Reading Kipling from the other side of the coin. From the perspective of those "captive" rather than the "captor": what a great way to approach "The White Man's Burden."
I like this point of view because reading both sides allows me to better situate imperialism and colonization from a distance. Here, the view of one side or the other doesn't take the fore, but instead the "burden" itself takes presidency.
However, in reading this speaker as though he (he because of "Man's," "sons," "manhood") is part of those being colonized, I am forced to read the poem as being entirely sarcastic: who would promote taking up the burden of an oppressor? This would seem to undermine the credibility of the speaker to the extent that the poem becomes silly.
Further, if Kipling is writing in the voice of the colonized, then isn't he assuming to know the emotions and mind of the colonized, and isn't that showing a type of egoism and perhaps "racist" behaviour?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The other side of burden is a tempting interpretation of "White Man's Burden". From my own readings I would rather regard Kipling as a conscientious writter. However, in the idialization of Kipling a reader may imprint their own impressions onto "White Man's Burden". We may want to read the poem as condeming colonialism, but perhaps such a reading stretches the text to far. Kipling may have honestly felt that ending famine was a noble, worthy cause, that would not initially be appreciated. Such a perspective need not be regarded as 'jingoism', but rather as a main-stream Victorian ideal. As such it is unlikely that Kipling wrote "The White Man's Burden" as a sarcastic account from the perspective of the colonized.
Post a Comment