Romello J. Lovinsky

COL Miller

ERH-205WX-02

5 March 2018

Help Received: The Idea of Moral Authority in The Man Who Would Be King, Jeffrey Meyers

 

Summary of Jeffrey Myers Article

 

According to Jeffrey Myers, Kipling begins The Man Who Would Be King with the theme of a need for moral authority and the dangers of uncivilized colonialism. He states that the problem with Kipling’s work is that he shows an admiration for the daring side of Peachey and Dravot, which makes his shame of their actions inconsistent. Kipling does not establish the lack of religious law following because Kipling admires their daring personalities.

Kipling attempts to warn the English that a failure to implement morals in their conquest would result in a failure of their empire. The story displayed how a king could be defeated by their own pride. Peachy and Dravot, embody the typical king put into power hereditarily, who thinks that they deserve the position that they are given. A hereditary king has a common unearned pride and confidence and tend to assert their dominance to show their subjects their power. Peachy and Dravot kingships fail because of their lack of morals which Myers sees as a warning to the British Empire. Jeffrey Myers states, like Henry Bolingbroke, they are usurpers who bring “Disorder, horror, fear, and mutiny” into the land. Although they think to do great things, they only act out the things that benefit them.

Peachy and Dravot plan to travel far into Afghanistan to escape the rule of pre-established governments and use their skills with drill and guns to their advantage. “In any place where they fight, a man who knows how to drill can always be King” (Meyers, Jeffrey 713). That plan, combined with their materialistic ambitions, to work the land to increase their riches is what leads to their eventual demise. Meyers proposes this to be similar to the story of James Brooke, who took control of the Indian island of Borneo with motives to introduce British living to its occupants. Brooke, however, helped the people of Borneo and developed a care for them while Dravot never developed that feeling. Peachy and Dravot believed that the natives were meant to be fought, conquered, and ruled. This hints on the belief that natives were expendable to the British, and brute force and military conquest were their tools for colonization. This was the divide et impera strategy, in which the conqueror would side with the most powerful tribe and defeat the enemies, then defeat the tribe that helped them. This embodied the worst type of colonialism because it was disastrous to the native’s way of life.

Kipling failed in communicating his message to the British Empire. He did not keep consistent with his morals and felt sympathetic for the daring and rouge attitude of Peachy and Dravot. At times he would condemn their behavior and the way in which they colonized, however, this was undermined by his admiration for their motivation. This inconsistency caused the story to appear as a satire rather than actual advice to the British Empire. I agree with Meyers that, if Kipling’s true purpose was to advise the British Empire of their actions, he did not accomplish it.