In class, we've been discussing The White Man's Burden and examples, causes, and effects of imperialism and help from "superiors". We've generally agreed that those who find themselves to be "superior" (British imperialists...)tend to want to "help" (assimilate, Christianize...) those who are "inferior" (African villages, non-Christian countries). We've also questioned what their motives were for doing so. Is it to genuinely help those they deem less fortunate? Or do they simply want an economic/political gain and they use benevolence as a cover? However, something we haven't discussed as much is what their "philanthropic" deeds actually accomplish.
This confuses me greatly. The white man wants to give to the less fortunate peoples because the white man is superior and therefore needs to help others. But if the white man is giving to other people what makes him superior, hasn't he leveled the field? Aren't both the white man and the African villager on the same level once the white man tells/shows the villager everything he knows? Then, after helping out one group of people, the white man is no longer superior. He has equals. Can the white man help out more than one group of less fortunate people and still claim superiority?
A situation that illustrates this is the US's aid to Iraq. The United States armed Iraqi groups to that they could defend themselves. Now, we (the United States and Iraq) are fighting the war as equals. It's not guns vs. bows and arrows or swords. It's guns vs. guns. In our attempt to help the less fortunate, we have given up our superiority over them.
My basic point is this: Once the white man helps someone, he is no longer superior, he is an equal. This prevents him from claiming superiority twice, and almost humbles him.
Thoughts?
(Megan West)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
An interesting point, indeed! Does the white man then help the "inferior" to only a certain extent? Does he maintain a social gap in hopes of remaining on top? In this way, his burden never disappears. It will plague him until a sense of equality between both parties has been established. Perhaps the white man takes pride in assuming such a burden.
By colonization, however, the white man was raising his own superiority, was he not? Despite the fact that he may have provided food, shelter, arms, etc.. for the native people, he was gaining control over territory. Can we say that they defined wealth by amount of land? (I think Dr. Bjornstad mentioned something about this once.)
What if Kipling's poem was nothing but a satire meant to condemn the Europeans for their swelling egos? This could serve as an explanation to the contradition displayed by the introduction before the poem and the poem itself.
In today's world, it seems as if "the white man's burden" is tied in with a negative connotation. How did this become so?
(Samantha Maliha)
Hello
First of all, the explanation in our book says that Kipling didn't believe in white supremacy but thought that those who were civilized were obliged to enlighten those who were at a disadvantage.
If I remember correctly, the poem White Man's Burden does not say anything about the obligation of white man to teach everything that he knows. This fact leads me to the idea that white man's burden is to better the 'inferior' races, not to make them as equals to the whites. It's human nature to wish that you are better than others. (For example, when someone asks you for help in studying for a test, you help them but still wish you do better than that person.)
Lastly, I don't think the United States has ever given weapons to any violent, militant groups in Iraq to allow them to fight as equals. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but that doesn't make any sense. United States may have given weapons to the the democratic Iraqi government or to those who fought for US, but certainly not to the insurgents.
(Jennifer Park)
Jenn-
Oh no no no... Weapons simply given to the Iraqi government.
And not to fight us, but to fight off other oppressive nations.
It just happens to be that they're now in the wrong hands, fighting against us.
...To the extent of my knowledge... which is very little on the subject.
I could be totally wrong. Just tell me if you're sure.
(Megan West)
By taking on the "white man's burden" doesn't that imply a preconceived sense of superiority? But from the opening paragraph regarding Kipling, the implication is that it is merely moral superiority. If this is the case, equality, ideally, will be reached (if the goal is merely to spread a set of morals). But we must take into account the difficulty of undoing morals that have been instilled in a people for generations. As mentioned in class today-- how will that nation know that it needs help if the way it is is the way it's been as long as it can remember? How would or should a nation that believes itself to be morally superior to another go about informing the other nation? How would we ( as citizens of the US) feel if another nation tried to conquer us because it believes we are morally deficient-- do we think we are?
Emily T.
The U.S. has had a long-lived feeling of superiority. The countries that "superior" countries have tried to help do not think of themselves as better than anyone else because they know nothing else. The U.S., however, has evaluated all the other social and political situations and decided that ours is the best. If another country tried to conquer us because they thought we were morally deficient, it would come as not only a huge surprise but and insult so great that we would probably end up in some sort of war. The U.S. has a problem and a gift of wanting to be the best. Our ambition is so incredible that other countries are either jealous, or angered by what they see as cockiness.
The white man's burden has developed a negative connotation because it's definition has become that which implies oppression, arrogance, rascism and alterior motives. I believe this phrase should not be used to describe the U.S. in Iraq because personally I feel that first and foremost we sincerely want to help the people of Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The White Man's Burden could be called a blunder but how much would the world have really progressed without it? We can't change the past but we can affect the future. So we should understand that it is wrong to try to help those who don't want it but I believe it is also wrong to let people live in unnecessary poverty.
(Kelley Volosin)
Is it because the United States believes it is "superior" that we want to help others? Most Americans believe we have a higher standard of living in this country than in many countries around the world. That is why we feel obliged to help these less-fortunate people. Our perspective leads us to believe that these people are living miserable lives and that we need to help them. If the nation does not want our help, we disregard their words, since they don't understand their situation. We believe that our perspective is the correct one and we feel that we must help them.
Our superiority is not threatened by these other nations in most situations. Does anyone really believe that Iraq will reach our standard of living anytime soon? Even if it is true that we went into Iraq to help them (VERY UNLIKELY!!!), we don't expect them to surpass us. (If anything, they pulled us down...).
(Arvind Kalidindi)
How's everyone? Tis Jenn
How is one 'superior' to another?
Does that mean that one is richer?,better educated?, or has higher moral values? Do wealth, intelligence, and consciousness make one obliged to help those are poor, dumb, and barbaric?
If someone feels obliged to help those in need, why is it called a 'burden'? 'Burden' is something you don't want to have. Therefore, I feel like the term arouses negative connotation for both groups in this situation (giver and the receiver). 'Burden' sounds as if the task of reaching out to the poors is an unavoidable duty that you don't want to do.
Kipling should have titled his poem white man's mission or task or something if he wanted to say that the haves must help the have-nots. Ah-had only his intentions been a little clearer.
(Jennifer Park)
Perhaps the helping of the "have-not" societies was a "burden" that "superior" countries felt that they must take on (as implied by the poem)... in this case, any profit gained would be only secondary to the original cause. It is hard to tell Kipling's motive with this poem-- is it supposed to be a satire, is it meant to reflect his beliefs, or is it meant to reflect what he saw as the honest sentiments of those countries that went out and "civilized" other countries?
Also, I think Jenn's question is one worth thinking on:
"How is one 'superior' to another?
Does that mean that one is richer?,better educated?, or has higher moral values?"- Jenn
Again, we come back to definitions... wouldn't superiority depend on how each society defines it? Is there such a thing as superiority if definitions vary so much?
Emily T.
As I was reading these comments, I formulated the same question that Emily did. How do we define superior? What makes one nation superior, above all the rest? Who proclaims such a thing, and how is it concluded? Is there a list of requirements to meet of which I am not informed? It seems as though the more progress we make in this discussion, the more we question the circumstances.
On that thought, how can we judge one moral as being more "superior" than the next? I'm guessing that this is built off of the idea that white, European Christians were a superior race. I just happen to be very curious as to how this came about.
If one nation happens to be satisfied with itself, then in its own eyes, it has claimed some sort of superiority. Outsiders, such as the United States, may disapprove of the courses of action taken by the ruling party of that country; this I believe to be extraneous. As long as the people of that country are content and established, we should leave them be. This is only a personal opinion. It does seem the most reasonable, however, since it appears as if we lack any solid criteria that judges the level of superiority held by a nation.
What would happen if we all eventually caught up to the same level? What if we were all truly equal? (I know this is an ideal situation with very slim chances of happening, so bear with me here.) Would socialism run globally? I am actually very confused as to what the outcome would be. Would the white man's burden dissipate into the past? In such a situation, it seems hardly possible that that certain branch of history could repeat itself.
(Sam Maliha)
I too wonder what exactly is meant by "superior" in this discussion. We have been using this term for the past few days, yet I had not stopped to ponder what "superior" actually means until now. Indeed, we are back to discussing definitions.
I think that what exactly one nation's "superiority" over another encompasses is completely dependent on the perspective or interpretation of the particular nation.
If nation X proclaims itself as "superior" to Nation Y, this is simply because Nation X is content with its social/economic/political/etc standing and sees Nation Y as at a disadvantage. Nation Y may not feel as if it is at a disadvantage, though, and on the contrary may feel content with its standing. Moreover, Nation Y may see itself as "superior" to Nation X.
Therefore, I do not believe that there is a set list of requirements for one nation to be superior over another. Rather, I think that "superiority" is left up to the interpretation of each individual nation.
With regard to Sam's question of how the White Man's Burden has acquired a seemingly negative connotation, I agree with Jenn that the word "burden" seems to carry a negative connotation, and that replacing it with a word such as "mission" could possibly change this. If the White Man wishes to "civilize" other peoples who he may feel are inferior to him and thus help them, is he actually taking on a "burden" in the sense that he is doing so against his will? In other words, does the White Man truly WANT to help the people?
If he truly does wish to help them, then perhaps "burden" is not the right word to use. However, if he does NOT really wish to help them(and simply feels obligated to), then maybe "burden" is a suitable word.
I tend to believe that the "White Man's Burden" is simply a euphemism for "imperialism." I think that while the White Man may state that he wishes to help others, he actually strives for something that will be advantageous to HIM. If this is generally the case, then I think that the White Man is not making a "blunder" when he helps others. He probably still feels as if he is "superior" to those he has helped.
I hope these comments made some sort of sense. Other thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
It is interesting to ponder the definition of "superior" and at the same time I wonder how it is possible that we use that word so frequently, without knowing exactly what it means...
On a similar note, if our definition for superior is so vague, what about our definition of inferior? Inferiority does not seem like a word that a nation would readily use to describe itself. So, is inferiority, then, defined by those who are superior (whoever they are)? Is what makes a person or nation inferior the fact that it doesn't fight back when called inferior (thereby accepting that another nation is defining it and not leaving the creation of the identity of the nation up to the nation itself)?
Taking this last question and thinking back to imperialism, is what made the "inferior" nations inferior, at least in the minds of the conquerors, the fact that they did not succeed in their attempts to fight back, and eventually had to give in to the power of the conquerors? If the Indians had destroyed the Spanish conquistadores, Spain most likely would have thought twice about another attempt to "civilize" the Indians... I guess this all leads me to think that the physical weakness of a nation is what causes another nation to consider it inferior...
From this, I guess, it is up to the "superior", or stronger, nation to decide whether to exploit the weakness of the "inferior", or weaker, nation, or to use its strength to help build that weaker nation up...
Just some thoughts... hope they make sense :)
Emily T.
Concerning definitions, we have established that "inferior" and "superior" seem to be opposites. To me, one emits a negative connotation, while the other, a positive one, respectively.
It seems too much of a generalization to say that the superiority of a nation is based on its "physical power". This may have been applicable in the sixteenth century during the Spanish Colonization from the New World in the eyes of Cortes, and Pizarro, etc. The natives seemed inferior because they were not able to protect themselves from the harsh arms introduced by the Europeans. In today's world, however, where militaristic drive does not prove to be so prominent, will a country be labeled as inferior because it is unable to protect itself in a gory battle or because it is labeled as such because it is unable to supply its secret service with enough insider information? This argument, like every other, splits in two directions.
Is it even safe to say that militaristic ideals have subsided over the years? I'm already beginning to doubt myself. Just think about the War on Iraq. I don't have much of any background on the topic, so any explanations are welcome!
If we said that superiority was based on something other than the military, how would nations be labeled? Would it all be based on which government could outsmart the other? Would it be based upon which country exported more goods? Would the gross national profit be taken into acount? It seems to me that there are so many substitutions for militaristic action.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment