NationStates Jolt Archive

The White Man's Burden is originally a European woridview that justified imperialism. The 1899 poem by Kipling that I posted below explains the sentiments. If you look at this poem you see how non-European cultures are like children who have to be 'civilised'. It was written after the Spanish-American War specifically to help sway popular opinion in the U.S. to encourage them to intervene in the Philippines to take over Spains former role as coloniser. (Even at the time it was controversial with people such as Mark Twain writing against it.)

However, I do see some parallels with U.S. Conservatives today who argue that the United States has a duty to bring Freedom® and Democracy® to the Middle East and other places. In my opinion, the latest revision of Why We Went To War is using the exact same sentiments as 19th century European imperialism. The idea of a manifest destiny, the idea of sacrifice for other peoples with those people not understanding and ruining things themselves: the blame of those ye better, the hate of those ye guard, so to speak. To veil the threat of terror, too, ironically. The poem ends with a call (beyond the grave, by this nineteenth century European) to the United States to take up the White Man's burden, to search for your manhood and earn the judgement of your Imperial peers. Yay?


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 iron 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 will or whisper,
* By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
* Shall weigh your God 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.

Mark Twain is probably rolling over in his grave now. He had some lovely things to say about missionaries "enlightening" the "heathens" too.

Although your interpretation of the poem could support your view, I think that the message is not one that is supported by the facts at hand. The issue of Iraq is sovereignty,and not colonization as the poem exhorts.
Iraq is a sovereign power (albeit in transition), and as such is not like the Phillipines in the post war period described by Kipling. The Phillipines were a possession until after WWII, and the inhabitants up to the point of decolonization US Citizens.
Big difference between the two.

Often, he was using irony. This link summarises his position best: Mark Twain on Imperialism (http://www.peacehost.net/WhiteStar/Voices/twain.html)

Although your interpretation of the poem could support your view, I think that the message is not one that is supported by the facts at hand. The issue of Iraq is sovereignty,and not colonization as the poem exhorts.
Iraq is a sovereign power (albeit in transition), and as such is not like the Phillipines in the post war period described by Kipling. The Phillipines were a possession until after WWII, and the inhabitants up to the point of decolonization US Citizens.
Big difference between the two.

From the poem:
The cry of hosts ye humour / (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- / "Why brought ye us from bondage, / Our loved Egyptian night?"

The idea of imperialism in the end of the nineteenth century was to lead a people to 'freedom' with eventual self-sufficiency. And there is still an occupation going on now which is not the same as sovereignty. Iraq had sovereignty before the invasion so it was not a reason for 'going in'. It is just something being done now.

gee these general forums go fast. Bump?

I read a parody of that poem once. It went something like

Pile on the brown man's burden
And if ye rouse their hate
Meet their old fashioned reason
With maxims up to date
With shells and dum-dum bullets
A thousand times make plain
The brown man's loss must ever
Imply the white man's gain

Those who learn from history, are doomed to be dragged back into the dark ages by the those who stubbornly wont...

If you think that the idea of Imperialism was to export democracy to the great unwashed, then you need to read up on your history. The mercantilistic philosophy of the countries with empires clearly was not a benign, altruistic one- ask the 13 Colonies who got PO'd with King and Country in 1776.

Iraq is not a colony, just like Germany, Italy and Japan were not colonies in the post war period.

If you think that the idea of Imperialism was to export democracy to the great unwashed, then you need to read up on your history. The mercantilistic philosophy of the countries with empires clearly was not a benign, altruistic one- ask the 13 Colonies who got PO'd with King and Country in 1776.

Iraq is not a colony, just like Germany, Italy and Japan were not colonies in the post war period.
The idea of Imperialism was to ensure one's own security while doing the less fortunates the favour of importing superior cultural elements.

It very much appears to me that idea of President Bush's current crusade in Iraq is to ensure US security (or so he alledges) while doing the less fortunate Iraqis the favour of importing superior cultural elements such as democracy.

Of course as history teaches those willing to learn, 'superior' is indeed a subjective term.

It is as Peopleandstuff said.

In addition, in the time this poem was written 'Ethical colonial policies' were already existing. I know the Dutch East Indies had a 'Volksraad' which had the purpose of being a training ground for democracy - amongst others. Obviously the accents were different though, but the theme of superior Western cultural elements remains. It is western culture that changed in this case, so obviously that which we are trying to teach our "new-caught sullen peoples" changes..

Both were good attempts. But they were not altruistic in nature, but rather, both were trying to spread the ideas of the Western world. The British were the best at it, as many of the world's successful developing nations were once British colonies (they are also liberal capitalist democracies, so spot the link). The world is better off because of British imperialism.
BTW, Ruyard Kipling wrote the opening poem, which I felt was underreported. It described imperialism in general, although it was written for the US, the newest member of the imperial club.

It does seem a little like that...

But at the same time, we arn't turning Iraq into a colony (I hope). They are keeping their country at the end of all this, and they can go back to hating the US when they leave.

It does seem a little like that...

But at the same time, we arn't turning Iraq into a colony (I hope). They are keeping their country at the end of all this, and they can go back to hating the US when they leave.
I dont care if it's democracy, communism, colonialism, or Pokemon-worshipism. The particulars of the ideology being forced onto others through conquest, isnt important. Clearly since the US's current political ideology isnt overtly colonial, the US when forcing it's ideology onto others wont be forcing overt colonialism on them.

Do so few understand the basics of inductive reasoning, abstraction and analogy anymore?

The poem calls for a militarily greater group to force aspects of their cultural/ideological 'norms' onto others. The specifics of those cultural aspects/ideologies are not important. The fact that belief A is being forced rather than belief B, is a detail, and utterly beside the point, in the same way that the colour of a shoplifter's shirt when he steals a candy bar is irrelevent.

I think that there if there is a "white man's" burden it is only incidental as the burden lies with economically developed countries, japan included.

The burden I think they share is a moral one, the moral obligation to use their excess wealth to better the lives of people in the third world.

I think that there if there is a "white man's" burden it is only incidental as the burden lies with economically developed countries, japan included.

The burden I think they share is a moral one, the moral obligation to use their excess wealth to better the lives of people in the third world.
Hmmm... but would this not be a really different kind of burden?

Both were good attempts. But they were not altruistic in nature, but rather, both were trying to spread the ideas of the Western world. The British were the best at it, as many of the world's successful developing nations were once British colonies (they are also liberal capitalist democracies, so spot the link). The world is better off because of British imperialism.
.

Open to debate.... Some of the worlds worst conflicts were started off by us. India and Pakistan, Isreal and the palestinians, mostly due to the British. Africa.... urgh. Yeah, we made a nic place in the US, but who knows how the nation would have developed if left alone- I guess we never will.

I see your point Knotoss, there are overtones of that sort of thing here. I mean, the US administration obviously sees it as their 'burden'...

'QUOTE]The issue of Iraq is sovereignty,and not colonization as the poem exhorts.[/QUOTE]
Sovreignty? Yeah, invading a country and imposing a flawed electoral system on them is ALL about sovreignty... ;)

Open to debate.... Some of the worlds worst conflicts were started off by us. India and Pakistan, Isreal and the palestinians, mostly due to the British. Africa.... urgh. Yeah, we made a nic place in the US, but who knows how the nation would have developed if left alone- I guess we never will.
Well take a look at India. Colonialism wasn't the best thing that ever happened to India, but without you guys, modern India would never emerge. You built railroads and telephones. You helped to introduce democracy in the area. You guys have a history to be proud of. God save the Queen!

I think the Indians had the right to go their own cultural way, without such British "development help".

I think the Indians had the right to go their own cultural way, without such British "development help".
And ideas can be exchanged without conquest. I mean India gave the world the zero and all sorts of astrological and medical ideas without invading other countries...

And besides, the British also left South Asia with the India/Pakistan conflict, contributed towards a class/caste system and a huge beurocracy...

Yeah... look at the poor widle white man's burden! I mean, telling people to tell Indian managers to tell their workers to do some shitty thing that no one wants to do but is forced upon them by the might policy is SOOOOO DIFFICULT! Bleh. Imperialism is all about getting people to do the shit work so you can keep your white hands clean. That and getting richer while the imperialized country gets poorer.
On a different note, I guess it's time to celebrate the eviction of the Native Americans. I mean, they have better lives now! :rolleyes:

Yep and if you look at former colonies you can see that way not constructed to developed well function country but effective distribution of naturalresources from the colonies to the western countries. Like for example railways that in most cases didn't go between the population town A, B and C or to locale factorycenters (that was non existens) but from the resources direct to the harbor. And also the administration they build was to effective resourcestransformation from the colonies at the same time guarantee the british suveranite over the colonies. So it was basicly a rip off of the poor the world, that if you want can see have also happen after the liberation of colonies.

Well take a look at India. Colonialism wasn't the best thing that ever happened to India, but without you guys, modern India would never emerge. You built railroads and telephones. You helped to introduce democracy in the area. You guys have a history to be proud of. God save the Queen!

You appear to be one of the people believing in a modern-day white mans burden. Or would you say it only applies retroactively?

It's not a white man's burden. Every civilization that had an edge over it's neighbours thought that way. And pretty much every civilization, everywhere, at one point or another set out to carve out an empire of it's own.

And ideas can be exchanged without conquest. I mean India gave the world the zero and all sorts of astrological and medical ideas without invading other countries...

And besides, the British also left South Asia with the India/Pakistan conflict, contributed towards a class/caste system and a huge beurocracy...
Although I have mixed opinions about British imperialism in India, the British did improve things by eroding the caste system a bit.

I say that the Kipling poem is much more applicable when referring to NAFTA and our multinational corporations. I see the correlation, but Iraq is more of a military operation that will probably short lived, in the grand scheme. The constant globalisation of our economy is much more of a colonization of sorts, as they plan on staying.

<<The idea of imperialism in the end of the nineteenth century was to lead a people to 'freedom' with eventual self-sufficiency.>>

The idea of imperialism in the end of the nineteenth century was to milk colonies of their resources, while pushing them to buy their colonizers' finished products. Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines weren't "liberated" in this time period, their "owners" were exchanged--from Spain to the United States. For example, the Philippines became America's in the early 1900s, but did not become their own country until after World War II. Does "eventual" mean nearly 50 years of colonial oppression?

*hops off soap box* Couldn't resist.

Does "eventual" mean nearly 50 years of colonial oppression?
Yeah. Though I recall Dutch politicians at the time having a timetable of a century or two.

Those who look back on history with sneering lips and scaled eyes are those who repeat the mistakes. Not those who fail to learn from history. Anyone can learn from history - that's easy; but to accept it as history and not as a mere analogy to the present is what sets the wise apart from the intellectually weak.

And ideas can be exchanged without conquest. I mean India gave the world the zero and all sorts of astrological and medical ideas without invading other countries...

And besides, the British also left South Asia with the India/Pakistan conflict, contributed towards a class/caste system and a huge beurocracy...

Actually, ideas were best passed between nations by conquest, once upon a time. Otherwise, the ideas could not take hold. It once required an iron fist to ensure that people changed from one style of life to another; now it just apparently requires a tv show...

And-

The people living in India and Pakistan had been bickering for centuries already, thank-you very much. India and Pakistan and all the other territories that Britain once held all had their problems before we arrived; some we managed to 'help' them with (although the word 'help' might be a tad strong, as it was in fact only for our own gain), some problems worsened. Probably, if calculated, it would work out at net stability in total problems. Haven't you ever heard of the conservation of negativity law? ;)

But if you want to talk about actual imperialism in modern times, it might be a good idea to take a look at the recent and more distant history of Bouganville, which was formally a colony of Papua New Guinea (most recently), and gained indepedance a few years ago. :)

You appear to be one of the people believing in a modern-day white mans burden. Or would you say it only applies retroactively?
I wouldn't call it a white man's burden. That was coined by Ruyard Kipling, and is fairly rascist if you ask me. However, I do believe that we have the hoonr of and duty of opening societies. It is our honor for obvious reasons, and duty because our collective security depends on it.

I wouldn't call it a white man's burden. That was coined by Ruyard Kipling, and is fairly rascist if you ask me. However, I do believe that we have the hoonr of and duty of opening societies. It is our honor for obvious reasons, and duty because our collective security depends on it.

Hmmm... But if you do not mind me asking, what are these 'obvious reasons' then? why is it our (who is 'us' here?) to 'open societies'? And what do you mean by 'opening societies'?