1. The narrator describes himself as someone who fundamentally opposes the imperialism in Burma. How does this affect his ultimate decision in shooting the elephant? Would he still have made the decision had he not been in opposition to Burma's acquisition?
2. Why was it so important for the officer to legally justify himself in the end of the text? What sort of ethical dilemma is this?
3. For someone who made a decision that was based on the pressure of the masses (as well as justifying himself in the end), he was pretty descriptive and honest with how the elephant had such a tortuous death. Why is that?
Response to question 2:
It's a pretty tough situation for this british soldier to be in. The man was strongly opposed to the colonization of Burma and he explained his dissonant state of mind when understanding that he couldn't do anything about because of his position. The weird part is that I'm not sure that has anything to do with his decision to kill the elephant. He doesn't say that he particularly loves the Burmese at all, rather, he explains how he resents them for their behavior toward him. This suggests that he opposes the colonization as a principle of ethics rather than having a soft spot for the Burmese people. But how does this apply to his moment of weakness when shooting the elephant.
I'll try to put it into perspective: A man is a soldier for the british army stationed in Burma so as to maintain their presence and annexation of the country. The man hate the idea of british colonialism and is torn between this hate and his hate for the Burmese. BUT, his he implies (not specifies) that his hate for the Burmese is attributed to the fact that they make his job difficult. So, summing that portion up: British officer who's job it is to maintain colonization of the country, Burmese don't like it so they oppose and fight back, the officer doesn't like them because he can't do the job that he hates doing. Pretty strange. This makes me think that the loyalty to the British army is a strong one. Either that or, on a much deeper level, he doesn't like the Burmese because they aren't understanding enough that he doesn't have a choice. So there might so deep resentment toward them for not giving him a break. I still think that that's as selfish thought though. If anything, the officer should be more understanding of their inability to understand that the person pointing a gun at them doesn't want to point it at them. Because their people still die at the hands of the British.
Anyway, in applying this to the incident with the elephant: We have an officer who hates his job but hates Burmese because they don't let him do his job. He doesn't want to kill this elephant because he doesn't know how and because it's a valuable commodity within Burma. When he sees the elephant it looks calm with no threat or danger. He notices there are a lot of people watching. Now this is the part that i dont understand. Why would a guy who hates his job and Burmese people in a contradictory way, make a decision that helps him avoid looking like a fool in front of the people he doesn't like? If he didn't like this people, why bother worrying about looking bad in front of them? Is it because he doesn't want to throw on the authoritative demeanor in front of them because that would glorify his position as a british soldier (a position he hates)? Surely the chain of command within the british army wouldn't care if an elephant died or lived. This suggests that his opposition to this colonization is much stronger than his hate for the Burmese people. If he were acting on his hate for the people watching him, he would have let the alleged dangerous elephant rampage the rest of the town. But that would come in conflict with his assigned duty to maintain peace. Yet the elephant didn't seem dangerous. Not killing the elephant would make him look like an incompetent british soldier. So perhaps, his killing it was to not look like a bad British soldier (something he hates being). So his action justifies not letting the Burmese think that he is afraid to perform, that he is a competent imperialist officer and that he is in charge. Perhaps then, his actions suggest that his hate for the Burmese override his hate for colonizing them. Such a strange ethical dilemma that I don't fully understand.
Or maybe this decision to the kill the elephant is entirely unrelated to how he feels about the Burmese or the british army. Maybe this is just an incident of peer pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment