I'm a Black African, Nigerian to be precise, and The Heart Of Darkness is my favorite of all time. I deliberately avoided it because of what many African(Like my fellow Nigerian and Conrad critic Chinua Achebe) and western intellectuals said. About it being racist and what not but I will say the following things. 1.the Book was published in 1899 so we all know what the attitudes were then. 2. Marlo is definitely not racist. He expressed allot of empathy for the Black Characters in the story and endearing terms like "beautiful" & "peaceful" etc are used to describe his observations of them. 3. Africa was indeed dark, especially the Congo and considering the Cannibalism,Human Sacrifice etc that was going on... if you take modern 21st century Africans to the Setting the book describes,they'd probably have worse views than Marlo,Kurtz,The Russian and Conrad himself all combined. 4. It's a book about the Human Condition. The Darkness within us all, our susceptibility to Power and the tendency in us all to pave the road to Hell with our good intentions. So let's get over all the grievance-mongering and let's enjoy this great book with it's wonderful lessons all races can learn from and enjoy. Peace !
abbasjafiya21 I've carefully considered your opinion on what you felt was the principal essence of the book. But I would be grateful if you can cite me empirical evidence that precolonial Africans were cannibals. Cannibalism by Indian tribes in the pacific is to some extent documented. But I would like you to show me how that correlates with our people. Thank you!
I'm Nigerian myself and I certainly believe this book is RACIST. I just find it hard to believe that no one sees these racist and demeaning views the book portrays about blacks and Africa; the evidence is so obvious in the book. It is appalling that people are willing to ignore this very important aspect of heart of darkness. Don't get me wrong, the author is a great writer and his intended purpose was to reveal the brutality of European imperialism in Africa. But please, let's not ignore that while Conrad was doing this, he was also blinded by his racist perception. I however do not support the ban of this book. In fact, I believe this book should continue to be taught in school, but in a different way. We need to acknowledge that this book reveals the exploitation of Africa by the colonizers, it shows the brutality of the colonizers and it also shows the racist views on blacks and Africa. This is a difficult but important conversation we all need to talk about. Imperialism and racism are all part of history. Although, it is unfortunate that racism remains today. But this is why it is crucial to acknowledge all parts of this book, talk about them, and reflect on our unconscious view on the 'other'. I did enjoy reading Heart of Darkness and Conrad is indeed a great artist.
being à polish and an English man makes Conrad belongs to both colonized and colonizer this creates a lot of ambiguity and prevents him to side with one part.
Hello , I’ve just seen your wonderful analysis of “heart of darkness “ novelist, it’s good , but I wonder if you do an extended analysis of this novelist discussing more details about it such as .... * Characters ( Marlow-Kurtz-The Manager-The Accountant-The Harlequin- the Intended- Kurtz’s Native Mistress-Fresleven-Brick Maker-Chief Accountant-Pilgrims-Cannibals-Russian Trader-Helmsman-Aunt-The Man aboard the Nellie-) * • Title significance * •Themes ( Imperialism-Colonialism-Restraint ) * Symbolism * Impressionism * The group of men aboard ( The Lawyer, The Accountant, The Company Director ,The Captain and The Man without specific proffetion who is named Marlow * The Whole plot of course * The Three stations and their locations. * And good luck in your new assignment
Excellent, and very challenging to those who attempt to judge the past from present perspectives. The novel endures precisely because it transcends the barriers of changing "eras/epochs" and cuts quickly to the core of human cruelty (I almost wish to say depravity, but that, I fear, could be over the top) - then, before then, and now
Thank you very much for the brief analysis, it helped me a lot. It's very hard to make a comment about this book and Achebe's point of view. It's definitely something to chew on.
Two more occasions when African characters do speak. One is when the cannibalism gets the better of them and he asks Marlow to "catch 'im. Give them to us." Another one is of the announcement by the manager's boy, who is also black -"Mistah Kurtz - he dead."
"Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter". No amount of lies can change the fact about Conrad's racist book. Shout as you may, this the objective, concrete reality of the situation as the Colonialist was defeated at the Battle of Adwa in 1896 shortly after Gordon was killed in Khartuom, Sudan by Khalifa Abdulhai of Darfur. This was the backdrop for Joseph Conrad's book as it is for Sulman Rashied's book:Satanic Verses in the face of IRAN Poltical uprising.
Fantastic video, thank you for making this! I listened while multi-tasking to review for an exam on Heart of Darkness and Achebe's essay. My only concern is that at 2:25 you say that there is no dialogue whatsoever spoken by an African person in the novel- this is untrue, and Achebe recalls this in his essay. There are 2 places where the Africans speak, and Achebe notes that "they constitute some of [Conrads] best assaults." The first moment is when a cannibal speaks to Marlow, saying "Catch 'im, catch 'im, give 'im to us", to which Marlow asks "What would you do with them?" and the cannibal replies "Eat 'im!". The second is the announcement of Kurtz passing, when another boathand says "Mistah Kurtz- he dead". Both examples are clearly racist, but I wanted to note that you did misspeak in the video. Aside from that, great work!
You might think the first example is racist, but remember that Conrad loved french literature, and that he did read Montaigne's essays, in wich Montaigne says that cannibals are probably the best humans on earth, because at least the kill for good reason, criticising then our societies, where killing has a totally different role.
I am reminded of this article .. which i linked to below .. "It is important that we as a society move past the idea that white supremacy is only for the skin heads and Nazis. White supremacy is the throughline of our society instilled in us from the time we are born and will stay in us until we die. Even though we are able to recognize that we live in a white supremacist society and that we want to no longer perpetuate that, we must understand that we still are all white supremacists. The process of deconstruction, in this case deconstructing white supremacy is one that should not end. We will be deconstructing white supremacy, patriarchy, transmisogny, human supremacy, and ableism until the day we die - It is how we were cultivated. This is crucial and is fundamental to radicalism. We must get to the root of these things by understanding how we ourselves perpetuate them. It is only from this place of introspection where we can begin to interact with each other with more intention, care, and respect. The same is true for anti-blackness. White supremacy would not be able to exist without anti-blackness. This is something that even as black people we must also understand that we have internalized anti-blackness and that deconstructing it is a key part in working towards our liberation." thisisbobbylondon.com/2015/06/12/drawing-lines-the-myth-of-the-white-radical/
I find the idea of white (privileged) people being "gatekeepers of radicalness" and seeing resistance as something we can opt in and out of an interesting one. Good article.
I don't understand why everything has to move towards racism. The original thought was that because white men had used their minds to rise above the their station in the animal kingdom, like many other groups that left Africa 50,000 years ago, there was a degree of evolution. The human genome project can substantiate that to some degree. And so can Human Natural History. While most of the world 'Grew Up' so to speak, people of Africa were stuck in the confines of the past. One can argue, it's because the people that left were the smarter and braver so they followed the heard and had moved when there were droughts. While the weaker and more fearful just stayed put, hoping things would get better. But that is a whole other conversation. What was found was that the illusion of civility and evolution was really a myth. We are all one, and it would take far more than 50,000 years of separation to have a dramatic effect on what seems like a species that ACTUALLY IS prepared to evolve separately into their own streams of evolution. Evolution of each group changed the pigment in the skin depending on the region they evolved into, while people who stayed in Africa did not evolve in that sense, and had not yet separated themselves from the animals kingdom until people came back, rediscovering it after 10s of thousands of years, and colonizing it. This is neither good, nor bad. It may be important to reintegrate due to a general physical weakening of races that left Africa who are far removed from actual physical struggle. Like most Whiteys in England and America. While at the same time, the people that stayed in Africa, need a boost themselves in mental capacity. All groups have their strengths and weaknesses. We can celebrate that, foster it, and create a better future. Denying it, is like trying to deny your own sight. Why are Indians so good with computers? Why are Jews so exceptional in Physics and Quantum physics, Jews have won most of the Nobel Prizes. Why are Russians so amazing at chess, and how can we translate that? Why are the Chinese so go with re-engineering things? Why are Black people so athletic? Well, we know why. They spent the last 50,000 years stuck in a very physical and dangerous world. It's leftists that put a negative label on anything inconvenient that doesn't make them feel good and neutral. And it's White Leftists that have this Covert Racism/Bigotry imagining they need to save another group of people. People don't need saving. We've been existing without you for 100,000 years. And we'll all exist when you are long gone.
There is exagerations in Conarad's descritions about Africa and Africans.and the Novela generally so ful of hypocrisy and wrong beliefs.the racist attitude of Joseph conrad refered to imperialism and Africans' wealth exploitation
I was wondering if she read the same book we did - Marlow had multiple paragraphs showing respect for the indigenous crew. Conrad is actually pointing out the problems with the ivory trade, but it’s easy for youngsters to judge centuries old writing by modern ethics. The analysis is intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest . She completely skipped over European cities being sepulchral cities : white and pretty on the outside with decay and rot on the inside - but I’ll give her a C- for effort on her research
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Selecting text to support and defend your view. Refusing to admit the negative impact within this literary perspective. Telling that this book is only taught in private, fee-paying schools... Purporting that this is history when in fact it still effects lives in the present. Nothing good resulted from colonialism for black people. By deflecting all criticism and defending white supremacist ideals by purposefully denigrating the feelings of the other, in this case, Achebe, is part of the problem. If we are to use literature from this era, it is essential to provide full unbiased, context. - British/English colonialists demonised and animalised Africans to justify theft and murder and used Christianity as a conversion tool. Tell the whole story. It isn’t just a book of its time and nothing should be destroyed, instead everything must be taught in full colour context, eyes wide, blood on hands.
I'm a Black African, Nigerian to be precise, and The Heart Of Darkness is my favorite of all time. I deliberately avoided it because of what many African(Like my fellow Nigerian and Conrad critic Chinua Achebe) and western intellectuals said. About it being racist and what not but I will say the following things. 1.the Book was published in 1899 so we all know what the attitudes were then. 2. Marlo is definitely not racist. He expressed allot of empathy for the Black Characters in the story and endearing terms like "beautiful" & "peaceful" etc are used to describe his observations of them. 3. Africa was indeed dark, especially the Congo and considering the Cannibalism,Human Sacrifice etc that was going on... if you take modern 21st century Africans to the Setting the book describes,they'd probably have worse views than Marlo,Kurtz,The Russian and Conrad himself all combined. 4. It's a book about the Human Condition. The Darkness within us all, our susceptibility to Power and the tendency in us all to pave the road to Hell with our good intentions. So let's get over all the grievance-mongering and let's enjoy this great book with it's wonderful lessons all races can learn from and enjoy. Peace !
abbasjafiya21 I've carefully considered your opinion on what you felt was the principal essence of the book. But I would be grateful if you can cite me empirical evidence that precolonial Africans were cannibals.
Cannibalism by Indian tribes in the pacific is to some extent documented. But I would like you to show me how that correlates with our people. Thank you!
A spectrum of ASPD lies in the human race. There are those with no psychopathy and those with the highest possible psychopathy.
But even normal people have psychopathic parts. It's just that we also have a working frontal cortex (brain region)
Which overrides the primal parts of a mind
I'm Nigerian myself and I certainly believe this book is RACIST. I just find it hard to believe that no one sees these racist and demeaning views the book portrays about blacks and Africa; the evidence is so obvious in the book. It is appalling that people are willing to ignore this very important aspect of heart of darkness. Don't get me wrong, the author is a great writer and his intended purpose was to reveal the brutality of European imperialism in Africa. But please, let's not ignore that while Conrad was doing this, he was also blinded by his racist perception. I however do not support the ban of this book. In fact, I believe this book should continue to be taught in school, but in a different way. We need to acknowledge that this book reveals the exploitation of Africa by the colonizers, it shows the brutality of the colonizers and it also shows the racist views on blacks and Africa. This is a difficult but important conversation we all need to talk about. Imperialism and racism are all part of history. Although, it is unfortunate that racism remains today. But this is why it is crucial to acknowledge all parts of this book, talk about them, and reflect on our unconscious view on the 'other'. I did enjoy reading Heart of Darkness and Conrad is indeed a great artist.
being à polish and an English man makes Conrad belongs to both colonized and colonizer this creates a lot of ambiguity and prevents him to side with one part.
Hello , I’ve just seen your wonderful analysis of “heart of darkness “ novelist, it’s good , but I wonder if you do an extended analysis of this novelist discussing more details about it such as ....
* Characters ( Marlow-Kurtz-The Manager-The Accountant-The Harlequin- the Intended- Kurtz’s Native Mistress-Fresleven-Brick Maker-Chief Accountant-Pilgrims-Cannibals-Russian Trader-Helmsman-Aunt-The Man aboard the Nellie-)
* • Title significance
* •Themes ( Imperialism-Colonialism-Restraint )
* Symbolism
* Impressionism
* The group of men aboard ( The Lawyer, The Accountant, The Company Director ,The Captain and The Man without specific proffetion who is named Marlow
* The Whole plot of course
* The Three stations and their locations.
* And good luck in your new assignment
Agree
Excellent, and very challenging to those who attempt to judge the past from present perspectives. The novel endures precisely because it transcends the barriers of changing "eras/epochs" and cuts quickly to the core of human cruelty (I almost wish to say depravity, but that, I fear, could be over the top) - then, before then, and now
Thank you very much for the brief analysis, it helped me a lot. It's very hard to make a comment about this book and Achebe's point of view. It's definitely something to chew on.
Amazing analysis. Thank you Danielle!
Very good! You are a real grade saver!! Thank you
I am a literature student..include only as importance of African Creature.
I really enjoyed your Analysis that is was most beneficial video i have seen today THANK YOU SO MUCH ^^ ^^
Two more occasions when African characters do speak. One is when the cannibalism gets the better of them and he asks Marlow to "catch 'im. Give them to us." Another one is of the announcement by the manager's boy, who is also black -"Mistah Kurtz - he dead."
"Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter". No amount of lies can change the fact about Conrad's racist book. Shout as you may, this the objective, concrete reality of the situation as the Colonialist was defeated at the Battle of Adwa in 1896 shortly after Gordon was killed in Khartuom, Sudan by Khalifa Abdulhai of Darfur. This was the backdrop for Joseph Conrad's book as it is for Sulman Rashied's book:Satanic Verses in the face of IRAN Poltical uprising.
Thank you! The book is called “Heart of Darkness.” No “the.” Forgive me 😊
Fantastic video, thank you for making this! I listened while multi-tasking to review for an exam on Heart of Darkness and Achebe's essay. My only concern is that at 2:25 you say that there is no dialogue whatsoever spoken by an African person in the novel- this is untrue, and Achebe recalls this in his essay. There are 2 places where the Africans speak, and Achebe notes that "they constitute some of [Conrads] best assaults." The first moment is when a cannibal speaks to Marlow, saying "Catch 'im, catch 'im, give 'im to us", to which Marlow asks "What would you do with them?" and the cannibal replies "Eat 'im!". The second is the announcement of Kurtz passing, when another boathand says "Mistah Kurtz- he dead".
Both examples are clearly racist, but I wanted to note that you did misspeak in the video. Aside from that, great work!
You might think the first example is racist, but remember that Conrad loved french literature, and that he did read Montaigne's essays, in wich Montaigne says that cannibals are probably the best humans on earth, because at least the kill for good reason, criticising then our societies, where killing has a totally different role.
Excellent
I am reminded of this article .. which i linked to below .. "It is important that we as a society move past the idea that white supremacy is only for the skin heads and Nazis. White supremacy is the throughline of our society instilled in us from the time we are born and will stay in us until we die. Even though we are able to recognize that we live in a white supremacist society and that we want to no longer perpetuate that, we must understand that we still are all white supremacists. The process of deconstruction, in this case deconstructing white supremacy is one that should not end. We will be deconstructing white supremacy, patriarchy, transmisogny, human supremacy, and ableism until the day we die - It is how we were cultivated. This is crucial and is fundamental to radicalism. We must get to the root of these things by understanding how we ourselves perpetuate them. It is only from this place of introspection where we can begin to interact with each other with more intention, care, and respect. The same is true for anti-blackness. White supremacy would not be able to exist without anti-blackness. This is something that even as black people we must also understand that we have internalized anti-blackness and that deconstructing it is a key part in working towards our liberation." thisisbobbylondon.com/2015/06/12/drawing-lines-the-myth-of-the-white-radical/
Thanks for sharing this article.
I find the idea of white (privileged) people being "gatekeepers of radicalness" and seeing resistance as something we can opt in and out of an interesting one. Good article.
Very Interesting
hi I start to study this novel
I don't understand why everything has to move towards racism. The original thought was that because white men had used their minds to rise above the their station in the animal kingdom, like many other groups that left Africa 50,000 years ago, there was a degree of evolution. The human genome project can substantiate that to some degree. And so can Human Natural History. While most of the world 'Grew Up' so to speak, people of Africa were stuck in the confines of the past. One can argue, it's because the people that left were the smarter and braver so they followed the heard and had moved when there were droughts. While the weaker and more fearful just stayed put, hoping things would get better. But that is a whole other conversation.
What was found was that the illusion of civility and evolution was really a myth. We are all one, and it would take far more than 50,000 years of separation to have a dramatic effect on what seems like a species that ACTUALLY IS prepared to evolve separately into their own streams of evolution. Evolution of each group changed the pigment in the skin depending on the region they evolved into, while people who stayed in Africa did not evolve in that sense, and had not yet separated themselves from the animals kingdom until people came back, rediscovering it after 10s of thousands of years, and colonizing it. This is neither good, nor bad. It may be important to reintegrate due to a general physical weakening of races that left Africa who are far removed from actual physical struggle. Like most Whiteys in England and America. While at the same time, the people that stayed in Africa, need a boost themselves in mental capacity. All groups have their strengths and weaknesses. We can celebrate that, foster it, and create a better future. Denying it, is like trying to deny your own sight. Why are Indians so good with computers? Why are Jews so exceptional in Physics and Quantum physics, Jews have won most of the Nobel Prizes. Why are Russians so amazing at chess, and how can we translate that? Why are the Chinese so go with re-engineering things? Why are Black people so athletic? Well, we know why. They spent the last 50,000 years stuck in a very physical and dangerous world.
It's leftists that put a negative label on anything inconvenient that doesn't make them feel good and neutral. And it's White Leftists that have this Covert Racism/Bigotry imagining they need to save another group of people. People don't need saving. We've been existing without you for 100,000 years. And we'll all exist when you are long gone.
THank you so much
if I have some information can you help me
You totally dance around the issues.
Stick a "bloody racist" label on something.
It saves a lot of thinking.
There is exagerations in Conarad's descritions about Africa and Africans.and the Novela generally so ful of hypocrisy and wrong beliefs.the racist attitude of Joseph conrad refered to imperialism and Africans' wealth exploitation
Kurtz wasn't the hero. Conrad wasn't a racist. Read the book.
I was wondering if she read the same book we did - Marlow had multiple paragraphs showing respect for the indigenous crew. Conrad is actually pointing out the problems with the ivory trade, but it’s easy for youngsters to judge centuries old writing by modern ethics. The analysis is intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest . She completely skipped over European cities being sepulchral cities : white and pretty on the outside with decay and rot on the inside - but I’ll give her a C- for effort on her research
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Selecting text to support and defend your view. Refusing to admit the negative impact within this literary perspective. Telling that this book is only taught in private, fee-paying schools... Purporting that this is history when in fact it still effects lives in the present. Nothing good resulted from colonialism for black people. By deflecting all criticism and defending white supremacist ideals by purposefully denigrating the feelings of the other, in this case, Achebe, is part of the problem. If we are to use literature from this era, it is essential to provide full unbiased, context. - British/English colonialists demonised and animalised Africans to justify theft and murder and used Christianity as a conversion tool. Tell the whole story. It isn’t just a book of its time and nothing should be destroyed, instead everything must be taught in full colour context, eyes wide, blood on hands.
Well apart from all literary things, you look beautiful.
I hate that race is the topic for this brilliant book. Its a book a of self exploration. This was written a long time ago people. Wow.
they are Stil doing todey like oil Open your eys and See PLZ