Although Achebe makes some good points about the racist nature of Conrad's story, it is also apparent that Achebe is looking to find every flaw in the story by Conrad. In a majority of the cases it can be claimed that a lot of the racist comments and portrayals are attributable to the time period. This does not excuse their racist nature, however, it does explain why it would be possible for them to be written and permitted to sell and be considered a good book. It is also possible that many of Achebe's comments on the book mirroring Conrad's life are accurate. Since many authors mirror their lives in their writings it is reasonable to assume that Conrad would do the same. Achebe's desire to say that Conrad wanted to set Africa as a foil to Europe is possibly an exaggerated conclusion. It is far more likely that Africa was chosen for its remoteness not the contrast it bore to Europe. It would not serve Conrad's purpose of placing the setting in a place that had been well explored and explained. It's uniqueness is what gave it a quality of fear that can not be found in other locations. Many of the comments attributed to the author come from a narrator who is telling the story of another. This provides several filters that can not be directly attributed to the author. He may have intended to make a character cruel and demeaning which now through a new viewpoint in the present appears to be outright racist not just cruel.

I have to disagree with Achebe in a few senses and completely agree with him only in the way that looking back at that time period one could say that a common conception of africans by Imperialistic White Europeans was that they were savage, inferrior and backward.  Conrad was using this idea ill based on the account that very few african tribes were canibalistic and that all cultures value fierceness in combat and survival over surrender.  It seems that when I think of racism I think of the psychological abuse of another person through a twisted superiority complex not the subtle misconception of a culture or color of a person belonging to a group of people.  In my mind there is a difference between the two.  For one a person growing up in a society where people of one color or culture commit the majority of the crimes will categorize those people as a group who will react in a viloent way more often than not.  Is this a bad thing? I would argue no, because the survivalist in the ones making the generalizations are not thinking I am better than this person.  True it might morph into that which I would not condone but most certainly I would not call that person a racist unless there was a malicious attitude toward that group of people.  Now I grew up playing basketball with several of my friends coming from an african american heritage and they are fiercely proud of that fact to the point where if they hear the "N" word it is offensive.  I played soccer with several guys from hispanic backgrounds who hated being called mexican because they were not from mexico.  I myself am very proud of my Italian and Welsh heritage not because I think that these groups of people are better than others but because of the history that lies therein.  I think ignorance can be corrected but hatred is wrong and there I would dissagree with Achebe in that Conrad was ignorant in what he wrote about but not hateful.  I honestly don't even think Heart of Darkness is that exciting of an adventure book but that was the original objective of this book, not to racially hate on africans which happened because of the pre-civil rights movement idea but rather to have readers relate to the material.  I read Achebe's book Things fall apart for a history class last semester and it was obviously written to protest the white man's burden idea of imperialistic european nations and their involvement with africa.  Achebe was revolutionary in providing a more (I think) correct look on africa and all we can do is acknowledge that Conrad's type of misconception can only be solved by educating ignorance. 

Achebe's comments that Conrad is writing racist comments in Heart of Darkness are very true.  Where I draw the line is whether or not he knew that they were racist in the first place.  I am not excusing the action by any way, what he said in the book is wrong and unfairly portrays the Africans as being less than human, almost animal like.  I just wonder what his intentions were.  People during that time thought it was the norm to speak that way.  They are racist comments, but did he think he was racist, did he even know what it meant to be racist?  I don't know.  I do know the following quote is being used quite often but it summarizes the racist mentality completely.  "What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours .... Ugly."  I couldn't agree more with Achebe when he commented about Conrad's description of their skin, "black legs and black arms".  Achebe criticized the fact that he took the time to mention their skin was black twice in the description.  You can't help but think that he's specifically pointing out characteristics such as skin color to separate the whites from the Africans in the story.  It's pretty sad.

I disagree with Achebe's points. I feel that Conrad was writing about what he saw and what he knew to be the "norm" of his society. Yes from today's stand point it was a very racist text, and I'm not condoning Conrad for some of the remarks he makes, but in a way I feel he didn't know any better. It's the same situation as when the English and Spainiards came from Europe and first saw Native Americans. They were "savages" and monsters, but in reality had they not been there noone would have survived here. It took years for people to figure that out, and I think it's fair to assume that Conrad was at some point sorry for what he wrote when he realized that was not what Africans were really like, and that they are not a lesser race. One reason I think Conrad simply didn't know any better is when he describes the River Thames. It's a river. Yes some are cleaner than others, and maybe I just live by the Wabash and therefore don't have a prized piece in mind when it comes to rivers, but the way he descibes "his" river as better than the Congo is because to him there is nothing better in the world. I think a lot of people are like this. I'll stand and defend the United States til the day I die. I don't agree with some things that are done in our country, but I will always defend it. I think in a way this is what Conrad was doing, making himself superior so as not to be made inferior himself.

I'd have to agree with some points in Achebe's text as well as with a lot of things that were discussed in class. I don't want to say that Conrad had racist intentions or judge the actual purpose of Heart of Darkness but I definantly feel like he had a racist mind (if that makes much sense). And because he hinds behind the character of Marlow, doesn't excuse him from being a racist. Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but I think it's a little pushing it trying to agrue that this text was solely an adventurous story or one of colonization when there are so many degrading words being so blantantly written. I personally took offense to this Conrads "character" because I have a strong Nigerian background. And therefore, it's a little annoying to read the ignorance that is obviously in Conrad's own mind and in no way do I feel like this text should be defended. I mean come on.... "What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity--like yours....Ugly." As if it was utter disaster to put an African on his same level or to discribe them with the same human qualities that he would discribe himself or any of his counterparts. If that is not lined with disdain for Africans, tell me what is!

Achebe has several points that hit at the motif for Heart of Darkness and Conrad's beliefs. Perhaps the most encompassing point is number eight where he states "Students of Heart of Darkness will often tell you that Conrad is concerned not so much with Africa as with the deterioration of one European mind caused by solitude and sickness. They will point out to you that Conrad is, if anything, less charitable to the Europeans in the story than he is to the natives, that the point of the story is to ridicule Europe's civilizing mission in Africa. A Conrad student informed me in Scotland that Africa is merely a setting for the disintegration of the mind of Mr. Kurtz." Achebe is critical of this point, primarily stating how this is not focusing on his racism towards africans, but on the deterioration of europeans, and this is not any evidence towards equal treatment but of start racism. I disagree with him on this point. My reasoning is based primarily on the part of Heart of Darkness where he is describing the Roman soldier first arriving on the British Isle and states "But darkness was here yesterday!" To me this quote illustrates two point that are proof that Conrad was not racist in a malicious or ignorant sense, and certainly not by standards and culuture of his time, where many terms not politcally correct or academically valid were widely accepted back then. The first point is obvious that the "savages," as Conrad calls them, of britain were celtic descent and among the whitest people on the planet, discreting any point that Conrad thinks "blacks" are savage simply because of how they look. If Britain itself was only "yesterday" savage and backward, and now the light of civilization, then I see no assocaition to race as I understand it. A second point from the quote can be centered on the use of the word "darkness." Achebe specifically talks about Conrad's describing of natives with him repeatedly using words such as "black" and "darkness, "Achebe states "

1. A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms. . . .
2. as though we might expect a black figure striding along on black legs to wave white arms!..."

In points 15 and 16. but if darkness can and was applied to Britain, then darkness represents more of an antithesis of civilization and human virtue, rather than a "colour." I beleive, that Africa, at that time provided for the epitome of how conrad saw all human struggle against darkness. The fact that sub-saharan Africans were darker skinned than Europeans was used poetically to greater illustrate his point. Perhaps, if Conrad was a Roman, he would talk about the irony of light blonde Savages living in an Isle of darkness of Britannia. Achebe has many valid points, especially concerning defining "savage" and other terms, but I believe actual racisism has tainted study of Conrad's politically incorrect and at times ignorant views. The result appears to be Achebe's believing that just because Conrad is harsh on Africans and Europeans who go to Africa with little tact, it is racism. Mistakenly focusing on race because of a some archaic language takes away from the real values that Conrad applied to all men (clear bias is used on women.) I hold Achebe's experience with ignorance and racism has wrongly influenced his conclusions on Conrad's work, Heart of Darkness.  

"His contribution therefore falls automatically into a different class -- permanent literature -- read and taught and constantly evaluated by serious academics".  This is my biggest issue with books like this that are riddled with racism, some of it obvious, some of it not as obvious but implied with in the "us"-"them" style of writing.  Do I think much of this racism is due to the time period and the place in which the author was raised?  Yes, I think that's fairly obvious.  But excusing the heavily racist undertones within this novel because of the upbringing of the author is in my opinion, unacceptable.  A man with enough intelligence to put together this novel, is also intelligent enough to know that the ideas it's based off of are morally wrong.  I agree with Achebe's article, I think the book The Heart of Darkness is heavily racist and that the intention of the book is fairly clear, it is drawing a clear line in the sand placing the white people on side, the right side, and blacks on the other.  Achebe points this out and backs up his argument with much textual evidence and I think the article was well thought out and put together.Have a great break everyone!

As I was reading Achebe's essay I was agreeing with every point he was making. Conrad's text is indeed racist. I agreed with Achebe when he was talking about students arguements about this text and why it is taught in American schools and how he talked about Africa as being a foil to Europe. "The real question is the dehumanization of Africa and Africans which this age-long attitude has fostered and continues to foster in the world. And the question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a great work of art. My answer is: No, it cannot." I agree with this point totally and eventhough this text is considered to be considered a classic I don't believe that it is a great work of art. Eventhough Marlow is very racist in The Heart of Darkness, I do believe most of it was because of the time period it was written in. Some people in class made good points about this, but it still doesn't make the racism ok. "What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours .... Ugly." A quote such as this one from the text is just totally racist and unneccesary.

So of course Conrad was racist, but was racism racism back then.  Sure we can look back on it and say, "yep that was definately racism", but as people stated in class the time period and setting of the story affected the idea of racism soo much.  While using words that are not politicially correct to call the Africans, that was the dialogue back then.  I just don't know if he could have wrote this book with out including racism because it was such a big part of everyone's lives back then, but nobody understood.However, I do agree with Achebe and believe that Conrad was put in this story to be racist.   "Strings of dusty n....... with splay feet arrived and departed."  This quote not only uses a word that is horrible, but it even describes a characteristic of the Africans, but the characteristic was described in such a negative tone.  Conrad doesn't praise their differences, rather he hates. Without the racism there would be no story.  I mean the book is about an adventure on the Congo, so it wouldn't make sense to not include Africans, but at the same time he never had to introduce them in the way he did.  However, I truely believe that is the only reason why people pikc up this piece of literature.( if you want to call it that) 

I definitely agree with Achebe that Conrad is a racist.  Heart of Darkness was written in a time when many people had negative attitudes toward Africans, but that doesn't make it ok to have those attitudes and especially not ok to write an entire book about it.  So maybe the book is about a journey, but for me the comments about the Africans take away from the story and made me not want to read it.  You could argue that just because the main character in the book is racist, doesn't mean that the author is.  But to me, there is really no other explaination for writing the way Conrad did in this novel than that he is a racist himself.  Achebe says, "But if Conrad's intention is to draw a cordon sanitaire between himself and the moral and psychological malaise of his narrator his care seems to me totally wasted because he neglects to hint however subtly or tentatively at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his characters."  The way that Conrad describes the Africans as basically not human and completely not equal to English people shows that he is racist.  He describes the Africans as they are nothing more than black bodies.  "A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms..."  Overall, racism is apparent in Heart of Darkness and in my opinion it is apparent in the novel, because that is just how Conrad felt.

I agree with Achebe that this book has some racist undertones, but I think that his overall point of the book might be skewed.   I would argue that the point of the book was to explore and put into perspective the exploitation of many imperial colonies.  Throughout the book, Marlow states constantly how savage and un-human many of the Afr. Americans he comes into contact with are, but I think that, indirectly and directly, he focuses more on how the white imperialists are even more savage and ravenous than the natives by raping and exploiting the land.  I see this in how Marlow travels with "savage...cannibal natives" but they show restraint, whereas its the ivory-hungry, inhumane imperialists that are the true savages.  The story starts out with Marlow just wanting to be an explorer, but after he sees the destruction that is happening in "the jungle" by the white Europeans, he wants nothing to do with it.  I think the story is more about if Marlow is going to become the next Kurtz or not, who is the real savage, and not about racism.  My opinion is that it wasn't really portrayed that the people, like the natives or Kurtz, who were really all that evil (it is said the Kurtz, originally in Europe, wanted to spead "light" and "civilization" to Africa, which is debatable, i admit), but it was the madening "jungle" of Africa that somehow had this mythical power to turn everyone that entered it savages (even though this is not necessarily accurate either in that the Afr. jungles can be argued to be some of the most beautiful places on earth).  Anyways, it's like the jungle had a life of its own in the book, and whoever was pulled into it was turned, and I think the story is a lot about this, how Marlow enters this jungle and has to fight the temptations of becoming the next Kurtz.  I do agree in that Marlow, and the author Conrad, show racism in the way they describe and portray many of the native Afr. Americans, but I would argue that they show the immorality and cold-heartedness of the Company, Kurtz, imperialists, etc.  as well.  I took a course on Africa in the 20th century, and there was much work going on in Africa by the imperialists, but at the same time there was much waste, ineptitude, and the law of humanity was considerably absent, which I think is portrayed accurately in the book.  I'm not arguing that there aren't racist undertones in this book, but I think that its more important to look past these tones, no matter how offensive they are, and try the realize the real point of the book, in my opinion, which is the exploitation of many imperialist nations and the need to respect people's lands and peoples, no matter what kind of culture or beliefs they have.    

I strongly agree with Achebe's comment that the Heart of Darkness projects "Africa as "the other world"  the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization".  This comment on the book shows its racism.  The term civilization or lack thereof can be seen very negatively in one meaning of the word.  Just because a culture isn't the same as anothers doesn't make it uncivilized.  To the white Christian world of this book the natives are seen as uncivilized because they don't have the technology, clothing, and shelter that continental Europe does.  Being uncivilized also means not being civil, as in having courteous and polite behavior.  The natives in Africa are civil people.  They have their own customs and beliefs in what is constituted as civil.  The fact that the characters in Heart of Darkness fail to this and make multiple comments to the contrary, to me is blatantly making racist assumptions about this civilization based on ignorance and fear of the unknown.

The two quotes I wanted to reference are, "They were dying slowly -- it was very clear.  They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom.  Broght from all the recesses of the coast in all the legality of time contracts. lost in uncongenial surrounds, fed on unfamiliar food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest." (Achebe) and "It was unearthly, and the men were -- No, they were not inhuman.  Well, you know, that was the worst of it -- this suspicion of their not being inhuman..."  (Conrad).  I think that this explanation by Marlow shows that his racism isn't blatent and intentional.  He admits that the natives are not monsters and they are infact of the same human race he belongs too.  However, admiting that they are infact humans, would make what his country is doing wrong.  It would mean that they are treating these other humans extremely cruelly and infact murderers.  To admit that the natives are human would be to question everything he has known about his race and his future goals of following in Kurtz's footprints.  Achebe also goes to describe how these natives are not criminals or enemies simply humans from another place and backround being worked and starved to death.  There lively hood was invaded by a society that felt they could better the lives of the natives and have simply killed the natives and killed the spirits of the ones that have enslaved who are on their way to death.

It is hard for me to say whether or not Conrad's Heart of Darkness was inherantly racist. When looking at the context it is easy to see the racism that is apparent throught the whole book. Achebe believes that it is"a book which parades in the most vulger fashion prejudices and insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies." I totally agree with this statement. The words he uses and the way he describes the natives are offensive and racist. With that said I am not convinced that Conrad himself is racist. One thought that I have about this book is that it is fiction and could very well just be Conrad telling a story rather than expressing his own thoughts on the African natives. He could of just been writing this book to show how people at this time period thought which doesn't neccasarily mean that he agrees with it.  It can also be seen in some media today. Shows such as "The Sopranos" have racist issues at the forefront in almost all their episodes. They use racist jokes and express racist point of views and use racist words. I do not think that makes the writers of the show racist. I look at it as them telling a story about a certain segment of people with their own morals and attitudes. Achebe offers the same thought process even though he is not convinced either. He states, "It might be contended, of course, that the attitude to the African is not Conrad's but that of his fictional narrator, Marlow, and that far from endorsing it Conrad might indeed be holding it up to irony and criticism." I am not letting Conrad off the hook saying that it is acceptable because it was the "times" because I do not think that as an excuse for any racist act. However, I am offering the fact that it is a fictional book that could be intended to show the sentiments of a majority of people at that time and that Conrad does not neccasarily agree with those views.

I really can't take a side and say that Conrad's text was either racist or not! of course he was talking about colonization, but througout the text he definitively negatively described and critisize "Africans".  I will state with no doubt that Conrad was very racist and really hated Africans. Conrad described africans as ugly, savages.  he even went on and questioned their humanity, he mentioned" They howled and leaped and spun and made horrid faces, but what thrilled you, was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours -- the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar." this men had serious issues.. he was crazy.  i really beleive that using british, colonization and other stuff were just things Conrad used to hide his true feeling on African.  He probably wanted reader to beleive that it was just on colonization and the british(bla bla bla), but it was a way for him to reveal his true face.  we had a discussion last time in class and couple people mentioned how, this was a long time ago and how it was "normal" for Conrad to describe and feel about Africans the way he did! that was BS.  Even today when i tell someone that i am from Africa they still ask me dumb questions like ( oh how did u get here? are u friends with elephant? .. it gets worse).  Oh well i just think it's very sad that today there are still"ignorant" and i feel like it is never going to change.

I read Achebe's essay and I found it very interesting.  I think that he brings up some valid points concerning the novel.  I agree that the main point of this book was Marlow's journey, and the madness of Kurts.  However, I think it would be ignorant to think that racism is not also a main theme.  I think that racism was used very subtly; it was not purposeful, but also not avoided.  I agree with Achebe when he says that what is really wrong is not racism exactly, but the fact that it is a "dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race".  According to Achebe, Conrad "reduces Africa to the role of props for the break-up of one petty European mind." I agree with this fact.  Racism may not be a main theme, but Africa and the natives are simply used as a backdrop for the story of one or two self-centered men.  Ignorance may be more of a theme in this novel than racism, but the two are very similar.  I also liked Achebe's comment that "Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."  I also thought the story about Marco Polo who failed to describe printing and the Great Wall of China after his travels was interesting.  Overall, I think that Achebe's essay may go alittle overboard, but it is not way off and he makes some definite good points regarding Conrad's novel.

Conrad's  Heart of Darkness definately has an underlying theme over racism.  In this sense, I completely agree with Achebe.  In his essay, Achebe states, "Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as 'the other world,' the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant beastiality."  This is true; the novel looks down upon Africa and its people.  Marlow does make racial slurs regarding the native Africans, calling them "the prehistoric man".  This being said, the novel is just that - a fictional story with fictional characters.  Just because the novel is racist does not necessarily mean that Conrad is.  While there are some simialarities between Conrad and Marlow, they are not the same person, thus their personal thoughts cannot really be compared.  I am not condoning racism in the least, but I think that racism should not be the biggest issue in the book.  Readers should focus more on Marlow's journey, than his racist ways.

i read the essay and the text. yes he had some racial problems, he said some offence stuff, however that was not the main point of this book. i can see how achebe felt that it was racist, but come on, focus on marlow, he is terrible because of his inter turmoil. he is a complete ass, and kurtz isnt far behind. they are the main characters. achebe also question why this so called plague is still used today as the most prescribed novel in classes. because the story of this man is good look into the soul of a heartless bastard. so to conclude, yes the book is terribly offence and has some evident rasict remarks, but it is not the main point, so read the book for what it is. dont take it personal the guy is dead, like achebe said you cant arguee with it anymore.

I felt the book definitly had underlying racist tones and points of view, and even after reading Achebe i still dont think the main point of the book was to be racist. I agree that by todays standards the book would be highly controversial, but because the main point of the story doesnt involve the exploitation of africans so much as it does the madness of kurts and the journey of the narrator/marlow deep into the unknown, i think the novels main point is more about the narrators personal journey. in the end i recall a point where he mentions that he had been to the precipice of death and come back and even then he didnt have any extraordinary wisdom to parlay. He also mentions how in his opinion the only thing that made kurtz extraordinary is not what he was saying, just that he had somethign to say at all when the narrator clearly thought life was a more complex riddle than before. Personally, i think that ralph ellisons invisible man would be much more appropriate to discuss racial undertones than the invisible man, but to be fair i also do not believe in the deep symbology of texts either. (IE raping of the land symbolized by the boat going in the river, instead i see it as the author took a boat trip in his youth and felt it would be an appropriate setting for his novel).

In class I had said that I felt society at that time had a large influence on Conrad (or Marlow....however you look at it).  I also agreed that I thought the racism factors were a "background" thing and not to be looked at as much as it has.  I was not reading the story thinking about racism, but instead of his journey and answering his questions about Kurtz. After looking back at some passages and thinking more about what Achebe wrote, I can now better understand where everyone else's mindset about the topic is at.  Believing the things Achebe expressed in his article is still not very easy for me.  Yes, I now see that racism is pronounced in this book, but is Achebe and other similar critics looking too far into the text?  Reading some of the responses that have been posted so far has been intersting to me. The most prominent comments made, I think, is that upon this man's journey research/knowlegde of the place to which he was headed was slim to none.  Thinking outside of the box was another one. I feel that these two comments are very important.  When he talked of the land, the people, the sicknesses from there, the mistress vs. the wife of Kurtz, etc. it was racist with lack of knowledge and understanding.  Achebe even talks about outside of the novel, Conrad is racist. Knowing this helps me see more of the racism. In conclusion I agree and undertand with most of what Achebe had to say.  I can see that the novel has much racism, however, I still do not feel that that was the main focus of the story.  There is just so much to say, to feel, to undrstand, to learn, and to listen to from others that it all seems overwhelming huh?.  I know my mind is in a whirlwind right now.

“Marlow comes through to us not only as a witness of truth, but one holding those advanced and humane views appropriate to the English liberal tradition which required all Englishmen of decency to be deeply shocked by atrocities in Bulgaria or the Congo of King Leopold of the Belgians or wherever.” (Achebe)   I agree with Achebe on this observation.  Like the 14yr. old child who wrote to Achebe about unique customs and behavior of Africans, Marlow indeed behaves this way as well.  He seems to look at the African people with a sort of dignified eye.  He seems shocked to see the behaviors of the natives dancing and speaking in their own language which to the English ear may seem elementary and animalistic.   In response to some of the comments made in class about the time period in which this story was written, Achebe says “Conrad was born in 1857, the very year in which the first Anglican missionaries were arriving among my own people in Nigeria. It was certainly not his fault that he lived his life at a time when the reputation of the black man was at a particularly low level. But even after due allowances have been made for all the influences of contemporary prejudice on his sensibility there remains still in Conrad's attitude a residue of antipathy to black people which his peculiar psychology alone can explain. His own account of his first encounter with a black man is very revealing.”  I agree with this statement.  Although racism was not uncommon in Conrad’s time, there is a certain extreme that Conrad seems to take towards his opinion of the Black natives.  True, his story does comment on the present state of race relations but Conrad takes his own words to a different level as if purposely trying to put down the African’s by comparing them to dogs and treating them as animals.  Although this story is offensive it is interesting to refer to it and to our own inner racism to this day.  Are we really that far removed from the names, stereotypes, and opinions of that time?  Have we really advanced that much since then?  Can anyone whole heartedly say that they are not a little bit judgmental of those who are different than themselves?  What do you think? 

This book was pretty astonishing in the way Marlow depicted the natives of Africa.  He made them into something that they weren't simply because he was too ignorant to understand their culture.  He was extremely close-minded about anything outside of his "perfect" European dream.  It comes across as being racist and I felt that it was while I was reading it.  If he meant it on purpose or not can't really be said because only he would know the answer to that.  One of the points that Achebe made that really stuck out to  me were the contrast between Kurtz's woman in the forest and the one waiting for him in England.  They were polar opposites-obviously representing the difference between Africa and Europe.  Another one was how he talked about the landscape.  He made it sound like this horrible land full of terrors when it probably was beautifully covered in green forests with wildlife all around.  Once again-this shows the ignorance of Marlow.

Today in class I thought that maybe the whole racism things was there but not there to be racist. Honestly after reading Achebe's essay I have to completely agree with you. I think that they potray Africa as this dark terrifying place when in reality it is beautiful. I think that the people in Africa were not done justice. The whole bit about their dancing and their arms and legs going nuts...it is very stereotypical. Even the cannibalism part, either he just so happened to meet tribe members who practiced this or he completelely made it up to juice up the story. This book is just too exagerated and fake to even enjoy it. Achebe really opened my eyes up because before I knew that the book was degrating for African Americans  but I thought that maybe it was the time period or maybe he just had never seen a black person before. Even if both of these are true, if you are going to write a book do not be so ignorant.