The Duality of Imperialism

The Victorian Era marked not only the flourish of technological advances and widespread industrialization, but also the aggressive expansion of the British Empire. With the acquisition of new lands and thus a vast increase in subjects under British rule, the United Kingdom became host to a wide spectrum of opinions on the moral and economic implications of imperialism. Representing the more nationalistic and conservative views of expansion is Rudyard Kipling’s work “The White Man’s Burden” published in 1899 after the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. In contrast to Kipling’s belief that imperialism was the taxing responsibility of developed (and predominantly “white”) nations to provide for underdeveloped and ungrateful nations, George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” takes into account the perspectives of both the oppressors and the oppressed, neither of whom have a favorable view of unnecessary empiric expansion. In their telling use of key phraseology both writers reveal their interpretations of the relationships, or lack thereof, between the Europeans and the inhabitants of their newly colonized territories.

Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” presents an almost completely one-sided interpretation of the relationship between the British imperialists and their subjects. With carefully chosen wording, Kipling asserts that while the indigenous peoples toil about their uncultured, rural lives oblivious to their own ignorance, it is the white man who, in a cruel twist of fate, must “send forth the best [of his] breed” (2) for the betterment of the poor “heathen[s]” (23) who have failed to create a successful governmental and economic infrastructure. Described as donning a “heavy harness,” (5) the English are seen to bear the titular “burden” of serving their “captives’ needs,” (4) implying they are somehow incapable of providing for and protecting themselves. Regrettably they must, as a heroic humanitarian favor no-one asked for, “fill full the mouth of famine/And bid the sickness cease” (19-20) even if they must instigate “savage wars of peace” (18) to do so. “Half-devil and half-child” (8) the “new-caught” (7) indigenous peoples are said to be “sullen” (7) like wild animals resignedly surrendering their freedom to a master they cannot overcome and will not respect. Belittling not only their lack of ideal English modernity and decorum, but also their intelligence, Kipling discusses the patience with which the Englishmen must be endowed to constantly use “open speech and simple/An hundred times made plain” (13-14) just to “seek another’s profit” (15).

While Kipling primarily focuses on the overwhelming duty rested upon the shoulders of white men, he briefly stoops to peer into the perspectives of their captives. In a complete lack of empathy, the indigenous peoples are dismissed as hateful “sloth[s]” (23) lying in wait for the English to “work [their] gain” (16). The complete failure on Kipling’s part to comprehend the plight of the natives perfectly illustrates the lack of communication and understanding that facilitates the very biases he espouses. It is the emotional ignorance and prideful nationalism pervaded by works with terminology such as this that blind the Englishman into arrogantly likening the English occupation of foreign lands to the freeing of the Israelites “from bondage/[to their] loved Egyptian night” (39-40). By misinterpreting their unwelcome occupation of previously independent territory as a blessing rather than an intrusion, the English routinely lament their obligation to “toil like serf and sweeper” (27) to establish “ports [they] shall not enter” (29) and “roads [they] shall not tread” (30) while the beneficiaries of their labors never requested their services in the first place.

Having experienced first-hand the troublesome relationship between Europeans and those indigenous to their newly acquired territories, George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” tackles the topic from a less biased phraseological standpoint. Acting as a sub-divisional police officer in Lower Burma, Orwell was not exempt from the public distaste exhibited towards the European invaders. “Hated by large numbers of people,” he was often greeted by “the sneering yellow faces of young men” (735). Though wherever he went “insults hooted after [him] when [he] was at a safe distance,” (735) rather than adopt a stereotypical impression of the native peoples, Orwell maintained a dualistic mindset and related to their disdain for “the British Raj” (736). “Secretly of course—[he] was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors” and “had already made up his mind that imperialism was an evil thing” (736). Unlike Rudyard Kipling, Orwell derived empathy for their situation by having seen “the dirty work of Empire at close quarters” in the faces of “the wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups” (736). Unable to yet “chuck up [his] job and get out of it,” he was “stuck between [his] hatred of the empire [he] served and [his] rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make [his] job impossible” (736).

While the Buddhist priests’ jeering inspired in Orwell a desire “to drive a bayonet into [their] guts,” the disapproving glances and teasing words of the locals were not their only source of power against the “unbreakable tyranny” of the British Empire as Kipling had insinuated. In attempting to track down a rogue elephant who, not unlike England, had “come suddenly upon” (737) the Burmans and ravaged everything in its pathway, Orwell accrued a host of spectators excitedly cheering him on in his mission. Unaccustomed to and seemingly intoxicated by such positive attention in what Kipling refers to as “thankless years,” (54) the elephant, and symbolically the English Empire, stood no match for the will of the people. Though he “did not want to shoot the elephant,” (738) he was compelled to do so for fear of “looking a fool” (740) before the audience of natives. Breaking down the racist and elitist power dynamics constructed in Kipling’s work, Orwell shows that the average Englishman’s desire for “easy, ungrudged praise,” (52) even from the likes of their captives, can surmount their “dear-bought wisdom” (55) with the mere threat of “the judgment of [their] peers” (56).

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can perpetuate falsities: certainly less catchy than the original children’s chant, but more applicable to Rudyard Kipling’s work, this phrase encapsulates the central issue in the imperialism debate of the Victorian Era. In the dysfunctional relationship between Europeans and the natives of their colonized lands, much of the blame can be placed on the stereotypes and racist notions championed in works like “The White Man’s Burden.” Functional and cohesive relationships are facilitated by clear communication which, in turn, is only attainable when both parties exhibit respect and a willingness to understand one another. While George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is far from achieving a relationship of this nature, his willingness to comprehend the plight of the indigenous people was a small step forward in a time when white nationalism ran rampant.

Works Cited:

Kipling, Rudyard. "The White Man's Burden." Fordham University,

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/kipling.asp.