UMass Boston History 112: Essay#4

Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” employs various propaganda tactics in its appeal to Americans for support of imperialism, specifically applied to the celebration of the annexation of the Philippines by the United States. As a liberal, I find his means no more appealing than the ends of American imperialism. His ultra-nationalistic zeal is strikingly similar in tone and substance to that of modern-day ultra-nationalistic propaganda available on talk-radio or in cable news networks. No doubt the “White Man’s Burden” was far more appealing to the nationalists of that time.

To start, I would define the concept of “White Man’s Burden” as what Kipling sees as white Christian Americans’ honor-bound duty to themselves, their country and even the indigenous people of potentially-colonized countries to deliver imperialistic servitude. In every stanza, Kipling puts forth this concept as though it were a flag or a standard in declaring, “Take up the White Man’s burden.” It challenges the reader much like a call-to-arms, with a noble and sentimental tone. The varying methods Kipling undertook in his effort to justify imperialism were artfully crafted as though stemming from a propaganda handbook.

Kipling first dehumanizes indigenous people in describing them as “new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child.” He sets this dehumanization against the declaration, “Send forth the best ye breed….Go, bind your sons to exile….To serve your captives’ need.” Here, he is speaking to white Christian American fathers as though they are bulls of breeding for the benefit of the country, ultimately for the benefit (according to Kipling) of the indigenous people.

In the second stanza, Kipling stirs up nationalistic sentiments that implore the reader “To veil the threat of terror” in what appears to be an attempt to ambiguously link the benefits of imperialism with that of terrorism (a method not lost on modern right-wing nationalists in their justifications for invading Iraq by linking the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda with that of the Iraqi government). Kipling also stokes the nationalistic sense of superiority over other competing nations in his declaration that the reader will “….check the show of pride” (suggesting the humbling effect that the American efforts should bring to other competitors). Kipling concludes the stanza by boldly asserting the responsibility to bring profit to the motherland as “….seek another’s profit and work another’s gain.”

The third stanza espouses more benefits to the motherland Americans might bring such as helping to end famine and cure disease (presumably by the host nation’s unique resources). The fourth stanza seems to suggest the opportunity to freely civilize the untouched terrain of the host country, unburdened by constraints of monarchy. This brings to mind television propaganda for military enlistment, which will usually tout the benefit of seeing the world.

The fifth stanza seems to resort to martyrdom, in declaring the “old reward” of the White Man’s burden to be “The blame of those ye better” (competitor nations) and “The hate of those ye guard” (the indigenous people). I took the passage regarding the “…hosts ye humour” to be about liberal Americans against the idea of imperialism. If this be the case, then Kipling is essentially equating formerly-enslaved Jews to Americans, ancient Egypt to pre-imperialist America and the lack of imperialism in America to bondage itself.

The sixth stanza seems to continue an attack on anti-imperialistic sentiment in stating the reader “…dare not stoop to less” and not hide behind the banner of freedom to disguise their lack of fortitude. The stanza then goes on the encourage the promotion of religion (assuredly Christianity) upon the “…silent sullen peoples” whom “….shall weigh your God and you.” The final and seventh stanza amounts to machismo peer pressure. It is a call to grow up, be a man and join the cause of imperialism or risk being judged harshly by your peers.

Thus, Kipling’s justification for imperialism amounted to dehumanizing the victims, stoking a strong sense of nationalism in declaring superiority as a nation compared to competitor nations and as a people compared to indigenous people, stoking a strong sense of patriotism in terms of service and sacrifice, stoking a strong sense of pride in terms of spreading Western civilization, martyrdom for the unpopularity suffered, demonization of political opponents of imperialism, tying Christian superiority to imperialism and equating manliness and fortitude to imperialism.
The question remains of what in the character of the United States made Kipling’s sentiments welcome in the hearts of Americans who supported imperialism. To start, there were the motives of imperialism itself. The economic motive sought raw materials, markets and investments due mostly to the burgeoning industrial capitalism. The push for national power and prestige in the face of the world was a major motive for imperialism. The drive to civilize what were considered to be heathen countries was a major motive for Christian missionaries who accompanied the soldiers and merchants in their “civilizing missions.” The demand in jobs for service abroad motivated many men of varying economic positions to take up the White Man’s burden. All of these motives for imperialism match up perfectly with the sentiments expressed in Rudyard Kipling’s poem.

In modern terms, it is not unlike Bush’s evolving rationalizations for the Iraq War in which there also exists the umbrella of excuses to maintain what amounts to a modern day equivalent of imperialism. Bush has found a way to justify his occupation of Iraq in declaring its benefit for all Americans, for the United States as a whole and for Iraqi citizens. Bush’s rationalizations have been distributed to the public and vigorously defended by right-wing talk radio hosts and cable news networks all of whom serve as the modern day equivalent to Rudyard Kipling.

While Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” is morally reprehensible by today’s standards and by the standards of his contemporary liberals whom opposed imperialism, it had an appeal well-suited to the ideologically-aligned mindsets of his time. Fervent supporters of Bush’s occupation of Iraq would do well to view side-by-side comparisons of their modern day propaganda and that of Rudyard Kipling in order to understand what it is they are really defending.