English professor

>Europeans, who were cutting off the hands of blacks, executing them by sticking lit sticks of dynamite in their anuses
All done by black mercenaries, they weren't even asked to do it.

The point is, though, that the English were complicit in it.

But then you also have good things that came out of English colonialism, like the ending the practice of sati in India. But that complicates the picture too much, so it generally doesn't get addressed.

>say nigger, kike, cunt, whatever
>automatically racist or misogynist
It's a fun world lad

it's an oxymoron

>the English were complicit in it.
What? Is this American education that I'm experiencing first hand?

It's literally white man was ebil tier.
Before the English they were content to die from the elements like disease, bugs, wild animals, and from spearing one another over dirt territory. Yet somehow building them roads, power lines, and plumbing is till this day construed as some great evil. Fucking lefties, man.

But the shit he's talking about has nothing to do with the English

>This man was a gigantic racist, backwards thinking and grossly overrated
The only thing they're even close on is the last point, and that for the wrong reasons. I've stopped reading supplementary material on him because it's so often off the mark.

You know it was the Belgians who did that stuff right?

To be perfectly honest, I was just shit posting without thinking. Sorry about that anons.

New Left identity politics isn't leftism

you're a part of the problem

I feel that. I'm in year 12 (yes I'm 18) and we're doing that book. My god it's awful-my classmates can barely read it, and their only comment is that's raysist.

Are you implying the right wouldn't call it racist to white people?

Your mother's womb is part of my genital tract.

go back to leftypol faggot

Yes, yes, it isn't the same colon cancer. It's just cancer in colon.

Your next line will be "blacks had slaves too!"

there's nothing wrong with owning slaves, even when a nigger does it

2edgy4me

Would you let a horse break in another horse? Would you let a child raise another child?

Why does the fact that arab muslims started the Atlantic slave trade and were the last to stop using African slaves (only because their slaves died off due to castration) never get mentioned by you MUH SLAVERY turdlings? I guess it's because they did castrate their slaves and all evidence of African slavery in the middle-east died with them. If only American slave owners had done the same thing the slavery guilt brigade would have nothing to cry about.

HUH?!

the execution in this manner (only one was recorded but seriously, who thinks up this shit) was explicitly ordered by a French colonial official.

they literally still have african slaves in the middle east buddy.

Haha damn n*ggers we only raped their land (and still do it today hyuck), basically enslaved them again, and punished them severely for being inferior! We left them some roads and schools though! Ungrateful n*ggers at least they're not being eaten by lions!

Arab slaves were treated much better since they converted to Islam. There's a massive disparity in cruelty involved, not to much the fact that we didn't castrate them as you say and bred them as animals is precisely another reason why the American slave trade was worse, it perpetuated its evils exponentially by further treating people as livestock. The Arabs at least respected the danger of too many slaves, Americans ostracized 6 million people who they completely uprooted in every conceivable way.

The Arabs only did so after repeated slave revolts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion

>college
>english

LOL

Visit Dubai sometime. Half the country is run on slave labor. There's no lack of them in Saudi Arabia either, usually imported from India or Pakistan (not that there's a difference). It's not approached with the same level of interest precisely because the issue isn't about the evil of slavery but about adhering to a cultivated soci-political agenda. Conversely, so is letting the richer Arab states slide despite being the source of so much of the world's atrocity.

It's not about niggers or colonialism you CUNT

>your next line will be a historical fact

haha yeah man showed him good.

I didn't know we determined the acceptability of actions by whether or not a nigger's done it.

Isn't the entire point of the book that it's super racist? Like....the author is aware how horrible and racist colonization is....that's THE FUCKING POINT HE'S MAKING!

Kind of like Tom Sawyer.

>He uses the word nigger!

Yeah but....it's a book about a kid who's been taught to use the word, and that niggers are just slaves and not really human, yet he gets to know one and sees that he's a human being, and the word is used to really illustrate just how horrible slavery is.

>But he uses the word nigger! Ban it!!!

It IS racist. that's what makes it so interesting. Conrad stages the dark continent of Africa as a foil to western imperialism and enlightenment values because the idea that these savages might share a common ancestry with us is quite literally too much for the colonialists to handle. It isn't actually a book about journeying into the heart of Africa, it's about the white man and his encounter with the darkness of his own heart. All the black people in the book are necessarily two-dimensional: they're manifestations of the subject's fragmented and chaotic psyche.