RACISM

As part of the civilization and savages motif group, I was thinking about how Conrad uses the word savage to describe things--these things could be an unknown "uncivilized" environment or people. It stems from a mixture of racism, which was normal during the time period, and ignorance. It is common for people to be prejudice and label things we do not know about or understand, because it provides a sense of authority and comfort. I think this behavior hasn't been uncommon in the history of humanity. Whenever a power group of people wanted to invade and control other lands for resources, or for the sake of power, they treat the natives as subordinates. While I feel it is wrong and utterly disrespectful, I feel the behavior almost stems from the nature of animals--survival of the fittest, show no mercy to those that oppose. Conrad was a product of this mindset, which caused him to write a racist book. It was the norm at the time. Whether one blames nature, society, or Conrad, it's up to him or her, but racism (prejudice in general) is a challenge every human has to be aware of and overcome. So I don't think Achebe's article is special for pointing out the racism in Conrad's novel. The racism is already apparent, and it's representative of the time period. It's offensive, but who does one blame? It's a philosophical question--is it society's fault for educating Conrad to have a racist mind, or is it Conrad's fault for not taking the initiative to change his own thinking?

HOD is like Avatar--I remember the war general dude calling the natives savages, animals that would not abandon old ways of living. The natives also lived on a land full of natural resources valued by the humans. The humans tried to spread human culture to civilize the natives and... it didn't work, and war erupted.

RANT WARNING! You have been warned.
This article was eye-opening for me in the context of the book. The quote that most resonated with me was about the constant contrast between Europe and Africa:

“Quite simply it is the desire -- one might indeed say the need--in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe, as a place of negations at once remote and vaguely familiar, in comparison with which Europe's own state of spiritual grace will be manifest.” (Paragraph #6)

Ugh! How disgustingly relevant this is even in a supposedly post Imperialist world. I saw this really interesting article the other day on Buzzfeed or Upworthy or one of those websites that talked about the current trend of “voluntourism” in which people, generally white and generally affluent, who visit an impoverished or third world country under the guise of finding meaning through aid. While the article went on to claim that such practices are harmful to the people and economies of those countries, what I found most intriguing was the topic. Why do Europeans and North Americans constantly see Africa as a location which they can unload charity or some of their guilt? I don’t know because these issues are very controversial and very significant even in modern day society. But isn’t that just it? Conrad’s novella is bleak and haunting and horrible, but I don’t think it is irrelevant.

I believe it is relevant and telling of racism in our world because of the number of times I have heard people refer to “African” as a language or Africa as a country or as Africans as some kind of global after thought. We are still carrying the racism and pro-Western “civilization” attitudes that are so rampant in Heart of Darkness. This is very, very distressing and it really must be discussed, as this article does.

Racism is a touchy topic that we all seem to have opinions about. From "letting it slide" to a full on frontal assault. I admit, Conrad marginalizes the African people, reducing them to nameless faces in the book (to be fair, the manager, pilgrims and the Intended are mostly nameless as well). Neither does he take the time to portray the Natives as humans like Marlow and Kurtz but as almost savages less of a people than they. However, to discount the book because of this is ignorant and irresponsibly short-sighted.

What happened in Africa was that white Europeans wanted to go in to another country claiming to want to give them their “human rights” and Christ, which directly establishes they do not give these fellow humans their status of human or equal until they have their “human rights” or salvation, then they breakdown sovereignty and try to control the state. In an analogy, the Europeans came from a society where everyone has long pants and they are looking at other societies that wear shorts. The Aff believes that the societies that wear shorts are less human because they don’t have their knees and shins covered. The Aff wants to go and change how the other countries operates and justifies it because they are less than human until they have their “human rights”. It starts by changing what they wear, then how they act, then how they operate, and keeps going until there is a total dominance. Once we are in control, we may use brute force to justify change because we know “what’s best”. This is where genocide occurs. We subject the “other” to violence until we “normalize” them, even to the extent that we completely wipeout the “Others” culture and people which is an act of genocide. To criticize a whole society in the past, the 19th century is to proclaim them less than human because they do not, could not match our standard of morality. Conrad was born in 1857 and to judge him by our standards is to subject him through an impossible test, one he is doomed to fail.

It is when we impose our thoughts, our beliefs and proclaim them as truth without thought of the history and background of the "Others" is what led to the initial colonialization of the Africas, Latin America, Asia and even Australia. Achebe's and many other people's criticism of Conrad in their crusade against racism forget why racism is so bad, the marginalization of the "Other" race. Hell if animosity against a race was the only impact of racism, it wouldn't be a very large issue. But the fact that races have been marginalized and impacted disproportionately because they are part of an "Other" group, which is evaluated by standards that ignore the "Other" group's background, makes the fight worthwhile, to re-humanize the "Other" into being not "Other." In this case, we are marginalizing the discourse of Conrad by waving the banner of "Racism" and proclaiming that it is less worthy partly because it was born of a time that was inherently racist. This mindset is what allowed for censorship of the "Other" and colonialism. Perpetuation of this ideology, in favor of equality or not is inherently Otherizing and promotes structural violence in a place of discourse and learning.

The language of the book is something to marvel and pick-apart. The themes and motifs and the way they intertwine and seamlessly integrate themselves into the text is highly admirable. The message of the book carries important psychological and philosophical thoughts of people and the world. We cannot throw all of this away just because it is subconsciously racist. The book does not promote marginalization of a group nor does it strongly perpetuate a mindset that disparately impacts a population. To evaluate it as such under the banner of "racism" and "equality" seems pretentious and discourteous.

"And the question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can he called a great work of art. My answer is: No, it cannot."

Heart of Darkness is written beautifully, in my opinion. Conrad's frame narrative, although unique, gave me insight into numerous characters (mostly Marlow). Though it is written well, can we say it is a "good" book?

A question that numerous historians like to discuss is whether Hitler was a great leader. In terms of his leadership skills (disregarding his purpose), many would agree that Hitler was an effective leader for his people. He gained their loyalty and took control of Germany toward the goal of world domination. In fact, John F. Kennedy even stated Hitler "had in him the stuff of which legends are made." However, in terms of morality, Hitler was an awful individual who we all condemn based on his Nazi leadership. Many cannot overlook that, including me.

This debate about whether Hitler was a great leader or not is similar to the debate about whether Heart of Darkness can be considered a good work of literature. It depends on how you choose to look at it. From a formalist approach, Conrad's writing style is distinct and allows for the investigation of several motifs (dark vs light, interiors vs exteriors, etc) in order to gain a better understanding of the themes. On the contrary, racism is present throughout the whole novel, especially through the descriptions of the African people. To Conrad, it seems as if the Africans were objects not individuals. Achebe's assertion that Marlow speaks for Conrad is hard to shake since he made a similar trip to the Congo River in 1890. My attitude toward Heart of Darkness is similar to how many people feel toward Hitler. Conrad's work has its great passages and moments; however, its racist undertone makes it difficult to appreciate Heart of Darkness.

Achebe defines very pointedly when, where, what, and how Heart of Darkness shouldn't be considered a work of art, and answering the question "why?" all those reasons are there are not pretty either. While reading the article, I started to question how the book was taught, how the program could easily (too easily) allow students to walk from it, after scribbling out an essay about metaphor and perspective, without recognizing the destructive racist aspects, something Achebe tells us is too common amongst even scholarly circles. All art, however, is as biased as Heart of Darkness. No one person is without the falls of their culture, time period, conditioning, and assumptions, and their art will inevitably reflect that. What I find lovely about humanity, however, is our ability to recognize the atrocities art points out, and still esteem it while it is jabbing at all our problems, and then recognize the problems of the artist, and still esteem the art. Assumptions are made by an audience, and by any artist. As long as we continue to attempt to become more aware and recognize the troubling complexity among all art (The Death of Marat comes to mind), and still use it to grow and change ourselves, we should esteem that ability for it to give us such awareness. 

madisonarmst makes a great point here. Conrad is a racist. As readers and critics, however, we must avoid reduction. Conrad is multi-dimensional, and to reduce him to a single layer is to destroy the onion.

I seemed to have completely missed this thread when it was created...whoops!
...In retrospect...
One of the biggest problems I had with HOD was the racism. How everything was "dark", "savage", or "satanic". I think the characters and settings are overemphasized and exaggerated. I cannot imagine Kurtz being a real person. He seems to be different to each person. Kurtz to Marlow is completely different from the Kurtz to the intended and he lacks any morals. Just as the character of Kurtz is exaggerated, the Conrad's perception of Africans is exaggerated to an extent where they don't even seem human. I like characters with depth, because humans tend to also have depth, so the one-dimensionality of many of the characters bothered me.