Good Intentions... or Not?

After looking at both The Empire of Good Intentions and Heart of Darkness, a couple of interesting comparisons became evident to me. The juxtaposition of the texts, highlighted the characteristic that man often professes one thing but does another. Britain claimed that its imperial ambitions in India, Ireland, and other nations, were for the benefit of the colonized—that they were there to educate, nurture, and protect the “backward” peoples of the earth. Narrator Simon Schama suggests that it was an empire built on virtue…unselfish dedication to eradicating poverty and disease. Indeed, Britain’s rhetoric truly professed the White Man’s Burden. Upon examination of Kurtz, similar notions become evident. He asserts, “By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded” (1927). His painting also professed these ideals, portraying a blindfolded woman carrying a lighted torch—Europeans seemingly spreading light to the savage darkness and native peoples. But, as we all well know, this isn’t exactly how it played out. Rather than help the intended peoples, they exploited them and subsequently promoted famine and disease in their countries (exactly what they had professed they were trying to cure). The potato famine in Ireland is an excellent example. Additionally, Conrad describes colonialism as having, “no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe” (1912). It seems so true. Kurtz had stolen more ivory than all of the other agents in the Congo combined. But my question is why do the “good intentions” not fit the results? Did Britain and Kurtz truly never have any intentions of aiding the local populations as they had professed? From the beginning, were they simply there to appease their avarice and quench their thirst for wealth? These are not easy questions. Some might say, “heck yeah, they never had any benevolent intentions, the Europeans were just there to exploit the natives.” However, maybe Britain and Kurtz did truly have “good intentions” at the beginning, but maybe they were quickly overcome by man’s heart of darkness—mankind’s innate savagery— and they lost sight of their original goals. At least Marlow might agree with that!