Rudyard
Kipling expressed the idea
of the "White Man's Burden" in his poem of that name.
[Note:
it's hard to read the tone here.
Kipling
captures the idea well, but it's not clear to what extent he
is
expressing his
own sentiments and to what extent he is critical. The
poem was written as a reflection on the challenges America
faced as America, too, became an empire following the Spanish
American War. America, up to that point, had been an
anti-imperialist power. But after defeating Spain in
1898, America took possession of several former Spanish
colonies including the Philippines. Is Kipling warning
America? Giving America a challenge to handle its
responsibilities well? That's unclear, but, whatever the
purpose and whatever his own views on imperialism, Kipling
reflects accurately the views of many, if not most European
leaders toward the rest of the world. ]
The White Man's Burden
(Rudyard Kipling, 1899)
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 hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry 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 mark 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 he 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 cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred 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!
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic.And then there's Jonathan Edward's Sunshine, with it's complaints about those who can't even run their own lives but want to run ours.
THE
AMERICAS
[Skipped this section F2022--you won't be
responsible for commenting on this material on the Midterm II
exam.]
Europeans
brought with them their
governmental systems, initially depending on governors ruling in
the
name of
one European king or another, but eventually establishing
local/national
governments based on the ideas of Locke or Rousseau or (in some
instances)
figures like on Karl Marx.
Europeans
brought with them their
languages: English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese—and they
often
suppressed
the native languages. Since language is the prime carrier
of
culture, the
dominance of European languages meant the introduction of all
sorts of
European
cultural characteristics as well, and the suppression of native
languages meant
the death of much native culture.
But,
from the European point of
view, native culture deserved to die. Natives were savages,
fortunate
to have
the chance to learn something better. Europeans had a duty to
teach
them—and,
especially, a duty to guide them into the true religion.
Christianity,
was, of
course, born in the Middle East, but it was European varieties
of
Christianity
that spread most in the New World--Roman Catholicism, and the
various
Protestant sects arising in the various European countries
during the
Reformation.
Europeans
brought their technology,
their agricultural methods, even their fashions to
America. And,
most of
all, Europeans brought themselves: the great majority
of today's
New World
inhabitants have at least some European ancestry.
In
many instances, native populations were
almost entirely displaced.
The
transformation of the Americas wasn’t
easy, and most of you are familiar with the sacrifices and
hardship
pioneer
types had to make and of the terribly risky nature of the whole
business—a
burden in many ways. But for native
peoples, the burden of dealing with the newcomers was also
extraordinarily
difficult, often leaving a trail of tears.
[Please see my Trail
of
Tears lecture]
AFRICA
In
Africa, too, the White Man’s
Burden proved often to be quite a burden for the native peoples.
Europeans
had little contact with
Sub-Saharan Africa little before 1600. But after 1600,
contact
between
Europeans and Africans increased at a dramatic pace. Both
Europeans and
Africans were both eager for trade. Europe had much that
Africans
wanted. European manufactured goods were particularly
attractive--especially
European firearms. But what did Africans have to offer in
exchange?
Plenty!
Africans
had gold to offer, ivory to
offer, diamonds to offer--and something even more valuable than
gold,
ivory or
diamonds! They had people to offer, people to sell as
slaves.
Now
the slave trade was not new in
Africa. Africans had sold other Africans into slavery for
centuries. And
even more, Arabs had sold Africans into slavery for centuries.
But increased
trade with Europe meant a dramatic increase in the slave trade:
ultimately, ten
million people sold into slavery.
European
contact also increased the
instability of Africa, and the introduction of European-style
weapons
made the
conflicts in Africa worse than they had been earlier. And as
conflict
increased,
it become increasingly difficult for the Europeans to do
business in
Africa. So what did they do? In the late19th
century, the
obvious
solution was simply to take over the continent themselves.
Eventually (by
around 1914), almost all of Africa had been taken over by one
European
power or
another.
[If
you want more detail,
see the Wikipedia article on the Scramble for Africa.]
The
desire to spread Christianity
was part of their motive. One gets figures like David Livingston
(1813-1873)
who essentially gave his whole life to African exploration and
does
seem to
have wanted to bring good things to Africans: Christianity,
Commerce,
and
Civilization. Men like Livingston
exposed the evils of the slave trade, and eventually did sway
public
opinion
back in Europe enough to help bring that trade to an end.
But
the push for material gain often
overshadowed any altruistic impulse and sometimes led to
horrible
atrocities. Particularly bad, what
happened in the Congo.
The
Portuguese, British, and French
all had some interest in acquiring the Congo, but at the Berlin
Conference of
1884 (14 European Nations meeting at the invitation of Otto Von
Bismarck to
decide the future of Africa), King Leopold II of Belgium managed
to
emerge with
direct control of what was called the Congo Free State.
Leopold’s
goal was simply to make as
much money as he possibly could by exploiting Congo’s rubber
production
capabilities. Dunlop’s invention of
the
pneumatic tire made rubber very valuable.
But it was hard work to collect, and Leopold wanted a lot
of it. He devised a system of
forced labor to
acquire as much rubber as possible. Each
village
had to supply its quota—and the penalty for not doing so was
death. When villagers rebelled,
Leopold
sent in
native mercenaries armed with European-style weapons.
To prove they had done their job in punishing
villages that failed to meet their quotas, the mercenaries had
to bring
back
the severed hands of those they killed.
This often meant whole baskets of hands brought back to
Leopold’s
officials.
This
is the Europeans at their
worst, and many knew it. Joseph Conrad exposed these atrocities
in his
Heart of
Darkness, and when other Europeans finally figured out what was
going
on,
Leopold was compelled to cede the Congo to the Belgian
government. But he’d made a billion
dollars or so
already—and certainly never had to account for any of his
crimes: in
this world
at least. Vachel Lindsay may have it right though.
Here’s a part of Lindsay’s “The Congo”:
Listen
to the yell of Leopold’s ghost
Burning in hell for his hand-maimed host.
Hear how the demons chuckle and yell.
Cutting his hands off, down in Hell.
AUSTRALIA
Australia,
too, is an example of the
European’s carrying their burden to the rest of the world.
Here,
we have
a whole continent taken over as a colony of one European power,
Britain. The
British Captain Cook claimed the continent for Britain in
1780.
Soon, the
native population was reduced to a a small minority, and
English-speakers (if
you can call Aussie English, mate) dominate the continent.
[The
Australian Culture
and Recreation portal has some great Australia information,
including
stories
on the colonization of Australia.
See
the Australian Stories Index.
You
might like,
for instance some of the stories about convict women, women like
Esther
Abrahams who
went from being a convict to the governor's wife!]
ANTARCTICA
What's
left? Antarctica?
Land of penguins and ice? Here too
the
Europeans (well, Americans and New Zealanders too) seem to have
felt a
burden:
we’ve just got to push forward no matter what obstacles are in
the way.
Possibly
a burden for the penguins.
ASIA
And
then there's one more continent:
the largest of all, Asia--and here too Europeans have had a
sizeable
impact. And, in many ways, it's surprising that they did
have
that
impact. I'll give two examples, India and China.
India
The
European impression that like Australia,
Africa and the Americas were primitive places that needed to be
“civilized” is
perhaps not so surprising. India, however, is another
matter. In
the days
prior to European involvement, India had developed an
impressive,
attractive,
and exceedingly stable civilization of its own, a civilization
that
would seem
unlikely to change.
And,
for a long time, Europeans had
very little contact with India and very little influence on
India. But
that began to change around 1600. About that time, contact
with
Europeans
began to increase dramatically, and, once again, the primary
reason was
trade.
England,
for instance, began to get
involved in Indian affairs clear back in the time of Queen
Elizabeth. She
chartered the EAST INDIA COMPANY, making them the only British
company
with the
right to trade in India.
This
trade was quite lucrative: but
there was a potential problem. India was somewhat
unstable.
There
was a great potential for conflict between the ruling Moslem
ruling
minority
and the majority Hindu population. Because of the frequent
violence, the
British government sent forces to protect the EIC trading
outposts. In
the Bengal region, the man in charge was Robert Clive. He
had at
his
disposal 800 English soldier and 2,000 native mercenaries.
Friction with
the Bengal government eventually led to war. The Bengal
army was
probably
50,000 strong. Yet Clive and his forces won! This
essentially left
the British East India Co. in charge of the Bengal
province. But
this
wasn't the end of it! Another British East India unit
under
Charles
Napier took over in the Sind and Punjab--and soon all India was
under
the
control--not of Great Britain--but of one British company, the
East
India Co.
Naturally
enough, EIC officials used
their position to make money, and there was considerable
corruption.
Clive (on trial) when asked about his excesses said that he was
"astonished at his moderation". Napier admitted he and the
others had been rascals, but he talked about "A very
advantageous
useful,
humane, piece of rascality."
But
this humane rascality aroused
considerable opposition within India itself. There was a
great
rebellion
in 1857 (the Sepoy rebellion). The Sepoys were Moslem
mercenaries
employed by the British, but, resentful of their treatment, they
launched a
rebellion: and more than a rebellion. The committed
horrible
atrocities
against the wives and children of Europeans--perhaps a kind of
terrorism here
designed to make the British leave. It didn't work. The
British
came
back, exacted their revenge (sometimes carelessly harming the
innocent). Then the British government took control
of India
directly: Queen Victoria took a new title: empress of India.
Once
in control, the British began
making all sorts of changes in India. They felt they had a
duty
to do
so, and I would guess it was Kipling's experiences growing up in
India that inspired his "White Man's Burden" poem. And
India, especially, shows
why Europeans felt they had such a burden to change the world.
First
of all, the
British felt a responsibility to change the religious
beliefs and
practices of the people of India, to win them away from
Hinduism.
Now the
Hindu tradition produced some impressive things, things I talk
about
extensively in my History 121 class. But what the British
typically saw
of the Hindu religion was only what seemed to them preposterous
and
often
horrible superstitions.
Hindu
polytheism, its belief in many
gods, seemed a thing of the distant past, a superstition to be
done
away
with. Customs like temple prostitution likewise seemed to
cry out
for
change, as did the blood thirsty worship of the goddess
Kali. Who
in their
right mind wouldn't want the "thugees" (a cult which waylaid,
robbed,
and murdered travelers) eliminated?
And
then there's the
Juggernaut. Wikipedia says this:
During
the British
colonial era,
Christian
missionaries promulgated a
fallacy that
Hindu devotees of Krishna
were lunatic
fanatics
who threw themselves under the wheels of these chariots in order
to
attain salvation.
But
was it really a fallacy?
If not, yet another reason for change.
Also
seeming to cry out for change:
India's rigid social structure, the caste system. The caste
system divides people
from birth
into four major castws and into various sub-castes. Caste
determines one's
whole life: where you can live, what you can eat, what
profession you
will
follow, what you can wear, and who you will marry.
European
society at
the time was moving toward greater and greater equality: a
social
structure
more rigid than anything Europe had ever known naturally seemed
wrong.
The treatment of women and marriage customs in general were
likewise
exactly
the opposite of what Europeans were coming to believe was idea.
Marriages
in India were arranged by
one's parents, often when was was very young. Arranged
marriage?
Not so
good, said Europeans--something they had themselves left
behind.
Futher,
while Europeans were moving toward greater equality for women,
India
proved a
society where women were anything but equal. The Hindu
Code of
Manu says,
"A husband must be constantly worshipped as a God by a faithful
wife. Day and Night women must be kept in dependence by
the males
of
their families."
Women
in India are expected to be
faithful to their husbands--even after husband is dead. In
some
cases, a
widow simply goes into permanent mourning. In others, she
is
under
pressure to become "sati," pure. When her husband's body
is
burned, a woman proves her fidelity by joining him on the
funeral
pyre--burned
alive. And if she does not do so voluntarily, well, she
will have
brothers or uncles who will help her prove her purity.
Both the
practice
of burning widows and the widow herself are called "sati."
Sati
may have been (as many today
claim) relatively rare, but it existed in India, and still goes
on from
time to
time. Again, a reason for change.
Another
feature of Indian society
the British found objectionable was infanticide. Unwanted
babies,
particularly
girl babies, were simply killed. In our own society, we
regard
killing of
babies as the most horrible of crimes (or at least we did until
1973).
But Indian society did not. Why? Largely because of
belief
in karma
and reincarnation.
Hinduism
teaches that this life not
all there is--you come back in another form, according to your
Karma. If
you are good, you'll come back as something better--a member of
the
Kshatriya
or Brahman castes perhaps. If you do evil you come
back as
something
worse, perhaps as a woman or, if you're particularly bad, a
history
professor.
The
result of this is that Hindus
have a very different attitudes to all sorts of things than that
which
prevails
in the West, and particularly a different attitude toward
suffering: In
the West, one feels an obligation to help those suffering.
In
India, one
may not be so quick to help--because you know why they are
suffering. No
point in interfering with karma!
And
that's probably why the British
felt they had to step in. Poverty, disease, and suffering
were so
wide
spread in India, and the Indian people themselves didn't seem to
want
to do
anything about it.
Well,
the British did make changes:
But
despite the fact that much of
what they did seemed good, the British were resented!
India
wanted independence--and
some of those *most* trained in European ways were the most
zealous for
independence. Why? They were taught and accepted
European
ideas on
the importance of nationalism and democracy. It's
Important
to note
that leaders of modern India are almost always European in
education
and
outlook (e.g., Gandhi who was an Oxford educated lawyer!).
India
finally won its independence
in 1947. But even in independence, European influence is
still
extensive. India today has a parliamentary govt. like
Britain. The
main languages of India? Hindi--and English! So even
in
this huge
country, a place where one might think there would be little
European
influence, one can see the dominance, or at least the
importance, of
Europeans
and European ideas.
China
And
then there's China.
Like
India, China had an ancient
civilization, a civilization of which the Chinese could just be
proud.
For much of human history, China was one of the most, if not the
most,
advanced
civilizations of the face of the earth. The Chinese
invented
silk, paper,
printing, gunpowder, china--even spaghetti! One
would
hardly think
that this very impressive civilization would change in a major
way
because of
the Europeans--and, for a long time, there was very little
European
influence
on China.
China
did not have much incentive
for trade with the Europeans--and, for a long time, the
deliberately
kept
European influence out. The Chinese called the Europeans
"ocean
devils"--because they came over the ocean, and because they
behaved
like
devils. Not surprisingly, the Chinese government allowed
the
Europeans
access to a single Chinese port--Canton--trying to keep European
influence to a
minimum.
But
these Ocean Devils were clever
devils. They wanted to trade with China. They wanted
access
to
Chinese tea, porcelain, silk, etc. But what could they
offer in
exchange? Well, they found something. Something the
Chinese
would
want more of. And more of. And more of. They
started
importing Opium. The British East India Company in
particularly
began
bringing large amounts of Opium into China.
The
Chinese government, naturally
enough, tried to stop them, seizing and destroying opium at
Canton. The
British decided to force the Chinese to allow the sale of Opium
and
went to
war--the first Opium War (1839-1842). The British win (an
indication once
again of European strength), and force the Chines to cede to
them the
port of
Hong Kong. They force them to allow opium imports--and to
pay for
the
opium they had earlier seized and destroyed.
Worse,
the Opium War made clear to
other countries the weakness of China--and soon, they, too, were
pushing the
Chinese around. Eventually, they divided China up into
"spheres
of
influence." Russia, Britain, France, German--and
Japan--each
had a sphere where they took control. Within each sphere,
the
Chinese
ceded control of trade and some aspects of the judicial
system.
Court
cases involving Europeans were in the jurisdiction of European
courts,
not
Chinese courts. Further, the Chinese had to put up with
things
like being
excluded from places within their own country! The
old
story was
that one park had a sign: no dogs or Chinese. A good
story, and
one I
told for years--but it's apparently wrong. There were
restrictions.
The park was reserved for foreigners and dogs weren't allowed,
but it
wasn't
the one sentence thing we'd heard about for years equating the
Chinese
with
dogs. Oh, well.
Here's
Bruce
Lee and the "No Dogs or Chinese" sign.
In
China, as elsewhere, the
Europeans felt that the "White Man's Burden" obligated them to
help
make changes--sometimes with good reason. The Manchu
government
was
corrupt and often ineffective. Customs like child
marriage,
foot-binding,
and the widespread practice of infanticide all seemed to call
out for
change. And the Europeans did make changes.
Christian
missionaries
introduced their faith to China, while at the same time setting
up
schools,
schools which exposed many of the Chinese to European ideas on
all
sorts of
things. And European ideas did spread--not always in the
fashion
Europeans might have wished!
In
1851, for instance, a man named
Hong Xiuquan (Hung in many texts), started what is called the
Taiping
rebellion. Hong embraced many of the missionaries’ ideas--and
went
beyond them
in his enthusiasm. Hong believed that he was the "younger
brother
of
Jesus," called by God to establish the Great Peace
(Taiping)--the
millennial
kingdom. And Hong soon won hundreds of thousands of
devoted
followers. The Taipings were able to take control of much
of
China
(1851-1864), and, in the areas they got control, they made all
sorts of
changes.
They
eliminated foot-binding,
witchcraft, and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and opium.
They
destroyed
temples of the old gods. Women among the Taipings had
higher
status than
elsewhere in China, often assuming positions of authority.
Eventually,
the Taiping Rebellion
was put down by the Manchus--with the help of the
Europeans. But
ultimately the rebellion cost perhaps 20 million lives--some
experts
say 50
million or even more! It's not easy to deal with radical
change!
Some
Chinese wanted to rid
themselves of all European influence, and this led to the Boxer
Rebellion of
1900. But China was only able to throw off European
control by,
in some
ways, adopting European ideas and making them their own.
Typical
is Dr. Sun Yat-Sen.
Sun-Yat-Sen was a Christian convert who went on to receive
western-style
medical training. Eventually, using the slogan
"Nationalism,
Democracy, Livelihood" he created a movement strong enough to
create
for
China a government based on European notions of what a
government
should be
like--the Chinese Republic. After Sun Yet-Sen's death,
leadership
of the
Republic fell to his also-westward-looking brother-in-low,
Chiang Kai
Shek.
Ultimately,
however, it was not
democratic ideas that dominated China, but a different set of
European
ideas,
the ideas of the German writer Karl Marx. The leader of
the
Communist
movement in China was Mao Tse-Tung. Mao managed to take
over
China in
1949, and he set about to remake the country along Marxist
lines.
In
1959, Mao launched the
"Great Leap Forward," an attempt to change the Chinese
economy.
This involved the construction of everything from roads to
hydro-electric dams.
It also involved the collectivization of agriculture. The
result?
Too much change, too quickly--and probably 25,000,000 dead.
Mao
worked to transform China in
other ways--not just the economy. From 1966-1969 he backed
the
"Cultural Revolution," a movement aimed at getting rid of the
"four olds," old ideology, old thought, old habits, old
customs. Millions of young people joined the Red
Guard--and
dedicated
themselves to wanton destruction of anything even vaguely
associated
with old
Chinese trations. More than 1,000,000 leaders (incuding
especially
teachers) were jailed, beaten, and (usually) killed.
Obviously,
a tremendously costly
transformation!
But,
in the end, China emerged an
extraordinarily powerful nation--no longer a nation that can be
pushed
around
by others. In fact, it is very likely China that will be
doing
the
pushing in very short order. In his "Werner von Braun" song, Tom
Lehrer has the former Nazi singing, "’In German and English I
know how
to
count down, and I'm learning Chinese,’ says Werner von
Braun.”
Well, some
of us, perhaps might think about learning Chinese as well--for
all
sorts of
different reasons. The Chinese are a very formidable
player in
world
affairs, and they may become more formidable yet. The era
of
European
dominance is probably over: but the next stage of human history
is
likely to be
the story of how two European influenced societies (China and
America)
work
things about between themselves--or how they don't work them
out.