"Native Dialects"

Re: Achebe's observations abt the use of the term "native language". Although it's inevitable that all novels feature people and thus generalize, stereotype and misrepresent them to some extent, HoD does quite deliberately take speech away from the native inhabitants. Colonizers must impose their systems of control and in doing so, rewrite existing "native" systems in their language. It's a form of linguistic violence which usurps and debases other languages, much like colonization itself does.

We see how the Africans are often portrayed a black, faceless mass: "a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of eyes rolling." (51) It's easy to why they are portrayed so--to show them as a mob is to render them lacking individuality and hence humanity. Often their language is a "complaining clamour" to Marlow's ears, and he is frequently unable to distinguish whether they are welcoming, threatening or anything else because it's not English, therefore barbaric and mere noise. Nothing is said of any subtlety of expression in their faces either, except how ferocious they appear--because they are ugly black faces and nothing is to be read in them. Only Kurtz's mistress is described in any detail, and we all know what Conrad/Marlow thinks of women. One might think that Marlow, being a veteran sailor, would have picked up some of the "native" African language, but he does not condescend to even acknowledge it. The book by Towser/Towson is a ray of enlightening salvation amidst this uncivilization for the Russian--a means to preserve his sanity and most importantly, his "whiteness". (The English) Language and the written word are shown here to be a means of distinction and a mark of superiority--a championing tool of colonization.

(294)

Defending Achebe (just 'cos I'm trying to be different :P)

I’m quite fascinated by the discussions that Achebe’s article has thus far generated on the blog – they’re all very interesting, and mostly defend Conrad’s work. When I first read Achebe’s article I was quite disturbed by his aggressiveness in attacking HOD, and his assertion that HOD is ‘an offensive and deplorable book’ (11). But when I read all the people defending Conrad, I wonder if perhaps Achebe could be defended as well? I mean, his criticism must have some valid points in it to frequently be prescribed as the article to be read alongside HOD.

Thinking deeper about Achebe’s article, I realize that Achebe wasn’t solely attacking Conrad per se. Achebe, to me, was just using Conrad’s HOD to prove his bigger point: Western literary texts that deal with the empire mostly tend to perpetuate the overarching view of the empire as the Other; in this case, Achebe’s Africa is the Other. When Achebe wrote

Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as “the other world,” the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man’s vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant bestiality (3).

Doesn’t it echo some of the other readings we’ve done on this course? That oftentimes, these binaries are present in these literary works and our readings of them could influence our own perceptions of Africa. Art has the power to influence, and Achebe worries that this influence is a negative one – one that continues to encourage these binaries rather than break them down. Hence, at the end of his criticism, Achebe proposes a possible change, ‘Perhaps this is the time when it can begin, when the high optimism engendered by the breathtaking achievements of Western science and industry is giving way to doubt and even confusion’ (14).

(297 words)

-Yuen Mei-