What's the Difference?

In today’s class discussion there was much talk surrounding the attitudes displayed by Mr. Brown and Rev. Smith. Due to poor planning on my part I hadn't completed “Things Fall Apart” before class so some of the context of the discussion was lost on me. However, I was able to establish some opinions about the two that seemed to hold up after I finished the last few chapters. A lot of what was discussed focused on who was the nicer guy, but the more I heard the more it seemed  that it wasn’t so much a matter of one being nice and the other being mean, it was just a case of differing philosophies. They shared the same ultimate goal and were both equally detrimental to the continued existence of the tribe as a unit. The ideas of good and bad are relative and when I compared these two characters in the context of their mission, neither seemed particularly good to me. Was Mr. Brown as aggressive and immediately destructive as Rev. Smith? No. However, in the long run, I think that Mr. Brown’s tack was more shrewd and insidious.

Rev. Smith was concerned about establishing a tradition of strength in the congregation. As a result, he considered driving the less faithful from the church, took an aggressive stance toward the villagers, and let the zealots among his group run unchecked. While this approach did allow him to strengthen the faith of the church in Umuofia, it also resulted in increased hostility with the villagers. As we can see in chapter 24 of “Things Fall Apart,” this approach wasn’t going to be sustainable without serious conflict and, likely, notable losses for both parties. While brute force can pay off in the long run, the run is much longer and more painful than the “good cop” approach Mr. Brown employed.

Mr. Brown was interested in ensuring that the church appealed to as many tribesmen as possible. He seemed to do this by learning about the native culture, without adopting these concepts himself, and looking for ways to make the church an integral, and ultimately dominant, part of the community. (As an aside, this scenario, as lopsided as it is, seems to go toward the concept of exchange to be covered in our first essay.) Mr. Brown’s process of examination can be seen on pages 101 and 102, Achebe writes that Mr. Brown even took the time to learn about the clan’s beliefs and looked for ways to “attack” those ideas.  Ideally, establishing mass appeal would lead to a situation where everyone would have a close friend/family member who was in the church and that would ultimately bring the rest of the tribe along.

To answer the question presented in the title of this post, I don't think there's a difference. In the end the two men could have been swapped out for anybody or any personality as long as they had the same goal in mind. While I'd prefer a Mr. Brown style regime, Mr. Brown seems like a more dangerous influence, in regard to the local culture, than Rev. Smith. Mr. Brown displayed a gentleness and understanding that made him appear non-threatening. This lulled the people of Umuofia into a false sense of security and before they knew it their community was being pulled apart by Mr. Brown's involvement in their lives. At least those who were loyal to Umuofia’s traditions could readily see the cultural/societal threat posed by Rev. Smith and try to do something to change things.

Read Or Bury Our Traditional Stories?

Is the title nonsense? Yeah. I just wanted my title to create the acronym ROBOTS. I previously had a line rationalizing the title, but it seemed pointless. This doesn't seem any more fruitful. So...

I think avoiding controversial texts, like “Heart of Darkness,” does nothing to serve individual growth or growth as a society/community. Without reading a book like “Heart of Darkness” and considering, internal and external, reactions to it we risk a reaching a point where we continue to operate in the same ideological framework and don’t move past certain ideas. Now, I suppose one could argue that teaching the same text each generation can lead to the same sort of stagnation, but I’d say that risk is almost negligible because the context in which HoD is read and the way it is read change over the years. As a result, HoD continues to inform people, but brings them to different conclusions. For example, HoD was read for 50+ years before an opinion like Achebe’s was developed and published. Achebe rails against the text and Conrad for the evils he observed, but without reading HoD Achebe might not have been compelled to respond when and how he did and we may not be considering the question of Hillis Miller’s essay “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?”

As can be deduced from my comments above, I agree with Hillis Miller’s general opinion that “’Heart of Darkness’ should be read, ought to be read” (HoD 474). However, I kind of disagree with Hillis Miller's opinion that it should only be read a certain way. HoD is a work of fiction, so to assume everything in the book is completely accurate isn’t very reasonable. However, I think there’s value in HoD, or most any book, regardless of how it’s read.  Is reading “Heart of Darkness” without some sort of discourse, introspection, etc. dangerous? I think dangerous is overstating things, but yes I suppose it could skew or reinforce a reader’s opinions. However, things are open to interpretation and if someone goes into “Heart of Darkness” looking to find examples to reinforce their negative opinions of another race, culture, gender, and so on, that's what they'll likely find. If they don’t read “Heart of Darkness,” they’ll likely find it in another text they come across. I don’t think that the discourse that can come out of reading “Heart of Darkness” should be sacrificed to avoid the risk of causing harm. We shouldn’t avoid things just because they might be taken one way or another, because they present potentially disquieting concepts, or because we can get similar ideas from another text. A set of ideas presented in a specific way will elicit very specific opinions that may not be conceived otherwise.

Furthermore, we, as members of society in general, should also read classic books like HoD because those who came before read them.  We shouldn’t read them out of obligation or to maintain the status quo, but to understand what shaped our forebears’ thought processes, how society has or hasn’t changed, and how we can individually interpret the world in which we live.

I'm Not Sure About This Kidd.

In “Social Progress and the Rivalry of the Races” Benjamin Kidd uses the idea of Social Darwinism to apply Darwin’s theory of evolution to the progression of or competition between races, as the title implies. Kidd asserts that one race will dominate the races that it comes in contact with because certain core attributes (work ethic, altruism, ethical behavior, etc.) of the dominant race are inherently better or more progressive than those of the dominated race. Kidd explains that conflict and ultimately domination appear to be unavoidable forces, but they aren’t always expressed through “fierce and cruel wars of extermination” (230).

I’m sure that our class discussion (09/03/09) was more broad than I recall, but for some reason I came away with the impression that there was a considerable focus on violent domination as opposed to the “silent and painless” (232) domination that Kidd brings up several times. As a result, I’ve decided to try to look at how “Heart of Darkness” may reflect some of Kidd’s ideas, specifically the idea that inherent racial/cultural qualities invariably motivate one race to dominate another and how that domination may subtly occur.

One of the most obvious things in “Heart of Darkness” that demonstrates how thoroughly Africa has been dominated by the west is the map Marlow examines in the trading company’s office. Marlow describes a map of Africa that has been divided into colored sections with each representing a different foreign concern that had control over territory in Africa (10). While Conrad writes that the “map is marked with all the colours of a rainbow” (10) and proceeds to mention how European countries are represented by these colors, there isn’t any mention of unclaimed land. This implies that none of the land actually belongs to the natives; there is no “Africa.” All we see is a group of territories belonging to the westerners who put their flags there first and the African people happen to be there. Obviously this example doesn’t go toward establishing how or why these cultures so thoroughly spread throughout Africa, but it does show a situation where one race has completely pushed the other toward extinction (apparently without a drastic war-like action).

Maybe I’m not recalling a portion of “Heart of Darkness,” but I can’t think of an example from the text that blatantly demonstrates Kidd’s belief regarding the superiority of one race’s attributes over another’s. However, if Kurtz is used as an analog for a dominant race and the natives he ultimately lived with are an analog for a dominated race, I think I can see some of the conflict and "progress" Kidd talks about.

Conrad writes, “Kurtz had been disapproved by her people. He wasn’t rich enough … It was his impatience of comparative poverty that drove him out there“ (75). I think Marlow’s reflection on Kurtz’s situation with his fiancé mirrors what Kidd was conveying about core cultural/racial qualities that lead to competition between races. In this example Conrad reveals a “restless” (233) disposition and an industrious spirit, which are some ideas Kidd associated with the dominant race of the time, the Anglo-Saxons. Once in Africa, Kurtz finds himself stranded without a guarantee of rescue and surrounded by peril. For some reason, aside from Conrad’s need to tell a story, the local indigenous Africans who greatly outnumber Kurtz don’t attack and kill him at the first opportunity. It also doesn’t seem like they attempted to adopt Kurtz and assimilate him into their society. This hesitation may be explained by curiosity, fear, indifference, morality, etc. Whatever the reason, Kurtz exploited what could be considered a display of weakness and was able to subordinate this group of natives with what seemed to be a limited show of force. It appears that Kurtz eventually began introducing and enforcing his own rules and whatnot upon the local native. Soon Kurtz's way became accepted by the local natives and he was able to integrate with, but also dominate that  group. Again, this seems to have some parallels with the Anglo-Saxons. Westerners were exploring in an attempt to find additional resources. They found themselves in a mysterious land, but were able to control much of Africa through the application of attributes and concepts favored by their culture/race.

A quick introduction

My name is Kristopher (or Kris). I'm a junior in the DTC program. I'm a fan of "The Big Lebowski." I don't watch a ton of TV, but I have been watching "The Colony" on Discovery. It's a reality show and feels really staged at times, but the post-disaster scenario is interesting. I also watch hockey and baseball from time to time. I don't have much else to post right now, so I guess that's it.