I must admit to having observed the trend of this thread with amused bemusement. The word "jungle" didn't enter the language until the 1700s when the British began to stay in India rather than just visit. It was probably brought back by one or more of the officers of the HEIC to describe the dense, um, jungles of India. As has been stated above, the word comes directly from Hindi (or anyway one of the Indian languages; there are so many to choose from!) and ultimately from Sanskrit.
Interestingly enough (well, it interests me, anyway), the word "jungle" doesn't appear to have been applied to African forests until comparatively recently. Certainly books I've read (from the Stanley, Schweizer, Livingstone era) refer to "forest", "bush", "coppice", "spinney", "copse" and all the usual English terms for collections of trees and shrubs. And most of those people had a healthy respect for the indigenous people.
Kipling, on the other hand, did use it. In relation to Indian forests exclusively; and he also had a healthy respect for both the, ah, jungle and its inhabitants, no matter how irritatingly jingoistic and condescending he could be at other times.
So I don't really think that the propaganda theory can be borne out.
- Pfranz
