More Fanon Thoughts

Fanon’s assertions that the economic slavery of colonialism makes its subjects stronger than their overlords echoes the discussion we had in class about similar assertions made in Mamandi’s piece. The discussion focused on how slavery makes the overlords weak and completely dependent on their subjects; in a way, the overlords become the epitome of what they took the slaves to be.

Furthermore, this piece reminds me of issues discussed in my Human Communication & Culture class, in that we often touch on the role that oppression plays in the psychological being of an individual. Fanon, in this piece, seems to remind us that alienation, poverty, and marginalization are responsible for many of the social and psychological ills of our time. Being that this was written in 1961, it may be a bit outdated – though I don’t think that it can be challenged that Fanon’s ideas can still be applied to society today, though perhaps to different aspects of society.

(This is my 2nd Fanon Blog Post to make up for a late blog post last time)

Race vs. Ethnicity in Colonialism (Mamdani)

When the colonizers colonize another state, they distinguish themselves as a superior race to the the colonized (25). They separate between the native and the nonnative in a hierarchy that politically constructs race identity. Within the native race, the inferior race, the colonizers construct ethnic groups through the imposing of customary laws (25). Colonialism enforces racial and ethnic divides among what were previously nation-states (more or less) and then when the colonial power leaves, the divisions are still in place making it difficult to reconstruct a nation-state, which Mamdani considers to be the most fitting form of  government. In order for the colonized state to regain its status as a nation-state it must first un-divide ethnic lines and then un-divide race lines in a system that has already adjusted socially and economically. In Rwanda the untangling of these colonial-imposed divides becomes especially hard because the race and ethnic divides overlap, making it impossible to go about un-dividing ethnicities and races in the prescribed way.

In Honor of Easter Sunday: Time to Write Something Inflammatory about Religion

I tried to briefly make a connection between racism and religion in class the other day, and after being quickly shut down I decided to reread the material (Mamdani) and take another stab at it from a slightly different perspective. I kept being reminded of historical events catalyzed by religion while reading and discussing Mamdani's propositions about race and genocide. I think, after further consideration, that the comparison I'm really trying to make is between religion and political identities. Mamdani argues that political identity is often said to be a mere derivative of cultural identity but is in fact its own separate identity (21). I would argue that religion is the yet another "forgotten" identity, often linked to culture and overlooked as its own entity. Along with political, cultural, and market identities, religious identities have their roots in the way we have chosen to organize ourselves. Where political identities are a "direct consequence of the history of state formation" (22) and cultural identities are based in the "development of communities that share a common language and meaning" (22), religious identities are a product of the many different sects, denominations, etc. that form, and by nature of forming, also separate from one another. Mamdani also goes on to say that cultural and political identities are different in that the former is rooted in a "common past" and "historical inheritance", where the latter seems to have a "common project for the future". I believe that religion is a combination of these two, of past history and future plans, but also of culture and politics––and it is all the more powerful for that.  (Here begins my inflammatory section, as promised) Religion, with its strong ties to both the past, present, and future, is a driving force in a lot of what goes on in the world (to quote Marx it's "the opiate of the masses"). Like all of these identities––cultural, political, market––religion has the power to unite a great many and has often incited some of the bloodiest events in history. I would even go so far as to argue that it is the most powerful of all the identity types in it's ability to cause discord. The other identities usually adopt one religion, but can and have been in the past divided by religion too. I have to wonder why Mamdani makes no reference to religion in his discussion of identity here.

Response to Kyra

From my point of view, it seemed that most of the scenarios explained did not have simply a short-term affect. Sure the symptoms and severity of the problems decreased as time went on, but they will never completely go away. For the Algerians and the Europeans, the "war" changed them in an irreparable way. The daughter that lost respect for her father will be affected by that, and the man that tortured Algerians will also be affected by that. The European police inspector acknowledged that he was not able to torture Algerians without feeling guilty and taking it out on his family. Although the colonizers are somewhat in control they are still human beings, and they are still bound to react to the torture they are inflicting.
I think that it is difficult to say if there are long-term effects to the colonizing country simply because the effects are only really felt by the colonizers in the colonized country, so France, for example, as a whole, wouldn't be expected to be affected by the colonization in the same way.

Psychological War

It's very interesting reading the different accounts of individuals affected by imperialism-induced war. Not that it can compare to the colonized country's state, but are there negative long-term effects to the colonizing country? Could one country's imperialism in one country be enough to shake the populous of its own? One French girl, who's father was a torturer, had psychological results due to the guilt and embarrassment she felt for her fathers actions--but she had some first hand experience herself. The population of effect peoples is probably too small to have enough weight in the home country.

It seems, based on Fanon's patient accounts, that the psychological effects of war and imperialism push and exhaust patients to look past the liberation of their cause and just hope for mental rest. How can a colonized nation paralyzed by war move past to achieve liberation?

Fanon Discussion Questions

1.) What is Fanon's perspective on the Algerian stereotypes he presents? How must the colonized free themselves from the common stereotypes?
2.) When does colonization succeed, according to Fanon?
3.) What does Fanon mean when he states, "it is the consciousness that needs help" (229)? How does an individual's "consciousness" allow them to either give into oppression or liberate themselves from it?
4.) Does Fanon justify violence? In what circumstances, and how?
5.) Why does the colonized individual eventually pit himself against his neighbor? Is this just? How does Fanon utilize historical examples to justify crime as a tactic for survival?
6.) Does Fanon successfully show that oppression harms the mental and behavioral tendencies of individuals across all ages, genders, nationalities, social classes, etc.?

Questions on Mamdani from your noble leader

What does it mean to say, as Mamdani suggests some do (7), that genocide had no history?

Why must genocidal violence be "thinkable," if not is agreed not to be "rational" (8)?

Why is political economy inadequate to explain post colonial political violence (19)?

What differentiates cultural and political communities (23)?

What are the bases for race and ethnic differences in Rwanda?

What is a subject race?  Who is the subject race in Rwanda?

Mamdani Discussion Questions

1. What are the characteristics of a political identity?
2. What are the differences between direct and indirect rule?
3. Why was there a shift away from direct rule to indirect rule?
4. What is a virtual citizen?
5. Why are there two kinds of citizens in a postcolonial society?
6. How are the Hutus and Tutsis an example of how political identities change according to how the state changes?

Continental Imperialism: Pan-Movements

Discussion Questions:

How are Arendt's views of imperialism different from Lenin's?
What is the difference between continental imperialism and overseas imperialism?
What is tribal nationalism?
What are the differences between pan-German movement in Germany and that of Austria?
Two-party English system vs. Multiple party continental system.

The Origins of Totalitarianism-- Race-Thinking

In Hannah Arendt’s work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, she tries to pinpoint where racism originates.  She goes on to say that racism was an adaptation from its previous form, race-thinking.  Race-Thinking is said to be a German intervention established in the early 18^th century also known as, “German thinking”.  It was originally invented to unite the German people against foreign domination. A later example of this theory was how England told the new American Colonies to unite amongst one another.  This theory was necessary for the new colonies because they were separated from their mother country (England) by thousands of miles of ocean.  Race-thinking was taking place during the same times in Germany, France, Prussia, and England.  Some say that race thinking was developed as a weapon for nationalists; others say it was an instrument of internal division.  What ever it may be, race-thinking evolved to create a monster, racism.  “A racist constantly denies the principal of equality for all people guaranteed by the idea of mankind”(Arendt 161).

I know we haven't studied Communism yet, but I find it interesting that Lenin spends so much time talking about the negative aspects of monopolies, which he admits, "is the exact opposite of free competition" (243). Assuming Communism is where his critique is headed, it makes me wonder how he supposes the controlled market in this alternative government will not transform in the negative fashions of Capitalism. I guess it's something I'll keep in mind.

I'm curious about his section on banks. He writes twelve years before the great stock market crash in America, but in his discussion of bank's monopolizing power he states this is due in part, "by decline in the importance of the Stock Exchange" (215). Was the economic environment in Germany much different than in America when he wrote? Or was he off on his claim?

Lenin Imperialism Thoughts

"Imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat" (210). Lenin chooses to leave us with this sentiment before he describes how imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. His idea of the labour aristocracy, or workers-turned-bourgeois, is interesting. He calls them a social prop. Meaning they don't even truly understand what they're being used as in the large scale of things, to make people pick "Versaillese" over "Communards" without understanding why they're picking it.
The way that Lenin discusses other authors, publications, newspapers, etc. usage of the word 'imperialism' really proves that he thinks the media had a huge (incorrect) sway over the public, and he has to right that wrong. He explains why the transformation of competition into monopoly is the biggest and most important phenomena of the modern capitalist economy. He uses a lot of numbers to prove that almost all of the money is going to a tiny sliver of the highest up people, and not the millions working for them. He makes a good point, but so far he isn't giving any suggestions as to how to change that, other than complete social reform where there is no competition - which I still believe would create more chaos and destruction in the long run. It's our basic human instinct to compete and be better than others - why else would we notice our property, enter a state of war and then enter civil society? In every situation, that's where we end up. We can't curb that basic human intuition.

Lenin Presentation Questions

Why is Lenin writing this pamphlet?
What has capitalism become according to Lenin?
What is the Proletariat supposed to do to end "universal ruin"?
What does Lenin claim to be one of the most characteristic features of capitalism?
How does concentration of production and combination of production lead to monopoly?
What is the role of banks in relation to monopolies?
What has happened, according to Lenin, to the stock exchange and its importance?
When was the moment that Lenin claims that old capitalism shifted to new capitalism?

Gawker repost: NPR's prank on non-reading obsessive commenters

Questions on Lenin's "Imperialism"

-Lenin states that monopoly stems from economic competition (pg. 213). What exactly does he mean when he claims that  "progress in the socialisation of production" (213) is a result of monopolization?
-As a result of the formation of monopolies and increased concentration, Lenin argues that we are able to make better estimates of a country's resources and the capacity of markets (213). Is this estimate of capacity determined by the division of labor? Is it the division of labor that creates this "new social order" (213) that Lenin mentions?
-By categorizing banks as "powerful monopolies" (214), and by stating that "the industrial capitalist becomes more completely dependent on the bank" (217), is Lenin endorsing the rise in power of large banks, and more generally, "new capitalism?" (217).