Lemburg 1 Russell Lemburg An Image of Chinua Achebe: The Claim of Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness Critic Roland Barthes has once said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” There is a central question within Heart of Darkness and it is arguably not the issue of class distinetion or race. More importantly, it is not a question about the true image of Afica, the rightful humanity of the black man, the ability of the African to speak language and reason, or as argued rather ineffectively and partially by an Aftican Literature teacher at the University of Massachusetts, the question of whether or not Joseph Conrad was a racist. It is about the voyage of man—literally and metaphorically—through the times of western colonization. It is about the figurative voyage through the darkness of man and the depravity of human nature when taken from its “proper place,” an argument rightly placed by Conrad which seems offensive to Achebe ‘who claims on more than one occasion that Conrad finds that things being in their place are of ‘utmost importance (Achebe, 3). This is definitely true within Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and other works, but it also provides a reasonably satirical apparatus to which Conrad describes the status quo of his own western empire as individuals who want things in their place for it benefits their height in the economy and in the world. Achebe centers on morality as his model for deconstructing Conrad’s work of art. He jaims that “because it depersonalizes a portion of the human race, it cannot be called a great work of art” (6), yet fails in his assertion of what racism is in context of the novella and also falls short of his attempt to adequately accuse Conrad of being a “thoroughgoing racist” byLemburg 2 associating him with Marlow through their similar occupations, It is, based upon a hundred years of careful inspection, still a work of art regardless of whether or not racism is an underlying theme or premise. Achebe, in introducing the great weight of his condemnation of the work, fails to define the layers of racism in society—namely, the cultural relativity that structured not only the thoughts of Conrad but the thoughts of almost any westerner at the time, and presents any r m in the novel in terms of a modern (so therefore more partial) viewpoint, True, it could have been “on ignorance” that Conrad appears racist, but that is not the point of the novella, nor does it change how the work should be viewed. It is not to understand the cultures or heritages or even humanity of the Aftican American; rather, it is to condemn the evil of imperial exploitation, describe the darkness and misery present within death, as well as peer into the most well articulated and developed images of a man who has been driven into complete and total “craven terror” through his position in society (Conrad, 139). Furthermore, without a rather tedious analysis and exposition of the novella specifically to search out racism as Achebe has done, one ‘Would easily miss any hints at racism or an impartial representation of Africa. Thus, one major claim of Achebe is at fault: Heart of Darkness does not influence a false image of Africa to what Achebe calls the “normal reader.” In contrast, it provides a greater criticism of western imperialism, If Conrad was racist—if he were the most consciously racist individual known to man— would it affect the outcome of the book or its position as a great work of art? Would it really help feed a false image of Africa or instill in the western mind a deformed and crude structure of mankind? To the uninformed, yes. However, to the individuals who seek to comprehend the great and sincere messages behind this work of art, it makes no difference what type of personLemburg 3 Conrad is or what similarities he shares with his creation of Marlow. The significance is within what Barthes would define as a possible answer to the central question: “what is within the true heart of man,” a question Conrad so perfectly represents: “The Horror! The Horror!” (139). It is a question that Conrad perfectly maps throughout the life of Kurtz—the “ivory face,” the “sombre pride,” the “ruthless power,” the “craven terror” which describe every aspect of the thoughts behind imperialism in a way that no other writer at the time could do—in a way that has survived for over a century. ‘What better way to begin an argument that Conrad is racist than by “walking through a parking lot,” hoping to draw from a “rather trivial encounter” in this parking lot many “rather heavy conclusions” about the nature of Conrad and his work as well as how it has influenced the views of Aftica as a nation, ‘The example Achebe uses in the introduction was designed to serve as an example of an older man, who fails to understand that African Literature, the subject which Achebe teaches, is present in Africa. Achebe implies this is due to his reading of Conrad. | am implying that it is due to missing the point of the novel entirely. Later, Achebe corrects his remark, saying that “ignorance might be a more likely reason,” although he uses this confrontation as the framework to call Conrad a “thoroughgoing racist.” Achebe first indicts Conrad on his “setup to foil Europe"(1), developing it into a great and superior nation which justifies itself by comparison to Africa, Rather, it is quite the opposite. The nation as described in Heart of Darkness is not holistically foiled—only the Congo River, which was commonly referred to as the heart of darkness because of its separation from man. Not only is Achebe's view here a generalization, it is incorrect. Even Afticans at the time feared the Congo due to its isolation, providing one of the main reasons more slave trade took place on the coasts than it did deep within the country. Achebe makes this statement out of