We’ve all heard about killing a mockingbird; a horrible thing. What about shooting an elephant? In Shooting an Elephant, by George Orwell, the main character is a police officer from Great Britain during the Imperialism Era. Stationed in Burma, the main character is hated by nearly everyone. On a seemingly normal day, an untamed elephant was reported running rampant through Burma. In an effort to track down the elephant, the officer finds the latest victim of the elephant, mauled beyond recognition. The main character got a rifle and followed the elephant to a rice paddy, where the elephant was working. With an army of Burmese behind him, the police officer decided to shoot the elephant; but was that the correct decision? I believe it was; the elephant had caused mass terror, it was the correct thing in a legal sense and shooting the elephant would gain the trust of the Burmans.
In this day and age, raging elephants aren’t a big issue. Despite the previous fact, an untamed elephant was a very real, extremely dangerous threat in the 1930s. This particular elephant had trampled town after town, and mauled several helpless victims; it had created mass terror. If any human did the same thing, the human would be Public Enemy Number One, and be killed. Why should an elephant have a different fate? “He was lying on his belly with arms …show more content…
According to law, shooting the elephant was the right thing. As a law enforcement officer, shooting the elephant was only his duty. Even though the officer was in Burma to oppress the Burmese, it was also his job to protect them. Also, the owner of the elephant had accidently let it loose, and shooting the elephant was perfectly legal. “Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it,” (Shooting an Elephant, Orwell). The main character did the right thing, legally and
In this day and age, raging elephants aren’t a big issue. Despite the previous fact, an untamed elephant was a very real, extremely dangerous threat in the 1930s. This particular elephant had trampled town after town, and mauled several helpless victims; it had created mass terror. If any human did the same thing, the human would be Public Enemy Number One, and be killed. Why should an elephant have a different fate? “He was lying on his belly with arms …show more content…
According to law, shooting the elephant was the right thing. As a law enforcement officer, shooting the elephant was only his duty. Even though the officer was in Burma to oppress the Burmese, it was also his job to protect them. Also, the owner of the elephant had accidently let it loose, and shooting the elephant was perfectly legal. “Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it,” (Shooting an Elephant, Orwell). The main character did the right thing, legally and