World History

Unit 5: Industrialism and Nationalism

Chapter 23: The Age of Imperialism

49. Thu, Mar 6, 2014

We've mentioned Rudyard Kipling before, because of "The White Man's Burden," but it's worth talking about his work, as well as comparing him to a few other writers. In "White Man's Burden," Kipling is clearly exhorting his audience to do the right thing by the populations made captive. Kipling's writing is a fascinating study in contrasts: compare his view of the colonized peoples — "Half devil and half child" — with this excerpt from his famous poem "Gunga Din":

An' for all 'is dirty 'ide
'E was white, clear white, inside
When 'e went to tend the wounded under fire!
    It was "Din! Din! Din!"
  With the bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green.
[…]
    Though I've belted you and flayed you,
    By the livin' Gawd that made you,
 You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

This was written in 1892, several years prior to "White Man's Burden." Kipling also praises individual Indians in "The Ballad of East and West," in which a British officer and an Indian rebel encounter each other, and come away admiring one another despite being enemies. And so Kipling clearly felt both supportive of imperialism, and critical of some of its fundamental underpinnings: the captive peoples had to be taught and educated, to Kipling's eyes, but at the same time, he clearly felt some of the peoples being conquered were the equals of the British, or even their moral superiors!

Joseph Conrad took it even further. Here's a passage from Heart of Darkness:

"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea — something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to…"

So to Conrad, imperialism is in fact evil, unless some good comes of it. Here's a link to another passage, not for the squeamish and therefore not required, that makes his uneasiness even more clear.

But these men, despite their occasional reluctance about empire, still come out firmly on the empire's side. Others were more critical: Mark Twain, for one. On the subject of the Philippines, he said, "I thought it would be a great thing to give a whole lot of freedom to the Filipinos, but I guess now that it's better to let them give it to themselves." In this sentiment he anticipated quite a few anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist writers, who frequently would assert that simply being given good things such as roads and schools was, in and of itself, a problem. Franz Fanon wrote in the anti-colonialist classic The Wretched of the Earth,

"If the building of a bridge does not enrich the awareness of those who work on it, then that bridge should not be built […] it should not be imposed by a deus ex machina upon the social scene; on the contrary it should come from the muscles and the brains of the citizens."

Or, in other words, the best intentions and efforts of the empires to improve the colonies and the lives of the colonized may have backfired, because the improvements did not come naturally.

• Do Twain and Fanon make sense? Can freedom be given, or must it be taken? Can development be handed down from on high, or does it have to be pushed up from below?
• Note the phrasings Kipling uses: Gunga Din may be "dirty," but he's "pure white inside." Whiteness is therefore still Kipling's highest praise. How do you think Indian readers would feel, reading "Gunga Din"?

Contents of this page © Copyright 2011, 2012 by Paul Christiansen and Bruce A. McMenomy.
Permission to download or print this page is hereby given to members of Scholars Online for purposes of personal study only. All other use constitutes a violation of copyright.