Achebe on Conrad

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Otto Sell" <o.sell at telda.net>
>
> 
> And that blacks weren't seen as humans in 19th-century Europe thus isn't
> necessarily a reflection of Conrad's "racism" as well (following your
> argument).

Well, no, this isn't right. The female characters in _TFA_ are "named and
individualised just as the males are"; Africans are *not* named and
individualised in _HoD_ as the Europeans are. They are just "niggers", or
labelled by the subservient roles they perform.

But this is not the point. Proving Achebe is a chauvinist has no bearing on
whether or not Conrad was "racist". The two issues are entirely separate;
trying to disprove the latter assertion by making the former counter-claim
is illogical.

It's not really such a big deal, but it's still an important point to make I
think.

snip

> So where's Achebe's criticism of Ibo-society in his book for
> treating women badly?
> If there's none I *must* believe that he still shares
> the opinion that women are inferior to men, only following his own arguments
> on Conrad. The fact that women are presented even more positive than Okonwko
> (which is not very difficult at all) in "TFA" could be seen as a disguise of
> women discrimination in pre-colonialized Africa.

You do realise that by the logic of your current argument (proving Achebe's
chauvinism) you are actually supporting Achebe's case that Conrad *is* a
racist, which is what you were arguing against in the first place.

snip

> Do you think that the fact that there are "women studies" or seminars at our
> universities where men are excluded is discriminating women? No, it's an
> "effect," a reaction to the discrimination, an attempt to overcome it.

There is a difference between an academic discipline called 'Women's
Studies' and the notion that any text is "handling women's affairs"
separately to the way it handles the "affairs" between men and women in the
society. Unless you're expecting Achebe to speak as an advocate of lesbian
separatism that is! (I'm joking.)

> Ok, to be heard it's of course ok but did he row back a little after getting
> the public interest he wanted?
> I still see his criticism as very undifferentiated and thus unfair.

I think your dismissal of Achebe's essay is over-hasty. I think the
criticisms are well-founded and thoroughly supported with citations and apt
interpretations of Conrad's text. I think he has been extremely "fair", and
deliberately tried to be "fair".

>
> That's it - I am and I praise Conrad for taking a first little step: Conrad
> personally was less racist than 99% of his contemporaries but still a child
> of his time (as I said before).
> HoD is a novel that made people aware of racism, of the cruelties of
> colonialism and the myths that were used by the imperialists, not a racist
> novel as Achebe (whose novel of course is no anti-woman novel in my opinion)
> claims.
> It's easy to put Conrad down nowadays from our late-20th-century view, but
> this doesn't necessarily judges him right, neither concerning his "politics"
> or "ethics" nor his art.

I've agreed all along with you on this point, and you can say exactly the
same sorts of things about Kipling. Achebe is not advocating that _HoD_ be
thrown away. He is saying that the "racist" mentality it discloses should be
acknowledged (even though it is *also* a liberal, "progressive",
anti-colonialist mentality).

> Or does anybody wants to put the blame on Conrad for this:
>
> "you can say "Okonkwo" from Liberia to Kenya and down to Swaziland, and
> people with a high school education or more will recognize the proud,
> fierce, tragic hero of Things Fall Apart. But in the West, Chinua Achebe is
> barely known outside African studies courses."
> http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url=http://past.thenation.com
> /issue/000710/0710north.shtml
>
> This goes more or less for the name of Thomas Pynchon (and many other
> important writers) too who is barely known outside English studies over
> here: leaves the question (don't beat me, it's shallow I admit in advance!):
> is Achebe jealous for not being reprinted as often as Conrad?

No, I don't think this is at all "fair".

> Again, I don't consider Conrad as the "better" writer and personally I like
> "TFA" even more than "HoD" (this weekends readings reassured me of that),
> but they're both great novels and pieces of art, both to be read in the
> context of anti-colonialism.

I think that they can and should be read together, and in that context. But
I think that Achebe's essay on _HoD_ should also be read.

> Both books were "eye-openers" for me.
> My intention is more to defend Conrad than to criticize Achebe.

Except that in order to defend Conrad you have criticised Achebe. And I
think that it would be easy to argue that in order to "defend" Africa and
Africans it was important for Achebe to criticise Conrad. Despite the
rhetoric I think that Achebe's article evinces considerable respect for
Conrad's art.

best