Ah, the double edged sword of getting to choose what to write about and having to choose something to write about. Today, after our invigorating discussion in class, I have decided to blog about how the missionaries were allowed into the village of Umuofia, and how their arrival affected the tribe.
Well, first of all, I think we pretty much established that there is a distinct reason that the missionaries had common English names (Reverend James Smith and Brown). The actual characters don't matter as much what they represent, which is a collective whole of missionaries. But their characters do serve a purpose, which is to remind the reader of the different approaches to "colonizing" the far reaches of Africa. Brown had a compromising and accommodating way of interacting with the villagers (Achebe 104), and even tried to warn them that if they didn't educate themselves in the way of the Christians now, then it would be forced upon them later on by a stronger power (Achebe 102-3). Smith was the polar opposite, and it seems that his ways are more closely represented by his government rather than his God.
The arrival of the Christian missionaries brought strife and brokenness to the tribe, hence the theme of "Things Fall Apart." The tribe was divided: those who weren't accepted by the "normal" villagers were welcomed with open arms by the "Other," (Achebe 87,90) and even some of those who had grown up conventionally within the tribe chose to convert (Achebe 87-89). This is a huge truth that Okonkwo struggles with throughout his exile and eventual return to his tribe. He feels that the people are weak and cowardly, unwilling to fight for their dying culture. This conflict indeed ends up being the very turmoil that leads him to take his own life, resulting in the consequence of not being able to be buried by his fellow tribesmen in the respectful fashion that is normally due- the same fate he now shares with his father (Achebe 117).
The role of the Christian missionaries is the very theme which we must recognize- that outside influences can and will strip down and destroy cultures if we are not wary and interested in preserving certain valuable aspects of a people. If we do choose to help the advancement of others in need, we must respect the core values that are already set in place.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
To Read or Not to Read? Should it Even be a Question?
We have been posed one of the most frequently asked questions in the literary world: should we, or should we not read Heart of Darkness? Well, normally I wouldn’t have an opinion, because, as Miller says in his essay, “it is impossible to decide authoritatively whether or not we should read ‘Heart of Darkness’” (463). Cool. So when you read that, you realize it’s ok to be neutral, and that the world really is rainbow chip frosting and friendly pandas.
But wait! Miller says in the end that we should read Heart of Darkness! He even says that we have “an obligation to do so” (474). So, I don’t know if you just happen to be like me and hate it when people tell you what to do, but I for sure fit into that category 100%. But it’s all for naught, I change my mind in the end because----- I think Miller is onto something here. (This is my way of still making the choice to read instead of following orders.)
I think that all students of literature do have an obligation, in a way, to read Heart of Darkness. Not only is it obvious that a lot of other really smart and well educated individuals have read it and wrote about it, but there is a TON of value in reading a semi-autobiographical work. Why is this, you may ask? Because you get to learn the “firsthand” experience of someone on the cusp of the 20th century who went to a then unknown region of the expansive globe and was surrounded by inhabitants who were of mysterious origin and “uncivilized” culture and way of life, that’s why. This information is valuable not only to the people of the time it was written, but especially to us of the modern generations because we need to understand the views of the past in order to change the future.
If we had never evolved into a society that finally recognized black people as equal, who knows what the disturbed writings of Conrad would have become over time- maybe nothing. One of the huge reasons Conrad’s work is so famous is because of its controversy. If people hadn’t heard that Conrad were calling negroes savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, etc., then they wouldn’t have been angry or disgusted enough to make a stand and argue against him. If we hadn’t heard of his experiences of regarding the slaves as “less valuable animals,”(33) or traveled through the Congo to Kurtz’s house to find a bunch of negro heads on sticks (58), no one might have ever been enraged to the point of standing in front of a court house to fight in the defense of those oppressed by racial segregation.
It is because of this greater good that I believe we should all read Heart of Darkness. Especially if it’s on the required list of material for one of your classes.
But wait! Miller says in the end that we should read Heart of Darkness! He even says that we have “an obligation to do so” (474). So, I don’t know if you just happen to be like me and hate it when people tell you what to do, but I for sure fit into that category 100%. But it’s all for naught, I change my mind in the end because----- I think Miller is onto something here. (This is my way of still making the choice to read instead of following orders.)
I think that all students of literature do have an obligation, in a way, to read Heart of Darkness. Not only is it obvious that a lot of other really smart and well educated individuals have read it and wrote about it, but there is a TON of value in reading a semi-autobiographical work. Why is this, you may ask? Because you get to learn the “firsthand” experience of someone on the cusp of the 20th century who went to a then unknown region of the expansive globe and was surrounded by inhabitants who were of mysterious origin and “uncivilized” culture and way of life, that’s why. This information is valuable not only to the people of the time it was written, but especially to us of the modern generations because we need to understand the views of the past in order to change the future.
If we had never evolved into a society that finally recognized black people as equal, who knows what the disturbed writings of Conrad would have become over time- maybe nothing. One of the huge reasons Conrad’s work is so famous is because of its controversy. If people hadn’t heard that Conrad were calling negroes savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, etc., then they wouldn’t have been angry or disgusted enough to make a stand and argue against him. If we hadn’t heard of his experiences of regarding the slaves as “less valuable animals,”(33) or traveled through the Congo to Kurtz’s house to find a bunch of negro heads on sticks (58), no one might have ever been enraged to the point of standing in front of a court house to fight in the defense of those oppressed by racial segregation.
It is because of this greater good that I believe we should all read Heart of Darkness. Especially if it’s on the required list of material for one of your classes.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Heart of Darkness+ Benjamin Kidd= A Yummy Heather Commentary Sandwhich
Ok, so I read the Benjamin Kidd piece entitled "Social Progress and the Rivalry of the Races," and basically all Benny was trying to say is that rivalry is a natural part of any species existence, and that is always has and always will be. I think the point in him even saying this at all is so that all of those hippies who protest against war and potheads who believe in free love would at least be informed that the strong were always going to pick on the weak, and there was nothing, not any treaty or cross-cultural marriage, will ever change that. As hard as people try, they are inherently competitive and will remain so until the end of time.
I think that after making such a bold statement about human tendencies and way of life Kidd was a little afraid of the repercussions of saying that all humans are animals, waiting for their next time to feed and become even stronger. So then he threw in the idea that conflict is the first condition of progress (230). Whoa. That brings a whole new perspective to the world's way of thinking. He's saying that there is a purpose to the fighting and conquering and dividing and exterminating. It is simply a means to an end- a road that must be followed on the everlasting journey to societal progression. One must fight in order to make the world a better place. . . . ?
So how does this all relate to the long-winded tale of pirates and slaves that is "Heart of Darkness?" Well, pretty much the entire work was published so that Joseph Conrad might enlighten the people of the new 20th century of all the good that the white people were doing down in Africa, that they were making excellent progress to humanizing the unhumans, and that they were getting very rich in the name of their homeland. Sound fun, however this is that part of progress that isn't actually gummy bears and Saturday morning cartoons. This book was all about the fighting and the blood of many barbarian cannibals, where the lollipops turned out to be heads on sticks. If all of their journey was meant to bring about progress, I suppose that progress is what it could be called-- but for who? Not the bloodthirsty savages that cried out from their fair or unfair chastising and whooping from their triumphant rebellious kills when they attacked the steamer. No no, their story did not end well at all.
In the text "Heart of darkness," Marlow clearly explains to his listeners that "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea that at the back of it, not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea- something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . ." (pg. 7). An unselfish belief in the idea. To conquer a piece of the world that wasn't yours, but in the interest of progress, must become so.
Kidd made an extremely interesting point when he stated "Rivalry too, not chiefly conducted between different species but between members of the same species" was an obvious but true statement, but the question that millions streched across the destroyed and bloody earth have asked: why?
Why must humans continue to destroy one another? Why do certain nationalities feel superiority simply because they haven't plawed the same earth and worshipped the same diety? Is it truly for the aim of progress? And if so, is this type of progression that human beings should feel proud of in the end? I do not believe that going to an unknown place and calling other members of our same species "savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, and excuse me, 'niggers,' " will ever be considered a true sign of globalized progress.
I think that after making such a bold statement about human tendencies and way of life Kidd was a little afraid of the repercussions of saying that all humans are animals, waiting for their next time to feed and become even stronger. So then he threw in the idea that conflict is the first condition of progress (230). Whoa. That brings a whole new perspective to the world's way of thinking. He's saying that there is a purpose to the fighting and conquering and dividing and exterminating. It is simply a means to an end- a road that must be followed on the everlasting journey to societal progression. One must fight in order to make the world a better place. . . . ?
So how does this all relate to the long-winded tale of pirates and slaves that is "Heart of Darkness?" Well, pretty much the entire work was published so that Joseph Conrad might enlighten the people of the new 20th century of all the good that the white people were doing down in Africa, that they were making excellent progress to humanizing the unhumans, and that they were getting very rich in the name of their homeland. Sound fun, however this is that part of progress that isn't actually gummy bears and Saturday morning cartoons. This book was all about the fighting and the blood of many barbarian cannibals, where the lollipops turned out to be heads on sticks. If all of their journey was meant to bring about progress, I suppose that progress is what it could be called-- but for who? Not the bloodthirsty savages that cried out from their fair or unfair chastising and whooping from their triumphant rebellious kills when they attacked the steamer. No no, their story did not end well at all.
In the text "Heart of darkness," Marlow clearly explains to his listeners that "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea that at the back of it, not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea- something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . ." (pg. 7). An unselfish belief in the idea. To conquer a piece of the world that wasn't yours, but in the interest of progress, must become so.
Kidd made an extremely interesting point when he stated "Rivalry too, not chiefly conducted between different species but between members of the same species" was an obvious but true statement, but the question that millions streched across the destroyed and bloody earth have asked: why?
Why must humans continue to destroy one another? Why do certain nationalities feel superiority simply because they haven't plawed the same earth and worshipped the same diety? Is it truly for the aim of progress? And if so, is this type of progression that human beings should feel proud of in the end? I do not believe that going to an unknown place and calling other members of our same species "savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, and excuse me, 'niggers,' " will ever be considered a true sign of globalized progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)