Ads Top

White Man’s Burden

Written by John (the other John).

"The White Man's Burden" is a poem by the British Victorian poet Rudyard Kipling, who wrote it to celebrate Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897. The gist of the poem was that it is the white man’s burden (i.e., moral obligation) to civilize the uncivilized non-whites of this world in an effort to establish their progress via colonialism. This rationale implied that colonialism is/was not done to benefit Britain, but rather to benefit the primitive uncivilized people whom were incapable of: 1) self-government, 2) establishing an economy, 3) proper culture, 4) and finding Christianity. Hence, the “white man’s burden”. This poem and this way of thought has been discredited as being horrifically bigoted, and it evidences the existence of violent “white supremacy” ideology that rightfully must be extinguished from this earth.

Turn the clock to the modern era (21 st century). Anyone promoting the concept of the “white man’s burden” will be deemed a “racist” (and rightfully so) and a nut (it is not our duty or obligation to interfere with other people’s way of life [i.e., “mind your own f’n business”]). This is the spoken and written belief of most members of our society; but how about the “progressives” in “deed”? Let us analyze this from the legal/governing perspective with the issues of refugees/asylum/migration.

The 1951 “Refugee Convention” and its 1967 Protocol form the foundation of what is a “refugee” and a nation’s obligations, for which there are 149 signatory nations to these agreements. Without overanalyzing this Convention for the purposes of this article, I’ll get to the point which is that the only nations whom “refugees” (both real and fake) choose to seek asylum are in “white” nations (ex. Europe, the US, Canada, Australia) as opposed to any non-white nation who is a signatory to the Convention. This opinion that white nations only must accept “refugees” is supported by Judges, politicians, lawyers, and ngo’s, despite this contradicting the language and intent of the Convention [1].

So in essence, today we have the woke version of “white man’s burden” by instead of us colonizing non-white people in their land, today, we bring non-white people here so they can colonize us in our land, whilst we civilize them. And much like in 1897, “progressives” today believe that non-whites are incapable of: 1) self-government, and 2) establishing an economy, thus they need to be brought here to prosper. Hence, the “white man’s burden” (woke style); a very genteel and patrician form of the bigotry of no expectations.

“...Take up the White Man's burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
...Take up the White Man's burden—
...Nor call too loud on Freedom...


1. For instance, if in 1951 the “white” nations were told that only they would have the burden for “refugees” (and no non-white nation), then they no doubt would have declined to sign the Convention because then there would not have been an equally distributed shared burden globally. So by non-white nations rejecting “refugees”, then this is a “breach of agreement/contract”, thus a basis for “white” nations to opt out of these Treaties/Conventions and thus reject “refugees”.
Powered by Blogger.