The Achebe who lashed out at Conrad was not so much a literary critic as an African nationalist
Chinua Achebes famous 1977 essay,An Image of Africa,split criticism of Joseph Conrad right down the middle,into a before and after. For,thus spake Achebe: Conrad was a bloody racist… And the question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanisation,which depersonalises a portion of the human race,can be called a great work of art. My answer is: No,it cannot. Subsequent to that,it is hard to come across any writing on Conrads Heart of Darkness that ignores the Nigerian novelists scathing attack on the celebrated author or his canonical text.
It is important to remember,for example,that Nigeria achieved independence in 1960,two years after Things Fall Apart was published in 1958. Soon,the internal contradictions in the postcolonial state of Nigeria surfaced,and it became embroiled in a civil war. The Igbo-dominated Biafran Republic emerged in 1966,of which Achebe became ambassador. Achebes nationalist credentials were without doubt. But Nigeria was not the only country to witness bloody coups and counter-coups. The most prominent was the violence in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo.
As the former imperialists watched what they thought was a neo-Conradian apocalypse emerge in several African nations,it could have been deeply embarrassing for intellectuals who were at spokespersons for the widespread excitement over African nationalism. The message that was emerging from Africa,newly independent,was what the white West always wanted to see: a vindication of its civilising mission/ imperialism and racism: a validation of its centuries-old thesis of Africa not being ready yet for modern,civilised living and government. What it always knew to be the African reality,and one that African intellectuals did not want to convey to the world.
So Achebes statement is not so much a literary criticism of Heart of Darkness qua literature,but a response to and vehement reaction against the unfortunate turn of events in Africa. The Achebe who spoke accusingly of Conrad was not so much a literary critic as an African nationalist. No matter how much critics try to prove Achebe wrong by reading between the lines of Heart of Darkness,those insights would not be shared by the political Achebe,for whom it was a racist text to which his own fiction is a counter-racist rejoinder.
Few critics in the West,including V.S. Naipaul,see Achebes context. Tragically,Achebes position has been attacked directly or implicitly by many so-called postcolonial intellectuals like Naipaul and Nazareth. Naipauls own account of life in Africa,especially in present-day Congo,is one of the most anti-African narratives,buttressed by his discursive piece,A New King for the Congo, which is not really about dictatorship as much as his views on African blacks. I am yet to see a reasoned critique of Naipauls Image of Africa,which begins with that notoriously magisterial statement: The world is what it is,etc. This world is apparently about the world of Naipauls characters in the novel,but it was actually about the postcolonial African reality. It took Achebe,albeit a more temperate one,to comment on Naipauls position: I do admire Mr Naipaul,but I am rather sorry for him. He is too distant from a viable moral centre; he withholds his humanity; he seems to place himself under a self-denying ordinance,as it were,suppressing his genuine compassion for humanity. A few years later,Achebe is slightly more vehement: Naipauls case,he says,is the case of a brilliant writer who sold himself to the West. This was more a broadside on the Wests the continued approval of the Conradian apocalypse,now being articulated by its co-opted adversary.
The writer heads the Department of English at Delhi University
