REVOLUTIONARY Black Humanist: Frantz ...

REVOLUTIONARY Black Humanist: Frantz Fanon

Posted in the African-American Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1 Jul 20, 2013
Born in 1925 to a Black middle class family in Martinique, to a class which usually sought to assimilated itself into French culture, and to lose itself in a sea of imperial "whitness", Frantz Fanon still became one of the most influential and insightful Black thinkers---and REVOLUTIONARY thinker--in the 20th Century.
he was one of the profoundest theorists or critics of racism, colonialism and neocolonialism.And he has an understanding of alienation and dealienation (aschieve by revolutionary struggle) with significantly surpasees Hegelian notions of Spirit's self-alienation, or Marx's notion of alienated labor.
He has been called an "apostle of violence"; and indeed his work entitled THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, does offer a penetration analysis of the psychology and politics of violence in a racist and colonized society. But his fundamental aim is the liberation of all human beings--focusing on the Third World--from all soical conditins that are themselves forms of institutionalized violence, and the creation of a society into which freedom rather than violence, community rather than alienation, can be the birthright of every man, woman and child on earth. Even in his earlier rears, before becoming a dedicated revolutionary in Africa's fight for freedom, Fanon wrote:"The disaster of the man of color lies in the fact that he was enslaved. The disaster of the white man lie in the fact that somewhere he has killed man." (Black Skins,White Masks, p. 231). Yet his objective is not revenge. He wished to freed his Black brothers and sisters from any inferiority complexes imbuded by Colonialist racism: And inists that "the black man should no longer be confronted by the dilemma, turn white or disappear; buty he should take cognizance of the possibility of existing"(Black Skins, p.100) And the white man must be shown "that he is at once the perpetrator the victim of a delusion." (Black Skins, p.225). He probably had the French world in mind. But heavens knows who much his insights apply to the USA. Our right to exist is still challenged,and we are at time ourselves uncertain the the possibility of existing. And heaven know our white compatrots--at least the majority of them--live in a suffocating cage of self-constructed delusions. How to break out of this prison?

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2 Jul 20, 2013
But what does Fanon want? What are his goals such that I am justified in calling him a humanist, indeed a revolutionary humanist? To begin with the pre-revoltuionary writings of the 27 year odl Fanon, he gives us a number of clues. Again from BLACK SKINS, WHITE MASKS: "To educate man to be ACTIONAL, preserving in all his relations his respect for the basic values that constitute the human world, is the prime task of him who, having taken thought, prepares to act."(p. 222)

The human being is to be active, not passive--the maker of himself and his destiny.
He is to take though, but also to act. This symthesis of reflection and action is commonly called PRAXIS. Activity, yes. But also, free and CONSCIOUS activity. And there is more.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#3 Jul 21, 2013
"Isaid in my Introduction" Fanon wries "that man is a YES". Indeed. He continues....
"YES to life. YES to love. YES to generosity.
But man is also a NO. NO to scorn of man. NO to degradation of man. NO expliotation of man. NO to the butchery of what is most human in man: FREEDOM."
The affirmation of freedom is at the core of Frantz Fanon's philosophy, from his early yesrs as a young philosopher-psychiatrist, to his later years as a revolutionary intellectual in service to the African Revolution.

" To educate man to be ACTIONAL..." that is criical.
For the human being is primaril action insofar ss freedom constitues the very structure of existence.
That which is "mosthuman in man" must become the ethical foundation for any just socia order.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#4 Jul 21, 2013
THAT THE TOOL NEVER POSSESS THE MAN.....

Those words are essential the the early humanism of the young Fanon, the Fanon on his way to become a Black revolutionary humanist.

"I, the man of color, want only this:
That the TOOL never possess the MAN.That the enslavemnt of man by man cease forever....That it be possible for men to discover and love man, wherever he may be."

And as for racism and notions of racial superiority an dinferiority, Fanon replies:

"Supriority? Inferiority? Why not the simple effort to touch the other, to feel the other, to explain the other to myself. Was not my freedom given to me in order to build the world of the YOU?"
Now that was the young Fanon, expressing his initial understanding of humanistic values. He was already something of a radical even at the time of BLACK SKINS, WHITE MASKS.
But as he becomes convinced while in Algeria of the necessity for a radical reconstitution of society if human dignity is to be realized, his ethical commitment ot freedom transforms him isto a REVOLUTIONARY Black humanist in serivice to teh African revolution as a man whose solidarity knew no bounds,

“I'm out hunting”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#5 Jul 21, 2013
If only humanism was the religion of the world-the world would be a much better place. To speak out against greed, corruption, crime, and to preach a doctrine of love for one's neighbor, charity, reason and kindness, would be good for this world.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#6 Jul 21, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
If only humanism was the religion of the world-the world would be a much better place. To speak out against greed, corruption, crime, and to preach a doctrine of love for one's neighbor, charity, reason and kindness, would be good for this world.
Well, Frantz Fanon sought a revolutionary humanism which could embrace the whole of humanity, not the hypocritical bourgeois humanism which can affirm the "dignity of man" so long as it is MAN,not woman, white and not person of color, bourgeis and not poor.
"What we want to do is to go forward all the time, night and day, in the company of Man, in the company of ALL men."(Wretched of the Earth, pp.314--315).

As his widow Josie Fanon once said, his solidarity knew no bounds. But he is known to have favored revolutionary violence to end colonial and neocolonial oppression.
Some say he was an "apostle of violence." They are wrong. But I must discuss this later.

“I'm out hunting”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#7 Jul 21, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Frantz Fanon sought a revolutionary humanism which could embrace the whole of humanity, not the hypocritical bourgeois humanism which can affirm the "dignity of man" so long as it is MAN,not woman, white and not person of color, bourgeis and not poor.
"What we want to do is to go forward all the time, night and day, in the company of Man, in the company of ALL men."(Wretched of the Earth, pp.314--315).
As his widow Josie Fanon once said, his solidarity knew no bounds. But he is known to have favored revolutionary violence to end colonial and neocolonial oppression.
Some say he was an "apostle of violence." They are wrong. But I must discuss this later.
I cannot blame him for his views on revolutionary violence. They say that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#8 Jul 22, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot blame him for his views on revolutionary violence. They say that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
The violent French colonialist reprsssion in Algeria virtually made a violent response inevitable.
One might argue that the REAL terrorists, certainly terrorisis on the grandest scale, were the European colonizers.

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10 Jul 22, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
The violent French colonialist reprsssion in Algeria virtually made a violent response inevitable.
One might argue that the REAL terrorists, certainly terrorisis on the grandest scale, were the European colonizers.
Within the modern context, the world of Fanon, the Euros were the Borg.

However, looking at all of history, it is not possible to establish that the Euroimperialists committed more terrorism and atrocity than the Muslims.

In India alone, 80-100 million people were the victims of genocide by Muslims.

Violence---we of course can see justifications in violence against many oppressors... the French in Vietnam, Mubarak, USA racist colonizers of their own USA “ghettos”... and so on.

But the world has had 5 millenia of imperialist horror and I have to always prefer now the path of non-violence until that is not possible. It depends on the extent to which the government in power is willing to kill.

France was willing to kill in Algeria. And then Algeria became a beacon of hope, a nation apparently moving toward real democracy, treating the Black Panther Party as the official representative of the USA, etc. Then Islamicists slit tens of thousands of throats and forced the govt to authoritarianim as an alternative to Islamic rule! As we might say that a people can become violent when pushed too far, so a govt sometimes legitimately must become authoritarian to avoid a greater evil?

In the USA this move toward authoritarianism (Patriot Act, etc.) is bogus. But in Algeria, tens of thousands of slit throats did manage to destroy freedom in a real way, from the grassroots.

“I'm out hunting”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#11 Jul 23, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
The violent French colonialist reprsssion in Algeria virtually made a violent response inevitable.
One might argue that the REAL terrorists, certainly terrorisis on the grandest scale, were the European colonizers.
Yes yiu are right. The French were being hypocrites,.They fought the Germans for their freedom, yet denied the same to the Algerians.

“I'm out hunting”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#12 Jul 23, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Within the modern context, the world of Fanon, the Euros were the Borg.
However, looking at all of history, it is not possible to establish that the Euroimperialists committed more terrorism and atrocity than the Muslims.
In India alone, 80-100 million people were the victims of genocide by Muslims.
Violence---we of course can see justifications in violence against many oppressors... the French in Vietnam, Mubarak, USA racist colonizers of their own USA “ghettos”... and so on.
But the world has had 5 millenia of imperialist horror and I have to always prefer now the path of non-violence until that is not possible. It depends on the extent to which the government in power is willing to kill.
France was willing to kill in Algeria. And then Algeria became a beacon of hope, a nation apparently moving toward real democracy, treating the Black Panther Party as the official representative of the USA, etc. Then Islamicists slit tens of thousands of throats and forced the govt to authoritarianim as an alternative to Islamic rule! As we might say that a people can become violent when pushed too far, so a govt sometimes legitimately must become authoritarian to avoid a greater evil?
In the USA this move toward authoritarianism (Patriot Act, etc.) is bogus. But in Algeria, tens of thousands of slit throats did manage to destroy freedom in a real way, from the grassroots.
I think what made the European imperialism particularly heinous was the fact that the Euros segregated people based on race, whereas in the Muslim empires, it was possible for any race to rise in power.
Satan

Rowlett, TX

#14 Jul 23, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Within the modern context, the world of Fanon, the Euros were the Borg.
However, looking at all of history, it is not possible to establish that the Euroimperialists committed more terrorism and atrocity than the Muslims.
In India alone, 80-100 million people were the victims of genocide by Muslims.
Violence---we of course can see justifications in violence against many oppressors... the French in Vietnam, Mubarak, USA racist colonizers of their own USA “ghettos”... and so on.
But the world has had 5 millenia of imperialist horror and I have to always prefer now the path of non-violence until that is not possible. It depends on the extent to which the government in power is willing to kill.
France was willing to kill in Algeria. And then Algeria became a beacon of hope, a nation apparently moving toward real democracy, treating the Black Panther Party as the official representative of the USA, etc. Then Islamicists slit tens of thousands of throats and forced the govt to authoritarianim as an alternative to Islamic rule! As we might say that a people can become violent when pushed too far, so a govt sometimes legitimately must become authoritarian to avoid a greater evil?
In the USA this move toward authoritarianism (Patriot Act, etc.) is bogus. But in Algeria, tens of thousands of slit throats did manage to destroy freedom in a real way, from the grassroots.
You really should not fear Islam as you do; there really is no point.

6 billion people have no fear of it.
Why should you?
Islams days are numbered.
India and China both need more land; if not by space conquest than
by absorption. Not only that, Mecca has to be reclaimed even if by Outright War. It is one of the 7 sacred sites of Hinduism.
The Muslims have no clue what the "Rock" truly is nor why they circle it 7 times. Mohammed was a devotee of Shiva and Durga...
The Crescent Moon is The Symbol of Lord Shiva.

FYI, in 10-15 years both Israel and India will have RNA halting and reversing procedures and complete DNA "fixing" procedures.
It will eliminate disease, death and old Age.

In 1000 years you could easily surpass any God that any man ever dreamt of.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#15 Jul 23, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Within the modern context, the world of Fanon, the Euros were the Borg.
However, looking at all of history, it is not possible to establish that the Euroimperialists committed more terrorism and atrocity than the Muslims.
In India alone, 80-100 million people were the victims of genocide by Muslims.
Violence---we of course can see justifications in violence against many oppressors... the French in Vietnam, Mubarak, USA racist colonizers of their own USA “ghettos”... and so on.
But the world has had 5 millenia of imperialist horror and I have to always prefer now the path of non-violence until that is not possible. It depends on the extent to which the government in power is willing to kill.
France was willing to kill in Algeria. And then Algeria became a beacon of hope, a nation apparently moving toward real democracy, treating the Black Panther Party as the official representative of the USA, etc. Then Islamicists slit tens of thousands of throats and forced the govt to authoritarianim as an alternative to Islamic rule! As we might say that a people can become violent when pushed too far, so a govt sometimes legitimately must become authoritarian to avoid a greater evil?
In the USA this move toward authoritarianism (Patriot Act, etc.) is bogus. But in Algeria, tens of thousands of slit throats did manage to destroy freedom in a real way, from the grassroots.
As you may know, Frantz Fanon was an atheist. Not an agnostic like I, but an atheist. But like myself, he was willing to tolerate religion up to a point. Whether you were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or what have you Fanon--who belonged more or less to the same philosophical orietation as myself (existential, Phenomenologist, with a humanist Marxist streak)--saw religion as a form of false consciousness. But he also acknowledged that reilgion can SOMETIMES (though maybe only for a limited time) actually play a liberatory role. Even still religion carries some dangers. It mrogressive role for awhile but degenerate inot a reactionary force. Moreover, when you read THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, you can see that Fanon is also concerned that the liberatory potential of the African revolution might be thwarted by sectarian religions conflicts.
As for the colonial period, Fanon held that the Christianh religion, which was part of the colonialist structure, was most likely to play the most oppressive role. But he was concerned that AFTER independence, especially if the new nation didn't follow a decidedly progressive path, BOTH Islam and Christianity would become obstacles to freedom. There might be Muslim vs Christian animosity. Or even Muslim vs Muslim, Christian vs Christian--or all vs Judaism or African traditionalism. All of which would be extremely harmful to the future of Africa, and which would ultimately reinforce NEOCOLONIALISM regardless of the theocratic guises in which neolcolonailism concealed itself.
Thus Frantz Fanon urged a SECULAR left nationalism as a force that might be able to unify colononized people in a liberating struggle. But even that's not enough. National consciousness must advance forward into a broader SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS if freedom is to be won. The people discover that "exploitation can wear a black face or an Arab one" (WE, p.145) The people may cry "treason!", but they are confused. For "the treason is not national, but SOCIAL" Fanon insists. "The people must be taught to cry "Stop thief!"--regardless of whwether the nhe new exploitors rob them in the name of race, Africanity, Allah or Christ.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#16 Jul 23, 2013
Most of my allusions have been to Fanon's BLACK SKINS, WHITE MASKS. I want to discuss other things, and especially THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH. I've already mentioned some things in my last commentss.
Frantz Fanon is largely famous--or notorious--for his comments on violence, the the first chapter of THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH (WE) "Concerning Violence." We should discuss that and other things. For I think people are mistaken when they simplistically label Fanon an "apostle of violence."

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#17 Jul 23, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what made the European imperialism particularly heinous was the fact that the Euros segregated people based on race, whereas in the Muslim empires, it was possible for any race to rise in power.
You state this as if the “difference” makes the Muz somehow more acceptable. They'd kill by religion. Nobody rose anywhere in the Muz world without converting to Islam.

You make the Muz world sound like an equal-opportunity utopia. It was not. It was a society based on slavery, and any arguments that slaves were treated better by Muz owners is propagated only by Muz apologists---liars.

Anyone familiar with the history of India knows that history's most evil regime was there, and established by Muz.

Being a woman today in many Muz countries is tantamount to slavery. This involves the rape and brutality of young girls, wives with no rights, purdah, a legal system which makes being raped a crime...

The West has evolved at least to the point that protest is possible, that progress toward human rights is made. In the Muz world, none of that occurs.

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#18 Jul 23, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
As you may know, Frantz Fanon was an atheist. Not an agnostic like I, but an atheist. But like myself, he was willing to tolerate religion up to a point. Whether you were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or what have you Fanon--who belonged more or less to the same philosophical orietation as myself (existential, Phenomenologist, with a humanist Marxist streak)--saw religion as a form of false consciousness. But he also acknowledged that reilgion can SOMETIMES (though maybe only for a limited time) actually play a liberatory role. Even still religion carries some dangers. It mrogressive role for awhile but degenerate inot a reactionary force. Moreover, when you read THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, you can see that Fanon is also concerned that the liberatory potential of the African revolution might be thwarted by sectarian religions conflicts.
As for the colonial period, Fanon held that the Christianh religion, which was part of the colonialist structure, was most likely to play the most oppressive role. But he was concerned that AFTER independence, especially if the new nation didn't follow a decidedly progressive path, BOTH Islam and Christianity would become obstacles to freedom. There might be Muslim vs Christian animosity. Or even Muslim vs Muslim, Christian vs Christian--or all vs Judaism or African traditionalism. All of which would be extremely harmful to the future of Africa, and which would ultimately reinforce NEOCOLONIALISM regardless of the theocratic guises in which neolcolonailism concealed itself.
Thus Frantz Fanon urged a SECULAR left nationalism as a force that might be able to unify colononized people in a liberating struggle. But even that's not enough. National consciousness must advance forward into a broader SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS if freedom is to be won. The people discover that "exploitation can wear a black face or an Arab one" (WE, p.145) The people may cry "treason!", but they are confused. For "the treason is not national, but SOCIAL" Fanon insists. "The people must be taught to cry "Stop thief!"--regardless of whwether the nhe new exploitors rob them in the name of race, Africanity, Allah or Christ.
Fanon's fears have been realized, I would say. Right now in Africa there is a frenzied competition between the Catholic Church and Islam to convert people, and religious sectarianism is indeed part of the mix which keeps corrupt Western-puppet govts in power and creates chaos which prevents social progress, e.g., Boko Haram, Muz fundies in Côte d'Ivoire, etc. And the Arabonazis incited a boycott of Israel in the 1970's which greatly damaged Africa's progress toward development. As if Africa's battles are those of the Arabs!

I see a lot of Marx in Fanon's rap about not being owned by the tool, in developing real consciousness. He's talking about alienation of course.

A conscious left nationalism... yes, the rulers (Western capitalist or Islamofascist) fear that. Consciousness of the person as having self-worth not defined by his job, religion, national flag (in a narrow sense). Neither the capitalist nor the imam wants that... they want clones and slaves.

But humans weren't evolved/created (I say both) to be clones and slaves. We were born to be free, and so there is also a contradiction in the mind of a person oppressed. This can lead to positive struggle, or to dysfunction psychological and social.

As Fanon spoke explicitly of Algeria, I bring up the situation there as a sign that things are not going well... Islamicists have killed more than the French did.

I would suggest that today's Left in Europè and the USA should read Fanon again. Perhaps they would see what folly it is to be led around by the nose by Muz.

“I'm out hunting”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#19 Jul 23, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
As you may know, Frantz Fanon was an atheist. Not an agnostic like I, but an atheist. But like myself, he was willing to tolerate religion up to a point. Whether you were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or what have you Fanon--who belonged more or less to the same philosophical orietation as myself (existential, Phenomenologist, with a humanist Marxist streak)--saw religion as a form of false consciousness. But he also acknowledged that reilgion can SOMETIMES (though maybe only for a limited time) actually play a liberatory role. Even still religion carries some dangers. It mrogressive role for awhile but degenerate inot a reactionary force. Moreover, when you read THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, you can see that Fanon is also concerned that the liberatory potential of the African revolution might be thwarted by sectarian religions conflicts.
As for the colonial period, Fanon held that the Christianh religion, which was part of the colonialist structure, was most likely to play the most oppressive role. But he was concerned that AFTER independence, especially if the new nation didn't follow a decidedly progressive path, BOTH Islam and Christianity would become obstacles to freedom. There might be Muslim vs Christian animosity. Or even Muslim vs Muslim, Christian vs Christian--or all vs Judaism or African traditionalism. All of which would be extremely harmful to the future of Africa, and which would ultimately reinforce NEOCOLONIALISM regardless of the theocratic guises in which neolcolonailism concealed itself.
Thus Frantz Fanon urged a SECULAR left nationalism as a force that might be able to unify colononized people in a liberating struggle. But even that's not enough. National consciousness must advance forward into a broader SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS if freedom is to be won. The people discover that "exploitation can wear a black face or an Arab one" (WE, p.145) The people may cry "treason!", but they are confused. For "the treason is not national, but SOCIAL" Fanon insists. "The people must be taught to cry "Stop thief!"--regardless of whwether the nhe new exploitors rob them in the name of race, Africanity, Allah or Christ.
I have to read up on this Fanon guy. I must admit, I don't read alot about of the civil rights leaders, although I do read and watch documentaries and books about the era.

“I'm out hunting”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#20 Jul 23, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
You state this as if the “difference” makes the Muz somehow more acceptable. They'd kill by religion. Nobody rose anywhere in the Muz world without converting to Islam.
You make the Muz world sound like an equal-opportunity utopia. It was not. It was a society based on slavery, and any arguments that slaves were treated better by Muz owners is propagated only by Muz apologists---liars.
Anyone familiar with the history of India knows that history's most evil regime was there, and established by Muz.
Being a woman today in many Muz countries is tantamount to slavery. This involves the rape and brutality of young girls, wives with no rights, purdah, a legal system which makes being raped a crime...
The West has evolved at least to the point that protest is possible, that progress toward human rights is made. In the Muz world, none of that occurs.
Barros, you know me. You know that I am no friend of Islam. I have as much repugnance for it as you do. I only meant to portray the contrasts of European Imperialism and Islamic imperialism. European Imperialism discriminated on both religion and race, whereas Islamic imperialism officially discriminated only based on religion, though the the Arabs were made to feel superior and blacks, inferior.
I agree with you on the women thing. Right now, a Norweigen woman is being jailed for her own rape https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=...

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#21 Jul 24, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to read up on this Fanon guy. I must admit, I don't read alot about of the civil rights leaders, although I do read and watch documentaries and books about the era.
Fanon would not have been involved in our civil rights movement (which you SHOULD read up on, however). He was born in Martinique in 1925, under French colonialism.(born July 20, 1923). Same years a Malcolm X and Patrice Lumumba.
Fanon's most famous work is THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, with BLACK SKINS, WHITE MASKS probably his second most famous work.. THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH was most popular within the left wing of the black liberation movement in America, surtout parmi the Black Panther Party led by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale.
My motheer has still some old Black Panther newspapers which when carefully studied, reveal the influence of Frantz Fanon.(Fanon was one of the most greatest philosophical influences in the left or revolutionary black nationalist movements of the 1960s & 70s). By the late 70s and 80s some members of the 60s generation who were influenced by Fanon were now teachers in high school and universities. I encountered some of those teachers in undergrad when I was studying Philosophy and history. Even now he is one of the great influences among contemporary Black philosophers in America, and in parts of Africa and the Caribbean. Work that I, Lewis gordon and others have done along lines of philosophical critical race theory is deeply influenced by Fanon.
You should check him out. And you might find interesting some biographical info on Fanon. Maybe I will list some of that later.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#22 Jul 24, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Barros, you know me. You know that I am no friend of Islam. I have as much repugnance for it as you do. I only meant to portray the contrasts of European Imperialism and Islamic imperialism. European Imperialism discriminated on both religion and race, whereas Islamic imperialism officially discriminated only based on religion, though the the Arabs were made to feel superior and blacks, inferior.
I agree with you on the women thing. Right now, a Norweigen woman is being jailed for her own rape https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=...
Read Fanon's A DYING COLONIALISM. Note Fanon's chapter "Algeria Unveiled". The Algerian revolution opened up a space wherein a liberatory movement among women was possible, and partly realized. But more conservative nationalists trumped the left ones over time. And they made such a mess of things that they ended up preparing a path for the Islamicists during the 1990s. These secular authoritarians are frightened by the Islamicists. But they helped them by means of their own corruption. Traitors!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 8 min iamcuriousnow 2,090
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Incognito4Ever 1,250,986
I'm in love with Trish b from Topix 10 min Bobby T Canada 84
I am a bm and I am sticking with bw. PERIOD! 12 min Two Dogs 148
News CNN Poll: 57 Percent Say Confederate Flag Not R... 13 min I DESPISE BLACKS 4
What black chicks can learn frm white chicks 17 min Client9 22
All women prefer white men 22 min The Night Grows Pale 5,170
Black girls!!!we're not taking your men! we've ... 36 min y3llabo14 150
More from around the web