Professor
Class
Date
Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King: Imperialism, Racism, and Religious Symbolism
(1)
The parallels that Kipling makes between the two main characters and their journeys are Christ-like, but they are not very God-like. Firstly, both Daniel and Peachy are out to conquer a region of feared territory with uncivilized natives. This parallel could be analogous to the whole world being uncivilized natives, like Kafiristan, and Jesus coming to save us, like Daniel and Peachy. Daniel is made out to be more like the son of God, but it is Peachy who is crucified, yet lives. Peachy’s crucifixion is the most obvious Christ image, however, the fact that he lives through it means is not God-like. It is Peachy who was not as careful as Daniel, so it does not seem fair that Peachy is the one who actually lives, and Daniel
…show more content…
This imperialist view can make racial feelings obvious about other races. In order to portray imperialism, Kipling would have to write about the idea that there are superior and inferior races. It does not mean that he is actually a racist, but he does write about racism. Dravot says: “These men aren’t niggers; they’re English! Look at their eyes— look at their mouths. Look at the way they stand up. They sit on chairs…They’re the Lost Tribes, or something like it, and they’ve grown to be English…” (Kipling 26). The imperialist view that the English are superior is obvious. The racist element comes in because Dravot thinks that these races need to be converted and civilized according to his imperialistic standards. It does seem that the charges against Kipling are well supported by his writings because he uses racial language and his themes are imperialistic in The Man Who Would Be
After the Civil War, the United States had begun to prosper because of this second industrial revolution. With this property, the people had begun to expand across the whole of the United States causing the frontier line within the US to disappear, which lead to the rise of the idea of imperialism and stronger foreign policy. Because of the rise of yellow journalism, the closing of the frontier line, the expansion of the United States Navy, and the rise of colonization of foreign European powers within Asia, debates and conflicting views had begun to arise on the idea of imperialism and whether or not it is a good idea to expand overseas and become a world power. Advocates for the expansion of the United States argued that it was the duty of
Throughout American History, imperialists and anti-imperialists ideals have opposed each other, but each for a valid reason. The imperialists were for expanding the United States and for spreading their ideas of government. The anti-imperialists wanted to play it safe and prevent any conflict that could have risen. It is also existent in today's world with modern day conflicts about the current imperialistic values. The views of American Imperialism were similar about the concerns for racism, but the views also differed because some believe the US was strong when others do not.
In the late nineteenth and century, many Americans agree with the view of imperialism, but in the early twentieth century America disagreed with the overseas expansion because they believed it went against the whole U.S. believe in freedom and self-rule. Many Americans believed it was the U.S. burden to teach undeveloped countries into civilization; therefore, the U.S. helped Cuba and the Philippines after the and during Spanish-American War. As Time progressed, Americans did not want to get involved in any other war. As a result, the U.S.passed the Espionage Act of 1917 to avoid entering future warfare.
The United States is an ever-evolving country that learns and benefits from not just its mistakes but right doings as well. Imperialism is the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies. Many imperialists claimed moral responsibility as the reason to expand American land claims, the anti-imperialists decried it because of the negative effects on the colonized. In both camps, the issue of race relations was the source of most similarities and differences. The pro-imperialist group felt it was the duty of the American race to colonize others and subjugate those peoples without offering citizenship, while the anti-imperialists felt it was unfair to foreigners to
In his article “White Ignorance, ” Charles Mills argues that ignorance has largely contributed to the creation and segregation of racial and gender groups. He supports his case by identifying the “originally solitary Cartesian cognizer,” which is the imperialistic British state of mind where whites, especially white males, were dominant, and the historical implications of that state of mind, specifically the idea that all non-whites were inferior in thought process and mannerisms therefore do not deserve the time of day required to be understood. Although he labels this ignorance “white ignorance,” he does not limit this intentional ignorance to just white males or the repercussions to racial separation. Instead he designates it as a specific way of thinking that encourages ignorance in favor of the dominant party in a given situation. At the end of his article, Mills comes to the conclusion that ignorance, in general, is damaging to society, specifically interactions between people, and comes up with
The social reaction to expansionism continued throughout both movements because the opposing sides of each argument disagreed on completely different topics. Many during the time of Imperialism believed America was destined to expand due to the believed superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race (Doc 1), and was justified in expanding due to the fact that America would spread democracy and that they were required to expand because it was the “White Man’s Burden” (Doc 1-POV). This is also true for Manifest Destiny, which was built on the idea that God ordained the western hemisphere for Americans.
There are economic, cultural, and political are the effects of the industrial revolution and European imperialism on both European nations and their colonies during the time period 1700-1914. European nations gained oversea colonies in North and South America, Africa and Asia. The European nations conquer Africa because they needed raw materials. European-introduced European culture, language, and religion to Africa. The European opened schools in Africa, which teach in the European language and spread Christianity.
During the late 19th and early 20th century the United States began to expand internationally, adopting a new imperialistic foreign policy. While the transition from westward expansion to imperialism was a change geographically, the new imperialistic direction the United States, was taking was a continuation of the old ideas of expanding west. Motives for expansionism remain the same the ideals of westward expansion continuing into a new era of American foreign policy. Much of America’s motive for an aggressive imperialist policy is the desire for land and wealth.
After WW2, there has been a mass migration of foreigners coming to England for a better life. Some of them were able to blend in properly with the lifestyle, but for others, it has been a struggle. Considering that British Citizens were not fond of this migration, they showed racism towards the newcomers. In Gilroy’s novel, `There Ain’t No Black in Union Jack’, quoted from Errol Lawrence The Empire Strikes Back in 1982, “This group has made 'race ' into a synonym for ethnicity and a sign for the sense of separateness which endows groups with an exclusive, collective identity” (Gilroy 16).
The Man Who Would Be Kings is a novella that interprets power, control and colonialism. In this novel Kipling tries to convey the feeling of people who were from a very low class but had big plans and ideas. He explained the unfairly treatment they received and the way they would act because of it. He incorporates two important characters, Dravot and Carnehan, that wanted to become so much more and wanted to have much more than what they had or could get. He expresses the ways the two men go from Indian to Kafiristan with the thought of taking over and becoming kings.
He begins to develop as a writer from his first occupation as a journalist. His work instantly becomes widespread for the comedic effect he incorporates into his work. Kipling also gains many supporters through the patriotism that never fails to shine through his work. His writing career occurs during the period of British Imperialism and he undoubtedly manipulates that to his advantage. During the beginning of this story, Kipling exaggerates Rikki-Tikki’s apparent privilege of being accepted by a white family to the reader as he writes in
Have you ever had a strong negative attitude towards a person that everything about them seems bad? In Rudyard Kipling’s novella, The Man Who Would Be King, this is exactly what he was doing. The novella is a story about imperialism in the British Empire and how it impacted its citizens and countries they conquered. Kipling portrayed his negative attitude toward the British Empire through the use of figurative language and diction.
As the junior professor of cultural and post-colonial studies, Elahe Haschemi Yekani observes during her researches on Kipling and India, the colonizer often consider themselves as “ 'natural ' authorities who can [..] teach the natives” (112) of an occupied country. This might explain from where Strickland and the narrator derive their power to torture the Silver Man to get the information they need. Even though the British men are ashamed of their action that “disgraced [themselves] as Englishmen forever” (Kipling 306), the mere fact that they claim the right to put themselves above others and to act like the punishing executor underlines Yekani 's assertion and Kipling 's ambiguous attitude. On the surface “The Mark of the Beast” can be read as a horrifying tale of a guy turning into a beast, but under beneath Kipling 's narrative functions as criticism on the British rule in India. The colonizers do not understand the country they live in; they cannot identify with the people and their religious customs, and by isolating themselves from the Indians they create a gulf between both countries enforces by the hierarchical power
More than that, the assumption of Kipling's India is that disorder itself is threatening, with no acknowledgement of the inherently undemocratic nature of British colonial rule that would make protest necessary. Indeed, there was a tendency to conflate protest and threat and to see all pubic expressions of anger and frustration as indicative of latent native
Race exists in Kim. We figure out on the first page that, underneath Kim's darkly tanned burned black skin as any native, Kim is still white. The reason for this attention to race is historical and important. Rudyard Kipling is writing about India during the era of British colonial domination at the turn of the twentieth century. The people are mixed up from different nationalities, ethnic groups, and religions.