Originally posted by Rastafari+Oct 3 2003, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rastafari @ Oct 3 2003, 11:34 PM)
[email protected] 3 2003, 11:13 AM
Thats pretty unfair to him, I guess. and before you give me the shit that Hitler actually fulfilled his promises, remember that Kipling was a soldier in India whose daily services to his empire included suppressing Indians of all castes.
Orwell was a fucking served iun the Indian Imperial Police as well, yet I dont see you calling him oppressive. Your arguments are flawed.
obviously you understand very little about the literary conventions of that time to just blatantly assume that he wasn't meaning what he was saying.
What did he say then? List me quotes and facts from his literiture which catagorically proves he was a racist.
Oh, and The Second Jungle Book was a peice of racist trash as well.
Yes, and how do you work that out? Did I miss the bit where Bagheera and Mowgli go and put burning crosses on some black dudes front lawn? Also if its so racist then why, in a world dominated by political correctness, do they allow it to be played on the radio, telivised, etc?
Also why is it only you who says this stuff, I know loads of black people who dont find it remotly racist.
wasn't "White Man's Burden" sensationally racist. It would be to most, sensible people.
Actually no, its does not in any way or shape insult or demean any other race, there are those who call it imperialist, they may well be right, but few call it racist, who have read further than the title... Rastafari, have you read more than the title? Some how I think not.
Dude, you've lost. I won't gloat, so I reccommend you either hastilly change the topic or shut the hell up.
Well considering you have not provided a shred of evidance... kind says the oppersit. But as you are calling me a racist, why should I give a fuck what you think?
God if you think that the Jungle book was racist then, you must really hate Enid Blyton.
Orwell joined the Imperial Army in what? 1922? By then, it was a little bit different. You see, Britain wasn't the most powerful nation in the world and din't have as much to gain from Imperialism, which had pretty much started on the down slope by then. Less of a chance for profit also means that many people, your boy Orwell included, were questioning the system itself. Kipling never questioned the British Imperialism and subsequent cruelty in India. Nothing here is flawed except your perceptions of "Racism" and Rudyard Kipling's beliefs as evidenced in his writings.
You say that he didn't necessarilly mean the contents of the poem I presented as evidence, but why would he say otherwise? Satire? not of the most respected and powerful nation of the world (of which he was a happy member).
"Racist" does not mean "Hating Black People"
heres a little bit from dictionary.com:
rac·ism
n.
1.) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
if "White Man's Burdon" doesn't fit in with one, what does? As for The Second Jungle Book, Mowgli wishes consistantly to be like the white men (or superior, rather), and leads them on quite a little spat through the Jungles. This would have been funny to his readers, a savage leading this intelligent men around.
Even though you can somehow argue the "oppersit," "The White Man's Burden" directly implies that non-white peoples are incapable to rule themselves and therefore require an outside source of control.
"Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child."
Certainly not "civilized," white people, are they?
you know what? This is like arguing a KKK statement as being racist. I can't even start on something. If you cant see where he is implying that people around the world are godless savages who can't function without white rule, I think you are on the wrong forum, my friend.
Try www.***************
they'd love to have you [/b]
Orwell joined the Imperial Army in what? 1922? By then, it was a little bit different.
You dont know anything, at all by the sounds of it. From 1918 up to the late 20's the Empire was the largest it had been throughout its history. Idiot.
Kipling never questioned the British Imperialism and subsequent cruelty in India.
And how many times did you meet him to work that out then?
You say that he didn't necessarilly mean the contents of the poem I presented as evidence,
No, he didnt necessarily mean what you have interprited it as.
Below taken from this site (http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/kipling/), which is an anti imperialist site (BTW it does not always work first time, you may just get a blue screen, if so refresh it) : -
"Although Kipling's poem mixed exhortation to empire with sober warnings of the costs involved, imperialists within the United States latched onto the phrase "white man's burden" as a euphemism for imperialism that seemed to justify the policy as a noble enterprise. "
As you can see you have made the same error as the imperialists of the late 1890's. I also disagree with the author of the site, the poem actually attacks imperialism rather than exhorting it, I will explain below: -
Not to mention that the poem goes on to say that imperialism leads to the alienation of the inhabitants of the invaded country. The poem actaully attacks imperialism, so I suggest you read the poem not just little bits of it, and take them out of context.
The first 3 verses show what the US imperialists hope to achive by invading the phillipeens. The 4th verse shows how the local inhabitants are forced to live in servitude. Ifyou read them you can see he is almost looking on as an observer, he uses words such as "your" through out the poem, which shows him distancing himself from the people the poem is about.
The 5th and 6th verses, show how the local people feal alineated by the servitude which they live under. It also speeks of resistance which the white imperialist will face: -
"No iron rule of kings, "
"The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead"
The final verse actually calls on the white man to cease imperialism (Have done with childish days) : -
"Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered 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. "
As you can see he is saying that forsake the easily won laurels (The lightly-proffered laurel), as you will not be thanked for them later (Through all the thankless years).
So before you use poems such as this as evidence of a mans imperialism and racism, try actually reading the whole poem, and not latching on to specific parts of it.
"Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child."
You have simply taken that line out of context, in that verse Kipling was telling the reader the attitudes of the invading imperialists.
Another rather interesting line is however: -
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
As for The Second Jungle Book, Mowgli wishes consistantly to be like the white men (or superior, rather), and leads them on quite a little spat through the Jungles. This would have been funny to his readers, a savage leading this intelligent men around.
Thats interesting... you see their is not one mention of white men n the whole book, the child Mowgli, is an indian child, and the hunters whome he leads through the Jungle (or hunting the animals) are also indian hunters. Their is no white man in the whole book? Have you actually read the second Jungle book, it certainly doesnt seem like it.
you know what? This is like arguing a KKK statement as being racist. I can't even start on something. If you cant see where he is implying that people around the world are godless savages who can't function without white rule
As you misinterprited the poem, and by the looks of it, didnt even read any of it, apart from 2 lines, I dont think that youare in any position to I dont think that you are in any position to compair poems by Kipling to the statements of the KKK.
Try www.***************
they'd love to have you
HA, I got banned from their, for pointing out to them that the Egyptions were black, and calling them ignorant white morons.
Sorry mate, but your arguments are sunk.
But just to rub salt in the wound, I would like to add this: -
"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"
Taken from the poem "Gunga Din" by Rudyard Kipling, a Gunga Din, just happens to be a sepoy soldure... I will let you find out what a sepoy was. Would a racist call a sepoy a better man than he is? I think not.
Ohh BTW after doing a little researchI found some very interesting facts aboutt your previous post, you said: -
remember that Kipling was a soldier in India whose daily services to his empire included suppressing Indians of all castes.
Actually no, Kipling was never in the Army. He was a reporter in india, but never a soldier, try reading this biography: -
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/145...57/biograph.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/1457/biograph.htm)
http://www.online-literature.com/kipling/
The second proves that you lied: -
"His poor eyesight and mediocre results as a student ended hopes about military career."
I am sorry, but you have been proved wrong on all counts, and what is more you actually lied to help your argument. I suggest, that you save what little respect you had in this thread, and dont post in it anymore.
Enigma - AK47