Racism and identity in Orwell and Gates essays

¶ … Futility of Resistance:

"Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell and "What's in a Name" by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

"Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell recounts the time the author was serving as a police officer in Burma, which was then dominated by the British Imperial powers. Orwell loathed the British Empire, but he was also enraged at the contempt shown to him by the native peoples as its representative: "With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts."

As a person in authority, when a formerly tame elephant ran wild, Orwell was expected to deal with the situation. The elephant had apparently killed many people during its attack of 'must,' but by the time Orwell had encountered it the elephant had gone back to its formerly placid state. However, by that time, Orwell's reputation was on the line: "that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot." Killing the elephant was no longer an act that had to be performed for the public's safety, but for Orwell's own safety to ensure he could still retain the little authority and respect he still had in his leadership position.

Thus, Orwell decided to shoot the elephant. This is a metaphor for the colonial enterprise and how it produces violence: he did not want to, and there was no real need to do so, but simply because he had been thrust in a particular role, he had no choice. Power and institutional structures force the individual to immoral actions, even though the individual actually despises them. "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. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool."

In the essay "What's in a Name," Henry Louis Gates, Jr. recounts how a shopkeeper called his father 'George,' even though George was not his father's actual name, simply because this was a common, generic way of referring to African-American men in that day and age. His father did not resist this, even though his father was educated and a respected man in the community. Because of his position as an African-American, Gates' felt that he had no choice but to accept the position that had been thrust upon him by white society.

Although Orwell had a powerful position in Burma and Gates did not in segregated America, both stories illustrate how social and political strictures can limit the full expression of the individual's will. Orwell was unable to use his moral instincts and needlessly killed an elephant to preserve his image; Gates' father was unable to use any of his personal characteristics to overcome the debilitating effects of racism in his society. No efforts on either man's parts can change their external circumstances and these circumstances pressure and force them to act in uncharacteristic ways that seem anathema to their characters.