Imperialism, once again

And if that painting didn’t describe the odd combination of idealism, self-righteousness, and racism that seems to have encapsulated the “new imperialism,” there is always “The White Man’s Burden.” Kipling did a good job, after all, and maybe it’s the rhyming scheme or the very British wording, but his poem rather exciting to read, in a sickening sort of way. It’s hard not to get caught up in the rhythm of the piece, although of course, reading it now, every reference to the “silent sullen peoples” makes me wince.

It makes me feel a bit more hopeful to read the letter of response to the Editor of The Nation on the opposite page in our textbook (page 813). In it, Alfred Webb describes the sense that one gets from reading it: “there is something almost sickening in this “imperial” talk of assuming and bearing burdens for the good of others.” But where his letter is most effective is when he states: “They are never assumed or held where they are not found to be of material advantage or ministering to honor or glory.” In this single line, I think Webb has summed up the gist of the new imperialism. Because the motives are, on one hand, this “material advantage,” whether that is cotton, iron, land to settle, diamonds, gold, labor, or some combination thereof, and, on the other hand, this high-handed sense of European virtue and a belief that their way is the correct way and it is their duty to bring that to others. Although it would be easy to read Kipling’s poem completely cynically, as an extension of Webb’s reading of it, and argue that it was only the resources that drove the Europeans toward imperialism, I think that would be an oversimplification. I honestly don’t think that Kipling is writing out of his arse, as the Brits might say, in “The White Man’s Burden.” Sure, it is straight-up propaganda, but I do think that there is something genuine there, and that, I think, is what makes it the perfect example of new imperialism.

Does anything about this sound familiar? Of course, it reminds me of our discussion in class about Iraq, and while I don’t really want to go into that argument again here because it didn’t go so well in class, I think it’s interesting to consider our own motives for going into the Middle East in the current political climate, and the muddled combination of high-minded democratic ideals, an odd sense of religious and political superiority, and a desperate need for oil. In that way, are we really so far from Kipling and his uncomfortably-phrased version of nationalism and imperialism?