Can any SDoper enlighten me to help me understand Kippling’s meaning in writing “The White Man’s Burden”? Was it written as a sarcastic commentary on how Imperialism was valued first and foremost over human rights, even by the US in Latin America?
Sometimes, the sarcasm gets lost when read out of context from the timeperiod in which it first appeared. - Jinx
Rudyard Kipling was urging America to assume her imperial responsibilities.
Kipling was the “Voice of Empire in English Literature” (Niall Fergusson, Empire, 256).
Kipling saw the British Empire in decline and hoped the U.S. would adopt the role of heir to the throne, and carry the torch of civilization to the dark corners of the world after the British had gone the way of Nineveh.
“In 1907 he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, the first Englishman to be so honoured. In South Africa, where he spent much time, he was given a house by Cecil Rhodes, the diamond magnate and South African statesman. This association fostered Kipling’s imperialist persuasions, which were to grow stronger with the years. These convictions are not to be dismissed in a word; they were bound up with a genuine sense of a civilizing mission that required every Englishman, or, more broadly, every white man, to bring European culture to the heathen natives of the uncivilized world.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Not so much sarcasm as a bit of “advice” directed to Teddy Roosevelt as the U.S. took over the new colonies it had ripped from the Spanish Empire. Kipling was (for his day) fairly egalitarian on the personal level, but clearly bought in to the paternalism that saw whites (particularly Northern European whites) bringing the benefits of civilization to the poor benighted darkskinned peoples of the world.
What he warns TR about is the cost of this noble cause. It is not simply some pleasant exercise that will be embraced by both sides, but a labor requiring sacrifice on the part of the noble white democracies extending their uplifting oversight to the “less fortunate” peoples of the world.
A background summary. The poem’s subtitle, btw, is “The United States and the Philippine Islands”.
The rest of the article is not pretty at all.
Off to Cafe Society.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Some people misinterpret the poem as some kind of celebration of white privilege and hegemony. I sure wish Bush had read it before assuming that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers as liberators:
Rationalization of delusions of grandeur.
He wanted his in group to conquer and believe he was a “good person” at the same time. He associated with people who thought the same way and reinforce that socialpsychology.
Dal Timgar
I read this poem–in fact, I think I posted a link to it here–shortly after 9/11, and was struck by the eerie similarities to what’s going on today.
There really aren’t many similarities at all, actually.
Eye of the beholder, I guess.
Agreed, it’s not sarcastic but wholly earnest. That’s not the issue, though.
As the first responder said, assuming the ‘White Man’s Burden’ is really supposed to be about assuming Imperial responsibilities. The question then becomes what exactly were Imperial responsibilities (then), what are they now, and, once identified, is “assuming” them reasonable (and not a tad patronising in the modern age)?
I think it’s fair to say that the line between (Imperial) responsibilities and, say, exploitation has shifted considerably since 1899, so that, even if Kipling did have a case, it’s difficult to apply in this age.
We don’t even have to identify exactly what Kipling meant (by his phrase) to see the line has moved as, since that time, dimension has been added by, for example, the advent of a more wary developing world, Marxism, maturing capitalism, globalisation and a greater understanding that Albert Schweitzer tinkling his Christian ivories wasn’t necessarily the answer to all Africa’s problems (though Albert was, of course, not British).
Indeed, and by way of example, if we substitute Schweitzer and his earnest belief in Christian values and Christianity with the religion of this generation of Imperialists (capitalism), the rewards of our imposing that aspect of the ‘White Man’s Burden’ doesn’t seem quite what it used to be; MTV, MacDonald’s, and consumption in general. At least the rewards to those on whom we impose our modern-day values aren’t what they were. We, of course, still gain believers/consumers/new markets.
Yet it all seems to come as a package; western style democracy means capitalism, capitalism means democracy. And a liberal, christian values democracy, as part of your bonus pack - just what the Muslim world ordered.
Thus, if we assume Kipling intended a moral and ethical dimension in his urgings to Roosevelt, there’s something of a problem in applying what he meant in the modern age in so far as our religion has changed (capitalism) and our motivations have changed (profit). The problem gets even bigger if those who are to subject to the White Man’s Burden happen to be sitting on a bloody big chunk of the worlds oil reserves.
Would Kipling be spinning in his grave? Maybe, or maybe his name (today) would be Paul Wolfowitz.
More a question of the depth of the beholder’s knowledge of history.
Would you like to either,
Be polite in an otherwise intelligent discussion,
Explain your extraordinary rudeness, or,
Get your ass over to the Pit where that sort of ill-bred behavior belongs?
Ooh, I just love Eve when she’s angry!
I think I will choose 4: Deny that what I said was either ill-bred, impolite or rude and boggle at how easily you take offense.
Bravo, London_Calling. I may not be 100% with you on the specifics of modern politics, but insofar as Kipling’s poem you put some thought into it. There WAS an ethical/moral dimension, but the world was already changing from under the words. The poem now becomes unintentionally ironic and cautionary.
I had dealings with RikWriter once. Really, really not worth the effort. Dreadful bore.
If all goes to form, you can expect to be awed by his academic credentials in a post or two . . . History Major, If I recall correctly.
Here you go, Eve: in case you’re interested, here is a perfect example of someone being ill-bred, impolite and rude. I believe he majored in it in kindergarten.
Don’t drive-by, educate us.
I am not sure why I should bother to attempt a civil discourse with someone who just insulted me.