Achebe on Conrad

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:


> >
> But until Achebe's article appeared this is not how _HoD_ was perceived or
> taught. Conrad's representation of Africans as dark-hearted savages went
> absolutely unchallenged. This *racist* mentality -- because of the novel's
> status within the canon *as* a "great work of art" -- was still being
> perpetuated in the 1970s! Is *still*!

Is this why the racist mentality ( assuming the argument,
being offered here, as elsewhere by some of Conrad's
critics, including Achebe, that the representation of
Africans in the story is owed to a *racist* mentality ) went
unchallenged? Was it  because HoD was thought to be a great
work of art? 

It could be that Achebe is wrong, but assuming he is correct
and the story reflect the 
racist mentality of the author. 

It could be that Achebe's essay is coincidental. The
challenge, both to the cannon, to the view that there are
great works, to the representation of Africa, Africans,
Other, was well under way when Achebe made his argument.
Views of race, race formation, racism, were  being
challenged, even by some that believed that a work of art
can still be called great even if it reflects a racist
mentality. 
It could be that even those that did not believe there are
great works did not challenge the representation of Africa
and Africans in the story for reasons other than its
canonical status. 

Achebe says that it went unchallenged, mostly  because
"white racism against Africa is such a normal way of
thinking that its manifestations go completely unremarked."
In other words, no one challenged the racist mentality
manifest in the story, because this racist mentality was not
only Conrad's, it was the normal way the white world was
thinking about Africa and Africans. Achebe also says that
HoD is not a great a work of art. It can't be a great work
of art in Achebe's view because it reflects a racist
mentality. 


The argument you are constructing here Robert, if I am not
misreading you, says that until Achebe woke up the world
with his claims, this racist mentality was being perpetuated
by those that argued its canonical status.  Or at least, all
those that taught the text and did not challenge the
representation of Africans in the story on the grounds that
it reflects a racist mentality perpetuated that mentality. 


> 
> That's the whole point, isn't it? Until Achebe wrote his article the
> "racist" pov that you've admitted is there in the novel *had never been
> acknowledged*. The racist stereotypes were being perpetuated in classrooms
> and critical studies *in the 1970s*. Sure it was a step ahead, and everyone
> acknowledges that (*even* Achebe). But there was (at least) another step and
> nobody had even noticed.



> 
> > To explain that "HoD" is no work of art is fair?
> 
> Now you're misquoting him! He questions whether _HoD_ "can be called a great
> work of art." He praises both Conrad and the text for its "art". But *this*
> is what concerns him:
> 
>     Conrad [ ... ] is undoubtedly one of the great stylists of modern
>     fiction and a good storyteller into the bargain. His contribution
>     therefore falls automatically into a different class -- permanent
>     literature -- read and taught and constantly evaluated by serious
>     academics. _Heart of Darkness_ is indeed so secure today that a leading
>     Conrad scholar has numbered it "among the half-dozen greatest short
>     novels in the English language." [ ... ]
> 
> http://www.erinyes.org/hod/image.of.africa.html
> 
> best


Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the
United
States: From the 1960s to the 1980s (NY: Routledge,
1986/1989)

TFA is a canonical text in NYC. Achebe may be little known
outside academia in Germany or other parts of the world, and
certainly in other parts of the U.S. but in major U.S. cites
like NYC, Achebe is read, studied, studied and read.
Students here all know him and his work. Some schools
continue to read HoD. 


http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Omi-Winant.html