Talk:The White Man's Burden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makala98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christina Silva1. Peer reviewers: JoseDeLopez10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

text

In opening paragraphs, sombre is spelled incorrectly (somber). ~ Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.233.113 (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Warning: The text of the poem in this entry is not accurate. Here's the text as originally published. I got tired of seeing the incorrect text so I fixed it.--Cromwell88 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The fourth line of the forth stanza should read "Go, make them with your living..." not "... mark them with your living...." That doesn't even make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromwell88 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely Kipling's poem is now in the public domain. Can't we include it and let people judge?

It seems to me difficult not to interpret such lines as "half-savage, half-child" referring to colonized peoples as racist! 193.51.149.216 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

why is there a "<3" at the end of the poem? i do not believe this is kipling's, but a wikipedian's. but i am not 100% sure and so haven't deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.5.203 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to quote the text, at least quote it accurately. I've found and tried to correct several mistakes only to find them replaced. The wrong text has been copied from here and thus perpetuated on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.216.80 (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's madness to have an article about a poem and not include the text! It's not THAT long (7 verses), and even if it is, at least the 1st, 2nd and last verses should be included to get a feel of it. Or even just the first verse (they're all quite similar anyway ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.73.219 (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Text must appearin article! How many Kiplings were black or ntive ir so on? None? So they must shut up--RacistMe (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

parody

The poem is essential reading for anyone interested in the history and mind-set of imperialism. Surely, we say, Kipling meant it as a parody? The Anome

What gives you that idea? --Saforrest 07:50, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Lines like this, probably: "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 folley Bring all your hope to nought." and this: "Take up the White Man's burden— No iron 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, make them with your living And mark them with your dead."

because , seriously, those are pretty satirical. --George The Man 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty clearly a satire. That isn't to say that Kipling wasn't an imperialist. There are published, reputable works detailing this - but no mention of this in the Wikipedia article. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

reduce it to "it's racist". Pretty damned strong.

Surely, those of us who know about it say that this article hardly does it justice and only manages to take a very complex subject and reduce it to "it's racist". Pretty damned weak.

For those who care, the poem originally was only published in a popular magazine (McClure's) in the US. It was written specifically because IIRC, after the Spanish-American War, feeling in the US was more isolationist than not. Had the US not taken over Spain's position in the Philippines, another foreign power (quite possibly Japan) would have moved into the vacuum. AFAIK, Kipling wrote this specifically to help sway popular opinion in the US, so that a "friendly" western power would hold the strategically important Philippines.

Yes, in terms of today, we see the poem as racist -- if we are set to view things in simplistic terms, But I think it would be a tragedy to dismiss it as such. The racism is only a by-product of the conflict between "civilized" and "uncivilized" -- nowhere in the poem does Kipling say that non-Europeans are lesser because their skin is a different color. This doesn't mean that the idea wasn't prevalent in many parts of society, but the article as it now stands seems very tainted with a US version of racial views -- since most of the rest of the world stopped trying to justify slavery based on racial inferiority long before the US did, I'm not sure their views were the same.

That said, I'm not saying that racism wasn't an integral part of colonialism -- I don't think you can separate the two. However, I think that Kipling here provides an excellent source on the thinking of European colonialism -- THe poem basically says, "it's your unpleasant duty to go and drag these people kicking and screaming into the modern world. They don't want it. Your compatriots at home will profit from your efforts while despising you. You won't get rich and you'll probably die. But really, it has to be done, because in the long run, the people whose land you've taken will be better off, although the will hate you for it."

It's not ironic. It's just the product of an entirely different (but I would argue well-meaning, if somewhat futile) world-view. The idea of (moral) Duty was much more real to people then (and I personally would say, through WWII).

Let the record here show I'm neither colonialist nor racist -- I just like to make sure we look at things and report on them in the context of their time. JHK

Wikipedia is left-wing. Get over it.

So am I. Doesn't stop me from appreciating Kipling, and realizing that it's stupid to project a modern American concept of "racism" on him. 68.226.239.73

I agree with the user, but, sadly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses, not a serious forum for intellectual debate. The con of having a wiki-format encyclopedia is that it is inevitably intellectually inferior to encyclopedias written by men of professions. That is not to say it is "incorrect" - it simply represents the viewpoint of the masses, the masses that read it and edit it. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its important to note that "The White Man;s Burden" is not just seen as racist "in terms of today," but was criticized as racist by some of Kipling's contemporaries. See "The Black Man's Burden" (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5476/), which draws a connection between the imperialist project supported by Kipling and American domestic racism. Why does "left wing" even need to be brought up? This has nothing to do with right wing or left. I'm getting a little sick of people on wikipedia talk pages trying to push their silly political views when its NOT RELEVENT. 174.42.206.246 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just on reading it, even on face value it doesn't seem a racist poem. It looks to me to be a somewhat less-than-subtle criticism of US imperialism. Don't forget, Kipling had a vast experience of India, which he saw as benvolent colonialism (IE improving education systems and leaving much of the indian infrastructure in place, an "overall rule" rather than one at every level), and differed greatly to the US nature of colonialism in the PHillipines. Considering he wrote the poem "Gunga Din", which is more a celebration of indigenous peoples than anything else, it's hard to view Kipling and this poem as "racist". 137.44.1.174 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The poem is not racist. It is as simple as that. The article is wrong in stating otherwise. Kipling was simply pointing out the burden on America of running its colonial territories - with the Phillipines in mind. The same message is applicable now for Afghanistan and Iraq. If "The White Man's Burden" is racist, then American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is racist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The poem doesn't have a "simplistic racist view" [sic]. That suggestion is simply false - and must accordingly be deleted from the article.

The only people who are capable of arguing that this poem is not racist can only be described as racism deniers. It is racist, it was denouced as racist at that time and the defenders of the poem in this modern period are themselves extremist racists.

Ancient cities have been discovered in South Africa?

Does anyone have any supporting evidence for the extrordinary claim that ancient cities have been discovered in South Africa (and the information suppressed)? It fails the Google test for me (unless you count loony sites about Atlantis and alien astronauts).

Perhaps the author meant to refer to Great Zimbabwe, and was mixing up South Africa and (at the time) Rhodesia, but the facts are rather jumbled. If no-one presents any evidence to justify the existing claim, I propose to replace:

to the point where there exist documented cases of archaeological findings in South Africa having been suppressed. The presumption being that the existence of sophisticated cities in southern Africa prior to European colonization would pose a threat to the argument...

by :

to the point where evidence of an indigenous origin for Great Zimbabwe was largely ignored for decades after its discovery. The presumption being that the existence of a sophisticated city in subsaharan Africa prior to European colonization would pose a threat to the argument... --Roger 17:19 UTC 1 Sep 2003

Good move, Roger. I've jumped in and made the change. Tannin 08:38, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe the author was referring to a possible lair of a possibly fictional godlike creature that possibly lies dormant in africa. Doubt it but wouldn't it be creepy if Cthuhulu's lair was real and actually referenced by another writer? 174.42.206.246 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain

Can someone explain what this means, because I still don't know what this is referring to because it seems quite convoluted. I've taken it out for now but feel free to put back in if you can elaborate.

The term "white man's burden" is sometimes mis-used to describe alleged discrimination or double-standards towards whites because of responsibility or culpability for historical injustices.

Fuzheado 23:36, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• hee, that is exactly why I just redirected the term "liberal guilt" to this article. I'll see if I can work it back in in a non-sarcastic way. SchmuckyTheCat 03:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion; the quote doesn't seem convoluted at all to me. And by the way, this is the meaning of white man's burden I'm familiar with, and I would argue it is the meaning most commonly used; the movie "White Man's Burden," for example, clearly refers to this phenomenon, and not to the meaning used in the Kipling poem. If there is a fault with this quote, it's that it claims that this definition stems from a "mis-use" of the term. Who is to say that it is an improper use of a figurative term, while Kipling's is proper? It would be more accurate to say that this definition would be a misinterpretation of the term as Kipling used it.

I think that an article on the term "white man's burden" is sorely incomplete without this definition being addressed. This concept of white man's burden is certainly related to the concept of liberal guilt -- but the two are not identical, and a simple redirect is therefore not appropriate. Minaker 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there, this here's a 4-year-long discussion.... lol 204.52.215.107 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the lines indented

Is there any way to make the lines of the poem be indented, without also vertically double-spacing it? &mdashAaronW 11:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perspective added

Added some perspective on the left-right divide in modern views of "The White Man's Burden". --anon

Affirmative action

I think its pretty clear this is a form of discrimination, what is the alternate POV? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporters of affirmative action do not regard it as a form of discrimination, which is evident when simply doing a Google search for "affirmative action is not discrimination." No matter how obviously they are wrong to you, Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, which means that the opinions of one side cannot be posted in articles as a matter of fact. 172 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the word "discrimination" can be used on an individual scale or a global scale. If a group is discriminated against on average (for example black people earn less on average than white people), affirmative action seems to be fighting discrimination. But when you look at individual cases the differences between people of different groups are far less clear (for example if you compare the quality of life of a rich black person and a poor white person), and affirmative action seems to be reinforcing discrimination. Even worse, individuals are always from many different groups, and affirmative action has difficult coping with this. For example is a gay white person or a black straight person is more deserving of assistance? In this topic no point of view can ever get things completely right, whichever view you take you are going to be promoting injustice and suffering in some way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

How about you look up positive discrimination? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am familar with the term, but not all supporters of affirmative action accept such a term in their discourse. The point is that there is a different POV and that your own opinion cannot be stated as a matter of fact in this case, given the NPOV policy. 172 00:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, whatever. The fact that it is discrimination in every sense of the word appears not to matter, eh? Sorry if I'm a bit abrasive, but state sponsored racism pisses me off. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. You are entitled to your opinion, but since Wikipedia isn't, it cannot even adopt the opinion that just might happen to be right. 172 00:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move back

• Support. Primary topic disambiguation. –Hajor 15:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support (basically). I've moved the movie to the correct title, White Man's Burden, so there's no reason not to move the poem back, merging the history since it was a cut&paste move to The White Man's Burden (Poem). Then they just need top-of-page disambig headers. Niteowlneils 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't quite as simple as I thot--most in-bound links were looking for the concept, not the movie, so I moved it (again) to White Man's Burden (film). Niteowlneils 00:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

??? Could someone clarify what you want done with this and the various related pages, such as the present The White Man's Burden? Dragons flight 21:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As the proposer I will explain. Move The White Man's Burden (Poem) back to The White Man's Burden to avoid cut/paste moves. The White Man's Burden should be solely about the poem with a link at the top "For the 1995 film see White Man's Burden (film)". This should not be a problem as most links pointing to the current disambig page are for the poem. MeltBanana 23:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 06:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

As long as we are all throwing around opinions without any facts, here is mine. The phrase and Kipling's Poem deal specifically with colonialism. How we ever got to a discussion of affirmative action is beyond me. White people governed over a large part of the non-white world until about 1950. The question is when they left, were the indiginous peoples better off or worse off. The real world answer, of course, is mixed. If in hindsight there is no difinitive answer "Yes, we were better off" or "No, those bastards took everything". Imagine how it would be viewed at the time? Kipling was trying to put a brave face on things and giving an alternative point of view that rather than enriching themselves, whites might have had less selfish motives. Bringing democracy to Iraq at the end of a gun has had similar, albeit less eloquent apologists. In many cases, things fell apart as soon as the white man left and never recovered (Haiti, French West Africa, Vietnam, Congo, Angola, Mozambique, and Afghanistan come to mind) while others did very well after the colonial powers left (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Botswana, South Africa and The Philippines). The "racist" overtones were not all that racist for the time, although they sound that way to our post civil rights ears.

In Modern usage, the term has come to mean a misplaced view that certain peoples need to be taken care of, specifically White people are more equipped to govern than non-whites. This is more racist than it was, I believe, originally intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.185.183 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some Issues

The article, second paragraph, says: "It was originally published in the popular magazine McClure's in 1899, with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands." Yet a PDF of poem from the February, 1899, issue of McClures, here does not show a subtitle. Can anyone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromwell88 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with two sentences in the article, which strike me as needlessly POV:

"However, some groups today still have sympathy for the idea of a White Man's Burden, although most explicitly remove the idea of race from the concept (at least, while members of minorities are listening)."

"Most of the presidents and presidential candidates for the last fifty or sixty years (both Democrats and Republicans) have been members of at least one of these groups (which brings up the question: "Did we really have a choice?")"

Is the parenthetical commentary necessary? I don't believe so. I'm removing it, feel free to revert me, or debate my choice here.--RicardoC 11:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag because the tone is very accusatory and it lists only citation, which does not account for the claims of present White Man's Burden because it was published in the 19th century. Also, the whole dwelling on Kipling is a bit much. It appears whoever wrote it isn't very familar with Kipling enough to start speculating about why he rejected the offer of poet laureate. And for that matter, why even bring that up? This article is not about making a saint of Kipling. I think we can leave that up to the Kipling article. I love Kipling, don't get me wrong! But I think this article focuses too much on him and less on the facts of what he was actually talking about (viz. imperialism, esp. Britian's occupation of India where Kipling was born and lived much of his life. The history of that occupation should be in the article.)--deadmissbates 09 December 2005

Rhodes Scholars and Secret Societies

"These views are in keeping with the "Secret Society" views of Kipling's friend, Cecil Rhodes, the founder and benefactor of the Rhodes Scholarship, designed to choose and influence future world leadership. Note-worthy recipients of this scholarship have included Bill Clinton, Dean Rusk, Stansfield Turner, J. William Fulbright, Strobe Talbot, William Bradley, Wesley Clark, Kris Kristofferson, Richard Lugar, Paul Sarbanes, and Heather Wilson, as well as Kipling himself; and have usually been drawn from Yale, Harvard, West Point and Princeton universities, in the U.S., and from Oxford University in England. Rhodes' "Secret Society" currently has ties to other "secret societies", such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group (both of the latter founded by Henry Kissinger). Most of the presidents and presidential candidates for the last fifty or sixty years (both Democrats and Republicans) have been members of at least one of these groups, and provide a living testimony to the power of Cecil Rhodes' vision."

Is this whole deal about Rhodes scholars and secret societies either necessary or backed by reliable research? The whole thing smacks of POV- as evidenced by the above complaint about regarding explicit parenthetical commentary. At the very least it seems to be a tangent of interest to the author and not particularly relavent to the concept of white man's burden. The entire segment has this undertone of conspiracy theory.--Jsn4 04:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's irrelevant and should be removed. Dillon256 18:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed.--Jsn4 00:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

White Mans Burden Perspective

The White Mans Burden is an interesting theme. It does not change that fact that the United States, British Empire, and Europe suddenly gained advance technology and educational ways and means that they outstripped the rest of the world in capability making everyone else look down right primitive. In fact, the technology difference is so significant that the United States, the new European Union, and the Commonwealth of Nations (British Commonwealth) has over one-half of the GNP (Gross National Product) of the world. The sheer economic and resulting capabilities simply overwhelms any other nations in international affairs. Granted many societies are self contained and live the simpler lives our ancestors lived 240 years ago, but the reality is the United States, the British Commonwealth, and the European Union organizes better than the rest of the world. There is a special mention for Russia, since that nation with a much simpler economic ways and means left a significant impact on the world during the 20th century, and showed Russia knows how to organize effectively when they have a purpose. --(unsigned paragraph from: 172.195.116.150)

What in gods name is your point? What in the world does this mean "organizes better than the rest of the world." Sounds on its face like subtle racism, just like The White Man's Burden article talks about. Travb 09:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Technology moves in unpredictable fits and starts, it's not the linear progression that many of us like to think. The Ancient Greeks had clockwork and steam engines, all the ingredients for an industrial revolution thousands of years before the British one, but they did nothing with them, and the technologies were forgotten. The Medieval Islamic world was far more advanced, enlightened and tolerant than Medieval Europe (the barbarity and idiocy of the Crusades was an example of just how far behind Europe was). The Medieval Islamic world also had far greater knowledge of mathematics and the sciences, but that too was lost amidst the tides of history. Europe of the Industrial Revolution and afterwards just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and much of what they "discovered" was a rediscovery. They weren't an unusually advanced civilisation in the grand scheme of things, just an extremely lucky one. Who knows, maybe this European age will also be lost, perhaps due to nuclear war, and our current knowledge will be rediscovered by someone else in the far future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Or perhaps simply that other cultures don't appreciate "technology" that much. Philosophies in ancient China, for example, see technology advances as redundant, with the theory that as standards of living rise, expectations also rise and the people more or less end up feeling the same way about their lives. Humans a few thousand years ago had the same amount of time for recreation as humans nowadays. And yes, 172.195.116.150, your comment is exactly the type of racism the whole debate over White Man's Burden was about. Even worse, you are ignorant. The EU includes the UK; the British Commonwealth includes India and Pakistan; and "organizing" has nothing to do with "educational ways and means", whatever that means. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Source of this interpretation?

The first time I heard about this poem, it was presented to me as a warning to the U.S. about the consequences of becoming an Imperial power after the Spanish-American War: "Go, bind your sons to exile/To serve your captives' need" — in other words, the Americans would end up sending their sons overseas to die pointless deaths the same way that the British did. Kipling's writings were typically supportive of ordinary British soldiers but ferociously critical of the British Empire that sent them out to die in pointless battles or abandoned them after years of service — why would he write a poem to encourage the U.S. to become what he wrote sometimes so strongly against? I've never been a specialist in this period, but I would be interested to read more about the context of the poem. Did he accompany it with text promoting American imperialism? David 02:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well from the interpretations I have always heard it is an encouragement from Kipling to the US to behave more imperialisticly; although it was automatically turned around as just the reason why they should not. It does not seem there is much detail on exactly what Kipling thought appart form a subtitle which I will add. He seems to have dumped a poem on an existing argument, on the role of the US at that time, and stired the pot. I would not characterise Kipling as wholely anti-imperialist, rather a critic of many aspects of imperialism and perhaps calling for a more enlightend imperialism. Perhaps the poem is more about getting the US to get off the fence, abandon isolationism and decide where they stand. MeltBanana 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. As I mentioned, I've never done any research on Kipling, but if nobody posts any source for his intentions about the poem, we should probably rewrite the article to qualify it rather than stating as a simple fact that it was meant as a pro-Imperialist poem. It's certainly too grim and ironic to be read as simple jingoism, which is what this article currently seems to suggest. David 13:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to the point, while many of Kipling's poems contain blatantly racist statements, those are often put in the mouths of people like ordinary British soldiers, and represents the kinds of things they'd actually say. Kipling also wrote poems celebrating non-whites as the equals or (sometimes) superiors of whites. The most famous one is "Gunga Din," narrated by a racist British soldier who finally has to admit that an Indian water carrier is a better person than he is. Another example is "The Ballad of East and West", which has no blatantly racist overtones, and presents British officers and colonial resistance fighters explicitly as equals. David 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is, as with many political slogans or ideas, it takes on much more meaning then the original author probably intended. The article probably should be slightly more equivocal on Kipling's exact purpose for writing the poem but there should also be detail on how it was used then and now as a shorthand for much more. MeltBanana 16:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision

I've removed some of the "weasel words" assertions made without citations or substantiation, and tried to present opposing views of the poem in a slightly more structured way. Humansdorpie 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The main thing that gets me is the "or more specifically West European (as East Europeans were also seen as lesser beings)". Where does that come from? They don't even link Eastern Europe. I'm not sure if it's relevant either considering no one ever tried to take them over (and won anyway). It might be relevant though to bring up the USSR's dream of pan-Communism, which might also be considered White Man's Burden.- deadmissbates 16 Dec 2005

That's an excellent point - I may snip the passage you mention. May also move the passage in the intro about Kipling supporting US activity in the Philippines to the Kipling is racist section, since the poem may also be read as a warning to the US of the cost of imperialism. Humansdorpie 11:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

I have removed the POV template. If anyone thinks that it is still needed then please re-add it and list on the talke page the specific sentences or paragraphs which contain a non NPOV so that they can be discussed and fixed. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Kipling as racist

I have reverted the heading from Kipling's Western point of view back to Kipling as racist. Western point of view infers that "Western" (whatever they are - presumably the Japanese are not included?) people collectively support(ed) colonialism - which is clearly not correct. The heading also obscures the most basic question about the work which is: is this a poem enthusiastically supporting or bitterly satirising colonialism? Humansdorpie 16:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Has anyone actually read these? The "The British in India, China and Ireland" one is especially bad. It's written by a bonepartist basically to insult Britain. It calls Chaimberlain "a sissy". Come on, this isn't an objective and useful historical source, it's just a Brit-bash with quotes written by an immature nationalist American. 88.105.248.173 15:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it - as you could have done - as Wikipedia guidelines suggest avoiding external links containing unverified original research. Humansdorpie 16:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Poem's Date

I'm sure it's just a product of the numerous edits this article will no doubt have undergone, but the date of the poem isn't mentioned in the summary. In fact the only place in which it appears is in the footnotes!

84.69.106.131 23:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Monarchies

The article says "Six months after "The White Man's Burden" was published, he wrote "The Old Issue", a stinging criticism of the Second Boer War, and "The Monarchies", an attack on the unlimited and despotic power of kings." The old issue is well known, and excellent, but I haven't been able to find anything written by Kipling called "The Monarchies". It isn't in my collected poems & nothing is thrown up by google. Can anyone verify that he wrote this? as I think it is wrong & the article should read "wrote "The Old Issue", an attack on the unlimited and despotic power of kings." AllanHainey 13:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of repairing this as I wrote the sentence in the first place and I know what it was supposed to say. It is instructive, though hard work, to trawl through the history to see how dodgy info can creep into an article. A process of well meaning editors "fixing" changes, mistakes and vandalism leads to article data rot. MeltBanana 09:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these lines need to be changed back...

Within a historical context, the poem makes porn clear the prevalent attitudes that allowed colonialism to proceed. Although a belief in the "virtues of pussy" was wide-spread at the time, there were also many dissenters; the publication of the poem caused a flurry of arguments from both sides, most notably from Mark Twain and Henry James.

Willian Easterly

William Easterly, professor at New York University, has written a book with the title "The White Man's Burden". Maybe there should be a diambiguous page for this title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.241.146 (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove text of poem?

I won't remove the text of the poem from the article, but it should be discussed. It's typical for long poems not to be printed in Wikipedia, but rather to be referred to Wikisource, as is already done here. Twinkle Twinkle Little Star has full text, but The Raven does not. This poem is of intermediate length. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it out. I've tried a few times, but someone eventually puts it back in for some reason. It's too long. Wrad (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing. One stanza or two is okay. This is too long, and it's a poem that's still attracting a lot of debate over its exact meanings, so putting it in the article might not enlighten a lot of readers.202.40.139.168 (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the text of the poem. Wikipedia does not, as a principle, include the text of longer poems. That is what wikisource is meant to do. Since this article has the text on wikisource, there is no need to list it out here when the reader can easily obtain it through wikisource. Mrathel (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mrathrel, your removal of the text popped up on my watchlist with an edit summary saying "removed poem text". I reverted that with the edit summary, "Rverted. I don't have strong opinions about this, but this unilateral change seems a bit high-handed." (That was admittedly unnecessarily abrasive. Something unrelated must have put me in an abrasive mood—which is no excuse.) You re-reverted me with the edit summary, "I was the 4th person to suggest this on the talk page; if you disagree, explain." In explanation: I was unaware of the talk page discussion, which took place back in Feb and Sep of 2008—long prior to your removal of the text in Feb 2009.

Also, please note Help:Edit summary, which says, in part:

In addition to a summary of the change itself, the summary field may also contain an explanation of the change; note that if the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted. To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".

Your talk-page notice of the removal is timestamped two seconds after the removal itself. That talk page was probably the next item on my watchlist, which I would have seen immediately after I had finished reverting you. I probably ought to have left a comment on the talk page at that time and/or gone back and undone my reversion.

Actually, I have no objections to the removal of the text. Had I noticed the discussion, I probably would have supported the removal. Requoting the poem in the article didn't added anything as the text is easily findable, and the text requoted here has been a magnet for vandalism and for attempts to "correct" bits of the requoted text. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please re-add at least two stanza's, that would at least give the piece some authority, without it the article looks unpleasantly 'pc'. Twobells (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for the confusion Boracay; I usuaully put "see talk page" in edit summary when i don't have enough space to type what i want to say; i should probably go add my comment to the talk page then go back and edit the page; but my ADHD would probably cause me to forget what i intended to do in the first place:) As for Twobells, if you want to add sections of the poem, you are free to do so, but to have a place on the page, it should be small pieces accompanied by critical analysis by outside sources. Simply adding poem text to a page because without it the page looks drab does not fit into the basic style guidelines. Mrathel (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversy surrounding the message of the work, it is important to provide the poem in the article. The discussion should provide a means for readers to assess the work's purpose for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcarrer (talk • contribs) 19:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pears' Soap Ad

The Caption beneath the Ad is incomplete.

I don't know how to edit it, so if someone who does would be so kind...

Rampant unicorn (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversy surrounding the message of the work, it is important to provide the poem in the article. The discussion should provide a means for readers to assess the work's purpose for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcarrer (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Norton Anthology citation

I was unable to find the phrase "Divine Burden to reign God's Empire on Earth" in connection with this poem in the Norton Anthology of English Literature. Should the citation perhaps include the specific edition of the anthology this is referring to? 129.215.149.99 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Does White Man's Burden exist in 2010?

Does White Man's Burden exist in 2010?

White Man's Burden is a reflection of the Western colonization of unindustrialized regions. Some felt impelled to create new societies and a greater standard of living amongst groups in Africa, Asia and South America. In fact, some believed it was a duty of a white man living in a developed country to industrialize and educate what they considered inferior groups. Hence, we get the term "White Man's Burden;" an imagined responsibility of the superior to change the inferior.

Does our modern world believe it is a "White Man's Burden" to change the status of developing countries? Does our modern world still place Caucasians as superior and other ethnic groups as inferior? Whether or not Kipling had a racist support for colonization or sought to criticize the actions of imperial powers, the author recognized a concept that still relates to our present-day. Much like Western nations had different motives behind colonialism, the world's institutions (governments, churches, non-profits, etc.) have different motives for seeking change in other nations. At times, I wonder how many of our institutions have a conscious or subconscious racist attitude that underlies their declared purposes. Can we truly see others that are different from ourselves as equals? Was Kipling being truthful and practical in his work by declaring racism as unavoidable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcarrer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My recent edit of the Pears' Soap Ad caption offers some insight. Either the White Man's Burden is still recognized, in the same form as 120 years ago, or our federal agencies should be held responsible for evident, offensive racism. I am referring to the National Institutes' of Health grant 3U01MH066701-07S1 ($800k for teaching genital hygiene in South Africa) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.71.132 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Twain's Rebuttal

Should some mention be made of Mark Twain's "To the Person Sitting in Darkness", written as a rebuttal to this poem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPrince (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for that link. 68.106.46.205 (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Steve Sailer citation?

Why is Steve Sailer from Vdare cited here? I think he should be removed. The guy is just trying to promote himself on Wikipedia again. His quote doesn't add anything to the article. 173.183.0.232 (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Blah Blah Blahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.181.227 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not quote John Derbyshire as saying Kipling was "an imperialist utterly without illusions about what being an imperialist actually means. Which, in some ways, means that he was not really an imperialist at all". Why mention Steve Sailer, whoever he is? Incidentally, an imperialist without illusions IS still an imperialist. It is just stupid to say otherwise. Is a democrat not a democrat if they are without illusions about what being a democrat actually means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting probable vandalism using this concept

The article on City of Bankstown had a reference (removed as unsourced) to the city's "burdenism" and a language, Burdenese. since the city is multicultural, i suspect someone was using these words to subtly disparage the cities' multicultural heritage. I dont want to draw attention to the vandalism really, but i think this use of the white mans burden meme is important to watch out for. It may in fact be a localised use, slang or otherwise, but i could find no evidence on the internet for these terms.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this article about the poem, or about the concept?

This is a terribly written article that can't figure out if it's about the poem, or about the concept... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.46.205 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

History of the Phrase

According to Merriam-Webster, the phrase "White Man's Burden" was first used in 1865. Should it's history prior to the poem be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.39.83 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Irony?

Surely the repeated refrain of this poem is meant ironically. Particularly how Kipling points out that those brown-skinned devils will invariably destroy any civilising programs by their sloth and heathen folly. The whole point is that it is a warning against what we now call "nation-building". The interpretation given in the article - "In the poem, Kipling exhorts the reader and the listener to embark upon the enterprise of empire" - is flat-out wrong.

Considering that Kipling wrote letters to Theodore Roosevelt offering the poem as a strong defense of colonialism, and urging him to use his political influence to ensure that the US annexed the Philippines, no, it was not ironic. Kipling truly believed that the white race has a duty to civilize, at great cost to themselves, the backwards and barbaric people of the world, though they be cursed and blamed. Unless his publicly and privately stated political opinions were all part of some elaborate satire. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)