Placing an individual, who believes they should be viewed as superior due to their role in society or their background, in a position of power can be harmful to themselves and society overall. This type of individual is comparable to the main character in George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” a man who believes he must have respect from and authority over Burmese citizens because he is a British officer. In history, Europe has been known for colonizing several countries, including America itself; Orwell’s story is set during Britain’s colonization of Burma and portrays negative views towards people of European descent among the Burmese as well as vice versa. Therefore, one can conclude that westernization creates racial division between groups of people. Furthermore, the superior attitudes of leaders, such as Orwell’s officer, operates on power from groups and self-deception. That is to say, one will believe they have more power when they are supported by a large group and when they reassure that their actions are justifiable. However, this mindset of a leader is harmful because the leader does not consider what will benefit society and instead, makes decisions that will keep them in a position of power. In this story, the officer is a victim of this mindset in which he kills the elephant because it will make the people of Burma view him as a person of power. Thus, Orwell’s short story indicates that poor leaders are like the officer, or those who believe they are above others and only care for self-interests. For society to maintain peace, people must accept cultures different from than their own and elect leaders who are selfless rather than self-serving. Even today, countries elect leaders in hope that they will contribute to society in positive aspects and make decisions based on the needs of their citizens. When regarding acts of colonization and westernization, leaders are not being considerate towards people of other cultures but rather, making other cultures conform to their own. Orwell criticizes the British colonization and leadership of Burma because of their selfish motivation and poor leadership creating divides within society. 

Within “Shooting an Elephant,” racial division is evident through the characters’ attitudes, use of language, and actions towards one another. The westernization of different countries by Europe and North America exploited people of other cultures and created racial divisions in these societies. The officer within Orwell’s story 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. I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter” and continues to describe that Burmese people harass him for being a European officer (Orwell 1). Considering this narration, one can say that the Burmese have preconceived hatred towards anyone of European descent because they attack the officer without having personal interactions with him. Along with that, they especially dislike those who are working for the government because they target the narrator for being an officer. Although Orwell does not describe the reasoning behind this hatred, one can look to history to fully understand why anti-European feeling was evident across Burma. 

First and foremost, the British colonization of Burma was unwanted by the people. According to Chie Ikeya, a professor at the University of Hawaii, after the Second Anglo-Burmese War, “the British government based in Rangoon made concerted efforts to ensure the dominant economic position of Lower Burma” and by 1885 “The Burmese government had been cultivating friendlier relations with French, Italian, and other European powers in the 1880s in the hopes of offsetting British encroachment on Burma” (Ikeya 16).  When the British had colonized Burma, their interests were fully on the economy and making profit off the country. In other words, the British were not concerned with the needs of the Burmese citizens but only of the wealth that they could make for their own country. Along with that, the Burmese sought out other European countries to escape British rule, further displaying their dislike of the colonization of their country. The British colonization also made Burmese people a minority in their own country due to, “the magnitude of colonially determined immigration patterns” to obtain cheap labor from new immigrants (Ikeya 22). The British changed Burma from a primarily Asian country to a Eurasian country because of the encouragement of mass immigration. Although diversity is positive change, the British created a census where officials would, “repeatedly ask colonized men and women questions about their religion, race, and ethnicity” which “contributed to the heightening of racial, religious, and ethnic consciousness in Burma” (Ikeya 27). The census made people more aware of each other’s differences, creating conflicts among people of different races. The anti-European feeling of the Burmese in “Shooting an Elephant” derives from the British exploiting the country of Burma for their own benefit as well as making the Burmese minorities in their own country; the Burmese do not consider the British fit leaders for their needs but oppressors of their people (Orwell 1). The narrator’s hate for the Burmese citizens and Asian people overall, derives directly from Burmese anti-European attitudes. Other instances of westernization can be compared to the British occupation of Burma to expose the flaws of forced western influence throughout history.  

A more recent occurrence of westernization is America’s occupation of Japan, which contrasts the society that Orwell portrays within his story. Whereas Burmese citizens did not willingly assimilate British culture into their own, the Japanese willingly saw America as a “model of lifestyle” according to Shunya Yoshimi, a Japanese sociologist and professor (Yoshimi 439). The society in “Shooting an Elephant” is filled with racial tension and hate towards leaders and officials. However, within Japan, they willingly adopted American pop culture, music, and fashion into their own (Yoshimi 439). They believed that America was a good example for their society to grow and this occurred because they were not forced to do so. However, views against America developed because they felt it was necessary to “construct a military bulwark against communism in East Asia” (Yoshimi 442). Thus, Japan unwillingly became the main area in which American military power was present. With growing bases, Japanese people developed the view of America as a violent military power. On the whole, Japan can be seen as a successful attempt at westernization compared to Burma within Orwell’s story because the citizens of Japan were not forced to change originally. Society was not divided until America began to exploit Japan for their own interest of defeating communism, like the exploitation of Burma to raise the economic interests of the British. While those who are colonized have hatred towards their leaders, the ones who colonize develop hate because of individual experiences.

European hate towards the Burmese formed because of personal interactions with hateful individuals. The narrator describes, “the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves” (Orwell 1). Instead of describing single instances with hateful people, Orwell chooses to collectively mention one group and single them into one color: yellow. When doing this, he demonstrates the narrator’s racism towards Asian people because the narrator associates not one, but all yellow faces with insults he has received. At the end of the short story, Orwell also displays European racism towards Asian people by saying, “an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie” (Orwell 4). He refers to an Indian man that was killed tragically as a coolie, which was a derogatory term used by Europeans in the nineteenth century to describe an unskilled laborer from the Middle East. Not only that, but the quote proposes that the man’s life is worth less than an elephant, displaying leaders’ lack of empathy towards the people and indicating he believes Asian people are below animals. Orwell suggest that the ill tensions between Europeans and the Burmese were a result of the British westernizing Burma and exploiting their country. Along with that, he exposes the flaws within the British leaders of Burma by representing their discriminatory views. In all, westernization creates social, racial divide because of western attitudes of superiority over other cultures. The lack of understanding and acceptance of other cultures creates a social conflict and, in turn, forms tension among different groups much like the Burmese people, Middle Eastern people, and British officers. The racial opinions and apathy of the officers in Orwell’s story are indications of the negative outcomes of westernization and that they are unfit to be leaders of people they do not care for. 

As mentioned before, Orwell suggests that a poor leader believes they are superior over the people they rule and instills this trait within the officer. This is evident when the officer contemplates, “A white man mustn’t be frightened in front of “natives”” (Orwell 3). When compared to his discriminatory views, referring to the Burmese as ‘natives’ indicates that the officer believes they are beneath him in the sense that they are less adequate. In other words, the officer sees himself, a white man, as someone with more civilized so he should not feel frightened or seem weaker to the group of Burmese people. In addition to this, Orwell characterizes the officer as someone who wants to be viewed as powerful in front of these people and therefore, allows himself to conform to their expectations and views. When he spots the elephant initially he expresses, “I did not in the least want to shoot him,” however, after he “looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun …And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all” (Orwell 2-3). At first, the officer decides that the elephant is peaceful and should not be killed, however, he is influenced by the group of Burmese people. When seeing their happy faces, he believes he has to entertain them and fulfill their expectations. In order to obtain the image of power, the officer dismisses his own values and pleases the large group instead. Similar to the actions of the officer, Elitsa Petrova, a professor at the National Military University in Bulgaria, describes someone who leads a large pack as someone who is “urged by the crowd losing own will, seek[ing] individuals on whom to rely. The feeling of infallibility because of mass mutual support in the crowd pushes it to blind obedience” (Petrova 82). Thus, the officer changing his mind is an indication of him trying to lead the crowd that wants to kill the elephant because he does not want to feel infallible or wrong. As a consequence to himself, he loses his own opinion and his own individuality. Furthermore, Petrova states that, “leadership is directly related to the needs of man from power, one of the needs that must be met in order for the person to move to the satisfaction of others in order to feel full, motivated, and satisfied” (Petrova 85).  In other words, leaders become leaders because of their desire for power. The officer’s motive for killing the elephant and pleasing the people is so that he can be viewed as powerful and authoritative. For example, the officer believes that if he does not kill the elephant, “The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at” (Orwell 3). When stating that the crowd would laugh at him, the officer is displaying that he wants to be seen with respect and not ridiculed; he wants to be an authoritative figure amongst these people because he is an officer. Along with that, he once again displays his superior complex by suggesting that a white man being ridiculed is something that should not occur in the East. The officer does not base his actions on the best interest of the people or whether the action is righteous but to save himself from humility. Orwell characterizes the officer as someone who acts out of self-image, therefore, portraying him as a selfish and unreliable leader. 

The moment that ultimately displays the officer’s self-concerned motive is after the Indian man’s death when, “As soon as [he] saw the dead man I sent an orderly to a friend’s house nearby to borrow an elephant rifle” (Orwell 2). Initially, one would assume that the officer requests the rifle in order to avenge the death of the Indian man, however, this is not his intention. Orwell clarifies the motivation of the officer when he soon after states, “I had no intention of shooting the elephant—I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary” (Orwell 2). The officer had no interest in shooting the elephant to respect the man who was killed, instead, upon seeing his dead body, the officer was frightened. He became cowardly and only thought of defending himself against the elephant. The death of the man is not important to him compared to saving his own life. Therefore, Orwell reiterates that the officer is only concerned on matters that involve himself. Professor Petrova describes that leadership “should not have anything to do with “forcing” and “coercion.” It is the consequence of personal development and the acquisition of knowledge, experience, skills – how to manage yourself and others” (Petrova 85). Considering this thought, the officer is not practicing good leadership because he allows the crowd to change his opinion and is unable to manage himself nor the crowd. Instead, he is intimidated by the collective expectation of the crowd towards him and makes a decision based on the fear of displaying weakness. Although the officer has self-interests and the motive of power from the support of a large group, those are not the only flaws he possesses. To appear as a better human being and capable leader to himself, the officer utilizes the power self-deception.

Self-deception can be noted towards the end of the text, after the main character has killed the elephant. The officer says, “Afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant” (Orwell 4). In this instance, the officer deceives himself, stating that the death of the middle eastern man was an insignificant, positive event because it made him correct in killing the elephant. Due to the murder of the elephant being legal, he believes that his decision is not wrong. John C. Knapp, a religious leader, states, “If we are without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (Knapp 14). Knapp speaks of self-deception on a moral, as well as a religious aspect. In this case, he is saying that people deceive themselves so that they do not know the truth, therefore believing they are without sin. For the officer, he is masking the death of the man and justifying his own actions. The officer uses self-deception in order to evade the criticism from the people and make himself feel as if he has made the correct decision. This occurrence can be related to a quote within Knapp’s article which say that people who use self-deception “will not allow themselves to think how guilty they are, [they] explain and argue away their guilt to themselves” (Knapp 16). Therefore, the officer chooses to remain ignorant towards the opinion of his peers who criticize him for the death of the elephant. The danger of self-deception is that it makes people, like the officer, apathetic towards others and devalues their existence. For the officer, he devalues the life of the Indian man along with the elephant so that he can feel at ease. Again, Orwell demonstrates that the officer is an unfit leader because of his selfish nature. 

All in all, “Shooting an Elephant” warns every one of the impact of poor leadership on the individual leader and society. Although westernization is beneficial to the invading country and leaders in power, it diminishes the culture of the people currently residing in the country without their consent. Furthermore, it creates hatred from those colonized towards these leaders, forming social, racial division. Similarly, when a leader of a large group exhibits poor traits such as having the desire for power or the power of self-deception it impacts society negatively. The desire for power or a large support displays that the leader does not have concern for the people they are leading but how they are viewed by the followers. Whereas, self-deception makes one dismiss other people’s opinions, feelings, and their lives in general because they are justifying their own actions despite whether they are appropriate or not. With this short story, Orwell suggests that society can be improved through obtaining leaders that are concerned for the well-being of their country’s citizens and are not motivated by their own needs because then, society will not feel devalued and form hatred towards these leaders; thus, no division will form between groups. 
