A big idea from the text to consider is that the deepest of men's secrets lie within the heart. Part one of Heart of Darkness begins with Marlow's journey on this path of what Conrad called a "moral discovery". This beginning is important to remember when we read the end of the story, because we need to know where Marlow came from and how this journey impacted him as a man.
Characterization is important to understanding the story. In what ways are the Africans characterized? The Europeans? Is this characterization degrading or demeaning? When looking at the characters try to determine how each character's ambition clouds his judgement? Are these men colonizing or conquering? Is there a difference?
Remember the archetypes! Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and yes, Heart of Darkness all share common archetypal features. What do you notice about the archetypes as you read? Remember the "whited sepulchre". Are all the archetypes true to their meaning? Notice specifically light and darkness.
As always, please share your own observations about the text. Happy Reading!
In nearly every situation so far, the natives have been shown in positions of hard manual labor. Their descriptions are often like that of dumb animals. They are also described as being 'brutes,' 'quarrelsome,' or 'sulky.' The scene of the sick and dying ones was especially heart-wrenching, reminding me of some piteous dying ground beasts instinctively head for. Personally I felt a mix of pity and disgust, which helped me to identify with how Marlow felt and acted. The Europeans, though, weren't described in the kind of superior light one might expect. They were described as lazy, aimless, and average. I could feel Marlow's frustration over how little they actually did. They seemed to be fully under the effect of that 'flabby devil,' which may be the sin of sloth, or the devil Belphegor. The Europeans tendency toward laziness and cruelty prevented them from making much progress in their ultimate goal of 'civilizing' the natives. They had little direction.
ReplyDeleteThey did seem to be making progress in conquering, though. The difference in the definitions of conquering and colonizing seems to be the method. Conquering requires a military force. The suggestion that military force has been used is evident in the dead native in the road with a bullet-wound, the lack of many natives near-by, and the state of utter, fearful submission the captured ones are in.
I completely agree with Kristina about the use of light and darkness to point out the flaws of the light. I also am wondering about this Kurtz. He is spoken of often, and seems important even now as an unseen ideal. I wonder what archetype he will eventually fill...
To me the Africans were almost described as slaves. In the book it says that the Africans were doing pointless manual labor, were being starved, and some were also in chains. This makes it seam that they weren't being given much of a choice in the matter. The Europeans are described as being the 'better' race and they often hold higher positions. I think that when they first came there they were trying to colonize and modernize them, but that's not necessarily what the Africans wanted. The Europeans destroyed the African's morals and traditions by trying to modernize them. I think that in order to help someone you need to understand them. The Europeans didn't do this. They tried to force themselves upon them without understanding them. They hurt the Africans more than they helped them. I also agree with Kristina in that Africa and Europe represent light and darkness. I also agree with Christine that I am wondering about this Kurtz character.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about how we view society is different from how it was a hundred years ago. There has been a lot of talk in class about Conrad being racist, and yes there are instances where that may seem true. But, I believe that Mrs. Adams made a perfect point today, when she said that he might just be referring to them in the way that was common back then. I don't think it necessarily means he's racist. He does talk about the Africans being treated like savages, while the Europeans try to modernize them in a pointless way. I think there is a lot more that we are going to have to read before we understand how Conrad truely was.
ReplyDeleteThroughout part one, the Europeans seemed to be represented as the higher race and the Africans as the lower one. However, I do not believe that this is necessarily racist toward one group of people. I think it could go either way. The Europeans could be seen as evil bosses and the Africans as the beaten, overworked slaves or the Europeans could be seen as the dominate race and the Africans as the worthless laborers. It all depends on how you view it. Although, this fact cannot excuse how degrading said activities were, it does not necessarily imply that one race is better than the other. On another note, I agree with Europe and/or the Thames River being the light archetype with purity and serenity, whereas Africa and the Congo River are the dark archetype with violence. On a final note, I would like to know more about this Kurtz fellow; I hope he is actually introduced as a character soon.
ReplyDeleteConrad describes the Africans and Europeans as light and dark. It seemed as if they were slaves because of all the cruelty that they went through. It would probably be demeaning if Africans saw what he had said because it may not be like that. But, people are sometimes arrogant about other societies and do not truly understand what they have to live through. I agree with Kristina about the archetypes being switched where the Europeans (light) were harsh and the Africans (dark) were the innocent ones. That brings in the perspective from the Lord of the Rings movies where Saruman was the light one and was evil; Gandalf was the dark one and was the good of the two.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Heart of Darkness" Conrad describes the Africans as dark, 'savages'. The Europeans were light. However, I am not yet convinced that Conrad is racist. I think he is just describing them in the worst way to explain the horrid conditions. One thing that makes me believe he isn't a racist is when he shows concern for the starving Africans under the tree.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the colonizing vs conquering goes, I believe that the Europeans had good intentions. They saw the Africans in need of help and reached out to help. However, the Africans morals and traditions were not met with the help that the Europeans were providing. SO although the Europeans had good intentions it appeared that they were conquering and not colonizing.
The aspect of "racism" in the text is a tricky debate. Conrad describes the Africans as savage and uncivilized, and there is no doubt about the negative connotation he uses when describing them. Yet at the same time, Conrad doesn't speak so highly about the Europeans either. He consistently alludes to the Europeans sense of superiority and efficiency, yet he blatantly shows how they are being inefficient and how they are out of sorts in the African jungle. The most noticeable example of this is the description of the useless railcar stuck in the middle of the African jungle.
ReplyDeleteThe use of archetypes adds to the racism argument. Conrad describes the Europeans as white, and clean, and pure. The Africans are described as black, and sick, and dying. The light versus dark archetype is used often Conrad's writing. Conrad uses so much visual imagery to enhance his writing, it allows him to also insert adjectives like light and dark, or white and black, to establish archetypes and not make it overly obvious to the reader. The light and dark archetype is referred to consistently in the text, and it's barely noticeable simply because the reader expects Conrad to use color to describe the setting. Conrad's subtle establishment of archetypes enhances the plot and makes it more interest to analyze and discuss.
Kyle Frederick posted:
ReplyDeleteBlogspot Post: Heart of Darkness 9/19/11
The light vs dark can be seen as archetypes for the Africans and Europeans, but it represents the Europeans point of view looking into the African colonies and believeing they are supperior to the African people and treat them with disrespect and have them do all the hard labor in there modernization and diffuse into the European culture. They describe the Africans as crouching dark shadows, they describe almost as unhuman, they explain thier communication to be grunts and cries that are not english and hard to understand there meaning. These characterizations change the Africans to seperate beings from Europeans and not equals.
Mitchell Harger posted: As nearly everyone has put before me, the comparing/contrasting of Africans and Europeans in the text is very apparent. As Christene put, the Africans are depicted as nothing more than work horses of the "efficient" European systems, and are constantly being described with very dark words such as savages, "it"/"them", sickened, and inneficient. Europeans are described as the all-mighty hand of God spreading their great, efficient ways across the land; whenever you are told of a noteworthy character he is dressed "perfectly" and is symbolic of the civilized nature that is being brought to an otherwise dark world. The African characterizations are beyond a doubt degrading, but then again it is the truth...in a very, very harsh way.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident through how the characters treat Africans that their ambitions cloud their judgement; I'm sure that not all of these slave-inducing men would be committing the atrocities they are doing, because as the doctor said, people go mad in the Congo which equals poor judgement.
As I mentioned earlier, the light and dark archetype is the main focus in the book, but who necessarily is the light and dark one? Quite obviously when you look at it from a glance the Europeans would appear to be the white knights striding in to save a hopless black society, and don't get me wrong Conrad clearly is making the Europeans be as white as possible and is making the Africans look as black as possible; however, light is supposed to be the "good guys" of the story and with the atrocities the Europeans are committing I'm sure they won't get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon, I think that the archetypes are twisted in a weird way.
Connor Frederick Posted:
ReplyDeleteConrad shows blatant racism in this story, it is easy to pick up on is obvious slant towards Europeans and his very open negative opinion towards Africans. He even goes on to describe the Africans as shadows not people. He portrays the Europeans as the smarter more and advanced and superior race to the Africans. The Europeans as Crystal said force there beliefs and idea upon the Africans which in turn has hurt the African people more and led them to starvation. The white men are drove to push the Africans to modernize but in the process they have lost the intention of helping the Africans and now have started to you use any method that works that may end up in Africans dying.
As Conrad describes the Africans, he uses dark words. For example, as he tells about the African River, he uses words like twisted; yet when describing the Thames River he uses words such as calm, and beautiful.
ReplyDeleteThere also is a huge difference in colonizing and conquering. Colonizing includes helping a group of people to civilize the world they live in, to better themselves and their lives. Conquering is using force to make others, who may not necessarily want help, to form into a certain way of life. The people controlling the colony of primitive people may not actually be helping, in some ways they are destroying and angering the people who may not want to conform to their ways.
Once again, as the European characteristics are being described, words that are seen as positive are being utilized; yet, while describing any African culture, negative words are being used.