“An Outpost of Progress” entails a pithy illustration of Postcolonialism as well as Colonialism. In times past, European’s intention to disperse widely civilized progress was used to justify the brutal process of colonialism (cf. Peters 51). However, by means of crucial satire, the narrator illustrates the absolute opposite, since Kayerts and Carlier’s mental state deteriorates significantly, influencing drastically the decline of the Africans as well. In fact, using satirical images ensures the conveyance of the exact contrary of what is actually said. Taking the title into account, the depicted outpost is far from being one of progress, but rather one of regress. Further, instead of pursuing the initial idea of being ambassadors of progress
…show more content…
Depicting Kayerts hanging from the cross and “putting out a swollen tongue at his Managing Director”, Conrad stresses this blindness humorously, “by ensuring the overall meaninglessness not only of what has occurred between the two men, but also of the whole enterprise” (ibid. 325). Moreover, the representation of the Africans in “An Outpost of Progress” is crucial in postcolonial terms. By introducing Makola, “the third man on the staff” (Conrad Part I), the narrator achieves to provide a voice to the African characters, who even demand for an identity (cf. Njeng). Although Makola calls himself Henry Price, “for some reason or other, the natives down the river [have] given him the name of Makola, and it [stick] to him through all his wanderings about the country” (Conrad Part I). In fact, while being multilingual, Makola portrays not only a highly intellectual agent in this outpost, but does also prove his extraordinary ability in commerce and trading affairs. Thereby, the African colonial prevents initially the absolute decay of the outpost, underscoring his capability to manipulate his supposedly white superiors (cf. Njeng). Indeed, evidence is given …show more content…
Kayerts insults them as “funny brute”, while Carlier affects them by depicting them as malodorous animals and men, who do not fit into the European standards of cavalry (ibid.). Remarkably, due to the determination as animals, both do not even recognize them as human beings and put them beneath the human specie in the Chain of Being. As a consequence, Kayerts and Carlier are following the Western standards in differentiating themselves from the ‘Other’ accenting the Africans’ inability to fit into Western standards. Furthermore, the storyteller attains successfully the depiction of the European unjust treatment towards the ‘Other’ by enclosing the neighbouring chieftain Gobila. First, Gobila provides necessary food and palm wine, since the company apparently has not stored enough supply. Enjoying Gobila’s good-will and generosity, Kayerts and Carlier do not feel the necessity to procure for or even cultivate their own food (cf. White 154). Nonetheless, in the slave trade organised by Makola, the coastal tribe burns also some of Gobila’s villages and murder his men, ensuing in Gobila’s decision in cutting off any connection to the white men. Thus, missing the necessary support from Gobila and therefore, “confronted with their own
Depicting Kayerts hanging from the cross and “putting out a swollen tongue at his Managing Director”, Conrad stresses this blindness humorously, “by ensuring the overall meaninglessness not only of what has occurred between the two men, but also of the whole enterprise” (ibid. 325). Moreover, the representation of the Africans in “An Outpost of Progress” is crucial in postcolonial terms. By introducing Makola, “the third man on the staff” (Conrad Part I), the narrator achieves to provide a voice to the African characters, who even demand for an identity (cf. Njeng). Although Makola calls himself Henry Price, “for some reason or other, the natives down the river [have] given him the name of Makola, and it [stick] to him through all his wanderings about the country” (Conrad Part I). In fact, while being multilingual, Makola portrays not only a highly intellectual agent in this outpost, but does also prove his extraordinary ability in commerce and trading affairs. Thereby, the African colonial prevents initially the absolute decay of the outpost, underscoring his capability to manipulate his supposedly white superiors (cf. Njeng). Indeed, evidence is given …show more content…
Kayerts insults them as “funny brute”, while Carlier affects them by depicting them as malodorous animals and men, who do not fit into the European standards of cavalry (ibid.). Remarkably, due to the determination as animals, both do not even recognize them as human beings and put them beneath the human specie in the Chain of Being. As a consequence, Kayerts and Carlier are following the Western standards in differentiating themselves from the ‘Other’ accenting the Africans’ inability to fit into Western standards. Furthermore, the storyteller attains successfully the depiction of the European unjust treatment towards the ‘Other’ by enclosing the neighbouring chieftain Gobila. First, Gobila provides necessary food and palm wine, since the company apparently has not stored enough supply. Enjoying Gobila’s good-will and generosity, Kayerts and Carlier do not feel the necessity to procure for or even cultivate their own food (cf. White 154). Nonetheless, in the slave trade organised by Makola, the coastal tribe burns also some of Gobila’s villages and murder his men, ensuing in Gobila’s decision in cutting off any connection to the white men. Thus, missing the necessary support from Gobila and therefore, “confronted with their own