Sorry this is so late!
Chinua Achebe, the first African novelist to gain popularity in The West—Europe and American, wrote this famous essay clearly in anger. It is pretty much required reading when considering the charges of racism that have been leveled at our text in the later half of the 20th century. In my seminar this year, we debated the question of racism in the book for a whole period—and the question never quite went away.
So: what do you think of Achebe's argument? Agree? Disagree? Agree with parts? Write a paragraph in response to our question. Go ahead and quote a couple times in your response.
We'll talk about this tomorrow and maybe watch parts of Hearts of Darkness, Eleanor Coppola's documentary about the making of Apocalypse Now.
I agree with Achebe's argument. I think Conrad is a racist. I think Heart of Darkness is racist. There is no denying the book presents Africa as "A metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognizable humanity" (343-344). The book repeatedly describes the Africans as "primal", "savage", and in an "incomprehensible frenzy". Additionally, whenever the revelation is made that these Africans are also humans, Conrad's main concern is that this means that he is distantly related to them. However, his views were definitely the norm of the time, so I do not necessarily blame him. Achebe suggests that these might also be the norms of today. The "Desire… in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe" (337) lives on. I hope, at this point, our society is "mature" enough to realize and acknowledge that Heart of Darkness and Conrad are racist.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with parts of Achebe's argument, but felt that he sometimes left parts unmentioned. For example, he wrote, "for the Thames, too 'has been one of the dark places of the earth.' It conquered its darkness, of course, and is now in daylight and peace." I felt the point of the book, though, was the fragility and superficiality of that peace. It calls the civilization of the whole world into question. Another section he pulled up was the comparison between the Woman and the Intended. He spoke of the description of the woman, "This Amazon is drawn in considerable detail, albeit of a predictable nature, for two reasons. First, she is in her place and so can win Conrad's special brand of approval and second, she fulfills a structural requirement of the story: a savage counterpart to the refined, European woman who will step forth to the end of the story." I disagree with both of his reasons. The first is because of Marlow's sexism, to which she is most certainly not "in her place." The second for the same reason. Achebe implies that she is found inferior to the Intended, but the Intended is less refined and more delicate. She is a simple, romantic soul, fitting in perfectly with Marlow's image of women. The Woman is regal, and wild, and powerful. She is the only female in the story who Marlow seems to respect to some degree. Achebe is right in pointing out some racist points, but at times sees racism where it isn't.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Achebe is saying in his essay. I understand that Conrad's writing was normal and not deemed racist at the time of publication. But that's the thing -- it was okay for the time. Now, with slaverly and the slave trade abolished and years of civil rights movements, some scholar somewhere has had to notice that a story that is "read and taught and constantly evaluated by serious academics" is actually very racist. I understand that it's a great work of European literature, but I don't think that means we should ignore Conrad's obvious racism. He refers to the Africans as niggers, which in today's society is a big red flag for racism. I don't necessarily think that Conrad purposely meant to be racist when he wrote the story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some parts of Achebe's essay but disagree with others. In many instances (both in the novella and in other works that Achebe quotes in his essay), Conrad displays racism. He glorifies the whiteness of the Englishman in the quote on page 345. However, he also insinuates that race doesn't determine the character or value of a person: "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or a slightly flatter nose than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much" (7). The scenario with the "cannibals" seems to suggest that Western society is uninformed in their conception of Africans, as Marlow continually expects to be threatened by the so-called cannibals but never is. Their "restraint" could be interpreted as an indication by Conrad that Europeans barbarize Africans (along with other people eho aren't "Western") through a lack of understanding that therefore that the idea of the African as the agressive cannibal is false--maybe "cannibals" only eat people who have already died or are dying.
ReplyDeleteAchebe makes the argument that Conrad uses Africa as his setting because Conrad considers it to be the antithesis to civilization. I find this argument to be pretty convincing. However, I also think about how Conrad seems to use his novella to demystify Western civilization. The "sacred mission" of colonialism is a lie. The parasol man indicates that Western civilization looks silly, and that much of it is shallowly based upon a set of criteria governing one's appearance. Kurtz himself, the epitome of the profound Westerner, is brutal and in fact quite savage. It seems to me that Conrad attempts to transcend the dichotomy of "civilized vs. savage" in order to highlight the human being's intrinsic capacity for evil. He suggests that the social pressure towards a certain moral code in Western civilization suppresses the "evil" side of humanity, but also shows that Westerners break these moral codes and then lie about their intentions in the name of greed (I do think that it's important to note that Conrad seems to endorse the Western code of morality as ideal, indicating that he is a product of his society and not willing to accept moral relativism). Like the rest of Heart of Darkness, dichotomy is not easy to find: it is not clear whether or not Conrad is a racist. He seems to have both racist and anti-racist ideas.
The part of Achebe's argument that I do not agree with is that the entire novella must be discarded due to its racism. If you are given a set of true statements with one false statement included with them, does the false statement invalidate the true statements? I don't believe so. When reading Heart of Darkness, I think that it's crucial to discuss the racism in Conrad's portrayal of Africa and the people who live there so it can be understood as senseless and false. However, I don't think that the novella's messages regarding the human capacity for evil and the absurdity of existence (among other themes) are made less relevant by the inclusion of destructive racist ideas alongside them (provided that the racist ideas are exposed and understood to be wrong).
I agree with Achebe's argument. I think that Conrad grossly portrays Africa as this mystical, savage wasteland of sorts with a not quite human population. (Through the eyes of Marlow, sure, but Conrad did meticulously choose the language and by doing such subconsciously placed this image in our heads) Especially when he portrayed the African woman versus the European woman. The African woman was this sexual, wild beast while the European was pure, innocent, and kind-hearted. These tropes were perpetuated before Conrad (like Achebe said) and are still perpetuated today. I think that Achebe is right to say the story is racist. However, I still think Heart of Darkness is an important story to explore and read, yet I also think it's important to acknowledge that our racist ideas of civilization and Africa come from the Heart of Darkness (and other places of course) and reading it perpetuates these ideas. (The language is easy to be manipulated by and get lost in)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Achebe. I think Conrad was most likely a racist and his book was too. The Africans are presented as less than human, "It is important to note that Conrad, careful as ever with his words, is concerned not so much about distant kinship as about someone laying a claim on it. The black man lays a claim on the white man which is well-nigh intolerable. It is the laying of this claim which frightens and at the same time fascinates Conrad, '... the thought of their humanity -- like yours .... Ugly'" (343). I am not sure if I agree that he goes beyond the racism inherent in the time, however. I do not know enough about the period to make an accurate decision on that. I do, however, think that the good can be taken along with the bad. Although the book may be racist, I think that it still has many literary benefits, but everything should be taken with a grain of salt, understanding Conrad's racism. I believe as long as it is taught that the book is racist, it can most certainly be a great piece of literature, and disagree with Achebe on that point. I believe that a piece of literature can be well-written and have some good meaning, as long as it is understood that the book is racist and that is taken into account.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of Chinua Achebe's argument. He makes some very good points about how Conrad uses comparisons and contrasting elements of Africa and other colonial European nations in the book to show the huge divide. The example with the two women really stood out as a strong point to me. The African woman, "savage and superb..." (341) who represents the wilderness symbolizes how people viewed Africa as savage and wild. While this woman exists, the European Intended woman is described as having "a mature capacity for belief" (341) and as being "pure" (74). People thought of England and France and various other European countries in this opinion, opposed to the "wild-eyed" (60) native woman who stands as a microcosm for all of Africa. However, I don't really know if I think Conrad is a racist or if he puts these judgements in as a criticism of the racists in the time. Achebe says that Heart of Darkness's highlighted racism stuck with people more because it wasn't over the top: "Heart of Darkness displays that Western desire and need... other books devoted to the same purpose but most are so obvious and crude..." (337). I would like to believe that Conrad does this on intention, but he very well might simply be racist. The point about the Congo river being inherently dark because of it's association with Africa opposed to the Thames in England also shows this subtle but very prominent racist detail.
ReplyDeleteI think Achebe makes a number of very important points. Based on Achebe’s argument, I’m fairly comfortable calling Conrad racist. I was particularly struck by the point that Africa merely served as a backdrop to a story about Europe—that Africa was merely ‘”the other world”, the antithesis of Europe and therefore civilization” (338). This made me think about my history classes and how often we’ve studied African independently of other countries, particularly European ones, and I can’t say that it was a happy ratio. Building off of Anna’s thought: can we blame Conrad, since his views were normal at the time he wrote Heart of Darkness? I thought the example of the contrasting women showed Conrad’s perceptions: you’ve got the “Amazonian” African woman and the European woman who is apparently just the height of dignity and refinement and the two are in complete contrast. Achebe brings up a number of arguments that I hadn’t thought of or noticed while reading Heart of Darkness, so I’m quite glad we’re reading Achebe’s essay.
ReplyDeleteI want to add one more thing: the cringe-worthy image of the fireman on pages 36 and 37. This image completely oozes racism. I can't decide if this passage details Conrad's ideas of Africans or if it is meant satirically, as it calls the fireman's ability to operate the boiler "improving knowledge" (37) which incurs the idea of "'weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways'" (12) which Marlow says he despises. Marlow's so confused.
ReplyDeleteI think that the more overt racism (for example, the fireman) could be meant satirically but that the sneakier racism that the premise of the novella rests on (Africa and Africans as wild, barbaric, and lesser, specifically the middle of page 36) reveal Conrad's racism. I find Conrad's attitudes towards race to be entirely contradictory and confusing. He can't make up his mind. Part of him recognizes racism as "rot" (a load of crap) but part of him clings to his society's racism.
I do concur with Achebe said in his argument. In the time that he wrote this story, Conrad would’t had been considered a racist. Using derogatory terms and blatant racism wasn’t out of the norm in this time. If Conrad wrote Heart Of Darkness in the 21st century, he would no doubt be deemed a racist. Conrad is always dehumanizing the Africans, by saying that they are basically like animals. Conrad says, “He was an improved specimen…He was there below me, and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind-legs.” Conrad is comparing one of the natives to that of a dog, walking around with feathers on their bodies. He is straight up comparing a native to an animal, showing obvious racism. Though in todays time, Conrad would be called a hard core racist, in the time the book was written, it was normal to speak of black people in this absurd way. Although its hard to respect a man who has racist comments, there is no way that his eloquence will be unnoticed by me. I do respect that this man can tell this story in such detailed and engrossing story in just a small novella.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of Achebe's assertions; I even may be ready to agree that "Joseph Conrad was a thouroughgoing racist", however there's one question I keep coming back to. Are Conrad's opinions really anything like Marlow's? Achebe continuously uses example's from Marlow's narrative to speak for Conrad himself. As Achebe himself acknowledges, "Conrad appears to go to considerable pains to set up layers of insulation between himself and the moral universe of his history." I don't think Achebe does a good enough job combating this argument. Achebe makes the point that "he (Conrad) neglects to hint however subtly or tentatively at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his characters. It would not have been beyond Conrad's power to make that provision if he had thought in necessary." I believe I agree with Achebe's first assessment; if Conrad did propose some alternative 'frame of reference' I certainly missed it. I do however, disagree with the claim that it would 'not have been beyond Conrad's power to make that provision" ... Isn't that in some ways what the book was all about? How impossible is was to figure out the RIGHT way of doing things. Apocalypse Now certainly sent this message. I think a lot of the disappointment that comes from the end of the film exists because we were all waiting for Coppola to tell us what to do now, and -- as he himself seemed to discover towards the end of production -- he couldn't come up with one! I'm not saying I know for sure that Conrad and Marlow's outlooks differ. Even if Conrad is trying to "hold it (Marlow's attitude) up to irony and criticism", I might argue that it was immoral (certainly irresponsible) of Conrad to write a book with such an opaque message and so little injection of his, the author's, own opinion. My only argument is that Achebe does not do a thorough enough job combating this argument, and instead bases it off of what appears to me to be a base assumption about what would or would not have been easy/deemed necessary by Joseph Conrad.
ReplyDelete