In class, we broke-down and discussed "The Tiger" poem by William Blake. We talked a lot about whether the tiger is evil or not, and how humans are alike and different than tigers in that aspect. Please note that a mark-up of this poem is one of your assignments before Thursday.
We also talked a little about Freud. I'll include a screenshot of the board during this discussion:
If you're not familiar with Freud's theories of ID, Ego, and Superego, give it a quick look-up. Think about how you would compare these concepts to the characters that you've met in Heart of Darkness.
For this post (and reply), please consider your thoughts on the inherent nature of mankind. Also consider the characters in the story (including the native Africans) and share your thoughts on this topic, using examples from life and the novella.
Post a thoughtful reply to the initial post and TWO thoughtful replies to other students. All three posts must be complete by 10/17 11:59pm.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJeremiah 17:9 reads, "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" I believe that this verse sums up the topic of the inherent nature of mankind.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, God created man and women in His image, perfect and pure. (Genesis 1:27) In the Garden of Eden, as Eve became deceived by the serpent, sin entered into the world. Because of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God, Genesis reminds us that the rest of mankind, for generations to come, will suffer.
After researching Freud's theories, I disagree with his concepts. I do believe that we are born into this world with sinful flesh (Psalm 51:5). Again, because of the sin in the Garden of Eden, mankind is still suffering (Genesis 6:5), proving that God is faithful to His word. Where I disagree with Freud is in the point of 'ego' and superego'. Referring to Jeremiah, the human nature of man is desperately wicked; there is no point, in and of ourselves, where good/realistic thinking begins, as Freud states. When an individual accepts Christ into their lives, at this point in time is when the grace of God covers over all of their sins and they are found blameless in the sight of God. I do agree with Freud's statements referring to the fact that we are all given a conscious, but I know that as one who has surrendered to Christ, my 'conscious' so to speak, is the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 3:10 "As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;"
How does this topic relate to that of the characters in the Heart of Darkness? Because I don't agree with Freud's concepts, I cannot specifically apply his thinking to that of the characters in this novella. However, I can relate the concepts given in Jeremiah 17:9 to the characters in H.O.D. Throughout the plot, the author exemplifies the wicked hearts of the men involved and the results of their waywardness. The audience can clearly identify the bitterness that grows in the hearts of Marlow and Kurtz as the story unfolds.
Love those verse!!:) I totally agree with everything you said, and enjoyed reading your comment. The subject of human nature is so well discussed in the bible, and our recent read has given a prime example of the depravity that can result form our choice in the Garden.
DeleteI like how you included the Bible verse the Bible can give us insight on a lot of things we don't fully understand and i think that this passage is doing exactly that. I agree in the way you think.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWow, the "inherent nature of mankind" is a thick topic. Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" presents a thoroughly thought out a purposeful representation of the bottomlessness in the human predicament commonly seen all through the history of our society. Over and over again in acclaimed literary works we are shown the human nature as being complex, and even dangerous; even in "Hamlet", wasn't it was the darkness of one soul that brought about so much death and destruction? And in another classis high school read "The Tell Tale Heart", and even "Les Miserables" can be seen as exploring the extremes of depravity that the human person is capable of inflicting on itself and each other. But what is the answer? for in so many ways all we have done in all these stories is presented a problem and scene the results; lets look at Krutz, so complicatedly characterized as someone who has accomplished so much that he has essentially lost his mind (and eventually his life) to his own greatness. Next there is Marlow, who for all intensive purposes could very easily have shared the same fate of Krutz, for as much as he was repulsed he was equally draw to the enigma of a man. So, back to the "question"....what made the difference between the two men? both equally human and there for capable of incredible evil and unlimited possibilities in the unrestrained world of Africa; who or what controls their course? Similar to my fellow class mates above comment, I believe the answer for the deeply probing question about human nature has a startlingly simply answer; Jesus Christ. Mankind chose this path upon their first steps; a path wrought with darkness, and by loving us enough to give us our own way He provided a simple solution of the dizzying madness of our predicament. He became our map, our guide, through the madness of ourselves.
ReplyDeleteTo sum up this extensive thought on the inherent-ness of human nature; Conrad got it right. We are dark and bottomless, capable of corruption to own very core - but he forgot one very important thing - we are not left in our darkness unless we choose to be.
Emma~
DeleteI completely agree with your view points! Thank you for being bold in your faith and sharing it on your post. Your last paragraph was written with such excellence! I too agree that Conrad had it right in the fact that we are 'dark and bottomless', and it is very evident throughout the Heart of Darkness. The last line really causes the reader to examine themselves and you leave the audience with a choice~ Excellent Job!
Blessings~
Lindsey Rogers
I agree with you that inherent nature is a thick topic, but i think you explained it very nicely and with all the examples made it clearer. The final paragraph made me think about choices and you are completely right in that.
DeleteVery well worded! You are right, Marlow could have walked down the same path as Kurtz. I like how you sum everything up at the end. Your insights are articulate and your argument is clear: we are in darkness and it is a problem, but there is a solution.
DeleteI believe that Conrad portrays inherent nature very nicely but I also think that there are some things that could have been added. He shows the proverbial choice between the lesser of two evils. Marlow is forced to decide if he will be on the side of a hypocritical and malicious colonial bureaucracy or the openly malevolent, rule-defying Kurtz. It was clear that trying to find which one of these was truly a good choice was a waste of time. Like a lot of situations sometimes we are thrown into two bad choices and we have to decide what will cause the least damage.So with that if you choose the worst of the two evils you will be dark and bottomless but if you try to cause the least amount of damage you may be able to see a little bit of light.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point when you say that both of Marlow's options were bad. You are right that in a situation with two evils, the lesser evil is the better one. But, I do not think Marlow really had an interest in joining Kurtz. It seems to me that Marlow went with the good choices of fulfilling his responsibility to his Company and in loving Kurtz by taking him back, despite his malevolence.
DeleteI really enjoyed your response. I didn't think of how he had to choose between the lesser of two evils, but once you said it I wonder how I missed it. I kind of wish you took it further, not just with Marlow. Altogether excellent though!
DeleteThere is much to be thought about in this subject. I understand why people would take one side or the other in this discussion, and I think that both sides have valid points.
ReplyDeleteWhen we are born, we are helpless. We completely rely on others to care for us, and thereby shape us. This is not to say that we are not born without a distinct personality. Our ideas or religion or ability may change with the way we are raised, but we always have the same basic personality.
It is true that "the natural man is an enemy to God". It is a fact that people naturally make decisions that are low, or wrong, or disgustingly underhanded. We naturally have those impulses and we always end up acting on them.
Except that's not true. We don't always end up acting on them. We always know, in our hearts, when something is wrong. Now, people can make themselves callous to this. They can shut it out completely. But that is a choice. An action that is taken on something that is there naturally. Like cutting your finger off because it itches.
And if humans are born evil, how is it that a mother and a newborn baby can share their immense and immediate and NATURAL bond of love? Tell me honestly, can you look at a baby, a defenseless and beautiful and loving baby, and tell me that they are evil? Can you look me in the eye, and honestly tell me that you feel, in your heart, that this child, this miracle, is capable of this?
You can't.
You may deny it (though I don't see why or how anyone could), but you simply cannot do it.
We have natural impulses to do wrong.
But we also have a natural internal compass, that tells us, that these impulses are wrong.
There is a very important point that people often forget about, which was briefly mentioned in a previous post. We have a CHOICE. We have the capacity and potential to choose, and/or change, our nature. We, and only we, can be the ones to decide who we will become.
This is my personal belief, that people are born with both divine and base traits.
It is up to us which ones we will choose to develop.
I could not say this better myself. While the natural man is an enemy to God, we are all born with a sense of right and wrong. You may call it something else, but I call it the light of Christ.
DeleteI believe very strongly that most people are inherently good. My definition of “good” is not someone who goes to church every sunday or is constantly polite, those things are very nice, but it’s really just someone who still respects and feels for other people. A good person is someone who like most people, probably has done harm to another person in their life, but not someone who would do serious harm, like kill, or even sexually assault a person. Most people are good, because most people still respect human life, and love and care for others. With the media these days that solely focuses on the bad in people, it’s very easy to think that most people are that, but they aren’t. Think of who you know around you, you probably don’t know many, or any, truly “bad” people, you’ve also probably experienced a stranger doing something kind for you, for no gain of their own. And with every display of evil, there are displays of good trying to combat it, think of the firemen who died trying to save others in 9/11? Remember all of the people who helped the Frank’s and risked their own lives keeping their secret in the holocaust? Yes there’s evil in the world, but there is a lot of good too. I don’t want to offend anyone, this is simply my personal belief, but I disagree that humans need religion to be good people, there are lot of forms of religion in the world, and saying that people are only capable of good when they believe in a particular religion is something that I strongly disagree with. Mahatma Gandhi was hindu, Audrey Hepburn, who devoted a lot of her later life as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, which means she literally was in struggling countries helping people, she described herself as “not attached to any one particular religion”.
ReplyDeleteThere is a book you may have heard of called “I am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced” that was widely acclaimed. It’s a biography written by a young girl from Yemen, which is near Saudi Arabia. Basically, it’s very common for young girls in that area to be subjected to arranged marriages with much older men, Nujood is one of the few girls who had the courage to run away and divorce her husband. I am in no way trying to insult anyones beliefs, I’m just pointing out that good exists regardless of religion.
There are many different spiritual beliefs in the world, yet there are good people everywhere.
I think that the main theme in Heart of Darkness is good vs, evil. Marlow wants to be a good person, but as he is faced with the horrible evils around him, it becomes difficult to discern right and wrong. The common use of light vs. dark imagery also contributes to this. I think that Heart of Darkness brings up a very interesting point that is really relevant today, especially with our media that constantly brings us the worst news possible and seldom focuses on all of the good in the world. When we are faced, like Marlow, with the knowledge of such horrible evils so often, it becomes difficult to discern your own morals. Please note that I am not at all trying to say anything derogatory about anyone’s religion, I consider myself religious as well.
As for the Freud theories, I have a very limited knowledge of psychology so I’m sorry if any of this is misunderstood :P, but from what I can understand of Freud’s theories, I agree with him. The superego, the sense of right and wrong, is shaped by what our parents and society view as right and wrong, and from what I can tell, this is true for most people. Something that we can all agree is extremely wrong is slavery, but what people don’t realize is that when slavery was common, nobody questioned it or thought it was wrong at all, it was normal. So yes I believe that society’s standards influence our morals. The I.D. and superego sound mostly true to me as well, but I just because humans tend to think of their own desires a lot, doesn't mean humans are evil, we are all naturally concerned with ourselves, but that doesn't mean we aren't capable of caring about others.
Your post was very interesting to read. I especially enjoyed reading your opinion on your 1st paragraph. I agree with what you have to say about what is considered "good" people, and how we most likely haven't met any truly "evil" people. I also agree with you about how you don't have to be a religious person to be considered good.
DeleteI really like what you pointed out - people generally have a desire to do good, whatever religion they may or may not belong to. I personally agree with you, though I also believe that religion can make it a lot easier to be a good person. I also agree with your statement that being continually and repetitively exposed to disturbing things, especially in the media, unhinges people to the point that they start to question the morals of themselves and those around them.
DeleteA very good point. While some may not need religion, others may find it difficult to do good when there is no reward immediately realized or known about. Not only this, but religions set very good guidelines for many things.
DeleteI believe that the true "nature of mankind" is indeed wicked, or at the most basic level, self-centered to the point of being extremely un-compassionate. What I mean by "un-compassionate" is everything you can imagine from killing to cheating to "sinning" and much more. Now I'm not saying that all humans are born as evil being who don't know anything about right from wrong. I just think that before we really do learn right from wrong, we have selfish desires. As we grow, we are taught social rules and skills and I believe that it is society who shapes us to be better humans. Take a very, very, light example, of young children. Obviously, they are not evil, but they can also not really be defined as good or bad. They need to learn to share, learn to be polite, learn about caring, be told to be nice, etc. They learn this from different parts of society, mainly parents, but also teachers, peers, family, media, etc.
ReplyDeleteAt a more extreme example, look at the natives in Heart of Darkness. They have not been exposed to a society like we have, and they are seen to be less compassionate and more survival-based. With every one focused on survival, the culture is more of a dangerous one, with "evil" qualities seen in the natives, such as the unhidden desire to kill, cannibalism(what the heck???), and less civilized manner.
So in short, I think that we are born not really knowing how to be good, until we are taught by all different parts of society.
I really liked your response!- I could not have said it better. Children are innocent when they are very young. They then develop skills that you need in society in order to be a "good" person. This, like you said can relate to the Heart of Darkness, as well in real life.
DeleteI agree with you! It's very well written and easy to understand, and every point you made was well introduced and explained. Your examples from Heart of Darkness tie in really well to your main point.
DeleteI think that "nature of mankind" starts out as innocent, until you develop a stronger personality and make your own decisions. For example, when you are little, you start as an innocent baby who is not good or evil. Then, when you are a few years older, you learn to socialize with others and share and learn. This is when you develop a stronger personality and you are either a good listener and rule follower, or not. As you grow even older and have to participate in other activities and make more decisions independently, you also have to make the right decisions or go down the other path and make wrong decisions. I think this is very relateable to the H.o.D. because the natives have never been exposed to the rules of society. This means they will most likely make dangerous, or "evil" decisions instead of good because the did not get the experience that we did when we grew up.
ReplyDeleteI agree - decisions and experiences are what shape us, not an inherent tendency towards one or the other. I also agree with the idea that the natives had their own way of thinking, and had never had the chance to be exposed to anything else. However, I do not think that just because they think differently, they are more evil. I think they are capable of every single emotion we are capable of, but are more likely to do things that are unacceptable in our society, but normal for them.
DeleteI agree with you Sarah, our ideas aren't fully formed until we are influenced by others.
DeleteI definitely agree with you too Sarah, society and the people we are exposed to does shape us a lot.
DeleteThis is true, once we have an idea and we discuss it with another person, most of the time our perspective changes because of their opinion. We get influenced by their thoughts.
DeleteIn my opinion, being selfish is the most basic form of evil, and we as human beings are inherently selfish. Speaking for myself, I spend a lot of time alone, and as a result of this, am a selfish person. Without being around other people, I naturally do not consider their points of view or their desires. However, when I am around others, I overcompensate for my selfishness and make a conscious effort to be meek and giving, so much so that I tend to let myself be walked all over. Although basic levels of selfishness are healthy, such as caring for your body and your mind, it can reach a certain point of not caring about others at all.
ReplyDeleteIn Heart of Darkness, both the sailors and the natives primarily care about themselves, meeting their personal needs, and fighting for their own survival. Because of the culture both were brought up in, taking care of yourself seems only natural, worrying about others only after securing your own safety.
I agree that selfishness is at the root at evil, but I think that's a very extreme kind of selfishness you know? Like a murderer being selfish enough to take someones life is quite different from regular human selfishness. But I wouldn't actually consider selfishness a purely "human" trait. Animals kill eachother for food, even dogs, which people consider to be innocent in kind, in the wild dogs killed for food, and if they were stray they would still do it. Plants in a forrest all compete for sunlight, trees all grow taller and try to outgrow each other, because they all want the most sunlight for themselves. I consider it more of a self preservation thing that all life forms on this earth possess. But I do see what you mean that we often get really wrapped up in ourselves and own desires and I agree that that we should try to think of others more on a day to day basis.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with every point you made.I think "selfish" is a very good word to use to describe the basic from of evil. At the most extreme, selfishness can mean crimes, or at the basic level simply not complying with society. Your comparison to Heart of Darkness helps strengthen your argument because it is a very relevant example.
DeleteYou are right. We are all inherently selfish. I like how brought up the point that the sailors and natives are selfish. This made wonder. Who represents evil the best in H.o.D.? Kurtz does. Who is the most selfish in H.o.D.? Kurtz is the most selfish. I think there is a connection here. Evil and selfishness go hand in hand.
DeleteThis is true for the little things too.
"I care about my reputation, so I will lie and tell her that I got an A on the quiz."
"I want to look the best get good seats at the movie theater, so I will cut in line to get those seats."
Neither of these scenarios are good. How do you feel when someone cuts in line in front of you? You know that what they did was wrong. It was not good.
This was incredibly well thought out. Many don't think of the "root" of evil just the fact that it exists. As to its association with H.o.D. I think that you are right. Everyone in the story acts of of self-preservantion and selfishness.
DeleteSelfishness was the main human trait I saw too! I like the way you related selfishness to survival instinct, it is a good point to think about.
DeleteI totally agree with Emma about selfishness. Sometimes as we get older we close ourselves into seeing only what we think, and what we want. We don't open up to see other's thoughts.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMother asks, who ate the candy bar? The three-year old twins simultaneously reply, "I didn't," with chocolate smeared on their faces. Why is it that children, from a young age are so good at lying? Why are they so good at stealing? Why is it that they only care about what they want? "I want this...I want that," they say. Is this their goodness? Of course, not. Between good and evil, which do their actions better represent? If it's not goodness, it must be evil.
ReplyDeleteThis is why parents teach their children to do what is right. Children already know how to do wrong.
How about the conscience? Everyone knows that stealing is wrong. So when "Johnny" sees that new video game that he has been "dying to have" (so he says), will he not have an urge to take it? He will; but, his conscience will tell him "no." Now, the conscience is not only based off of what a person is told is right or wrong (superego), it is also based off of an inherent sense of right and wrong. The little three year olds knew that taking and eating the candy bar was wrong, but they still did it. Their mother does not need to tell them that what they did was wrong. They already knew it.
In Heart of Darkness, for example, the cannibals aboard the steamboat knew that eating the crew would be wrong. So, they did not give in to their pleasures.
We cannot make the claim that because we do not murder, we are not evil. Making that claim is like saying that just because I do not backstroke, I am not a swimmer. I still swim without using the backstroke. Similarly, we are still evil without murdering.
Human nature is evil. Even though we have a conscience, we still do evil. We are not good. If we were truly good, we would always listen to our conscience and not gossip, not lie, not cheat, and not even think bad thoughts about others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI like that you brought the idea of someones conscience into your argument, and I'm curious to know where the ideas that the conscience is aware of (right vs. wrong) come from? Are we born knowing stealing is wrong or does someone teach us? At such a young age do we even know that we're stealing?
DeleteI also really agree with and appreciate what you said about people (or children's) actions better representing their evil than good. This is very similar to something I was attempting to explain in my argument.
Clearly you have studied psychology and the ideas of Freud. The idea of the superego is something really interesting to think about. Could the superego however just be instinct for survival? the cannibals wanted to eat in order to survive. Children are born knowing they "need" things and are willing to go to whatever length (lying) to achieve their goal.
DeleteReading through the comments, its clear that people believe that the inherent nature of mankind is either good or evil. I would argue though, that it is neither. Through situations and influence of authority figures in our lives, our idea of what is "good" and "evil" is shaped and molded to create our own personal version of mankind. Any person put in a horrific situation could turn out evil, and same goes for a person in a healthy environment. Using biblical analogies as so many did, a child who is in a stable home with a view of a healthy marriage and biblical, religious standards can turn out good as easily as a person in a volatile, anti-religion (for lack of a better word, my meaning is more anti-morals or dreams) home is more likely to succumb to "evil". While evil is in all of us, so is good just as equally. It is situation and our choices that create our "inherent nature of mankind". I do not put much stock in the ID, ego, superego theory.
ReplyDeleteAs to Heart of Darkness, I think the characters show my sentiment exactly. Kurtz for example was in a situtation where he was given every liberty and had the example of cruel men before him. His choices to continue on that path paved the way for him to appear evil and "ID"-like. He was never repremanded and went freely in his "evil" actions. Marlow on the other hand saw the evil deeds for what they were, but through lack of action and bad choices he too is seen as possessing an "evil" mentality. His restraint aids him to the "ego" ideal, but his mind and words shows his true intentions. The natives in the story also lend themselves to my point. They are victims caught in a trap but they are not violent because of inherent nature, but because of attacks brought on them. They show a glimmer of "goodness" in an otherwise horrible, dark world.
Bailey~
DeleteI liked your prospective on this topic; it really causes the reader to think about their own situations of influence and how those circumstances have shaped their character. The Lord has a path for each one of us and the things He leads us through truly mold and shape us. You did an excellent job of relating these concepts to the characters in The Heart of Darkness!
Blessings~
Lindsey Rogers
Yes, Marlow had a different perspective from the other white traders of the Company. They always praised Kurtz because he was the kind of person that they envisioned to be, full of ambition and desire. Marlow, new to the Company, did not understand their mentality, and seeing Kurtz and his pretty words and too-strong dreams was foreign to Marlow, giving a bad feeling that alludes to its true "evil."
DeleteFor me, in the story Heart of Darkness the most noticeable trait of human nature is the selfish domination on the powerful upon the weak. This is exemplified by the imperialism of England over Africa which takes place throughout the book. This book was written during the historical event The Scramble for Africa when European explorers came into Africa to
ReplyDeleteharvest valuable resources. This event caused the capturing and also death of many natives, which is clearly spoken of in the book. Over and over again throughout the entirety of history we can see the repeating scenario of the rich and powerful trampling the poor. Freud himself believed that human beings were born innately bad, cruel and selfish. Therefore, my analysis of human nature from the perspective of the book Heart of Darkness and from the view of Freud, is that as sad as it is, the human human nature can be astonishingly selfish.
For me, Heart of Darkness shows a lot of humiliation and racism. What is racism? Racism can be defined as,“The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” Racism occurs when a racist group finds it necessary to put down other ethnic groups in an attempt to strengthen their own. A very strong racist comment or action might make the other group feel hurtful, degrading, and humiliating.
ReplyDeleteThe novel, “Heart of darkness”, written by Joseph Conrad it provides moments which are racist against the people living in Africa. This is a story in which racism presents itself so consciously that, for many, the dilemma of race must be tackled before anything else in the book may be dealt with. Conrad uses the character of Marlow to make use of his own thoughts and views about the people in the Congo. He feels pity for them as he sees them falling down carrying heavy packages and Kurtz commanding them. This sight angers Marlow and whenwhereas Kurtz is evil. Kurtz showed us that there was evil in this story. When it was time to get Kurtz, it was too late. He was pulled in by the darkness. Conrad makes an effective distinction between Marlow and Kurtz. Marlow is a voice of reason, goodwill, and light, whereas Kurtz is evil, heart of darkness and destruction. Racism, humiliation, selfish, and ambition, would be considered themes for this story.
Would Kurtz really be evil? Actually, should anyone be considered inherently evil, labeled just "evil"? I mean, certainly, Kurtz may have had done evil actions, especially at his time in the Company, but everyone does some evil. He was just an ambitious man, a person who took too-far measures to achieve his means. As Kurtz is not entirely evil, Marlow is not entirely good. In fact, some could consider him a coward. The entire notion of completely good-vs-evil doesn't exist past the comics, as far as I'm told.
DeleteThe inherent nature of mankind is selfish. It's our main driving force in life, in which most, if not all of our actions are made in consideration of ourselves. Part of it is natural instinct: we think of ourselves in order to survive, because to our body, we are most important thing at the moment. It is the same driving force that helps keeps us closer to our children rather than the other babies in the world. We care for them logically because the carry the future and continue the line. We love them because, well, they're our children, and we've with them through the first moments of their lives, protected them when they were small and vulnerable. Of course, there are moments when you consider others over your own well-being or opinion, but our decisions are mostly for ourselves. When we have loved ones, it's because they're a part of our lives and it would hurt if they're gone. Humans are generally social creatures.
ReplyDeleteIn the "Heart of Darkness," this selfishness can become a destructive force for the white traders as they try to move up the corporate ladder and find the riches of ivory, despite the costs. Kurtz is one of those people, and dies as a cost. The native Africans swallow their pride and work hard for these white slavers because they want to survive. The ones yet to be captured fight for their survival. They are selfish for their lives, and there's nothing wrong with it. Marlow, though, is the opposite of Kurtz and the Company. He's not selfish enough to want the riches and glory of ivory and higher-paying jobs, but he's selfish enough to want to survive. It is what saves his life when he contracts a life-threatening disease, selfish for his life, not for the money to his name.
I believe the inherent nature of mankind is good. While I personally believe that all people are born with the light of Christ (a.k.a. kindness, forgiveness, etc.), I am not going to go much into that for wanting to not start something here. I think the story demonstrated this by the savages, who were intelligent and kind, even though they lived primitively compared to the bad natured but "civilized" colonists. We are taught by those before us about things like selfishness and greed. This is especially true in the book, as this is magnified by the intense "dog eat dog" economy inside the company, and the currently industrializing society in Europe at the time.
ReplyDelete