Conrad vs Achebe

Conrad has nothing to hide when it comes to his prejudice remarks about African people as we read and interpret his text. Africans bear a unique culture that may seem to be wild to western culture. But it is generally understood that Europeans and Africans are two exotic people to each other. Conrad is blind to see the rudimentary souls of the African people. Towards a western expectation they can be stuck in evolution, however they don’t aim to imperialize the western world. Someone might think that Conrad is not a racist when he states; - - [a black man] “A certain enormous buck nigger encountered in Haiti fixed my conception of blind, furious, unreasoning rage, as manifested in the human animal to the end of my days.” (42) - - [ a white man ] “In passing he cast a glance of kindly curiosity and a friendly gleam of big, sound, shiny teeth”. . . his white calves twinkled sturdily."(46). In this case that person might say that Conrad is utilizing a general description of an alien society as an identifier not exactly offending by saying “Nigger”.

Although in a larger society when Conrad mentions the word “Nigger” excessively it can be utterly insulting. In our understanding, Conrad can be seen as a prejudice person and in Achebe’s case ignorant when it comes to investigating a distant culture. Here is a clear cut interpretation of Conrad’s accusation to an African man where someone could say that Conrad is racist: “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.”(16)

Here’s one example of Conrad’s ignorance when he mentions African practice of cannibalism; “Catch 'im," he snapped with a bloodshot widening of his eyes and a flash of sharp teeth . . . "Eat 'im!" he said curtly. . . .”(26) How do we know that it is essentially a practice of cannibalism? It doesn’t have to be exactly cannibalism it could be something heroic. In African society, when a warrior defeats a superior warrior wouldn’t he want to eat a piece of the flesh from the superior one to attain the superior qualities. It is not used to consume the flesh to alternately treat hunger. Now . . . you might think this is total savagery and tabooed in western society. In Africa it can be part of their belief and practiced as a sacred ritual. You never know.

In Achebe’s interpretation of Marlow as Conrad’s Narrator behind a Narrator; “Marlow seems to me to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence” (29). I see here that Conrad can’t hide his true prejudices amongst the savages he describes through Marlow. Therefore, someone will have trouble trying to support that Conrad is not racist. Obviously, a critic could compare Albert Schweitzer, the generous doctor who accepted Africans as his kin and Conrad as two opposite Europeans who hold different views about this exotic culture. All in all we learn that Conrad is apathetic, narrow - minded, ignorant, and a bloody racist. Franz Boaz, the father of American Anthropology once said “There is no proof that people of African descent are inferior to whites”. Race is an unjust social hierarchy.