Some nineteenth-century British writers popularized the idea of the white man's burden. These authors included the illustrious Rudyard Kipling, who coined the term in his famous poem of the same title. "Take up the white man's burden— / Send forth the best ye breed— / Go bind your sons to exile / To serve your captives' need," Kipling wrote.
The racist idea behind the "white man's burden" was that benevolent rule would uplift "primitive" peoples. Western leaders eagerly embraced the doctrine of the white man's burden because it was a convenient justification for their expansionist policies. Far from "uplifting" native populations, however, white colonizers brutally exploited indigenous people. As a rule, indigenous peoples did not welcome the supposedly beneficial rule of Westerners.
Social Darwinism was the psuedo-scientific justification for the white man's burden and imperialism. Charles Darwin's theories explained how certain species thrived while others did not. Proponents of social Darwinism applied Darwin's concept of "survival of the fittest" to human societies and nations. They argued that Western nations were obvious the fittest on earth, so they had a duty to spread their advanced ideas and culture to backward areas of the globe. In fact, Darwin's ideas were only applicable to biology. Today, it is known that there is no scientific basis for Social Darwinism, but many late nineteenth-century Western leaders were under its sway.
Rudyard Kipling’s poem "The White Man's Burden" puts forward the idea that colonization is a great responsibility and a labor that often goes unrewarded or is even condemned in the colonized or imperialized areas.
Two possible reactions among the peoples in the colonizing powers are increased and decreased support for their nation’s actions. Those holding either position might still view subjected peoples as inferior and needy. While many white Europeans joined the service of empire, others were recruited or conscripted into the military. The governments generally promoted idea that it was both a privilege and a burden to extend what they saw as “civilization” to “wild” people elsewhere. The terms that Kipling uses for the subject peoples are in accord with widely accepted ideas in Europe, enhanced by the racist, eugenicist, and distorted philosophy of Social Darwinism, which claimed all other races were inferior to Caucasians. Kipling refers to them as “half-devil and half-child.”
Opposition to imperialism is also supported in the poem. Kipling uses an ironic undertone which is often ignored. He acknowledges that people at home may reject taking up this burden because it does not benefit them directly, but enriches the dominant sectors of society: “to seek another’s profit/ And work another’s gain.” Because this poem and related prose works responded directly to the US actions in the Spanish-American war, which was not universally popular, the criticism of armed conflict and the loss of life is significant: “the savage wars of peace” and “mark them with your dead.” Organized political opposition to the high costs of war, both monetary and human, showed erosion of national confidence in the imperial project.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_burden.htm
https://monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/imperialism-and-anti-imperialism-in-africa/
The "White Man's Burden" implies that whites (represented by the white populations of Europe and the United States) are doing other ethnic groups a favor when they run their countries and impose Western culture. In this telling of the story, they are giving "primitive" people the valuable gift of civilization. According to this narrative, white Europeans are sacrificing themselves to make life better for childlike people who can't properly run their own societies.
If this is your outlook, you are going to look down on the people you colonize as inferior. Rather than regard yourself as an invader or exploiter harming the cultures you are in charge of, you will see yourself as a savior of a backward society. Rather than seeing your interference as abusive or damaging, you are likely to expect the people you have power over to be grateful to you for bestowing your superior culture on them.
The attitude is likely to have made people in Europe feel justified in pursuing imperialism and less questioning of it as a possibly immoral or unethical usurping of other nations' sovereignty. It is an attitude that breeds arrogance and makes the imperial power less likely to want to learn from or know about the people it is subjugating. This can be very alienating, breed deep resentments, and lead to destructive blunders and misunderstandings.
No comments:
Post a Comment