The poem does not present hypocrisy in a direct, literal sense. It doesn't portray a character or group of people explicitly contradicting their own beliefs or actions. Instead, the poem focuses on the internal conflict and disillusionment of a speaker struggling with the legacy of colonialism and its influence on their own identity and values.
However, one could argue that there is an implicit sense of hypocrisy in the poem, particularly in the way the colonizers treated the colonized people. The speaker describes the colonizers as "teachers" who came "to civilize us," yet their actions often contradicted this claim. They brought "their gods," "their laws," and "their ways," forcefully imposing them on the native culture, often leading to the suppression of traditional beliefs and practices. This creates a sense of hypocrisy in the way the colonizers presented themselves as benevolent bringers of progress while simultaneously exploiting and subjugating the indigenous people.
The speaker also highlights the hypocrisy in the colonized people themselves, who have internalized the colonizers' values and beliefs. They now aspire to "wear their clothes," "speak their tongue," and "walk their walk." This internalization of colonial values signifies a loss of identity and a rejection of their own heritage. This internalized hypocrisy creates a complex sense of alienation and confusion for the speaker, reflecting the complex aftermath of colonialism.
Therefore, while the poem doesn't explicitly depict hypocrisy in the traditional sense, it implicitly explores the hypocrisy inherent in the colonial enterprise and its lasting impact on both colonizers and colonized, creating a powerful commentary on the complexities of cultural identity and the consequences of imposed change.