Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

The Pros and Cons of the Uncivilized

In the era of colonization, the general ideals of the colonizing European countries were that "other" places (Africa, Central America, etc.) were either currently unfit for "civilized" life and therefore needed teaching to join their progressive world, or their ignorance must be exploited, giving Europe hassle free slave labor that the rest of the world was ignorant of or blinded by. Belgium in the Congo was no different but slightly unique. This government was oblivious to the torture because of the front that they were "civilizing" the "savages". This was where the rift formed between two worlds: the progressive and the underdeveloped. Marlo's and the narrator gives us an image for this division: the Thames vs the Congo. The Thames is the perfect example of expansion. Filled with merchant ships traveling between worlds with new goods and cultures, and surrounded by expanding buildings and business. And then there's the Congo. Jungle lining the banks, filled only with the native "savages", no growing skyscrapers or churches, government buildings or hospitals. To Belgium, and the rest of Europe, this means something needs to change. The people of the Congo cannot be left alone. They must either be immersed or exploited.

What to Do, What To Do?

Just in response to the article by The New York Times, I was very intrigued with what can an average person do to help/stop the exploitation of these Chinese workers. The specific instances the article listed were awful and it really made me want to help, but I have had a hard time coming up with a solution. I first thought of donating money to charities around the world for better quality of life because of instances like these. Although the money is going to great cause, it will never be enough to completely cure the world of exploitation like this and it, in a sense, reinforces our blindness to it all. We send money and then feel like we have contributed, so we again become blind again. While people may disagree with me, the example of the Haitian earthquake is perfect. There were millions of people who sent donations for relief help and each and every person felt like they contributed to a good deed, but the only reason we sent money was because of a natural disaster, when the country itself has been one of the poorest in the Americas for years. after quickly realizing donating money is futile, very relevant to HoD, I think that the best way to help, because we will never be able to fully stop exploitation is to incorporate laws and sanctions in the government that will restrict companies from exploiting workers in foreign countries. while this idea is farfetched and probably will not happen because our government is having a hard time just passing a bill that benefits our country and will be harder to pass one to help other countries, it was the best way to "help". while I know that we still will be blinded by other companies doing the same thing for other foreign companies, the fact that they will not be able to sell to the biggest economy in the world will force almost every company to rethink how to make products. USA is and will be the biggest consumer economy in the world because we will but anything that looks cool or something that our friends have, just to have it.

Do the Problems Presented by Achebe Have Solutions?

In class for the past few days we've been talking about Achebe and the problems of imperialism back then, and now as well. We still have our western psychology so we don't really see a problem with what our companies do in underdeveloped countries (even saying underdeveloped implies that we are more developed; it's Western psychology in action). But once we get past our psychology (if we can), we can see that these problems don't have any solution if we intend to keep our power and if neither cultures are willing to sacrifice some of what they want.

For instance, we outsource manufacturing jobs and have slave-like labor because people are willing to work in those conditions. That fact is simple economics (I'm not saying that I approve of the conditions, but these people are in fact willing to work in deplorable conditions because they have no other choice). If there were no people willing to work in poor conditions, companies wouldn't be able to have such conditions. But because of the lack of other options, people are forced to work in such conditions because they need to feed their families and themselves.

A solution to this problem could be seen as the western companies changing their ways. But once again, that solution is economically unviable; profits would be lost and although it is the best moral course of action, those in charge of companies often would rather keep profits than have a morally guided company. The other solution however is on the other side. Theoretically, if everyone in developing countries refused to work in such conditions, companies would be forced to elevate their conditions.

However, the second solution is even more unlikely than the first. People care first about their basic needs before other needs. The first solution is implausible because people are greedy.

Although it is important to discuss these problems, it's important to realise that there may not be solutions. I haven't given an all-encompasing list of possibilities above, but serious actions have to be taken after the dialogue raised by Achebe before we can create a more equal world.

That being said, I think it is important to talk about these issues.

Did Achebe Attack Conrad? Or Me?

As we were sitting in English discussing Achebe's analysis of Heart of Darkness, I thought it was interesting how so many of us, myself included, rose to defend Conrad against the claims of racism Achebe placed on his book. In a room of at least 85% white kids, we sat there saying Conrad did nothing wrong. Being white, most of the students in the class could physically identify with Conrad, the victimizer, more than Achebe, the victim. Granted, we have all probably experienced racism or prejudice in one form or another. But since when is it up to the accused to decided what should and should not offend other people?

Many of the defenses we made for Heart of Darkness were valid. The book does possess literary merit; covert racism was very likely not Conrad's main goal of the story, nor was he probably even thinking that way when he wrote it; and for the time period in which it was written, the novel seems like it should be considered progressive. But regardless, how is a room full of white kids supposed to argue that Achebe has no standing to be offended by it?

I think part of the reason most of us rose to Conrad's aid so quickly is that we took Achebe's claim of Conrad's racism to heart. Before reading the article, most of us ourselves did not notice many examples racism, and maybe naturally identified with the liberal message in Marlow's account - that imperialism is ultimately more destructive than progressive. But once we made the conscious decision to agree with Conrad's perspective, any attack on his writing felt almost like a personal attack on our own concept of race. 

Sure, I was uncomfortable when Marlow described the native African civilization as prehistoric and mystical, but I was quick to make excuses for it. Achebe's point is that Heart of Darkness is just one of popular literature's many examples of how European/Western psychology uses Africa as a foil for te West's pristine civilization. And somehow, I still find flaws in his argument. But I wonder if deeper down, my own literary analysis has been swayed more from the need to defend myself from the claim of racism I feel I was dealt, than from a purely objective reading. 

Conrad's Dark Heart of Racism

The reason it is so easy to ignore Conrad's blatant racism is because the book can be approached form two angles. Approach it from an anti-imperialist standpoint, & that's all you'll see. You'll see a benevolent, confused European man who doesn't quite now what to make of a foreign people and the land around him. You'll also see your typical sexist. Read it with a larger scope, & you'll notice a couple of things.

On a large level, Europe is taking agency away from Africans and forcing them to destroy their own land harvesting materials for the imperialists. They are captured, chained, and used. On a smaller scale, Conrad, through Marlow, is also taking agency away from the individual Africans he encounters, and as Achebe puts it, reduces them to little more than "rolling eyes and limbs." The people are given very few "human" attributes, never uttering more than a grunt here & there as far as Marlow is concerned. If anyone knows anything about Africa, different countries within the continent obviously speak many different languages, and not recognizing the sounds that come out of theirs mouths as such is ignorance if I've ever seen it. 

Sure, sure, Conrad can be a man of his time, but that's no excuse. Men of his time were definitely racist, which is why the idea that he also is isn't so farfetched in my mind. I just can't see an unprejudiced person sitting down & writing such a novel. So, let's say he was writing a novel full of commentary on the silliness of racism, who would get it? I'm sure he wasn't thinking ahead a couple hundred years to classroom discussions like ours, guessing that eventually, someone would understand. Let's say Conrad really isn't sexist or racist, he still wrote a book catering to his audience, mainly, sexist, racist Europeans. Whether or not he believes in it, he perpetuated it. End of story. That's enough for me.

Racist In The Classroom

When considering the Achebe article, there were numerous points that I found myself in agreement, but also multiple instances where issues were raised that I found myself either uninterested or greatly opposed to the different claims. One of the biggest that I found myself against to was the overarching argument that because of the supposed dominant thread of Conrad's racist attitude, Heart of Darkness should not be considered a great short novel or be commonly taught within classrooms.

My thought on whether or not Heart of Darkness should be considered a grand literary feat are purely based on scholarly opinion (which isn't too important right now), so instead I'd like to touch on the argument raised about the use of the novel in an educational setting. The basis of Achebe's claim seems to be very interesting, as it stems from the idea that basically Conrad's a giant racist so the book has no merit for a classroom setting. However, one, I have my own ideas as to exactly how racist Conrad's writing really is, but two, to me, Achebe's article actually provides evidence as to exactly why the novel should be taught in classes. It is through possibly controversial writings and manners that good conversations and debates are stoked, which I believe should be the basis for any good English class, especially evident within this blog. Thus, if one were to believe that Conrad was being at all racist in his portrayal of the Congo in opposition to Europe that would lead to a healthy debate within a classroom instead of one opinion being forced down a student's throat. To me, it is through analyzing and sifting through complex and possibly arguable works of literature that students can learn and grow the most, instead of being led down a single path of thought.

Not Sure

What does everyone think of Achebe’s article about Heart of Darkness?  I personally think it is a little rash that he just outright calls Conrad a racist.  Let’s remember that this book is written in 1902 and that for a white man of his times this is pretty open minded novel.  I feel like Achebe was just trying to sell his book over Heart of Darkness.  During class Heidkamp was saying that the reason people don’t like  Things Fall Apart is because it is just about a normal guy and we are supposed to think that it is about these wild savages.  But I didn’t think it would be about wild savages when I read it, I didn’t think it was going to be any other way then the book actually was.  Achebe tries to pick this fight with this book, but is this book really about Africa?  Because if you ask me this book is more about British Imperialism.  If you wanted to read a book about Africa then read Things Fall Apart.  Conrad is arguing with a different force than Achebe and I personally don’t feel that the book is as racist as he thinks it is. 

Imperialism In Manufacturing?

I have had the opportunity to view a news segment about the manufacturing business of Foxconn and its relationship with Apple. The conditions of these employees is not remotely desirable and the pay is far too low in many American's eyes. It is very unfortunate that some of these workers would be put in positions where they have to accept job positions with all day work hours, dorm like living conditions, and a high employee suicide attempt rate. But one must realize that this job, taking all of its flaws into consideration, is still one of the most desired jobs for young people in China without college degrees. Despite the obvious down side to the job there are still thousands of potential employees lined up outside of Foxconn every hiring day, most saying that they aren't worried about the undesirable conditions. 

Now I recognize the disgusting reality that Apple and Foxconn resulted to fix their problem by taking the cheapest route and providing the buildings with suicide nets instead of altering the conditions to be more favorable or hiring social workers to help with the depression, but calling this imperialism could easily be an overstatement. In the Congo Imperialism men were being dismembered, dehumanized, and controlled without any consent. Imperialism in the Congo is more severe and an action where you strip a land of its independence without their former knowledge. These jobs in China are relationships with full consent from both parties and although quitting might put them in an unfortunate financial situation they still have the opportunity to quit while the people in the Congo were stuck. Heart of Darkness definitely has some similarities with this practice at Foxconn but to make them the same would be unjust.

Apple Abroad

Reading the article regarding Apple's practices abroad was quite reminiscent of Europe in "Heart of Darkness".  For Apple to be going into China and exploiting workers there is eerily similar to how Europe exploited the Africans all those years ago.  I think we'd all like to put an end to these practices but doing so may not be as clear cut as we'd like to think.  What I'm trying to say is it's not an easy task.  It requires regulations in both the U.S. and China to reprimand Apple.  In addition, I'm sure that Apple is not the only company doing this.  They just happened to be profiled for it in the New York Times. They aren't the first, and they certainly aren't the last who will exploit people for their own benefit.  

Since the article Apple has ordered inspections of their factories, but frankly this won't solve much.  Sure it might stop the spontaneous factory explosions that were profiled in the article but it doesn't stop the fact that what Apple is really doing is getting cheap labor and at the cost of the health and safety of others.

Problems like these will likely never disappear or be solved.  They were happening over 100 years ago in the Congo and they're still happening today.

Overreacting to Heart of Darkness

So as you all know, today we talked about Chinua Achebe's essay, "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness", in which he argued that Heart of Darkness shouldn't be taught in schools because of it's "overwhelming" racism towards the Africans of the Congo. 

I think Achebe overreacted in an extreme way to Conrad's in more ways than one. First off, Achebe went into detail about Conrad's personal journals, which I think is crossing the line. Conrad's personal opinion shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not Heart of Darkness is a a good novel; just like how Tiger Woods is still a good golfer, regardless of his personal life. Secondly, Achebe whines about how Conrad dehumanizes the "savages" with his supposedly racist book. But Conrad doesn't specifically target Africans; Conrad writes a scathing review of the settlers, imperialists, and European society as well as the Africans. 

I might be a bit biased against Achebe, since I disliked his book Things Fall Apart, but in my mind, he overreacted in a big way about a minor part of Heart of Darkness, and the racism should not keep it from being taught in schools.

Not Blind, But Not Clear

In Heart of Darkness Marlow says that his aunt, like all women, is blind to how the world truly works, or its ugly side.  In the case with Apple and its suppliers I don't think we are blind in the same sense as Marlow believes his aunt to be, but instead suffer from a lack of motivation to create a change.  Poor working conditions in foreign countries, like China, are no secret., and though I can admit that I was surprised by exactly how bad they appear to be, I can't say that I was completly naive about it either. 

Apple is clearly responsible for a portion of the blame for how its supplier's workers are treated, but exactly how much blame they are responsible for I'm not exactly sure.  On one hand, they should be accountable and care about all people associated with their products and therefore should take the necessary measures to ensure all workers are safe and treated fairly.  However, on the other hand I understand on some level why there exists a lack of concern for the workers over seas.  Apple is a business, a very large business with very large demands that are expected to be met.  Obviously this doesn't excuse their actions, but I understand why they try to keep an arms length away from their suppliers.  When people start demanding that Apple ensure worker safety at their supplier companies it puts them in a bit of a pickle because if they start demanding changes be made in a company such as Foxcann, their largest supplier, then they are risking losing that partnership with them or suffering a profit loss.  Because of this, Apple takes the easy way out so to speak and simply denies, denies, denies.  

However, I think Apple is far from the only people to blame for the lack of compassion for the workers.  First off, they aren't actually employees of Apple, they are employees of the supplier company that Apple has a contract with.  Because of this, I think it is primarily the suppliers' responsibility to ensure safety for their works.  Although you could say that Apple is pressuring the suppliers by giving not enough of the profits, ultimately the suppliers need to understand what they are getting into and if worker safety will be compromised then they shouldn't be accepting these contracts.  If all the suppliers demanded higher profits on the basis of ensuring worker safety then Apple would have no choice but to comply.

Though they don't mention this at all in the article, another party responsible for part of the blame is the foreign governments, because these companies are able to get away with unsafe practices due to a lack of strict laws or poor enforcement of them.  Governments are set in place for the people, so when people citizens are dying due to work conditions it is the government's responsiblity to step up and fix things up.

Lastly, I believe it's the consumers' faults, and we might bare the largest portion of it.  In short, we have all the power and if we truly cared we could cause Apple and its suppliers to clean up their malpractices.  We already know consumers have the ability to drive reform, the article gave Nike and Gap as examples, so what's really stopping us is facing our own inconviences, not a lack of knowledge.  For instance, the price of the super cool ithingy that you want would be more expensive, or you would have to take time out of your day to make Apple hear your voice and respond to your demands.  We have the ability to cause change, it's whether or not we use it that makes the difference.

A Different Perspective

I agree with the latest comment on that New York Times article in that the so called exploitation of Chineese labor is overblown. The money the Chineese workers recieve is miniscule compared to what American workers make, but what we have to understand is the Chineese economy is different. The government purposely devalues its own currency for the simple purpose of attracting foreign companies to manufacture their prodcuts in China. The real wages of the workers (or their buying power in thier local economy) are not comparatively lower than most other jobs they would be doing in China. While I agree that child labor and overly long work days are wrong, if those abuses were to be cut out I would have no problem with Chineese manufacturing. I think it is unfair to compare it to Imperialism in the Congo because the abuses are far less severe. There are no hands getting chopped off. The use of Chineese labor in manufacturing may seem to evoke the same moral dilemma as imperialism but to me, it does not.

Not A Fair Comparison

I think it is inaccurate to compare the modern industrial China to the Belgian Congo during the time Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness.  I suppose on some levels, the two worlds are similar.  Like the Belgians, modern Americans are generally oblivious to the horrid conditions of the workers who make their lives more luxurious. This, however, does not mean that they are the same thing.

Does the way we treat the workers in China, whether we are conscious of it or not, differ from the way the imperialists treated the Congolese?

Yes.  To be sure, workers in Chinese manufacturing cities work in horrid conditions. This, however, does not even come close to the horrors the Congolese experienced. Chinese workers are not mutilated or murdered if they fail to meet quotas. They are not rounded up and forced from their villages by armed bands of mercenaries. Imperialism depicted in Heart of Darkness is nothing more than commercial-driven genocide, and modern labor practices, while still reprehensible, cannot be compared to the atrocities of 19th century Imperialism.

Is the way we are manufacturing technology these days actually worse -- considering the scale of the blindness and selfishness -- than the way imperialists have extracted raw materials from places like the Congo?

No.  Again, we are comparing harsh working conditions to slavery and genocide.  Apple, Foxconn, and other companies engage in reprehenisble labor practices, but China's population has not been halved, as it was in the Congo.

The 21st century has problems far removed from those of the late 19th century. Modern ignorance of Chinese labor practices mirrors that of the 19th century Belgians, but harsh conditions simply cannot be compared to genocide.

A Little Passage Analysis

On page 143 of Heart of Darkness, Kurtz rants a bit about the fact that he's being taken away from the jungle due to his illness:
"Save me! -save the ivory, you mean. Don't tell me. Save me! Why, I've had to save you. You are interrupting my plans now. Sick! Sick! Not so sick as you would like to believe. Never mind. I'll carry my ideas out yet -I will return. I'll show you what can be done. You with your peddling notices -you are interfering with me. I will return. I..."

Sheesh, he just can't shut up and save his strength, can he? Not in the jungle, at least. Well, it's obvious that he's that obsessed with his objective, that immersed in darkness, that he can't even see he's dying. He doesn't even think he'll be a bit weak during the voyage out. In fact, by his statement that he's "not as sick as they'd like to believe" he seems to convey the message that they'd prefer him to be on death's door. Though he actually is, he's more concerned about the ivory. He's convinced that Marlow and the rest of the people are here only to steal his ivory. Now, this actually has some basis, but Kurtz really doesn't know if it has any basis or not. He's simply paranoid and convinced the world's out to get him. He believes the others would want him to be deathly ill so they can get the vast fortune in ivory that he had amassed. Kurtz would rather remain in the jungle, ill, than to leave and risk the loss of his grand scheme. He realizes this later when he cries out how he's waiting to die. He realizes that he was that concerned with riches that he would have stayed in the jungle and died, that he fought those trying to rescue him. All he was worried about were his plans.

Kurtz also mentions how he was the one that was saving Marlow, not the other way around. He was that confident he was in control of the situation. He believed that he was the sole reason why the rescuers hadn't already been killed by the natives. He thinks he's the greatest hero of all for existing. This is emphasized when he crawls out and tries to go back into the jungle, and then threatens Marlow, only continuing to state how he had great plans. He was also carried out by the natives on a bed, as if he's the kind of person who would normally get such treatment. Kurtz has been treated like a god, more or less, by the natives, and that power has gone right to his head. He's convinced that he's invincible and that he commands the entire jungle, and he's going to do whatever's necessary to stay and continue his dominion over the overgrown depths. He certainly rules over more than one type of depths, that's for sure.

One other thing that he stresses is that he will return. He hasn't even begun to leave, yet he's already screaming how he won't be gone for long. He's dying, and all he can say is that he'll be back. Either he's quite the confident and optimistic fellow or his body's running off without his mind. I really don't think he even left that jungle, quite frankly. He was grabbing on to that darkness with everything he had. He wasn't going to leave, no matter what. This was his home. This is where he felt he belonged. Furthermore, he stressed that he'd show what CAN be done. Not what should be done, but what can be done. He isn't thinking of ethics or reasonable actions, only what he believed was physically possible. He was convinced that he'd rise higher and higher than where he already was. Again, it's either wishful thinking or an insatiable greed. And I doubt he's the kind of fellow who could look on the bright side without going blind. In fact, he's already blind. He's convinced that he can become richer, more powerful, more important...he's just eager for more. He doesn't know when to stop.

In short, this paragraph shows how crazy Kurtz is. Even as he lay dying, with others trying to rescue him, he's convinced that he's perfectly fine and that he's in command of the whole situation. He believes automatically that everyone's after his fortune in ivory, and that they all wish him dead. He's against the world, and that he will show them all up in time, when he returns home to the station in the center of the jungle. He has far more waiting for him on his return.Kurtz no longer wants the rest of the world. He just wants his ivory and his adoring natives. He wants that absolute power, and there isn't anything in the world that can get him away from that darkness. He's completely beyond any help.

The Russian Isn't in The Story For Nothing

Who is the Russian, anyway? He's the guy that adored Kurtz, with all the rags sewed on his clothes. He's not just another loony bin there for space filling, at least I don't think he is. Firstly, his clothes are patched up with numerous multicolored pieces of rags that were lying around. Rags that Kurtz had lying around. I'm going to guess that this stands for the fact that he absorbed everything that Kurtz said, did, was. He didn't bother to express himself, he simply let Kurtz fill him in with everything and anything he pleased. He refused to think for himself, to see things as they were. He didn't think that there were problems with what they were doing, that they should stop and find a better way, he simply ignored their problems and covered it up with whatever Kurtz would ramble about. He covered up Kurtz's faults with his lectures. And he wouldn't suffer any bad remarks about Kurtz. He was more or less Kurtz's rag doll, a puppet to ensure that all people give him at least some degree of respect that he believes he deserves. He is completely under Kurtz's power. Marlow describes him as someone "ruled by the the spirit of adventure," and that Marlow actually envied him a little for it. The Russian more or less is able to live only because he's fascinated with moving along, to do more and to assist Kurtz. He mindlessly accepted everything that Kurtz was, and he went with it and moved on. It's almost as if his indifference to good and evil, though primarily evil, was the only thing that kept him alive. His purpose and objective has been dictated to him by Kurtz, and he survives the moral jungle as easily as he survives the actual one. All he is concerned about is his superior, regardless of character.

Innocence is often depicted as being a sort of incorruptible invincibility, and Marlow attributes that to his existence. If he wasn't as strong-willed and wasn't along only for the ride, as it were, he would have ended up just as crazy as Kurtz. Of course, this isn't to say he's not troubled by it. The Russian is a strange person in that he shifts between being exceedingly happy and then overwhelmingly depressed. His "innocence and adventure" seem to contribute to this behavior. What he suffers from is the desire to go on conflicting with his conscience. Though he accepts that Kurtz is corrupted, that doesn't mean he approves of it. He not only respects Kurtz but fears him as well. He seems to be understanding more and more that Kurtz is lost, but is too afraid to stop him from destroying himself. His conscience is telling him something is terribly wrong, but he also wants to see what Kurtz is capable of doing. He desperately wants to succeed with Kurtz, and as a result cannot himself step away from the jungle. He stays behind as well, now hooked on what Kurtz was hooked on, but for a different reason. He now wants to finish what Kurtz started. As a result, he is also doomed to the darkness. He is both afraid of it but at the same time is intrigued by it and wants to see it through to the end. He is eager to succeed but nervous of what lies ahead. His innocence seems to have created two personalities within him, expressive of his likely conflict of Kurtz's deeds and the surrounding darkness versus the great things yet to be done and the rewards that are sure to follow.

 

(Mr. Heidkamp, this is the make up from last week's missing blog)

Who Does Kurtz Belong To?

During some of the most profound pages (69-75) of the story, Marlow wonders, "what he (Kurtz) belonged to, how many powers of darkness claimed him for their own." And even though Marlow says it is dangerous to think about whom Kurtz answers to, maybe we should take that risk. In gaining his immense power, Kurtz must have done at least a few horrible things; and to keep this power, he most likely committed even more atrocities. The ivory white of his skull seems impure, like a deceitful grin. Kurtz's power restrains him. It gives him liberty due to wealth but he is held back. His god-like powers anchor him down in the wild.

Conrad seems to comment on power throughout both "Heart of Darkness" and "The Secret Sharer" with Kurtz as well as Marlow and the captain. Conrad's short stories share insight on the acquisition of power and its effects on different types of people. I still do not have a well-developed idea on this topic, however I am confident that it is a pillar on which these stories were constructed around. I am interested to hear others' opinions on this topic. What determines the effects of power in different characters?

I thought I could share the link for the music I listened to while writing this. He was an inspiration for Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton and Frank Zappa. Johnny "Guitar" Watson 

 

We are Living in a Material World...

Reading this article really upset me even though I am a
supporter of Apple. I had previously heard that the Apple manufacturing
industries in China had poor conditions. This was a widely talked about topic
for about a month until Apple came out with another one of their ground shaking
new inventions. I do believe that we, the people of the United States, are as
guilty as Marlow's aunt of being blind to the realities of the way the world
works.

It is clear in the article that Apple and Foxconn are
worried about their reputation, as well as their profit, and are willing to lie
through their teeth when trying to get rid of the bad press. There is evidence
as to how horrible the living and working conditions are in the factories in
China yet Steve Job's description of the factories made them seem like
paradise. I think that the fact that Apple refused to comment on the situation
just proves how guilty they are.

Besides Apple's obvious disregard for the unsafe conditions
of the factory, the people of the United States act just as oblivious. We know
that this horribly unfair labor is occurring and yet we do nothing about it
because we need Apple to succeed so we can feed off of their new technology. We
think that since the factory fires and deaths that the Apple factories have
cause aren't happening here in the US that we can't do anything about it so why
bother worrying about it?

I admit I am guilty of this ignorance because going up
against a hugely successful corporation and threatening to destroy them can be
a little intimidating. It makes me sad knowing that I can't do anything about
the injustices going on but I'm hoping that someday someone will have the
courage, and connections, to do something or at least improve the conditions in
the factories since Apple won't do it themselves.

Audit Shmaudit

In my Chinese class, I did a current events report on Foxconn City and factories like it. There have been reports of coerced, often unpaid labor of underaged children and young adults who are told that "working experience" will help them get a better jobs later on. Yeah right. The fact that Apple has been auditing since 2007 and no significant steps have been taken to prevent employee abuse really make me doubt the purpose or effectiveness of the FLA inspections. The deaths and injuries that occur only go to show that no action is beign taken to fix conditions for factory workers. Not so much that Apple created these factories and is directly responsible for their conditions, but their lack of oversight is appauling. Audit my ass. They need to go clean up their messes. 

The fact that people want to bring jobs back over here is of no object in this debate. Bringing jobs back to the U.S. would be wonderful, but at the same time, human rights are human rights no matter where you go.

Chinese v. Congolese

I think that it's difficult compare the situation in modern-day China to Marlow's nineteenth century Belgian Congo. The Belgian Congo was product of an imperialistic pursuit, an unwelcome ambush of sorts on the native Congolese, unfamiliar with the rational, intent, and even the existence of the white man. This contrasts the modern-day situation in China where the article proclaims that the Chinese government advertised the low-paying Chinese labor to entice foreign investment. When comparing the two objectively, the comparison is quite obvious: two different eras, one with government consent, one without any government at all, it's easy to say that they're nothing alike. However, this perspective only goes so deep.

By removing ourselves from the Chinese situation by saying that we are not imperialistic committing atrocities like those committed in the Belgian Congo, it only demonstrates our inability to comprehend our selfish qualities. Imperialism, in the historical sense, of establishing control over a government for mercantile and economic gain is not what is occurring in China. Yet, because we cannot categorize it as "imperialism" does not lessen the exploitation. 

America's "heart of darkness" is one in search of cheap labor, something that does not uphold "American" values overseas when regarding the profit motive. No matter what amount of phony regulation or consent of the Chinese government, the factories operating in a highly censored country cannot be considered transparent and cannot be falsely though of as upholding American standards. From a business perspective, there's no reason not to - in a country where the government almost condones the labor exploitation to encourage foreign businesses to relocate factories - and no matter how much head shaking the American public can do when informed of the possibility of labor abuse, the market for Apple products, does not falter. 

So is this our heart of darkness? Do we even care deep down?

Heart of Darkness vs. Lord of the Flies

Heart of Darkness reminds me a lot of Lord of the Flies. Both have a similar context: place a bunch of "civilized" Europeans in a remote area and observe how they start to go insane and kill people. Both seem to suggest an inherent evil in human nature that the forest brings out. 

The manager's uncle says, "Anything--anything can be done in this country," and he seems quite right (48). The Russian tells Marlow that Kurtz said, "there was nothing on earth to prevent him from killing whom he jolly well pleased" when Kurtz threatened to shoot the Russian for ivory (84). Kurtz exemplifies a savagery that the forest seemed to unleash in him. He sticks people's heads on stakes and ordered an attack on the steamboat because it would try to take him away from the forest. Even Marlow, the one the reader trusts to be the sanest of the bunch threatens to kill Kurtz. The Europeans' violence suggests a lawlessness in the forest.

The most important difference between Heart of Darkness and Lord of the Flies, however, is there are no natives in Lord of the Flies. The novel makes its commentary on human nature in general, not a particular race. I am unsure of the message Conrad is trying to relate in Heart of Darkness.  The Europeans in the novel seem to suggest that returning to nature unleashes savagery. But then is not Heart of Darkness just as rascist, even if less hypocritical, as the imperialists who claimed that if one lived in less industrialized areas, one was savage? 

This Week's Blogging: Exploring Our Darkness

UPDATE: Apple has responded by allowing very specific inspections of many of the factories in Shenzhen.  Read the comments below this New York Times article to get a full sense of the debate to come.

For the next blogging assignment (due on Friday, 3/15), I'm going to push the conversation beyond the novel (with the understanding that the novel is the inspiration for the conversation).  I'm actually going to push all of us into potentially uncomfortable territory.

Read a recent article from The New York Times: "The iEconomy: In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad."

The article discusses how Apple builds its iPhones, iPads, and other technology -- and more importantly, how we do not really know or want to know about that manufacturing process (which is similar to the manufacturing process for most of the technology we use each day).

In your blog post and comments on other posts, I would like you to respond to the article, discussing one or more of the following questions:

• How are these new manufacturing towns in China our present-day "hearts of darkness"?
• Are we as guilty as Marlow's aunt of being blind to the realities of the way the world works?
• Does the way we treat the workers in China, whether we are conscious of it or not, differ from the way the imperialists treated the Congolese?
• Is the way we are manufacturing technology these days actually worse -- considering the scale of the blindness and selfishness -- than the way imperialists have extracted raw materials from places like the Congo?
• What do we do about it?  It's easy to say, "That's horrible!" -- just like it's easy to say the theme of Heart of Darkness is that imperialism is a bad, bad thing.  But both our present-day reality and Conrad's book require us to have a much more complex response -- because we, like Marlow and others, are participants as well as observers.

 

The Mysterious Mr. Kurtz

After finishing part 2 of Heart of Darkness, we finally get to know Kurtz, from the perspective of Marlow. Marlow spends a couple of pages just describing Kurtz and his personality as a side note of the story. He is almost foreshadowing what the reaction between Kurtz and himself will be when they meet for the first time. Marlow is confused and intrigued by Kurtz's nature. From the description Marlow gives us, we can conclude that Kurtz was, at first, an honest and only wanted to help in Africa, but he has been changed by the power he was given and has become, in a sense, savage with his actions. we can infer this because Marlow keeps bringing up how everyone in Europe and even Africa were amazed by Kurtz and thought he was the most amazing person they had ever met, but it is contrasted with the writing Marlow reads that Kurtz had wrote. Kurtz wrote at the end to "exterminate all the brutes!" and the picture that Marlow gives us of Kurtz is very ironic. At one point he is this amazing, loving guy and on the other hand he wants to kill all of the "brutes". I think the reason Marlow is so fascinated with Kurtz, and it is almost to the level of stalker/creeper weird, is because Kurtz has become a legend in Africa and almost like his own leader of a cult. This control Kurtz's has is the driving force behind Marlow to meet him.  

Does Kurtz Need to Be More Than an Idea?

Although Kurtz eventually becomes a corporeal character in Heart of Darkness, I think that Kurtz as just an idea is equally if not more powerful than the man himself. In the case of Marlow, the idea of Kurtz gave him a purpose in life, it allowed him to take advantage of an otherwise dismal situation, and it set him apart from the rest of the men who pursued a physical goal, ivory.

While the other men were consumed by their greed and their desire for ivory, Marlow became enticed by the idea of Kurtz, not what Kurtz was after. While the other men languished, Marlow stayed on his toes and more of an observer than an active participant.

Marlow's lesson applies to the real world as well. Searching for an idea, whether obtainable or unobtainable gives one's life purpose; often the corporeal form of the idea proves to be disappointing and cannot live up to the idea. Regardless of whether or not a physical or real thing can be acheived by pursuing an idea, the purpose that the idea gives is what makes the idea valuable.

Marlow is a Racist Bastard

    It's hard not to notice when reading Heart of Darkness that Marlow, however fair and understanding he tries to be, is sometimes a big racist. He uses derogatory terms, and he compares his African helmsman to a dog wearing clothes, not to mention that he's taking a part in a horrifyingly dehumanizing colonizing mission. He's sexist too, as we can see from the way he talks about his aunt (and by extension, womankind as a whole.) But this is all okay. We have to forgive him.
    In this class we've talked a lot about the effect society can have on a person, and this is what's going on with Marlow. He was raised in Europe, a society where racism and sexism and all sorts of other prejudices are intrinsic and pervasive. He's been absorbing these ideas since long before he was old enough to understand them- and by then it was almost too late to realize what they meant. So the fact that he even tries to combat these societal rules is pretty impressive- the scene at the beginning when he describes the Romans conquering the savage Britain is kind of revolutionary for its time. He may have a long way to go, but I think we need to cut Marlow a little slack for cutting through the fog of European influence and drawing his own coclusions. 

Ultra-Sexist

Given that Heart of Darkness is literature from the late 19th century/early 20th, I expected Marlow to be a a little sexist since that's how most men were back in the day. When he was talking to his aunt, I thought that he would make some moderately sexist comment about how women didn't know the whole truth to things and in my mind, I would have justified his sexist comment by taking into account that he is a man of the 1890s.

However, what Marlow said was shocking. In a nutshell, on page 17, Marlow says that ALL women are out of touch with the real world and that they do not live in the same world as men. After reading this, I gave Marlow the benefit of the doubt and was hopeful that his thoughts would change.

Maybe Marlow forgot that if it wasn't for his aunt, who apparently lives in a non-real world, he would have never gotten his job in the first place. Let's hope Marlow has some sort of realization in part 3 and starts thinking of women as equals.

Narratorception

I'm just going to come out and say that I'm not really a fan of this book so far. I find the way that Marlow tells his story, by explaining his emotional response before he actually tells us what happened, incredibly frustrating. I just want to shout at the book sometimes and make Conrad tell me what is actually going on. Unfortunately, I don't think that will do me much good when it comes to understanding the story. However, one part of Heart of Darkness that I am intrigued by is the narrator within a narrator setup, "narratorception" if you will. Although it makes the story even more difficult to understand at times, I think it adds a lot of dimension and perspective to the tale being told. Not only do we get Marlow's opinions and perspectives on what is occuring in the Congo and on his other adventures, but we also get the original narrators views on Marlow and the events of the story. In the narrator and Marlow we ge two differing perspectives on imperialism and the happenings in the Congo. The Narrator's more idealistic views contrast with Marlow's cynicism, and I think that that adds a deeper layer to the story and makes it more interesting to read. 

What does it all MEAN??

As Mr. Heidkamp warned us before starting Heart of Darkness, there are huge chunks of writing that just do not make any sense to me, and will supposedly all make sense after the fact. I noticed something similar in Secret Sharer, but there the story was right in front of me, and the nuances and larger meanings were what Conrad had hidden underneath. In Heart of Darkness, though, I just experience moments where I give up trying to understand exactly what Marlow is trying to describe.

For example, when Marlow describes his first encounter with the manager, he starts with a fairly basic physical description. But when Marlow delves into his character, things get muddy. "He originated nothing," Marlow says, "he could keep the routine going--that's all. But he was great. He was great by this little thing that it was impossible to tell what could control such a man. He never gave that secret away. Perhaps there was nothing within him (31-32)." My annotation for that section just says "lolwut." I get that he "orginated nothing" meaning that he didn't have any significant strength of character, that he just went along with what others were saying. But calling him "great" seems mutually exclusive then. Marlow claims there was something mysterious about him that gave him control. But then says that the secret is that there is "nothing within him at all." So which is it?

My biggest difficulty with Heart of Darkness is that it seems like there is so much mystery surrounding the story. Conspiracy, or the belief of conspiracy, lies around every corner. When Marlow first meets his boss in Brussels, he feels like there is something he is not being let in on. When he arrives at the river, taking a very long and trying journey to get there in the first place, Marlow finds his ship sunk under the water. And while he is rebuilding it, he keeps being refused his simple request for "rivets" to complete the repair. Mr. Kurtz is a famous enigma. Sickness and death surround him. It seems like somebody purposely does not want Marlow to set out on his expedition. While I would like to see how all of this comes together, on another level, I just do not really care. Because of all the confusing sentences that clearly let on to something Conrad won't explain until much later, I lose most of my interest. 

Maybe once the story draws to some sort of a solution, my curiosity will again be piqued. But for now, I am just reading it to pass the reading checks. 

Waiting

At the beginning of the Secret Sharer I had a hard time understanding Conrad's language and what was going on.  It made it frustrating for me to read because I felt like there wasn't much happening yet I still couldn't get it.  After the first couple days of reading and some in-class discussions however I got the hang of Conrad and the story made sense.

When we started reading Heart of Darkness I assumed my understanding of Conrad's language would carry on from the Secret Sharer...I was wrong.  I'm not sure if it's the time gap between when Conrad was writing and now, the language barrier (Mr. Heidkamp said English wasn't Conrad's first language), or simply Conrad's writing style but I do know that it baffles me.  Watching the short clip from the documentary and talking about the book in class has helped me get a better grasp on what was going on during the time period and in Conrad's novel, but I still feel some distance between me and text.  I guess I'm left waiting for Conrad and me to click.     

Novella?

When reading "The Secret Sharer" I couldn't help but notice its interesting length.  It was much longer than the short stories we've recently read but shorter than any novel.  After learning it was a novella I wondered what that really meant.  Basically, it is more complicated than a short story but not as complicated as a novel would be (and in the middle of a short story and a novel when it comes to length).

I personally don't really understand the reasoning behind this extra category of literature.  Was "The Secret Sharer" that much longer than a short story?  Was it that much more complicated than "The Swimmer"?  Was The Awakening that much longer "Heart of Darkness"?  I don't know who makes these rules but to me this category of a novella is just confusing and unncessary.  Most novellas can just as easily be placed in the short story or novel category.

The Sea And The Self

Staring at the sea, I imagine that in its seeming boundlessness, one would begin to feel quite insignificant. Alternatively, one could imagine the countless places to which the sea leads and consider the sea a gateway to the discovery of new places.

Conrad's novellas seem to suggest something else entirely. The sea leads to self discovery. In "The Secret Sharer" the captain begins nervous about his identity as a stranger on board. Yet, after his encounter with Leggatt, the captain develops a new level of self-assurance.  He thinks "Already the ship was drawing ahead...no one in the world should stand now between us" (171). He has new authority in his role as captain after he further develops his own identity. 

Thus far in "Heart of Darkness" sea journeys also suggest self- discovery. The doctor remarks to Marlow, "the changes take place inside, you know" (16). The doctor's comment foreshadows a change will occur within Marlow because of his journey.

Conrad's novellas add something new to our discussion of identity. Using Benjamin's argument over the course of the year, we have said part of identity comes from our relationships and how others perceive us. Yet, will Conrad suggest identity is intrinsic, just waiting to be revealed on a journey across the sea?