Is it racist?

>white
>Palestinian
I'm... honestly not /pol/ enough to know if that's a mockable offence.

People that call this book racist don't understand the book. Conrad was one of the first writers to write about the genocide perpetrated by King Leopold of Belgium when it was still happening.
As for the terms he used and the way he described the blacks - that's just "the ghost of the era".

I believe Conrad took advantage of the controversial topic of colonialism as a vehicle to explore humanity. Its an exploration of the nature of humanity, existentialism, and the inescapable animal nature of all men. People have such a hard time seeing through the inherent racial themes and colonialism and sexism and all these other isms that it can be difficult to pick up the existential undercurrents.
It probably doesn't help that the narrative is dense and the prose is dry and you never really know what the fuck is happening.

racist to white people, the moral is essentially that white man out-evils and thus conquered 'the natives'

>being born into a British colonial state
>authority on colonialism and racism

Yeah, yeah.

pronounced "sah-eed"

No. The general consensus is that although it's sympathetic to the autochthons and a critique of colonialism it still appeals to stereotypes and white superiority to make its point, but even that isn't true. In fact possibly the most racist aspect of the book is the narrative distance Conrad maintains from the natives, but arguably that strengthens its point, or at least makes it easier to digest for the intended public at the time.

Should it matter that it's racist? Is racism bad?

N-no...

Yes, racism is stupid and baseless except from an aesthethic sense.

Cultural discrimination is a perfectly valid thing though, some cultures are visibly inferior in a lot of aspectos.

Yes and No. While defending qualities inherent in racial behaviour the outmost conclussion is the perjudice that occidental thought has against such psychological qualities. Although, I interpret that the foremost conclussion is a critique on occidental life degenerating into mere mechanic though and the impossibility of new great ideollogical utopias in front of this change towards mere commodity.

I just realised some typos. Sorry I wrote that way too fast.

No.
Also, does any one have that screencap of some copy pasta greentext where some SJW student is supposedly attending a Veeky Forums college and they talk about Heart of Darkness and the student stands up to his professor and in the end they all cheer him/her and start playing drums?

You my nigga.

Race isn't a choice, but behaviour is; and so we need only to take personal conduct and beliefs as the true a measure of a person's worth.

What those precise beliefs may be however, I cannot say; the broad strokes seem obvious but the minutia is clouded and full of grey areas; almost as if someone made it up as if they were going along.

>visibly inferior

>Race isn't a choice, but behaviour is

is it?

It is, if i want to, say, strike up friendships, growing up in a mediterranean or south american culture is a lot more usefull in a stadistical base, if i want a culture that respects a social contract and order i'd rather have a japanese, etc.

As much as anything is a choice I guess.

Perhaps not as wholly as we would like, but we can indeed on a moment to moment level make decisions about our actions, and it is our responsibility to try to make wise decisions with regards to whatever personal or greater good we subscribe to.

What if I don't believe in the concept of good?

That's why I qualified my statement with greater OR personal good - the "personal" good is that which is directly beneficial to you - of course there are many who would argue that the greater good is a collective personal good, because it's effect is supposedly environmental; but naturally difference in opinion creates schism is the theory and in the execution of the greater good, and so all dogmas fail to reach universality.

The only truth is struggle.

>racism is stupid and baseless except from an aesthethic sense
Well said, and art is the most powerful tool for demonstrating just how morally and intellectually impoverished racism can be. I love reading authors, like Conrad, who neutally illustrate the brutal tragedy wrought by characters driven by forces they have little or no control over.

Second post, best post.

If behavior is not a choice, I guess inferiors are operating on the same level of judgement as superiors, animal instinct or blood consciousness or whatever, and all that distinguishes the two are cosmetic traits (and you could say cognitive power, but again in service of what, if our decisions are pre determined by race?).

Well put.

yes

dense??? dry??? confusing??? Honestly didn't experience that at all.

Achebe was mostly right, but it was just the wrong emphasis to put on the book

the book is passively—rather than actively—racist, I'd say

Said defends a lot of racist books because he sees what Achebe doesn't: that a work of literature can be deeply, terribly flawed and still great. Said calls Kim by Kipling both a master work and an embarrassment; Said was one of the few 'postcolonial' critics brilliant enough to do so

I don't agree with the dense and dry parts at all, but I always thought there was a deliberately murky quality to the prose which actually is what really defines Heart of Darkness for me.

It's something worse: it's cynical.

If a man says—I'm not ascribing this to Conrad, it's just for the sake of argument—"blacks are awful, and whites are worse", it's not necessarily racist, but it's something worse than racism. Conrad's sin is an oversized skepticism about the nobility of all human civilization.

I see this response to assertions of arguing from authority on here way too often lately, and it's getting a little aggravating.

Even if the person referred to is a legitimate authority on the subject in question, it doesn't make the argument valid. You can't just say, "Well so-and-so agrees with me and so-and-so is really smart, so obviously I'm right!" You must provide actual evidence or some sort of direct support for your claim to be taken seriously.

Jesus Christ this is the most pretentious post I've ever seen in my life.

-1

...

to

your face is racist and chinese

idk what you mean

Idealizing nigs as noble savages is still racist

>noble savages

that meme doesn't apply here

if one were to oversimplify, Conrad shows that we're just as stupid and savage as the niggers

that doesn't make them or us look good

>applying post-war taboo to nineteenth century book.

No. Next.

If a book features a racist character is the book racist?
No stfu

KEK I really wanna see this

Bumping for this

>Literal African tribe people who have barely any interaction with white culture are seen as alien/bizarre and savage
I didn't study 4 years at university to read a book but I really don't see how this could be racist.

Would your typical bigot on the street go out of their way to read it if it was? Pointing at a book and saying it's racist is no reason to stop it from being read.

Is everything prior the year 2000 racist ?
I think so.

t. Millenial

I know, I was just being hilarious.

Is this satire?

Found it in the midst of all my meme folders, here

>racism is stupid and baseless
not from a scientific perspective

>He died of a giant black nigger dick up his ass was tossed into the sahara desert for all eternity

as stupid as it is it still makes me chuckle every time

I see no problem with this

Trying to make friends on a bus in germany vs. a bus in peru is an unbelievable difference

racism is a good thing

fuck this stupid ass post t.bh

as if it doesnt matter whether Conrad respected the black society he wrote about

I agree. This quality does resonate with many of the messages coming across within the book. Which I feel culminated with one of the most popular quotes of the novel "It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core."

lol