anity of Africans does not outweigh the point of the novella, which is that imperialism is a “rapacious folly”.The entire dispute surrounding Heart of Darkness is reminiscent of the debate about Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. As in that debate, I tend to come down closer to Denby’s opinion on Heart of Darkness than that of Achebe. Although I agree that Conrad was a racist, I also think that because of the time at which the book was written and the main focus of the book, this shading is, if not commendable, at least excusable. Conrad’s book portrays a man living in imperial England, and his evolutionary racism is merely an accurate portrayal of the accepted beliefs of the time. In addition, Heart of Darkness goes much further than most literature from that time period, in that it attacks imperialism while most other writers at the time simply accepted it as something normal and permissible. If Conrad’s work is to be attacked on the grounds of the opinions of its author, then so must the work of nearly every other writer active during the imperialist era.The best way to look at Heart of Darkness is as an imperfect, yet incalculably valuable, contribution to literature. In reality, it has done much more good through its attack on imperialism than it has harm through the inherent racism of the time in which it was written. Chinua Achebe, although well intentioned, seems blinded by his own proximity to the issue at hand and the strength of his opinions....
