TED Response

Chimamanda Adichie is my voice. She was able to speak exactly what I was trying to express for the past five years. Ignorance. Stereotypes. I remember how my mind was filled with these thoughts for ages and I finally decided to create a learning program to prevent these things in order to avoid bigger problems like discrimination. Unfortunately, after working for a year and a half on that project, I had to hand it over to my friend because I moved here.

The first time I've realized about the existence of ignorance was when I was in 4th grade - the moment when children start to identify themselves with a certain race, ethnicity, or nationality. Of course, me being Japanese played a huge role in my life.

All Asians eat dogs and monkey brains. All Asians are smart in math but terrible in English. All Asians are submissive and constantly dominated by their strict parents. These stereotypes are something that I hear practically every day (no exaggeration). The part that confused me the most at that time was none of them were actually true for me. They could’ve been true for many Asians, yet they were not “complete.” People assumed this applied to every Asian including me. Just like what Adichie said, people only see one side of a story of your “group”. They see many versions of that story and tend to overgeneralize. Why is it that they only see one side of a story? For one, it’s because newspapers, literature, and the Internet only show what the audience wants to see. No one is interested in reading an article about an Asian who is mediocre at math, doesn’t eat anything exotic, and is similar to anyone around the world. Everyone would rather read an article talking about an Asian who won a prize for being a math genius or an Asian who committed suicide due to excessive pressure from parents. They want those types of stories and the media provides them with these. The audience only remembers those and anything that disproves their prior view of the group, they will forget.

I have seen this ever since I was little. Moving from country to country, I have encountered several people who have misconceptions of a certain group. A prime example of this is when I moved to New York. Many times, when I mentioned to the New Yorkers that I have lived in Bahrain, a Muslim country right next to Saudi Arabia, they would be astonished by the fact that I was even alive. To them (especially after 9/11), Muslims equaled terrorists – cruel, violent, and immoral. Ironically, when I think of one word that described Bahrain, I use the word “peaceful.”

Adichie speaks the truth. If I were to name one thing that seemed to be similar in all seven countries that I lived in, it would be ignorance. You. Me. Them. Us. We all do it and although it’s sad, everyone tends to believe the things that they are exposed to, overgeneralize, and assume that that one side of a story they hear is everything. It was so inspiring how Adichie was able to explain this so well that I even sent this to my former supervisor of the project I mentioned above. Because believe me, trying to explain about other's narrow-mindedness and attempting to make your audience feel in awe is extremely hard. She was simply amazing.

Heart of Darkness: Blog Response #3

         We all have this belief that when we die, we will reflect on our lives and take a trip down memory lane. That seems to be what Mr. Kurtz did. The readers know Mr. Kurtz’s life filled with prosperity from ivory and fame. Yet, why would he scream “The horror! The horror!” as his final words? The life of Mr. Kurtz was actually full of horrible adventures. His career which was at the peak due to his passion of ivory was the result of his evil deeds which he performed in the company of the savages. The words 'The horror!' were the reflection of his awareness of the devilish acts he performed throughout life. He had touched the “heart of darkness.” With this mind, what did Conrad want to convey to the readers?

It is first important to take notice that Mr. Kurtz himself was not THE "heart of darkness" of the entire ivory trade in all of Africa. He is only a symbolic figure of a broader concept – the brutality of the ivory trade in nineteenth-century Africa practiced by numerous European entities. This all comes down to one remaining common thread: human tyranny, injustice, and brutality. The bottom line is that, as evidenced by the symbolic and actual correlations to Kurtz, the ivory trade, and the inhumane philosophies employed in much of the illustrated ivory trade, one can begin to grasp a larger idea, and that is the concept that a "heart of darkness" can exist in anyone.

What makes the idea of a "heart of darkness" even more so concerning to the human race is that many people whose "hearts" participate in "dark" activities or lifestyles do not even realize they are doing so. Why, many may hardly even have to try. While some ivory consumers were aware of the brutal practices used in obtaining ivory, many consumers saw only the allure of a sought-after commodity, all the while unaware of the abhorrent conditions of the African laborers. Some employees in the ivory companies sought only slightly better wages---not tyranny and supremacy over other people. Marlow, when in the book he once expresses awe over the incredible hold Kurtz has upon the ivory trade, seems to temporarily shrug aside the underlying "darkness" of Kurtz.

The darkness of men's souls. Their lack of morality. The abuse of colonialism. Kurtz is an example of the very core of darkness. He is stripped of all his outter civilized layers. Yet, can anyone really point the finger at him?

Heart of Darkness: Blog Response #2

Mark Twain once said, “There’s no such thing as an original idea. Every idea worth having has been had thousands of times already.” This seems to apply to literature as well. Many authors tend to use the same type of literary device in order to convey a message. An example would be the usage of fog as a symbol. Generally speaking, fog is used to represent obscurity and distortion -- not being able to see things clearly. This occurs in both One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey and Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad.

When Marlow is on the streamer, he and his comrades encounter an endless amount of fog and mist. Especially since I just finished reading One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the usage of fog caught my eye immediately. In both of the novels, the fog is a symbol of confusion.

Chief Bromden is known for hiding himself in the fog produced by the fog machine. It’s a place where he can go completely insane because everything is unclear. It’s an escape from reality. In Heart of Darkness, as the streamer nears the heart of the indigenous country, morals, ethics, and humanity dissolves into this fog and every men is left consumed by the greedy nature to their task. The nature of war and authority clouds their minds of their goal and brought about this darkness and haze. However, to Marlow, the effect was a little different. This particular scene seems to be a turning point with Marlow. With all the fog around, the path to take was unclear; he was unable to determine if he was guiding the steamer into open water or danger. Like I mentioned before, fog generally symbolizes confusion, and just like Bromden, Marlow falls victim to this. Since Marlow's arrival, he has been confused and unsure - dealing from the treatment of the natives, cannibals and pilgrims - what originally seemed wrong, was now being justified as right; like his original perception of Kurtz. He believed him to be this awe-inspiring, self-creating legend, when in truth, he was insecure, insane, and immoral. The fog created was almost self-imposed because of Marlow's instability as a person. Had he been firm in his own beliefs and convictions on right and wrong he would not have faced such a conflicting situation with Kurtz, but because of this, he was able to become stronger and better for it.

         It is interesting to see how two completely different types of literary works share a connection through the same type of symbol. Fog. Just a simple use of this and the readers automatically know what the character is going through. Confusion, distortion, blindness. 

Heart of Darkness: Blog Response #1

In the early 1900s, females were still known as the ones with the inferior roles to men. How does Joseph Conrad, who seems to be quite progressive in his critique of imperialism, reflect the traditional treatment of women? Does he seem to have the conventional perspective that many from his period have? Or does he have an advanced way of thinking toward the concept of females? Unfortunately, in Heart of Darkness, Conrad offers no advancement to the cause of women by following convention and minimizing the agency of females through the creation of two separate, engendered spheres. So far in Part 1, two female characters have appeared. These characters were kept unnamed and their speech limited, emphasizing the disparagement of women in the male-dominated society.

The first women that Conrad’s protagonist, Marlow, recounts are the two knitters at the Company office in Brussels. The younger one greets the men with a “cheery and foolish face” who come in for examinations before they leave for Africa. Although not so much the older woman, the younger woman is unwise in the ways of the world. She gives off a carefree attitude toward the men before they enter the Congo. This gives the young woman a sense of innocence and ignorance. She clearly has no idea that the men are getting themselves into the “heart of darkness.” If she did know what the “real world” had to offer, she would be frightened and probably would not be able to handle it. If she actually knew the true, harsh realities of the world outside of her own bubble, that innocence would forever be lost.

The second female character that the readers encounter is Marlow’s aunt. Before Marlow braves the challenges that await him in the Congo, he visits his aunt to thank her for securing the job of steamboat captain for him. Marlow remains critical of his aunt even though he could not get employment without her help (Hinkle). He views her as "out of touch with the truth" along with the rest of womankind, who are in "a world of their own" (Conrad 10). The world of women may be separate from the realm of Marlow and other males, but these worlds are certainly dependent on each other. Earlier Marlow said that the beautiful idea behind colonization masks the ruthless practice of colonialism. Well, his aunt clearly buys the idea, and in doing so establishes women as symbols of civilization’s inability to see its hollow corruption.

Marlow has a very specific and sexist attitude towards women. They play only minor roles in the novel and often live vicariously through their male counterparts. They are rarely given voices of their own and are more often seen than heard. Depicting women as unnatural entities, voiceless and agent less, to their male counterparts destroys any shot of redemption for the fairer sex, so Conrad aligns all the women in the narrative with unreality to evolve the importance of separate realms.