Blogs
Patriotism vs. Imperialism
British Empire “They were no colonists; and their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force—nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others... The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only (69-70).” This passage serves to portray Marlow’s steadfast critique of Britain’s colonialism, which contrasts strongly against the opinions of the rest of the men, who were proud of the fact that their country ruled over much of Earth. Marlow basically explains that Britain’s imperialistic nature is both obnoxious and cruel, for it simply is a play benefitting off of Britain’s luck, as well as the weakness of others. While the idea of colonizing people whom they believe to be “savage” seems wholesome and perhaps even helpful, Marlow suggests that, in reality, the act is quite terrible and unwarranted. Marlow’s crewmates, however, are so disenchanted by Marlow’s point of view that they barely listen. The other men do not even grunt in protest of Marlow, but seem to simply tune out and offer no response whatsoever. Interestingly, this shows that the basic attitude of the British Empire at the time was to ignore any criticisms; the British were so sure of their superiority that anything or anyone begging to differ was not worth their time. Overall, much of this book has to deal with the idea of patriotism, and if the love for ones country or “place” is so strong that we believe our “place” to be better than others. Marlow understands, even at a time during which anti-colonialism seems ungodly, that it is unfair for one country to take the privilege of conquering another. Because Marlow’s thoughts went against the norm of his time, he was exploring mentally, while other men simply explored geographically. Because much of the book was a portrayal of these men and their thoughts, rather than the act of colonizing, the story was more about intellectual travel than physical. Although Conrad makes Marlow out to seem a little silly, he seems to side with his open-mindedness toward change in opposition to the perhaps overly patriotic crewmates.


But he notes that the desire
But he notes that the desire to "conquest the earth" and thus that their actions are "redeemed!" Does Marlow show any love for his fellow man in the Congo? He gives us this difference, but still calls the people savages. He may be a little wishy-washy, but I think in the end Marlow is just as with the others as any. Achebe points out an important observation of this in his essay, "An Image of Africa," in which he notes Conrad's use of language to describe the death of Marlow's African crewmember: "And the intimate profundity of that look he gave me when he received his hurt remains to this day in my memory—like a claim of distant kinship affirmed in a supreme moment." A claim of distant kinship that the African makes to Marlow, which Marlow rejects. I didn't notice this at all during my reading, in fact I probably thought that Marlow felt kinship (although "distant") to the African - but Achebe and others are constant reminders of how close we have to read to really pinpoint what Conrad says... I have to argue that even if the story itself doesn't focus on the act of colonization, Heart of Darkness really is about colonizing, and Marlow as well as his crew act with an established and clear hierarchial mentalities.