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.