Acebe goes on the offensive in his article in attacking Conrad. He has an abundance of reasons as to why Conrads book is all wrong. But one of his reasons I found invalid. He mentions how when Conrad took his venture down the Congo, Achebe's father was still a baby. He goes on to say, he cannot believe anything in the book, unless he sees it with his own eyes. Yet there surely is a vast difference of the Africa then and the Africa when Achebe wrote the book. I'm not saying the what Conrad wrote is the way it was, but it is a possibility.