Response to "Shooting an Elephant"

1.       It’s been long debated that George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is not an actual biography of this particular life experience, but instead a fiction story. What do you think after reading it?

2.      Has the slow demise of imperialism in Burma affected them in a positive or negative manner?

3.      Do you think that the man depicted in this story did what “he had to do?” Or was he a coward for letting the pressure of “not being laughed at” cloud his judgment and commit an unnecessary murder?

 

After reading Orwell’s, “Shooting and Elephant”, a couple of questions came to mind. I mainly reflected on how vicious and inhumane this “must” killing was and how I wanted to vomit after reading the highly descriptive way this magnificent creature died. However, I think he did the right thing. That is why I would like to discuss the importance of question number three.

This question of whether or not it was a just kill reminded me of a debate I had with my friend at work about a recent episode of our favorite show, “The Walking Dead.” In it, the young boy (main character Carl) is confronted by an enemy who had been firing shots at him earlier in a conflict. The enemy is a young boy himself and Carl shoots him in the head as he is attempting to surrender and hand over his weapon. The three witnesses that watched it all occur seemed shocked and horrified that this was what transpired. Carl is later confronted by his father who almost seems to question whether he did the right thing or not. Carl defends himself saying, “I did what I had to do dad.” I still think it was wrong and he went a little too far. My friend at work Joe said, “I would have killed him two seconds sooner. Kid was trying to kill me. He would have been a threat and I couldn’t trust him.” As vicious as this seemed to me at the time, when I think back on it now, I almost agree with Joe! Kill or be killed in a situation like a zombie apocalypse right?! Carl did do the right thing after all it seems. In any adrenaline filled, life or death situation; normal rationalization goes out the window. So in retrospect, it made me reevaluate my opinion of the character in Orwell’s story. Did he “do what he had to do?” I may have to say yes on this one.

As inhumane as the killing of an animal is (big or small), sometimes it is necessary. I feel sick every time I hear about it because I am such a huge animal lover. But I am also a realist, and sometimes there is the simple fact that you have to save a human life before an animal’s. And some animal rights advocates are going to really not like me for saying that last statement, but it’s just how I feel. When those Mountain Lions out in Trabuco Canyon were attacking bikers and hikers, they had to hunt and kill them to save future lives. I felt a twinge of sadness when they did catch and put them down, but I knew it was for a good reason. They were a threat to human life.

So in conclusion, if this story is indeed factual, Orwell did what he had to do. Not only had this huge elephant caused damage to this rural town already, it had the power to do it again. Remember that this was set in 1936 in a poor, imperialistic nation. They didn’t have animal control back then! As ugly as it seemed, he was under immense peer pressure to put down a “savage beast.” I think any one of us put under that kind of pressure would react in a way we never would have expected from ourselves.