As if.
Even the camera angles tell us otherwise.
Then there's the matter of Gunga Din's ambitions (bugler, which is the Raj equivalent of the house darkie) and the fact that he's depicted as an impotent figure, the butt of jokes throughout the film.
Far from showing that Gunga Din really is a better man, the film merely points up British imperial gallantry.
Racist kerrrrraaap.
He's a better man because he took it and kept coming back to do his job. The point of the poem is similar to Kipling's "If": If you can go through all of the crap that life throws at you and soldier on, then you truly are a special person. What's more, he's willing to sacrifice himself for the regiment. I'm guessing that Din's own countrymen probably treated him badly but the British Army gave him a modicum of dignity.
Yippee: "For king!"
Yappee: "For country!"
Yahooie: "And, most of all, for 10¢ an hour!"
I'm guessing that Din's own countrymen probably treated him badly but the British Army gave him a modicum of dignity.
"It's a manipulative, racially patronizing story, not historical fact, that served to justify British Imperial rule."
Very well said. There were liberal and progressive movements 'even back then' in the late 30's, so the movie and its underlying premise can't be justified or excused based on the era in which it was made.
Actually, it takes place well before the Thirties. I'm guessing early Twentieth Century if not in the Nineteenth. I guess you weren't a fan of the slave staying at the Alamo in The Alamo (1960) neither.
Yippee: "For king!"
Yappee: "For country!"
Yahooie: "And, most of all, for 10¢ an hour!"
The point is it was highly insensitive and inappropriate to make a film in the 1930's, glorifying British imperialism. When anti-colonial movements, including India's very own, were in a very advanced state. It's not about a technicality regarding the era the movie is covering, or whether some people including Indians themselves, may have approved of tough measures against the Thugees when they were at their height. That's missing the point entirely.
shareWhich is why such films were completely banned by the US War Department during WWII (they helped feed Nazi war propaganda) and why, after the war, the British were reduced to making two-bit colonial police films with their protagonists cast as innocents battling lawless natives.
shareWasn't the Guru interesting, though? His lines reminded me of how Shakespeare did manage to slide thru Shylock's humanity. He may have been paid for anti-Semitism, but he got his own opinion in, though sideways, through the lines actors spoke.
Still reading this board, so I may find these exact sentiments again.
The Guru is as devoted as Ghandi, although in a much more bloodthirsty way, to his independent "India."
Makes you wonder, does it not? I am outraged by the way the Taliban treats women who seek knowledge and independence, and yet, can we guarantee those treasures to our own sex through war?
How do you break bullies for good?
It's a manipulative, racially patronizing story, not historical fact, that served to justify British Imperial rule.
You're certainly on the ball regarding this point. Not only in showing Gunga Din being the good Indian serving and wanting to be a British Solider but also in the romantic sub - plot between Tommy and Emmy. He is constantly teased for wanting to leave the army and Cutter and Mac go as far as to manipulate certain events in order to keep him there, eventually giving in to them and decides to stay in the army. Its as if the message was that its more honorable to be a Solider rather than a Husband.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
I am.an Empire man and proud of it.
shareJerk.
share