Heart of Darkness motif: Africa and Africans

So I typed out my whole post with lots of quotes and evidence into the forum and then it all got deleted. And I'm not excited to do it all again. So forgive me if this do-over isn't the most beautiful. Here we go...

---

I want us to remember something that Achebe mentioned, if only to refute, and that I think is important to consider when analyzing the touchy subject of racism in Heart of Darkness. It may be written by Conrad, but the story is told through a narrator through Marlow. So the descriptions aren't necessarily the opinions of Conrad.

The most important quote I found regarding the "Africa" section of our motif includes both visual descriptions:
As well as how it makes Marlow feel:
The rest of this page goes on in descriptions that are a combination of awe, disgust and fear. A combination of those three words makes up all of the major passages regarding our motif in the novel. I find this sort of reaction to be appropriate considering the difference between the world that both the narrator and the author grew up in, and the wild African landscape. [Another passage regarding the sight of the African jungle is on page 25 at the bottom.]

In terms of the Africans themselves, Marlow/Conrad describe them in this way:
Now, before we go accusing Marlow/Conrad of being extremely racist and biased and awful, I want to try to put this into perspective.
We are brought up around all sorts of animals, but they are separate from our society. They do not wear clothes, and they do not have the same mannerisms or language as us. With those things in mind, put yourself in the shoes of Marlow/Conrad. The African people act so wild and so different that it may just logically be difficult to believe that they are the same species. What would have been racist is if he had said they weren't human. But he didn't.

Another opinion of the Africans comes from the character called the Russian. Before Marlow meets Kurtz, we are introduced to this rather odd character. "A beardless, boyish face, very fair, no features to speak of..." (46). Marlow calls him a harlequin, and tells of his devotion to Kurtz and how much this man talks. No, he is not African, but what struck me is that he repeatedly speaks of the Africans as "simple people." (Twice, within the first pages of his introduction, then once again later on page 56.) Marlow never seems to respond to this comment. This sort of patronizing reference brings back the idea of the Africans as animals, as a new species; a species to be tamed, in the opinion of some.

---

On a completely unrelated note, I wanted to bring up the following quote. I am a bit confused about the context (as in, who is saying it and why) but I want to discuss it.
This makes me think of some twisted version of things you hear about the American dream. A country/ continent to colonize by one that is "superior" or "more civilized," and a place to expand culture and religion and redefine yourself.

---

This is as much analysis as I can muster for the second time around. So maybe I'll come back and edit this later.

Hello Everyone! I am from A2 but I think I'm supposed to be here?

Okay so after reading this novella and furiously marking it with post-it notes I wanted to bring up on here two common threads that I noticed when I saw Conrad describe the African people and the landscape. I figure a lot of you will have other perspectives on our motif so I'm just going to bring up this major point for now and then comment as more of you post your findings!

My main discoveries are that Conrad often described Africans by phsycially connecting them with the actually country of Africa and that many times when he describes the African landscape he uses personification... Here are some examples then I will explain! (I will put stars around the *oneness with Africa* segments)

1.
"A nigger was being beaten near by. They said he had caused the fire in some way... I saw him later on for several days sitting in a bit of shade looking very sick and trying to recover himself. Afterwards he arose and went out- *and the wilderness without a sound took him into its bosom again*" (Conrad 23).

2.
"Still I had also judged the jungle of both banks quite impenetrable- and yet eyes were in it, eyes that had seen us" (Conrad 42).

3.
"It was then well on in the afternoon, the face of the forest was gloomy, and a broad strip of shadow had already fallen on the water" (Conrad 44).

4.
"I made out deep in the tangled gloom, naked breasts, arms, legs, glaring eyes-*the bush was swarming with human limbs in movement*, glistening, of bronze colour" (Conrad 45).

5.
"Suddenly round the corner of the house a group of men appeared, *as though they had come up from the ground*" (Conrad 59).

6.
"Almost at the same time I noticed that the crowd of savages was vanishing without any perceptible movement of retreat, *as if the forest that had ejected these beings so suddenly had drawn them in again as the breath is drawn in a long aspiration*" (Conrad 59)

Okies dokie! So basically I thought that these two common threads within our motif thread were very interesting and something we could analyze and discuss. In Achebe's article he discusses that Conrad merely uses Africa as a, "metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognizable humanity" (Achebe 7). But upon looking back at the personification of Africa in many of Conrad's descriptions I would be keen to argue against Achebe in the sense that Conrad not only compares Africa to an actual human, he is constantly commenting on the oneness between the people of Africa and the country itself. By using personification and highlighting the oneness of the people and the land I would say that Achebe is wrong to say there is not humanity there and that Africa is merely used as a prop. Instead I would say that Conrad's description of Africa make it an entity on its own and thus a large presence in the novel. I found myself viewing the people and the country as an incredibly united continent and thus a very impressive one. Despite some of Conrad's blatant racism, which can be seen in abundance and further driven home in Achebe's article, Conrad does indeed present Africa as more than just a prop. Africa is an entity of unity and by using personification, becomes a large presence in the novella.

I think the book is pretty racist in its portrayal, but to take what Hannah says about the portrayal as animals a step further, I think the book is so outrageously racist when read with a more progressive, present-day perspective that it's almost not, if that makes any sense. For example (and here I'm basically trying to sum up my too-long response to Achebe's article in about twenty words so bear with me), it's almost like that stereotypical racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc relative who you sort of just pat on the head and say, "Ok, that's nice," without taking his/her points too seriously.

But, with that in mind, here are some more quotes I found:

Comparing Africans to Animals:

"A black figure stook up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms, across the glow. It had horns—antelope horns, I think—on its head" (58 in my version, I notice some of Claire's page numbers don't match up with the copy we checked out in A4. Or I'm just really bad at finding the quotes). Both the emphasis on the limbs and the mention of tribal wear create a loping, animalistic image.

This one is maybe not specifically directly animals, but it implies Africans are some sort of non-human living entity: [When dragging the helmsman to the side of the boat] "Oh! He was heavy, heavy; heavier than any man on earth, I should imagine" (45).

Africans as part of the setting:

(Extending the quote above about the Helmsman) "The current snatched him as though he had been a wisp of grass…" (45).

"Dark human shapes could be made out in the distance, flitting indistinctly against the gloomy border of the forest…" (54). Once again, like Claire's #4, the narrator has trouble distinguishing between where the humans are separate from the trees.

"The consciousness of there being people in that bush, so silent, so quiet…made me uneasy" (50).

Also, to further extend this setting=humans comparison, Kurtz seems to have conquered both the natives and the land (taking its ivory). "[The natives] would not stir till Mr. Kurtz gave the word" (51).

I'm not sure how far you want to take the Africans=setting comparison, but it brings up an interesting point. If, as Achebe says, the novel "condemned the evil of imperial exploitation," presumably meaning the land and resource grabs for things like ivory, doesn't this mean he's also condemning the "exploitation" of Africans? Is that a different sort of racism, of the sort of "they are lesser humans, let's not exploit them, they can't fend for themselves"? Or is there some different conclusion you might draw? (I'm perhaps taking this comparison too far, but I'd be interested to hear your take(s)).

Hey guys, sorry, I'm here. I've tried to post something several times, but my internet has been down for ages and is hardly working right now so I've lost all that. Instead of trying re-type everything again and because it's late, I'll just hope that this goes through and, like Alice, will add more later. Also I've read what you all have posted and it's great so I'll maybe comment on that stuff too once things are working on my end. Sorry guys.