Saturday, March 29, 2014

If you were in the narrator's position in "Shooting an Elephant," would you give up your job? Why or why not?

On first glance, it appears that the narrator should give up his job. As an English policeman in Colonial Burma, he is hated by the people he polices and experiences their discontent on a daily basis. He is deliberately tripped up while playing football, for example, and booed and jeered by Burmese priests. Furthermore, he does not agree with imperialism, having "seen the dirty work of the Empire at close quarters. By this, Orwell refers to the brutal and violent treatment of the Burmese when they do not follow British rules:



The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey cowed faces of the long-term convicts…all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt.



On the other hand, however, Orwell admits to being "young and ill-educated" at this time. He knows that there is nothing than he can do to change this situation and that he cannot speak out against the regime:



I had to think out my problems in this utter silence imposed on every Englishman in the East.



Giving up this job, however, is arguably the best course of action. While imperialism cannot be beaten by one man, history shows that it was already in demise and about to be supplanted by a number of "younger empires."

No comments:

Post a Comment

What was the device called which Faber had given Montag in order to communicate with him?

In Part Two "The Sieve and the Sand" of the novel Fahrenheit 451, Montag travels to Faber's house trying to find meaning in th...