Drawing on Heart of Darkness text and Battle of Algiers video, critically assess how both sources help you understand that there is little actual difference between these binaries – “civilized people.”

Drawing on Heart of Darkness text and Battle of Algiers video, critically assess how both sources help you understand that there is little actual difference between these binaries – “civilized people.”

            Marlow’s mission is to find Kurtz, arrest him, and bring him back to civilization for prosecution. However, information about the enigmatic character accumulates in such a way that Marlow ends up fascinated and obsessed with him, long before this meeting takes place. Officials, sailors, and locals without distinction, are unanimous in extolling Kurtz’s personality. His communication and leadership skills are just some of the qualities that stand out in this man who, everyone seems to believe, has lost his mind and isolated himself in the forest next to an entourage of savages.
The narrative continues in a dreamlike, feverish atmosphere, immersing the reader in what could be classified as an endless nightmare and which Conrad’s masterful descriptions contribute to amplify.  It is arguable that due to the level of development the western world has attained, it is expected that a high level of civilization is maintained.

The so-called civilized whites are approached with the strength of a divinity.  Conrad (2004) notes that by the simple exercise of our will, we can exercise virtually unlimited power for a long time. However, Kurtz forgot that the same authority to accept the unknown also entails moving away violently from him. The natives, according to those mentioned above, could indeed obey unlimited imperialist discourse. However, they may also refuse to be helped as long as it did not suit them. The account of the former captain of the boat, killed by savage Africans due to a small deal involving half a dozen chickens, vividly demonstrates the relative imperialist power (being savage), contrary to Kurtz’s speech.  Hence, the two scenarios show no difference between those who claim to be civilized and the group labeled as savage. The Battle of Algiers video also demonstrates that western civilization is uncultured. Even after independence, the new rule never acted in favor of the independent nation.

Question 2: How did Portuguese, French, and British colonial philosophies differ

            from each other, before and after the Second World War, and why?

National officials had a classic view of the Portuguese position in the world. They considered that the alliance with England was their primary reference and the only guarantee of the maintenance of the Empire and maritime communications. They moderated this opinion with the idea that Portugal could and should obtain greater leeway within the alliance, which was justified by the loss of importance of England and the growth of German and Italian power in Europe. It must be remembered that Portugal helped to create a problematic situation in the Peninsula before 1939 (that is before the second world war) by supporting the formation of a regime in Spain clearly in favor of the Axis. The latter could be tempted to enter the war if Western democracies were on the verge of defeat. The situation led Lisbon to consider maintaining Spanish neutrality as one of the central objectives of foreign policy, always under the illusion that it has significant influence in Madrid. It was an illusion that would remain a constant in the war years and be maintained later through the myth that it was Portugal which “held” Spain and prevented it from entering the war alongside the Axis.
Spain was guided in its foreign policy by the interests of the State and the regime. However, after the second world war, Portugal opted to take a neutral stand and hence, ceased to support any alliance.  After the second world war, Britain became part of NATO in terms of membership to restore stability in the country. It held the philosophy of economic integration and cooperation because it needed to rebuild its lost glory during the second world war. Before World War II,  one of the most active proponents of the appeasement policy was Britain. Before the 1930s, appeasement was mainly manifested in supporting defeated Germany, supporting Japan as a barrier against the Soviet Union, and a thug in suppressing the people’s revolution. This can be seen from the Versailles system and the Washington system. It was more concrete in the Dawes Plan, Younger Plan, and Locarno Convention. The Munich conspiracy pushed “appeasement” to the top.
There was an ideology that if Britain and France were not appeased, they could not defeat Germany.  After the Second World War, Britain and France completely lost their previous hegemony. In particular, after Britain was transformed into a socialist country (socialist philosophy), its international popularity fell to the bottom, and it was only after Mrs. Thatcher’s administration that some vitality was restored.
The birth of social equality philosophy was witnessed in Britain after the second world war. Not only geopolitical factors contributed to the end of the Empire, but they also lack support from the Britons themselves. The hard rationing and collective suffering during the war had aroused a strong sense of egalitarianism. They renewed the commitment to social equality: each one was entitled to his “fair share.” After the war, the majority of the Britons wanted to see this equity transformed into a new social policy, for example, a new health and social security system. These were radical times in Britain. Nothing like this had happened before. As a result, the national health and social security systems were introduced in the country in 1946, and, in ten years, 20% of the corporations came under public control.