Response to The Danger of Single Story

I have to say I’ve personally experienced “the danger of a single story” more than once in my life yet I wasn’t as surprised as Chimamanda was. This past summer while I was a attending a 3 week course in New York, I often found people surprised with how well I spoke English, and how it seamed impossible that a Colombian I didn’t drink coffee, and as I mentioned before I wasn’t surprised. Chimamanda mentioned that it was extremely hard not to able able to explain how your country is without being there, she mentioned that it was almost as if our countries were the darkness. Which made me immediately connect my experiences with Heart of Darkness. I felt the same way Marlow did; I was astonished of how unaware people in New York were from what was happening here in Colombia. Yet the worst thing of these situations was feeling how little these people knew and how their impression of an entire country was formed on a single story, it’s almost as if the had taken over.

Desperately Mad

Human beings are quite unique from each other which has resulted in the loss of many lives throughout history, but what happens when we meet somthing much stornger far from our control? The novel Heart of Darkness and the film American History X offer a deep insight into the logic behind this question. In both works, the protagonists, Marlow and Derek Vinyard encounter enviroments that force them to forget these human differences.

Marlow and Derek are both exposed to harsh enviorments: the deep jungle in the Congo and federal prison. The protagonists soon find that they are fighting the environment they’re in and not the people they considered enemies. But unlike Marlow who is actually fighting against the jungle, Derek fights a group people inside the prison. However, Derek being a former skin head realizes he is fighting against what he considered to be his allies, a group of white men, he then recognizes that those he considered brothers have now turned against him and are trying to kill him. These situations place our characters in a desperate state of mind in which they take decisions differently. Marlow and his fellow company men form an alliance with the cannibals while Derek forms a friendship with a black inmate. These decisions would have appeared illogical to the protagonists in the past yet their current situation has driven them to considering it a logical decision in order to survive. Both authors most likely mean the same thing. We must become desperate in order to realize what we are capable of. In both works the protagonists realized that the differences between them and the other party were not important when it came to surviving. If these differences didn’t matter in surviving then what good were they in the sane world?

These two works uncover a unknown aspect of human society. They suggest that becoming desperate does not mean turning insane. Being desperate shows true insanity, the unreasonable behaviour hidden in society. Insanity makes humans become truly unprejudiced, it’s only then that we can judge what is normal.

Response to Joaquim Etienne's Blog

My fellow classmate Joaquim Etienne wrote about a form of colonial mentality in his blog “Marlow the Rebel”. Joaquim raised a point that colonial mentality continues today as racism. I agree with Joaquim, racism is a strong form of oppression that can lead people into thinking they are inferior. The post reminded me of the Filipino colonial mentality interviews done by Mr Ferrebee. Colonial mentality is the new way “the great nations of Europe” exert dominance on small countries. By making poor countries such as the Philippines or Colombia believe that old European countries are still stronger, we (the poor countries) succumb to a virtual colonialism. Although Joaquim says “hey have reduced themselves to being monsters” almost as if these nations dislike becoming monsters it seams like these like nations love being the biggest around and are willing to becoming monsters be so. 

Being Human

Insanity is ever present in society and often viewed as a taboo, not many people attempt to question it much less redefine it. In the Heart of Darkness Conrad explores insanity in the heart of British conquerors in Africa, and although Conrad’s novel takes place in a very different setting, the understanding of insanity can be related to that of Ken Kesey in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. For these author’s madness is not defined as impulsive and strange behavior it’s needs to be redefined to meet the modern world.

The redefining of insanity in Heart of Darkness is created through the protagonist’s thoughts on his life as colonists. Marlow’s experience offers an insight into what behaviors were considered normal. Soon after he has begun his story, Marlow claims that some of the colonialist mentality seams a little crazy, and as McMurphy, he is soon marked off as peculiar or perhaps a crazy individual. Although in both of these novels, the main characters are marked as crazy the authors hope to drive our attention towards the protagonist’s companions. In the Heart of Darkness, the European conquistadors that accompany Marlow don’t seam to question the orders they are given. They commit horrible crimes like genocide and they are still considered as reasonable men. Kesey also uses this plot structure to emphasize the difference between these two groups. Although they both use this method Conrad’s structure works the opposite way for he writes ironically. By pointing out that the rebellious character as a crazy Conrad uses irony to point he means the complete opposite. The lack of questioning suggests the colonists might have become insane.

The new definition for insanity created by Conrad and Kesey is: the lack of a rebellious character. Perhaps the meaning behind both of these novels is that in order to be a human one must be responsive and argumentative not just a robot following orders.

Imperialistic Mindset

Irony is used throughout literature as a sharp spear to critique society. In the heart of darkness Joseph Conrad uses tone to induce irony in order to develop his critique on imperialism. For Conrad imperialism is a state of mind that one creates through fake reasoning in order to remain blind.

 The novel attempts to describe imperialism through the words of Marlow as he narrates his life as a conqueror in Congo. Unlike the other characters, which are described only by their professions such as “the accountant”, Marlow is known by name. He is distinctive from his shipmates for he is able and willing to judge imperialism. “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves.”(69) Conrad uses Marlow’s southing tone to enforce a sense of tranquility that exposes imperialism as inhumane. While he narrates his stories as a English conqueror in Congo we are able to sense the irrational behavior. Conrad uses the irony of his characters being unaware of the absurdity behind their situation in order to critique the mindset of an empire.  “They were conquerors and for that you want only brute force—nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others.”(69) The sense of superiority that arose in imperialism is yet another form of blindness for the conquerors see the Indian tribes as savages while they are much more peaceful than any kingdom in Europe.

The understanding of imperialism is still vague but the idea of understanding it as state of mind is quite unique. Although the novel offers a new form of undertaking the concept, the tone and the irony that comes with it suggest that Conrad considers imperialism as a form of insanity. This novel is certainly a revolutionary way to consider colonialism, hopefully the construction of the real meaning continues to be reasonable.

Irony

“Hide your wives and daughter; hide the groceries too.
The great nations of Europe comin through.”

This is clearly irony because Randy Newman doesn’t really mean you should hide your wives and daughter because the European nations aren’t doing another run and they weren’t looking for women or groceries, they wanted gold. “the great nations of Europe” is also clearly ironic for the author means to mock the nations because they don’t disserve the title of “great”.

“Now they're gone, they're gone, they're really gone.
You never seen anyone so gone.
There's pictures in a museum, some lines written in a book
but you won't find a live one, no matter where you look”

Now this is clearly not ironic for the author really means what his saying. We know because of the repetition he uses and from prior knowledge. We really know that tribes are gone forever.

Another example of irony is

“he had them torn apart by dogs on religious grounds they say

the great nations of Europe were quite holy in their way.”

The author now uses irony for we know that it is illogic to claim massacres and torturing on religious grounds. He means to critique the reasoning given by the European nations.

  

“Hide your wives and daughter; hide the groceries too.
The great nations of Europe comin through.”

This is clearly irony because Randy Newman doesn’t really mean you should hide your wives and daughter because the European nations aren’t doing another run and they weren’t looking for women or groceries, they wanted gold. “the great nations of Europe” is also clearly ironic for the author means to mock the nations because they don’t disserve the title of “great”.

“Now they're gone, they're gone, they're really gone.
You never seen anyone so gone.
There's pictures in a museum, some lines written in a book
but you won't find a live one, no matter where you look”

Now this is clearly not ironic for the author really means what his saying. We know because of the repetition he uses and from prior knowledge. We really know that tribes are gone forever.

Another example of irony is

“he had them torn apart by dogs on religious grounds they say

the great nations of Europe were quite holy in their way.”

The author now uses irony for we know that it is illogic to claim massacres and torturing on religious grounds. He means to critique the reasoning given by the European nations.