Heart Of Darkness Ignorance And Racism Essays - Congo Free State

Heart of Darkness: Ignorance and Racism Heart of Darkness: Ignorance and Racism Joseph Conrad develops themes of personal power, individual responsibility, and social justice in his book Heart of Darkness. His book has all the trappings of the conventional adventure tale - mystery, exotic setting, escape, suspense, unexpected attack. Chinua Achebe concluded, "Conrad, on the other hand, is undoubtedly one of the great stylists of modern fiction and a good story-teller into the bargain" (Achebe 252). Yet, despite Conrad's great story telling, he has also been viewed as a racist by some of his critics. Achebe, Singh, and Sarvan, although their criticisim differ, are a few to name. Normal readers usually are good at detecting racism in a book. Achebe acknowledges Conrad camouflaged racism remarks, saying, "But Conrad chose his subject well - one which was guaranteed not to put him in conflict with psychological pre-disposition..." (Achebe, 253). Having gone back and rereading Heart of Darkness, but this time reading between the lines, I have discovered some racism Conrad felt toward the natives that I had not discovered the first time I read the book. Racism is portrayed in Conrad's book, but one must acknowledge that back in the eighteen hundreds society conformed to it. Conrad probably would have been criticized as being soft hearted rather than a racist back in his time. Conrad constantly referred to the natives, in his book, as black savages, niggers, brutes, and "them", displaying ignorance toward the African history and racism towards the African people. Conrad wrote, "Black figures strolled out listlessly... the beaten nigger groaned somewhere" (Conrad 28). "They passed me with six inches, without a glance, with the complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages" (Conrad 19). Achebe, also, detected Conrad's frequent use of unorthodox name calling, "Certainly Conrad had a problem with niggers. His in ordinate love of that word itself should be of interest to psychoanalysts" (Achebe 258). Conrad uses Marlow, the main character in the book, as a narrator so he himself can enter the story and tell it through his own philosophical mind. Conrad used "double speak" throughout his book. Upon arriving at the first station, Marlow commented what he observed. "They were dying slowly - it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom" (Conrad 20). Marlow felt pity toward the natives, yet when he met the station's book keeper he changed his views of the natives. "Moreover I respected the fellow. Yes. I respected his collars, his vast cuffs, his brushed hair. His appearance was certainly great demoralization of the land he kept up his appearance" (Conrad 21). Marlow praised the book keeper as if he felt it's the natives' fault for living in such waste. the bureaucracy only cared about how he looked and felt. The bookeeper did not care for the natives who were suffering less than fifty feet from him. He stated the natives weren't criminals but were being treated as if they were, but at the same time he respected the book keeper on his looks instead of despising him for his indifference. Conrad considered the Africans inferior and doomed people. Frances B. Singh, author of The Colonialistic Bias of Heart of Darkness said "The African natives, victims of Belgian exploitation, are described as 'shapes,' 'shadows,' and 'bundles of acute angles,' so as to show the dehumanizing effect of colonialist rule on the ruled" (269-270). Another similar incident of "double speak" appeared on the death of Marlow's helmsman. Marlow respected the helmsman, yet when the native's blood poured into Marlow's shoes, "To tell you the truth, I was morbidity anxious to change my shoes and socks" (Conrad 47). How can someone respect yet feel disgusted towards someone? Singh looks into this question by stating, "The reason of course, is because he (Marlow) never completely grants them (natives) human status: at the best they are a species of superior hyena" (Singh 273). As I have mentioned before, Conrad was not only racist but also ignorant. He would often mix ignorance with racism when he described the natives. "They howled and leaped and spun and made horrid faces, but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity - like yours - the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly" (Conrad 35). "The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us - who could tell?" (Conrad 37). The end result of Conrad's ignorance of not knowing the behavior of African people concluded his division of the social

Cantabrian War

Cantabrian War Dates: 29/28-19 B.C. Rome won the Cantabrian War, in Spain, during the rule of the first emperor, Octavian, who had recently earned the title by which we know him, Augustus. Although Augustus brought troops from Rome to the battlefront  and unintentionally brought about victory, he had retired from battle when victory was achieved. Augustus left a stepson and a nephew, the aediles Tiberius and Marcellus, to hold the victory celebration. He also left Lucius Aemilius to serve as governor when he returned home. The victory celebration was premature. So was Augustus closing of the Janus gates of peace. While I may have aroused your curiosity, this war is not one of the more popular ones for study. As the great 20th century, Oxford-based, Roman historian Ronald Syme wrote: It is in no way surprising that the Spanish War of Augustus should have commanded so little attention in modern times; and it might well be asked how far such a subject can repay study. In comparison with the wars in Germany and Illyricum, with the momentous vicissitudes of the frontier policy of Augustus, the subjugation of Northwestern Spain seems dull and tedious.The Spanish War of Augustus (26-25 B. C.)Ronald SymeThe American Journal of Philology, Vol. 55, No. 4 (1934), pp. 293-317 The 4th-5th-century Christian historian Paulus Orosius [The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans] says that in 27 B.C., when Augustus and his right-hand man Agrippa were consuls, Augustus decided it was time to subdue the border-raiding Cantabri and Astures. These tribes lived in the northern part of Spain, by the Pyrenees, in the province of Gallacia. In his 2010 Legions of Rome: The Definitive History of Every Imperial Roman Legion, Australian writer Stephen Dando-Collins says when Augustus headed from Rome to Spain, he took some of his Praetorian Guard with him, members of which he later gave land from the conquered territory. Augustus was embarrassed by his inability to clinch the battle, became ill, and retired to Taracco. The legates left in charge of the Roman legions in the area, Antistius and Firmius, won surrender through a combination of their skill and the enemys treachery the Astures betrayed their own people. Dando-Collins says the Cantabrian forces had resisted the type of battle formation Rome preferred because their strength lay in fighting from a distance so they could hurl their weapon of choice, the javelin: But these peoples would neither yield to him, because they were confident on account of their strongholds, nor would they come to close quarters, owing to their inferior numbers and the circumstance that most of them were javelin-throwers....Cassisus DioFor extended passages from Cassius Dio and others on the Cantabrian War, see Sources. Augustus Departure Leads to Over-Confidence The tribes successfully avoided being roped into other types of engagements until Augustus retired to Taracco. Then, believing Augustus had given up, they felt superior to the legates. So they allowed themselves to be drawn into the Roman-preferred, set-piece battle, with consequences disastrous to them: Accordingly Augustus found himself in very great embarrassment, and having fallen ill from over-exertion and anxiety, he retired to Tarraco and there remained in poor health. Meanwhile Gaius Antistius fought against them and accomplished a good deal, not because he was a better general than Augustus, but because the barbarians felt contempt for him and so joined battle with the Romans and were defeated.Cassisus Dio Victorious, Augustus gave two of the legions the honorary title of Augusta, becoming the 1st and 2nd Augusta, according to Dando-Collins. Augustus left Spain to return home, where he closed the Janus gates for the second time in his reign, but the fourth time in Roman history, according to Orosius. Caesar carried away this reward from his Cantabrian victory: he could now order the gates of war to be barred fast. Thus for a second time in these days, through Caesars efforts, Janus was closed; this was the fourth time that this had happened since the founding of the City.Orosius Book 6 Cantabrian Treachery and Punishment Meanwhile... the surviving Cantabrians and Asturians, according to Dando-Collins, acted as they had done repeatedly before, with trickery. They told governor Lucius Aemilius they wished to give the Romans gifts in token of their acceptance of the Romans  and asked him to send a sizable number of soldiers to transport the gifts. Foolishly (or without the advantage of hindsight), Aemilius obliged. The tribes executed the soldiers, starting a new round. Aemilius renewed the fighting, won a devastating victory, and then removed the hands of the soldiers he defeated. Even this wasnt the end of it. Again, according to Dando-Collins, Agrippa faced rebel Cantabrians slaves who had escaped and returned to their mountainous homes and those of their countrymen they could persuade to join them. Although Florus says Agrippa was in Spain at an earlier date, Syme says he didnt get there until 19 B.C. Agrippas own troops were getting on and were tired of fighting. Although Agrippa won the round of anti-Cantabrian fighting, he wasnt happy about the way the campaign had gone and so declined the honor of a triumph. To punish his less than competent troops, he demoted a legion, probably the 1st Augusta (Syme), by stripping it of its honorary title. He captured all the Cantabrians, executed the military aged men and forced all the mountain folk to live down on the plains. Rome experienced only minor difficulties afterward. It was only in 19 B.C. that Rome could finally say it had subjugated Spain (Hispania), ending the  conflict that had started about 200 years earlier during the conflict with Carthage. Roman Legions Involved (Source: Dando-Collins): 1st Legion2nd Legion (later the 2nd Augusta)4th Macedonia5th Alaudae6th Legion (later the 6th Victrix)9th Hispana10th Gemina20th Legion Governors of the Spanish Provinces (Source: Syme) Tarraconensis (Hispania Citerior) Lusitania (Hispania Ulterior) 27-24 C. Antistius Vetus24-22 L. Aemiliusor L. (Aelius) Lamia22-19 C. Furnius19-17 P. Silius Nerva26-22 P. Carisius19 ? L. Sestius Next: Ancient Sources on the Cantabrian War The sources on this war are confusing. I have followed Syme, Dando-Collins and then the sources, as much as possible, but if you have corrections to make, please let me know. Thanks in advance.

Midterm Exam Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 2

Midterm Exam - Coursework Example The crew decided to communicate earlier; there could have been speculations on the possible sabotage of Panama against United States. Social media campaign would have twisted the scene to appear as though it was a political issue. Rowdy youths would take the issue into their hands, forcing American politicians and the wider police enforcement to act in response. As a result, there could have been diplomatic problems between United States and Panama, as well as, street violence similar to the Rodney King Riot 1992. Likewise, the panic and fear caused to innocent civilians, who by strong logistical measures were not in a position to communicate with the relatives back in the ship would have been bothering towards the recovery of the shape. Considering that some of these relatives have fragile emotions, panic would result to more catastrophes, for instance, insanity or even death. Moreover, intense political activities would have questioned Carnival ability to respond to disaster. Theories on ship disaster management would have crucified the company wrongly. In the 62 hours of recovery and restoration, the company could have lost a significant among of business, clients and losing a legend image to other competitors. This could have resulted to failure of the multinational, disinvestments and possibly permanent locked out of business. By bring back the ship to the port; it indicated that United States government, Carnival Cruise and the state of Panama were always responsible to what happened to citizens and other customers. There are a number of stakeholders involved in the case. The very most important stakeholders are the customer aboard the ship since these are the bosses of the company. Their relatives, friends and society as well follow closely. Other key individuals are the company crew, those who operate the vessel including their captain. The coast guards, the multinational’s employees,