The Terminale OIB English course complements and continues the work begun in Première OIB. We continue to sharpen our analytical and close reading skills as we probe issues of self and other, individual and society, assimilation and alienation. Some of our major texts are concerned in particular with race and colonization.
What do they have in common? What motivates Marlow? How is he similar and different to those explorers and imperialists he mentions in the first few pages of the novella?
These Romans, sea knights and Victorian-era sailors have set out from the Thames on illustrious voyages that served a consecrated purpose. These men advocated England's glory, enlarged knowledge of the globe and the civilization of the rest of the planet. Marlow instantly sets himself apart from these explorers by saying the opposite of what they say; he states that England was not the heart of civilization, but the end of the world. That the Thames was not the start of illustrious journeys outward, but the threatening start of a journey inward, to the heart of the wilderness. Marlow narrates in an ironic tone, letting the reader know that his or her suppositions are wrong yet not presenting a comprehensible other possibility to those suppositions. Marlow is exceedingly censorious of imperialism, but because of what it does to Europeans and not to colonized people, saying that it degrades Europeans by removing them from the civilizing context of European society, while concurrently enticing them into aggressive deportment due to the aggression and disorder of the environment. Unlike the explorers, Marlow also states that the idea of civilizing and enlightening native people is unwise because they are so primitive that the task would be overwhelmingly irremediable. Marlow can never clearly state his opinion or give concrete examples to support his opinions, switching from racist and prejudiced to "enlightened", and conservative to liberal. He also explicates the kinship between the natives and Europeans and how the maltreatment of these Africans terrorizes him so much, yet contradicts himself by then stating that this 'kinship' is ugly and petrifying.
These Romans, sea knights and Victorian-era sailors have set out from the Thames on illustrious voyages that served a consecrated purpose. These men advocated England's glory, enlarged knowledge of the globe and the civilization of the rest of the planet. Marlow instantly sets himself apart from these explorers by saying the opposite of what they say; he states that England was not the heart of civilization, but the end of the world. That the Thames was not the start of illustrious journeys outward, but the threatening start of a journey inward, to the heart of the wilderness. Marlow narrates in an ironic tone, letting the reader know that his or her suppositions are wrong yet not presenting a comprehensible other possibility to those suppositions. Marlow is exceedingly censorious of imperialism, but because of what it does to Europeans and not to colonized people, saying that it degrades Europeans by removing them from the civilizing context of European society, while concurrently enticing them into aggressive deportment due to the aggression and disorder of the environment. Unlike the explorers, Marlow also states that the idea of civilizing and enlightening native people is unwise because they are so primitive that the task would be overwhelmingly irremediable. Marlow can never clearly state his opinion or give concrete examples to support his opinions, switching from racist and prejudiced to "enlightened", and conservative to liberal. He also explicates the kinship between the natives and Europeans and how the maltreatment of these Africans terrorizes him so much, yet contradicts himself by then stating that this 'kinship' is ugly and petrifying.
ReplyDelete