Originally Posted by
Matt Montopoli
If Heart of Darkness is considered racist, then what should be said of all other novels that provide a critical analysis of a people or area? Conrad simply describes the treatment of the Congolese, and accepts what was being done, as was the custom in 1899, when the novel was published. If anything, the crux of the book is found in his critical analysis of Colonialism and how the white Belgians are the culprit for the Darkness in the title. Everywhere you see, he describes the Congolese as humble and pure, 'prehistoric' if one of the older posts on this thread is correct.
If someone immediately deems the novel faulty because Conrad portrayed the blacks in Africa as they were and that they were mistreated, then what the hell is the point? His aim was to present Europe with a true portrayal of Colonialism (and also the effects of lawless society and thusly the expression of every man's unconscious, but that's for another time). And just because he uses 'nigger' in the novel does not make him racist, although of course now, when we have numerous ignorant champions of equality storming the internet and there is an African-American President, that is not suitable, but back then, it was a name used by Americans and Europeans. But it is only a name.
If Conrad's real intent was to present the blacks as the wild savages all European society had pictured, and only THEN succumbed to racism, he would have, because he was a competent writer, but he didn't focus his critical eye on that. He turned on Colonialism and the whites, which raises another question: Was he racist towards whites due to how they treated the Congolese?
(And if your answer is yes, then my next question is: Really?)