Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Firchow and Achebe on Conrad

In reading Chinua Achebe's An Image of Africa, the following passage jumps out at me: "...Which is partly the point. Africa as setting and backdrop which eliminates the African as human factor. Africa as a metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognizable humanity, into which the wandering European enters at his peril." The passage is important because it epitomizes Achebe's use of absolutes, words or phrases that do not allow any "wiggle room" at all; they are what they are. Absolutes are problematic in that they allow for the spread of exactly what Achebe is fighting against: generalizations/stereotypes (and racism). Some of the absolutes are direct (the word "all"), and some are merely carefully implied (that "Africa as setting/backdrop" HAS to eliminate "African as human"). In the passage, Achebe asserts (without literally saying so) that Joseph Conrad's simple act of setting his Heart of Darkness in Africa makes the story and, by extension, him into racists who would go to great lengths to "eliminate the African as human factor." Achebe says that Africa becomes a "metaphysical battlefield devoid of all [...] humanity." I do not think this is true.

While Conrad often depicts the Africans as animalistic and savage-like, through the voice of Marlow, who in turn speaks through the main narrator,  he also offers clues that lead me to believe he (and perhaps Marlow as well) is not necessarily racist toward Africans, and the following are just two examples: (1) He seems to make fun of the portrayal of races as walking on "all-fours" (animalistic) on page 1909, even after he has just used the same phrase on page 1902 to describe the Africans. While this may create character inconsistencies, to some, to me, it is Conrad's way of getting his own thoughts into the story. I say this because a great deal of the story DOES depict Africans negatively, so a few bright spots, to me, signify Conrad's stance on the issue or at least reveal that he is aware of his negative portrayal and that he wants to make things right. (2) Conrad also speaks about colonialism, or conquest, on page 1894, basically saying that it sounds nice in theory but is ugly in reality. He writes against the taking of land from "those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter nose than ourselves." Would a racist man write this? I don't think so, but maybe some do. To me, it is a deliberate "shout out" to the issue of racism, the fact that it is ugly and harmful.
 
Additionally, as Peter Edgerly Firchow says in "Race, Ethnicity, Nationality, Empire," Achebe does not define the term "racism" before speaking out against it. Thus, the reader is forced to project his/her own interpretation/connotation of the word "racist," which may not coincide with Achebe's interpretation/connotation. This is problematic because it detracts from the ease of communication between Achebe and the reader, who may not necessarily understand what Achebe means to say. The argument is, therefore, "lost in translation."

To make this easier to read, I saved citations for the end: all Achebe quotations are from page 2713 of the Norton anthology, the Firchow information comes from page 233 of the PDF, and Conrad quotes/ideas are on pages 1894, 1902, and 1909 of the Norton anthology. Where I thought it was necessary, I included page numbers in the above text; any idea/quote without page numbers can be found on the page numbers I have just listed, with respect to the writer in question (Achebe, Firchow, Conrad). Finally, colloquialisms/clichés/phrases have been enclosed in quotation marks to signify that I realize they are overused or not generally used in academic writing. I hope everything is clear.

No comments: