Racism and "The Heart of Darkness"
This essay was my own personal look at essays that explored racism in particular works and what accomplished authors had to say on the matter.

The constant contrast that the novel paints for us is that of black versus white, African culture versus European civility presents us with the image of European racism against the people of African. Achebe also states that Conrad himself is a racist by pointing the language he himself uses when referring to Blacks and how he speaks when referring to his fellow European. Even though Conradās book shows his character Marlowās momentary sympathy for the Africans he saw slowly dying, Achebe doesnāt think that moment clears Conrad. Ultimately Achebeās point is that the āHeart of Darknessā, doesnāt give the people of the Congo enough credit and what is described in the novel makes the African seem like a races of savages with no language or culture.
Achebeās essay shows us the racism that exists in āHeart of Darknessā, but he fails to provide an answer into why this was happening. When we think racism, we think about issues of race from a modern day Americanās prospective, but we must remember that racism, the form that is illustrated in āHeart of Darknessā isnāt like what African Americans in North America were experiencing. So Achebeās essay still leaves us with the big question of why Africanās were being subject to such racist treatment in the time of English expansion as shown by Conradās novel.
Achebe does not provide much of an answer to our question of why this was happening in his essay. His essay mainly went through āHeart of Darknessā comparing the language and visuals used to describe the European and the African in contrast to each other, mainly trying to provide evidence of racism in Conradās book. Where we can find a much better answer to why the Africans were treated in such a manner is by taking a look at Ronald Takakiās essay āThe āTempestā in the Wilderness: Shakespeareās Dream about Americaā. Takakiās essay shows us the deliberate separation of the races the English used to differ themselves from the people that they conquered. They are able to usurp native land without feeling compassion for the people by labeling them as savages.
The main focus of Takakiās essay was the treatment of the Irish and the Native Americas in the time of English expansion. When the English first engaged the Irish they labeled them savages because they were āliving outside of civilization; they had tribal organizations, and their practice of herding seemed nomadicā (Takaki, pg.183). From this encounter the English went on to base what they thought civilize and what was savage. The encounter with the Native America is what is more important in this essay. The conflict between the English and the Native American, best illustrates for us why and where the racist treatment of Africans stemmed from.
Some may think that this racism against the African was because of slavery and skin color, but all those things were only a small, but still important factor that added to racism. So this brings us back to the āHeart of Darknessā, where we can clearly see, that the Europeans that came to the Congo did not come there for slaves, since when this book was written slavery was already abolished by the English in 1800ās, because it was deemed un-Christian. What the European now wanted was land and profit. My own view is that Blacks in the āHeart of Darknessā were treated as savages and savagely like the Native Americas and looked down upon because it was a clear but enough reason the English could think of to be able to gradually come in and steal the natural resources and land from the African people.
The evidence Takakiās essay shows is how the Native Americans were villianized due to greed and from that greed is where the distinct separation of the races is where opportunistic racism sprouted. The same things happen to the African. They are imprisoned, subjugated, used for physical labors that the English themselves didnāt want to do. Marlowās character comes across the first view of servitude in the book when he travels to one of the company stations, āSix black men advanced in a file trolling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small buckets full of earth on their heads and the clink kept time with their footstepsā, (Conrad, pg. 15).
These men that serviced the English were more than likely free men that they had capture and labeled criminals so they were able to keep using them as free labor. āEach had an iron color on his neck and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinkingā, (Conrad, pg. 15). The men seemed to be kept as slaves even though we know that slavery was already outlawed in English colonies, so why are they being held there and forced to work is it because like the early colonist they didnāt know how to survive in this ānew worldā or like the colonist they believed the African to be idle and lazy so they had the right to put them to work against their will. āThey were called criminals and outraged law like the bursting shell had to come to them an insoluble mystery from seaā, (Conrad, pg. 16). Achebe in his essay points out a paragraph that indicates that these men that they were using for labor werenāt criminals, āThey were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom. Brought from all recesses of the coast in all the legality of time contractsā (Conrad, pg. 17). Marlow states this after seeing starved, mistreated Africans lying around under a tree waiting to die. Like the Native Americas the Africans were accused of crimes or extorted out of their land and as their punishment for their ignorance forced to labor for the English.
According to Takaki the Native America were forced into servitude on their own land, āA year later, Governor Thomas Gates arrived in Virginia with instructions that Indians should be forced to labor for the Colonist and also make annual payments of corn and skinsā, (Takaki, pg.193). I believe this reflect a lot of what we see in āHeart of Darknessā, Africans laboring for European gains. Even though they had outlawed slavery the English government condoned the miss treatment and forced servitude of all those they didnāt consider their equals. The African was certainly no considered the equal of the white man but his junior and in being so at the short end of the stick. The Europeans came to these new countries unprepared for the way of life so they took what was already there.
In the Heart of Darkness we see that the main focus of the novel was this man Kurtz, who we can see presents himself as more than just a man to the African tribe that he uses āHe came to them with thunder and lighting, you know and they had never seen anything like it ā and very terrible. He could be very terribleā, (Conrad, pg.55). Kurtz uses is influence over the African people and have them labor for him, by bring him ivory and also stealing it from neighboring villages. āBut he had no goods to trade with by that time, I objected. Thereās a good lot of cartridge left even yet, he answered, looking away. To speak plainly, he raided the countryā, (Conrad, pg. 55). Kurtz made himself a part of the lives of these Africans by living on their land and using them as he saw fit. Takaki explains the driving force being this was a cultural thing, āColonists were encouraged by their culture of expansion to claim entitlement to the landā, (Takaki, pg.193). So by falsely representing himself like most of the colonist during the time of English expansion, Kurtz used his status as a āGodā among the natives to take what property they had and that of their neighbors used them for his own gains.
The English always thought that the future of their country always lied somewhere else, āThe future of Englishmen lay in American proclaimed Hakluyt, as he urged them to āconquer a countryā and āto man it, to plant it and to keep it, and to continue making of wines and oils able to serve Englandā, (Takaki, pg.186). Takaki demonstrates in the quote that the push to conquer and drive out or subdue the natives was all in the services of England. The English didnāt see taking the land of the natives as robbery, since they claimed that the natives did not use the land and wasted it, so it was their right to drive the natives off the land as claim it as their own. Takaki states that when the natives fought back that is when they were mainly described as savages, but it isnāt until page 198 in his essay that we see the real separation of race. Two lines that stand out in Takakiās essay that could easily explain reason why Europeans treated the Africans like they did are found almost at the end of the essay.
The Africanās werenāt all savage they were farmers and hunters, but since like the Native Americans they lived outside civilization the Europeans made up their own views of the African as savages. āMany colonists in New England disregarded this reality and invented their own representation of Indians. What emerged to justify dispossessing them was the racialization of Indian āsavageryā, (Takaki, pg.198). The colonist associated the Indians with the Devil because they thought the Indians to be lazy, idle, and not in control of themselves. āThis social construction of race occurred within the economic context of competition over landā, (Takaki, pg. 198). So there you can clearly see that the Europeans werenāt really out to be racist they only found it convenient to practice it so that they could argue their entitlement to land and whatever property they found profitable that the natives were supposedly not utilizing.
The cultivation of tobacco pushed for a want of more land. The exportation of tobacco had become a large source of income for most colonists. The exportation of tobacco grew from 2,300 pounds in 1616 to 19,000 by 1617 and 60,000 by 1620. The influx of new colonist that the agriculture of tobacco had started also leads to territorial expansion and conflict with the natives. In āHeart of Darknessā, a clear picture isnāt painted for us on whether or not the Africans of the Congo had their land taken from them by such force, but as I stated earlier in Conradās character Kurtz we see that the greed for ivory had driven him to use the power that he had to invade and steal ivory from the villages that were in the surrounding area.
Itās not until the arrival of the Puritans that we see the totally demonization of the Native American and the total illustration of what they say is a great waste of resources. The Puritans believe since the Native Americans didnāt utilize the land nor did they dwell their permanently it was theirs for the taking. This can also be transferred to the English views on unused ivory. The African natives did not use all the ivory that they had; they buried some, which to the English devalued the ivory. Kurtz character brings a strong image of the colonist that even though some of them traded with the natives there were others and eventually all found that it was easier to just take what they had instead of trying to cooperate with them. This greed in my opinion can be identified as an inherited trait of Europeans, like the traits that they had labeled the Native Americans with and also Africans.
Citation
Achebe, Chinua. āAn Image of Africa: Racism in Conradās Heart of Darkness.ā āHeart of Darkness.ā Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. p. 341.
Conrad, Joseph. āHeart of Darkness.ā Ed. Paul Armstrong. W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. pp. 15-17, 55.
Takaki, Ronald. āThe Tempest in the Wilderness: Shakespeareās Dream about America.ā āThe Tempest.ā Ed. Gerald Graff and James Phelan. Bedford/St. Martinās, 2009. pp. 183, 186, 193, 198.
Comments
Post a Comment