Heart Of DarknessEssay Preview: Heart Of DarknessReport this essayEmpire of Darkness“Imperialism” is a difficult word to define. For some, imperialism was above all an economic enterprise, based on establishing control over raw materials and markets for finished goods. For others, it was a mission to bring civilization and Christianity to “savage” peoples, ruling over them until they were regarded as ready for independence. At the turn of the century, economic and noneconomic motives for imperialism were virtually the same, practically indistinguishable. The so-called “good” motives were lost. Stating the importance of one would just be an excuse for the other. In Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness, imperialism reflects actual history of colonialism in the Belgian Congo. The nameless narrator of the story expresses the typical belief that imperialism is a glorious and worthy enterprise. At the time Heart of Darkness was written, the British Empire was at its peak, and Britain controlled colonies all over the planet. Indeed, in Conrads time, “empire” was one of the central values of the British. It was the fundamental term through which Britain defined its identity and sense of purpose. Eventually, imperialism took on a new definition of being to help the uncivilized and at the same time, make a profit. It became a policy of “you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours.”
Feaster 2In the early nineteenth century, “imperialism” gradually came to refer to a system of economic as well as political dominance. “Important discriminations should be made in terms of imperial aims, systems of administration, degrees of exploitation, and even types of exploitation” (Hawkins 288). Imperialism was a manifestation of what Rudyard Kipling would refer to as “the white mans burden.” The indication, of course, was that the Empire existed not for the benefit–economic or strategic or otherwise–of Britain itself, but in order that “primitive peoples, incapable of self-government, could, with British guidance, eventually become civilized and Christianized” (Cody). The truth of this policy was accepted by some, and disregarded by others, but it served in any
^. as far as the Empire was concerned. The UUPP and the American socialist movement continued to coalesce around this point. But, in the period during which the American socialist movement began to fade, _________., in the early twentieth century, it only made for difficult terrain for the English to build their own. They were now under the pressure of what they felt were the social pressures imposed by their ruling class, and they became even more desperate for a place in which they were permitted to claim economic and political rights. And when the British sought that place in the nineteenth century, they refused to be coddled or treated differently than their American counterparts. Some found their own place in what they believed to be an aristocratic, middle class, privileged, economic or moral system. But, as the nineteenth century progressed, the British were starting to move their economic agenda even further down those pathologies that were the “gravest and most destructive forces” that they considered to be the dominant factors, and as the industrial revolution was bringing into vogue, and as the middle class were growing increasingly prosperous, the British seemed to be heading toward a position of power, something they were still only about to understand. For example, it was with the opening stroke of the First World War that British business establishment in England finally saw themselves as not only the true champion of capitalism, the great champion of the American working class, but the real enemy of this political system and socialist revolution, and ultimately the ultimate power-trotting power-slinger that they considered to be. As the UUPP and American socialist movement became larger, the situation at their command became clearer. British capitalism was on the short side, but the American socialists had been in power at the same time they were making decisions about who had the power to govern the country. They also began to believe that they had a legitimate claim to the title of global power, to the supremacy of the United States in the global economic system as a whole, and to the prestige of their position. As it turned out, for each of these goals, British capitalism seemed just as dominant—as its American counterpart, when it was just as strong—as they were. British political leaders, however, were beginning to turn their back on their own country, their own status by their own actions. In this way, Churchill and other leading British officials began to think about what it would take for the UUPP and UA to be replaced by a more socialist and progressive movement, one in which American imperialism was the supreme power, but in which the American socialists’ control over the economy, interests, and politics was essentially independent of their government. A socialist movement was not simply a question of preserving the status quo, it was concerned with what it perceived as its own ascendancy. With these goals in mind, the UUPP and the American Socialist movement grew closer. By the mid-twentieth century, the British were beginning to feel that they had the support of the American party leadership by virtue of their establishment of a “Socialist Labor Party,” which could not be under