Racism In Conrad's Heart Of Darkness example essay topic

Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness uses character development and character analysis to really tell the story of European colonization. Within Conrad's characters one can find both racist and colonialist views, and it is the opinion, and the interpretation of the reader which decides what Conrad is really trying to say in his work. Chinua Achebe, a well known writer, once gave a lecture at the University of Massachusetts about Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, entitled "An image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness". Throughout his essay, Achebe notes how Conrad used Africa as a background only, and how he "set Africa up as a foil to Europe", (Achebe, p. 251) while he also "projects the image of Africa as the 'other world,' the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilizations" (Achebe, p. 252).

By his own interpretations of the text, Achebe shows that Conrad eliminates "The African as a human factor", thereby "reducing Africa to the role of props" (Achebe, p. 257). In supporting these accusations against Conrad, Achebe cites specific examples from the text, while also, pointing out that there is a lack of certain characteristics among the characters. Achebe then compares the descriptions of the Intended and the native woman. Explaining that the savage "fulfills a structural requirement of the story: a savage counterpart to the refined European woman", and also that the biggest "difference is the one implied in that author's bestowal of human expression to the one and the withholding of it from the other" (Achebe p. 255). This lack of human expression and human characteristics is what Achebe says contributes to the overflowing amount of racism within Conrad's novel. Human expression, is one of few things that make us different from animals, along with such things as communication and reason.

This of course, being that without human expression, the native woman is considered more of a "savage... wild-eyed and magnificent", (Achebe quoting Conrad, p. 255), possible even "bestial". In an attempt to refute Achebe's proposed difference between the two women, C.P. Saravan said that Conrad perceived that native woman as a "gorgeous, proud, superb, magnificent, terrific, [and] fierce" person whose "human feelings [were] not denied" (Saravan, p. 284). In comparing the two views, one must step back and consider that both views are only interpretations on what Conrad may have intended. Since no one can ever really know what his actual meanings were for these two women being so similar (in their movements), and yet so different (in their character), only individual explanation can be brought up. This in particular, is what brings me to question both Achebe and Saravan's points. By reorganizing Conrad's descriptive words, Saravan was able to propose that Conrad did not intend for the mistress to be perceived as the "savage counterpart" (Achebe, p. 255).

Yet, at the same time, both Saravan and Achebe each write about what they think to be the right thing. It seems to me that Achebe was looking for racism in this short novel, and that Saravan was so taken back by Achebe's accusations, the he himself, went and looked for ways to defend Conrad. However, this particular shortcoming of the native woman, is not the only one that Achebe finds. As stated earlier, communication is very important in our society and to "civilization" (as known by the Europeans of the time).

While reading Heart of Darkness, I noticed a significant difference in the levels of communication that were allotted between the Europeans and the Africans. This drastic difference in speech was that the core of Achebe's argument that Conrad deprived the Africans of human qualities. Achebe pointed out that "in place of speech they made 'a violent babble of uncouth sounds,' " also saying that "it is clearly not Conrad's purpose to confer language on the 'rudimentary souls' of Africa" (Achebe, p. 255). Here lies the problem that I have with Achebe's article. Assuming that the lack of speech (in Conrad's eyes) is a racist factor-which is a valid assumption-Achebe still did not support his comment that "Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist" (Achebe, p. 257). Without outside knowledge (beyond the book), Achebe had no basis to charge Conrad with this rather harsh statement.

Another interpretation of Conrad's novel is that it has a canonist ic point of view, which I would also have to agree with. 'Heart of Darkness was written, consciously or unconsciously, from a colonialist point of view' (Singh 278). Singh believes that Conrad didn't write his book to the extreme of racism. Overall, the natives appeared better humans than the Europeans in Heart of Darkness. Conrad's ignorance led to his conformity to racism. His ignorance of not completely 'granting the natives human status' leads him to social categorization or what we currently call racism.

Singh wrote, 'The African natives, victims of Belgian exploitation, are described as 'shapes,' 'shadows,' and 'bundles of acute angles,' so as to show the dehumanizing effect of colonialist rule on the ruled' (269-270). Another similar statement was when Conrad wrote of the death of Marlow's helmsman. Marlow respected the helmsman, yet when the native's blood poured into Marlow's shoes, 'To tell you the truth, I was morbidity anxious to change my shoes and socks' (Conrad 47). How can someone respect yet feel disgusted towards someone? Singh looks into this question by stating, 'The reason of course, is because he (Marlow) never completely grants them (natives) human status: at the best they are a species of superior hyena' (Singh 273).

Both of these statements would be considered canonist ic for the time, however in today's interpretation it would be considered somewhat racist. By completely agreeing with either writer, I would be denying myself the right to find my own opinion regarding racism in Heart of Darkness. So, I stand now and say that depending on one's interpretation of Joseph Conrad's writing, there will be plenty of racism found (if looked for). What I do believe is that during the time that this novel was written, Conrad lived in a society where African people were not considered equal, to man, they were even considered sub-human. Not to excuse Conrad, but racism was everywhere and what came from it was people who wrote about it naturally and who did not think of a "politically correct" way to put things. If this novel had been written today, it might have been said that the Africans spoke "in a language that was unknown to me, and the sounds that came from their mouths sounded quite different that what I have ever heard", or something similar to this.

It is my opinion, that Chinua Achebe searched for things that he felt could be considered racist, and when they were found, he'd call the author some harsh names and accuse him of slander. Of course, that is only my opinion and I point this out because Achebe did not-he only wrote what he felt. Belief that Conrad was a racist is not hard to come by, especially after reading Achebe's convincing essay. However, interpretation is the key word. Personally, I agree that Conrad did have quite a few racist passages in his story, yet I also believe that Achebe does not open his mind completely, in his analysis of the work.

"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves" (Achebe, p. 260) is what Achebe points to in explaining Conrad's journey and how it turned in the novel. I use this particular excerpt in describing Achebe himself. It seems that Achebe was closed-minded in his essay regarding racism. He did not propose any other possibilities regarding the novel, only to say that a conceivable reason for this is that "it is the desire... in Western psychology to set African up as a foil to Europe" (Achebe, p. 251).

Achebe only set forth his views and did not take into account other interpretations of the same passage, as did Saravan. If everyone accepted what one man said to be the truth out world would be completely turned upside down (and if you believe what I say to be the truth, then you are lost). The individual must decide for himself and only himself. Both Chinua Achebe and C.P. Saravan did just that. When Achebe found Conrad to be a racist, he said so. When Saravan found Achebe to be misleading, he said so.

I found bother to be misleading to the reader, and I said so.