To Shoot or Not to Shoot

       In George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant," Orwell explains his fickle feelings towards imperialism throughout his time as a British soldier in Burma, particularly during his wavering decision to shoot an elephant. In Burma, Orwell sees the wrongs of imperialism coerced on the people, yet he doesn't side with them completely either because he hates being ridiculed, especially by the Buddhist priests. He writes, "I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts" (Orwell 1). Even in this quotation, the effects of imperialism are seen in one who isn't for imperialism. He portrays a disintegration of the individual and the dehumanization of colonialism by calling the Burmese people beasts. In the end, although he is above them, Orwell is pressured into shooting the elephant because he would rather kill it than be tortured by the jeering masses around him.

       Orwell is concerned about his own freedom towards the end of his story. His diminishing freedoms reflect the communists' view of slavery in society that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles present in The Communist Manifesto. They write that a society must "assure an existence to its slave within his slavery" (Marx and Engles 2). This means that those in authority ought to make sure that workers have enough necessities, so that they are content in their poverty. Orwell recognizes that he must shoot the elephant because "when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys" (Orwell 2). Orwell must do what the natives expect of him or else he will be ridiculed, or in Marx and Engles' case, the people will rebel because they aren't satisfied in their slavery.

Shouldn't Orwell not want the other Europeans to grasp that he only shot the elephant to avoid ridicule because then he could still seem like a fool to those that figured it out?