- The White Man's Burden
- Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the White Man's burden --
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden --
The savage wars of peace --
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden --
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper --
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!
Take up the White man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden --
Ye dare not stoop to less --
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden --
Have done with childish days --
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
--Rudyard Kipling
I knew I was opening up a can of worms when I gave my opinions about yesterday's poem, and I know it'll be worse when I post today's. I had always intended to post this one today, even before Doug asked me what I thought of it in his responses to yesterday's.
I don't think Kipling is being entirely ironic here. There's obviously some--especially in the 5th stanza--but mostly, I think that he genuinely thinks that the "civilized" nations of his time have a responsibility to the people they've conquered. As I said in my response comments yesterday, Kipling is far from being politically correct by our standards, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's racist. When he uses the term "white man's burden" he's acknowledging the fact that people of European ancestry (and I include white Americans in this group) generally had more power to act for the betterment of others than those who weren't. They generally had more chances for education, and more political clout than the natives, and yes, they were already Christian, and so could share that message.
By the time he wrote this poem, heck, by the time he was born, the native people were mostly conquered already (there were still uprisings, but the Europeans were there, and they weren't going away anytime soon). Had he been writing at an earlier time, he might have argued against colonial imperialism, but he wasn't writing in an earlier time. He saw first hand that "the tawdry rule of kings," or merely making the natives into slaves, didn't work. The people resented this, and as I said, there were uprisings that made society in general view the natives as "half devil and half child." I think his main message in this poem is, "we're there, and we've made a mess of their societies, and now it's our responsibility to fix that in the best way we know how--Fight 'The savage wars of peace, Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease."
You may say, "Who did they think they were? Why should their version of civilization and religion be any better than what the people had already? Why couldn't they just go away and leave them alone?" This is a tough question that we still don't have an answer for today. Our church sends out missionaries all over the world to convert the heathen masses (though we use a different term, that's what we mean). While we're at it, we have massive education and welfare programs teaching people the basics of hygiene, water management, farming, literacy, etc. Who are we to say that our way of doing things is any better than the way they've been doing things for centuries? Who are we to say that our religion is better than theirs? Well, we believe our religion offers the truth, and our way of life offers prosperity happiness and longevity. I think that Kipling and his contemporaries felt the same way.
Right now, America (generally under the auspices of the UN) has the role of Global Cop. We believe we are fighting the wars of peace, filling the mouths of famine, and bidding the sickness cease. Many people ask why we're not doing more to stop the suffering in Darfur, why we're not sending more food to starving third world children, and what we intend to do about the AIDS crisis in Africa. Yesterday, even Doug imagined being asked by someone in the future, "What?! People were dying of malaria while you were still alive? Why didn't you do something about it?" These are problems we didn't cause. We cannot be held legally responsible for a plague that originated in Africa, and is now ravaging their population because of sexual practices that far predate the Christian presence there. European/American weapons may make the genocides worse than they would be with spears, but they certainly didn't learn their tactics of guerrilla warfare and conscripting children to be soldiers from us.
Morally, though, we do feel responsible. We know it's wrong to sit back and watch people suffer and die with diseases like malaria and guinea worm when a few mosquito nets, a little easily manufactured medicine, and yearly treatment of the water supply will virtually wipe those diseases out. We know it's wrong to waste food and get fat while there are people in our own cities that are starving. We know that God has commanded us to share the truths of the gospel with every nation, kindred, tongue and people, and that those truths include more than just the ordinances, they entail an entire change in a convert's way of life.
To sum up, though he used terminology that we would consider racist today, and though that terminology was adopted by people who used it to justify atrocities, I don't think that Rudyard Kipling was racist (meaning that I don't think he thought that white people were inherently better than those with darker skin just by virtue of having been born that way). I think that the issues he raises in this poem are as relevant today as when he wrote it. It takes hard work and sacrifice to make the world a better place, and people won't always roll out the welcome mat for those that want to change their world (even if we think it's for the better).
My point in bringing up the malaria was to say that while we judge Kipling for one thing, while those in the future might judge that we were ignoring the more important matter Kipling thought should be addressed.
ReplyDelete--Douglas
It takes hard work and sacrifice to make the world a better place, and people won't always roll out the welcome mat for those that want to change their world (even if we think it's for the better).
ReplyDeleteYeah right... let me rephrase your analysis one more time just to make sure that you are not as thick a racist as Mr. Kipling was.
It takes hard work and sacrifice to make the world a better place
Better in the sense? you mean european style toilets and western style education? If so.. i am sorry... the world can be made better by anyone of any fucking race.... The west does not necessarily define what is right and what is wrong.. they do force it though .. like for example in Iraq... The Iraqis never rolled out a red carpet for the west, the west forced their way in to the worst western induced mass murder in the mordern times after hitler ... If thats what you mean by bettering the world (i am sure thats what the monster of a man Mr. Kipling would have thought) then i am sorry... you and Kipling belong to the same class of pond scum.
i dont think the west was intelligent enough to make the right choice and kept out of other peoples shit... which is the best way to keep the world a better place... Force never is, however non coercive secular education is. THat is also seen the way the brit mofos teated the indians. They never cared about the local culture . They sucked the blood out of it thinking that it was right for the people. IF thats what you mean by your above paragraph, then you are as racist as Mr. Kipling is.
Sorry for being harsh.. I cannot understand people who call the pond scum Kipling not to be a racist.
Ya, that was a little bit harsh. Think of Kipling in the time he was in, he really didn’t know better. From his understanding, it was the whites who held the technology of the steam boat, rail roads, and weapons to be able to maybe “fix their captives society.” The captives didn’t have the industrialization or modernization that was going on in America, Europe, Japan, and other places. Do remember there are different criticisms of this poem, but also keep in mind what was going on in history at this time.
Deleteby "make the world a better place" I mean teaching people what they need to know so that they don't suffer and die from mere ignorance of another way of doing things. We know how to fight many diseases. We know methods of growing, storing and distributing food so that a bad season does not necessarily have to mean famine. It's morally wrong to keep this information from the people that need it.
ReplyDeleteYet there are places in Africa where they won't allow people to treat their water once a year to kill off the guinea worm and malaria parasites -- even when it would take no effort on their part and would make their lives measurably better (they think it will annoy the local spirits). Is it wrong to try to educate these people about the true causes of disease?
I do NOT believe that conquering and enslaving people makes their lives better. I do NOT believe that colonialism was the right choice. I do NOT believe that being any particular race makes you morally superior to other people.
I DO believe that as someone with an education it is my moral responsibility to share that (which is why I tutor underpriveliged students here in LA) because it will give them the power to make their own lives better if that's what they want. They should not be forced to live in squalor and raise another generation of children to be slaves (which is essentially what many first-generation hispanic and Asian immegrants are here). I believe that educated black, Asian and hispanic people bear the same moral burden to educate others.
I am fully aware that people have used this poem to justify atrocities. I believe that they were morally wrong, and probably racist. What I think Kipling was trying to say is this: Since imperialism is a fact of life, we need good people to get in there and make up for the damage that has been caused, otherwise, we'll just have the conquers and enslavers, and that would be wrong.
It's funny to see people argue; it's like watching a boxing match. It seems easier for the spectator to define the reasons why that particular pugilist is at a loss.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Kipling’s poem I see someone who is not only touching on the present but also on the forthcoming future. The term "White Man's" is not a 'glorying' of self but an undeniable physical attribute pointing out how this 'white man' is coined as such and judged as such, be it he do good or evil. Notice how he says: "Take up the White Mans burden"... How can a burden be taken upon if it is already implicit that the responsibility of such is due too the color of skin and not an elective matter? It has a non optional connotation. Is it a call to a moral response or a statement to a 'matter of fact'; you are the 'white man' and so with that comes 'these responsibilities'. But again, if it’s a call to the rich and the ever undeniable reality of the time it was written, 'white man's burden' then is about a time and a place in history. Its' easier to admit 'racism' in this poem than to admit that everyone has a duty to perform 'the white mans burden'. It's easy to say that the author was an imperialist than to admit he was showing concern for what he knew would be an unfair treatment after wanting to make a better place for others. His assertions are undeniable; the fifth stanza:
"Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
..."The verses” Slowly toward the light "Why brought he us from bondage, our loved Egyptian Night"?
Even in the cry of freedom from the, would be atrocities committed against any nation, the later providers of thus freedoms are still far more criticized than the prior. See this:
"Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
... Germany was a place that served as grounds for a terrible loss of freedom; it was also the launch pad for our greatest freedom; yet still we don't acknowledge the actions that were paramount to the end of that war. We continue to be "thankless". Why is "The White Man's Burden" such an insult... as if Adolph himself had written it?...
Does the following stanza sound 'fascist':
"Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain."
Try telling Hitler, he's about to go “seek another’s profit" in an un-proud manner. I can't fathom Mr. Adolph promoting none other than self-service. How 'bout you?
I can only but identify myself with the following underlying connation of the fourth stanza which of course alludes directly to the 'foot soldier':...
"Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead"
How can Kipling be referring to a heightened sense of pride when he is not elevating this service to the height of kings but rather degrading it to a common level to the point where he singles out the realities of the greater losses of battle rather than gain? And again if he is ruling out that this be a task of 'kings', than whom can he be talking to; a rich white man? I think not.
"Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child."
Taken literally it would be a hardship for anyone as a parent to have to see their "best breed" go to a far off country...enough said! And, though we may not admit to saying that some folk seem possessed it seems easier to just call them ‘terrorist’. Not that the language of the time makes for a proper understanding of the mindset. Mr. Kipling's use of the term "half devil" denotes the sentiment and view of the powers that 'be', from an enemy standpoint. It cannot be attributed to the author as this poem as a whole swerves continuously back and forth between the different views and their particular standpoints. Now the third stanza is my favorite and could be my sole argument in favor of Mr. Kipling’s intentions; if not for minor underpaid 'glory mongers' seeking self righteous ends through insufficient means.
"Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought"
There's a lesson here...bottom line. Do we not have today "savage wars of peace" do we not "fill the mouth of famine" and "bid the sickness cease" but he also says that this brings the unpleasant reality of seeing others take the place of those removed and ruin your labor...
"And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought"
Now if "The White Man's Labor" is a call to the haughty to ignore the going-on of the poor and needy, than the pretense of there being such a thing as 'the white man's burden' is senseless and Mr. Kipling was being as satiric and playful as any modern day political comedian whom I could easily compare to the likes of Mr. Chris Rock... It should then be hailed as comedic for all its worth and not a ‘hate monger’ message as much would have it. But, if in all sense Mr. Kipling is being serious, then he is pointing out a matter of fact concerning nature and the dynamics of the human character; none the less true of many of Benjamin Franklin’s sayings. It would be silly then for me to insist that Mr. Franklin was a hateful man due to his 'obscene' and 'demeaning' comments towards visitors and their stay in ones residence, being likened to that of ‘dead fish’. Mr. Franklin wrote for all purposes a proverb and proverbs share, and are rich with similes. I'm not anymore a fish after three days in someone's house than I am a "half devil" when visited by a neighboring enemy...Tah!
I'm not going to make my whole plea...yet, so if anybody needs some time to devour my argument, go right ahead...but I'll be back for more...Thank you!
Jus' in case...i signed up after. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteConsider "The Man Who Would Be King" where ol' Danny Dravot, a white imperialist who tries to use his English smarts to con a whole kingdom of tribes in Afghanistan, ends up at the bottom of a ravine for impersonating the tribe's supreme deity, just to gain treasure. In the end all that's left of his is a severed head. The character is clearly racist and gets whacked. If we judge Kipling by this story alone, he might be simply painted as decrying Imperial rapacity. Eschew facile analysis. In "The White Seal" he writes that seals "are just as stupid and unaccommodating as men"; in this case, is the author of The Jungle Book a sociopath and advocate of animal cruelty because he depicts a scene of seal clubbing and skinning; or is he an animal rights advocate because Kotick finds a happy haven for his people in a place where "man never comes" or is the fact that the seal is white confirmation of his white supremacist attitudes? Most people read things at and for their own convenience.
ReplyDelete