The Poor Man's Burden (March 1899)

I am writing my interpretation on the poem, "The Poor Man's Burden." This poem is beautiful not only because of how they structured it but also its meaning. There are 6 stanzas that gives us a great understanding on what each stanza means. This poem was made after Kipling's poem which is why it explains to us their definition of being poor. In stanza 1 it tells us to lift up the poor man's burden by seeing him doing what for  them is normal. For example,in the lines "to serve your pride and greed, to wait in heavy harness, upon your rich and grand, the common working people, the serfs of every land" it's telling us that being poor and serving the rich is what is common for them even if they don't want to it's in their nature to just be labeled poor and serfs. I agree with that stanza because long ago they were considered slaves and once a child was born they were part of the chain in which poor was already known as being slaves. After the war with the Filipinos, a new form of imperialism was influenced by the grand topic of race. This meant that people were not only different from their race but class status distinct. 

My favorite stanza is 5 because it is intense and full of energy with its meaning. Also. it is not only screaming for FREEDOM but it tells us about their faith in God and how they will one day be free with the help of God. Overall, the poem in my opinion was a call for their freedom and rights. It brought a sense of fight in words for being. This poem also explains that there was no help for them in that time, everything was probably segregated and like I said before they were easily labeled as poor or slave. In "The White Man's Burden, it talks a little about them helping slaves (poor) even if they don't want the help but I think they just wouldn't give the help. If in "The Poor Man's Burden", they cry out for freedom why wouldn't they want the help if that is what they are looking for in the first place? That I why I say they just didn't think it was right to help them which is why they may have not. What do you think about this poem and what I am saying? Do you think I may be interpreting the poem wrong or I have an idea of what I am saying?

Colonialism and Imperialism

I'm posting on behalf of Ben. --FL

The definitions of colonialism and imperialism, although assumed to be synonymous by most, are really very different. Colonialism is the action of a developed country making its presence known in a developing country for its own economic or political gain. Imperialism, on the other hand is going through the same actions for a different ideological reason.

Up until quite recently, developed countries such as England set up colonies all over the world. This was mostly for its own empirical desire to be great and powerful, making the action colonial (as opposed to imperial). By the late 19th century however, England’s and the United States’ motives seem to have shifted toward a more imperial approach. They wanted to bring the developing countries “civilization”, “education”, and “progress”. These noble sounding words of course come with a lot of side effects. Along with all the goodwill comes a severance from pure and ancient culture that many developing countries have a hard time living without.

Given both the positive and negative effects of colonialism and imperialism, what struck me as interesting about the article was the suggestion that the difference between the two really matter at all. Whatever the growing empires intentions are, the effects stay the same. For hundreds of years countries have been colonizing other countries, destroying their culture and giving them access to the modern world. Perhaps the motives have fluctuated over time, but the developing countries have been going through the same thing for as long as it has been going on. Perhaps a shift from colonialist toward imperialism really has been taking place, but significant changes to how colonized countries will be treated most likely will not take place at all.