Consider the individuals in George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" and Doris Lessing's "No Witchcraft for Sale" who are essentially powerless in their respective societies. How do these individuals behave? What do they do to those who have power in their societies? Why do these people act as they do, and what does their behavior demonstrate about imperialism as a political and social ideology?

In both "Shooting an Elephant" and "No Witchcraft for Sale," people who are native to the countries where the pieces are set are powerless compared to the colonizers. In Orwell's essay, it's the people of Burma. In Lessing's story, it's the native people on the veld in Africa.
Both peoples distrust outsiders. In Burma, they mock and belittle the British colonizers, which is why the narrator decides to shoot the elephant even when he doesn't want to. He's told that if he doesn't do it, they will always mock him. In Africa, the natives keep their knowledge to themselves. However, Gideon decides to use a folk remedy on his employer's son when the little boy is struck by snake venom and on the verge of going blind.
This shows that imperialism doesn't respect the culture and heritage of the land that is being colonized. Even Orwell's speaker doesn't think the British should be there; he believes that the Burmese people are right to want them gone. Their mocking of the British shows that they're aware that the colonizers shouldn't be there and that they want them gone. The native people in Lessing's story, in turn, withhold their cures and help because any assistance they give threatens their way of life. If a drug company could make a living from something they offer, they'll come in and take it—that's what they've learned through imperialism.
Both stories paint a bleak picture of life under imperialistic oppressors and show that there are many different ways that colonized peoples resist. However, few of these ways are direct resistance because of the potential consequences.