/edu/ - Education

>>17310
I love both the book and Apocalypse Now.

>Is this work racist and reactionary
I try not to look at art to much through the lense of my politics, as it can ruin your enjoyment of certain things. But I think the book could easily be understood as a tale of the inherent madness of Colonialism.

>>17311
great opinion

I haven't read it but I've read some of Sven Lindqvist's work and Exterminate All The Brutes (Utrota varenda jävel) is greatly inspired by it. controversially it points out that the Holocaust was far from unique, but merely the culmination of centuries of colonial logic. the main thing that sets the Holocaust apart according to Lindqvist is that it happened in Europe and that it happened to white people
Exterminate All The Brutes was recently turned into a miniseries by HBO, check it out

>>17313
sure will do it

I wouldn't say it's message is racist, although some of the ways in which it communicates it may be. The whole point is that the concept of European civilization and superiority is a facade and that all humans are in reality equally savage.

>Is this work racist and reactionary
Is it fair to consider a work 'reactionary' from the viewpoint of 120 years in the future?

>>17316
No no I am not saying that it is, I am just looking for opinions.

In what ways would it be considered racist or reactionary? I thought it pretty obvious when I read it that the real "heart of darkness" was European "civilization."
I thought it was great, and I really enjoyed Conrad's prose.

It's not.
Some of his views are backward obviously, but he also attacked colonialism.

The quote "…your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others" is a top 10 all time quote about empiricism. Great book, agreed.

>>17310
>Is this work racist
no
>and reactionary
yes

the "heart of darkness" is british women who want ivory and the dandy men in london who buy it for them. the book is to show how markets and desire for commodities is tied to imperialism but iirc it blames consumers.

>>17310
now read Nostromo 😳

It's a good book with good prose but you'd be better off reading the nonfiction version of Heart of Darkness: King Leopold's Ghost.

>>17323
(btw the lib author says some nonsense about stalin, but ignore that, it's not the main subject of the book. he pretty much nails it with regards to the Belgian Congo)

>>17316
>Is it fair to consider a work 'reactionary' from the viewpoint of 120 years in the future?
1. yes in general.
2. even more yes if you're comparing it to other contemporary works.

>>17310
Read this in high school and I remember the discussions we had about the subject. It was pretty funny how emphatic it was about the insanity of the whole colonial project but that the big takeaway for the class was "uhhhh colonialism is bad and wrong so don't do it." I remember as I read it the distinct feeling of "the call is coming from inside the house" and it was much more a situation where they were dealing with the consequences of their actions and a reflection of their own insanity. Haven't read it since but I'm pretty sure that's what the book was going for.

Apocalypse Now kind of sucks in that respect IMO because it feels a lot more like it's the jungle that drove the westerners crazy instead of the reverse. Unironically the game Spec Ops: The Line does a better job of updating the story for the contemporary period.

>>17313
>Exterminate All The Brutes was recently turned into a miniseries by HBO, check it out
Weird that HBO occasionally produces somewhat based content.
>controversially it points out that the Holocaust was far from unique, but merely the culmination of centuries of colonial logic. the main thing that sets the Holocaust apart according to Lindqvist is that it happened in Europe and that it happened to white people
Well this is just true, although the Holocaust is also unusual because of the degree to which the genocide was industrialized (matter of quantity not quality tho)

>>17313
That book explores the history of European colonialism and how it led to genocide and atrocities against indigenous peoples around the world. The title refers specifically to Belgian King Leopold II's orders for his soldiers to "exterminate all the brutes," referring to those who resisted colonization and exploitation in Congo Free State. The book has been praised for raising awareness about the impact of Western imperialism on non-European cultures and societies, but some have criticized it for oversimplifying complex historical events and downplaying agency of African actors. I don't agree with that argument. European-allied compradors selling out their own people don't make the people any less victimized, or the europeans any less exploitative. Besides, compradors usually are merely opportunists "picking the winning side" in a coercive situation. I think that the "downplaying the agency" argument is sometimes employed in bad faith by apologists for colonialism. The truth is any population of people is going to have some unprincipled people in it who can be coerced into being compradors. It is simply a matter of time until the colonial authorities find someone like that. So saying that a narrative focusing on colonial violence downplays the agency of the colonized people, while pointing specifically to compradors, is a bit dishonest. Compradors are simply the middlemen between colonial authorities and their victims. I am somewhat suspicious of narratives which center complicity of the colonized people in their own abuse and see them as a form of apologetics. I often hear the same argument being made regarding slavery. Local leaders were already enslaving their own population before colonial regimes showed up and increased the demand for slaves and imposed a regime focused on resource extraction. Really "agency" discourse is liberal in nature. We should be ruthless towards systems and focus less on the decisions of individuals at the mercy of systems.

>>17327
>I think that the "downplaying the agency" argument is sometimes employed in bad faith by apologists for colonialism.
It's adjacent to the "Africans were enslaving each other!" type of argument tbh.

>>17328
>It's adjacent to the "Africans were enslaving each other!" type of argument tbh.
agreed, i actually say as much a bit further down in the post but i don't blame you for reaching that part, it was a bit long winded lol

>>17326
>matter of quantity not quality tho
the Holocaust isn't unique in quantity even in the context of WW2. operation Barbarossa beats it handily. lib historians don't count the latter despite its clear genocidal intent, because it happened to dirty gommie slavs. the colonization of the Americas outdoes both
the industrial and calculated nature of the Holocaust is what sets it apart I think. very German
>>17327
lib historians are incapable of this kind of analysis, especially in the current postmodern period

>>17312
>>17311
pretty sure conrad wrote the book after witnessing atrocities in the Belgian Congo

>>17331
>Belgian Congo
oh god, that mess

>>17332
>let's give him a hand, people
lmao