Changing Definitions

- The book Heart of Darkness is often a controversial text because of its alleged endorsement of racism
- However, one cannot call the book “racist” or “imperialist” without clearly defining what these terms mean and what they meant at the time of the book
- At the time that Conrad was writing the novel, the word “racism” did not exist, and although the phenomena of what we would call racism was definitely present, there was not a consciousness of racism as there is today
- People thought about the subject of race in very different terms than we do today
- One reason the word “racist” was not in existence was because, at the time, thinking in terms of race was so widespread that it was not considered to be irregular or negative. Therefore, a new word to define it was not needed
- However, words describing negative attitudes towards race were eventually created
- Early definitions of racism pertained to prejudices against different western countries instead of against African Americans
- This type of racism is very different from the “racist” attitudes today
- Conrad also did not consider his novel to be talking about what we would consider to be “imperialism”
- He never uses the word “imperialism” in the book, and the closest he comes is his usage of the word “colonist”
- Basically, meanings of the words “racism” and “imperialism” changed between Conrad’s time and our time
- Therefore, one needs to analyze Heart of Darkness in terms of the significance in its time, as opposed to analyzing it as compared to modern times

Jason is Always Right

Right before Quentin is discovered to be missing, the remaining members of the Compson family are sitting in the kitchen, eating breakfast. Although many may think that the following scene of Quentin’s escape is the most important event of the fourth section, I believe that the preceding scene tells us just as much about their character. Benjy, Dilsey, Mother, and Jason are the only remaining major family members, and their interactions over breakfast present a very detailed picture of how things work in the Compson household. Jason is, or course, the domineering “head of the household,” and everything that he says, goes. After all, who is going to stop him? Benjy is still not developed enough to feed himself, Luster is still a relatively young boy, and Mother, although she is older and could have authority over Jason, thinks that “it is neither [Dilsey’s] place or mine to tell Jason what to do. Sometimes I think he is wrong, but I try to obey his wishes for you all’s sakes” (278). This sentence really bothered me when I read it. If Mother thinks that something Jason does is “wrong”, why does she not try and help him do the right thing instead? And I somehow can’t see Mother doing anything that is truly for someone else’s “sake.” I just cannot understand how Mother can just completely submit her will to Jason’s. Jason even outright insults her, saying that if she cleaned the house, it would look like a “pigsty.” The fact that Mother does not even try to defend herself, and in fact seems to welcome the criticism makes her an even more infuriating character. What do you think is the true reason Mother so willingly submits to Jason? Is it for the sake of keeping the family together, or is it for her personal gain? Is she too feeble-minded to even realize what Jason is doing?