“The White Man’s Burden: Rudyard Kipling was Right “ ?

[Cornelius Hamelberg]

The last time I encountered “The White Man’s Burden” as a headline was
here, in 2003:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+Steyn+%3A+the+White+Man's+Burden

With all the talk about race-ism, post-colonial blues etc a safe
conclusion is that if the modern black civilisations were
technologically superior to what’s still called ”White “, then black
would be discriminating whites, looking down, at the vantage point
from above….

Another thought-provoking piece:

“Replace “White Man” with “Western Civilization” and Kipling is as
right today as he was in 1899
by Bill Levinson

It is easy for the politically correct Left to dismiss Rudyard
Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” as racist because of its title, but
it is necessary to place the poem in context. When Kipling wrote this
poem in 1899, Japan, the United States, and Russia (noting the
latter’s Asiatic domains) were the only advanced nations that were not
almost exclusively Caucasian. This is why it was common at the time to
use “White” as a catch-all for “advanced and civilized.”

Please read on:

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24309

[kenneth harrow]

i am not sure why cornelius is putting forward
this piece to the list. perhaps he can explain?
it reeks of the worst rightwing antiafrican
rhetoric, assumes the worst western/european
notions of "civilization," establishing measures
of value that emerge directly from the european
right wing handbook. it isn't profitable to us to
refute the assumptions about "civilization" since
the debate is already lost at the outset as the
premises are already biased from the outset.
basically it asks: when will africans ever catch up with europeans.
i wonder if the romans kept asking that about the
greeks whom they had conquered and ruled for 500 years?
ken

>--
>You received this message because you are
>subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series"
>moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit
> http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives,
> visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsub...@googlegroups.com

Kenneth W. Harrow
Distinguished Professor of English
Michigan State University
har...@msu.edu
517 803-8839
fax 517 353 3755

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

No amount of deconstruction by apologists will change Kipling's "white" from meaning European (albeit) western European as he intended to civilized.
Do these apologists know what the word civilized truly means? You do not have to come from an economically advanced country to be civilized. A less developing country may in fact be a more civilized country than a developed country. Civilized is essentially a cultural term. The term is also relative. Whose perspective of "civilized" is in point. The French generally do not consider the English to be civilized for example. The English do the same of Americans (U.S.A.). Would you consider a country that kills its citizens in the twenty-first century a civilized country? If a civilized country in a conflict situation, had a choice between war and talk, how would she choose?

oa

-----Original Message-----
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:00 AM
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - "The White Man's Burden: Rudyard Kipling was Right " ?

The last time I encountered "The White Man's Burden" as a headline was
here, in 2003:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+Steyn+%3A+the+White+Man's+Burden

With all the talk about race-ism, post-colonial blues etc a safe
conclusion is that if the modern black civilisations were
technologically superior to what's still called "White ", then black
would be discriminating whites, looking down, at the vantage point

from above....

Another thought-provoking piece:

"Replace "White Man" with "Western Civilization" and Kipling is as
right today as he was in 1899
by Bill Levinson

It is easy for the politically correct Left to dismiss Rudyard
Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" as racist because of its title, but
it is necessary to place the poem in context. When Kipling wrote this
poem in 1899, Japan, the United States, and Russia (noting the
latter's Asiatic domains) were the only advanced nations that were not
almost exclusively Caucasian. This is why it was common at the time to
use "White" as a catch-all for "advanced and civilized."

Please read on:

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24309

--

[Cornelius Hamelberg]

To Ogugua Anunoby & Professor Harrow who is not sure why I posted this
very challenging essay.

My most righteous purpose in forwarding this piece was to promote some
healthy reactions (some of them predictable) from the diverse/ radical
political corners of this forum.
I don’t think that the criteria of what’s judged to be human and
material development presented by what Professor Harrow calls “
right wing anti-African rhetoric” is very different from what the
UNDP world ratings churn out annually:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&tbs=lr%3Alang_1en&q=UNDP+World+rankings

At the risk of being contrary, I for one didn’t observe any anti-
African rhetoric in Bill Levinson’s piece (perhaps Professor Harrow
would like to kindly point out any deviations from reality?) – apart
from pointing out that Kipling – and the world he once lived in is
now dated and we all know what time it is, and that for better or for
worse, the sun has set on some of what was once the British Empire
under Queen Victoria.

As we all know, concepts of civilisation and race have always been at
the very core of anti-colonial discourse. On the Oyibo side starting
with what/who the French have always defined as the barbarians,
through Rousseau unto the grand ideas about “the Noble Savage” and the
missionary impetuous of the three Cs aided by an anthropology which
always came in handy: namely, to “C-ivilise” – C-hristianise & C-
olonise the natives of Africa.

(And if for good measure I added that the imperial purpose was also to
“Sodomise” & “Screw” Africa perhaps my posting wouldn’t get through?)

Then there was Fanon, followed by Edward Said’s “Culture and
Imperialism” and not so long ago the forerunner to the horseman of
apocalypse appeared on the horizon as Samuel P. Huntington with his
best seller and all the heated polemical discussions it is generating
to this day and will probably continue to generate until the day after
the dust settles after the final battle, the mother of battles, which
will be known as the Battle of Armageddon, which they say will be
fought between the believers and their infidels/ the terrorists and
the counter-terrorists, when in defiance of Kipling’s “Oh, East is
East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet”, East and West
+ North and South will meet for the final pitch on that battlefield –
and the world as we now know it may end with a big bang or a whimper.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK257&q=The+Clash+of+Civilizations

On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, "Anunoby, Ogugua" <Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> No amount of deconstruction by apologists will change Kipling's "white" from meaning European (albeit) western European as he intended to civilized.
> Do these apologists know what the word civilized truly means? You do not have to come from an economically advanced country to be civilized. A less developing country may in fact be a more civilized country than a developed country. Civilized is essentially a cultural term. The term is also relative. Whose perspective of "civilized" is in point. The French generally do not consider the English to be civilized for example. The English do the same of Americans (U.S.A.). Would you consider a country that kills its citizens in the twenty-first century a civilized country? If a civilized country in a conflict situation, had a choice between war and talk, how would she choose?
>
> oa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:00 AM
> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - "The White Man's Burden: Rudyard Kipling was Right " ?
>
> The last time I encountered "The White Man's Burden" as a headline was
> here, in 2003:
>

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+Steyn+%3A+the+White+Man's+B...

>
> With all the talk about race-ism, post-colonial blues etc a safe
> conclusion is that if the modern black civilisations were
> technologically superior to what's still called  "White ", then black
> would be discriminating whites, looking down,  at the vantage point
> from above....
>
> Another thought-provoking piece:
>
> "Replace "White Man" with "Western Civilization" and Kipling is as
> right today as he was in 1899
> by Bill Levinson
>
> It is easy for the politically correct Left to dismiss Rudyard
> Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" as racist because of its title, but
> it is necessary to place the poem in context. When Kipling wrote this
> poem in 1899, Japan, the United States, and Russia (noting the
> latter's Asiatic domains) were the only advanced nations that were not
> almost exclusively Caucasian. This is why it was common at the time to
> use "White" as a catch-all for "advanced and civilized."
>
> Please read on:
>
> http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24309
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.

>    For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue

[Cornelius Hamelberg]

Alternate ruminations to further clarify my humble position on this
issue ( to Ogugua Anunoby)

About these culture and civilisation polemics, on the whole, my
guiding light has been Anthony Kwame Appiah, ever since the
publication of his “In My Father's House”:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Kwame+Anthony+Appiah&fp=e0fa4b5da4f245a4

Believe it or not :There are those with living memories of what it was
like during the last days of colonialism in some places like Sierra
Leone which was the first British colony in Africa and for the
longest period of time (150 years) and today, they lament and say
with wistful nostalgia, that life was much better under colonial rule.
Some places, but not all places.

I was banned from a Forum for the vile language I used against a
friend, when he published the 50th instalment of his thesis, the main
purport of which was that Sierra Leone should be re-colonised.

This is not intended to be satirical: but putting colour sensitivity
aside, lets concede, African as we are that had the first world war
not taken place – or better still, had that wretched Berlin
Conference of 1884-1885 and the subsequent formal colonisation of
Africa not taken place, then today, Africa “the cradle of
civilisation” would be more advanced that the the once colonised
United States of America and a United States of Africa or the old
African Empires and their vassal states would probably be leading the
way, today.

But from dream to reality:

And lets look at how some of the observations made in that article can
be applied more precisely to our areas:

“4) Egypt and the Sudan, where militant “Islamic” Janjaweed persecute
and kill Christians, would be under civilized British rule “ - or
Egypt and the Sudan would perhaps still be doing jihad against British
rule.

Since the first demonstration that I ever took part in in my life
( together with soul brother Jasper Jones from Philadelphia and a host
of other students) was when Ian Smith declared independence for
Rhodesia, under a white minority government( in November 1965), I find
it a lot more difficult to stomach the idea that “ Zimbabwe would
still be Rhodesia, admittedly under white rule but more prosperous and
safe for its Black citizens than it is under Robert Mugabe.“ But as
things have turned out since 1981 when the Zimbabwean dollar was
roughly the equivalent of the American dollar today it's 600,000,000
Zimbas = $1 there is some economic truth to the present reality but
as far as “Freedom goes” there are those who still prefer to sing,
even today,

"I'd rather be a free man in my grave
Than living as a puppet or a slave"

The fantasies in 5,6, 7,& 8 are bad enough but I thought that there
would be an uproar about
“(9) Nigeria, in which women have been sentenced to be stoned to
death, would be under British rule.” It's a pity that my brother from
Ondo is not here to take stock of how Nigeria has progressed and in
fantasy at least, how different it could have been under ( God forbid)
continued British Colonial rule.

Of course if the 1st and 2nd World War were not now facts of history,
something else would have conceivably happened and the GOOD NEWS for
Muslims ( in my opinion) would be the fact that the Ummah would have
still been one – as was the case under the Ottoman Empire which is
coterminous with The Ummah, and Palestine would have continued as a
province in that Ottoman Empire......

But as Shakespeare says “ much virtue in if “ - it's also the mother
of all hypocrisies, and yes, “ If wishes were horses, beggars would
ride”

Anyway, Sir, all said and done, the latest issue taken up in Atlas
Shrugs could surprise, not only you

On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, "Anunoby, Ogugua" <Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:

> No amount of deconstruction by apologists will change Kipling's "white" from meaning European (albeit) western European as he intended to civilized.
> Do these apologists know what the word civilized truly means? You do not have to come from an economically advanced country to be civilized. A less developing country may in fact be a more civilized country than a developed country. Civilized is essentially a cultural term. The term is also relative. Whose perspective of "civilized" is in point. The French generally do not consider the English to be civilized for example. The English do the same of Americans (U.S.A.). Would you consider a country that kills its citizens in the twenty-first century a civilized country? If a civilized country in a conflict situation, had a choice between war and talk, how would she choose?
>
> oa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:00 AM
> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - "The White Man's Burden: Rudyard Kipling was Right " ?
>
> The last time I encountered "The White Man's Burden" as a headline was
> here, in 2003:
>

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+Steyn+%3A+the+White+Man's+B...

>
> With all the talk about race-ism, post-colonial blues etc a safe
> conclusion is that if the modern black civilisations were
> technologically superior to what's still called  "White ", then black
> would be discriminating whites, looking down,  at the vantage point
> from above....
>
> Another thought-provoking piece:
>
> "Replace "White Man" with "Western Civilization" and Kipling is as
> right today as he was in 1899
> by Bill Levinson
>
> It is easy for the politically correct Left to dismiss Rudyard
> Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" as racist because of its title, but
> it is necessary to place the poem in context. When Kipling wrote this
> poem in 1899, Japan, the United States, and Russia (noting the
> latter's Asiatic domains) were the only advanced nations that were not
> almost exclusively Caucasian. This is why it was common at the time to
> use "White" as a catch-all for "advanced and civilized."
>
> Please read on:
>
> http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24309
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.

>    For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue

[kenneth harrow]

the piece by levinson that cornelius posted says:
"During the subsequent 111 years, Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have joined the ranks of civilized nations, and the same goes for several Black-majority countries like South Africa and Namibia. A closeup inspection of Africa shows, however, that only six Black or Arab majority countries have what civilized nations accept as complete human and political rights, while only four Asian-majority nations (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Indonesia) qualify. In contrast, lack of freedom and civil rights is the exception (e.g. Russia, Belarus) rather than the rule in Caucasian-majority Europe and North America. The bottom line is however that civilization and human rights are a collective behavioral choice as opposed to a race, and Rudyard Kipling made this explicitly clear in the language of the late 19th century."

this is one piece of an article that i won't go through in any detail
what is "civilized"? cornelius gives us a piece of it; the french called colonialism a "civilizing mission." that is no different from the use of the term above, "civilized nations," meaning western or technologically developed ones, with a little namibia thrown in for measure. it means mostly white, mostly european point of view, it means europeans (which includes the u.s.) kill 100 million people in the 20th century, and retain the lead in civilized nations; it means dominate the world and call the dominant superior, only superior now is civilized. what is there to say? i don't understand how any apologists for this tragic period in history should be cited except as examples of failures.
what does mugabe have to do with anything? he is an example of another kind of failure, with different circumstances. i could cite my disappointments in obama; the french in sarkhozy; we all could cite failures in states or governments. why extend that to a judgment of peoples, of races, of "civilizations"?
we begin by deconstructing the colonial discourse, thanks to edward said. after that, we can talk about what works or doesn't work. but the premises of a discourse are where we have to begin, non?
ken

At 09:53 PM 6/29/2010, you wrote:

To Ogugua Anunoby & Professor Harrow who is not sure why I posted

   For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue

   For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
   To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-    
   unsub...@googlegroups.com

Kenneth W. Harrow

[Cornelius Hamelberg]

I can only say that even assuming that "it" ( colonialism) has been
the White Man's burden, hopefully he has gotten tired of it and will
soon be putting it down for the Chinese and the Asian Tigers to take
over just, as Chairman Mao once said :

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch06.htm

No, I was only kidding. Anyway , I will soon be dealing with the
matter of racism, more locally:

http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/2010/07/02/clearing-the-air-a-little-before-i-launch-into-we-sweden-versus-world-racism/

On Jul 1, 11:35 am, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
> the piece by levinson that cornelius posted says:
> "During the subsequent 111 years, Asian countries
> like South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have
> joined

> <http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010>the

> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&tbs=lr%3Alang_1en&q=UND...

> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK257&q=The+Clash+of...