Racism in "Heart of Darkness" and "Apocalypse Now".
The book "Heart of Darkness" and the movie "Apocalypse Now" are two works dealing with deep issues of evil. (Beyond imperialism, because the evil of imperialism has a root. For example, crack the nut) They refer places boiling down to a discussion of racism. The Thames River as in any mythology is a source of life. At the end, Marlow comes upon Kurtz's Intended and said, "An object of the fecund". Also, these two works deal with how a man is surrounded by evil acts and evil minds to fight of the fire fueled by the society. They also talks about how a character is a racist, when that character clearly condemns his way of life by leaving the Congo, and confirms the ills of society by lying about them.
Firstly, I think that the racism claims are overstated, in two ways. A) Conrad's racism, such as it is, is directed not at black people as a whole but rather as Africans. I think the prejudice must be recognized as activism, or whatever the proper term is, rather than as racism. B) Conrad is critical, not solely of Africans and their way of life, but also of European culture. He's just as anti-white as he is also anti-black. Additionally, I think that Conrad may be considered a racist if and only if you decide that the definition of racism is thinking your race is better, but I really don't think that he could be considered a white supremacist or that he really contained a deep hatred for Africans. In fact, I don't think that he was even that serious on his own race. It is because that overtime he describes the presence of the white imperialist or any white people in general, he describes them in a bitter, dark way. And while he describes the Africans in a sort of blunt way as natural, rustic, raw people. I also think he does it in a much lighter way. I don't think he criticizes the way they were. I just think he is ignorant of the political correctness found in today's society.
Moreover, I don't consider the answer is simple enough to just say one is good and the
Firstly, I think that the racism claims are overstated, in two ways. A) Conrad's racism, such as it is, is directed not at black people as a whole but rather as Africans. I think the prejudice must be recognized as activism, or whatever the proper term is, rather than as racism. B) Conrad is critical, not solely of Africans and their way of life, but also of European culture. He's just as anti-white as he is also anti-black. Additionally, I think that Conrad may be considered a racist if and only if you decide that the definition of racism is thinking your race is better, but I really don't think that he could be considered a white supremacist or that he really contained a deep hatred for Africans. In fact, I don't think that he was even that serious on his own race. It is because that overtime he describes the presence of the white imperialist or any white people in general, he describes them in a bitter, dark way. And while he describes the Africans in a sort of blunt way as natural, rustic, raw people. I also think he does it in a much lighter way. I don't think he criticizes the way they were. I just think he is ignorant of the political correctness found in today's society.
Moreover, I don't consider the answer is simple enough to just say one is good and the