Was Conrad a racist?
Happy ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online readers have voted for and are currently discussing Conrad's novella in the online book club. There's also a free electronic edition available there. I re-watched Apocalyse Now the other evening -- with, as everybody knows, a script by John Milius based on Heart of Darkness. But what would Orson Welles's version have been like had he ever completed it?
It's particularly appropriate that we should be talking about Heart of Darkness in the lead-up to the commemoration of Wilberforce's role in ending the transatlantic slave trade. Conrad's portrayal of Africans has been challenged by some recent scholars as "racist", much to the chagrin of others. The arguments either side of that question are subtle in places and worth examining. I see that some contributors to the online book club are exploring the debate even as I write.
On a related note, the New York City Council voted yesterday to ban the "n-word" from public speech. The story of how that motion was devised is . The new measure has pleased anti-racist campaign groups and angered some black commentators.
I've no idea how the council plans to apply this new speech "law" but I expect that Barack Obama is not looking forward to answering questions about it. Whether he supports or opposes the measure, he'll alienate some black and white voters; if he resists giving an answer to the question, he could look unpresidentially shifty.
Comments
"On a related note, the New York City Council voted yesterday to ban the "n-word" from public speech....The new measure has pleased some anti-racist campaign groups and angered some black commentators."
I was in the subway and much to my horror, behind my back and out of my sight, I heard a constant stream of conversation using the 'n' word and people being referred to as 'n....rs'. As the train stopped the conversation followed me on to the platform and I turned around expecting to see a couple of white racist guys who were putting themselves in extreme danger. To my complete surprise they were young afro-american teenagers in which every other word appeared to be 's..t', 'f..k', and 'n...r'.
The New York City Council is living in a dream state with this resolution.
Regards,
Michael
I don't like the word - I don't use it - I don't want to hear it. But how do you ban a word - and while this is a nasty little word, is it the worst?
Can you ban a collection of words? Perhaps a collection which includes nouns and verbs, adjectives and adverbs?
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ wouldn't like it much, but wouldn't it be interesting to list a whole lot of words we don't like and would like to ban. I'll start with "work".
Conrad looked more deeply into the human heart and human motivation than many others but he shared the dominant racial views of his time. In the period from 1880 to 1920, these views could be vey pronounced. In his fiction Conrad gave expression to the idea that some races are more or less fixed in their development, a view time has disproved. For all that he is a fascinating writer.
The NYC city council is off its rocker. Banning the use of a word will not prevent speech expressing hatred based on racial prejudice or the hatred itself and it couldn't be enforced even if it would. On the other hand, the use of the word even in context does not necessarily express racial hatred. Should the NYC public libraries ban Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, (a very important book in the history of American literature) because the word nigger is used extensively as the novel is written in the vernacular contemporary of the time an place the story was about? Should the word be expunged from the book diluting its literary power because it offends some people? No, the US Constitution will not allow it and the Supreme Court will back up freedom of speech as a necessary component of democracy even overturning lower court rulings if it has to. Not only that, if the book is protected by copywrite, nobody but the author has the right to publish an edited version. The Supreme Court rarely infringes on this right knowing that free speech needs the strongest legal defense when it is most reprehensible. There are few exceptions and those have to constitute a clear and present danger to the public's safety. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't advocate the violent overthrow of the United States government, and you cannot publicly reveal military secrets. Even this last ruling is rarely enforced.
One thing should be kept in mind when talking about the history of the abolition of slavery, while Britain abolished slavery in 1833 but the US did not abolish it in every state until 1863, during the American Civil War, Britain sided with the Confederacy and their rebel slaveholders. Why? Nations don't have friends, they have interests and at that time it was in Britain's interest as they perceived it to keep the US divided and weak. How fortunate for them in the following century that the side they backed was the losing side.