Moral Conditions for Genocide in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness1, The

College Literature, Winter 2005 by Lackey, Michael

The ontological distinction between the natural and the spiritual person is crucial, because a natural being, which is like an animal, has no human rights. This is made clear in the first letter of Peter:

You, however, are 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people he claims for his own to proclaim the glorious work' of the One who called you from darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were no people, but now you are God's people; once there was no mercy for you, but now you have found mercy. (I Peter 2:9-11)

If you are chosen by God, you can expect mercy, but if you are not, the consequences can be dire. Not surprisingly, with regard to the treatment of non-chosen people, neither the Ten Commandments nor Christ's Golden Rule necessarily applies, since the non-chosen do not rise to the level of a people ("Once you were no people"). Therefore, were the Chosen People to steal from or kill the non-chosen, they would not be violating one of the Ten Commandments, for mercy is accorded only to people. This subtle qualification explains why the Chosen People can ruthlessly kill so many people in the Old Testament without contradicting God's command not to kill.

To bring this section to a close, let me make some very clear points about the theological conditions for genocide. Not only are believers allowed to kill infidels, they are actually commanded to do so. But there are a few conditions. Because infidels can only see material realities, they are not allowed to question or challenge the Chosen People's system of belief, for as it says in second Peter: "These men pour abuse on things of which they are ignorant." Given the natural person's presumptuous behavior, Peter details what should happen to these non-spiritual beings: "They act like creatures of instinct, brute animals born to be caught and destroyed" (II Peter 2:12). This claim does not necessarily imply that believers should seek out and destroy non-believers. It is only when we read Deuteronomy, first Corinthians, and first and second Peter that the conditions for genocide become clear. When the infidel not only questions and challenges the believer's system, but also has a negative impact on the spiritual community, then the believers must exterminate the infidels, "lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord, your God" (Deuteronomy 20:18). Given this logic, if believers do not exterminate infidels, they are in danger of sinning against God. Moreover, because offending infidels are not people in the strict sense of the word (a "no people"), the chosen people need not worry that they are violating a divine mandate when they kill them.

III.

"I take it that Jahweh was little taken up with any of his creatures, except the people who inhabited the countries from which the Aryans came." (Cunninghame Graham 1981, 62)

Surely this is a rather uncharitable and idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible. So why should anyone suppose that Conrad would have read the Bible in this way?4 The answer lies in Conrad's relationship with Graham, a vocal socialist and atheist who was extremely critical of British imperialism and religious belief.5 Conrad had profound respect for Graham. Indeed, in a letter Conrad calls him "the most alive man of the century" (1969, 135). So much did Conrad admire Graham that he asked the conservative publisher, William Blackwood, if he could dedicate a volume that included Youth, Heart of Darkness, and Lord Jim to his extremely liberal friend.6 Although the volume was eventually dedicated to Conrad's wife, Conrad did dedicate Typhoon to his friend, and in a letter, Conrad says to Graham: "It is a public declaration of our communion in more, perhaps, than mere letters and I don't mind owning to my pride in it" (143).