Confusion and Questions with Little to No Answers from Gerard Van Leuvan

There are a few questions I had to ask myself before I get to whether or not I believe Conrad is a "bloody racist." First, does the zeitgeist, the time, the era, and society's way of thinking have value in determining whether or not something is considered racist? Heart of Darkness was published a heck of a long time ago (1899), surely started to be written some time before that by a writer who was born and raised years prior to that even. So, does that give Conrad an excuse, if indeed I do find Heart of Darkness racist? Which, leads me to the question of whether or not it is fair to connect the author directly to the text. Namely, if Heart of Darkness is a racist text (again, if your of the opinion that it is racist) is Conrad himself then considered racist? Guilty by association?
I am of the opinion that connecting an author to a text is dangerous and unfair, but there is certainly a thin line. Whoever wrote it obviously thought it, which makes it hard to determine where the author and his words start and end. With this in mind, I think Darkness is "bloody racist," but I won't go as far as to say Conrad himself is the same. The problem that I have with my own assessment is that I never read Darkness in its entirety. I think with a longer look at the work I could have a more confident opinion on the subject.
Next, I see the problem in thinking about "the way of the times" as an excuse for racism, but it surely does have an influence. I think there is an argument for and against the idea that humanity has progressed over time: either we have "advanced" socially and no longer think as racist so a) Conrad has a built in excuse or, b) that means it always has been racism, we just weren't fully understanding of it yet. I think the zeitgeist plays a big role, especially in this case, but doesn't sway me away from the concrete nature of right and wrong concerning concepts like racism (at least not with Darkness specifically).
I watched a movie about the Civil War in a film class that contextually was one of the most racist things I'd ever seen. Basically, the KKK were the heroes of the film. But, artistically, the cinematic elements introduced were vital to the progression of film, and absolutely relevant to the class. The teacher asked us to write an essay that asked whether or not we as students felt the film should even be allowed to be shown anymore. Similar to Darkness, I believe that for "art's sake" both the film (which title I can't recall) and Darkness should be taken as works and context separately, exposing the subject matter, but not in relation to the writing (or cinematic element, etc.).
All this being said, you can't ignore Achebe's point of view, opinion, and disgust.
"Having shown us Africa in the mass, Conrad then zeros in, half a page later, on a specific example, giving us one of his rare descriptions of an African who is not just limbs or rolling eyes: And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam-gauge and at the water-gauge with an evident effort of intrepidity -- and he had filed his teeth too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns, and three ornamental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have been clapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he was hard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge.
As everybody knows, Conrad is a romantic on the side. He might not exactly admire savages clapping their hands and stamping their feet but they have at least the merit of being in their place, unlike this dog in a parody of breeches. For Conrad things being in their place is of the utmost importance. "Fine fellows -- cannibals --in their place," he tells us pointedly.
There isn't much argument I can make (not that I'm inclined to) against the line, "Fine fellows -- cannibals -- in their place" being racist. What is the biggest problem I probably have is whether or not it is fair to pin a line like that directly to Conrad.