Content warning: Mentions of abuse, gore and language that may discomfort people of colour. Also, spoilers for ‘Heart of Darkness’.
The 19th century was certainly an interesting period for literature and commentary on society, especially in Europe. Examples that do this are ‘Frankenstein’ by M.W. Shelly and ‘The Island of Dr Moreau’ By H.G. Wells: one of their themes is one’s humanity and what it means to be human. This theme of humanity was a goldmine for authors to explore human concepts, challenge beliefs and question the status quo of European society. However, none of these novels have done this as well as Joseph Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ (HoD) (in my opinion). The 1889 novella not only explores the themes of humanity but expands it to a continental scale by exposing how imperialism can taint the humanity of those who not only act upon it through colonisation but also blindly believing in it. The protagonist of the novella, Charlie Marlow, explores the Congo as part of a Belgium company looking for ivory, as such, many readers and critiques label Marlow as another racist coloniser who has a hatred for the natives. Critiques like Benita Parry, Edward Said and Chinua Achebe all present Marlow as racist. However, since HoD can be read in multiple ways, I wanted to share my viewpoint on it and question whether Marlow’s language paints him as racist or is it just the language used during his time. Thus begs the question: what is the linguistics of a coloniser?
I was introduced to the novella during my A-Levels where I had to analyse the language used and its impact on the reader. It was a hard read with a convoluted framed narrative, plenty of late 19th century diction and unreliable narrators yet, I feel like Conrad intended this level of complexity. The convolution not only highlights how strange the human mind is as the reader hears the thoughts of both the narrator and Marlow on humanity and imperialism. It also matches the feelings Marlow could have felt whilst in Congo; confused, lost and suspenseful. Every turn he took could make him join the likes of Fresleven, Kurtz and the native Congolese in death. Speaking of such natives, Marlow’s first time seeing them in person is in the Grove of Death. This place is where the enslaved Congolese are left to die – the colonisers saw them as tools to be discarded. It is here where Marlow describes the dying natives. “They were not enemies; they were not criminals” is a quote that tells the reader that the Eurocentric view of black people isn’t true. To elaborate, many Europeans believed that imperialism and colonialism was good as it “civilised” the backwards foreigners. The truth was the scramble for Africa where European leaders wanted as much land as possible for items like ivory and gold. The public didn’t know about this until later, which explains Marlow’s choice of words, “enemies” “criminals”. The use of negation here reveals how Marlow is already going against imperialistic thought by not demonising the natives. Marlow even goes on to say that they “were nothing earthly now – nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation”. At first glance, this quote might seem racist as it describes the dying natives as “nothing earthly”, painting them like they are not human. Critic Benita Parry mentions that Marlow’s (and by extension – Conrad’s) descriptions silence African agency and contribute to the ‘Ideological work of racism’, claiming from this that he reduces them to bodies marked by deprivation rather than agents who speak or resist.
This point is good, only if the person ignores the point of Marlow’s narration. The point of said narration is to show the devastating impacts of colonialism and imperialism on the natives. It’s a metaphorical wake up call to all of Conrad’s European readers on what is happening in colonies like Congo: instead of civilising the natives, helping them or introducing the three C’s they advertised, [Commerce, civilisation, Christianity] they instead worked the natives to death. It’s also clear that Marlow isn’t silencing their agency but exposing their lack of it. Describing them as “black shadows” isn’t to dehumanise them, but to reveal the impact of their abuse – said abuse has reduced them to a shadow of their former selves. Even after all this, Marlow has the empathy to give one of the natives a biscuit from a Swede, as Marlow “found nothing else to do”. Marlow not only exposing the impact on the natives but showing kindness towards them in my opinion does not silence African agency. I’d happily argue that the Grove of Death dissolves the ideological work of racism that Perry claims it to be by exposing the horrors of said racism to the reader.
As the novella continues, Marlow goes deeper into the River Congo. He meets a variety of characters whilst managing his passengers on his steamboat. These passengers include other European colonisers and native Congolese ‘cannibals’. For the former, Marlow dubbed them as ‘Pilgrims’ due to them carrying long wooden staffs used in long pilgrimages. The latter brought hippo meat to eat instead of human flesh – although it soon turned rotten and stank up the whole ship. From these quick descriptions I provided, the average reader during the late 19th century would immediately think highly of the pilgrims due to the three C’s they’re meant to enforce and because they are white: the natives would be seen as backwards savages. Conrad clearly knows that readers during the time of writing would hold preconceptions of colonisers vs the native Congolese. So, the fact that the novella portrays the opposite of this assumption aids Conrad in painting a more horrid yet compelling picture of colonialism and humanity. Thus, Marlow (the mouthpiece for Conrad) presents the pilgrims as ‘disgraceful’, recalling how “they begged and argued for meaningless things like candles”. They even “slacked off the work as soon as I turn my back”. It is evident that from Marlow’s narration that the so called ‘pilgrims’ are not only lazy but also greedy and entitled. When “they impatiently waited for Kurtz – not for him, but for the ivory”, it captures how selfish they are. The pilgrims –and by extension most of the European colonisers- do not care about each other.
The colonisers are only present to exploit the land to fill their purse with little effort as possible. This creates two layered of irony which both stem from previous conceptions on topics like colonialism and imperialism. Essentially, the first layer comes from how the pilgrim’s actions and greed contrast the narration from the beginning of the novella. The narrator is on a boat with Marlow on the river Thames, he goes on a long soliloquy about the glory of colonialism and how ‘heroes’ like “Sir Francis Drake to Sir John Franklin” are displayed in a positive light. “Hunters of gold…bearers of a spark from the sacred fire”. Marlow and the Narrator both utilise religious imagery regarding colonisation due to one of the three C’s being Christianity. Yet there is nothing ‘sacred’ or holy about their avarice for ivory: the Narrator’s idea of heroes “hunting for gold” is just them being selfish and pillaging countries for their valuables. The second layer of irony is more meta as it exposes the hypocrisy within the minds of the readers at the time of writing (late 19th century). The average reader would have shared similar views to the Narrator at the beginning but as they read on, said views are challenged by Marlow’s experience. Highlighting how they have been blinded by imperialism so much to the point they are ignorant of the pilgrims (and by extension, the colonisers) and their greed, selfishness and laziness.
To contrast, the cannibalistic natives were respected and liked by Marlow. The cannibals were enlisted because Marlow’s steamer needed “chaps on the way for a crew”. Marlow immediately presenting them in a friendly manner with the word ‘chaps’ suggests so. This continues as Marlow states that “They were men one could work with, and I am grateful to them” which displays his respect to the natives. After all, by using the common noun ‘men’, Marlow is giving them the humanity the colonisers took from them – even when Marlow says he’s “grateful to them”, it shows respect to the natives. On one hand, it could be stated that the reason why Marlow holds respect for the cannibals was merely because of their work efficiency compared to the pilgrims. If we take that away, then Marlow -who IS a European coloniser- would not hold nearly enough respect for the natives. This is supported by Edward Said who believes that Marlow’s worldview is shaped by European racial hierarchies, causing him to not see Africans as subjects with their own history and voices. Plus, you might argue that this counter argument is supported in the novella when Marlow sees natives near the river. “Whirl of black limbs, a mass of clapping…the prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us – who could tell?”. Marlow describes the natives as “black limbs” which has the potential to be read as dehumanising towards the natives, resulting from Marlow’s European racial hierarchy which affects his narration. On the other hand, Said’s counter argument is only good on paper and the reason: once again stems from Marlow’s narration.
The reason why Marlow utilises phrases like “a whirl of black limbs” or “a black and incomprehensible frenzy” is because he is simply an outsider giving his personal perspective to the natives’ customs. Marlow states “who could tell?” because his confusion and fascination are genuine. Even with this confusion, Marlow still respects the natives as he emphasises their humanity. He states how “they were not inhuman” and “what thrilled you was the thought of their humanity – and yours”. It is not fair to assume Marlow doesn’t see Africans as people with their own voice just because he is an outsider; he clearly demonstrates their voice in a way that Conrad intended to teach his European readers about the happenings in the colonies. Marlow’s narration perfectly walks a thin tight rope of reflecting Marlow’s authentic confusion at the native Congolese whilst also exposing to European readers that these natives re as human as them despite their differences.
Edward Said might sound convincing due to him not explicitly labelling Marlow as intentionally racist, but the problem lies in assuming that Marlow thinks like a coloniser, akin to the Pilgrims of Kurtz. Marlow looked up to Kurtz in the begging of the journey through Congo, only to be disappointed by a reality that he acquires upon meeting Kurtz in person. That reality being that Kurtz is a sadistic coloniser who kills anyone (natives and other colonisers) for ivory; he made himself God amongst a native tribe, he places the heads of those he’s killed on spears and even threatens anyone who tries to stop his ‘plans’. Yes, Marlow was once enamoured by imperialism and colonialism, but it was more so an excuse for him to go around adventuring “when I was little, I had a passion for maps”. It was always Marlow’s dream to go around exploring uncharted lands. A result of this is, Marlow can see that the natives can have their own sense of culture and voice. Remember, Marlow likes how the cannibal natives are because they are efficient workers but also because they hold a level of self-restraint in them eating hippo meat and not eating anyone else on board. To contrast, the pilgrims are “captivated by the spell” of ivory and power. Marlow and the natives share a discipline and humanity that the pilgrims and other colonisers lacked. Whilst Marlow compares the colonisers to “lustful devils”, he directly engages with the cannibals’ culture by joking “Hippo-meat which went rotten…Phoo! I can sniff it now”. He also mentions “after all, they didn’t eat each other in front of my face” which shows a level of engagement with the culture despite him not knowing the details of it. Thus, it would be more sensible to talk about how Marlow’s divergent worldview presents the natives in a way the not only marks them as helpful but also illuminates their humanity which dismantles preconceived views of coloured people at the time.
Lastly, Marlow is still on the steamboat – closing in on the inner most station in the River Congo. The ship needed a Helmsman to steer the ship whilst Marlow does other tasks on board – so one of the natives adopted the job. Unlike the cannibals, Marlow disliked the Helmsman at first, mainly due to his incompetence in steering. Marlow even mentions how “he was not much good to me” as “he did not get the idea of steering at all and was too stupid to get it”. Marlow likes people who are efficient in work and uninterested in material things. The Helmsman was not proper in steering the ship as Marlow “had to watch him constantly”. A consequence of this is Marlow calling the Helmsman “specimen” instead of “man” or “chap” like he did with the cannibals. A reoccurring theme of the novella is Marlow’s view on efficiency. From this, Marlow hated someone who could not steer the steamboat reliably. So, his annoyance at the Helmsman was one of practicality rather than race. There are many instances of the other colonisers abusing the natives that Marlow calling the Helmsman “specimen” is not out of character nor ignoring the harsher remarks he makes towards the colonisers.
Surprisingly, Marlow’s tune on the Helmsman shifts as the steamer is attacked by natives under the orders of Kurtz to protect “his” ivory. This attack leads to the Helmsman getting shot by a spear and bleeding out. With his body lying down, Marlow “jerks the spear out of his side” and “hugged him from behind desperately” before tipping him overboard. Getting rid of the body. Marlow threw him overboard to make sure the attackers don’t see a sign of weakness and rush the boat. The way in which the Helmsman died was one of confusion. He left the wheel (in the middle of an attack) to try and pick up a rifle to use. Marlow, frustrated at this, called the Helmsman a “fool n-word” for abandoning the wheel at a bad time which could have endangered everyone on board. Now, the elephant in the room is Marlow using the n-word when angry at the Helmsman which paints him as painfully racist in the eyes of a modern reader. In fact, Chinua Achebe’s lecture in 1975 mentions how Marlow’s narration is racist because his use of the n-word is presented as casual whilst Conrad’s writing not framing it as merely ignorance. Achebe believes Conrad is just using Africa and the natives as instruments for his writing; thus, the book appears to be normalizing racism towards natives rather than exposing it.
Despite this, the main reason why Marlow uses the n-word is because its 19th century diction. Many people used the n-word to describe a person as black/non-European in the case of European colonisers. A part of linguistics is looking into how words change and evolve over time. The same way in which people in the future will label us as racist or discriminatory for using offensive words like ‘Paki’ for people from Pakistan or even the word ‘dumb’ for mute people. To analyse the quote even further, the adjective of “fool” is describing the noun “n-word”. The n-word was commonly utilised as a noun for people to describe people of colour. From this, the full picture is that Marlow is merely describing him as a black man who is stupid for abandoning the wheel at a critical moment. Of course, Marlow would tell off the Helmsman for making a bad decision: especially with how Marlow fixates on efficiency, the comment brings to light how Marlow was mostly frustrated not out of blind racism but incompetence which separates him from the other colonisers.
What Achebe’s lecture ignores is the guilt and sorrow Marlow feels after the Helmsman’s death. Marlow tells his friend in London that he “missed his late Helmsman awfully”. In addition, the way Marlow describes his sorrow for the Helmsman is a way for Conrad to fully spotlight the humanity of the natives to European readers. Said readers at the time believing that imperialism and colonisation would help civilise the natives. Marlow states that “perhaps you will think it passing strange this regret for a savage who was no more account than a grain of sand in a black Saharah”. Marlow uses the words “savage” and “black Saharah” not to insult the Helmsman but to mimic the linguistics his friends and the readers might use when thinking of colonisation without seeing the truth that Marlow has saw. That’s why he states, “don’t you see, he had done something, he had steered; for months I had him at my back”. How fascinating to see Marlow’s shift in viewpoint. In Congo, he acted rather cold and frustrated by the Helmsman’s poor steering, now in London, he’s praising it. Marlow had created an unspoken bond between him and the Helmsman as they worked together in steering the ship and following directions. This bond got so deep that when the Helmsman was shot with a spear: Marlow recalls “that look he gave me when he received that hurt remains to this day in my memory – like a claim of distant kinship affirmed in a supreme moment”. This, combined with Marlow “shutting his eyes when removing the spear and claiming he was the heaviest man on earth goes to show how Marlow sees the humanity in the natives and how a reader should see it too.
Concluding this, Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ is a beautiful novella that explores the theme of humanity and how it presents the native Congolese in a light that modern media and writing fail to do. Not only has Conrad written how imperialism and colonialism cause Europeans to see a lack of humanity in the natives – it also blinds them to their own greed and inefficiency as seen by the “pilgrims”. Thus, Marlow ventures deep into Congo, revealing the natives to hold more restrain, humanity and kinship than any of the other colonisers could. SO, the answer to ‘What is the linguistics to a coloniser?’ is simple. The answer being that of character or person who uses language to explore the themes of colonialism and analyse the humanity in colonising. Some works use it as propaganda, others like Conrad’s use it to expose the truth – one is certainly more human than the other if you ask me.
References
Joseph Conrad (1899) ‘Heart of Darkness’
Benita Parry (1985) ‘Two divisions in Heart of Darkness
Edward Said (1993) ‘Culture and Imperialism’
Chinua Achebe (1975) ‘An Image of Africa’
Leave a Reply