Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness, part 1

[@savagecutts]

It's a great novel, but I don't know how you can deny the racist descriptions of Africans in it. Marlow says watching the helmsman steer was like looking at a dog "in a parody of breeches." And that's just one of many examples.

[@LitProf]

Oh, absolutely. But Marlowe is an unreliable narrator whose point of view we are supposed to doubt.

[@cindys9491]

Another dehumanizing problem of racism in the book is how supposedly easy it is for Kurtz to convince one Congolese tribe not only to give him ivory, but to utterly debase themselves before him and worship him (with the possible exception of the African queen/mistress). Kurtz is able to sink to this moral low because, supposedly, all he needed was guns and ammunition (and dark charisma) to get this uncontacted and supposedly gullible tribe to fear and worship him. According to Marlow, Kurtz has sunk lower than the tribe by abusing them, but the tribe makes no attempt to resist him (except for the ghastly heads around Kurtz' inner station, perhaps). The fact that the tribe worships Kurtz in the first place (unless he is protecting them from other tribes) makes them seem childlike and gullible, which is a racist view.

[@cindys9491]

That said, The Russian Harlequin has also fallen into the temptation of worshipping Kurtz, and Marlow almost does as well. A counter-example of all this Kurtz-worship is the famous sarcastic line by the Black servant, "Mistah Kurtz, he dead."

[@jhilamadhikary5551]

Exactly!

[@Jademeia]

Hi Dr.Masson, thank you for explaining the actual text! From the outset I also got that Marlowe was not typical he seemed to be more of a deep thinker. I also thought his description of the Congolese woman was poetic and beautiful (later in the book) . I’ll definitely be back for more of your videos as I make my way through the book. Thanks so much!

[@davidmusicmaker]

This is a powerful, objective analysis. From the outset Conrad's words depict a darkness that pervades even the most seemingy illuminated or enlightened among us. The bulk of the novella's introduction is emphatic in juxtaposing the virtues of light against a light-depriving darkness. Conrad's is a forceful and rich presentation that sets the tone for what is to come.

[@annafabjanczyk531]

Sir, thank You very much for Your lectures ,I find them very helpful in my studies.Greeting from Eastern Europe( Poland) .

[@afgh1408]

great video, all the analysis videos I found were very short and lacking in depth

[@aaliyabamboowala1665]

Thank you for this wonderful lecture!

[@LitProf]

You're welcome

[@malavikakpradeep9219]

Very Helpful Mr. Manson. Thank you.

[@Helinnss1]

Thank you,that is so helpful

[@pauliewalnuts2727]

Thank you for the lecture. Thank you also for providing context but not making the whole talk about race and colonialism- there seems to be a pattern in modern university teaching of focussing on this (also gender and Marxist theory) at the expense of discussion of the actual text. Had this recently watching a lecture about Othello, where more questions were asked about race and female oppression than the actual play. Best wishes to you, sir

[@maghrebforever2012]

Thanks

[@kcmuanpuia]

Your connecting Darwin's evolution theory with racism is interesting. I'm a Christian and to me racism, stated simply, is a major branch of the huge tree of pride in all humans. It's a manifestation of human pride in relation to race, language and culture. Here too, like in all other areas, some are more prideful than others. I haven't read the novella yet but I hold the same opinion as yours regarding the (possible) racism of the author.

[@LitProf]

Darwin’s evolutionary theory and the colonialist scramble for Africa are concurrent. Is there any relation? History books never make any connection. I think there is.

[@bartoszpeszko7099]

Some relation in some cases - yes. However, Darwinism (even in a twisted interpretation) isn't necessary to explain any of the colonial or murderous drives. Think the Spanish conquistadors and the USA's Westward expansion, or think the entire human history for that matter. Religions, on the other hand, have proven many times to be a rich source of superiority bias.@@LitProf

[@LitProf]

@bartoszpeszko7099 Charles Darwin concluded in his Descent book that he would rather be descended from a monkey or baboon than from "barbarians" or "savages," terms he often used for people with darker skin. Darwin lamented the foolishness of society for caring for its "weak members" and thus allowing them to "propagate their kind, with undoubtedly bad effects." He said that excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." Darwin also wrote that the Caucasian race was further from the apes than the other supposedly lower races.

[@michaelhall2709]

11:14. I want to make certain that I’m understanding you correctly here, because I’m quite frankly having a difficult time crediting my ears. Are you suggesting that, prior to Darwin, people did not engage in prejudicial attitudes towards their fellow humans of each and every sort, from petty dislikes to rationalizing generational enslavement and mass murder? Can you possibly be serious?

[@LitProf]

I said nothing of the sort. I said that they didn’t justify it with ‘science’, lending it the veneer of an ethical practice.

[@michaelhall2709]

@@LitProf What exactly do you mean by “ethical practice?” Again - are you suggesting that people have not historically taken up every cudgel at their disposal to justify their exploitation of others, including those justifications for chattel slavery found in the Bible itself? Long before Darwin, slave traffickers and conquerors like Cortez and Columbus had little problem rising to the occasion when the practice needed defending. If you’re going to contend that horrors like the Atlantic slave trade and the Belgian Congo would not have taken place absent the elegant yet revolutionary theory of natural selection, I’ll need to see your work.

[@LitProf]

@michaelhall2709 Again, it’s not my fault you can’t attend to what I (and Conrad) said.

[@michaelhall2709]

@@LitProf Okay. Can you point me to where Conrad said that in the text, though? Not doubting your word; I’d just be curious to see what he had to say on the subject (though I’d still disagree).

[@LitProf]

@michaelhall2709 He repeatedly talks about the systematic and totalitarian way in which the Congo and its people are exploited, and says the difference between the past and today is ‘our efficiency’.

[@elifkareni9623]

Thank you so much to give us these opportunities to reach your lessons on youtube. Thank you again and again sir, stay safr and healthy!

[@AudioPervert1]

Given the book and the author are much celebrated and cult. However many african scholars, africa based revisionists and even european scholars deem J. Conrad an archtype euro-racist writer. Who's vision of africa and it's peoples vastly beautiful diversity was but deeply botched and flawed.

[@LitProf]

Since it is clearly a critique of colonialism, it is a bit unfair

[@AudioPervert1]

@@LitProf is the book a critique of colonialism .. not more? perhaps we know if we hear Edward Said (Orientalism) speak about Conrad's legacy.

[@LitProf]

It is far more than that, but it isn’t less.

[@jhilamadhikary5551]

​@@LitProf it's a critique of Colonialism but not a critique of Racism, that is the problem that people don't understand. Just the first 100 pages contain 52 instances of degrading racist observations. In order to see someone as the Orient, one needs to see them as human first then compare them to the Occidents. But for Marlow, they aren’t even human. The existentialism of this text is deeply rooted in Racism.

[@LitProf]

I don’t agree. 1870s Colonialism - the scramble for Africa - was rooted in Darwinist racism.