The following is based on Chapter 5 of Frantz Fanon’s book “Black Skin, White Masks” (1952): “The Lived Experience of the Black Man”:
Frantz Fanon wants to be a man. But in the white world in which he lives his skin colour becomes everything, more important than even his education and achievements. While his neighbour or his cousin might hate him for good reason, white people hate him without even getting to know him. They are irrational.
He is seen not as Dr Fanon but as a black man who is a doctor. Everyone is watching and waiting for him to make a mistake.
I was walled in: neither my refined manners nor my literary knowledge nor my understanding of the quantum theory could find favor.
White people do not see him, they see his body:
My body was returned to me spread-eagled, disjointed, redone, draped in mourning on this white winter’s day. The Negro is an animal, the Negro is bad, the Negro is wicked, the Negro is ugly.
Instead of being a person, a man, an individual, he is a black man, a Negro, an object, a thing that has value only in relation to whites. Always a Negro, never a man.
Look how handsome that Negro is.
The handsome Negro says, “Fuck you”, madame.
Even though the Catholic Church and science admit that black people are every bit as human as white people – their hearts are on the same side! – and even though white people themselves admit that racism goes against all reason, they still do not want you to marry their daughter.
Seeing that reason does not work with white people, some make up their mind to shout their blackness, to secrete race. Cesaire and Senghor took this road with their philosophy of negritude: on the other side of the white world there lies a magical black culture. Blacks have rhythm, their sex is magical, “Emotion is Negro as reason is Greek” and so on. But this only feeds white stereotypes about blacks.
And then there is black history: blacks had empires, scholars, iron workers and all the rest. But that is a dead end too since currently whites have the most advanced civilization in the world. At best it allows them to see blacks as the childhood of the world.
Even Sartre, a supposed friend of blacks, saw negritude not as something in its own right but merely as a passing reaction to white supremacy.
Fanon:
A feeling of inferiority? No, a feeling of not existing. Sin is black as virtue is white. All those white men, fingering their guns, can’t be wrong. I am guilty. I don’t know what of, but I know I’m a wretch.
In the Hollywood film “Home of the Brave” (1949) a soldier hurt in the war says: “Get used to your color the way I got used to my stump. We are both casualties.”
Fanon: I refuse to accept this amputation.
See also:
Great post! This is the side of Fanon that I can easily appreciate (its easier to pick apart and not so questionably messy).
That movie quote is magnificently grotesque. To compare ones skin colour to an amputated disfigured limb really is appalling. Both should be accepted in wider society, and yet placing them in the same category just rubs me all sorts of ways, none of which feel right.
LikeLike
As I had hinted at earlier providing chapter 5 may prove to be problematic, and again no representive . So here is the chapter in full, for anyone with a spare bit of reading time.
The Fact of Blackness
http://www.nathanielturner.com/factofblackness.htm
LikeLike
In a nutshell the above link describes what the passage is about – though I would have to go over and re-read the whole chapter again)
The Fact of Blackness” is Fanon’s celebrated essay describing the consciousness of “black” subject in a world of “white” power.
LikeLike
White people do not see him, they see his body.
This is horrible. So, what do you do if you are made into a stereotype, if you can’t be seen as a fully human?
… they still do not want you to marry their daughter.
But as we all see, it’s not that simple. I wish it is, but it isn’t. Interracial couples are still an issue, not just with white people (I did think it was just with white people, but I guess I was wrong).
J, thanks for the link. Will read the essay and post my comment.
LikeLike
Mira,
You guessed right! I’ve had Black people approach me with hatred in their hearts and malice disgust in their eyes just because I am with a Black woman. (15 years ago they wouldn’t because my appearance was “more accepting” – but that is another story.)
It is unfortunate that there is so much hatred…
LikeLike
so muhc hatred in the “human” heart… Hatred has no color, right?
LikeLike
From the little I have read of this chapter I have a newfound respect for Fanon. The earlier chapters gave no clue as to where he was coming from, this perhaps should have been at the beginning, that way I might not have jumped the gun in trying to understand what in essence his message was. This chapter lays a better foundation to what his other struggles may have been in Chapter2.
I can relate, like millions of POC’s I’m sure, to his internal struggles to be accepted. Our struggles, achievements all at the behest of a wider white world. Then to final arrive at the validation that those that seek to destroy the black man conceding that he’s just as human as they are.
I say they can keep their little epiphanies, and studies to measure our ‘questionable’ intelligence, we’ve always known we’re just as human.
Oh wow, I need to read this chapter at length…
Will post some more. Excellent chapter 🙂
LikeLike
Had just gone through this chapter…and what a very hard read…
However, the essence of it is this I think:
There are a lot of problems being Black, in this world at present, here read White world.
And every aspect of our being is touched by this problem.
Even when we find solutions. Those solutions in fact are derived from the very source of the problem ie our perception of ourselves in a White world.
In this chapter Fanon speaks of being proud to be Black, he moves on to th issue of proud to be a human being, ie human worth beig greater than one based on race.
He comes back to being Black and bemoans the lack of Black civilizations. then from Frobenius et al he learns of ancient African empires – but yet in spite of this there is still the problem of being Black in a White World.
He then analyses the Blacks vis-a-vis the Jew. There are similarities but the key difference is the colour of the skin.
He cites the Negritude scholars, who were a movement againt the White world. However, he found even in their analysis to the solution of racism. They were indeed trapped.
At the end of the Fanon says the Black man must resist the has its own chapter.
A wonderful chapter – which in effect alludes to how difficult it will be to over-turn a global system
LikeLike
To abagond
“Even though the Catholic Church and science admit that black people are every bit as human as white people – their hearts are on the same side!”
Well I don’t know how the Catholic church feels about this, but now your blaming science, as if Science has an opinion. Science is the observation of the facts, if Science says black people are equal than they are. There is no conspiracy among Scientist that black people are inferior.
“Seeing that reason does not work with white people.”
Okay Mr Catholic, I think your a prime example that all races allow reason to go out the window when they want to.
LikeLike
I thought this video was relevant to this blog.
LikeLike
What’s the vid about. I can’t watch it. I’m on ma bb… 😦
LikeLike
Basically the government and upper class keep the middle and lower class pitted against one another, with racial, religious, and economic propaganda, so they can continue to get richer while the rest of us get poorer. I have often wondered this, because when you see racism and slavery it is often from government, and royalty, so they can become more powerful.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“To abagond
“Even though the Catholic Church and science admit that black people are every bit as human as white people – their hearts are on the same side!”
Well I don’t know how the Catholic church feels about this, but now your blaming science, as if Science has an opinion. Science is the observation of the facts, if Science says black people are equal than they are. There is no conspiracy among Scientist that black people are inferior”.
If I may Abagond,
Here Fanon is speaking about the ‘hypocrisy’ of the White world in the form of religion and science, which suggest that Black people are humans, though this was not intially the position of the Catholic church.
Fanon observes that even though Blacks are now recognised as human, Whites still have a fear for miscegenation, which off course paradoxically reveals a ‘contradiction’ in intention with regard to Black people
and the Black person who observes and recognises this contradiction…
This is the part Abagond excerpted:
“With enthusiasm I set to cataloguing and probing my surroundings. As time changed, one had seen the CATHOLIC religion at first justify and then condemn slavery and prejudices. But by referring everything to the idea of the dignity of man, one had ripped prejudice to shreds. After much reluctance, the SCIENTIST had conceded that the Negro was a human being; in vivo and in vitro the Negro had been proved analogous to the white man: the same morphology, the same histology.
Reason was confident of victory on every level. I put all the parts back together. But I had to change my tune.
That victory played cat and mouse; it made a fool of me. As the other put it, when I was present, it was not; when it was there, I was no longer.
In the abstract there was agreement: The Negro is a human being. That is to say, amended the less firmly convinced, that likes us he has his heart on the left side.
But on certain points the white man remained intractable. Under no conditions did he wish any intimacy between the races, for it is a truism that “crossings between widely different races can lower the physical and mental level…”
LikeLike
To J
Well then it is “Truism” not science that is to blame, do you agree.
LikeLike
????
LikeLike
I think historically Fanon is referring to the facts that religion and then scientific social darwinism that contributed first to slavery and then Blacks being inferior, ie lowest rung of humanity
Abagond just took that part of the chapter as being significant and inserted it true to what Fanon said…
…if you follow??
LikeLike
@Ó Dochartaigh:
It has nothing to do with this post, but how do you pronounce Ó Dochartaigh? It’s Irish, right?
LikeLike
I understand, but the way abagond worded it made it sound like science could some how be racist, which doesn’t make any damn sense.
“scientific social darwinism that contributed first to slavery and then Blacks being inferior.”
Well I don’t think it really contributed to slavery, slavery was abolished in 1865, and the origin of species was written in 1859, but didn’t gain popularity until many decades later.
Scientifically speaking Africans are older, but not inferior. I guess what I’m trying to say is science just gives facts, not opinions, so science can not be racists, but scientist can, and I’m sure many were.
LikeLike
To leigh204
Yes it is Irish, it is pronounced oh-DOCKH-har-tay. It means son of the destroyer.
LikeLike
@Ó Dochartaigh:
Oh, cool! I was just wondering because every time I see your name, I keep thinking, “Oh-doe-shar-tay”. Thanks for the pronunciation. 😀
LikeLike
I think that is Americanized as O’Dougherty or just Dougherty.
LikeLike
Forgive my loose punctuation(s) and wording.
Of course social darwinism did not lead to slavery.
Fanon and by extension Abagond is correct in what they say about it was first the Church (religion) and then science (social darwinism) that helped to relegate and confirm the ‘status of Blacks in the world.
I hope my language is more percise and has got the point over with clarity.
LikeLike
Ó Dochartaigh said:
“I understand, but the way abagond worded it made it sound like science could some how be racist, which doesn’t make any damn sense.”
See Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”.
LikeLike
Or better yet read chapter 4 of Fanon.
LikeLike
OOh sorry O’ Dochartaigh…I mis-represented some of what you said.
I should also say – sorry here Abagond ha ha – I do not what you mean about Abagond’s summarising, even though I do not think you are correct on this point O.D.
When we were at school and doing summary (or precis).
We were taught try to best understand the text (in as few words as possible) and then slowly and surely build the summary from that.
We were instructed never to take whole quotes because they eat up too much words (in the summary), and quite frequently in quoting you can take the quote of its context -which is your point, when you read the piece.
Anyhow enough of the English Language classes and back to the topic at hand he ehe he
LikeLike
@ Ó Dochartaigh:
Fanon’s point about science in this chapter is that despite what science in his day said (that blacks are just as human as whites), whites were STILL racist – meaning that their racism was irrational; meaning that whites were beyond reason when it came to race.
LikeLike
To abagond
Which book is better Gould or Fanon? Also which one would a white reader be able to understand or empathize with? I would prefer less bias and more facts.
LikeLike
Gould is way more understandable. He is also white so you can presume he is not “whining” or being “sensitive” or “angry”.
LikeLike
To abagond
“meaning that whites were beyond reason when it came to race.”
I suppose that is so, especially 50 years ago. But I think we white folks are starting to come around to the idea of actual equality. But I think this is a human problem, not just white or black. Asian people are very racist towards outsiders, I think the reason is when you have one country with a overwhelming majority of one race, regardless of what race the majority is they tend to be racist. There are still people that think Asians on average are smarter than everyone else.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Fanon’s point about science in this chapter is that despite what science in his day said (that blacks are just as human as whites), whites were STILL racist – meaning that their racism was irrational; meaning that whites were beyond reason when it came to race”.
Can I also add another element to the table
especially as Fanon says:
“AFTER MUCH RELUCTANCE the scientist had CONCEDED that the Negro was a human being…Until we have a more DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE of the effect of race-crossings we shall certainly do best to avoid crossings between widely different races” (ie Science again)
So in essence Fanon is saying science promoted racism then reluctantly withdrew its position but there was no ‘sincerity’ in this.
If this makes any sort of sense…
LikeLike
This should read:
So in essence Fanon is saying science promoted racism then reluctantly withdrew its position but there was no ’sincerity’ in this, since science only went on to take up another position of racism…
LikeLike
Right, Fanon says that both science and the Church have changed sides on this issue.
LikeLike
To abagond
“He is also white so you can presume he is not “whining” or being “sensitive” or “angry”.”
Ahh my man you assume too much, I meant less biased in a secular scientific sort of way. You really have no hope that your fellow man don’t always judge based on race do you? So Gould is a Marxist I see, that is what I meant by biased. But I might still read it, even if it has an agenda.
LikeLike
Or at least he had Marxist Ideas.
LikeLike
Merrimay sez:
From the little I have read of this chapter I have a newfound respect for Fanon. The earlier chapters gave no clue as to where he was coming from, this perhaps should have been at the beginning, that way I might not have jumped the gun in trying to understand what in essence his message was.
With all due respect, Merrymay, maybe you should read with a bit more tolerance in the future and try to get that knee-jerking problem of yours under control.
LikeLike
I meant less biased in a secular scientific sort of way. You really have no hope that your fellow man don’t always judge based on race do you? So Gould is a Marxist I see, that is what I meant by biased. But I might still read it, even if it has an agenda.
O, seriously: if you don’t understand Marxism, try not to toss that label around as if you did. “Marxist agenda”…? Wtf?
Gould was a palenologist – one of the guys who discovered the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs, in fact – and a biologist. I know of no Marxism in his thinking.
And by the way, what, pray tell, is a Marxist agenda? Last time I looked, there were more Marxist splinter groups than Christian faiths and – like the Christians – they hate each other. There are Marxist agendas – plural – and they are mutually contradicting.
That “Marxism is one great monolith” sort of thinking is the kind of idea people toss around when their views on Marxism come from late 1950s “B” movies like “I Married a Communist”. You’re better than that, so either refine the idea or toss it.
LikeLike
Well his father was a Marxist that is why I corrected my post and said he was at least heavily influenced. Socialism in general, be it Marxism or otherwise preaches equality at all cost, I would go so far as to say force equality upon people. Ideally it seams nice on paper but once implemented it falls apart. I think for the most part all races are biologically equal, but having politically Socialistic ideals would effect a persons idea of equality.
LikeLike
Thad
“You’re better than that, so either refine the idea or toss it.”
I LOLed at that; you know me so well.
LikeLike
I guess what I’m trying to say is politics and religion effect a persons opinion about almost everything. If you take an evangelical Christian who is a palaeontologist, it is rare but it happens, and he says the fossil record proves the bible is right and there was a worldwide flood, I would say his science is effected by his beliefs. The same can be applied to politics.
LikeLike
With all due respect, Merrymay, maybe you should read with a bit more tolerance in the future and try to get that knee-jerking problem of yours under control.
You could have used a Thad bit more sensitivity here…he he he
Merrimay cannot win. You have a ‘go’ at her when she criticises Fanon. Then you have another ‘go’ when she concedes she may have been hasty in her intial assessment of Fanon.
I think it is good that she has been able to come back and post her insights.
As I have said before I have seen very few people who have been able to do this. Especially as many of us are just locked in our opinions and this board is just a ‘speaker’s box’ to give people to say to the world what they always believed to themselves – without the willingness or the ability to be ‘humble’. So in fact they can learn something new…
LikeLike
I am glad Merrimay is back too.
LikeLike
Socialism in general, be it Marxism or otherwise preaches equality at all cost, I would go so far as to say force equality upon people.
Look, “socialism” is so named not because it preaches equality. As a matter of fact, you can scrounge through Das Kapital, cover to cover, and I very much doubt you’ll find one single mention of equality – at least in the sense that you have it here.
“Socialism” is so named because it believes that the means of production should be put under SOCIAL control, in the same general way that democracy (another unacceptably radical idea, once upon a time) at least theoretically puts the political system under social control.
That’s the base belief of Marxism (and all its multitudinous descendents) as an activist political philosophy, and not equality.
It so happens that Marx believed such as system would indeed reduce gross inequalities by preventing too much economic power from accruing in any one person’s hands. But he most certainly DID NOT believe that this was a recipe for complete human equality.
Rather the opposite, I think.
Marx felt such a system would in fact free the individual to develop his talents to the best of his abilities and it would thus better reward individual efforts, overall, than the current system.
Merrimay cannot win. You have a ‘go’ at her when she criticises Fanon. Then you have another ‘go’ when she concedes she may have been hasty in her intial assessment of Fanon.
Yeah, because my problem with her isn’t and never was her analysis of Fanon. My problem with her is that she expects an author like Fanon to be simple to read and, instead of realizing that he isn’t and paying closer attention to what he’s saying, she consistently tries to turn him into a useful little soundbite.
FWIW, I’m happy she’s back. I have no personal problems with her.
And humble is as humble does, neh? I’m an arrogant bastid for stating my opinion. OK, fine. But I believe it takes some cast iron balls to toss a book on the dumpster simply because it doesn’t cater to your preconceived notions about the universe. That, to me, is towering arrogance.
So we’ve all got our particular triggers when it comes to arrogance, it seems.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“And humble is as humble does, neh? I’m an arrogant bastid for stating my opinion. OK, fine…`
Just for clarification purposes and if there is any doubt. I did not say this of you in this instance…
I was comparing Merrimay vis-a-vis all the others who were criticising Fanon (leaving the issue that they have not gone away as opposed to lurking here still) that she had the test of character to come back…
LikeLike
Well, that’s correct. I’m glad she’s back in the discussion.
LikeLike
Even though Fanon did not discuss it, as it is ‘near-impossible’ for the Black man to escape all the negative effects of racism in a White world.
Conversely and the other side of the coin must also be equally true, here read that the White person in a white world is also in a similar position. In fact it could be argued that it is ‘harder’ for the White to escape the effects of racism etc..
Why do I bring this up. Well I came across this article and did not know where else to place it in Abagond’s blog:
What White People Fear
by Robert Jensen
http://www.countercurrents.org/jensen090310.htm
“Put bluntly: The United States abolished a formal apartheid system but remains a white-supremacist society. After more than a decade of writing and speaking about these issues, which has sparked lots of feedback from all political angles, here’s what I have concluded about white folks and our fears…
For conservative white people, the dominant fear is of someday living without the privilege that comes with whiteness. Polite conservatives defend the primacy of “Western civilization.” More reactionary whites are openly racist about the threat that non-white peoples pose to “our way of life.” Both versions defend the existing distribution of wealth and power, even though many of the working-class and poor whites who endorse such views have access to precious little wealth or power
Liberals are quick to denounce both the thinly veiled and the openly reactionary conservative racism. But what of the fears of liberals? White liberals might reject the very idea that they are afraid, citing their support for diversity and multiculturalism. But my experience suggests that while white liberals reject assertions of white supremacy, many fear the loss of white centrality. They are willing to renounce the idea that white people are superior, as long as they are allowed to live comfortably in a world where white is the norm.
In short, both the conservative and liberal positions are based on the same underlying assertion: “I’m white, and I’m special.”
In the institutions that adopt the liberal view, diversity is just fine (as long as whites remain in control) and multiculturalism can flourish (as long as white norms remain dominant). Institutions defined by the values and practices rooted in white Europe can open up to non-white people, as long as we white people remain comfortable. In such a white-defined liberal world, “people of color”—abstracted into a single group, erasing the particularity of people—are welcome, even sought after, to prove that we have transcended white supremacy.
Non-white people have long recognized that white liberals are happy to engage with folks who aren’t white as long as their white-centric worldview isn’t threatened, and that white groups are happy to have non-white members as long as the power dynamics don’t change.
I observe all this not from some arrogant high ground, but as someone stuck in the same dynamic, struggling to get out. I know that for all my writing and political work on racial justice, I still feel most comfortable in settings where my understanding of the world defines the interaction, no matter the racial composition of the group..”
LikeLike
I have a very low tolerance these days for any white person who takes it upon themselves to be the spokesperson for “us”, whether the person is liberal or conservative.
I really don’t buy the concept that 200 million white americans are shaking in their boots over losing “white privilege”. Most white americans I know are far more worried about losing their jobs.
Racism works without hidden agendas. It works because people accept the way things are. Jensen needs to read Arendt on evil.
LikeLike
And I have a very low tolerance for any white person who assume I want to be part of (their) “us”.
I do think whites don’t really think about the white privilege. However, they are used to be “the norm” and used to be treated as individuals. Don’t get me wrong: I am sure there are plenty white people who wouldn’t mind others, too, being treated as individuals and as a norm. However, the moment they realize (rightfully or not) that it would mean for them to give up some of the things they take for granted, the problems start.
That’s why you have so many angry white people on blogs like this one complaining about not being treated as individuals. They read posts such as “what this blog has taught me about white people” and get upset. “We are not the same” they say. Fair enough. But they also often say things such as: “Why do you people always complain”? So, it’s ok for them to treat other groups as a whole but they expect to be treated as individuals?
LikeLike
ha ha ha, some interesting thoughts and insights Mira,
Personally I do not understand the comment:
“I have a very low tolerance these days for any white person who takes it upon themselves to be the spokesperson for “us”, whether the person is liberal or conservative.’
In all areas of life we have people speaking on our behalf, from the media, politicians, employers, trade union officials, or even someone writing an academic textbook and the list is endless. I do not see the difference.
In another post you had suggested ‘oppressed people can do whatever they want, but I have a right to criticise it’.
Is this not what Jensen is also doing expressing his
own opinion…??
And again this issue of ‘homogenity’ as used in anthropologist. Personally I believe this is a ‘misnomer’. Since one can reduce any political analysis, academic synthesis etc to a lack of homogenity.
Finally I thought Hannah Arendt book ‘On Evil’ was outmoded.
LikeLike
Another tautology he he he he
I really don’t buy the concept that 200 million white americans are shaking in their boots over losing “white privilege”= Most white americans I know are far more worried about losing their jobs= Which most Blacks and other such groups do not have (hence their worry is finding a job)
LikeLike
Is this not what Jensen is also doing expressing his
own opinion…??
Jensen, to my mind, is attempting to speak for white people. Note his choice of words. I`d feel much better about it if he`d say “Most white people I know…” instead of “Here’s what I’ve concluded about our fears…”
Which most Blacks and other such groups do not have (hence their worry is finding a job)
Sorry, J. Most blacks do indeed have jobs.
LikeLike
Latino and African-American Unemployment Remains Disproportionately High
Black unemployment will rise from 16 percent to 17 percent by the third quarter of 2010, compared to unemployment among Whites and Latinos, which will reach 9 percent and 14 percent, respectively, according to new projections by the Economic Policy Institute
http://theamericano.com/2010/02/08/latino-and-african-american-unemployment-remains-disproportionately-high/
LikeLike
With regard to Jensen – at the end of the article it gives his profile as:
Robert Jensen wrote this article for America: The Remix, the Spring 2010 issue of YES! Magazine.
Robert, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is author of The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege and his latest, All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice.
He is co-producer of the new documentary Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing. Contact information and articles at uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen.
LikeLike
Sure. Like I said, however, most have jobs.
Also, in spite of a few idiots out there, most white people aren’t afraid of losing their jobs to blacks. My original point stands: whites are not secretly afraid of blacks. That’s not Fanon’s point eeither btw. Fanon is saying that whites are secretly afraid OF THEMSELVES and blacks provide a decent scapegoat for their fears.
LikeLike
And finally:
Here’s what I’VE concluded about OUR fears…”= I observe all this not from some arrogant high ground, but as SOMEONE stuck in the same dynamic, struggling to get out
LikeLike
I am not quite sure that is Fanon’s point that Whites are afraid of themselves, especially as he does not give anin depth analysis of it. Previously I had asked you what is that they fear, or what does this fear constitute?
You were not able to provide an answer.
Either way even though you say you disagree with Jensen, paradoxically your own very words supports his contention.
You say:
“Fanon is saying that whites are secretly afraid OF THEMSELVES and blacks provide a decent scapegoat for their fears”.
This is what Jensen is more or less saying – although his analysis of the process is actually occuring after the ‘proverbial horse’ has bolted and left the stable
LikeLike
Previously I had asked you what is that they fear, or what does this fear constitute?
Fanon gives a very good analysis of this point. It`s the mind/body split that Christianity promotes which lay at the base of white fears about themselves.
LikeLike
And what does that mean??
There is a mind body split (Religion) which has been very much a part of Western thinking up to Descartes (Cartesian logic/Science).
The problem with this analysis as I see it. It does not explain how the process of racism, slavery, colonialism and genocide was so much a part of Western civilisation compared to other periods of history??
And hence my question what is the nature of this fear, and how does/did it actualise itself in Whites and then projected onto every group in the world that had ‘colour’ in their skins etc??
Fanon does not go into this matter, other African-centred historians etc do in their ideas and theories.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Fanon is saying that whites are secretly afraid OF THEMSELVES and blacks provide a decent scapegoat for their fears”..
I will have to take back some of the comments I said above.
Jumping the gun and having a look at ch 7…sorry Abagond here, then lets hope it proves helpful at least he he he.
You are correct to say the aforesaid is part of Fanon analysis. Though where you have the word ‘afraid’ of themselves it is possible to add ‘/hate’.
Fanon then attempts to understand the phenomenon, and to investigate it from a psychoanalytic perspective.
This he does:
a. Through Freud and the ‘id’ viz the driving force within humans that involves of sex, aggression, food . In essence the basic human desire which broadly speaking is akin to those instincts within animals…which is then equated to the Black person (being merely an animal/sub-human)
b. Through Jung and the ‘collective unconscious’ process. In the European psyche at a metaphysical level there is a hatred for Black, as it is equated to things bad, like the devil and by extension the Negro.
My mind flashes on the film Malcolm X, and the prison scene, where he looks up the word ‘Black’ in the dictionary and sees the negative connotations associated with the word.
So in essence this ‘fear’ is based on the basest of emotions of desires within Europeans and when he sees the Black man. These aspect or ‘unconscious forces’ become ‘concious’ when the European sees the Black man along with all what has been associated in their psyche with the colour Black as one of the depiction of evil…
He accounts for violence against Blacks by Whites, if I have understood correctly through the process of the ‘id’ and Blacks being equated also to merely as being a sexual reproduction organ.
In classical Freudian psychology it is argued that the ‘id is constantly being suppressed by individuals and civilisation, since it is essentially destructive to both
At this point within the chapter you have the mention of Black male sexuality and one can tenuously adduce the ‘Black buck stereotype’.
It will be interesting, if this is drawn in into Abagond’s precis, along with the issue of Black psychopathology…
Watch this space…I guess…or the next one at least ha ha
LikeLike
The problem with this analysis as I see it. It does not explain how the process of racism, slavery, colonialism and genocide was so much a part of Western civilisation compared to other periods of history??
Well, first of all, that assumes that racism etc. WAS more intense during the period from, say 1500-1900 than in other points of history.
Based on what can you make that claimn, exactly? Or is it a purely rhetorical point?
LikeLike
Reading Ch 7..sorry Abagond
Fanon appears to be using an ‘ad hoc analysis’. This is one of the criticism of psychoanalysis, it lack of prediction (one of the functions of science in the Philosophy of Science).
Or to put it another way his argument is ‘circular’.
Again I am sure you are in a better position to understand this argument with your knowledge in the subject area.
Fanon observes racism within Whites and then goes on to say that they are racist because of a ‘Negrophobogenesis’
without fully explaining what this constitutes and how it could even lead to a process of genocide etc.
Now I can understand why he may use such a formulation so as to merely pass his examinations. Though I do not know for sure if this was his thinking…
With regard to what has occurred in the last 500 years.
If you take the annihalation of the Arawak/Carib in much of the West Indies, the deaths of the Tasmanians (Tasmania), the slave trade (not just those brought over but the amount of deaths through war). The amount of deaths in Africa during colonialism. The amount of deaths in India…
I think many scholars would agree that the levels of racism and its impact has been far more destructive today than in the past.
And is that not why Du Bois wrote ‘the greatest problem of the 20th century is the colour line’
This is the point I was making when I suggested Fanon does not really address this in this forthcoming chapter, nor explains how the process of ‘ ‘Negrophobogenesis’ did not manifest itself with the Greeks, Roman or many other ‘White’ civilisations
I hope this has clarified matters – if even a little bit
LikeLike
This is one of the criticism of psychoanalysis, it lack of prediction (one of the functions of science in the Philosophy of Science).
Well, there`s two problems with that. Science can be descriptive as well as predictive. No one claims, for example, that cartography is not a science. Furthermore, psychoanalysis can indeed be predictive, on a mass scale. What it has a hard time doing is predicting what any one individual will do. In this sense, it’s a bit like the study of chaotic systems.
If you take the annihalation of the Arawak/Carib in much of the West Indies, the deaths of the Tasmanians (Tasmania), the slave trade (not just those brought over but the amount of deaths through war). The amount of deaths in Africa during colonialism. The amount of deaths in India…
In pure numbers, sure. In terms of percentages? I`m not so sure. The modern capitalist period gave us Foucault`s “biopower” as well and that has lead to a corresponding increase in life and human possibilities. It seems to me that both creative and destructive processes have become more intense and the margin for error in human affairs has dropped to almost nothing. It’s less clear to me that there’s been an overwhelming increase in human evil. And there’s certainly no consensus on this point among historians – at least that I’ve ever seen.
As for negrophobia and its genesis, I think Fanon’s pretty clear on that. The spirit-mind/body duality implicit in Christianity creates an overwhelming need for an Other as a scapegoat. This, in and of itself, is not a process that`s exclusive to the West. As Fanon points out, Othering is a very human process (though its particular forms in this case are, of course, western). The historical accident of the west`s rise to power, however, has enshrined its particular “othering” games as hegemonic on a global level.
Processes similar to “negrophobia” did indeed manifest themselves among the Greeks and Romans. Look into the etymological roots of the word “barbarian”, for example.
LikeLike
How are you getting on with ch 6 Abagond??
Did you reach Thad’s conclusion of:
“As for negrophobia and its genesis, I think Fanon’s pretty clear on that. The spirit-mind/body duality implicit in Christianity creates an overwhelming need for an Other as a scapegoat”.
With regard to the term ‘barbarian’ I had thought, or well lets put it this way some people suggest that it arose to differentiate the ‘other’ but not in term of a ‘phobia’ but merely non-Greek.
As an anthropologist you are in a better position than me to understand this process that most groups do this.
LikeLike
With regard to the issue of the mind/body split derived from Christainity as being the source of White racism within Ch 6.
I had wanted to quote Marimba Ani on this as she cites the author Joel Kovel. However, as I was responding to Mira, I placed the book down and lost the page.
It is Joel Kovel author of the book White racism: a psychohistory’ who suggests that its the mind-body distinction.
It is as I conjectured that Fanon does not reach this conclusion.
Ani refers to it in her critique of Kovel’s analysis, which she suggest does not go far enough (ie teh mind/body dilenation).
Its not quite clear to me how you could make this discrepancy Thad, or then again perhaps it really makes perfect sense after all??
LikeLike
With regard to the term ‘barbarian’ I had thought, or well lets put it this way some people suggest that it arose to differentiate the ‘other’ but not in term of a ‘phobia’ but merely non-Greek.
The Greeks and Romans were “phobic” about barbarians in the same way whites are phobic about blacks. In this case, the Other arises as a scape-goat onto which one projects one’s inner fears.
So the partiarchical Romans, for example, would look at Gaulish women and see them as sults and whores. Why? Because their own worries about women constantly gnawed at them. They then see Gaulish women engaging in behavior which would be “whorish” for a Roman. Ah HAH! Instant relief: we have a target for our inner fears, now. BOOM!
As for Fanon on the mind/body split, here’s where I see it:
The negro is an overdetermined phobogenic object because of white association of the negro with sex: “In relation to the negro, everything takes place on the genital level… the sexual potency of the negro is hallucinating.”
Fanon then theorizes that this is a projection of white fears of sexual inferiority.
“what is important to us here is to show that with the Negro, the cycle of the biological begins.” Fanon then qualifies this with a footnote:
“When one has grasped the mechanism described by Lacan, one can have no further doubt that the real Otherfor the white man is and will continue to be the black man. And conversely. Only for the white man, the Other is perceived on the level of the body image, absolutely as the not-self – that is, the unidentifiable, the unassimilable.”
But then Fanon really turns on the steam:
Every intellectual gain requires a loss in sexual potency… [In this] the Negro is fixated at the genital; or ate any rate, he has been fixated there. Two realms: the intellectual and the sexual. An erection on Rodin’s Thinker is a shocking thought. One cannot decently have a “hard on” everywhere. The Negro symbolizes the biological danger; the Jew, the intellectaul danger.
Or, in other words, blacks are “low others” and Jews “high others”. In any case, these particular othering processes are driven by a split between the body/sensuality/sexuality and the mind/intellect.
LikeLike
I still maintain this is not an accurate representation:
“Or, in other words, blacks are “low others” and Jews “high others”. In any case, these particular othering processes are driven by a split between the body/sensuality/sexuality and the mind/intellect”.
Its Kovel you are referring to and interpolating into Fanon, but it is clear that Fanon does not suggest what you say.
Furthermore you also miss out the key part of Jungian psychology, as it refers to ‘archetypes’, collective unconscious’ etc in Fanon’s analysis
LikeLike
That Satre quote was unexpected…
Damn…
LikeLike