Talk:The White Man's Burden

Author's intent, or interpretation?

This line: "Kipling positively represents colonial imperialism as the moral burden of the white race, who are divinely destined to civilise the brutish, non-white Other who inhabits the barbarous parts of the world; to wit, the seventh and eighth lines of the first stanza misrepresent the Filipinos as "new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child."

That Kipling "misrepresented" the Filipinos, however int may be true, is an interpretation of the text, and not the intent of the author of the poem. Kipling represented the Filipinos as he believed them to be. The line should say, "the seventh and eighth lines of the first stanza represent the Filipinos as 'new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child", and then be footnoted as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, and here's why. The poem obviously represents what Kipling, and those that believed like he did. The fact that the representation of their beliefs may be false ("misrepresenting") is a comment on the character of the Filipino people, and not about the poem "The White Man's Burden". It can represent the beliefs of certain white people, and misrepresent the character of the Filipino people, both at the same time. Essentially, you are advocating that the Article change the subject from "the poem" to "the Filipino people", and make comments about them, and not the poem.2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOFULLTEXT

The article has the full text of the poem which is quite long. THis probably does not comply with WP:NOFULLTEXT .Ææqwerty (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Limiting the Interpretation of the Poem to Apply Only to the Phillipines

Since the poem does not mention the Philippines explicitly, even if Kipling wrote it for the specific purpose of influencing US policy towards the Philippines, that does not mean that it could not (and did not) apply to all (or other) areas where colonization was taking place. I'm not arguing the point that the poem is about colonization in general, vs. colonization of the Philippines specifically, however I do believe the Article should make the statement clearly, one way or the other. The reason for this is that, at least in my opinion, the "White Man's Burden" phrase as it is used today, is used to apply to all aspects of colonization, or in more general terms, where the white race has some obligation to "caretake" non-white races, regardless of geography or ethnicity. The Article would be improved if some text were dedicated to either explaining why the poem applies only to the Philippines and it's people, or explicitly mentions that the poem expresses a sentiment that is a common denominator for all white/non-white interactions. One mistake for failing to clarify this point is that the stereotypical characterizations and pejoratives in the poem may be construed to be limited to only the Filipino people, vs. all non-whites worldwide. In short, does this poem characterize white sentiments, beliefs and attitudes (of the time) towards just the Filipino people, or to non-white people in general?2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a new article called The "White Man's Burden" and fear of anthropology which is a repeat of a student's college term paper (or reads like it), and is based on original research and attempts at new social science terminology. The author found some reasons to link Kipling's treatise with the anthropology field, so some sub-sections of this article could benefit from a partial merge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Skimming the new article I would argue for a merger of the chapters, but maybe the second with a anthropology article, but I dont know if there is a fitting other than the main anthropology article. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I can merge parts of that new article to here and other parts to an article somewhere in the anthropology field. I will work on that, or anything else that is suggested, once this discussion runs its course. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be no further concerns over this proposal, so I will complete the merge. There is actually very little to merge because most of that newer article is unsupported. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

no discussion of whether the poem was a satirical goad?

the poem reads like a satire, and any reader of Kipling should know that, while he was an imperialist, he had respect for other peoples.

it reads like he was goading Americans into embarking on an imperialist adventure using rhetorical absurdities which were obviously false even at the time.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qgcc1

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

71.183.222.185 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Interpretation Presented as Fact.

The article can be improved by including or at least acknowledging alternative interpretations of the poem, in particular those which argue for an ironic and pessimistic view from the author. Such analyses abound in the literature. 70.69.20.216 (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)