>>8199850
Marlow definitely is not a racist. Throughout the novel, he equates Africans with Europeans, both directly and indirectly.

Readers get confused for two main- and understandable- reasons. First, his language often does "look down upon" the native Africans. BUT the important point to remember is that he has an equally bad opinion of the Europeans. It's a pretty cynical novel. Also, Marlow is telling the story to normal, racist Europeans, so his storytelling method bends a little bit to make his listeners more comfortable with the facts he's asserting.

>>8199850
Odd, i just finished this book a few seconds ago.
Joseph Conrad was not a racist, nor was Marlow.
If Kurtz was racist it wasnt explicit.
His plans were to colonize and expand the ivory trade within Africa

>>8199975
But, the idea that Kurtz (once-magnanimous) was broken down to depravity by living in the primeval heart of Africa suggests that the Congo and its inhabitants were less. Yes, he is saying that both Africans and Europeans can be equally sordid, but he also portrays that the nature of Africa is more conducive to savagery. No?

>>8199989
>His plans were to colonize and expand the ivory trade within Africa

obviously, I meant his plans that he alludes to towards the end. The "plans" that make Marlow so visibly shaken

>>8200022
Initially, as mentioned, Kurtz had grand plans to colonize and educate. The big thesis he had worked on was how white Europeans could appear godlike to the savages, and they could use this godlike effect to help the Africans become 'better' (i.e. influence them for the good).

After breaking down he sinks into despair, and sees the only option to be to 'exterminate all the brutes!'.

>>8200022
>he also portrays that the nature of Africa is more conducive to savagery.
He does, yes, but there's nothing racial about that.

>his plans that he alludes to towards the end. The "plans" that make Marlow so visibly shaken
I'm not sure. I don't believe they were explicitly stated. I think Conrad was portraying his unregulated ambition, the "plans" were just a device to embody that lack of restraint

I think it's fair to say that Conrad was more progressive than most but didn't view the Africans as equals to the Europeans. I haven't read the book in years, but I recall Marlowe coming to the realization that Africans die just like Europeans (when his mate is inpaled with a spear) and they're equal in that respect but that Africans aren't quite human or as human as Europeans.

>>8200022
the whole point is that the land managed to rouse something deeply savage in him that was already there and is in all men when dispelling the illusion of civility. The tribes-people are certainly depicted as savages and uncivilised because they literally were both those things; race is irrelevant.

I would say that Conrad was trying to convey that a dark savagery is in the heart of all men regardless of race or heritage and it need only be beckoned by a return to anti-civilisation.

>>8200064
>He does, yes, but there's nothing racial about that.
I think there is: Africa is populated by black people who have their own culture, that is different, but is no more conducive to savagery than European culture.

>>8200086
your argument is hinged on the presupposition that "savagery" is subjective.
The congo is borderline uninhabitable, so it's inhabitants must be as brutal and savage to survive it's "darkness". Being remote from civilization and having no comfort, no police, nothing to soften you or regulate you makes a person adopt the same "heart of darkness" as the jungle.

In civilization, people have this heart of darkness within them, but it lies dormant, subdued by a comfortable lifestyle. Living in the congo woke up Kurtz' inner darkness. This is just my interpretation, of course.

You could make it racial if you wanted to, but there are very little direct racial themes to support that