Blog Assignment #6

      In the documentary The Cove, the question arises whether it is ethical break the law, something that is considered unethical, to show something else that is unethical in order to do something that is right.  In this case the documentary shows the unethical treatment of dolphins and the possible extinction of them.  Richard O’Barry is an activist for the dolphins. He was the trainer of Kathy, the dolphin who played Flipper in the 1960’s TV series.  When Kathy died in captivity in the arms of Ric he realized that training a beautiful animal to perform silly tricks was ridiculous.  He became an activist and has released over twenty-five dolphins in captivity.  Ric said in the film that he feels responsible for the multi-billion dollar industry in capturing dolphins for entertainment that he helped create. He has made it his life mission to break the law and show the unethical treatment of the dolphins and ultimately fee them of this torture.

       Breaking the law is seemingly unethical. However, O’Barry was attempting to show what is unethical by being unethical. In a sense he was doing wrong to show a wrong, to do a right. In Japan dolphins are captured and the ones they don’t use for places like Sea World for performing, are cut up for their meat. Although the dolphin meat is contaminated by mercury, and most people in Japan don’t eat dolphin meat anyway.  Most Japanese citizens are not aware that some of the meat they are eating is dolphin, and most don’t know of the cruelty towards the dolphins.  This documentary has caused the Japanese citizens to be more aware of the unethical treatment and most are in agreement that it is wrong.

        Though the filming of the actual treatment of the dolphins is prohibited it did not stop Ric and activists from trying to capture and expose the truth. Though it was unethical of them to smuggle in camera equipment to film the dolphins, their purpose was a good one. They did not break the law for the sake of breaking it, the broke the law to stop a terrible thing. In most instances two wrongs do not make a right, but in this case they made two wrongs in the hopes that what they do would result someday in a right action in the prevention of dolphin cruelty.  They pursued an ethical answer through actions of unethical means. One-day dolphins may once again be a free and unharmed animal.  

The Cove. Dir. Louie Psihoyos. Perf. Richard O'Barry. Jim Clark in Association 

        with Diamond Docs and Skyfish Films, 2009. DVD.

Blog Assignment #5

 November 14, 2010  

  In 1983 Godfcey Reggio filmed Koyaanisquatsi. The title is translated as crazy life, life in turmoil, or state that calls for another way of living. The movie is an artistic expression of the destruction of the world by man. Reggio argues that man has destroyed the beauty and wonder of the earth with our machines and factories that have polluted the atmosphere.

     One of the translations for Koyaanisquatsi is state that calls for another way of living. We humans have been hard on our Earth. The pollution is great and growing, even in the 1980’s this was a problem that Reggio was addressing.  There needed to be a change in the way humans were abusing the atmosphere, and this artistic film brought awareness to this fact and it did so by using only one word.  One of the things that sets humans apart from primates is language. Though use of almost no language at all, Reggio was able to display a vivid argument for the need of change concerning the way the environment was being treated.

     The movie starts off showing a cave painting of primitive man. It proceeds to show numerous pictures of nature. One of the first pictures is of the challenger, something we don’t learn until the last scene of the film. The first time the challenger is shown, the picture does not allow the viewer to know what the image is. At the very end of the film the shot frame is widened and the rocket is revealed, then it explodes. The scene is intense, it shows that all the technologies man has can still amount to nothing. The complication of a simple thing such as nature, is something to not destroy by harmful inventions of man.

   After the nature shots it shows picture of man made factories and other such machinery that has contributed to the destruction of the Earth.  There is nothing spoken in this film. The whole film gets its argument across simply by way of showing the contrasting pictures between nature and destructive man made things. The man made images are representational of the defamiliarization we humans are having with nature in present day times. Nature has seemed to be less cared for as technology persists in its development. The film also makes a point about how nature is peaceful in its untouched state by way of music. When picture were shown that involved man the music was tense and the tempo was increased, when picture were shown of nature the music was slower and more rhythmic.

Argument essay

Wheeler1

Emily Wheeler

English 105

Professor Timmons

October 27,2010

Hypocrisy in the Death Penalty

      Has it ever occurred to anyone the hypocrisy in the death penalty? It is strange to think that we would put a person to death for a death. It just does not make sense. Though the actions of the murderer were indeed wrong, and they should be punished but killing them will not bring back the person who was killed. There have been many problems concerning the death penalty.  Mistakes concerning innocent who have been killed for falsified or incorrect evidence has been one of the main issues. Now with today’s advancing technology, the majority of mistakes have been ultimately eliminated. Though there are still a few unlucky innocent members of society who have been put on death row for a crime they did not commit. So it is fair to say that if some one is killed and the other party demands justice in terms of death, that makes them just as guilty as the person they are trying to punish.

     In 1983 Rolando Cruz was put on death row for a crime he did not commit. Upon his release he stated, “I did 12 years, three months and three days,” he told a recent conference on capital punishment. They did kill me. I am who I am now because this is who they made.” (Cooper).  Twelve years after his sentence they found DNA evidence that pointed to another man as the real culprit of the crime. Even though Cruz insisted he was innocent it didn’t help his case any. Currently the officers who presided the case are being charged.

Wheeler 2

with obstruction of justice for concealing evidence. The family of the girl who was murdered wanted justice, and most people in that situation would one justice of some kind. However, they

called it a high profile case and it needed to be a speedy trial. In doing so they missed vital information in which it caused an innocent man to be needlessly in jail for twelve years.

     There are only nine states in the United States that do not have the death penalty. These states include, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Main, Massachusetts, and West Virginia.  Since 1976 Texas has had the most executions.  The execution toll has risen steadily since 1976. There was a spike in the deaths around the later 80’s and on into the 90’s.  The most executions in one year were in 1997, when the toll was over 70 that year (Cooper).

       Kenneth Jost, said that so many of the cases that once sentenced death have been reversed due to, “flaws in the system, including inadequate defense counsels, create an unacceptable risk of executing an innocent person” (Jost).  Since the Death penalty was reinstated in 1976 in Texas they have executed over 253 people, most of any state (Jost). In his article Jost discusses the death penalty concerning mental retardation in the offenders. Since the offenders are handicapped, the Supreme Court had to look over the eighth amendment carefully in order to not violate the offender’s rights. Though they are felons they still have rights that by law cannot be violated.  Jost stated that in the courts,  “they noted that nearly half of the states with capital punishment now specifically bar execution of mentally retarded offenders.”

     People opposed to the death penalty are in great numbers. In June of 2005, the opposing side of the death penalty gathered outside of the U.S. Supreme Court for two inmates who were facing cases concerning the death penalty (Jost).  The people standing and protesting the death penalty usually don’t care for the situation. Regardless of the case, most who are opposed will stick with their belief.  In the case that they were protesting in June, DNA evidence was the main

Wheeler 3

issue surrounding the case. To the people opposing this is one of the main points they make. The manipulation of evidence, the falsification of evidence, and the misread evidence are all reasons that fuel the opposing side.

       Of course the other side must be considered as well. Those who are for the death penalty are the ones to be considered hypocrites, but they have the right to their opinion.  They do not consider the issue of the loss or altered evidence. Nor do they consider how those people are people, just like the victims.  The act, depending on the situation, was most likely a horrible tragedy. Though this true, sentencing the murderer wont bring back the dead, as previously stated. So, by supporting the death penalty they are just as guilty as the murderer is. Not in the same way, their heart is in the right place. They merely want justice for the crime committed, but killing the felon still makes them no better than the felon. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, the Bible.

      Over past couple of years the Supreme Court has tried very hard to, “eliminate disparities and increase certainty in sentencing federal defendants” (Jost). They are attempting to stop the flaws in incriminating the innocent. It has been even mentioned that juries have been asked to make the formal sentencing rather than the judge in order to ensure a fair trial. They are even trying to get Congress to step in and have a say in the sentencing policies. They have tried to get the age limit lowered to apply to sixteen and seventeen year olds as well. However, it has been said that that is curl and unusual punishment, and that is absolutely correct. If a sixteen year old commits a crime so heinous that is being considered death penalty worthy, then that teen is in need of some serious psychological help. They should not be given death, but instead put into a mental

Wheeler 4

hospital. With so many conflicting problems and views on the death penalty, it is hard to believe it is fair or even worth the controversy.

        Between 1989 and 2003 in which cases, particularly rape cases have not had proper forensic examination. Jimmy Ray Bromgard was convicted of raping an eight-year-old girl. He spent fourteen years in prison before they had the proper DNA evidence to prove him innocent. The lawyer he had at the time of his arraignment did not hire the proper testing to be done in order to stand against the girl’s not so sure testimony. She even mentioned in court that she was not sure, yet that fact was not taken into consideration.  If the Supreme Court had decided then to lower the death rate it could have been very possible for him to be put on death row, and he was an innocent man at that.

      Court cases involving people need to be considered as such. A person is a person no matter of what crimes they have committed. They are still by definition a human being. Though they have made some decisions that have made them less than capable of living in society, that doesn’t give the community around that person the right to sentence them to death. Look what happened with the Salem Witch Trials. They killed many women just on the “supposed” basis that they were witches. Potentially they murder innocent women just based on suspicion. So, is that not what is happing with the death penalty today? Just for a quick fix courts are passing conflicts on to the death penalty, and sometimes at the cost of executing an innocent person. The only two states in the United States that have full Indigent Defense funding are Utah and Pennsylvania (Mantel). The Indigent Defense is there to insure a in depth investigation to avoid an unjust trial. Another reason innocent people can slip through the cracks and be incriminated for crimes they didn’t commit is that most of the lawyers have excessive case loads. “Poor

Wheeler 5

training and supervision and judicial interference are also blamed for many of the deficiencies”,

as stated by Barbara Mantel. According to Mantel the legal department in this country is lacking a bit. So, why would the death penalty be a good idea with our country in such a confused state.

       It has become all to common in the U.S, to day for those to go to prison due to wrongful convictions. Steve Weinberg wrote about Ronald Cotton, a man convicted of raping a college student and served eleven years before being released due to the proper DNA identification. Weinberg wrote that, “there is general acceptance that wrongful convictions indeed occur”. It is all to common for when a mistake like that is made to just throw it to the side and move on. It’s a much bigger deal than is let on. Especially in the court system, the only way the people in a community hear about the mistake made is through the media, often it is quite difficult to get the court to admit its mistake freely. Usually it will take until the story blows out of proportion in the media for the court to admit they were wrong and sent an innocent person to prison.

     The death penalty is up there with abortion in terms of controversy. There will always be controversy surrounding the death penalty. People will always be on either side of the issue. Some will be for, some against. The death penalty is dangerous, it is the taking of a life, and our courts are not always up to par. They have sentenced innocent men to death and later, right before the sentence was carried out, they found the proper evidence that proved them innocent. However, there are the few who do not get the same opportunity to get their true sentencing. Our government is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”, yet they still continue to make the same mistakes and sentence innocent people. The death penalty is wrong, by supporting it that makes them no different then the people on trial. Yes, there crime was wrong. But death to the one on trial won’t fix the problem. Vengeance solves nothing, only proactive and positive punishment is effective.

Wheeler 6

Works Cited

Cooper, Mary H. "Death Penalty Update." CQ Researcher 9.1 (1999): 1-24. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1999010800>.

Jost, Kenneth. "Rethinking the Death Penalty." CQ Researcher 11.40 (2001): 945-968. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2001111600>.

Jost, Kenneth. "Death Penalty Controversies." CQ Researcher 15.33 (2005): 785-808. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2005092300>.

Jost, Kenneth. "Sentencing Debates." CQ Researcher 14.39 (2004): 925-948. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2004110500>.

Mantel, Barbara. "Public Defenders." CQ Researcher 18.15 (2008): 337-360. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2008041800>.

Weinberg, Steve. "Wrongful Convictions." CQ Researcher 19.15 (2009): 345-372. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2009041700>.

Blog Assignment #4

     Apocalypse Now, 2001, has many similarities to the novella Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The movie is merely a representation of the book. The movie is set in the middle of the Vietnam War. It is an interesting choice of location to bring across the meaning of the novel. The movie holds nothing back in terms of graphics it captures the horror of the Vietnam War and the horror of the novel. The scenes that are the most similar between the two is when the helmsman (in the book), and the soldier driving the boat (in the movie).

    A similarity between the helmsman and the soldier is that they both drive the boat that Marlow/Captain Willard, ride on down the rivers. The precise scene that resembles the most to the novel is the death scene of the helmsman and soldier. They die relatively the same way. Both were killed when the natives attacked the boat. A spear was what killed them. However, the manner in which they died was somewhat different. When the spear struck the helmsman in the novella, he and Marlow had a connection, an almost brotherly bond.  There was a form of connection that had formed between them after the long period of time on the boat together.  They had a connected moment right as the helmsman was dying that was not the same in the movie. In the movie the soldier driving the boat was killed in the same way, but the main difference is that the “moment” that happened in the book was much different in the movie. In the movie a spear killed the soldier the same way as in the book, but as he lay dying he grabbed Captain Willard and tried to pull him towards the spear through his chest as if to kill Willard. The moment was so shocking it was almost not to be believed. The movie “moment” was so much more intense than the book. It was odd to see the soldier want to kill Willard, it sparked many interesting questions as to why he would want Willard dead in the first place. He had argued with Willard about not going further up the river towards the dreaded Colonel Kurtz, but he was determined to follow his orders to kill Kurtz. His mind was in that set and so it can be stated that Willard’s actions caused the death of the soldier, therefore causing him to want to kill Willard. Conrad chooses to show that there was a deep connection between the helmsman and Marlow, while the movie displayed an almost menacing behavior between Willard and the other soldier.

Apocalypse Now, Redux 2001 

Joseph Conrad, a Racist?-essay #3

Wheeler 1

Emily Wheeler                                                                                                       

English 105

Professor Timmons

October 13, 2010

Joseph Conrad, a Racist?

      In the essay “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”, written by Chinua Achebe, it discusses the issue of racism throughout the novel. Achebe chooses to pin Joseph Conrad as a racist. Achebe suggests the novella to be a purely accurate document of events written by Conrad. He lumps Marlow, the main character, and Conrad himself into one and the same.  There is no distinction between the writer, Conrad and the character, Marlow. Achebe suggests that Conrad is a racist as evident from Marlow’s actions in the novella. The book is a work of fiction. It is based on events Conrad described when he visited the Congo; however, there is no official evidence as to whether the events mentioned were an absolute account or simply fiction.  The quote, “The point of my observations should be quite clear by now, namely that Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist ” (Achebe 343), points precisely to the fact that Achebe says that Conrad is a racist.  Conrad is most certainly not a racist; there is no solid proof of this, regardless of what Achebe may feel towards him.

      Whether there is any truth to Conrad being a racist is dependent upon the reader’s interpretations of the novella’s content. It seems Achebe believed Conrad to be a racist based purely on his own interpretation of Conrad’s depiction of the characters such as Kurtz and Marlow who seemingly ‘go mad’ because of the savage nature of the natives of the Congo.  The  ‘madness’ seems to be a metaphor for racism.  It suggests that savage

Wheeler 2

natives drive white people crazy.   However, Conrad’s description of the events does not

automatically assume he, himself, is a racist.  But, given that Achebe is African by birth, one could understand his being offended by Conrad’s writing.  Achebe is naturally protective of the natives of the Congo since he shares that heritage.    Achebe does make accurate points in his essay, and does provide a plausible argument that Conrad is a racist. In one part of the essay Achebe provides a distinction about how Conrad writes about the two races:

                                                                                                                     

A black figure strode on long black legs, waving long black arms…as though we  might expect a black figure striding along on black legs to wave white arms! But so unrelenting is Conrad’s obsession. As a matter of interest Conrad gives us in A Personal Record what amounts to a companion piece to the buck nigger of Haiti. At the age of sixteen Conrad encountered his first Englishman in Europe. He calls him “my unforgettable Englishman” and describes him in the following manner: (his) calves exposed to the public gaze...dazzled the beholder by the splendor of their marble-like condition and their rich tone of young ivory…The light of headlong, exalted and triumphant eyes. In passing he cast a glance of kindly curiosity and friendly gleam of big, sound, shiny teeth…his white calves twinkled sturdily. 

Though a harsh example, it is a solid argument because it is a direct quote from Heart of Darkness.  The words in this quote do seem quite racially induced.  Achebe does include

Wheeler 3

words from another source,  Joseph Conrad: A Psychoanalytic biography by Bernard C. Meyer, MD, p.30. By merging the two excerpts from different sources, it validates his

argument that Conrad is a racist.  Achebe seems to be unable to separate his personal opinion of Conrad so that he is unable to be objective about Conrad’s work.

       One of the main points that Achebe misses is that Conrad writes Marlow as understanding and curious about the cannibals of the Congo.  Marlow is not intentionally racist; however he is unfamiliar with this culture.  He is uneducated in the use of politically correct terminology.  He is not intentionally malicious.  Marlow was raised by Englishmen whose language and behaviors were not compassionate, nor understanding of cultures other than their own.  Again, Conrad is not Marlow.  Marlow is a character in Conrad’s novella.  Conrad points out the need for Englishmen and Africans to understand one another’s similarities and differences and then learn to treat one another with respect.  

      When Marlow first arrives in the Congo it is unclear if indeed he is a racist or not. He mentions, upon arrival, that the reason he is there in the first place is that the other riverboat captains have lost their “minds”. The reason they have apparently lost their minds is that the Congo drove them to madness. Later in the novella when Marlow finds himself on the riverboat with the cannibals, he discovers he would be flattered if they found him tasty. This fact alone questions if Marlow is even a racist.  It seems that perhaps Marlow has come to an understanding of the way of life for the cannibals. 

      Achebe points out in his article how racism in the novella is a “normal” way of thinking when it comes to Conrad’s writing. To Achebe this is the way Conrad must have

Wheeler 4

 felt as well. “Whatever Conrad’s problems were, you might say he is now safely dead ” (Achebe 345), this is and insult to Conrad. He is deliberately making jabs at Conrad and

justifying it by saying he is dead and it no longer matters. It is rude and uncalled for. Conrad’s views cannot be taken into consideration from the novella. Achebe is an African native, and it is most probable that he is letting his own thoughts and accusations be derived from his own experiences and blaming Conrad for them. The fact that he is dead there is no way to ask Conrad if he himself was a racist or if he deliberately wrote the novella to show racism in this particular light.

     Conrad could very well have intended for his words to be taken the way Achebe did. This is still is no way to make a legitimate fuss over Conrad being a so-called “racist”.  Yes, it is true his arguments are fair, but the credibility they actually have is questionable. It is quite possible that the racism innuendos of the novel and other works of Conrad were intentional. Conrad’s point of Heart of Darkness was to make the reader think and evaluate. It so happened that Achebe viewed it in a negative light. 

     It is true that Achebe was very strong on his feelings towards this novella. He even believes it to not be a “great work of art” (Achebe 344). He compares him to the lack of credibility he would give to a “priest who reads the mass backwards or a physician who poisons his patients” (Achebe 344-footnote #2). He does not doubt his ability as a writer, though it is clear he doesn’t respect his works.

     It is possible that Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness in an effort to raise up the issue of racism between Englishmen and Africans.  It is possible that Conrad writes of these fictional characters, Kurtz and Marlow, who depict actual people who are disrespectful of races other than their own.  Achebe’s essay seems to not even consider the possibility that

Wheeler 5

Conrad’s attempt is to speak to the issue of racism so that a light could be shone upon it.  Possibly, Conrad is intent upon educating white people that theirs is not the only race, nor is it the superior race.  Achebe sees Conrad as completely racist and without redemption because he is offended by the actual racism that existed between Englishmen and Africans.  So, he assumes that because Conrad writes about this harsh reality then he must certainly be racist too.

     It seems that Conrad was ahead of the times in which he lived.  He set out to enlighten humanity so that the darkness and misunderstanding between races could be dissolved.

     

Works Cited

Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”.

              Armstrong 336-349.

Armstrong, Paul B. Ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton and Company,

                2006.

blog #3

      Earlier this year an oil pipe in the Gulf of Mexico broke. This wild and unexpected explosion of oil began on August 20,2010 by the BP drilling rig. The spill has caused much controversy. This is a major disaster, not one to be taken lightly. This is not the first time BP has had an oil spill problem. It has caused major commercial fishing problems. The spill has reduced the amount of aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico area, Southern coast of Africa, and parts of the Louisiana coast. Due to the loss of commercial fishing, it has affected the economy greatly. Not only has fishing gone down and been effected by this, they say one of the largest oil spills in history (Campbell Robertson and Clifford Krauss). “It is releasing about 210,000 gallons of oil a day”, says John M. Broder and Tom Zeller Jr. from the New York Times writers of the Gulf Oil Spill, but How Bad article. Broder and Zeller mentioned that this spill could spill for years, it could possible surmount the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989 (Broder and Zeller). There have been attempts to seal the leak, however such attempts had gone in vain. On July 15th the well was capped, and following that on September 19th the well was classified as dead. This was nearly five months after the oil began gushing out of the well (Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill (2010)). There is an interactive map that shows clearly the areas affected by the oil, it shows the day-to-day growth of the oil (Tracking the Oil Spill in the Gulf).
     The after effects of the spill are quite tremendous. Small companies are claiming they deserve a pay out of all the sufferings their business endured during the crisis. One restaurant owner asked for $5.9 billion in emergency payments though before the spill his earnings were not nearly that amount, this said by John Schwartz, writer of Claims to BP Fund Attract Scrutiny. The documentation that they deserve this payout is quite scarce, therefore making it unlikely for them to receive this money.
Another major problem faced by this disaster is the wildlife itself, for example, the sea turtles. To be more specific, the Loggerhead turtles. These turtles are considered to be at risk of extinction. Due to the oil spill some of the eggs in Alabama and coast of Florida are being dug up and relocated to a warehouse and then upon =hatching be released in to the “oil free Atlantic” (John Mooallem).
    This oil sill is one that has been in and out of the news since it began in April. It had become something that was common to see on the news. However, nothing about it was common. It was just as dangerous and lethal as sharks attacking suffers in the wild. We invaded the ocean by putting oil rigs in the middle of the oceans, just like surfers invade that of the shark’s natural territory.











Aigner, Erin, Joe Burgess, Joanne Nurse, Haeyoun Park, Amy Schoenfeld, and Archie
Tse. "Map and Estimates of the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico - Interactive Map –
NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News &
Multimedia. 02 Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/01/us/20100501-oil-spill-
tracker.html?scp=9&sq=oil spill&st=cse>.


Broder, John M., and Tom Zeller. "The New York Times Log In."
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News &
Multimedia. 3 May 2010. Web. 2 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04enviro.html?scp=2&sq=oil spill&st=cse>.


"Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010) - The New
York Times." Times Topics. 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 25 Sept.
2010.
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil _spills/gulf_of_mexico_2010/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=oil spill&st=cse>.


Mooallem, Jon. "The New York Times Log In." The New York
Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 1 Oct.
2010. Web. 07 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03turtles-
t.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=start of oil spill&st=cse>.


Robertson, Campbell, and Clifford Krauss. "The New York Times
Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News &
Multimedia. 02 Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03spill.html>.



Schwartz, John. "The New York Times Log In." The New
York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia.
02 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/us/03feinberg.html?scp=4&sq=oil spill&st=cse>.

Blog Assignment #2

      In Chinua Achebe’s essay, “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”, he discusses the acts of racism throughout the novella.  Achebe criticizes Conrad’s take on racism in this book. He even dares to call Conrad himself a “bloody racist ”.  Achebe crosses the lines between Marlow and Conrad. He meshes the two into one person.  He uses the book itself to say that Conrad used it as a real life depiction on events. Though the book was written with some real life intent, it is not clear as to whether Conrad meant for it to be autobiographical.

       In J. Hillis Miller’s essay, “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?”, he discusses whether or not Heart of Darkness is even worth reading.  He starts off is essay asking a series of rhetorical questions whether or not it should even be taught to students to begin with. He ventures to ask if it should be burned at the risk of being taught to students. Each person who reads Heart of Darkness  “must read for him or herself and testify anew”  (Miller 463).

      Both of these men were passionate for this novella. Whether it was that the book revealed Conrad to be a racist, or that the book is not even worth reading, they were still passionate about what they had to say about the book. Though it is controversial about whether Conrad himself was a racist as stated by Achebe, it must be admitted that his points were good ones. Achebe’s strength in his essay was within his accusations about Conrad as being a racist. It was a bold accusation to make in the first place. He even mentioned the merge of Marlow as being a reflection on Conrad’s personal views. Being that Achebe was African born could have played into account. It is possible that he views the book in a completely different way than an American born citizen.

      In The essay by Miller the weakness is that he starts off his essay with a good many rhetorical questions. It causes one to think about just that part of the essay rather than moving onto the rest of the essay. It can cause one to spend too much time thinking on the rhetorical questions rather than going to read the rest of the essay. It is not a great idea to start an essay with questions. Especially with so many of the questions being similar, it was a definite weakness to the essay.

      Each person’s view of this book will be different. Perhaps that is the way Conrad had intended it to be. It cause one to question their own views and what is acceptable and the traditional roles races are put into.

    

Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”.

              Armstrong 336-349.

Armstrong, Paul B. Ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton and Company,

                2006.

Miller, J. Hillis. “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?”. Armstrong 463-474.

Heart of Darkness Essay

Emily Wheeler

English 105

Professor Timmons

September 27, 2010

Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness: Company vs. the Jungle

  

    Wheeler 1

        In the novella Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, there is a cruelty throughout the company, which contrasts with the beauty and majesty of the jungle. There is a grace about the jungle that is disrupted by the colonization of the Company. The colonial image depicted by Joseph Conrad is not a positive one. Throughout the novella Conrad gives the image that the jungle is being corrupted by the colonial enterprise. A good example of this is when Marlow, the Narrator of the story, goes to visit the accountant of the company.  While visiting the accountant Marlow notices that the man is wearing unnecessary European fashion.  The man is dressed in a suit with a high European collar, and he is in the middle of the Congo.  This itself contrasts with the jungle, due to the fact that that attire is not appropriate for any kind of jungle.  This contrast stands out to Marlow and disturbs him. The man in the suit reminds him of the destructive behavior of the company. The company is there to colonize the Congo. They have divided the people and plan to conquer it. It is the Congo versus the invading Europeans.

          Marlow is the novella’s narrator. The story follows him on his journey as a riverboat captain through the African Congo. Marlow uses clever words in order to describe the devastating effects that the European company he was working for had on the natives of the Congo. England was the hierarchy of the time.  They believed that whatever they wanted was theirs. Marlow described it as a “fascination of the abomination”(Conrad 6). It was the fact that the company being in the majesty of the jungle which made t so fascinating.  What Marlow said was in fact a contradiction in every

possible way. The use of words causes the reader to think and evaluate the truth and

Wheeler 2

meaning behind the overpowering Europeans.  The jungle is fascinating, but the company in the jungle is an abomination. This is what Marlow was stating.

     It was said in the novella that it was possible to loose ones mind once in the Congo. It could drive a person mad all for the, “ noble cause” (Conrad 9), the noble cause being the colonization of the Congo. There are even some casualties, such as the previous riverboat captains. They all inherently went mad. The ‘cause of progress’ is said to have caused the other riverboat captains to go mad (Conrad 9). So many would succumb to the “mysterious life of the wilderness that stirs in the forest, in the jungle, in the hearts of wild men.” (Conrad 6). The question is why? Why would it drive a person mad? One explanation could be that the difference in surrounding could affect the psyche of a person negatively. A more plausible reason would be that the Europeans did not belong in the Congo, therefore going mad as a result.  The jungle belongs there so absolutely, and when the Company came in it disrupted that harmony.  The natives became slaves, or at least were persuaded to work for little to no pay.  It is said that karma, the belief that “what come around goes around”, surrounds all things. The Company invaded space that was not theirs to invade, so karma came around when the natives fought back.

         Marlow did not go to the Congo to get involved with the Congo versus the jungle battle; he simply came to make a living.  Like most in those days, and even still today, most are just trying to make a living regardless of the consequences. At the time that people are trying to make a living not much else matters other than a way to live and support oneself. Marlow mentioned at one point about what men would do for a few

Wheeler 3

‘francs’.  The Company would stop at nothing to make money, even at the cost of pushing out the natives.

      On page fifteen Marlow describes a dead animal on its back. This can most definitely imply that colonialism could possibly be failing in the Congo. The natives most certainly do not want the Europeans there. He does not view them as equals, which is evident by the derogatory term he associates with the native people. However, he does try and understand their predicament with the Europeans.

     Marlow views this world as strange and unnatural to him. Almost like a hallucination. Nothing seems quite real to him. The wonder and majesty of the jungle prevent him from feeling fear towards it. When Marlow encounters the cannibals, instead of fearing them like most would, he is in awe of them. He is fascinated that they have the restraint to not eat the rest of the crew even in a time of extreme hunger.  Marlow even hopes that he looks appetizing to the cannibals! As unbelievable as it may seem Marlow feels like he would be honored in some way if they had the want to eat him. (Conrad  33-34)  Marlow admires the restraint of the cannibals. He admires and respects them. Something the company doses not share in common with Marlow.  Marlow has a respect for the natives, and the Europeans have no concept for their lives nor to they care to take the time to find out.

           Conrad challenges the traditional ideal of Europeans and East Africans. Traditionally the natives were looked upon as savage, this is evident of the cannibals Marlow speaks of. They also were known for having no restraint when it came to boundaries, they could be barbaric. There was a loss of control associated with the Native

Wheeler 4

Africans as well. However, these traditional thoughts were challenged in this novella. The Europeans became the savages when they tried to settle in the land that had already

been settled. They attempted to take what was not theirs, thus making them have no self-control. The fact remains that there is a change in roles depicted by Conrad in this novella. Europeans become the savages and the natives become the more civilized.

       On page thirty-six Marlow speaks of a native helmsman that resembled a trained circus dog.  He described him looking like a dog on its hind legs, wearing pants and a feathered hat.  The absurdity if this is what catches the reader’s eye. The fact that the company has influenced the natives so much as to have them looking like trained animals. The idea of this obviously disturbs Marlow. Later when the helmsman dies Marlow misses him.  He had begun to think of the man as his equal, they had a subtle bond between them. The helmsman steered the boat for Marlow, he was forced to trust the helmsman. He became more than a worker he became a colleague. Something the Company itself rarely saw.  They thought of the natives as nothing more than workers. They were not persons of interest to the Company.

       England was the dominant power in this time period. It was the superpower bent on colonizing as much as it could, as fast as it could. It wanted to promote its profit through use of the African products. They saw it as a perfect opportunity for enterprise. The Congo would be a perfect place to trade from. It was rich with mystery and culture. They took little time in considering the natives who inhabited the area. To gain power in this time, it was necessary to be the biggest trader, England saw this opportunity through many places, however the Congo just happened to be on that Conrad chose to expose.

Wheeler 5

       Joseph Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness in 1899, and published it in 1902.  He wrote based on his own life experiences. Conrad saw the destruction of culture England was having on the Congo at that time.  The Congo was innocent and became under siege when the English arrived.  The came to make an enterprise out of the Congo, by using the natives for labor and slavery in essence. It is not clear if there was an intent to change the actual culture of the Congo, but the thought was definitely there.  The book is not an easy read. This was intentional on Conrad’s part. The book is meant to cause one to question the roles society had placed on the people of England and the people of the Congo. At what point does one consider that the Africans are more civilized than the English? This question can be answered in numerous ways. You can argue that the England was only using the Congo purely out of business  aspects. On the other hand, you can argue that England was out to broaden their land to make them a bigger world power. The natives had no choice in the matter of the colonization. They became the savages only after the invading English arrived. It can be argued that the natives only became savage after the English forced them into it. They came to settle to make a profit. They divided the people between those they could control to raise their profit, and those who rebelled making them the savages. They in fact did divide and conquer the Congo, to a certain degree.

Wheeler 6

Works Cited

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. W.W. Norton: New York,

           2005.

Opening paragraph for HOD essay

Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness: Company vs. the Jungle

      In the novella by Joseph Conrad, there is a cruelty throughout the company, which contrasts with the beauty and majesty of the jungle. There is a grace about the jungle that is disrupted by the colonization of the Company. The colonial image depicted by Joseph Conrad is not a positive one. Throughout the novella Conrad gives the image that the jungle is being corrupted by the colonial enterprise. A good example of this is when Marlow, the Narrator of the story, goes to visit the accountant of the company.  While visiting the accountant Marlow notices that the man is wearing unnecessary European fashion.  The man is dressed in a suit with a high European collar, and he is in the middle of the Congo.  This itself contrasts with the jungle, due to the fact that that attire is not appropriate for any kind of jungle.  This contrast stands out to Marlow and disturbs him. The man in the suit reminds him of the destructive behavior of the company.

Blog Assignment #1

     Traditionally when a colony settles on a place they completely take over.  Usually the colonies do not come to visit, they come to dominate. The Belgians came into Africa and took it upon themselves to be in charge. The Belgians came into the Congo for trading purposes. The company is brutal, and is inefficient.

   The company is not a friendly presence in the Congo.  There is a cruelty throughout the company, which contrasts with the beauty and majesty of the jungle.

The colonial image depicted by Joseph Conrad is not a positive one. Throughout the novella Conrad gives the image that the jungle is being corrupted by the colonial enterprise. At one point Marlow’s boat is under siege by the natives. The reason for the attack can only be assumed to be that they were a part of the company, and the natives associated the company with evil.  It only seemed appropriate for them to attack the trading vessel.

     Marlow is not considered a part of the company. In the novella he is described as the only man who “followed the sea”.  Though he worked for the Belgians he was not considered one of them. He worked for them, and followed their rules. However, he was his own person. Kurtz, a former company employee, left to be with the natives. He was the cause of the attack on Marlow’s cargo ship, giving the order “exterminate all brutes”, the company being the brutes.

    Due to the way Conrad approaches the situation of the company in Africa, it can be assumed that the colonization is not a good thing.  He believes the colonist to be imperialistic and poor businessmen. Though Conrad never puts the words into Marlow’s mouth that he dislikes what the company is doing, it can be determined that he is not in favor of the companies actions. They take and expect to get more for it. Conrad gives the visual depiction as to why the natives are frowned down upon on page seven. He states, “those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves”. Since this is in diary form of that of Marlow, it would seem that Marlow thinks the same way as his fellow co-workers. This was the way of the era; he was stating fact not opinion. Conrad gives Marlow a gives him the ability to be indifferent in the situation in the Congo. After the natives attack the cargo ship, Kurtz’s final words are, “the horror, the horror”. When Marlow is confronted by Kurtz’s fiancée she asks what his final words were. Unable to break her heart Marlow responds with, “the last words he pronounced was-your name”.  This proves Marlow’s kind nature; he is Conrad’s light in the darkness.  He is the light amidst the horrors of the invaded Congo.