It was in the twilight of Kurtz’ life when he finally understood while Marlow found it by contemplating on another’s life (Said, 2005). It becomes logical for us to cover our apprehensions with naivety, arrogance, and sometimes even hate.
The style in which Joseph Conrad delivers an objective perspective of the issue of racism in his book “Heart of Darkness” emanates off the subtlety with which a number of arguments are presented. At a glance, it is reminiscent of Plato’s writings wherein characters are representative of the different points of view regarding one topic. This narrative undertaking gives the purposeful intention that allows the readers to form their own opinion regarding the subject as the author impartially presents us with all possible angles of the debate. We have Marlow, Conrad and Kurtz as the voices of reason each with their own proper merit. It is an irony that in the end of ‘Heart of Darkness’ there was still the undeniable obscurity between Marlow and the natives. The paradox is that revering the text is further acknowledging its flaws because of the absence of reciprocity in its dialogue as Achebe asserts (Armstrong, 2005). The vast sea and the travels are symbolic of the immense encompassing arguments and opinions of many that are altogether true and viable in real life.
“It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind—as is very proper for those who tackle darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than our-selves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much” (Conrad, p.3). Such was the real scenario of the conquest of the West with the rest of the world. Self-proclaming themselvess superior for the sole reason that they were the conquerors and by process of simple deduction makes those who they were able to pass