EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

I think Achebe's argument applies to Conrad's "outpost." Por ejemplo, in the first paragraph it's easy to see how racist this cat was: lines 5-13 describing mr. price and his wife...referring to them as natives and Price as a "sierra leone nigger." I really enjoyed how Achebe points out the use of "native." People (especially Conrad) seem to toss this word around when talking about people from Africa, India and, well other "third world" countries. It's as if these people are the only natives in the world, and the rest of the western world aren't natives but "citizens" or another term that implies economic and technological well-being.

Mostly because Achebe is writing at an academic level that I can only hope to one day fully comprehend, I can't see any logical flaws to his argument. It is obvious, however, that he does have a bias (he's from nigeria). This bias does not bother me, and it is fair to say that being from Nigeria is what pissed him off enough to write an essay about Conrad.

Achebe would not want Conrad's literature to be taught in schools. This was in 1975, nowadays enough essays have been written regarding Conrad,therefore, those essays seem to be taught hand in hand with Conrad's racist literature.

Yes I see the same things within "Outpost". I don't know if this is where we are supposed to bring our exerpt but I think that p6 shows very much that Conrad is contrasting "civilization" (destinclty euro-white thing) against what he plainly calls "primitive man" (Africans categorically) It's definately bogus and ruins whatever staements that Conrad is trying to make for the good (or supposed good, as in warnings against imerialisms). Maybe he was just advocating a more "humane" imperialism, because I am beggining to really think that he was fundamentally racist.
If this book is still taught than it should be clearly and intentionally noted that he is racist and that he was doing, x,y,z...
The book could be used a s reference of the errors an erronious ideas of those times and their long-lasting effects on thought. that would make it a good thing to study.
There are certainly enough great authors out there to fill any "void" that excluding Conrad as a literary model would bring.

I also had a hard time comprehending Achebe's view of Conrad and his writings.

I feel that the Achebe's thoughts of "Heart of Darkness" also applies to "An Outpost of Progress". Both stories create a racial divide between the Africans and the outsiders. To me it seems Conrad uses "nigger" and "white man" in relationship to negative details which allows the reader to draw conclusions and creates racial stereotypes. I think Conrad's lack of knowledge of Africa in general causes the problems that Achebe has with Conrad.

I feel Conrad's works should continue to be taught just to open up people's minds or cause debate. This would allow people to realize that opinions of certain people cause others to form concrete beliefs, which can be dangerous.

I would agree that Achebe’s discussion of Heart of Darkness does also apply to An Outpost of Progress. Conrad uses the same language and prejudice towards Africans in the latter story as the former. The narrator as well as the main characters continually describes Africans as not human, using such words as savages, animals, and brutes. An example quote, “…the contact with pure unmitigated savagery, with primitive nature and primitive man, brings sudden and profound trouble into the heart.” This condescending language resonates throughout the story and is very similar to that in Heart of Darkness.

Through reading Achabe’s argument, I agree with his distaste of the way Conrad described Africa and its culture, however it seemed to me that he was not viewing his writing from the perspective of late 1800’s Europe. These views were more commonplace, and Conrad may be writing from the viewpoint that many colonial people may have had at the time. From reading his critique, I believe Achabe would not want the story taught in schools. However I personally believe that it should be a book that can be taught. I believe that is important to be exposed to this kind of literature because it shows the stereotypes and prejudices that people had in the past, and therefore students can learn from them. They shouldn’t be blocked, because communication and discussion are important in preventing prejudice. Therefore a caveat for teaching the book is that there should be discussions about its themes and how Conrad portrays Africa. Discussion of prejudices will lead to less prejudice than not discussing it at all.

I see Achebe's argument for Conrad's racism present in "Outpost" too. Achebe talks of "Heart of Darkness" projecting the image of Africa as "the other world". I see this also in "Outpost". For instance, Conrad says, "Belonging to a tribe from a very distant part of the land of darkness and sorrow, they did not run away" (p. 17). He also describes Kayerts and Carlier's reaction to the Africa setting in a mysterious way, he says, "They both for the first time, became aware that they lived in conditions where the unusual may be dangerous" (p 15).

Conrad describes the people in Africa in a very inhumane way (like Achebe mentioned). For example, he describes Gobila as a "gray-headed savage" (p. 12). Conrad uses the words "savage" and "nigger" quite often in his description of the people in Africa. I know that using these words may have been commonly used in that time and place...but does it make it any more acceptable?

I think that Achebe's argument can definetly be found in "Outpost of Progress," but it is more prominent in Heart of Darkness. Because mostly everyone has posted the reasons where Conrad is guilty of his "crime" that I could find I will take the other point of view. A flaw in Achebe's argument is that with Heart of Darkness the focus is set on the African's and the portrayal of them as a group more than in the article. The article is more about the two white men and is centered more on personal interactions. Heart of Darkness is obviously longer so there is more literature to criticize Conrad for and more of Achebe's arguments are posed at Conrad's comments about the African's as a whole. "Outpost" had way more of a look at the white people and not as much at the African's.

I still think it is important for these pieces of literature to be taught because it's good for students to see a "bloody racist"'s views in literature and have the opportunity to try to pick it out themselves and discuss it with their peers. Reading even this type of literature helps with knowing the about the world and other cultures, even if it is the stereotypes they face. Conrad was influencial and even if it isn't the positive, it did happen in our history. We can't ignore this.

I think Chinua Achebe's main argument throughout the text was the racist remarks that Conrad has specifically made against Africans in his work. There are many similarities between the word choices used in "Outpost of Progress" and "Heart of Darkness" In "outpost" we already know that Conrad used racist remarks against Makola, and referring to the two white men as higher people, versus the significantly lower African people. These similarities are paralleled with certain quotes highlighted and exemplified by Chinua Achebe. He explains in depth how Conrad liked to have things (people) in their place. "They howled and leaped, and spun and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar" was how Conrad described European encounters with Africans. He places the Europeans as the higher people and the Africans as nobody's..or savages. He kept Makola in his place by not allowing him to speak that much and overshadowing him by the two white men. Achebe also describes Conrad as using multiple narrators as he did in "Outpost." Based on the exerpts from "Heart of Darkness" it is easy to see Conrad's true feelings about Africans and where he places them. The only disagreement I have with Achebe is that it is hard for me to trust his opinions from the small racial exerpts that he picks out, versus what other scholars feel about Conrad's work. Of course if Achebe is accusing Conrad of being a racist he will pick and choose the most racial parts of a quote or a story, even though Conrad might be saying a lot more than his racist remarks.
I believe english teachers should continue to teach Conrads work, because it is a true documentation of the lifestyle and different view points over 100 years ago, although that is completely against what Achebe would want. Conrads style and thoughts would have to be know to students before they would be allowed to read his work.

First off, I'd like to know what conclusions Frantz Fanon came to int eh psychiatric hospitals of French Nigeria (bottom page 216)

Along with the majority, I also believe that what Achebe says of Heart of Darkness applies to Outpost of Progress. Before getting into that, I want to say that I think Achebe does look too deeply into things and almost willfully analyzes quotes to fit his argument. He seems very angry and in my opinion a little too touchy in seeking out racism. I think the most obvious example is the quote from the Christian Science Monitor on page 219. He talked about how countries such as Germany and Italy have their own language. I think the Monitor's use of the word "dialect" instead of language was completely acceptable when referring to Africa. To have said "the African language" would not have been correct as Africa has many different languages, many probably related to the others in some way. Thus the word "dialect", I think, is completely acceptable.

Relating his argument back to Conrad, I do think that the man was racist in his stories. There is excessive use of the "N" word (something I think might have been socially acceptable at the time, although Achebe says it wasn't) and Conrad's description of seeing his first black man is disturbing (pg 216). I think this shows emotional detachment from the man, which I also think could have been enforced by the ideals of society at the time. In Outpost of Progress, the African who is most well described is Makola. Makola is seen as a lazy man who has little to no mormals and doesn't value human life. On the flip-side, Conrad ultimately also shows the white men, Kayerts and Carlier, as also having low morals.

I absolutely think Achebe's speaks thruths about Conrad's "Outpost of Progress." On page 9, Achebe says, "Africa as a metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognizable humanity, into which the wandering European enters at his peril." This reminded me of the discussion on Monday about Conrad's use of the environment in Africa.
I also think Achebe was perhaps a little hard on Conrad for his repeated use of...certain derogitory terms. Although I think it was overused and reflected upon Conrad's opinions of African people, I also think that it was common place term among Europeans during that time. Though it's still wrong, some of the usage should be attributed to that. Conrad may have been thinking of his audience in some of his word choice.
As for whether Conrad's work should be taught, I do think so. I also think that the racism, both obvious and vague, should be addressed in depth.
I found that Achebe ties an author's opinion too closely with their work. I think that the author should be considered for a better understanding of the reading. I do not however think that the author should effect judgements on the work and vice versa.

Even though I found it a bit hard to understand at times, I believe Achebe makes some very good points about Conrad’s and most of the European’s and American’s idea of Africa and its people. He is right on about Conrad making the Africans seem helpless, inhuman, savage, and so on. Conrad is racist; he shows this by making the African slaves nameless and almost completely useless and unimportant in the “Outpost of Progress.” I most definitely can see the racism in “Outpost” when Conrad describes Makola: “…a Sierra Leone nigger…and cherished in his innermost heart the worship of evil spirits.” The thought of worshiping evil spirits is very overdone but most definitely acquainted with Africans, and the use of the “n” word, even in the past, is/was a sign of disrespect and inferiority. I completely agree with Achebe that Conrad is racist and many other writers write in a racist manner about Africa and Africans.

As far as continuing teaching such literary works, I figure why not? Simply make it evident that these pieces of literature have caused some controversy and most likely are the products of racism.

I think that Achebe’s argument about Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” applies to “An Outpost of Progress” as well. Conrad does seem to hold some racist viewpoints (at least how we view racism today) and holds the white Europeans higher on the scale. Specifically, Conrad does not have his non-white characters speak very much, if at all. Achebe mentions (p.219) that “language is too grand for these chaps” when he explains how Conrad limits the speech of his African characters and only has them speak when absolutely necessary. For example, in “Heart of Darkness” he had an African character announce “Mistah Kurtz- he dead.” In “An Outpost of Progress” Conrad has Makola lose his ability to speak to Kayerts and Carlier until it is necessary to have Makola explain the trade that will be taking place. Also, Conrad has Makola speak to explain, “He died of fever,” when Carlier was really shot.

Although I agree with Achebe that Conrad’s work may be viewed a racist by today’s standards, I have to stop and think about the time Conrad was writing in and the audience he was writing for. I agree with Joel and Greg that Conrad’s work should still be taught in schools. Students need to be exposed to previous theories, stereotypes, and injustices, even if they have been proven racist. It’s an avenue for debate and discussion, which are always great learning experiences in a classroom. I also believe that Achebe’s article and any other articles about Conrad’s work should also be read at the same time as “An Outpost of Progress” or “Heart of Darkness.” I think it is very important for students to see both sides of the story and understand how viewpoints have changed.

I goggled in the name Makola and came up with an interesting tidbit to see if “Makola” had a special meaning or whether the name represented something. Makola is a West Africa market which is a place you can anything. It is a fun place that has great energy. A direct quote from the website said that “for visitors, the market conjures up the sights and sounds- as well as the smells and aromas- of West African cookery; the mouth waters as you move from stall to stall…” I think that Henry Price was given this name is because Henry Price sounds too European! Makola is more appropriate for his position in his native land. It’s also interesting that Makola engage in a trading business, which is what a Makola market is! That is possibly the reason why Makola is not allowed to name himself.

Achebe was very harsh in his writing on Heart of Darkness. I think that if he was critiquing “An Outpost of Progress,” he would be less harsh because Conrad didn’t use explicit descriptions in describing the native citizens even though Conrad did use the “n-word” several times. Anywhere that Conrad use the n-word, it seems like Conrad uses it freely and in great disrespect. When he is describing the African’s beliefs in death and being friendly, and so forth, Conrad uses his characters to shield his snickers.
In any teaching facilities, any work that tells a story of one’s opinion, history, etc. should be taught. Even though Conrad’s work may stem from arrogance, we as students are able to learn how to critique his work from different angles. It also tells a history. This is a perception of someone who traveled to the Congo in 1890s and it’s been over a century ago. We can learn from his mistakes and determine which mistakes he made in describing Africa in his contexts. I don’t think necessary that Achebe would never want Conrad’s work published. He praise his work as good writing, but just degrades Conrad for his arrogance. Achebe would definitely want Conrad’s work taught in ways that points that there is distinguishing double standards for people from European and African descents. The Europeans have the upper hand and Achebe would want our generations to learn that African history is important

I think that Conrad's writings should be taught in classes. I was taught both authors and was given the image essay by Achebe as we did here. I thought this was a great way to look at both authors and understand some of their writings. I am sure that Achebe would not want Conrad's "racist" views to be taught to this more open world. Nevertheless, students need to be shown all views on how things were and fictional stories that played around in each authors imagination. On the other hand, I believe that Achebe would partly want them taught so that students could see the "racist" views that come out of Conrad's writings. However, he would probably want them taught without allowing any further discussion on what Conrad was trying to get at other than racism.

I do believe that Achebe’s thoughts on “Heart of Darkness” could also be applied to “An Outpost of Progress.” To be completely honest, I skimmed through it at first and thought that he actually was talking about “An Outpost of Progress.” After paying more attention to the second story and revising the first, I noticed many passages that established Achebe’s opinions. In Achebe’s report, he cited a passage Conrad’s description a steamer traveling a river. First, he described the local people as “a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of stamping feet…” Then he went on to say that the steamer “toiled along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy.” Conrad seemed to fixate on the usage of the word “black.” Conrad wrote yet another “black” statement in Heart of Darkness: “A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms.”

I pointed out some instances (from An Outpost of Progress) in my last blog, but I will reiterate them now. Almost every time he portrayed an African, the term black was used. He also used demeaning words like “stupid” on page 15 (?), “savage” and who could forget, the repeated use of the “n-word.” People may argue that that was a common name for Africans back then, but stupid and savage certainly couldn’t have been acceptable to describe any group of people. In the middle of “An Outpost of Progress” Conrad talked about the visitors and noted that their language was “resembling the speech of civilized.” Surely, that is a judgment. To say that something is civilized implies that one has criticized it. Also, through Kayerts’ and Carlier’s views on African literature, Conrad portrayed his own. He stated, “It spoke much of… and extolled the merits of those who went about bringing light, faith and commerce to the dark places of the earth.” Again, he made a reference to the “darkness” of Africa. He literally stated that the two white men were in “the dark country only a very short time.”

Having read both "An Outpost of Progress" and "Heart of Darkness" (Although I assure you my memory is cloudy at best), it was quite clear to me that both stories were very similar in environment, characters and theme. Essentially Achebe's arguments apply to nonspecific works of Conrad's, but to his influence as an author as a whole. Is Conrad a scapegoat to an intrinsically racist society in general? In a way yes. Conrad obviously was a leader in establishing how Africa was viewed by the rest of the world at the time. Its this that upsets Achebe most of all--the image Conrad projects of Africa and the long-lasting profundity on the average Westerner's mindset. Although Achebe states that Conrad was not first to present Africa in such a way, he is blamed for establishing it in a widespread manner. Although he sometimes appears to be reaching for content to back his argument up, its a valid one, and a very understandable one for someone who has to deal with comments as inane and everyday as the one mentioned in the first paragraph.

However, as I mentioned in the last blog entry, I don't think Conrad can be summed up this nicely (or rather, summed up this hideously) I found it irksome that Achebe writes off the whole isolation aspect of "Heart Of Darkness" just because it uses Africa as a backdrop. While no one condones exactly how Africa is portrayed, since when does the setting override the content of the story. Where would be a fitting place to have a story about isolation?

When we read Heart of Darkness and Things Fall Apart together in my high school Humanities class, we looked at this article. I think under the framework that we examine the racial politics of it, both should be read as it offers a nice perspective on progressing mind sets and attitudes. Achebe is so adamantly opposed to the novel he wouldn't want it at all. Maybe its because Heart of Darkness can't be written off quite as easily as he would have liked

This makes it sound like I dislike Achebe, which is far from the truth. I agree with the majority of the text, but I don't view it as enough reason to abandon HOD as a learning tool.

I believe that Achebe points out some interesting facts about Conrad's writings. On page 215 Achebe states "Marlow comes though to us not only as a witness of truth, but one holding those advanced and humane views appropriate to the English and liberal tradition which required all Englishmen of decency to be deeply shocked by atrocities in Bulgaria or the Congo of King Leopold of the Belgians or wherever..." I think this quote is precisly true. In Conrad's writing he doesn't really portray the natives as people. He describes them harshly and doesn't really give them an opportunity to speak. He portrays them as almost beasts. This quote from Achebe backs this up because I would have to say that a majority of English people don't know much about the African people. They have their basic stereotypes and thats all they really know.

Achebe’s statements about Heart of Darkness apply very much to “An Outpost of Progress” and there are many similar examples. When Achebe talks of Conrad’s descriptions of black people and his emphasis on there color, it brought me back to his descriptions of the people that Kayerts and Culier traded with, and also his description of Father Gobila, “a gray-headed savage, thin and black.” Not only does Conrad focus on their color, but also on their inferiority and inhumanness, as is seen in the continuing description of Father Gobila as an “old and incomprehensible creature,” these few words of description gave me an insight into the man writing the story and his views of the African people. I do disagree with Achebe that there hasn’t been much progress made in trying to break down the racial barriers and different associations made with Afrikaners though, maybe that’s because I like to look at the bright side, but I think that Westerners have started to look at the “achievements of other people,” I had a human evolution class last semester and we spent a great amount of time looking at human evolution from the African approach, and spent time discussing the complexity and achievements of African societies. I believe that the “change” has begun, although it does need to take a more dramatic turn.

For the change, Achebe talks of, to really take effect, Conrad’s works should not be taught in schools, unless they are paired with a work by an author like Achebe. There needs to be a change in the materials being presented to the youth because these make big impacts on the thoughts of today’s people. By teaching or comparing two different types of African literature – that of an African perspective and that of the Western perspective, I believe that people will be able to choose which side to connect with or believe.

I would say that Heart of Darkness applies to the "An Outpost of Progess" because both of them uses similar tone, setting, and message. An example Achebe uses for travellers are "blind" is when he explained that Marco Polo who spent 20 years but does not reference any of their traditional and historical forms of art or figures, such as their art of printing in his book. This example given supports his agrument of "the heart of darkness plagues" (Conrad) that great people does not always have a great mind = "blind"/"the Nazi". He goes on to explaining the dialect of different groups of immigrants at home and at school are unequally written in the article "Christian Science Monitor":

"In London there is an enormous immigration of children who speak Indian or Nigerian dialects, or some other native language."

He pointed out that "surely, the only native language in London is Cockney English..." but "our writer means...something Indians and Africans speak."

This example, he says is comparable to Conrad's withholding of language from his first principles.

Personally, I think these kinds of literary works should be taught--mainly to correct HISTORY. It seems that there is always something/someone to blame for something bad that had happened in the past. By understanding the wrong doings of history, perhaps people could get along in the future and lessen hatred, racism, prejudice, discrimination...etc...I don't believe there is a BEST or RIGHT way to eliminate/lessen these things but by teaching younger generations to understand the past would be a start.

Although I see certain derogatory or racist remarks in Outpost of Progress, I am ambivalent as to whether Conrad himself was a racist. I believe that he is an anti-imperialist who satirizes the European conception of Africa. I understand that for people who take his writing at his word, the style in which he writes is quite provocative. For this reason, I think that Conrad's books should be given considerable discussion as well as opposing works (like Achebe's essay) so that students know what they're getting into. I think that if not thoroughly understood or discussed, Conrad's writings will elicit racist sentiments towards Africa by the readers themselves.

I appreciate how Achebe addressed both sides of his own argument. I would have to agree with him that Conrad clearly appears to be racist based on how he writes. For example, one passage from “Outpost of Progress” reads “Had they been of any other tribe they would have made up their minds to die—for nothing is easier to certain savages than suicide—and so have escaped from the puzzling difficulties of existence.” The language he uses in so many of his descriptions are demeaning and derogatory. He creates an image that displays the different people of Africa as barely even human. Now, I know, as Achebe mentions, that it may be possible that Conrad was writing with irony and therefore trying to show us how not to think. But I don’t think that Conrad wrote it with those intentions, I feel that he wrote it using his own opinions and bias. Achebe proves this by quoting Conrad’s personal account of witnessing an Englishman for the first time. Conrad describes the man as if he were a god, and describes the African people as if they were animals.
It is necessary to also think about the story in context of the time period when it was possibly common to speak in this manner. I’m not saying that excuses any of it, but it could be possible that this type of language was normal at that time. Perhaps Conrad was unexposed to the clear cut lines of racism that exist today. Here’s a question related to that, Do you think that if a person grows up in an environment which never shows both sides of racism, and if they were taught that what is defined as racist today is right, and never had the opportunity to see right and wrong as we see it and decide for themselves which road to take, are they still guilty, or who is to blame? Was this the case with Conrad? Does being racist mean that a person has seen both sides and still chooses the wrong perspective, or do they simply not know any better?

I feel that there are definitely racist remarks in Conrad's writing, such as his continual use of the "n" word and his obsession with "blackness" and the way he represents the natives as savage and dangerous, but I am not sure whether or not I can accurately say whether or not Conrad is racist or not. I think in order for me to ascertain whether or not he is, I need to read more of Conrad's writings. As far as teaching it in schools, I think that it is okay for it to be taught, but I think that it should be taught along with other pieces of work such as "Things Fall Apart" and Achebe's essay on Conrad. The writings should be presented together, and the students should be allowed to come to their own conclusions on Conrad, without being told exactly what to think.

I do not necessarily think that Conrad is racist, but i do think that he says racist things. For example, his continual use of the "n" word, his obsession with "blackness" and his description of the natives, describing them as savage and dangerous. I think that in order for me to come to a conlusion about Conrad, i need to read more of his work. As far as teaching it goes, i think that it is okay to be taught. I do, however, think that it should be taught in relation to other books, such as "Things Fall Apart" and Achebe's essay on Heart of Darkness. The students should be allowed to come to their own conclusions without being told exactly what to think.

I do not necessarily think that Conrad is racist, but i do think that he says racist things. For example, his continual use of the "n" word, his obsession with "blackness" and his description of the natives, describing them as savage and dangerous. I think that in order for me to come to a conlusion about Conrad, i need to read more of his work. As far as teaching it goes, i think that it is okay to be taught. I do, however, think that it should be taught in relation to other books, such as "Things Fall Apart" and Achebe's essay on Heart of Darkness. The students should be allowed to come to their own conclusions without being told exactly what to think.

I do not necessarily think that Conrad is racist, but i do think that he says racist things. For example, his continual use of the "n" word, his obsession with "blackness" and his description of the natives, describing them as savage and dangerous. I think that in order for me to come to a conlusion about Conrad, i need to read more of his work. As far as teaching it goes, i think that it is okay to be taught. I do, however, think that it should be taught in relation to other books, such as "Things Fall Apart" and Achebe's essay on Heart of Darkness. The students should be allowed to come to their own conclusions without being told exactly what to think.

Maybe it's good to look at Conrad from an informaed view, and maybe that's why it should still be considere relevant to read, but There needs to be intentional, conscious, specific and direct attention given to making these things clear (like what we are doing in this class, but especially in high schools)
Maybe it still warrants attention solely because of the historical rifts between peoples and racisms etc. There is, in my opinion, a definate residue of these types of racisms that still persist despite the "generations" that we come from now. I remember there was a black power/pride trend in the 1990's and don't forget the LA riots, or that aparthied only recently ended. I think there may be a residue that persists in the countries that used to be colonizers, e.g. Britian, it seems like it would be an interesting study. my sister lives in England (married to a british dude) maybe I can ask his opinions.

sorry about the multiple posts...i was having technical difficulties.

Achebe's views on Conrad ended up being more extreme than I had thought they might have been from the beginning of the essay. Achebe eventually compared Conrad to Hitler, one of the harshest accusations that I could think of. I agree that there is some definite racism, whether it be intentional or as Achebe points out"blindness" when comparing Marco Polo inability to mention the printing press or the great wall of China. I think however the book is revered, we should remember that it is fiction and however racist the message comes across, it is a more common viewpoint than many people would like to see, especiall Achebe. The line i think works best for Achebe's point of view is "It was the occasion for a natinoal holiday but Carlier had a fit of rage over it and talked about the necessity of exterminating all the niggers before the contry could be made habitable." It is pretty hard not to see the racism in this passage.

Continuing on the yesterday's discussion, I would have to to agree with many that Conrad was in fact racist. Some may argue that he wasn't voicing his views through this mysterious narrator but I feel that he did exactly that, but in a manner which can be hard to distinguish between the two, author and narrator.

Yet even though his opinions on race and Africa are horrible on a moral level, his writing can not be criticized because the enviroment he creates within his writing is truly worth reading. Although he writes of this isolated, lonely place, it's enough for the character's in the story.

On whether "heart of darkness" should be taught in schools, I would say a definite 'yes.' I completely agree wtih Lauren and Mai's opinions, if not for his unique and amazing style of writing, then for the fact that his opinions were a widely accepted belief during the time "heart of darkness" was written and with the political correctness of today, it seems we've forgotten that racism did once exist.

The existence of something wrong is crucial to prove something right and that is one of the only reasons, I feel, that Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" should still be in circulation in today's education system.

I've been reading the assigned passage from Achebe's Things Fall Apart, and in doing so I lost a lot of respect for his writing on Conrad and racism. It seems that Achebe is creating the same kind of atmosphere, although slightly less morbid, that he was so quick to condemn in Conrad's writing. Achebe points out how Conrad uses the natives as a backdrop, refusing to give any sort of dimension or individuality to the people and stylistically creating an image of an inferior people who must remain in their place. But I think in some ways, Achebe is doing the same thing with women! They seem like more like a backdrop transposed against protagonist Okonkwo's brooding and violent and altogether more important seeming nature. They wander in and out of scenes, and often are only referred to as "the virgin" or "his first wife, Nwoye's mother," where as men are always referred to by only their names, with no justification necessary, as if the presence of a woman can only be justified by reminding the reader that she is some man's wife, some boy's husband. Perhaps Achebe is trying to make another point about Conrad with this, placing in his writing a blatantly discriminatory style with the intention of upsetting the audience to the point of awareness. Maybe he feels like if he puts his writing in a conscious vein towards Conrad's writing with his sexism calling out Conrad's racism, he can make people aware of the problems with African literature. But even in this way, Achebe is more like Conrad than he thinks. Don't most who argue against Conrad's racism speak most towards the satire aimed at imperialism, Conrad's issue of choice? I really don't know how I feel about all of this, and I'm sure I'm missing something from this argument, but I think I will read Achebe just as critically as I would Conrad because the two are beginning to seem less and less opposite...

I think it is okay to teach “Heart of Darkness” and “The Outpost Progress” in schools. The stories do convey elements of racism, but that is a part of history. Even though it is wrong we cannot just forget it, and racism is not something that has gone away. I don’t agree with Conrad’s views, but still believe we can learn something from his writing. It is a part of history, and we can’t ignore it. If we ignore it we will not learn from it. I think these piece need to be taught with that in mind, learning from them the evils of racism. There is a famous quote that says ‘Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it’. I believe in this quote, history is filled with good and evil, but no matter how you term it, it happened and it is something we can learn from and change in the future.

I think that Conrad’s work should continue to be taught in schools. I think that instead of having students read Heart of Darkness and then say “hey, actually, it’s a racist piece of work” teachers should focus on what Conrad was trying to say with his story Heart of Darkness. He is as Shiyao said an “anti-imperialist who satirizes the European conception of Africa”. His point of writing Heart of Darkness is denounce imperialism. After reading Achebe’s perspective on Conrad I do not think I would be a bold statement to say that he would not want Heart of Darkness taught in any schools.

I think Achebe makes many valid points and because it is his people that Conrad portrays inaccurately, he has every reason to be upset by it. The fact that Conrad writes about a real group of people, even if they are fictional characters does not justify that he can portray them as such lower beings. Conrad does a good job of making the assaults subtle and many people actually beleieve that the Africans lived that way. Even if some had lived primitively, which I'm sure some did, have, and still do does not mean that they are any less human than the more 'civilized' societies. When I first read Conrad's story, I did not read it with a critical perspective so it seemed so natural of a story. That is how subtle Conrad was at writing this story.

I think that it is fine to have "Heart of Darkness" taught in schools. If it is though, it should be taught coming from all different perspectives especially from those who are African. It should be taught among African Literature so that it can be compared to and thought through critically. When taught with bias and without knowledge of other perspectives, the truth can be skewed.

i agree with the author on the point that conrad is definitly a racist. maybe that's too strong a word but one cant help coming to the same conclusion after the author have so clearly pointed out instances of Conrad's intentions. The description of the Africans as savages who didn't know how to speak the civilized tongue is something i find to be quite shocking from the point of view of an impartial reader. However, 'heart of darkness' should be taught in school and the only criteria is to look at it with an open mind for its very easy to fall into the trap of racism here.

In my search for some reviews on Achebe's "things fall apart", I stumbled onto this forum. Last year we discussed this exactly this issue very extensively in class (I'm an English student at the North-West University in South Africa) and it seems that Achebe may have valid points, but in the final instance he does not.

In the first place, it was commonplace to call someone a Nigger, coming from Nigeria, as it is commonplace to call someone a Deutscher, coming from Deutschland, or a Hollander, from Holland. In the late 1800's 'Nigger' did not have the emotional connotation it has now.

In the second place, Achabe (very conveniently) chooses to ignore or twist the passages that do not fit his argument. In his essay on "Heart of Darkness" (HOD) he calls one of the passages in HOD a "bleeding heart statement". Why? Because it sympathises with the African people on the way they were brutally treated by the Europeans. Why would Achabe choose to ignore this?

And what about Kurtz's words "The horror! The Horror!"? Did he also miss that on his reading of the book? Clearly Achebe makes one of the most basic errors in criticising a very seminal work of art: He rewrites the book around his argument of racism, in stead of building his argument from ALL the given facts in the book itself. When all this is taken into account, the message is not racist, on the contruary: it is a very loud shout-out to the colonisers on the way the treated African (or for that matter Indian or American) native people.

Lastly, remember that the author is not the protagonist. Although there may be many autobiographical elements in Conrad's work, he is not Marlow. Marlow is merely a mediator for meaning, someone who makes sense of what he sees and makes it accessable and not deplorable for his European reader audience. If Conrad were to write something extremistic or fundamentally different from that which his audience would normally read, he would have lost his audience on page two. He had to keep his audience 'happy', and at the same time subtly drive home the message he had for them.

Heart of Darkness at first glance may seem racist, but I assure you that a deeper study of the book's motives will reveal just the opposite. Achebe's argument is built on bias and predisposition, therefore it cannot hold water.