Shooting An Elephant Rhetorical Analysis
During the time of imperialistic rule, rich empires were able to take over those of lesser value and benefit from their resources. This is the exact situation going on in Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell; the British had taken over the Burmese. Through Orwell’s use of stylistic and rhetorical strategies, he conveys the inferior attitude he has towards himself and the trapped, conflicted attitude he feels towards his position in Burma, which both stem from the negative aspects of imperialism.
In the first two paragraphs, the speaker establishes that he feels and is treated as if he is lesser than the Burmese. He states, “I was hated by large numbers of people - the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” Through his use of irony, he shows what imperialism has created. He was not “important” in the way that most would associate with this word. He had attention, but it was all negative. The society hated him because he was protecting the people that were taking over their country, even though he had no choice. This hate has lead to him feeling less important than the rest of his society. Additionally, he says that he is “young and ill-educated”. This appeals to pathos by getting the reader to feel sympathetic for the speaker. Both of these words carry connotations that relate to having less importance. The speaker's attitude is this way because of the situation he is put into. In reality, he is in charge as the …show more content…
Although this seems somewhat benign, the way they went about doing it affected local citizens’ lives in many ways. The negative aspects of imperialism lead directly to the unfavorable attitude the speaker felt toward himself, along with his attitude toward his position in Burma. Imperialism goes beyond affecting just the ones being oppressed, but the affects the oppressors in an unfortunate way as
In the first two paragraphs, the speaker establishes that he feels and is treated as if he is lesser than the Burmese. He states, “I was hated by large numbers of people - the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” Through his use of irony, he shows what imperialism has created. He was not “important” in the way that most would associate with this word. He had attention, but it was all negative. The society hated him because he was protecting the people that were taking over their country, even though he had no choice. This hate has lead to him feeling less important than the rest of his society. Additionally, he says that he is “young and ill-educated”. This appeals to pathos by getting the reader to feel sympathetic for the speaker. Both of these words carry connotations that relate to having less importance. The speaker's attitude is this way because of the situation he is put into. In reality, he is in charge as the …show more content…
Although this seems somewhat benign, the way they went about doing it affected local citizens’ lives in many ways. The negative aspects of imperialism lead directly to the unfavorable attitude the speaker felt toward himself, along with his attitude toward his position in Burma. Imperialism goes beyond affecting just the ones being oppressed, but the affects the oppressors in an unfortunate way as