11/1

NOTE (ADDED SUN NOV 4): If you are having trouble getting Waiting for the Barbarians, email me for a pdf version of the first chapter. The file is very very large, which is causing trouble posting it here. I'll keep trying, but in the meantime you can email me to send it directly IF you have an attachment limit of large size--gmail is big enough, if you have an account there.

Thanks Jennifer. You remind us all what's good about Halloween when we're sitting here watching our house be torn to shreds by a candy crazed, chocolate covered Batman and an Elmo with half-eaten lollipops glued into his fur.

Having read the Said and hooks, let's begin the Coetzee novel Waiting for the Barbarians. For Monday read the first section, which in my rather aged edition is pages 1-25. A word on the reading: You'll need to read an average of 40 pages (again, in my edition, which runs only 160 pages) before each session in order for us to get through the book in two weeks, which is our plan. This means that for some sessions more reading will be required. I'm also going to be assigning supplementary readings during that period to help illuminate the book. It would behoove you, then, to read as much as you can, whenever you can, particularly over the weekend. Ideally, you'd read about half the book this weekend, about half next, and be in good shape for the class work over the week. In any case, the first 25 pages for Monday, the next 30+ for Wednesday--you can see the issue.

Finally, for the response, let's try something a bit different: we spoke of real world examples of the 'vestiges of colonialism.' Do a little bit of research on a colony (almost every country has been a colony at some point--including the U.S. for both the early Americans and arguably the Native Americans) and try to understand how those vestiges might manifest themselves. That is, what problems does that ex-colony have to deal with which are the direct or indirect result of the past colonization? I don't expect you to be able to come up with this on your own: I expect a summarization of some minor research into the topic. Don't use wikkipedia or any other encyclopedia-style source, however. Try for more relevant sources--if not scholarly at least contemporary (newspapers, etc.) Summarize what you find in 250-400 words (keep it short and to the point). Quote and cite as needed, to avoid plagiarism.

Happy Halloween

I did the readings. They take a little bit to read so everyone give yourself some time, but i just wanted to say
hApPy HaLLoWeEn!!

10/29

Much more to talk about regarding our discussion today--an interesting start I thought. For Wednesday, read the excerpt from Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism found on page 369 in your book, and think about it in relationship to our discussion on Heart of Darkness thus far. Also read bell hooks 'Postmodern Blackness' which begins a few pages earlier. In celebration of All Hallows Eve, no blog is due. Be sure to show me you've done the reading through your class participation.

Why Conrad is or is not a 'Bloody Racist'

After reading Conrad's, 'Heart of Darkness', the excerpt, and the Achebe;s essay/lecture, I am left with the opinion of whether Achebe refers to Joseph Conrad, as a 'bloody racist', or if it was misinterpreted. Therefore, it was crucial to come up with the answer to determine the truth, by reading and trying to understand what Achebe, was trying to prove.

In the essay by Achebe, some examples that can prove that Conrad is a 'bloody racist', is first in how he describes Africa as 'the other world', " the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant beastiality." (7) in this qoute he gives a comparison of Africa to Europe, how in Europe there is more civilization than in Africa. From the educated people, to the description of people educated in Africa. Another way that might be racist is how Achebe described that Conrad described the people, in a moment of the story he described them in when,"Now and then a boat from the shore gave one a momentary contact with reality. It was paddled by black fellows. You could see from afar the white of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks." This is how Conrad would describe working people, probably fisherman, but overall this was a way of discriminating their appearance, and their personal value. Conrad, was suppose in my opinion help his people where he was born, I think that he was a racist because he grew up with these ideas, he was born in the year 1857, where accarding to Achebe was , "It was certainly not his fault that he lived his lifetime when reputation of the black man was at a particularly low level." (41) Therefore, I think he was influenced by what he heard in his surroundings, and he grew up with this mentallity. Consequently, a way in which people can view Conrad, as not being a racist is how Achebe, described the the beliefs where not coming from Conrad, but from the fictional narrator, Mrlow. Achebe wrote, "It might be contended, of course, that the African in Heart of Darkness is not Conrad's but that of his fictional narrator, Marlow, and that far from endorsing it Conrad might indeed be holding it up to irony and criticism." (29) In other words, is that the beliefs where not from Conrad, but came from Marlow, where Conrad just criticized what was said, and though of when describing African people.

10/29

How he thinks of black slaves in the text is merely a reflection of how the rest of the world thinks of them. He obviously hates them, calling them "savages" and how he hates these savages "to the death." Since he hates black people in general, not a particular black individual, one may think that he is a racist. But how can he be a racist if the whole world has the same standing on the issue? Then can we say all men were masculinists back in those days? It wouldn't be fair to judge a value or custom of different time through the glasses of our time, because I believe what right or wrong is told by the time and space. At first, when he gives a biscuit to a black slave ( I still don't know why he did it), it kind of confused me and made me almost think that he's not a racist. But as I read on I could find over and over words or expressions that showed how much he hates them, though I couldn't find any of his actions that reflects his hatred on them.

Why Conrad is Not a Racist

Is Conrad a “bloody racist”? I Believe it depends which way you look at the idea. Of course many people can argue why he is a racist such as what Achebe does. But I feel there is more in reading that can prove that he is not a racist. The story Conrad’s Heart of Darkness takes place in an environment where they is some kind of slavery going on, and a division of race. In the story we see that Conrad tend to call African’s names such as savages and cannibals, refer to African’s as lower human, maybe even animals which is part of Achebe’s argument is that Conrad is racist. But lets look at this text for a moment and interpret it “They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom. Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all the leagality of time contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food, they sickend, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest.” In the quote you see that Conrad refers to there African’s as “black shadows of disease” which is fine if you want to use that and call Conrad a racist. But lets look at the rest of the text “they were not enemies, they were not criminals” “Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all the legality of time contracts, lost in ucongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food” this text shows that Conrad and the europeans were definetly ahead in the world with “technology” and everything. And the fact of the matter is that they were not Criminals or enemies and ate weird food but you get the idea from the text that it was a social norm for Conrad to be talking about the Africans in this way, because they are from two different worlds. So is it racist to call these people savages because they did things that in Conrad’s culture be not be savage like? Today people such as Achebe may look back at this story and call it racist but understanding the time of the text and the setting you can argue that at the time it was a social norm to have slaves and see these people as different beings. (in conrad’s eyes, as different).

The ponce was a racist

Is Conrad a bloody racist? I would have to agree with Achebe and say yes on this one. It is very clear from the get go in his text where his sentiments lie with the African natives. From early on in the excerpt and onwards, one cannot help noticing the blatancy of his comments about the people. He calls them names and uses languages that affirm that he obviously had not only absolutely utter disrespect for them, but sheer hatred towards them as well.

“They passed me within six inches, without a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages… While I stood horror-struck, one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all fours towards the river to drink… hate those savages -- hate them to the death…”

To make this dislike of Africans even more apparent, and Achebe also touches upon this in his response, Conrad makes a sharp and distinct turn around when describing Europeans, the other “white” males:

“When near the buildings I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision… I shook hands with this miracle…”

No doubt about it, the facts show that this bugger (British term meaning f****r) was a bloody racist.

Interestingly and on a side note, the way other critics have overlooked the author’s prejudices reminded me how those of the patriarchal society had overlooked the wife-beatings and other misogynist behaviors in Thing’s Fall apart (which, ironically, happens to have been written by the very critic of this text, Chinua Achebe himself)

10.29

Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is a work which would not be considered unusually racist for it’s time. The treatment of black people in the piece was normal by the standards set in the time Conrad lived and as such the piece does not make him a racist; or, at least, no more of a racist than anyone else at that time was. Unfortunately, everybody was racist at that time, Conrad included, if you view their values through the lens of today’s society. This leads us to be unable to conclusively state whether or not Conrad could be considered a racist, because his level of racism changes greatly relative to the views of society in his time and ours.
He is a racist if you view his work from our perspective, as he depicts black people in a poor light, to say the least. However, if somebody was alive when HOD was released read it, they would have a vastly different opinion. Such suffering and depreciation of black people was standard practice then, and as such did not warrant special attention. Which raises another argument, can Conrad be considered racist if he is simply reflecting what is actually going on in the world? If somebody did a report on the terror attacks of 9/11, they could easily come off as anti-muslim or anti-arab, yet those were the feelings being circulated at the time. Would accurately reflecting those feelings make them a racist? I think not. They, like Conrad, would simply be telling it like it is, it just so happens it was awful for black folks at the time, so we view it as awful now.

10/29 post

Achebe’s critique of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness made me a bias when it came to reading the excerpt you provided. Every description he made, of his environment and his encounters automatically evoked thoughts on how Conrad’s explanations are or may be viewed as racist.
Conrad depicts the natives as being despondent, having no life, and utterly dependent upon the white man for existence. Even the scenery which he describes is life less, the old boiler, the railroad car carcass; portray the natives as living in an inhabitable environment, an environment that only a different “breed” of people can live in.
The six black men who were chained together walking with the buckets, kept in line by the white guard portray the white man as the dominant and the black natives as the defeated. The description of the white article around the young black mans neck as being foreign, brings light that Conrad may have seen anything white as pure or normal, and to see it on a black mans body it is no longer normal, almost foreign in relation to the body that carries it. Conrad describes the natives as being diseased infested and near death, their bodies as frail and bony, imagery that does not show the natives in a favorable light, it portrays them as not having the tools necessary for survival, completely dependent upon the colonizers for survival.
Conrad can be seen as not being racist by interpreting this reading as the negative sides of colonialism, portraying how the colonial invasion has affected the natural population. The pointless blasting of the mountain side for the train rail can be seen as a way that colonizers unnecessarily disrupt the natural environment, creating structures that are not compatible with the environment. He also notes on how colonization has forced many natives away from previous habitations. This is seen through Conrad describing the desolate villages along the route on his journey. He says that the area used to be full of villagers, but at the sight of niggers with strange weapons, they fled.
Conrad can be interpreted in many different depending on how you look at his work, it is understandable how Achebe sees Conrad as a bloody racist, and it is also visible how Conrad could have attempted at showing how the colonizers hurt rather than helped.

Racist Indeed

Asking if this man was racist or not is in my opinion slightly foolish since the text clearly identifies that he is. Joe said in his post that it is easy to see why someone would identify the text as such but with lines like "Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking." I was swirled into a flash back of Roots and was expectant of the author to call African Americans wide nosed and big lipped beasts of burden since ultimately this was where the text was going. His deeply racially charged descriptions devalued the story and made it seem like the race of persons or characters was more important than the content of what was actually going on. His contrasts between African American's and Whites as far as description goes furthers the idea that the man is racist. "They passed me within six inches, with- out a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages" In comparison to his description of a white man which was completely positive according to the text. He was "I in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision. I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean necktie, and varnished boots" He did not go into detail about any negative aspects of this mans appearance, but proceeded to paint him as some sort of pseudo saint among savages. I do have to agree with Achebe. oN the other hand the fact that so much racism is used in the text could just be the authors way of being controversial or colorful, however with the extremes and extents that the text goes to that theory wears thin.

In my opinion I think Conrad is a racist. The one specific portion of the text that caught my attention was when he is talking about his shipmate. “You wonder I didn't go ashore for a howl and a dance? Well, no -- I didn't. Fine sentiments, you say? Fine sentiments, be hanged! I had no time. I had to mess about with white-lead and strips of woolen blanket helping to put bandages on those leaky steampipes -- I tell you. I had to watch the steering, and circumvent those snags, and get the tin-pot along by hook or by crook. There was surface- truth enough in these things to save a wiser man. And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me, and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hindlegs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam-gauge and at the water-guage with an evident effort of intrepidity -- and he had filed teeth, too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns, and three orna- mental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have been clapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he was hard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge. He was useful because he had been instructed; and what he knew was this -- that should the water in that trans- parent thing disappear, the evil spirit inside the boiler would get angry through the greatness of his thirst, and take a terrible vengeance.” Before this excerpt he talks about how these people are human and how they have feelings like all other people, ugly, evil, good or whatever. He here tries to separate himself from them saying that he has important business to attend to such as fixing steam pipes. He also talks about his ship mate very condescendingly. He describes him as a dog and that when the water boiler empties that a “god” gets angered. Also the imagery and adjectives he uses that he uses to describe the people are littered throughout the piece like Achebe says.

"Bloody Racist"

Conrad can be viewed as a “bloody racist” through out the story due to certain instances. He constantly degrades the people and emphasizes on their negative aspects. This notion is illustrated when he claims that “They were called criminals, and the outraged law, like the busting shells, had come to them, an insoluble mystery from the sea. All their meager breast panted together, the violently dilated nostrils quivered, the eyes stared stonily uphill. They passed me within six inches, with out a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages.” Why would he utilize the term “savage” in order to describe a human being? We commonly, relate the term savage to animals. This can illustrate his radical belief towards racism. He compares the people to animals. He could have had simply referred to them as individuals.

There was also another scene that demonstrated his extreme and “bloody” views. He says that “They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals. They were nothing earthy now—nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the green-ish gloom.” At this point he doesn’t even consider the people as humans. They were less than dirt. He does not even strive to aid them. Instead, he observes their pitiful lives without a single heart felt emotion. He even proceeds further by calling them creatures. He claims that “While I stood horror- struck, one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all- fours towards the river to drink. Through the usage of the term “creatures”, he dehumanizes them. Additionally, once again he portrays them as animals by saying that “went off on all-fours towards the river to drink.” These remarks certainly give the notion of racism. If he was not a racist, he would have portrayed the people in a different light. It was not necessary to bestow animalistic characteristics upon the people.

His racist tactics can also be portrayed by his description of the man that strolled by him. He says “When near the buildings I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision…. He was amazing, and had a penholder behind his ear.” How can he be capable of noticing such explicit details while men are literally dying before his eyes? This demonstrates his lack of concern and racists beliefs towards the people.

Achebe

I agree hands down with Achebe that Conrad does come off as being an racist person. Through out the story Conrad constantly be Little's the African race. Conrad sees the Africans as being lower than dirt and that as we all can see is low. He made many statements in the story that where down right ignorant. For example, " what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity---- like yours- Ugly" (p 34). Conrad said out plainly that he looked at the Africans as though they where aliens from another planet yet another display of his constant downing of the Black race.

Moreover, as Achebe pointed out as I read Conrad's constant usage of referencing to Africans as "Niggers" was so disrespectful and very offensive . For it is Conrad that looks stupid and ignorant through out his journey. I wondered if maybe he couldn't see or think straight until he started talking so highly of his race. For example, "(his) calves exposed to the public gaze . . . dazzled the beholder by the splendor of their marble-like condition and their rich tone of young ivory. . . . The light of a headlong, exalted satisfaction with the world of men. . . illumined his face. . . and triumphant eyes. In passing he cast a glance of kindly curiosity and a friendly gleam of big, sound, shiny teeth. . . his white calves twinkled sturdily(P 29). I wondered why Conrad couldn't see the same beauty in Africans as he saw while describing his people.


At the end of reading the story and the analysis of Achebe just brought it home that Conrad is a racist because of his story. Maybe someone can make me see it differently but for now my opinion remains as follows.

Is Conrad Really A "Bloody Racist"?

Taking a look at the excerpt from Heart of Darkness, the author, Joseph Conrad may seem like he is a racist. It looks pretty clear upon simply reading the text and thinking that the words of the narrator are the words of the author. There is plenty of evidence that he is a racist, an example of which being that he describes black people huddled together on a boat as "black shadows of disease and starvation". Also, one could take that and say that he is using this character's voice as his own, a la Shakespeare in The Tempest. There is also a strong argument for the idea that Conrad could not be a racist.
Conrad sets Heart of Darkness in a specific time period where racism towards black people was not only not an issue, but encouraged as part of the slavery system instilled in this time period where the story is set. The narrator is a person who is seemingly a slave owner and as such, he would have a certain bias towards black people. Given that this is a work of fiction, Conrad may not be a racist, which is what I personally believe. It just may be a simple interpretation of how white people viewed black people in the times of slavery in America. I feel as if people who believe that Conrad is using this story to voice his own views could possibly be reading too much into this text or perhaps seeing something that I am not. As far as I can see, the excerpt from Heart of Darkness is simply an interpretive view of the rich white slave owners.

Racist?

It may be possible that Conrad is a racist and this can be proven from Conrad’s text. A reason that makes Conrad seem like a racist is the way that he refers to people. The way that he differentiates people is a bit inappropriate. Conrad uses the word black and the “n” word very often. The way he uses these vulgar words, in a way degrades the people he is talking about. One part of the text that really caught my attention was these two lines, “It came in sections during the next three weeks, each section headed by a donkey carrying a white man in new clothes and tan shoes, bowing from that elevation right and left to the impressed pilgrims. A quarrelsome band of footsore sulky niggers trod on the heels of the don- key; a lot of tents, campstools, tin boxes, white cases, brown bales would be shot down in the court-yard, and the air of mystery would deepen a little over the muddle of the station.” I found these sentences very interesting because the way he mentions white people is completely different from the way he mentions black people. These sentences are like totally opposites; first you have white people who are high and mighty with all of their new stuff on a donkey. Then there are the black people who are quarreling footsore sulky people. This was one part that really makes it seem like Conrad is a racist. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I always believed that it was inappropriate for a non-black person to use the “n” word. It was a really offensive word that people used a very long time ago.
On the other hand Conrad could possibly not be a racist at all. The text was written a while ago and it is fiction. Maybe that was how people spoke/wrote about people; also you really have to keep in mind that it is fiction. Conrad doesn’t come out in the open and just bash black people. He is telling a story and that is how his characters are seen. Anyway it is very difficult for me to think Conrad isn’t a racist from the way he writes, the evidence seems to stack up against him.

'Heart of Darkness'

When I first started reading Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', I didn't really get the feeling that Conrad was a racist throughout his writing. A few paragraphs into it, I decided to switch over and glimpse through Achebe's essay to see it through his eyes. I now had an idea of what i should look for, more or less, and I occasionally saw what Achebe meant.

According to Achebe, "Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist" (para. 37), but he later goes on to clarify that "Conrad did not originate the image of Africa which we find in his book. It was the dominant image of Africa in the Western imagination and Conrad merely brought the peculiar gifts of his own mind to bear on it" (para. 56). If one were to back up and concur with Achebe's analysis, one could mention how Conrad repeatedly refers to these native Africans as niggers, or blacks, as opposed to just people, which they very well were. A line that struck me as a possible racist statement was: "A lot of people, mostly black and naked, moved about like ants" (para. 2); here, Conrad compares the Africans to ants, who are small, miniscule creatures of the Earth that are constantly stepped on and disregarded, for they are meaningless insects. Perhaps Conrad compared the Africans to ants because the way he, or Western civilization saw it, these people weren't worth much at all and in his novel, were just dominated or 'stepped on' by the white man.

Another instance of racism that Achebe criticizes is when Conrad describes the African race as "ugly". I was a little surprised when I read this part of 'Heart of Darkness' because Conrad was very descriptive of that statment, and it was the one statement that seemed to bother Achebe the most. I realized that Conrad constantly refers to this civilization as animals, savages, anything but human.

Although many times racism seems to be present throughout 'Heart of Darkness', it doesn't seem to be predominant. Perhaps this might be because a small amount of the novel was actually read, but the remainder of the first and second chapters to me just seem to be storyline: the sailor and his life while away from home and the lifestyle he is used to.

Bloody Racist

I can see how Achebe would call Conrad a "bloody racist" because he is very derogative in his depiction of the black folk, but I can also see how he is just possibly misunderstood and is really not a "bloody racist" at all, and instead is just a man who grew up in a time when they only expressed the views of what they were taught and maybe even perhaps, was just scared and intimidated and therefore came across in a way that might not have even been meant to been portrayed.

Conrad wastes no time and from the very beginning of the story, describes the black men as, "They were dying slowly--it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now--nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish-gloom." (2) This, just like the entire story, can been taken in either respect of bloody or not, however one thing that is for certain is that he is most certainly racist. Whether you want to think of him as an evil, bloody man is entirely opinion, but for him to speak about the black people so insignifacantly like his description just mentioned, I don't believe anyone could argue the point that he is a racist. "Black shadows of disease", is pretty demeaning even if that is in fact what they were. Yes, they were black, and yes, they were dying, but he could of simply also said something to the effect of, "The natives, resting up against the tree, looked bewildered and very sickly from kack of nutrition."

Conrad also describes a white man in the beginning of the story. He says, "I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for sort of a vision. I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean necktie, and
varnished boots. No hat. Hair parted, brushed, oiled, under a green-lined parasol held in a big white hand. He was amazing." (3) I truly believe that with this description alone in comparison to the description of the "black shadows of disease" it goes to prove further how much of a racist he actually was. He says, the white man is "amazing". Tell me how you really feel compared to the "bony long black arms". He seems to find utter peace and solace in this wonderful white man, a complete and polar opposite from what the reader feels when he is describing the blacks.

One might then really consider if he indeed is a bloody racist, because it almost seems as if he is glad that the blacks are suffering, almost as if he is glad that they are dying. It makes him a bloody racist because he is guilty for their death, just because of the simple fact that you are guilty for what you sometimes wish for.

Racist "Heart"

After reading the excerpt from Heart of Darkness, I am not completely sure that I agree with Achebe assertion that Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist. Yes, the obsession with the term nigger is overly used as is the repetitive descriptive words (black legs, black arms, black bones, etc.). Yes, Conrad demoralizes the African natives, belittles them, makes them unimportant. Yet, this is a book of fiction, not history. I believe that the terminology and conception of the subject he was writing was accepted at the time he was writing it. Remember how history and cultural positions were an important factor in the Marxist writings. Of course, now both Heart of Darkness and The German Ideology are entirely outdated, but are still well read, as is Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, etc. These pieces have become part of literary history.

I can see how many, if not all, people would agree that Conrad is a bloody racist. I was disturbed by his use of the term nigger and his debasement of an entire people, their culture and home. " "And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs. " It seemed as though Conrad thought the Africans were not as human as he, but animals to be trained to do work for the white men (Europeans) as they saw fit. Or you could look at it as after educating the Africans in a specific trade, their role becomes an important part of business in the world.

I liked Conrad's style of writing, even though the subject was unattractive to me. I was uncomfortable reading it, as though I were doing something bad because of the racist tones in the piece. I was back and forth on whether I believe Conrad was a racist or not. I don't think I'll ever truly determine that.