Good question! I believe Conrad's novella anatomizes Western racism and illustrates how race and race hatred corrupt human virtue and complicate our search for goodness in the world and in ourselves. In this sense, Achebe is right: Conrad's writing in _Heart of Darkness_ offers a mimesis of racism.  Is Joseph Conrad himself, as a person, racist? I would feel less confident in arguing this, for Conrad or for anyone else whom I have never met. On the other hand, I have absolute and uncontested faith in Achebe himself, whose love of the Ibo people  in _Things Fall Apart_ does indeed 'translate' Africa into a unique vision that Anglophone people everywhere can understand and respect.

I would say that both short novels are remarkable for being unromantic in their portraits of things others only view through the lens of ideology. In Heart of Darkness, Marlow describes not just the Congo, but also the European society that cannot face the atrocities it has inflicted on distant people. (See the Marlows visit to Kurtz's "intended." In Things Fall Apart, we do not find—as many would depict it—an edenic innocent world in the pre-colonial African society. We see one that may be harmonious, but only because it is agreed on marginalizing outcastes, allowing men to beat women, fighting pointless if limited tribal wars, and killing twins. The disruption caused by the Europeans results in part because the bad parts of that society, as well of the good parts, are imperiled by their influence.

I don't know much about Achebe's own comments on Conrad. That is my take on the texts.

Nice to bump into you here, Prof BAR!~

        I appreciate your answers Stuart Christie and Brian Abel Ragen. However, let's step out from the traditional way of looking at these two works. I think Achebe and Conrad share the same occidental representation of the natives in both works. I wrote a paper on this presented to a  graduate course on  Comparative Literature last month.Marginalized women , reduced religion , and violence were the main features of the natives in Things Fall Apart and Heart of Darkness.What do think?

I see more dissimilarities than similarities. Things Fall Apart works like a historical novel (Lukacs), with its sights on the cultural revolution in the offing, and represents character in letting the sequence unfold. In The Heart of Darkness, on the other hand, narrative attention is focused more on the characters themselves, observing, commenting, assessing. They are the ones acting and shaping events. In Achebe's work, the event taking place is bigger than the individual: it is in being drawn into the sequence that the individual fills out.

I think the point of view is rather different: Conrad was an outsider looking at the Congo from outside. He might as well be looking at a film, and he just tells us what happens. Achebe is an insider and his characters are actually more alive, they have a personality and points of view. Where Conrad does not understand, Achebe speaks the language; where Conrad did not taste, Achebe remembers tastes and smells, and music... Conrad's African people are only visually portrayed: what Marlowe can see, Conrad tells us, whatever interpretation is given, it comes from what he has seen. Achebe is (was) himself an African person, so he can give meaning to what happens and give reasons for actions.

The tilt of the two works is unmistakable. Achebe as an African himself decidedly presents Africa from the African perspective. This reason is responsible for depth and emotional impact Things Fall Apart has on its readers. Conrad however clearly betrays his lack of tact in his portrayal of Africa, by being clearly lopsided in his comparison. For example - River Congo is dark and ominous while Thames is peaceful and revered. Whereas the Africans are faceless, nameless and a mass of flesh; Marlow and Kurtz have personality. if it is not racist then it is inhuman because no man can tell the story of another better than himself.

I agree with you in part, Segun Omidiora, but remember the start of the book: the Thames is as dark (if not darker) than the Congo river in the reminiscence of the old sailor who is telling the story :-).

Conrad may or may not be a racist as a person, but his language in describing Africa and Africans in his novella is clearly racist. Achebe proved his accusation through an analysis of language in the Heart of Darkness. That superior attitude of a "civilized" man writing about "uncivlized culture", for his home readers who already have a preconceived notion of Africa, is unmistakably present. 

dear amneh

here's the explanation and clarification :

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:240997/FULLTEXT01.pdf

good luck with your interesting reseach

a.

I've read this before Rahimi Ali. Thank you very much. I appreciate it

Conrad isn't very flattering in his description of the colonial enterprise. Isn't A Heart of Darkness a critique of the whole colonial project? He uses Africa for symbolic purposes, but i didn't get the impression that Africans were the main focus. 

Pleasure Amneh.

Things Fall Apart, a novel set in Pre-colonial Nigeria in the 1890s highlights the fight between colonialism and traditional societies. Numerous features of an organized society such as religion, codes of governance, a monetary system, artistic traditions, a judicial systems, codes of conducts etc. are posited against a society without a modern European government. The absence of government above tribes and villages made the people vulnerable to colonization. However, the imposition of a State to organize the society might not be the absolute model.

Conrad's Heart of Darkness presents nearly the same theme. He also tracks the habits and practices of the naive natives in the 'heart of darkness' who are subjected to colonial exploitation. However, Conrad is not a racist as he is accused to be by Achebe. Underlying his depiction of the native culture vis-a-vis colonial civilization which is apparently superior from the European perspective, Conrad does not wish not wish the unperturbed and fatalist life fritter away at the onslaught of Western colonialism.

Achebe's presentation of the dark land's native culture and that of Conrad's are not similar; Achebe's is more piercing while Conrad prefers a symbolic paradigm.

Sibaprasad Dutta

I had responded to a similar question sometimes ago. Chinua Achebe had this to say: 'At the university, i read some appalling novels about Africa (including Joyce Cary's much praised Mister Johnson) and decided that the story we had to tell could not be told for us by anyone else no matter how well intentioned'. (Ogungbesan 1979: vi). I also believe that it is pretty hard to sweep the inside of a house standing outside its gates. It takes the one who wears the shoes to know exactly where they pinch. Therefore, Achebe is more original in his representation while I think Conrad gave to himself a task in which his competence will remain ever questionable. 

Let me also add; the notion of 'native people' smacks of some degree of inappropriateness since everyone is a 'native' of some place. Native people as used in this question will therefore not refer to any particular people in the real sense. If we refer to African, American, European etc it will be good for us to be specific.