Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
08.31.10 - 5:34 PM
The Dreams of Men, The Germs of Empires
Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad's seminal tale of colonial greed and madness, has been re-imagined as a graphic novel. Given Iraq, Afghanistan, the enduring chaos of Congo, the presence of U.S. forces around the globe, our ongoing sense of entitlement and "creeping colonial amnesia," says artist Catherine Anyango, the story of Kurtz gone mad is more relevant than ever. With beautiful, intricate, apt pencil drawings that highlight the themes of light and dark.
"Exterminate all the brutes." - the ivory trader Kurtz
Joseph Conrad
Comments are closed
33 Comments so far
Show All" Given Iraq, Afghanistan, the enduring chaos of Congo, the presence of U.S. forces around the globe and our "creeping colonial amnesia," says artist Catherine Anyango, the story of Kurtz and his sense of entitlement gone mad is more relevant than ever.
"Exterminate all the brutes." - the ivory trader Kurtz"
Oh, Kurtz means exterminate all the ELEPHANTS.. for a moment there....
~
At the end of the second linked item is this paragraph:
"Of the Edwardian novella's continuing relevance, Carabine is unequivocal. 'If Bush and Cheney and the neocons had read Heart of Darkness and understood it, they would not have invaded Iraq under the absurd utopian illusion that the Iraqis were gagging for democracy.'"
The professor who made that statement knows little about the Neocons and what motivates them, and they certainly had no "utopian illusion" at all about the war they would wage. It's too bad the author of the review chose to include such an observation.
I Agree. Bringing "democracy" to Iraq was nothing more than a pathetic cover story for control of petroleum there.
Karlof1 and iceman, I agree with you about the crass motivations of the neocons. I would add in the case of George Bush, there was also personal petulance of a childish type against Saddam Hussein.
Joe
A brilliant novel. The opening sequence of a puny Belgian ironclad lobbing ineffectual shells into the green uncaring vastness of the jungle sets the tone, and the tone is maintained throughout.Everyone one should read this book every five years or so: also useful is Trollope's "The Way We Live Now." (1873) Between the two of them, there's everything you need to know about capitalism and imperialism. Follow these up with Conrad's "The Secret Agent."
"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much."
- Joseph Conrad
----
Recent scholarship such as that of Enzo Traverso and Mark Mazower has explored something that Hannah Arendt wrote about shortly after WWII ended, but which was swept under the carpet soon thereafter, i.e. the link between European imperialism and Nazi barbarism. Here's Enzo Traverso pointing out similarities between the two:
----
...the exacerbated nationalism and biological racism of the Nazis were closely linked to the culture and practice of imperialism that had characterised the whole of Europe since the beginning of the 19th century. Germany had not played a leading role in this development. On the contrary, it was a latecomer, a keen pupil following the two great colonial powers, France and Britain. The natural supremacy of the white race and its corollary, Europe’s civilizing mission in Africa and Asia; the view of the world beyond Europe as a vast area to be colonized; the idea of colonial wars as conflicts in which the enemy was the civilian population of the countries to be conquered, rather than an army; the theory that the extinction of the inferior races was an inevitable consequence of progress: these central tenets of Nazi ideology were commonplaces of 19th-century European culture. The Nazis’ aim of conquering Lebensraum (living space) for the German race in the vast Slavic territories of eastern Europe was essentially a transposition to the Old World of the model of colonial domination that other great powers had pursued in Africa and Asia for more than a century.
----
http://mondediplo.com/2005/02/15civildiso
thank you for this reference, it's sad that the european jewish community emulated their german persecutors and imposed the same imperial project on the palestinian people.
...peace...
>>m156 wrote: "Recent scholarship such as that of Enzo Traverso and Mark Mazower has explored something that Hannah Arendt wrote about shortly after WWII ended, but which was swept under the carpet soon thereafter, i.e. the link between European imperialism and Nazi barbarism. Here's Enzo Traverso pointing out similarities between the two:..."<<
Wow, m156, that is a most interesting perspective, and it completely makes sense, given what I've read up on the imperial policies and actions of Britain and France. I guess I need not have gone on a rant against your somewhat casual comment about Gandhi's chances of survival in today's Israel on a different story :)
"The Intifada of the Unarmed Protest"
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2010/08/25
It also kind of makes sense to think of Germany as somewhat of a "latecomer" on the scene of imperialism and the accompanying racism, even though the methods adopted were clearly different. I happen to think that the class system in Britain was a prime driving force behind imperial conquests, apart from the compulsion to keep up with Spain's new-found wealth obtained through its own murderous conquests. The "Enclosure Movement" was another factor that pushed people, first into the cities and then on to the ships. Even the Irish Potato Famine is considered "neither inevitable nor unavoidable". And food was being exported to Britain even during the famine years, and to me this is another way of finding Lebensraum for the British population. And other actions such as sending shiploads of people off to penal colonies.
It's amazing how difficult it is to get a different perspective on history, especially after having been bombarded with a particular version of who the **only** bad guys were. It's really astounding that the accepted "wisdom" is that Winston Churchill was leading the struggle against the evil Nazis, considering that he has made the following statements on earlier occasions:
"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks constitutes a national and race danger which is impossible to exaggerate. I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed before another year has passed."
- in Churchill's letter to Prime Minister Asquith in 1910 on compulsory sterilization of ‘the feeble-minded and insane’.
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier."
- Churchill, in 1919, as president of the Air Council
"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."
- in an article by Churchill in 1920
"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor."
- Churchill's comment on Gandhi's meeting with the Viceroy of India, in 1931.
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia."
- Churchill to the Peel Commission (or the Palestine Royal Commission) in 1937.
Yes, who would have thought such notions had currency outside Germany between 1933 and 1945?
Well, some of Teddy Roosevelt's remarks on the subject of race would fit right into Hitler's game plan, and his secretary of state once referred to the Haitians as "niggers who presume to speak French" i.e, it's bad enough that they're black, but when they pretend to speak a white man's language, that's really over the top.He could, presumably, have said something similar about Jamaicans, but they were safely under the 'protection' of the British, which was where they belonged.Probably he had no problems with the Cubans speaking Spanish, because "Africa begins at the Pyrenees."
"The Nazis’ aim of conquering Lebensraum (living space) for the German race in the vast Slavic territories of eastern Europe was essentially a transposition to the Old World of the model of colonial domination that other great powers had pursued in Africa and Asia for more than a century."
This goal predates the Nazis as revealed by the writings of the Kaiser and documented by Fischer in Germany's Aims in the First World War. Fischer doesn't dwell on the subject of WW1 being a Race War in his review of the Kaiser's views on pages 32-34, and there is presumably more evidence than the citations he uses, which are rather convincing: The Kaiser writes:
"Chapter 2 of the Great Migrations is over. Now comes Chapter 3, the Germanic peoples' fight for their existence against Russo-Gallia. No further conference [London Ambassador's Conference Decenber 1912]can smooth this over, for it is not a question of high politics, but one of *race* ... for what is at issue is whether the Germanic race is to be or not to be in Europe."
Even at universities, very little is taught in the USA about the detailed reasons leading to the outbreak of WW1, which set the stage for the totally avoidable WW2. Imperialism is very much the root cause for both WW1 & 2, and also drives present US behavior. Twain and the Anti Imperial League ought to be lauded and a national holiday reserved in its honor, once the US Empire collapses as it must.
The Germans had good reason to be paranoid,in an age of predatory imperialism, especially with regard to Russia.The Russian economy was growing twice as fast as the German economy (at the time it was the fasted growing major economy in Europe) and was already by some measures almost as large as the German economy.The German generals thought that war with Russia was inevitable, and that having that war sooner rather than later would guarantee that Germany would win it-before Russia developed its heavy industry (read armaments industry) to a par with Germany's, and at the same time got all its railroads built, and wired the whole thing with telephones and telegraphs.The General Staff feared that by 1920, it would be too late, and the Russians would start the war and crush their butts.They regarded the French as less of a threat, having taken their measure ,militarily, in the recent past.Their plan was to knock France out first, and then concentrate everything on Russia. Nobody in a position of power seems to have had any idea that the whole world which they had comfortably inhabited up until 1914 would be blown to pieces four years later.But Lenin got it right.
It's quite unfortunate that we older folk have all of this great info when the younger folk really need it the most. I'm curius as to where you found the Russian economic stats. Fischer does a fine economic comparison between Germany and the other major Imperialist states but omits Russia, which I find odd. Surely since the main aim of the war was to eliminate the Slavs as a rival of the Teutons there was good information produced about the capabilities of Russian industry? I'm aware of Russia's industrial capacities at the time, but it seems clear Russia lost because of critical flaws in its economy's structure:
"Difficulties arose, however, in transporting raw materials to the main manufacturing centres: the Russian economy was dependent on the railway network and the railways proved unable to cope with the twin demands of transporting soldiers and materials to the front and keeping Russian manufacturing industry supplied. Labour supply was also a continuing problem for Russia’s war industries. The army took many skilled workers and the stresses on those remaining in factories grew as the war progressed. The First World War was an expensive conflict, requiring sustained expenditure on arms and military equipment by the state. It cost Russia fifteen times more than the Russo-Japanese war of 1904–5 and the government had to resort to financing the war by taking out loans and printing money." http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/491
That's a great quote which pretty much backs up what I was saying: the war got underway before the Russian economy was really ready for it.Also, once it was underway, the Russians screwed up in spectacular fashion in the Battle of Tannenberg, by doing things like sending uncoded messages "en clair".What could easily have been an impressive Russian victory turned into a serious defeat.General Samsonov shot himself etc. We still have some Russian War Bonds in 100 ruble denominations which were paying 5 1/2% and came due in 1920.They are very pretty to look at, but do not yet have the value of Confederate money, but we can always hope.
The subject of bank loans and the various bond issues made to finance the war is quite intriguing. I wonder if you've ever read George Seldes story about the interview he and some fellow journalists were able to get with Hindinberg a week after the war ended which was suppressed by the allied propaganda board and kept from being published which would have nipped the possibility of any future revisionistic Dolschstoss story--the stab in the back--in the bud and prevented one of Hitler's main psychological propaganda points from occuring. It's in his book You Can't Print That, which questia has online, http://www.questia.com/library/book/you-cant-print-that-the-truth-behind-the-
news-1918-1928-by-george-seldes.jsp
Thanks for the tip-no, I haven't seen that. I think we have our own version of the Stab in The Back re. Vietnam, but because the losses (for us) were relatively small scale compared to what Germany suffered in WW1, it has never gained much traction here. However, if you talk to vets and some retired military people, it raises its ugly head. It remains to be seen what will happen when the current round of wars ends, and our sorry asses get booted out of Afghanistan. Probably not much, with our volunteer army and hordes of private contractors.
an amazing book, especially considering english was conrad's 3rd language. it's en-heartening that young people who have an aversion to actually reading (eh gads - it's a novella for crying out loud!) will be exposed to the story via the graphic novel.
...peace...
Americans are ignorant of history. "We" think that Hitler and his Holocaust was the greatest savage act of all human history. It is politically incorrect to think otherwise. The Holocaust was the norm. The Old Testament is filled with stories of conquest and killing peoples to take their land. 'Kill them all every man, woman and child or they will forever be thorns in your side. I want you to have the land. You are my chosen people'.
Athenians once laid siege to an island whose people chose to fight to the last man, woman and child rather than become slaves. Athenians then repopulated the island.
Voltaire wrote of El Dorado, the lost city of gold, in Candide. "We" do not know that El Dorado was found in SA and hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives as slaves in the gold and silver mines.
Army after army has met on battlefields for centuries and millions of lives have been lost. Two thousand years ago, there was no escaping Rome. Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius had a man follow him through the streets repeating the phrase, 'I am but a man.' Emperors and Kings through time could take lives at will.
'There is nothing new under the sun'. History is the story of wars told by the victors. The story has not changed and stories of greed and madness are not new. Our collective prospective has been clouded by a brief glimpse of democracy.
Athens was the birth place of democracy but it was short lived. Democracy found life again during the enlightenment. "We" have allowed its flame to be extinguished. The Plutocracy is back in power. "We" are living Plato's Republic.
(http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/150/pg150.html)
Sorry folks, I've always found Conrad's writing style to be turgid and boring. If you'd like the true story of what the European powers (mostly Belgium) did to the Congo seek out King Leopold's Ghost.
The truth is more horrific than anything Conrad could have known about.
Generalcommentator:
Your personal literary opinion aside,
Conrad was there at the
time described by Hochschild in KL'sG.
I read "KL'sG" over 10 years ago, and found no fault
with JC.
Stuffy British reviewers at the time panned Conrad as turgid....
They hated him... they had no answer until their "hero" Kipling.
I have never read Conrad (up to now), but I completely agree about "King Leopold's Ghost". Read it and you will never think the same way about Congo, Africa or the methods and lasting effects of imperialism. I cannot recommend it too much. Mark Twain also wrote bitterly about the outrages by King Leopold.
I think I better read "The Heart of Darkness", in one form or another.
Joe
Here in San Francisco, there's the "Heart of Whiteness" on Pacific Heights. That's a whole other problem.
This looks to be an interesting project, but I hope that R. Crumb was given "the right of first refusal". ;)
Bottom line, then& now:
"Mista Kurtz is dead"
That's all you need to know.
History is a continuous process, though Francis Fukuyama though otherwise.
"It also kind of makes sense to think of Germany as somewhat of a "latecomer" on the scene of imperialism and the accompanying racism,"
I don't think "it" was a late comer. Its ancestors were deeply occupied with this problem as far back as the 15th century. The Teutonic Knights "corporation" was doing its best to expend and control the "worthless Pagans" of the east but failed in the end. But the drive to try again never did and I would venture to say that it still lives on today but through means of finance rather than arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Noble_Corporations
The great Irish patriot Sir Roger Caseman wrote a brillant expose of the situation in the Congo in 1904.
In 1916 he was executed by the british in Dublin after the Eastern rebellion
Good post, but two typos. I think he was Roger Casement, who was executed after the Easter Rebellion. And yes, he was a good and brilliant man. He saw the connection between oppression of the Irish and oppression of the Congolese. For that, the British did him in, supposedly for treason.
People do not always extend that understanding to other groups. Sometimes they become obsessed only with their own group and use that as justification to re-enact their own oppression on others. When people transcend that mindset, they become something beyond ordinary.
Joe
The human race was around for tens of thousands of years before the rise and enshrinement of patriarchy and its endless wars and warrior culture and of course all its supporting religions. We survived due to cooperation. Patriarchy is but a blip, albeit a violent, vicious and destructive one, in the story of humans. Its day is over though there is the danger of it taking much of the human race down with it.
Walter M. Miller's 1960 "A Canticle for Liebowitz" is also worth re-reading.
Published to critical acclaim, Canticle was compared to the work of Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene and Walker Percy.
Alcyon, m156, ricardohead and karlof1,
thank you....
"It's quite unfortunate that we older folk have all of this great info when the younger folk really need it the most."
it's true, and it's why i flock to discussion boards at CD - to learn and develop insight. all of your comments on this thread - especially the development of your comments have helped me see a little more light.
w/ gratitude and
...peace...
Thanks, iowablackbird. Like you, I too learn a great deal from the comment threads here. Peace to you too :)
Thanks for your feedback. It's good to know someone reads and even appreciates. Since Iowa is part of your moniker, perhaps you'll appreciate this item about Iowa's ethanol production and a few other things, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6907
For what it's worth, an opinion: In Heart of Darkness Conrad may have provided an excoriating view of Europeans and colonialism, but he also wasn't very kind to Africa or Africans. I thought he used the continent as a sort of literary bogey man, a device intended to draw a European reader into the tale he wished to tell. Conrad was a spinner of yarns, after all, and he embellishes the atmosphere for dramatic effect. While his characterization of the European may have been spot-on, his treatment of the Africans in the story-- they are little more than ciphers-- leaves something to be desired. Africa and the Africans are more of a literary device or metaphor for the author than an actual place with actual people.
Just one opinion. But don't take my word for it-- read it and see what you think.