The issue of racism is always a common topic discussed when talking about history. However, the strength and motivation one has to publicly display their personal thoughts on racism, is not so common. Chinua Achebe demonstrates this strength in his article An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. In Achebe’s article, it primarily focuses on one main point: Racism. Since Racism is such a broad statement, it can easily be broken down by the multiple perspectives and various experiences in which people undergo. Particularly, Achebe begins with his offense towards Joseph Conrad’s views, although he gradually gets more off track. For one to have a strong opinion is one thing, but to attack the author and not the authors work, takes it to a new level. Achebe disregards any evident statements that are not offensive from Conrad’s work, and continues to make harsh accusations. He states “Whatever Conrad’s problems were, you might say he is now safely dead” (Achebe 345). Achebe feels that it is fair to judge and condemn the work of Conrad, when it was done in the late 19th century. Whereas years later, Achebe then writes his views and overlooks the consideration needed to understand the views. Although Chinua Achebe strongly draws attention to the racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, his main argument is warped. He disregards Conrad’s literary strengths, makes havoc accusations, refuses to complete any used quotes, and most importantly, tries to apply the current standards to a fictional novella from the late 19th century.
As mentioned, Achebe anachronistically applies contemporary standards to a nineteenth century piece of fiction.For most writers who take part in writing articles that give their perspectives on other novels, tend to have a common topic they all refer to. Credibility is what brings most critics together and be able to either make an argument or agreement about the specified topic. For the case of Chinua Achebe, he feels that he has every right to strike at Conrad’s novella. Achebe himself coming from the African culture, had taken the words straight to heart as he relates them to his own experiences in Africa. The thoughts and descriptions Conrad had discussed had come off as offensive and ludicrous in Achebe’s eyes. He best puts it as “Quite simply it is the desire-one might indeed say the need-in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe, as a place of negotiations at once remote and vaguely familiar, in comparison with which Europe’s own state of spiritual grace will manifest” (337). It is evident how Achebe feels and how it is unfair that Europe uses Africa as a way to make themselves feel better, as well as using them as slaves to do their work. From his perspective it is only fair to protest against Conrad’s thoughts, which are rarely noticed as others read Achebe’s response. Perspectives are all around whether they are wanted or not and can make the argument more intriguing. Perspectives also can significantly persuade the thought of others to something completely different. In the eyes of most reader’s the personal background of certain individuals can easily be forgotten. Thus when other critics of Achebe’s work go off on how they feel, they lack knowledge in knowing about his lifestyle and relation to the African culture itself.
Despite the arguments and questions, Achebe has the wit to use his creative writing skills and use them to describe a character from Conrad’s work, and relate that character to Conrad himself. Going from fiction to nonfiction, Achebe collapses the two and states how “Marlow seems to me to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence-a feeling reinforced by the close similarities between their two careers” (342). As stated, he feels that Conrad had created a character almost like an avatar to go through the motions of being in the Congo and criticizing everything in sight. Little does Conrad or any other visitors know, that perspectives are key when dealing with an issue that can easily be brought up for argument.
Although Achebe has a single respectable point in his criticism, he carries many flaws. Throughout the presentation of the article, Achebe levels damaging accusations which intertwine with his failure to fully quote Conrad. He takes his hurt feelings and any existing anger out in an immature fashion. Achebe is most definitely a defensive and pessimistic man, as he takes the small excerpt from Conrad’s novella, “Mistah Kurtz-he dead” (Conrad 69) and feels that he is using that tone and language as offensive. Achebe continues and accuses him of presenting it that way just to mock the cannibals language, as well as their “grunts” and incapabilities to speak properly. After venting his offense towards Conrad, he furthermore states how “In the case of the cannibals the incomprehensible grunts that had thus far served them for speech suddenly proved inadequate for Conrad’s purpose of letting the European glimpse the unspeakable craving in their hearts” (Achebe 341). All that is recognized is how there is a problem with almost every statement made when Conrad is explaining the experiences in the Congo. Achebe’s argument grows more weak as his article goes on, as he begins to not criticize Conrad’s work, but Conrad himself. Achebe himself has the audacity to write an essay and dig too deeply into the authors character rather than discussing the novel. Immaturity is a word that can be used to describe Achebe’s actions, as it also counts as an additional flaw created by himself.
What much of the argument comes down to are how Achebe’s accusations with Conrad’s writing during an appropriate time, were “wrong. As mentioned, perspectives are a major factor while giving opinions and criticizing work from others. In almost any situation, there are multiple sides to a story, sometimes two, sometimes more. However, there are two main points that are broken down when discussing Heart of Darkness and the criticizing article to go with it. Many readers go against Achebe and feel that it is unfair that he attacks Conrad when his novella was written during a time where African Americans were viewed differently and the idea of slavery was still around. Those remanding people who defend Conrad, I agree with. In my opinion, if I am reading a story that takes place in a time and/or area I have not been around before, I would be able to capture the story more and appreciate the literature. Whereas if the writer had just blatantly wrote how this and that happened with no tone or description, how would the reader be able to take in what is being read? This significant point is disregarded by Achebe as he goes on to say:
Can nobody see the preposterous and perverse arrogance in thus reducing Africa to the role of props for the break up of one petty European mind? But that is not even the point. The real question is the dehumanization of Africa and Africans which this age-long attitude has fostered an continues to foster in the world. And the question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a great work of art. My answer is: No, it cannot. (344)
It is suitable for someone to have their opinion and their own perspective on a topic, but it is key to be able to have an open mind before completely settling with one’s own judgement. Achebe does not that Conrad’s objective was to not insult anyone but to simply portray the realistic views. By the constant points being stated about Conrad’s work being offensive starts to ruin the argument in the article and make it less appealing.
Among all of the different issues and criticisms that come from Achebe’s work, racism is the bond that keeps all the thoughts and harsh incentives together. Although his personal perspectives had caused a controversy with Conrad’s work, he was still able to demonstrate his strengths as a writer himself. The way Achebe tries to apply current standards to a fictional novella from the late 19th century is the most common argument discussed among the majority of readers. As personal as the topic may be, it is important to have an open mind to the statement before making judgements about another’s work. Achebe continues to immaturely disregard any positive qualities of Conrad such as his literary strengths and turns the story around by attempting to pinpoint him by not fully quoting from Heart of Darkness. The offensive shots at Conrad and immature actions in response to the novella, are unacceptable.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Paul B.,Ed. Heart of Darkness New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” Armstrong 336-349, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment