Firedoglake » Bursting the Bubble of American Military Empire

19th June 2006

Firedoglake » Bursting the Bubble of American Military Empire

posted in Politics, Recommended, Society by themaiden |

Once in awhile, someone writes a few lines that cut to the heart of things.

The mythology of the British Empire, the subject of Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Gunga Din,” was founded on racist fantasies of a white man’s burden. So too, the “War on Terror,” clash of civilizations crowd believes Western Whitey must subjugate the Barbarian Brown Moslem Horde through force and conversion to (Christianist) democracy (see also American conservative racism on display in the right’s obsession with brown people crossing our southern border).

But Bushco cannot win people over to democracy, because democracy by its nature requires persuasion, not B-1 bombers. Like Gandhi, we in the grass roots know all too well that promoting democracy requires inspiration, not subjugation. The torture-tainted reign of Buscho and the Republican party has forfeited its ability to inspire internationally. There can be no return to true American strength until Democrats take over, call bullshit on our current policy and proceed to set our own moral and economic house in order. The only positive future for America is a progressive future.

Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Bursting the Bubble of American Military Empire

Popularity: 1%

Love the post? Hate it? Please let me know. Leave a comment and spread the word: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 19th, 2006 at 10:59 am and is filed under Politics, Recommended, Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On June 19th, 2006, schwa said:

Au contraire, the subject of Kipling’s poem was one racist white man’s discovery that the reviled brown man possessed an unsurpassable generosity & nobility of soul.

2 On June 19th, 2006, themaiden said:

I didn’t write the passage. I just quoted it. Head over to FireDogLake and tell the author your view.

However, I suspect that the response will be something like “You are splitting hair about the precise subject of the poem and missing the point because of it. Whether the poem is specifically about ‘The mythology of the British Empire’ or about ‘one racist white man’s discovery’ is rather irrelevant. Either way the poem does illustrate the mythology of British Empirialism, which was, inarguably, based in a very deep racism.”

3 On June 19th, 2006, schwa said:

I did post to that effect at FDL. & it’s hardly irrelevant to point out that the Kipling poem Pach referenced in his essay (as well as other errors) did not support his thesis. I find it more believable that the movie titled ‘Gunga Din’ was c/overtly racist (I haven’t seen it) but that’s just my ‘anti-Hollywood prejudice’ talking . Pach’s writing aids in the denigration of Kipling as racist-imperialist-militarist-propagandist, but I’ve found Kipling’s work to be passionate, warm, witty & instructive in a humanist sense. In particular, ‘Gunga Din’ (the poem) is a strong polemic *against* racism.

4 On June 19th, 2006, themaiden said:

Again, I’d say you are missing the point, and rather making much of very little. One rule English is that you can remove a clause and still keep the meaning of the sentence. The clause is incidental, though perhaps useful in filling in detail. Remove the clause from Pach’s sentence and you get, “The mythology of the British Empire was founded on racist fantasies of a white man’s burden.” This is true. Kipling isn’t implicated, whether he deserves to be, as some argue, or not. The very worst that pach’s sentence says about Kipling is that “Gunga Din” has as subject matter the “mythology of the British Empire”. I don’t see that Kipling is being blamed for that mythology.

And, in fact, it is largely irrelevant. Pach’s mention of Kipling isn’t used to support any point at all, nor is it used in a way that suggest it is supposed to support some point. It is flourish.

You seem to have it in your head that Pach has called Kipling a racist. That isn’t correct, at least not in what I quoted. I’m not sure what Pach believes about the subject, but “Kipling is a racist” is not what was written. Pach may hate Kipling. I don’t really know, but that is not what is written. The clause about Kipling attaches to “mythology of the British Empire” not to “was founded on racist fantasies”, and that clause is a long way from blaming Kipling for either the mythology or the racism. I could write a book taking antebellum slavery as my subject, but mentioning that such is my subject is not equivalent to blaming me for the slavery. You seem to be missing that point.

You mention that there are other errors in Pach’s essay. It seems like those would be better worth your time.

5 On June 19th, 2006, schwa said:

Hi maiden,
My 1st post on the fdl thread were about 2 of the factual errors in his piece, & in my 2nd I tossed in the Kipling thing (part of a general sense of disapproval I guess). I didn’t write that pachacutec called Kipling a racist, but that his citation of ‘Gunga Din’ the poem did not support his thesis & erroneously contributes to dissing Kipling. As a rhetorical flourish, it just didn’t ring true for me. When I read an essay where some of the supporting facts are wrong & incorrect allusions are made, I usually just mentally bin the whole thing & move on. But since I agreed w/ the general tenor of the post (Usa get out of Iraq), I thought I might post a bit about it.

6 On June 19th, 2006, themaiden said:

Well, your position makes considerably more since now, though “Pach’s writing aids in the denigration of Kipling as racist-imperialist-militarist-propagandist…” is pretty close to claiming that “pachacutec called Kipling a racist”. At any rate…