The Man Who Would Be King Imperialism Analysis

628 Words3 Pages
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

    More about The Man Who Would Be King Imperialism Analysis

      Open Document