Burmese, who were controlled by the British, yet angered for having to endure continuous harassment by the natives. And being forced to support the British in their efforts of imperialism, yet secretly feeling opposition towards their cause. In “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, these feelings toward both groups were conveyed through the use of derogatory diction, irony, antithesis, and sympathetic portrayal. These feelings toward the British and Burmese were also an internal conflict that resided inside Orwell, however, foreshadowing showed the external conflicts that later unfolded in the narrative.
Everyday life enduring…show more content… Orwell introduces this conflict by writing about the harassment that he endured by the Burmese although Orwell was a British officer monitoring British-occupied Burma. This conflict later develops to not allow Orwell a choice in shooting an elephant that ravages through a Burmese town because, “[the European] shall spend his life trying to impress the “natives,” and so in every crisis he has got to do what the “natives” expect of him.” This internal conflict causes him to shoot the elephant, that dies along with his freedom. Orwell also uses foreshadowing to suggest what will later develop in the passage. In the beginning Orwell “... thought the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny… ”, however, representing the elephant that he shot, the British Raj falls to its death. Both the ambivalent relationships that Orwell had with the British and Burmese and conflicts that occurred in the essay, highlights the problem with imperialism. Through the imprisonment and brutality that the Burmese faced and the hatred toward one another, the British Raj collapsed. This shows that when one is greedy and savage their efforts will eventually
