Conrad is more concerned with the propaganda” of imperialist ideology “lying than the bloody oppression happening in the Congo. Conrad did not witness all of the atrocities, and actually read second-hand accounts on most of them. Conrad is more concerned with destroying the sounding rhetoric” and “high ambitions” of Imperialism. The evidence shows a Conrad, who still “sordid sees the Congolese as something less than human, such as his parallels between the Congolese and horses, or his line from Inheritors” about the “The Dimensionists treating Europeans as ourselves treat inferior races,” “us”/ “we indicating a focus more on the actions of European imperialists than on the effects of these actions on the colonized people. §II: Patrick Brantlinger argues that Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is an attack on imperialism. Conrad portrays the negative features of imperialism by showing European motives to be, better than African fetishism and savagery.” “…no (311) While there are critics who condemn Conrad’s writing as anti-imperialistic with unconscious employment of racist terminology, Brantlinger comes to his defense and argues that Conrad uses racist terminology in a very calculated way in order to show, complex web of contradictory political and moral values.” “…a (312) PB doesn’t argue that HoD is an attack on imperialism—he says he understands why some people think it is. Point about fetishism and “African savagery” is lost in summary. And PB has a lot more to say about this web of contradictory political and moral values” than is indicated “complex here. §III: Section 3 acts as a volta. Conrad uses a genre which is racist, and that leads to it being read as a racist text. Difficult to judge, because it’s hard to locate meaning because concrete meaning has been skewed by the abstract language of the novel. In looking at contradictions within the text, you must note that it is structured to criticize the genre and conventions it is already a part of. But it is intentionally structured, as a means of us (the readers) seeing these contradictions, and so forth deconstructing the underlying forms of imperialism.
Conrad is more concerned with the “lying propaganda” of imperialist ideology than the bloody oppression happening in the Congo. Conrad did not witness all of the atrocities, and actually read second-hand accounts on most of them. Conrad is more concerned with destroying the “high sounding rhetoric” and “sordid ambitions” of Imperialism. The evidence shows a Conrad, who still sees the Congolese as something less than human, such as his parallels between the Congolese and horses, or his line from “The Inheritors” about the Dimensionists treating “us”/ Europeans as “we ourselves treat inferior races,” indicating a focus more on the actions of European imperialists than on the effects of these actions on the colonized people. §II: Patrick Brantlinger argues that Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is an attack on imperialism. Conrad portrays the negative features of imperialism by showing European motives to be, “…no better than African fetishism and savagery.” (311) While there are critics who condemn Conrad’s writing as anti-imperialistic with unconscious employment of racist terminology, Brantlinger comes to his defense and argues that Conrad uses racist terminology in a very calculated way in order to show, “…a complex web of contradictory political and moral values.” (312) PB doesn’t argue that HoD is an attack on imperialism—he says he understands why some people think it is. Point about “African fetishism and savagery” is lost in summary. And PB has a lot more to say about this “complex web of contradictory political and moral values” than is indicated here. §III: Section 3 acts as a volta. Conrad uses a genre which is racist, and that leads to it being read as a racist text. Difficult to judge, because it’s hard to locate meaning because concrete meaning has been skewed by the abstract language of the novel. In looking at contradictions within the text, you must note that it is structured to criticize the genre and conventions it is already a part of. But it is intentionally structured, as a means of us (the readers) seeing these contradictions, and so forth deconstructing the underlying forms of imperialism.
brantlingersectionsummaries2.docx