Heart of Darkness: Part 3

“In seasons of pestilence some of us will have a secret attraction to the disease--a terrible passing inclination to die of it. And all of us have like wonders hidden in our breasts, only needing circumstances to evoke them.”

In your response include what this statement means, how it applies to Heart of Darkness, and at least one other book you have read so far in Senior Social.

It means that some people are drawn to evil actions (“the disease”). It almost describes a human incapability to avoid what could hurt and, are instead, attracted to it (“inclination to die of it”). The statement is saying we all have these dark thoughts within ourselves waiting for “circumstances” of the “disease” to draw them out of us. In “The Hear of Darkness”, Kurtz is drawn to that same “disease” and leaves the European way of living behind. Marlow is too attracted to the idea of Africa, but soon realizes that his curious nature has brought him into a reality he knows nothing about. The statement is also like “Inherit the Wind” where all the towns’ people probably had these “wonders” on their minds dealing with evolution. They were drawn to the courtroom and the trail because of that “secret attraction” and, perhaps some, like Mr. Cates, had an “inclination to die of it”.

Heart of Darkness: Part 2

1. What are the important things he learns from this exchange?

First of all, the conversation is about Kurtz and Marlow learns that he wants to take over the manger’s job. He also learns that Kurtz had an ivory business and that Kurtz had gotten ill around then and didn’t fully recover.

2. What is the uncle gesturing towards at the end?

He hints that the manager should just kill the man because no one would ever find out in that environment.

3. Summarize Marlow’s meditation on the cannibal crew. What is he impressed with?

Marlow is impressed that the “cannibals” don’t attack him or the crew because they must be so hungry. The money they are paid is useless to them and the rotten hippo that they brought with them was gone so Marlow is surprised that they can restrain themselves.

Darfur

While David Rieff makes a strong argument, I disagree with most of his opinions. He claims that people are forgetting that politics are involved in the problem. All he seems to be saying is America is unpopular and if we step in with Darfur we’ll be seen as invaders. I don’t think that has to be the case, and I don’t agree when he says there are only two outcomes if America interferes. I believe that the situation is complicated, but when human beings are killed it’s not that complicated that there should be a question of whether to help or not. Rieff also claims it should be the work of the U.N. While the U.S. did make a mistake in Iraq, the U.N. isn’t that much better (Rwanda).

However, I don’t entirely agree with Lawrence F. Kaplan either. He claims that “Darfur can be saved by one thing and one thing alone: American power”. I think it’s arrogant to assume that America has ultimate power. This shouldn’t even be a debate; in America or the world. As Eric Reeves said, “How many must die before the world says, ‘Enough?’”

Heart of Darkness: Part 1

1. Who are the two narrators of the novel? Describe the situation and characters on board the Nellie.

Marlow and a man who is listening to Marlow’s story as they sail aboard the Nellie. They are sailing on the Thames which implies they are in England.

2. As he begins his story, what does Marlow emphasize about England's history?

Marlow says that England’s history is based off taking over places that can’t fight back. That it was built off imperialism.

3. Marlow says, "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. What redeems it is the idea only. . . . something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to" . What does he mean? Is this a justification of imperialism and colonialism?

He’s saying that the treatment is unfair, but there nothing an individual can do about it. It’s too big and so there is no point in trying to stop the inevitable. I don’t think it’s justification for imperialism and colonialism because accepting things the way they are is a weak way of living. It might be the way things are now, but it doesn’t always have to stay that way.

4. Comment on Marlow's discussion of maps in part one. How does this relate to colonialism?

The maps represent the uncharted parts of the world during Marlow’s childhood. Africa, however, was being filled in with rivers and such but it was still a mystery land. That intrigued Marlow and he wanted to explore. Basically, colonialism was a big reason why the maps were being filled in; countries wanted more land and so they sent out more explorers to find it.

Stay With the U.N. or Not?

I don’t know if we should stay with the United Nations. I used to be so sure that the organization was good for the world, but it seems, like any organization, it has its flaws. I don’t agree completely with either Seastrand or Monitor. There are drastic flaws in the Security Council as Seastrand pointed out. What I don’t think was mentioned, though was all the other programs that focus on such things as education or sanitation. After reading this packet and watching “Beyond the Gates”, I don’t think Monitor is correct in arguing the U.N. is only getting better and the United States should stay involved the way it is now. Are there inherit problems with the U.N.? I think so; the evidence points to that conclusion. Could the U.N. be remade? I’m not sure, but maybe it’s worth a try.

“…it is unlikely that universal peace will ever be attained” (G. Edward Griffin, The United States Should Withdraw from the U.N.). I don’t care how many scientific theories there are claiming it’s human nature, I still believe the world could achieve peace. Whither or not the U.N. has a role in that goal, I don’t know. But it’s worth a shot.