Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
On Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 авг 2024
- Is Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" a masterpiece of art? Or is it, as Chinua Achebe persuasively argues, a racist and deplorable book? What are we to make of Kurtz's dying words, "The horror! The horror!"? Could we read these words as his passing judgment on his own life? Can language even convey or communicate moral truths? Or are our ethical assertions only expressions of our personal attitudes? Are Kurtz and Marlow's dubious response to him fair portraits of moral subjectivism? Is the human heart, like nature itself, ultimately inscrutable?
Chinua Achebe's essay "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness," from the Massachusetts Review 18, 1977: johnlknight.com/achebe/
I would go so far as to disparage Achebe for his lack of objectivity in claiming that Heart of Darkness has no value. He clearly tackles the novel from a racially charged standpoint. To be unable to set that aside and find something of note in Conrad's novella says more about Achebe than it says about Conrad.
Absolutely right about that. Achebe set out with an agenda and really warps the focus on the novel to fit his purpose.
Such is the fear to state the obvious. It is not in harmony with the times.
Interesting analysis, thanks for the video. In my humble opinion the answer to your question is a resounding yes, the book is a supreme masterpiece of literature. I've read many times, and never once interpreted literally, I think underneath the veneer of historicity about white imperialism lies the 'real' meaning of the book, which is the quest for self-knowledge. In this sense, the trip upstream the Congo river is the trip into one's soul, the most difficult one of all and one where many hidden horrors are to be found. I think this book is widely misread, misunderstood and under appreciated. So thanks again for posting this and opening a nice debate.
Joseph Conrad who real name was Józef Apolloniusz Korzeniowski was Polish. Both his parents were Polish. In time when he was born Poland was under German - Austrian - Russian occupation.
The word "kurtz" means "dust" in Polish as in the "paper mache Mephistopheles" that Marlow imagines himself poking his finger into and finding nothing but "dust". Now of course read Eliot's "The Hollow Men".
Richard Rankin Kurtz is german for short. Dust in Polish is kurz.
@@richardrankin1909 Polish "kurz" is not "dust". In Polish we rather use "pył". Kurz appears on a top of furniture when one does not clean his apartment:) Kurtz sounds like Germanic last name or so.
Just finished reading this yet again. Still moves me.
This is neither racist, nor deplorable, work. One must remember the era in which the novel was written. I've noticed of late how many critique works of another time through the eyes of the modern world. That is an incorrect perspective to maintain.
Just my two cents' worth.
How can a perspective be incorrect? Even if one remembers the era in which the novel was written, it was written from a white man's perspective. And that man happened to be racist, and also reflected the ideas held by a majority of the Western colonizers.
The story did help draw outcry against the injustices perpetuated by Leopold II and the abusive murders and mutilations of the Congolese under Belgian rule.
You need to read Aphra Behn's Oroonoko. Written by a British woman in 1688, years before Heart of Darkness was written. She travelled around and gives a completely different account of Africa and other countries. She does paint them as 'noble savages' in some ways but does not portray Africans in the same manner Joseph Conrad does. She describes them as HUMAN BEINGS capable of intelligence and emotions. There is no cannabilism or the usual tropes used when describing "the other" that you often saw in those times and hers is not the only account that does this. So you cannot say "one must remember the era". There are works in that era and before it that do not conform to this single-story narrative of other countries. Joseph Conrad was racist outside of Heart of Darkness too if you do your research. The work was racist and so was he and that's all there is to it.
@@rayofmoonlite Conrad was Polish. If you understand Polish history and eastern european history you understand one of the reasons why Conrad wrote this novel. Serfdom another word for slavery was not abolished in the Russian empire until the 1860's. Yes that's right, white european peasant classes in parts of the Russian empire were slaves until the 1860's. Part of Poland was occupied by the Russian empire during Conrad's life. Polish peasents living in Russian Empire were emancipated during Conrad's lifetime. Conrad understood what oppression meant. His father was an advocate for land reforms and abolition of serfdom in the Polish territory under Russian control.
He definately was not looking at Africans and Africa with the mindset of a colonialist.
thank you, I have translated heart of darkness into Kurdish and I am proud of that, it is a great novella
Is it really a Novella? Good work!
Great novel. Marlowe is hero, not Kurtz.😮
I was captivated by your video, I really enjoyed this.
Thank you so much! instantly subbed,
Best regards,
TGV
Masterpiece. This book shows really well true state of human condition, irrationality and chaos rules the world, everything fades and crumble to ruin, we are not qualified enough to be called rational beings - we are ultimate agents of entropy, enlightenment and civilization are sadly only empty words without anyone to bring them to life. Even our worst crimes are nothing compared to hell of nature and God.
Thank you so much for uploading, providing the background led me to view the novel in a whole new light. Super helpful!!
Yes, in this case, the historical background is important, don't you think?
Thank you for this! I am the co-host of "Book Vs. Movie" podcast and we are tackling this next. Very helpful!!!
Kurtz is very different in novel. Movie just based on it. Careful. 😮
Achebe's points are at best reactionary to the N word and are dropped through a lens of modern emotional assessments . Why wouldn't anybody question his particular ability or vocation in criticism of literature. The attack may even be considered a diversion technique away from the somewhat embarrassing position the people of those days found themselves in. This is understandable. However, you cant erase history or reality with outrage or emotional discomfort. Wait a minute. I take that back. That's exactly what has been taking place for quite some time now.
Born in Poland not in Russia. Conrad spoke of himself as "a Pole, a Catholic and a gentleman." Try to understand Poland is not a Russia !
I think the comment about the local people being cannibals was meant to sound sarcastic. Right after using the word cannibal, Conrad describes how the Belgians threw the Provisions of the Africans overboard. He expresses amazement that the Africans didn't eat him and the others because they were set up to starve for the whole trip. I think the sarcasm gets overlooked.
" Catch 'em, eat 'em!
This is such a great analysis. As an a-level student this has been a great help, thanks very much, would recommend this to anyone regardless of their current opinion of the novel.
Thank you for your viewpoint on Heart of darkness, this novel has at times, moved, repulsed and perplexed me, I agree that the novel is a great work of art, all the arguments regarding the content and context will long continue after you and I are dustt, with your permission may I use parts of this as a teaching aid?
Thank you for commenting! By all means, feel free to make use of this video as a teaching tool!
I would like to add one more aspect of this story. At the very beginning Marlowe talks about the fact that they are at anchor in the estuary of the Thames and the vessel he is on is waiting for the tide to turn. The people on the vessel can see the lights of London. London is the very center of Civilization and Marlowe talks about how at one time when the Romans arrived it too was an uncivilized land. Think about that! He isn't claiming some kind of race superiority but instead he is lumping all of us together.
He also talks about London as the sepulchral city and states it has had its share of darkness as well. Good job catching that. That’s the kind of stuff Achebe conveniently omits in order to force his perspective.
@@Hereticbliss322 he writes of Brussels, which he leaves unnamed, as the sepulchral city
I believe this is one of the best psychological story about mankind's tendency to loss it's way (morally). I do not agree that it is an indictment of Africa or Africans, in general. JC seems to me to express at times a respect and admiration for the native characters in his story. Also I do not think JC wants to make any statement that reflects his personal opinions. Marlowe is merely reflecting on the unsettling idea of all of us to fall prey to our darker desires.
I don't buy Achebes argument. One of the things that Conrad is dealing with is the shock one experiences in an unfamiliar environment. He created a sense which is rather hard to describe and he meant for the story to have a murky quality. I know the feeling. I don't think the story is so much a critique of European Imperialism as it is a a commentary on the brutal nature of Human Beings.
If you actually read Heart of Darkness you will find that Marlowe at the very outset makes a comparison between Africa of the 19th Century and Britain at the time of the arrival of the Romans. He talks about Britain being an uncivilized land that will be brought to heel, though he doesn't use the same words as myself. He is making a generalization about Human Beings. I can't help but feel that he sympathizes with the poor africans and is horrified by what is going on. If anyone comes off looking bad in the story it is the Civilized White Men.
One of the great ideas that I get from Conrad is that Civilization is a means by which the natural aggressiveness of Human Beings is channeled into things which are constructive. The problem faced by Kurtz is that he finds himself in a situation where he is not confined by the bounds of Civilization and he turns into a brute.
I am going to draw an analogy. Many Brits live in Dubai. There is a lot of abuse of people in Dubai and the Brits living there abuse their philippino maids with glee. They take the passports of these poor girls so they can't leave and take complete advantage of them. Power does that to Civilized people. It turns them into Brutes.
Conrad doesn't provide names for the Afrcians but does that really matter? Maybe the fact that he doesn't name them enhances the idea that they are sheep for the slaughter?
Maybe another way of looking at the AFricans in the story is that they are attempting to deal with the Europeans, that is they have to adapt to the damn brutes and so you see certain modes of behavior?
This is almost precisely how I read this novella. To me, Conrad said much more on the nature of human beings as a whole, than he did on imperialism. I took from his words that, at the heart ( of Darkness, if you will ) of all people, there is savagery - and when a person finds himself removed from society, he will 'devolve' into a bestial state, much like Kurtz.
I loved the lecture. Thank you for uploading and for the trouble you went to in organizing the presentation. I much admired the explanation of "delayed decoding" and went back to read again all the passages in the story that employ the technique. Without a credential to support me, I want to argue a few of the lecture's points - though I agree with its conclusion that "HOD" is a masterpiece. First, the language here in Conrad's hands does not fail, but I don't have enough lines available here on RUclips to demonstrate my view. Second, to the issue of racism (abominable enough) versus the actual crime of inhumanity to our fellow man, whatever the source of the impulse, we had our own Kurtz, our own man whose lofty and noble words and ideas obscured a monster inside, Thomas Jefferson, who authored a world-famous declaration of the rights of man while he owned, bought, and sold slaves and used slave-labor to enrich himself and to live out his entire life in leisure. What would Marlow have thought of the construction and maintenance of Monticello? Which brings me to my third vanity, I think the story provides enthusiastic moral and cultural objectivity(!) - beginning with the framework of the narrative, which doesn't guarantee objectivity ( As Marlow is still investigating himself, but doing so in front of a jury of his peers: the other men on the yacht), but does attempt a relentless investigation of Marlow's journey with a view from the outside looking in. And as the lecture pointed out, a new investigation is launched every time Marlow tells the story. Marlow, the narrator, clearly has a wicked sense of humor and an unswerving sensitivity to the right and wrong behavior he witnesses, and to the difference between, and his narration is never absent a keen and sardonic judgment of what he sees, from his description of the knitting woman at the company office, to the station agents parading with their staves, to the restraint showed by the cannibal crew (though the cannibal crew is surrounded on the boat by a dinner of fine white pilgrims), to the Russian's spastic idolatry of Kurtz. Marlow even judges his own morality and his own lie at the end of the story as he lies to Kurtz's intended in order to spare her a final horror. Granted, Marlow often requires his binoculars in order to see clearly what is going on around him - or to see clearly into the shade of the grove (and so the genius of Conrad's delayed decoding), but a judgment is sure to follow once Marlow finds his focus. I hear in the language of "HOD" a reflexive struggle by Conrad and his narrator to invoke a terrifying objective morality every time Marlow considers new revelations about the dying Kurtz, so that it isn't so much the murders and beheadings on Kurtz's orders that are unforgivable, but that Kurtz fails to safeguard and defend his own imperiled humanity and so guarantees the atrocities that follow.
My language is antiseptic. Here is a passage in Conrad's which is anything but. (I think he has Marlow parodying his own actual conversation with the manager and being savagely sarcastic at the outset of this passage.)
"I am not disclosing any trade secrets. In fact, the manager said afterwards that Mr. Kurtz's methods had ruined the district. I have no opinion on that point, but I want you clearly to understand that there was nothing exactly profitable in these heads being there. They only showed that Mr. Kurtz lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts, that there was something wanting in him - some small matter which, when the pressing need arose, could not be found under his magnificent eloquence. Whether he knew of this deficiency himself I can't say. I think the knowledge came to him at last - only at the very last. But the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion. I think it had whispered to him things about himself which he did not know, things of which he had no conception till he took counsel with this great solitude - and the whisper had proved irresistibly fascinating. It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core .... I put down the glass, and the head that had appeared near enough to be spoken to seemed at once to have leaped away from me into inaccessible distance."
the reason joseph wrote this book was to sort of vent and describe his own experience in the congo, of course the novel is not real, but it is very realistic. joseph really went down the congo, like marlow, so i sort of see marlow being the alter ego to conrad. i think the events in parts of the book were real, except the character of kurtz, i think kurtz was simply an expression of conrads feelings and thoughts as to what he saw going on in the congo river.
The 'horror' refers to Kurtz's realization that morality is relativistic. There is no absolute morality. What one culture esteems, another denigrates. Some worship cows, some crosses; some worship wealth, some power ... His belief in the absolute is destroyed. Without the absolute, what does noble or shameful mean? It's hard to imagine a more basic belief that could be shaken? Ditto with language. There is no absolute meaning that language can lay bare. Meaning is a construct that depends on the given cultural context.
And I couldn't agree more with your assessment: The Heart of Darkness is a masterpiece. No amount of historical revisionism or multiculturalism can strip this work of its greatness as a literary work of art.
This isnt horrible at all. Lol
An intellectual flea passing judgment on one of the greatest and most profound writers in western literature.
Verily.
I agree with you. I believe Achebe's essay is based on a visceral ego Reader-Response. Does one burn the KKK manifesto because it is racist so as not to offend when in fact it erases black history and their struggles? Do we in these dangerously "politically correct" times raze the Concentration Camps and eradicate the atrocities committed? Heart of Darkness is a parable and a great masterpiece of literature.
Enjoyed your read. Thank you. Is it a great work of Art? We are thinking about it, talking about it, agreeing and disagreeing about, over a hundred years after it was written--Achebe included; so, yeah, it's a great work of art. Racist? Certainly the argument is there, but the exact opposite reading is there too. Conrad plays on the conventional racism of his time to eventually flip the script and say the real monster is in you, the so-called civilized one; touch your own breast, that's the heart of darkness etc. Anyhow, thanks for some brain food while I ate my lunch.
I love a good RUclips lunch myself! Thank you for your thoughts!
WOW! Excellent lecture.
"Heart of Darkness" is a favorite of mine. I believe that it portrays a man's thought process as he tries to understand and convey the passage of life here on earth. In the passing of Kurts right before his death, he himself places judgement upon himself and says "the horror" because I believe in the moment before death we are enlightened by the universe. That in death there is no boundary of the mind and body, so again it leads me to believe that in death the heaven that comes into play is an portal of extreme knowledge of truth that happens in a flash which in turn you compare with what you have done in your life and in turn you become your own judge. Kurts received this flash of knowledge before his death and was able to pass judgement not by God or angels but to himself, to his own soul. When Kurts then says "the horror" with Marlo present, Kurts is repenting his evil doing, his sin. So in turn Marlo see's Kurts as not such a bad guy, because in death Kurts realizes the truth.
Language, and certain points of view do betray us.
Again beautiful lecture,
Thank you
Excellent analysis. Considering the language aspect; it's more than somewhat appropriate that Google's automatic closed captioning spells out the word "Kurtz" most often as "curse", and "The horror!" (when screamed in a half-whispered tone) as "The heart!"
" The horror ...the horror" , cannot be explained without taking into consideration Conrad's depressive mania which lead him to an attempted suicide . His vision of life and men is a dark one . He was a man who lived life as a horrific , poignantly painful experience which he subconsciously longed to escape by death . He sees life as a mere stage , at best representative of an epic clash between good and evil , but most probably just absurdly void of any true meaning .
I see this as the preamble to Camu's absurd ...his character of the Stranger who pulls the trigger out of mere annoyance , overwhelmed by anoppressive , violent nature , in the spur of a moment of excessive heat .
It is not meant to be explained, nor is the heart of darkness itself. It’s meant to be left for the reader to define through introspection, just as Marlow does. This psychology 101 babble doesn’t even scratch the surface, sorry.
Good analysis. I find Conrad's work to carry elements of existentialism, romanticism, pessimism, realism. His world was on the seas and yes.. I believe Borges was even influenced by his work. His work is so vivid and set in such desperate vigor.
“Heart of Darkness” does not strike me a awesome but still significant. i’m not dismayed at the treatment of African’s and the waste of Elephants at this time in history but i am dismayed such things are still part of our times. good book, i have several editions such as a Norton. time to start on some more of Conrad’s work.
the speech is excellent, esp the conclusion. Thank you so much for sharing.
We were all forced to read Chinua Achebe's 'masterpiece' in school (Things Fall Apart) and it is one of the most over rated books of the 20th century. Achebe is a Sacred Cow of immense proportions and watching him trash Joseph Conrad, I am deeply embarrassed for him.
Yeah, once he realized he was untouchable, he could say whatever the hell he wanted about anyone. Maybe his autobiography should be titled Soul Of Darkness...?.....
Thank you for this insightful video. A fantastic book, well worth analyzing.
I had to throw this a thumbs up. Very well lectured, my brother!
Conrad was an utter genius how anyone can have total command of the English language when it is their third language is beyond comprehension
enjoyed your take on the novel.thanks
I always took Kurtz's famous exclamation as final ambiguity in death but decidedly leaning toward disgust with his own life and read it as Conrad's metaphor for imperialism; some small morsel of conscience was left briefly in his soul before departing (to hell?). Like any good book it leaves it open for the reader to interpret. As to Achebe's disgust at Conrad foremost viewing Africa as the dark land devoid of humans, isn't that the whole point of the title? Belgians had circumscribed this section of the continent, and at its heart was rot of their own fiction and creation. In his sense-absorbed defense, Conrad's humanity was mainly a European one (Russian, British, American, etc.). Could Achebe view the world as anything but a man raised in what became called Nigeria? For me, Conrad's art is in the character Marlow and his use of English to conjure image.
In any event this is thoughtful and thank you, but I might add I always thought the more interesting words from this novel were when the steamer was randomly "shelling the bush" as I connected it later as a metaphor for the US in Vietnam, another sign of transcendent writing as "art.".
Note = Jozepj Conrad - Józef Korzeniowski was Polish, and Poland at that timr of history was divided and colonised by three powers: Prussia, Russia and Austria. With all atrocities commited mostly by Russians. So he knew from the first hand what does it mean to be colonised nation.
Seriously great work. Thanks for uploading.
I think one point needs to be addressed that I don't see touched on here: how does one conclude that the fictional voice of Marlow is Conrad's voice as real person?
One doesn’t. That’s one of the significant flaws in Achebe’s criticism.
I'm afraid HoD has nothing to do with either Africa or racism, or anything of the kind. It's a highly symbolic representation of the inherent human need for Quest, quite so often unsuccessful and delusive. Blacks and Africa and the colonization and ivory manufacture is a mere decoration there. Great, sublime novel. Pretty sure, there wouldn't have been much of Modernist literature if Conrad had not written his fin-de-siecle novel a couple of decades earlier.
Superb documentary....
Jeff gearaarts: if you're interested in the kongo ,read this Belgian writers books from the early '70 's.They are truly masterpieces. Truly! He was a Belgian soldier repressing the freedom fight of the Zairen people's. I tell you, it is special!
Leopold was a monster. Poor people from the east end of London would sell there children. 400 Children would be trafficked to Belgium for the King and his elites brothels every year. Truly a heart of darkness. Thank you for your analysis very helpful.
I have read book about Leopold . I agree with you. He was a monster , but i never heard about his London's childs brothels . Have you any source about it ?
Can you do how to write a book report about this novel?
Could Achebe come to the USA and write a story from the perspective of someone who understands the USA like someone born here? I don't think so, but he could still write a great story from the perspective of an outsider. That's why Conrad could not have treated Africa as anything besides a "backdrop". Who was Conrad to write about Africa as if he understood it as anything else?
Just because the book wasn't about Africans does not mean it was racist.
To say that Joseph Conrad himself was racist and disseminating racist perspective by saying that the central character, Marlowe's glorification, or honoring, of Colonel Kurtz is gross oversimplification for a variety of reasons including two very important ones: One, Conrad based the character of Kurtz on some of the people he encountered in his own time in the Congo. People who by western standards were cultured, who could play music, who wrote romantic poetry, who went to best schools and who were by all means the model of civility but who turned into murderers for a variety of reasons because they were forced to confront the paradoxes that colonization entailed. It is therefore not a language of honoring or glorifying the racist actions but one of trying to utter the truth in such dark and unchartered territory. If I remember correctly he, Conrad, may even have base the character of Kurtz on an actual person whose name eludes me at the moment but whose name I could bring to light should anyone wish to continue this small but important part of the conversation that is this Book. Two: In depicting the natives he was giving the account of the people as they were often described at the time in newspapers and through other literature, again thereby revealing the Truth of the times he lived in WHILE at the same time removing the layers of ''masks'' attributed to the then unknown and demonized natives by also bringing light to their human side which was ignored by colonial interests. For example Conrad, through the voice of Marlowe, gives an incredible account of a native being beaten in such a way that the reader can only feel pity and compassion for the suffering of that soul. Conrad uses language to bring to light the injustice and inhumanity of colonization and at very minimum he opened the door to discussion and analyses of the brutality of one man imposing his will over the, of one country imposing its will over the other .
You’re a good teacher!!
This video has helped me enormously with a university assignment. I think that the book is exceptional on its own. However, I believe that it became a masterpiece (unwittingly) because of, and in conjunction with Achebe's argument.
I'm afraid not. It stands by itself as a monument - who has ever heard of Chinua Achebe outside of his involvement with Conrad? I believe Coppola made a movie loosely based on Heart of Darkness, not Chinua Achebe, long live his name.
I haven't read the book. But I have watched Apocalypse Now and played Spec Ops: The Line that is based on the book.
Conrad would never have written this little novella without seeing Apocalypse Now.
It is a shame that an academic figure cannot distinguish between the author and the narrator!
That was my thought as well. It reminds me of the time i got in a pitched battle of words over the meanings of Stromae's songs.
THANK YOU! Great Presentation! Much appreciated
Great lecture, thank you 🙏🏻 the Book sounds a lot like the memory and expression of a traumatic. Was conrad suffering PTSD ?
dude how did you get that nice of a beard
I see the best of the best have tuned in to present the important questions. God help us. lol. By the way, beard growth and how they look are genetic. But if that doesn't work for some of our readers perhaps they can find a beard growing ad in the backs of some of the old comic books they have been preoccupied with beside their speak and spell machines. You know, the ones right beside the x-ray glasses ad . sigh
@@frankandstern8803 despite the fact that you were replying to a 4 year old comment on a 7 year old video, I say well done, sir. Haha
Orson Welles was in pre production of HofD, and balked to do Citizen Kane, Coppola applied HofD to Viet Nam an made Apocalypse Now. I think Coppola said it best when he said the story needs to work on 37 different levels, and one level of the Horror is trying to get the outside observer to see those levels. "Up river" is a journey into self, and for that ppl would argue all 3 Moral views. Achebe uses a common error found in many book and movie reviews, and that is, that they end up criticizing the work for what it's not, and how it failed to be what they wanted to see. To me the horror the horror, is like Bob Dylan's A hard rain is gonna fall, one could come up with multiple answers for what a hard rain is, but Dylan or Conrad would never conclude a single meaning. The imperialism in Africa is just another manifestation of the imperialism in the U.S. and Canada, The Darkness persists, as today we don't cut off hands, we drop bombs on innocent civilians, and so makes Conrad still relevant today.
Conrad was born in Russia but he considered himself a Polish writer? If you are as precise with everything you say you're a waste of space.
Hitler invaded France in 1940 and occupied it for 5 years. If you were writing a piece about a French author born in Paris during that time would you say ' he was born in Germany but he considered himself a French writer'?
Conrad only served as a captain temporarily when the captain was sick.
The novella really should have been much much longer then it was. Raises far too many questions then never answers them. Many words devoted to painting the scene, the jungle and the africans but we barely hear anything about Kurtz.
Thanks
When does the book celebrate the dehumanisation of Africans?
what about Dante's Inferno?
How could anyone think this book was racist? It's against racism if anything.
Achebe represents one of the most unfortunate traits in the post-colonial African spirit (I apologise for the oversimplification). Perhaps I should say the sdeep obsession of what is called 'Liberation'. Before the spirit of the European Enlightenment reached Africa via colonialism and missionaries of the better sort, Africans did nothing about freeing themselves. Even 'Negritude' was born in the left bank brasseries and cafes of Paris. Africa invented the slave trade in its most brutal forms. As many slaves captured by African tribes and Muslim traders died on the horrific march across the Sahara to Libya as the ones who died on those dreadful crossings to the Americas. No African lifted a hand that we know of to stop this trade until Livingstone and Wilberforce and others spoke out. No Africans spoke out about the King of Belgium's savage regime.
So why does Achebe try to minimise the role of Conrad and others (the British consul and Mark Twain among others)? Simply: Shame and envy. 'If we did not do it, we will not allow a white man to do it'. In his book he attacks missionaries. I am no Christian, but as a South African I can tell you that the great South African leaders, Albert Lutuli and Nelson Mandela did not acquire their humane values from their tribal peers -- they acquired them at the mission schools (of the best kind) where they were educated.
Those 'Liberation-wedded' Black Africans who still cling childlike to the excuse 'my parents are to blame', 'society is to blame', 'history is to blame' ' the white man is toi blame' are fortunately a dying breed in South Africa as a new generation of young black women and men with the same global aspirations as the rest of us begin to rise to positions of influence.
Achebe should stick to comic novels and see someone about his feelings of inferiority and envy. As a novelist he is no doubt very competent. As a critic he is a fool. His attack on Conrad is shameful and dishonourable.
Thank you for sharing your provocative point of view, Sam. I teach in New York City and Achebe's essay is regularly assigned alongside the novel. The pairing provokes great debate (and was the source of inspiration for this video). I will consider your perspective and be sure to engage my students with such a view next time around!
Paul Griffin
I should add, in fairness, that though slavery had been an African 'industry' since time immemorial, Muslim traders from the north later added an additional element of horror to it. And even though Western governments did not seem to participate in the gruesome trade, the brutal capitalists running the various Est and West Indies Trading Companies had no compunction about profiting from the system. I believe the first country to officially ban the slave trade was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, followed by the Danes and finally the British with their vigorous use of the navy to stop and board slavers. (There is a cemetery of Kroo sailors from West Africa near me, down at Simonstown. They were taken aboard as interpreters on the British ships chasing down the slavers. I mention this a bit off-topic because I think that the whole issue of slavery requires some objective balance -- it has been far too much politicised..
More relevant I believe that the Belgian King's functionaries were the most vigorous in going in-land on slave raids. Elsewhere this was hardly necessary -- slaves were brought to the trading harbours by inland tribes themselves.
Likje everything these are vexed questions, and simplification is not helpful..
There are so many falsehoods in your post that I'm not sure where to start. You condemn Achebe's views on the novel and modern African desires for liberation (as if that's a bad thing), yet your view seems to be on the opposite end of that extreme. You claim that the only reason Africans felt the need to fight oppression and slavery was/is due to European "enlightenment" (as if African were loving every minute of it before that). You even go as far as to say "Africans did nothing about freeing themselves". Such an assertion is so incorrect that it's ridiculous. African tribes and kingdoms powerful enough to resist European advancement into their lands did so, almost entirely. Those who were not so powerful were overpowered easily or manipulated into submission, and their efforts were lost to history. Your view of Africa is typical of a person educated in the schooling system within the last colonial power in Africa to hold onto the primitive notion that "white is right". It's almost laughable that you think Livingstone (who never lifted a finger to liberate Africans, other then showing a mild distaste for Arab controlled east African slave towns) did more to liberate Africa than the millions of Africans who died fighting slavery and colonialism. Obviously an education system based upon racial supremacy, which taught that African's were inferior and had no notable history prior to European arrival, would never teach their students about the African's who fought against foreign imperialism. People like Emperor Fasilides of Ethiopia, Yaa Asantewaa of the Ashanti, Queen Nzinga of Angola or even the Zulu kingdom within your own boarders. I could give more examples of African's who fought against colonialism (white and Arab alike) prior to European educational influences, but I'd be here all day.
You also made the claim that "African invented slavery in it's most brutal form" but where is your evidence for this? It's amazing how you know nothing of Africa's liberation struggle prior to colonialism but your an expert on it's slave practices going back thousands of years, the wonders of Apartheid education, I guess.
While I agree the Arab conquest of Africa was indeed brutal and slavery was rife within Africa, it's important to note that Africa was no exception to Arab slavery, nor did it create it. The Arabs had slavery embedded deep within their culture since pre-Islamic times and took their brutal slave trading with them where ever they went, from India to Iberia, from Mali to Bali. The idea that slavery in Africa was some how different and more brutal from the slavery that was taking place everywhere else in the world cannot be substantiated. Claiming the missionaries brought "enlightenment" and taught African's the value of freedom is another falsehood. What you mean to say is that the missionaries (of the better sort) educated Africans in European languages and customs so that they might express their ill will toward their oppression in a language and manner that Europeans themselves could understand and respect. Making the claim that no African ever cared or even thought about the horrors of slavery, brutality or oppression prior to colonialism is utter stupidity. Insinuating liberation, liberal ideas and freedom is a trait exclusively given to the world by European "enlightenment" is childishly ignorant at best and down right racist at worst.
In closing I would like to say, I for one think "Heart of Darkness" is a literary masterpiece. I feel that it's strength lay in is ambiguity, even it's title is ambiguous; is the heart of darkness Africa, is it African hearts, or European Hearts, is it Kurtz heart or his actions, is it the over all treatment of the colonised by the colonisers, is it colonialism in general and the foolish mind set laid out in the poem "White Mans Burden", is it all of the above or none of it of the above? Who knows. I think the reason Conrad made the book, it's title and Kurtz lasts words so ambiguous is because colonialism itself is ambiguous. It is open to praise and condemnation in equal measure and for the exact same reasons. Heart of Darkness displays that perfectly and the fact that there can be such contrasting opinions on the book is proof of how great a work of art it is. It's so adaptable that the story could have been set in just about any imperial colony or outpost, anywhere in the world, at anytime in human history (As demonstrated by the movie Apocalypse Now). The book always triggers a debate (like right now) and will always pose that forever unanswerable question "was European colonialism a force for good?"
I was born in Africa and lived here all my life. Virtually all my ancestors have been here for three centuries. Among my ancestors there are slaves from the East and Khoisan (the autochthonous people of South Africa massacred by the Bantu-speaking colonialists from Central-West Africa). Members of my family and I became involved in anti-Apartheid activities more than thirty years ago, and some paid a heavy price for it. Like most of my countrymen of all shades and colours I saw the Mandela era as an era of hope. As did all African countries when they were taken over by "liberation movements" that soon degenerated into corrupt, self-serving dictatorships. I'm not going to bother to respond in detail to your ill-informed opinions formed, no doubt, in some Marxist-dominated Sociology department. It would take too long. Am I wrong in thinking that you are either a student or lecturer in the social sciences at a British redbrick university, or similar institution in the USA? You seem to have swallowed Marxist-derived propaganda hook, line and sinker. I'll mention just one example. You regard the Zulus as brave opponents of colonialism. You are presumably referring to Dingane kaSenzangakhona Zulu, the dictatorial king of the Zulu clan who sought (like his psychopathic half-brother, whom he murdered, Shaka kaSenzangakhona) to subdue other Nguni tribes and clans to his authority. The fact that all those tribes and clans are now called "Zulus", previously the name of only one tribe, lead by two psychopathic half-brothers (Shaka and Dingane) attests to the internal imperialisms of Africa. When my ancestors broke the power of these treacherous autocrats after they (Dingane and his Zulu impis) had carried out the greatest genocide in South African history (murdering about 600 defenceless people of all colours, including infants) , they did so with the cooperation of other Nguni tribes who lived in terror of the bloodthirsty autocrats of UmGungundlovu. After that the entire country, especially the Sotho-speaking people, was subjected to the murderous sweep northwards of the Zulu rebel general, Mzilikazi and his Ndebele (Matebele) people.As for anticolonial wars, the only war against British imperialism that came close to defeating the mighty British Empire, was fought by my ancestors, and it was fought without the atrocities committed by the Mau-Mau, the ANC and other "liberation groups".
I could go on for pages, but I know that the Left is not open to persuasion, or "colonialist constructs" such as facts.They would, it seems, have preferred Africa to be an isolated continent, largely deprived of such simple commodities as the wheel, bridges, roads, railways, the alphabet, books, libraries, schools and universities. Ultimately to become a tourist destination for Americans interested in seeing "natives" in their colourful huts -- like the native Americans in their reservations. My own people (the only ones who from the beginning called themselves "Africans") were defeated by the British -- and accepted it with good grace. I am thankful for that, and grateful to my grandfather -- who did not speak English -- for insisting that his seven children be educated in English-language schools.
It is a regrettable fact that civilisation and enlightenment are generally spread by some form of conquest and colonialism. But it remains true nevertheless. An Africa conquered and ruled by the many bloodthirsty autocrats (such as Shaka and Dingane) would have been a place of worse horrors than even those the Belgian King could inflict.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Thanks for your gracious silence, Slimithy 12. If you need more lessons in African history and politics, don't hesitate to ask.
Conrad wasn't a racist: Heart of Darkness is My favorite book, and Achebe misrepresents it as "the breakdown of one petty European mind."
Steven Durham exactly, to call Conrad a ‘petty European mind’ just shows how little Achebe knows about Conrad.
Exactly. The real petty mind here is that of Achebe. And by extension this podcaster for referencing it - it's like taking a babbling fool seriously.
Professors - including many on RUclips - cannot dare to state anything but the current orthodoxy supporting Achebe - they would find themselves out of work. It would be better if people discussed Achebe for his own writings' merits, not merely from throwing a pebble at a giant. May his name continue, if only to bring attention to Conrad.
There is a statue of king Leopold here in Brussels, actually he looks a bit like you :).
Thx for this review
would be stimulating if you did...the divine comedy or Aliester Crowley moon child
WoW! Thanks a lot for Your time of breaking this down to the rest of us. (You kind of read it instead of lazy me, hahaha)
Also, that Kurtz is an enigma makes a lot of sense, even the name could be read as Curse if read fast enough ;-)
another amazing book on the paradoxes that befall man in a sick society is Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground.
Are you saying that Conrad is a racist based solely on this book?
If so, how can Conrad be considered racist when this book is fiction? It may be interwoven with actual events that depict racism, but the book is still fiction.
Also, if an author writes about racism, it does not make that author a racist. If an author writes about communism, it does not make that author a communist. If an author writes about horses, it does not make him a horse.
A racist is a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Doesn't the superiority of one race over another depend on the circumstances? For example, if I was in a hot environment, I would want dark skin and eyes to increase my chances of survival. If I was in Northern Europe, I would want light skin and eyes for the same reason.
Conrad depicts the light skinned Europeans as dying all the time in the African environment, so perhaps the dark skinned Africans are superior in this situation.
What Achebe is saying is that Conrad does not give the native Africans
an identity, they are never referred to individually but always as an
identityless group. That is what males Conrad racist, he does not
consider or offer personal identities and voices to the Africans and
perhaps that is because he is a racist or maybe he is trying to
emphasise the consequences of colonialism. However, saying that this
book is fiction and thus saying Conrad is not racist is not a good
argument against Achebe. There are plenty of ways to differ from his
views but the use of the "fiction" argument is definitely not one of
them, particularly as this book clearly referrs to an actualy experience
Conrad has gone through.
This masterpiece is neither racist not deplorable.
now how ull analyze it ... my fren literary works are just a manifestations of ur experience, they bring out subjectivity and realism of the one who writes,
just by realizing horror, said at the end of novel does not make him a remarkable man .. and marlow (conard) calls him remarkable man .. this shows his moral subjectivity and yours too who is defending it on the small clause.. for a person who has been horrible and greedy of ivory . anyways its an ok effort from your side and is indeed brainstorming..
Thumbs up simply for reading it! A great book, a masterpiece? That's tough. 1984 is a masterpiece. Wuthering Heights is a masterpiece.
I like your comment. I happen to agree about WH and 1984. Could you recommend a few titles that would be as pleasant to read as these two?
@@ciora1980 Dostoevsky
Wait, how can you say remarkable is equal to Marlowe saying that what Kurtz did is okay?
did anyone talks about 50 000+ killed Elephants for stupid ivory !!!
주인공과 동고동락 할 수 없는 엄청 재미없는 소설,
내가 읽으면서 주인공이 될 수 없는 소설.
이 소설은 비겁한 백인 쓰레기들이 콩고에서 저지른 만행중에서 빙산의 일각을 보여주네요.
다른 인간위에 the horror를 무기로 신적인 지위를 확보한 Kurtz가 죽으며 남긴 마지막 말이 "The horror! The horror!"라니 아이러니합니다. 비겁한 놈이죠.
저도 1982년 1월 부터 벨기에에서 2년 공부를 했는데, 이들의 사고방식을 알 수 있는 기회였습니다.
He wasn't an English citizen, he was a British subject.
You say 'Conrad died in 1924 in England as an English citizen. For there to be English citizenship there would need to be an English sovereign state. There is a British citizenship however.
Conrad was Polish. If you understand Polish history and eastern european history you understand one of the reasons why Conrad wrote this novel. Serfdom another word for slavery was not abolished in the Russian empire until the 1860's. Yes that's right, white european peasant classes in parts of the Russian empire were slaves until the 1860's. Part of Poland was occupied by the Russian empire during Conrad's life. Polish peasents living in Russian Empire were emancipated during Conrad's lifetime. Conrad understood what oppression meant. His father was an advocate for land reforms and abolition of serfdom in the Polish territory under Russian control.
He definately was not looking at Africans and Africa with the mindset of a colonialist.
good lecture
if you were still religious after this book, I'd be surprised
Excellent read.
Achebe should've practiced being more objective methinks
Racism in the novel doesn’t equal racism of the author!
If you have not seen Clark's 1969 television presentation 'Civilization' pick up a copy of the book. Turn the first few pages and look at the two examples of art from two different civilizations. Greek and African. Now you tell me if we should not consider looking at colonialism with a clearer lens. Exploitation by default perhaps. Perhaps when we are more prepared to put the emotions on hold being less effeminate , we can face some not so comfortable truths. But what is it when truth is sacrificed for tranquility or political correctness? I suppose it is what it is . Its a God damned price most are willing to pay while others, and lets be clear NEVER WILL! Remember English settlers in the Americas were supposedly imposing upon a civilization THAT HAD NOT EVEN INVENTED THE WHEEL. Was it something I said? We must start to consider what that means. Never mind words like superiority or inferiority. We should rather look at these realities as becoming comfortable with the true meanings of the words Primitive and Advanced. And that it was inevitable that advanced civilizations when confronted by primitive ones ate the other alive while they gradually incorporated the colonized into the whole. These so called evils were simply transitional. Just an idea. I'm sorry however if emotional problems more often than not steer investigation away from reason. Cram so many people together in too great a number and at too fast a rate and what could anyone expect BUT political chaos not to mention extreme levels of of a very potent lack of discernment. I tell myself to get use to it knowing I never will .
The conclusion that Conrad was a racist because he created a complex character in Marlowe is absurd. Do we likewise conclude that Achebe was a murderer for creating Okonkwo? Authors are not their characters. Do intelligent people really need to be reminded of this? To judge based on such spurious evidence embarrassingly reveals one's own bias.
Art itself is subjective - so the question ‘ is heart of darkness a great work of art ‘ is meaningless
This is the kind of typical low quality argument people level at discussions that go over their heads.
good essay
Why does the author owe us anything. Why does he owe anyone a careful thought of their own fragility. One does not need to be considerate to others when writing their novel.
This is not a guide book on how to be hateful. He does not have to be remarkable, he does not have to be a revolting racist. He is simply an author writing and telling a story, a story that has causes you to think and reflect.
Does he need to package it nicely in a bow considering hundreds of generations that succeed him?
How narcissistic does one have to be to believe they must judge every book and authors to their ideals and moral high grounds? You are no one special, even as a collective... you are at best just a sentence in history and your tickets to heaven wont be doled out through your pandering.
Before you burn your books and take every opportunity to cast stones at the imperfections of those that came before us, remember in this story it was the colonists that called the Africans savages just as you call the colonists savages; just as - when we are long gone our ancestors will judge us as ignorant and brutalist savages or possibly worse.
Try not to project your emotions and righteousness on history’s growing pains or use it as a podium to desperately announce your self proclaimed goodness.
I'm not one who supports this rush to erase history, and that's exactly what you do when you remove statute and busts of people who have done bad. I think we have to remember the good along with the bad when it comes to history. Without the bad there's no way to judge the good. That said, I wouldn't support anyone wanting to erect a Hitler statue. Where do you draw this line? I lean more towards preserving history. The good, the bad and the obscenely deplorable. It's all forever relevant. Violence has changed history and the world for the better in many ways. U.s civil war was a savage affair yet its violence led to the elimination of slavery. A good thing. . It's hard to pick and choose what stays and what goes.
Conradian Mi6🇻🇦
Dehumanization is one of the Modernism traits
10:57 Conrad was conservative . And the cannibals and the slaves in manacles as well as the more primitive natives that surrounded Kurtz were not all defined as one people or a race. Those ideas are coming from our current half witted political brain farts. The whole Black and White, dumbed down Socialism in replacement of clarity or often times fact. Conrad's novel in fact has very little to do with the injustices or brutality of slavery or colonialism . It is not really that close to his true focus. Most people who push that political narrative upon Conrad's work usually haven't read the God damned book. These issues We find soooo interesting today were simply background props behind the real story Conrad was taking us up river with. I don't believe Conrad was was out to exploit or expose the political situation any more than I think he was out to defend it's injustice in his day. The masses always miss the point. Any writer or lover of literature understands that. Anyway, good luck wising them up.
The horror! The horror!
Sweet.
Kurtz sounds like a Donald Trump
kind of character. Conrad’s description of darkest Africa is the destiny of America if we follow our own Kurtz down the river of darkness…. Hark! We’ve been warned.
An academic troll.
disamor ce
pankhuri priyadarshinee
haha you would
At 15.10 I gave up. To many academics like the speaker are twisting themselves into knots of pitiful apology for Conrad. He wrote great books, yes, but Heart of Darkness could never be one. Hitler's Mein Kampf galvanised an entire culture and marshalled a huge empire, but it would never be called a great book. Why? Because it is racist. Ditto Heart of Darkness.
I did watch the whole video, but I a agree with you completely. It's not even good writing. There are just a lot of poetic devices and superfluous language to disguise really simple thoughts and descriptions. The overuse of language has lead people to believe that if you question or disagree with the novel, then you don't understand the "artistry". The characters are racist and the author has stated this story has been drawn from his own experiences. It's a racist book, point blank.
My stolen books!🇿🇦⚖️⚖️🕛💼🇺🇳
oy vey