[ SECRET POST #5585 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5585 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 08 secrets from Secret Submission Post #799.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that it was a particularly socially progressive stance by the standards of his own time period, though. I'll grant that he was probably not the most racist person of his time period, but I don't think his views were really out of the mainstream in any way, and at the end of the day, he remained a fervent supporter of Empire. He supported the Empire in India, in Africa, in Ireland - and on all of those issues, there were absolutely contemporaries of his who did not support the Empire where he did. There were absolutely people who were criticizing and pushing back on all those views. And Kipling was an opponent of them. If you want to call someone a woke SJW, it should be those people - the Wilfrid Lawsons, the Keir Hardies, the Charles Bradlaughs - not Kipling.

Now, those people weren't actually necessarily "woke" by modern standards - for example Henry Labouchere was a prominent radical and anti-imperialist of the time; he was also a fervent anti-feminist, anti-semite, and homophobe. The past is still a foreign country. But I don't think actually looking at the details of what Kipling's contemporaries thought and believed actually leads to the conclusions that you think it does.