Explain how the authors of ""the white man’s burden"" and ""the black man’s burden"" have different perspectives on european imperialism.

Both authors offer contrasting perspectives on imperialism: Kipling defends it as something that must be done, while Johnson denounces it.

Explanation:

The White Man's Burden is a 1899 poem by Rudyard Kipling where, writing about the Filipino–American War (1899-1902), says it is the duty (or "burden") of the white man to conquer and rule over non-whites, as part of a civilizing mission of sorts. In response to Kipling's poem, African-American priest H. T. Johnson wrote The Black Man's Burden that same year, presenting the perspective of the peoples affected by the white man's intervention. Both authors offer contrasting perspectives on imperialism: Kipling defends it as something that must be done, and that it is now the duty of the United States to carry on the legacy of European imperialism and assume its "responsibilities" as an imperial and colonial power. On the other hand, Johnson denounces imperialism, noting how it has brought major suffering and death under the guise of civilization to people of color all around the world, whether they're black, red, brown.

Both Kipling and Johnson describe imperialism, but from different perspectives. Kipling writes as an imperialist and uses his belief in European superiority to defend imperialist practices. Johnson, however, takes the position of native peoples and shows imperialism as an abuse of power.

Explanation:

pretty sure it is c

explanation: