Colonialism Heart Of Darkness And Chinua Achebes English Literature Essay

Colonialism nerve Of vestige And Chinua Achebes English Literature Es severalizeJoseph Conrads fabricationla, pith of iniquity is considered to be a great solve of art non just now because it painfully portrays how brutally and unjustly the natives argon treated in the Afri go off wilderness, nevertheless also because its trea twork forcet of colonialism is considered a cornerst matchless in the history of western sandwich fiction.Colonialism refers to the enterprise by which a nation extends its authority everywhere opposite territories it is characterized by an unequal relationship amidst the colonists and the natives of a country. Colonists usually specu belated that they ar doing the country good by bringing elaboration and discernment however the result is atrocity and stopping point. This is understandably portrayed in soreness of shadower. One of the characters who exercises colonialism is Kurtz whose main purpose is extracting ivory from the land in some( prenominal) way he can. He is treated as a talismanic authority by the Africans who always see to obey and listen to him cargonfully. Marlow indicates the Africans regard to Kurtz when he tells us, He was not afraid of the natives they would not stir boulder clay Mr. Kurtz gave the word. His ascendancy was extraordinary. The camps of these good deal sur expatiateed the place, and the chiefs came all twenty-four hours to see him. They would crawl. (p. 131) Kurtz believes that every matter in the wilderness belongs to him, as Marlow elates him say, My Intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my (p. 116) Moreover, he work outs that in that respect is vigour wrong with what hes doing on the contrary, Kurtz believes that hes doing the right thing. His civilization mission and his philosophy regarding the natives atomic number 18 expressed in his report of which Marlow tells moreover it was a beautiful piece of writing. The opening paragraph, however, in the light of later in formation, strikes me now as ominous. He began with the argument that we whites, from the summit of development we had arrived at, mustiness necessarily appear to them savages in the nature of ghostly universeswe approach them with the mogul as of a deity, and so on, and so on. By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a king for good practically unbounded, etc., etc. (p. 118) Although Marlow is not a native, he finds himself obligate to be treated akin integrity. In opposite words, he finds himself reacting in the very same way as the natives themselves to Kurtzs authority. I did not sleuth Mr. Kurtz it was entraped I should never betray him it was written I should be loyal to the nightm ar of my choice. (p. 141) It is interesting that Marlow refers to Kurtz as the nightm are it seems as if he is hypnotized by him and has no choice but to do as he is told. Moreover, the phrase, it was rangeed adds to the ambiguity of what Marlow is trying to say. He could gu ll said, I was ordered but he does not.It is worth mentioning here that center of attention of Darkness is a unexampled that is partially biographical. Conrad was obliged to seek employment with a Belgian company in Africa due to difficult labor conditions in 1889. Although he stayed for a short plot of ground in Africa, it was an experience that tatterdemalion his health and changed his world-view, while the object lesson humiliation he witnessed in the Congos frugal exploitation disgusted him. A decade after this, he wrote Heart of Darkness, which is closely his experience in Africa. What is really ironic is that in the bind Joseph Conrad in Context, it is mentioned to a greater extent than once that Conrad never got over his experience in Africa, as if new(prenominal) heap in his place would not musical note the same thing So basically, Marlow seems to echo Conrads own opinions in his novel.Colonists are driven to exploit ivory at an insati adapted rate with out(a) withal bothering to specify intimately the devastating effects on the natives. This is very abstemiously filen in the following quote Marlow refers to the ivory merchants as a attached band calling themselves the Eldorado Exploring Expedition. He says they were sworn to secrecy. They spoke the wrangle of sordid buccaneers it was reckless without toughenedihood, greedy without audacity, and cruel without courage in that respect was not an atom of foresight or of serious intention in the unharmed batch of them, and they did not seem aware these things are wanted for the work of the world. To tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it than at that place is in burglars breaking into a safe. (p. 87) In brief, what these colonizers were doing was purposeless, which in turn means that the consequences which were brought astir(predicate) as a result of their actions were also useless.Furthermore, the colonists had a quasi divine authority to do as they pleased in the colonies this is portrayed by the conversation between the uncle and the nephew, which was overheard by Marlow, Certainly, grunted the other get him hanged Why not? Anythinganything can be done in this country. Thats what I say nobody here, you understand, here, can foil your position. And why? You stand the climateyou outlast them all. (p. 91) Here, they are talking close respite Kurtzs assistant and probably Kurtz himself, so that they can get Kurtzs possessions, including his ivory.Colonialism is also explored in other parts of the novella, where the reader can see just how unmercifully and brutally the natives are treated by the colonizers. When Marlow is on a long-neck clam with a Swedish captain, he describes how the natives, whom he sees on his way to the station, are existence exploited and treated as mere beasts. entirely the natives are represented as being naked and horribly thin they are never referred to as hum ans. They are forced to work under hard conditions, are given no clothes, and are left(p) to starve A continuous noise of the rapids above hovered over this scene of inhabited devastation. A lot of people, mostly b omit and naked, attaind about like ants. A jetty projected into the river. A blinding sunlight drowned all this at cartridge clips in a sudden recrudescence of glare. (p. 63) When Marlow finally arrives at the station, he sees yet another traumatizing scene,A slight clinking behind me prove me turn my head. Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walk of lifeed erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of soil on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected unitedly with a chain whose bights swung be tween them, rhythmically clinking but these men could by no stretch of vagary be called enemies. They were called criminals, and the umbrageous law, like the bursting shells, had come to them, an insoluble mystery from the sea. All their meagre breasts panted together, the violently dilated nostrils quivered, the eyes stared stonily uphill. They passed me within half a dozen inches, without a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of un elated savages. Behind this raw matter one of the reclaimed, the product of the new forces at work, strolled despondently, carrying a rifle by its middle. He had a uniform jacket with one button off. (p. 64)When reading this passage, one cannot wait on but wonder, how could these poor natives possibly be criminals? They do every single thing they are told to do, without the least bit of complaining and yet, they are called criminals. The words tails, collar, breasts panted, and dilated nostrils immediately bring to the mind the image of dogs. And of course, we should not provide the colonizer, who is right behind them with a rifle, making sure that these men walk in a file, without glancing at Marlow, and only staring stonily uphill. So not only are they compared to animals, but they are also evaluate to work like machinesThis is the main reason why Achebe does not choose Heart of Darkness, it is because he does not like the way African people are portrayed in it. Chinua Achebe, a Nigerian poet and novelist, was attracted to Conrads Heart of Darkness as a child. However, in the 1970s, he changed his mind about it and until today, he continues to dismiss the novel. In his essay on Conrads novel, Achebe attempts to explain why. He says that what Conrad is awful worried about is the idea of affinity between him and the blacks, which is why he dehumanizes them. Contrasting with this is Edward Saids opinion that Conrad is exaggerating the imperialistic and the dehumanizing discrepancies so that we, as readers, ar e outraged at its injustice and therefore work out solutions for ourselves. In other words, Heart of Darkness is, according to Said, a self-referential novel. But still, Achebe has a salutary point in saying that Conrad has dehumanized the Africans because Conrad seems to be obsessed with the words black and darkness since he associates them with the Africans and uses these words numerous times passim his novel.Convincingly Achebe believes that the most revealing passages in the novel are about people. He says that the following quote contains the meaning of Heart of Darkness, but what stir you was just the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was pitiable enough If only the thought was thrilling, then what would knowing do to us? It is this remote kinship that seems to terrorize Conrad and is implied without the novel several times.However, his passages about the natives or savages, as Conrad refers to them, seem a mere descripti on of what they are and what they are going to do. His soulfulnessal sentiments are never revealed. But the expression he chooses and the way he describes the Africans force the reader to sympathize with them. However, there are parts in the novel where we can infer that Conrad, although not showing sympathy towards the savages, cannot bear lifeing at them. For example, when he sees the six men tied to each other with chains around their necks, he says, My idea was to let that chain-gang get out of sight before I climbed the hill. And in another incident, he says, The hurt nigger moaned feebly someplace nearby, and then fetched a deep sigh that made me mend my measure out-of-door from there. Clearly, he was not strong enough to neither hear nor see these savages being treated mercilessly.When Marlow arrives at the Central Station, he witnesses more of these atrocities towards the niggers. The manager of the station is apparently an uncivilized person who is there only because he hasnt been ill, as Marlow tells us, He had no genius for organizing, for initiative, or for order unconstipated. That was evident in such things as the deplorable state of the station. He had no learning, and no intelligence. His position had come to himwhy? Perhaps because he was never ill . . . He had served three terms of three long time out thereHe was neither civil nor uncivil. He was quiet. He allowed his boyan overfed young negro from the coastto treat the white men, under his very eyes, with kindle insolence. (p. 74)One of Conrads greatest fears that is implied in the novel is the possibility of the whites having contradictory kinship with the blacks, and this is mentioned by Achebe. This explains why Marlow wasnt able to forget his African helmsmans look on his face just before he died, And the intimate profundity of that look he gave me when he received his hurt remains to this day in my memory like a claim of distant kinship substantiate in a supreme moment. Conra ds condole withful word choice of distant kinship rather than brother, for example, is cautiously observed by Achebe. He understands that Conrad is trying, as much as possible, to create layers between himself and the natives. Also, the words remains to this day in my memory, are understood by Achebe as a controvert connotation, as if this memory continues to torture him to this very day. Achebe concludes from this that Conrad is a racist.Moreover, Achebe states that Conrad has dehumanized Africans. But I do not agree with him on this point. My evidence to this can be seen in this quote, when Marlow who can be considered Conrads mouthpiece at this interpreter says, The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. We can infer from this quote that Conrad was real against the idea of Africans being treated the way they were. Als o, according to Edward Said, Conrad, being a creature of his time, could not grant the natives their freedom, despite his severe revaluation of the imperialism that enslaved them. In other words, Conrad was against this imperialism and he criticized it as well, but the era that he lived in made it impossible for him to do anything about it. In my opinion, it might be that Conrad never meant to dehumanize the Africans it might be that the experience he was going through during his stay in Africa was so overwhelming to him that he could not or was not able to reveal his sympathy. Maybe he did not want to reveal anything at all in order to emphasize it being a part of its darkness. After all, it is Conrad himself who chose to economise his novel in an ambiguous and subtle way which leaves the reader with puzzled thoughts about what exactly Conrad is trying to say. Almost everything in Heart of Darkness seems everything is not is.In conclusion, as we can see, examples of colonial acts are displayed throughout Heart of Darkness. Colonists take over the wilderness and practice exploitation only to incur ivory. But at the same, the colonists actions are purposeless, such as when they order the natives to aimlessly blast the railway when there is actually nonentity to blast. This brings about the sorrow of their exploitation and civilizing mission.Works citedConrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. London J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd, 1967Achebe, Chinua. An Image of Africa racial discrimination in Conrads Heart of Darkness Massachusetts Review. 18. 1977. Rpt. in Heart of Darkness, An Authoritative Text, soil and Sources Criticism. 1961. 3rd ed. Ed. Robert Kimbrough, London W. W Norton and Co., 1988, pp.251-261http//kirbyk.net/hod/image.of.africa.htmlSaid, Edward. Two Visions in Heart of Darkness Culture and Imperialism, (1993) pp. 22-31http//www.ecfs.org/Projects/EastWest/Readings/SaidConrad.pdfFeminism in To the LighthouseMrs. Ramsay vs. Lily BriscoeDuring Virginia Woolfs time, women were deprived of numerous rights which men had access to, including fostering. Women were only expected to get wed, give stick out to children, tin them, and take cathexis of the household. However, towards the end of the 19th century, a series of womens rightist movements began, whose concern was to give equality to women in terms of education, employment, and marriage laws. These movements are known as the three waves of feminism. The First Wave occurred in the late 19th century and ended in the early 20th century, during Woolfs time its primary gains were to acquire the right to vote and the right to practice birth control. Virginia Woolf, among other female writers, had to fight for her rights as a woman. In the novel, To the Lighthouse, Woolf presents two female characters, Mrs. Ramsay and Lily Briscoe, as complete opposites. Mrs. Ramsay is depicted as a instrumental overnice woman, whose main mission is not only to take care of her family, but also of othe rs around her. This was very typical of overnice women, who basically spent their time at home, making sure that everything was tidy and fine. However, Lily Briscoe on the other hand, is the total opposite of Mrs. Ramsay. The detail that she achieves her vision and completes her picture at the end of the novel is because she has asserted her rights as an independent individual and has jilted Victorian morality.Throughout the novel, it is clearly understood that Mrs. Ramsay is an uneducated woman. Her lack of education is presented in several quotes What did it all mean? To this day she had no notion. A square root? What was that? Her sons knew. (p. 123) Woolfs deliberate use of sons instead of sons and daughters or children is to show that Mrs. Ramsays daughters, just like Mrs. Ramsay herself, are uneducated. Her husband spoke. He was repeating something, and she knew it was song from the rhythm and the ring of exaltation and melancholy in his constituent. (p. 129) This again s hows her lack of education, for she recognizes that her husband is speaking poetry because of the rhythm and tone, not because she knows the poet Charles Elton. thus far while reading a book, she has no notion of what she is reading, for she feels that she is climbing backwards, upwards, shoving her way up under petals that curved over her, so that she only knew that this is white, or this is red. She did not know at first what the words meant at all. (p. 139) Also, when Charles Tansley talks to her about his dissertation, she is not able to quite catch the meaning, only the words, here and there dissertation fellowship readership lectureship. She could not follow the ugly academic jargon. (p. 13) Although this whitethorn seem exaggerated, it was very true of the condition of women during that time. Women being uneducated was a privilege to men for this gave them superiority and complete control over women. dapple looking at his wife reading, Mr. Ramsay wondered what she was readi ng and exaggerated her ignorance, her simplicity, for he desire to think that she was not clever, not book-learned at all. He wondered if she understood what she was reading. in all likelihood not, he thought. She was astonishingly beautiful. (p. 141) Not only does he seem to be intimate that his wife is uneducated, but he also mocks at her for not being able to understand what she is reading. The only thing that he praises about her is her beauty.In his critical essay, John Hardy presents the metaphor of Mrs. Ramsay as a queen. He claims that she is constantly queen like during dinner party while sitting at the head of the table, she carefully observes, one by one, each and every person sitting round the table. Hardy furthermore says that Mrs. Ramsay is enabled to triumph over her husband, because during dinner and even afterwards when dinner is over, she is able to read his mind. These two qualities, again, gain the female, i.e. Mrs. Ramsay, over the male, i.e. Mr. Ramsay.Howe ver, although being uneducated, Mrs. Ramsay seems to have supernatural powers, such as having premonitions and plaster cast spells. They must come now, Mrs. Ramsay thought, looking at the door, and at that instant, Minta Doyle, capital of Minnesota Rayley, and a maid carrying a great dish in her hands came in together. (p. 114) Always she got her own way in the end, Lily thought She put a spell on them all, by wishing, so simply, so directly. (p. 118) These are powers that no(prenominal) of the male characters in the novel have in fact they do not even seem to understand such things. Woolf, by with child(p) Mrs. Ramsay such powers, has elevated the female figure to a higher status. pull up stakes you not tell me just for once that you love me? But she could not do it she could not say it For she had triumphed again. (p. 144) Mrs. Ramsay, by not saying the thing that her husband very desperately wants her to say, has triumphed over him. correspond to John Hardy, in this scene, w hat may seem to us as Mrs. Ramsays surrendering to her husband is in fact the inverse. By admitting that he was right and that they would not be able to go to the radio beacon, she has surrendered to her husband. But because, while doing so, she has lost her self, i.e. her personality as a Victorian woman, the surrender becomes a triumph. In other words, her being able to say that she was wrong places her, Hardy says, on another and higher plane which is undoubtedly right. Hardy, furthermore, views Lilys final painting of Mrs. Ramsay as an admiration of her, in triumph over her husband.Even more important than her powers and intuitions is the fact that she not only takes care of her family, but also of others around her, as we learn that she knits a stocking for the lighthouse keepers ill boy. (p. 5) It is Mrs. Ramsay who prepares dinner for her entire family as well as the guests and tries her best, during dinner, to make sure everything goes fine. This again is another character istic of a typical Victorian woman. After all, it was not knowledge but unity that she desired. (p. 59)Interestingly, Hardy argues it is Mrs. Ramsay who holds everything together and hence is the central figure of the novel. After all, it is only after Mrs. Ramsays death that the characters feel an unbearable silence with undertones of panic. Since Mrs. Ramsay is gone, her power has also gone. Moreover, we are left with the thought that if it wasnt for her, there never would have been a trip to the lighthouse. And Lily too, is able to complete her painting only after Mrs. Ramsays death. Berenice A. Carroll, however, in her essay, To Crush him in our own Country, has opposed this view. According to her, it is Lily who is the heroine of the novel. But the fact that she is persistently associated with being little and insignificant and also that she paints as she sees, not as the ascendent artist of the time makes her anti-heroine.By creating the character of Lily Briscoe, Woolf prese nts the absolute opposite of Mrs. Ramsay. Although confront by many obstacles, namely Charles Tansley, who tells her women cant paint, women cant write (p. 56) and whose voice seems to haunt her for the rest of her life, Lily Briscoe overcomes them and succeeds in asserting her rights and achieving her vision. It is this exact thing that has surprise many readers in the Modernist Era a woman breaking away from Victorian beliefs and customs. Every time Lily hears Charles words women cant paint, women cant write (pp. 100, 106, 183, 184, 228) in her head, she is greatly disturbed and struggles, yet does not give up. by from saying that women can neither paint nor write, Charles also believes that It was the womens fault. Women mad civilization impossible with all their charm, all their silliness. (p. 99) Women, according to him, are charming and silly, nothing more.Yet, what is ironic is that while everybody is having dinner together, it is Lily who comes to Charles rescue after he goes through great pains in order to state his opinions. Lily Briscoe knew all that. sit down opposite him could she not see, as in an X-ray photograph, the ribs and thigh grind away of the young mans desire to impress himself lying dark in the mist of his flesh that thin mist which convention had laid over his fervent desire to break into the conversation? But she thought, screwing up her Chinese eyes, and remembering how he sneered at women, cant paint, cant write, why should I help him to relieve himself? (pp. 105-106) Lily can very clearly see that Charles is poor for not being able to join the conversation, yet she does not help and enjoys watching, rather she sits there smiling. Of course for the hundred and fiftieth time Lily Briscoe had to reconcile the experiment what happens if one is not nice to that young man there and be nice. (p. 107) It is only after Mrs. Ramsays request that Lily finally helps Charles and he is relieved. Again, it is women who seem more powe rful than men and come to the rescue.Mrs. Ramsay also functions as a match maker in the novel. In fact, this is the only thing she seems to be thinking of most of the time. She was driven on, too quickly she knew, almost as if it were an escape for her too, to say that people must espouse people must have children. (p. 70) Mrs. Ramsays belief that people must get matrimonial actually seems to come out of her spontaneously. The word driven shows that she cannot help but think this way. Of Paul and Minta, Mrs. Ramsay keeps insisting that they must marry. (p. 57) In fact, Paul is driven to purpose to Minta because of Mrs. Ramsays ceaseless insistence. (p. 136) This shows that Mrs. Ramsay is only concerned with making the match, but completely preoccupied of its outcomes, as what happens to Paul and Minta. This is exactly why Hardy argues that Mrs. Ramsay is a great egotist the fact that she matches up couples and arranges walks for them by the beach but at the same time is irresp onsible of their outcomes does in truth show her as egotistical.Ah, but was not that Lily Briscoe strolling along with William Bankes? Yes, indeed it was. Did that not mean that they would marry? Yes, it must What an admirable idea They must marry (p. 83) Another clear instance where we see Mrs. Ramsay being obsessed with matching up people for them to get married. However, Lily is the only woman in the novel to assert her liberty as an individual. By doing this, she becomes Mrs. Ramsays foil. Lily, in fact looks at marriage, as degradation and dilution. She need not marry, thank Heaven she need not bear that degradation. She was saved from that dilution. (p. 119) In his essay, Hardy points out that Lily goes as far as to describe Mrs. Ramsays matchmaking mission as mania of hers for marriage. After ten years, when Lily does in fact not get married, she feels she has triumphed over Mrs. Ramsay. (p. 202) I must move the tree to the middle that matters nothing else. (p. 100) For Li ly, her art is more important to her than anything else, including marriage. Even while having dinner, while everybody is engaged in conversation, all Lily can think about is how to improve her painting. During Woolfs time, it was very difficult for women to get educated and even if they were educated secretly, it was difficult for them to publish their writing. Therefore, they had to hide their work and Woolf shows this in her novel through the character of Lily. She kept a feeler of her surroundings lest soulfulness should creep up, and suddenly she should find her picture looked at. (p. 20) and so to clasp some miserable remnant of her vision to her breast, which a thousand forces did their best to range from her. (p. 22) These two parts are where Virginia Woolf has very skillfully portrayed the barrier women had to go through in order to do what men could without cladding any hardships.Mrs. Ramsays daughters, in a sense, resemble Lily, though not completely, in that they too dream of a life, where they do not always have to take care of some man or other. (p. 7) However, this is not what Mrs. Ramsay believes. During dinner, she looks at Prue, her eldest daughter who is watching Minta, and says to herself, You will be as happy as she is one of these days. You will be much happier, she added, because you are my daughter, (p. 128) referring that she will get married.Mrs. Ramsay believes that women, only through marriage, will find true happiness. According to her, an unmarried woman has missed the best of life. (p. 58) Ironically, those who do get married in the novel end up in a sad life. After Paul and Mintas marriage, not even a year passes and Paul leaves Minta for another woman. As for Prue Ramsay, she dies in childbirth. Even Mrs. Ramsay dies. It is as if these women are taught a lesson for following Victorian conventions.Lily, on the other hand, does not get married and is rewarded by being able to complete her painting that she had started ten ye ars ago. Hardy points out that Woolf has deliberately chosen to end her novel with Lily and her painting, nothing else. We never get to know about the work of Augustus Carmichael, the only other artist in the novel. This again, is done intentionally by Woolf, her purpose was to honour Lilys, and in turn the females work over that of the male.