Camille Buxton

December 11, 2009

The Role of Apologia in Post Colonial Studies

            In this course, the question of racial representation based on the historical context of the works has been discussed in great detail. I found this type of examination in this setting raised questions about how American readers of colonial and post colonial texts viewed these works, and observed a tendency that made me uncomfortable. An example of this phenomenon is the reading and ensuing dialogue about Defoe and Kincaid’s works: Robinson Crusoe, “A Small Place,” and Lucy. I noticed that colonial texts like Robinson Crusoe were viewed within the framework of neocolonial English attitudes and were accepted as works with considerable canonical clout despite various flaws including historical and cultural inaccuracies based on a Eurocentric worldview. In contrast, “A Small Place” and Lucy, when viewed within their framework as transitional post colonial works, were read with little room for understanding. Both Kincaid the writer and Lucy the character were often picked apart and dismissed as no attempt was made by the readers to understand their points of view. In classroom discussions, the colonizer was cast in the role of human with flaws, whereas the formerly colonized became the expresser of unwarranted, misdirected anger.

As the course progressed to other colonial and post colonial works, several complex apologies were offered as an explanation for aggressive, Eurocentric colonization. The colonizer became a victim of human frailty at the mercy of his ignorance or location, reducing his actions to the result of his unfortunate excusable Eurocentrism. It did not matter that the “natives” to whom he referred were just that—natives—and that he was an interloper in their country. At this point in the study, I think that the creation of another role became necessary to defend the role of the colonizer. The role was that of apologist, which arose as colonial texts were more frequently employed as apologias for a Eurocentric attitude that often degraded and dehumanized indigenous people, reducing their socio-cultural norms to childlike fetishes because they were non-European. The two works representative of colonial and post colonial texts as apologia and response are Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, respectively, which present the colonizer’s point of view during colonization and the indigenous response to that perspective.

 In literature, an apologia is a work written as an explanation or justification of motives, convictions or acts. With this definition in mind, Conrad’s Heart of Darkness can be considered an apologia as it provides excuses for Kurtz’s mental decline blaming the African continent and its heat for the corruption of a promising European. An indication of the novel’s role in literature as an apologia comes through the main character and narrator, Marlow, and the legendary Kurtz. Marlow defends the Company’s rights in Africa and excuses its treatment of the natives focusing on their utility. Kurtz’s behavior is excused because he is the Company’s chief supplier of ivory; none of his actions questioned because he exceeds the Company’s goals. Marlow and Kurtz’s mindset and behavior to the Africans they encounter is placed in a historical context—they are Europeans on the Dark Continent at the end of the 19^th century, which justifies any thoughtless word or cruel act. An interpretation of the text with this mindset rather than a condemnation of Conrad and his work as indicative of a flawed Eurocentric worldview can be considered apologia because of the justifications for this text.    

Achebe’s Things Fall Apart is a response to Conrad’s view of Africa as the dark, unknown continent because provides a contrast to the Western view of Africans portraying them as multi-dimensional and as more human. I liked Achebe’s perspective, which accounted for African characters being given depth and voice in a way that Conrad seemed incapable of doing. Achebe portrays both Africans and Europeans as being human—capable of behavior occurring along a continuum rather than relegated to a static position. The Africans in the novel are neither better nor worse than the Europeans although Achebe notes that European influence brings an end to certain unexplainable tribal practices, such as abandoning newborn twins, but the reasons used for ending these practices seem as dogmatic as tribal law. I think this suggests that the questioning of old practices within the tribe—particularly by senior tribesmen—is the impetus for change rather than forced change from judgmental outsiders. Change must come from within the group in order to be effective; the constant interference of external influences hinders group development and reduces indigenous people to a European-imposed childlike state.

When reading these two texts in this setting, I questioned why it was easier to believe Conrad’s view of Africa as a homogenous Dark Continent, but more difficult to consider Achebe’s view of Africa as a continent coping with unwanted influence. The answer lies with the propagating of historical perspective with the victor dictating his version. The imperialist mindset of the 19^th century established an idea of the world as being separated into the West (Europe and America), and everyone else; this binary places everyone else in a subservient role to the Occidental. As Europeans invaded Africa for profit in the 19^th century, their actions had to be justified by propagating a version of history that is exclusive of the Other’s voice. Sadly, this version of history still pervades the Occidental’s consciousness almost forcing modern Western readers into an apologist role for aggressive European colonization and its long-term effects. In the hands of the Western reader, texts such as Heart of Darkness and other classics “should” or “must” be included in curricula because they represent the textual styles of a certain period; in addition, these texts are considered canonical. However, I think these works should be taught with some caution—readers must understand that no apology is necessary, but understanding of another version of history is appreciated. In addition, some history written from the viewpoint of the Other should be coupled with the texts so that readers are given a broader perspective of historical events. I believe now more than ever that Achebe was correct about Conrad’s flaws as a human and that there is little reason for the modern reader to apologize for him. With that said I also acknowledge that there is also little reason for a Western reader with immediate access to vast amounts of knowledge and information to so readily accept a one-sided version of history.