Two Voices, Two Histories: Coloniser and Colonised in Poetry The poems “Aboriginal Australian” by Jack Davis and “The White Man’s Burden” by Rudyard Kipling present two sharply contrasting.
Faglig kvalitetssikret av lærere og toppstudenter · Følger læreplanen (LK20) · Sist oppdatert 2026-10-03
Below, you will find two poems. Read the poems and answer the task.
You may have to scroll.
Write a text in which you analyse and compare the two poems below in light of their historical contexts.
Two Voices, Two Histories: Coloniser and Colonised in Poetry
The poems “Aboriginal Australian” by Jack Davis and “The White Man’s Burden” by Rudyard Kipling present two sharply contrasting perspectives on colonialism and its legacy. While Kipling's poem reflects the voice and ideology of the coloniser in the late 19th century, Davis gives voice to the pain and resistance of the colonised in postcolonial Australia. Reading these poems side by side reveals not only the power of poetry as political expression, but also the deep wounds and justifications of imperial history.
Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” (1899) was written during the height of British imperialism, encouraging Western nations — particularly the United States — to “civilise” non-European peoples. The speaker describes colonised people as “new-caught, sullen peoples / Half devil and half child”, presenting them as inferior beings in need of guidance. The poem portrays colonisation as a noble, self-sacrificing mission — a “burden” the white man must take on for the benefit of the colonised. This reflects the widespread belief in white superiority and the moral justification for imperial conquest.
In stark contrast, Jack Davis’s “Aboriginal Australian” (1978) is a powerful postcolonial response to this narrative. Davis, an Aboriginal Australian poet and activist, addresses the coloniser directly: “You once smiled a friendly smile, / Said we were kin to one another”. The poem is laced with betrayal, grief, and anger as it recounts the brutal realities of colonisation: cultural destruction, land theft, massacres, and the forced removal of children. Lines such as “You murdered me with rope, with gun / The massacre of my enclave” stand in sharp opposition to Kipling’s portrayal of benevolent guidance. Instead of bringing peace and progress, colonisation brought death, disease, and dispossession.
Where Kipling romanticises imperialism, Davis demystifies it. Kipling speaks from a place of assumed authority and moral superiority, while Davis reclaims the voice of the silenced, revealing the true cost of empire. His poem challenges the idea that colonisation was a gift, asserting instead that “the real Australian story” is one of pain and resistance, not glory.
The historical contexts are essential to understanding the contrast. Kipling wrote at a time when empire was seen as a source of national pride. His poem supported the notion that white Europeans had a duty to “uplift” others. Davis, however, wrote in the late 20th century, when Indigenous voices were gaining strength in literature and activism. His poem reflects the historical trauma of Aboriginal Australians and the ongoing struggle for recognition, land rights, and justice.
In conclusion, these two poems stand on opposite sides of a historical conflict. Kipling's poem reveals the ideological justification of colonisation, while Davis’s poem exposes its brutal consequences. Together, they demonstrate how literature can both uphold and challenge power — and why it is vital to listen to those whose stories were long ignored.