A Response to others' Responses

There seems to be this ongoing debate on whether humanitarianism and imperialism aren't at all the same or whether they actually have very similar intentions and motives. Obviously most humanitarians don't go to developing countries, demand rubber and then slice off people's limbs, yet I do believe that some have similar attitudes as early imperialists had: this notion that its their obligation or responsibility to take care of the unfortunate. This paternalistic perspective still seems to last, for example, when you see those commercials with small mexican children walking through hills of garbage and an old (christian) man picks one up gently and tells you to donate just one dollar a day. Now, I'm not saying that he's an evil con man or anything like that, I just thought it interesting that in some ways, and in some cases humanitarian efforts seem like a PC version of Imperialism. 

Also, I noticed varying opinions on the "White Man's Burden" poem by Rudyard Kipling. I personally believe that he was being sarcastic but for some different reasons than previously mentioned. I do not think he had any sympathies for the 'natives' of India or elsewhere, instead he felt that Imperialism was in fact a burden...how ironic...Many have stated that he thinks of Imperialism as a sacrifice, but lets remember that a sacrifice is quite different than a burden. Sacrifices are things that people take on because it is their responsibility yet a burden is usually unnecessary and annoying.