As it is immediately apparent, Things Fall Apart is a drastically different representation of the African landscape than Heart of Darkness, a novel that masquerade ls under the pretense that it is an accurate representation of Africa before the rise of imperialism and colonialism. From the very first paragraph, introducing Okonkwo, we know that the two narratives will lead opposing story lines. What Achebe then brings to the table is a sense of who the natives of Africa are and just how devestativibg the arrival of Europeans was to their culture and ecosystem.
Achebe's piece characterizes each tribe into individual sects, each with distinct traits. Many post-colonialist writers focus on the Europeans and what they did wrong. By leaving out the viewpoint of the natives, these writers skim over a vital force in their arguments. Rather than speaking from all sides of the problem, these authors simply perpetuate the idea that this was a white man's plight. With this novel, the side of the natives is expressed, noting the confusion and disaster that come with hijacking another person's culture.
Achebe is clearly more attuned to the customs and settings of Africa than other, non-African authors of the same genre, who had been to the region for a very little amount of time or not even at all. Having grown up close to the setting of the book, and experiencing similar biases and stereotypes as the subjects, Achebe writes with more soul and heart than any non-African writer ever could. There's something about the power of shared experiences that make a narrative that much more engaging, both for the writer and the reader. Thus, Achebe combats each and every stereotype non-African writers use in their novels through an accurate portrayal of how the tribes truly functioned before the coming of their so-called saviors.
Achebe and non-African writers present different views of the same side of the coin. Both view imperialism and colonialism as wrong and inhumane. However, what differs is their approaches to the subject. The latter party often blames the Europeans for being so corrupt, rarely mentioning the humanity of the natives. Achebe takes he issue from the side of the oppressed- showing the reader how well-off the natives were before the white men came to "better" their land. Seeing it from both sets of eyes lends a broader perspective, but it is far more important to hear the side of the victims. Similar to the necessity to publish literature by those on the receiving side of the Holicaust, understanding the plights of the bottom is crucial to forming a well-rounded opinion of the subject. Achebe volunteers his novel as a representative for the Africans at the time- he speaks up for a group of people who would otherwise be unheard in the English-speaking world.
This is a great post that shows the similarities and differences between the viewpoints of Achebe and other writers. I like that you compare Achebe's writing to most other European post-colonialist writings to show the major differences that stand out. I also think your organization of this is great. Your mention of Achebe's strengths and then of how this compares to non-African writers works well and adds a lot to the post. I think more mention of specifics from Achebe's writing and perhaps Conrad's writing could really benefit this post and strengthen your points. Overall, great job!!
ReplyDeleteThis post was really interesting! I hadn't thought of Achebe's similarities and differences to writers of his genre in such specific terms, so this post was really thought-provoking. I like that you include the ways in which Achebe branches out from the traditional postcolonial novel; your assertion that he makes imperialism about the victims rather than the perpetrators is really important. I think that you could tighten up your wording in a few places, but all in all this is a very interesting argument!
ReplyDelete