Kipling played a large role in romanticizing British imperialism (Bradshaw). In fact, the legend of the British Empire has little to do with the realities of imperialism, but authors such as Kipling blurred concepts of patriotic duty and Christian salvation into the role of the imperialist. Kipling’s poem was originally written for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, but the context of the poem was later altered in order to reflect the subject of American colonization of the Philippines (Wikipedia). The poem is rhetorically constructed as a command, which calls upon white men to colonize and rule native peoples for their own benefit (Wikipedia). Kipling employs anaphora, repeating the phrase “take up the white man’s burden,” in order to echo Christian hymns (“take up the cross”) and the Declaration of Independence. The interweaving of Christian themes and patriotic duty were aimed to delude and force the “best sons of England” (as quoted in Bradshaw) into imperialist service.
Kipling also emphasizes simple dichotomy between the dominator and the dominated, white and non-white in his poem (Bradshaw). The poem begins by describing the colonized peoples as “new-caught, sullen peoples, half devil and half child” (Line 7-8 Kipling). These descriptions create tension by directly contrasting to the title of the poem “The White Man’s Burden”: white versus devil, and man versus child. However, scholars have argued that dichotomy was not the distinctive drive behind imperialist fantasies, and that these fantasies rather entertained notions of hybridity (Bradshaw). The imperialist wished to be treated as both god and brother, to be worshiped as a ‘savoir’ and embraced as kin (Bradshaw).
Within historical context, Kipling’s poem makes clear the prevalent attitudes of the Victorian period that allowed colonialism to proceed. Many honestly believed that it was the duty of the civilized west to free the native peoples of their ignorant bondage. Moreover, the push of Christian missionaries emphasized the inherent duty of the west to lead these people “from bondage [in the] Egyptian night” (Line 18-19 Kipling). However, some have suggested that Kipling may have written “the White Man’s Burden” as a satire in order to undermine the foundations of imperialist fantasy (Wikipedia). Indeed, Kipling’s history of satirical writing, irony and scepticism, do seem to support the notion that Kipling perhaps constructed this poem as a parody of imperialist attitudes (Wikipedia). However, Kipling was also infamous for his radical imperialistic notions and his distorted colonialist views, which suggest that this poem was composed in earnest. Perhaps this poem is, in fact, a chilling and accurate representation of the ethnocentric views held by imperialists during the Victorian period.
Works Cited:
Bradshaw, Leah. “Gods and Brothers.” Review of Politics 65.3 (2003): 468—471. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.
Oh dear. I challenge anyone reading "the White Man's Burden" to find a single positive thing which it promises to the USA if it goes ahead with acquiring an empire in Cuba, Philippines etc. All that Kipling promises the Americans is pain and regret.
ReplyDeleteKipling often employed satire and it should be obvious that he is doing so in this poem.
Michael, when I first read this poem I was also convinced that it was satire. Since then, I’ve learned that I was sadly mistaken. Kipling was a huge proponent of colonialism. He originally intended to present this poem in honor of Queen Victoria. He sent it to Theodore Roosevelt as a counter to the anti-imperialist faction in Congress. Read about his essays in favor of invading the Philippines, for example, and the words he uses, like “half-devil”, to describe the locals.
ReplyDeleteIt’s true that this poem lists the things that go wrong, but Kipling is arguing that it is the “burden” of white people to bring the light of civilization to the ungrateful savages despite these hardships. Thus the title.