Over a century ago, a poem by Rudyard Kipling introduced the world to the idea of the European being a civilizing force without whom the brown and black savages of Asia, Africa and Latin America would be leading lives of untold misery, wracked by disease and famine. The concept was not a new one - Christian missionaries had been travelling all over the globe proselytizing the glories of accepting Jesus as one's savior, and they were in turn followed by traders seeking to earn money by exchanging goods, only to be replaced by rulers who sought control over resources for no other reason than the well-being of people in their native lands. All the empires the world has known have operated in more or less the same way, the only difference being the extent to which they benefited or harmed their indigenous population of the lands they conquered.
That harm was caused is almost a given - when two human beings are placed in a situation where one of them has even the slightest advantage in power over the other, the desire to take undue advantage of the difference is, well, human nature. Subjugating the ruled to an inferior status can manifest itself in different ways - from simple apartheid (think "No Dogs and Indians allowed" in British India) all the way to complete genocide (the Spanish in Central and South America, or the British in Australia). Of course, the white man's burden does not really touch on this topic much, but instead suggests that the benefits brought along by empire made a positive impact on those whose lives it touched. Again, this is a debatable issue
With the dominance of Western empires from around 1600 to the mid 20th century, one can be excused for forgetting that there were other non-western empires during and even before that period, the most famous ones being the Mongols who conquered most of Asia and extended their rule into Europe, or the Caliphate that ruled Spain for over 700 years, at a time when Islamic scholarship in the sciences and arts was at its peak. In both these cases, you had non-white races essentially ruling over whites, which would have had many of the same features as the reverse scenario.
The recent Africa summit held in Washington DC had some hints of the "white man's burden" wrapped up in platitudes about the potential of Africa and how it was important to bring clean energy and water and other nice things to the continent's mostly poor - all lavishly funded by the American government to create opportunities for American businesses. CEOs who had run out of growth opportunities, or been thwarted by competitors or regulations, lined up to pay glowing tribute to the notion that Africa's time had arrived - it was set to take its place at the global table along with the developing countries of Asia and Latin America. It was time for the cradle of civilization to, well, leave the cradle and start to walk. And the US was there to help see it through!
The only trouble is that all these countries have already been wined and dined by the government of China, which has a very open mission, not altogether different from that of the East India company, which is to secure raw materials (primarily oil and metals) for its growing economy. In return, it has built infrastructure in these countries which would be the envy of the western world today - shining new buildings, highways and ports. Yes, bribes would have been paid to the dictators who rule many of these failed states. Yes, people would have been displaced under threat and not properly resettled. But the fact of the matter is that the Chinese recognized an opportunity to invest in a region that had been ignored by the west for most of the 20th century, and are going to reap the rewards for many years to come.
The Americans, naturally, take a very dim view of all of this - oblique references to "business practices" and "human rights" by the Chinese are meant to suggest that the US is a better partner for Africa. And they might well be right - except for the historical precedent of regime change, signing agreements with those same dictators and in general turning a blind eye to the country's real needs in favor of selling more American goods. The same threat of force that was shown by Commodore Perry's warships in Tokyo Bay over 150 years ago can be shown again should a country that has agreed to receive "American help" decide against renewing that contract.
That Africa needs help is without doubt. The dark continent has vast natural resources that, if managed properly, can sustain mankind for centuries. An exploding population can be controlled if traditional ideas of family and religion are put aside in favor of understanding the greater common good. But, most importantly, proper governance (such a clichéd term!) has to be learnt, but not from the Americans or the Chinese - you need states that are true models for democracy, such as the Scandanavians, to provide a guiding hand to the Zimbabwes, Kenyas and Nigerias. And, above all, the world needs to start to respect Africa - not treat it as a dumping ground or an open pit mine, with unlimited capacity to absorb or supply. Till such respect is lacking, the white man's burden will continue to raise its ugly head.
That harm was caused is almost a given - when two human beings are placed in a situation where one of them has even the slightest advantage in power over the other, the desire to take undue advantage of the difference is, well, human nature. Subjugating the ruled to an inferior status can manifest itself in different ways - from simple apartheid (think "No Dogs and Indians allowed" in British India) all the way to complete genocide (the Spanish in Central and South America, or the British in Australia). Of course, the white man's burden does not really touch on this topic much, but instead suggests that the benefits brought along by empire made a positive impact on those whose lives it touched. Again, this is a debatable issue
With the dominance of Western empires from around 1600 to the mid 20th century, one can be excused for forgetting that there were other non-western empires during and even before that period, the most famous ones being the Mongols who conquered most of Asia and extended their rule into Europe, or the Caliphate that ruled Spain for over 700 years, at a time when Islamic scholarship in the sciences and arts was at its peak. In both these cases, you had non-white races essentially ruling over whites, which would have had many of the same features as the reverse scenario.
The recent Africa summit held in Washington DC had some hints of the "white man's burden" wrapped up in platitudes about the potential of Africa and how it was important to bring clean energy and water and other nice things to the continent's mostly poor - all lavishly funded by the American government to create opportunities for American businesses. CEOs who had run out of growth opportunities, or been thwarted by competitors or regulations, lined up to pay glowing tribute to the notion that Africa's time had arrived - it was set to take its place at the global table along with the developing countries of Asia and Latin America. It was time for the cradle of civilization to, well, leave the cradle and start to walk. And the US was there to help see it through!
The only trouble is that all these countries have already been wined and dined by the government of China, which has a very open mission, not altogether different from that of the East India company, which is to secure raw materials (primarily oil and metals) for its growing economy. In return, it has built infrastructure in these countries which would be the envy of the western world today - shining new buildings, highways and ports. Yes, bribes would have been paid to the dictators who rule many of these failed states. Yes, people would have been displaced under threat and not properly resettled. But the fact of the matter is that the Chinese recognized an opportunity to invest in a region that had been ignored by the west for most of the 20th century, and are going to reap the rewards for many years to come.
The Americans, naturally, take a very dim view of all of this - oblique references to "business practices" and "human rights" by the Chinese are meant to suggest that the US is a better partner for Africa. And they might well be right - except for the historical precedent of regime change, signing agreements with those same dictators and in general turning a blind eye to the country's real needs in favor of selling more American goods. The same threat of force that was shown by Commodore Perry's warships in Tokyo Bay over 150 years ago can be shown again should a country that has agreed to receive "American help" decide against renewing that contract.
That Africa needs help is without doubt. The dark continent has vast natural resources that, if managed properly, can sustain mankind for centuries. An exploding population can be controlled if traditional ideas of family and religion are put aside in favor of understanding the greater common good. But, most importantly, proper governance (such a clichéd term!) has to be learnt, but not from the Americans or the Chinese - you need states that are true models for democracy, such as the Scandanavians, to provide a guiding hand to the Zimbabwes, Kenyas and Nigerias. And, above all, the world needs to start to respect Africa - not treat it as a dumping ground or an open pit mine, with unlimited capacity to absorb or supply. Till such respect is lacking, the white man's burden will continue to raise its ugly head.
