Content area
Full Text
Chinua Achebe makes some grave charges against Joseph Conrad in his well-known analysis of Heart of Darkness. Conrad, he says, is a "thoroughgoing racist" who ignores the cultural achievements of Africans and represents them not as people, but as "limbs and rolling eyes," refusing even to confer language upon them. The writer has "a problem with niggers," and uses "emotive" language and "trickery" to dehumanize his African characters and present a view of Africa as "a place of triumphant bestiality" which functions as a "foil" for an enlightened Europe.' Achebe's essay deserves serious consideration, not only because racism and the denigration of Africans (and those of African descent) are real and continuing problems, but because he is a writer of skill and sensitivity himself, whose novels are of great value in presenting the people of that continent. However, neither of these facts mean that Achebe's criticism of Conrad is necessarily fair. In this essay, I propose to look in detail at two aspects of Heart of Darkness that Achebe denigrates. The first is the way that Conrad names people of color-what he actually calls Africans in his novella. The second is the question of silence. Are the Africans denied speech in Heart of Darkness, as Achebe claims? If so, is it because of racism or does their silence mean something else? Through a brief look at these two topics, I hope to be able to consider that question of what Conrad felt about Africans as "other"; and whether the views that he expresses are still worth consideration by readers of today.
Let us discuss first the question of "naming." The Africans in Heart of Darkness are called many things in the course of the narrative. Among these are included racial epithets. Achebe, quite naturally, objects particularly to the use of the word "nigger," which he says Conrad loves and uses "inordinately. 112 The word is actually used nine times. It is not a word that I myself, as a person of color, enjoy hearing or reading, and I can understand that even one use of it might be considered `inordinate,' but it is instructive to not simply count, but to look at the contexts in which the offensive word is used. It is first used...