"White Man's Burden": Contemptuous Exhortation

Kipling’s poem, when read today, provokes us with its seeming white-supremacist crusade: anyone who actually agrees with the poem’s literal meaning has learned that saying so would render them politically incorrect. Yet, while it is difficult for us to take a second look at a scathing work in search of the motive beneath, we should not write it off as merely an extreme and backwards statement. Why does Kipling write this—and what does he actually think?
It is true that this was directed to the United States after its conquest of the Philippines; the “new-caught, sullen peoples” are presumably the dark-skinned, dark-haired individuals inhabiting the uncivilized island. And it is also true that Kipling was raised with a diverse cultural background, that he observed the Indians around him, and perhaps believed himself to be a sound judge of non-whites. However, this does not serve as evidence that Kipling actually sees Americans—and all light-skinned people—as the saviors of their racial inferiors. There is evidence of contempt in his voice and his deliberate mechanical choices.
“Send forth the best ye breed,” Kipling exhorts. Breed? He calls into question whether the primal elements of human nature lie only among the dark-skinned; apparently, whites can be bred and compared just like farm animals. He then continues the animal motif with “heavy harness;” it is the Americans who are about to wear chains in toil. The dark-skinned are also not the only ones whose ambition is swept away: the Americans are “to seek another’s profit,/ and work another’s gain.” Not for their own sake do they discipline the natives, not for their wealth or aspirations, but for “another.” This is, again, somewhat dehumanizing.
Kipling also presents imperialism with a Sisyphean nature: hopes are to be brought “to nought,” the toil is only “of common things,” and the reward consists of “blame” and “hate.” While this may merely be a noble excuse for effectively raping a conquered people of resources, Kipling might be indicating that all people are to toil in the process of imperialism. The natives toil, the imperialists toil, and perhaps no one gets anywhere.
The last two stanzas vindicate two groups of people, neither of them being the American imperialists. First, he states that the imperialized are the judges of their masters, that in fact they are almost an authority over their imperialists. Thus the toil of imperialists is also an emotional and spiritual one, where they must watch their step and evaluate their “gods” and themselves. Finally, the “thankless years” reveal the futility of the work, that there is no glory except what America’s presumably merciless peers allow. In the same way that oxen hardly reap the rewards of a day’s toil, the light-skinned may wear fetters for nothing.
Kipling’s contempt is evident, but he is not completely mocking either imperialist or imperialized. Instead, he could be taking a realist approach, as if to say, “Well, you conquered them, so you better bear the responsibility you asked for.” Kipling does not find responsibility noble, nor does he find it so degrading—merely the way things must proceed at this point in time. And perhaps he was right, for many imperialists did attempt to achieve the ideals Kipling mockingly set forth for them, taking seriously his dry exhortation and not allowing his sarcasm to make them think.