Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A Lil' Fanon to Close out 2008....
Decolonization
The colonial system, which was initially organized through violent measures of oppression and exploitation of subjugated people, affords Fanon’s (1963) notion of violent decolonization to be exceedingly germane. Decolonization is nothing short of the reversal of colonization; it sets out to change the order of the world (i.e., the colonial system) (Fanon, 1963). In the very first sentence of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon (1963) boldly states that “decolonization is always a violent event” (p. 1). Understanding the context in which decolonization takes place, coupled with a comprehension of its nature as a reversal process, it should be considered as a logical and natural impetus to violence. The logic of violent decolonization process is made more apparent when one considers that one cannot disorganize “a society, however primitive it may be, with such an agenda if you are not determined from the very start to smash every obstacle encountered” (p. 3). Violence used toward efforts of decolonization is instrumental violence in the fact that it operates in a means-end continuum; meaning that it is used to achieve a particular goal that has been premeditated (Roberts, 2004). In line with this simple but effective strategy, Fanon (1963) argues that the “wretched of the earth” have the most logical plan of attack against hegemony focusing on bread and land. He suggests the goal of acquiring ‘bread and land’ is what the people find the most rewarding and effective working model (p. 14). At the essence of Fanon’s framework is the simple idea of oppressed populations reversing control and using the resources to benefit themselves thus freeing themselves of exploitation. In the process of altering their relationship with the ‘bread and land,’ they are no longer solely labor, but they are capitalists. Fanon’s claim is that this is done most effectively and expeditiously through violence.
This focus on “bread and land” emphasizes the pragmatism that instrumental violence achieves in a strictly decolonial sense. The pragmatism of decolonial violence is most evident in the direct attempt to thwart hegemonic power. This violence is instrumental in the fact the colonial system represents the means-end continuum in which this violence operates. After a discussion of the drastic juxtaposition between the colonizer’s habitat and the living situation of the colonized, he says “the gaze that the colonized subject casts at the colonist’s sector is a look of lust, a look of envy” (Fanon, 1963, p. 5). Fanon continues by suggesting that this envy leads the subjugated populations to concentrate on possessing items that the colonist owns; even sleeping with the colonist’s wife. However, the lust does not end at material items or the sexual conquest of the colonist’s women, it is about removing hegemony from locations of power and assuming those positions (Fanon, 1963). As result of decolonial violence, the relationship between the “bread and land” and the oppressed population that acts as solely labor is substantially and significantly altered. The oppressed are no longer merely labor, but have the potential to become masters of the “bread and land” they produce and toil. Consequently, at the moment power is assumed through violence, the populations of chattel, niggers, and slaves are blessed with the opportunity to become human beings, thus reaching the brink of liberation.
The colonial system, which was initially organized through violent measures of oppression and exploitation of subjugated people, affords Fanon’s (1963) notion of violent decolonization to be exceedingly germane. Decolonization is nothing short of the reversal of colonization; it sets out to change the order of the world (i.e., the colonial system) (Fanon, 1963). In the very first sentence of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon (1963) boldly states that “decolonization is always a violent event” (p. 1). Understanding the context in which decolonization takes place, coupled with a comprehension of its nature as a reversal process, it should be considered as a logical and natural impetus to violence. The logic of violent decolonization process is made more apparent when one considers that one cannot disorganize “a society, however primitive it may be, with such an agenda if you are not determined from the very start to smash every obstacle encountered” (p. 3). Violence used toward efforts of decolonization is instrumental violence in the fact that it operates in a means-end continuum; meaning that it is used to achieve a particular goal that has been premeditated (Roberts, 2004). In line with this simple but effective strategy, Fanon (1963) argues that the “wretched of the earth” have the most logical plan of attack against hegemony focusing on bread and land. He suggests the goal of acquiring ‘bread and land’ is what the people find the most rewarding and effective working model (p. 14). At the essence of Fanon’s framework is the simple idea of oppressed populations reversing control and using the resources to benefit themselves thus freeing themselves of exploitation. In the process of altering their relationship with the ‘bread and land,’ they are no longer solely labor, but they are capitalists. Fanon’s claim is that this is done most effectively and expeditiously through violence.
This focus on “bread and land” emphasizes the pragmatism that instrumental violence achieves in a strictly decolonial sense. The pragmatism of decolonial violence is most evident in the direct attempt to thwart hegemonic power. This violence is instrumental in the fact the colonial system represents the means-end continuum in which this violence operates. After a discussion of the drastic juxtaposition between the colonizer’s habitat and the living situation of the colonized, he says “the gaze that the colonized subject casts at the colonist’s sector is a look of lust, a look of envy” (Fanon, 1963, p. 5). Fanon continues by suggesting that this envy leads the subjugated populations to concentrate on possessing items that the colonist owns; even sleeping with the colonist’s wife. However, the lust does not end at material items or the sexual conquest of the colonist’s women, it is about removing hegemony from locations of power and assuming those positions (Fanon, 1963). As result of decolonial violence, the relationship between the “bread and land” and the oppressed population that acts as solely labor is substantially and significantly altered. The oppressed are no longer merely labor, but have the potential to become masters of the “bread and land” they produce and toil. Consequently, at the moment power is assumed through violence, the populations of chattel, niggers, and slaves are blessed with the opportunity to become human beings, thus reaching the brink of liberation.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Reaction on Race
Greetings GoodPeople,
I send you this message today after much contemplation and observation. The United States of America has done something that I NEVER thought I would live to see. I say this because my current contemplation and observation is a direct result of the election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States of America. I, for one, thought this acheivement was near impossible. [Because I was wrong, there is tremendous lesson in this event.] As I write this letter to you, the trees outside my apartment are decorated with bright autumn reds, oranges, and yellows...a natural sign of CHANGE. Like the trees, I and my country, are moving through a change as well.
I study Human Communication (Rhetoric), Culture, Politics, Race, and Power. I've also learned a substantial amount about Mass Media in the year 2008. I currently instruct an Introductory course on Mass Media at Loyola College in Maryland. My students submit four "reaction" papers during the period of a semester. These papers serve multiple functions, but above all, it allows them the freedom of expression. They receive the opportunity argue, extend, discredit, or agree with any material they feel is pertinent to material discussed in class. Though these assignments are usually submitted to ME, in the spirit of CHANGE, I am submitting a "reaction" paper to THEM (and anyone else in the world who reads these words).
This "reaction" paper is submitted in response to our inter-racial/inter-cultural discussions on Thursday, October 30th and Thursday, November 7th. My thoughts are as follows:
October 30th
Students within the Mass Media communication course I instruct at Loyola College in Maryland presented PetriDish to a group of media/cultural practitioners of whom I met during my tenure at Morgan State University. PetriDish is a blogspot that the class is constructing as a Final Semester Project. Its general bend is one of culture; more specifically the culture of Baltimore City, Maryland. For those who may not know, Loyola College is predominantly White and Morgan State University if predominantly Black. (These instituions are approximately 2 miles from each other.)
That initial meeting (October 30th) was, to my chagrin, an incomplete and unbalanced dialogue on race and culture...which also seemed to lack a clear structure or goal. As one who has conducted my share of inter-racial conversations on race, I DID notice some familiar patterns. My general assessments are as follows: 1.) Blacks speak with much more intensity and fervor on issues of race; 2.) Whites listen with more intensity and fervor on issues of race.
I was already familiar with these aformentioned observations, so consequently, we had to hold another meeting in hopes of gaining a greater understanding of such a pervasive yet elusive issue (race may very well be the ultimate paradox).
November 7th
Yesterday, November 7th, we came back together to "finish" our discussion on race and culture. Believing it beneficial to introduce a theoretical construct that could "guide" the conversation, we began our conversation familiarinzing ourselves with scholarly notions of Black Rage (Gladney, 1995; Henderson, 1996; West, 1994) and White Guilt (Lewis, 2006; McCarthy, 1998; Steele, 2006). After gaining an understanding of these two notions, and more importantly, understanding how they "cooperatively" act as impediments to "Buberian" dialogue between races....we seemed more able to move in a progressive direction on the subject. I observed in this particular meeting that my two earlier observations can be challenged due to my 1.)observation of Whites speaking with more fervor and intensity about their observations and worldview, and 2.) witnessing Blacks listen with a bit more interest and curiosity regarding Whitness. I also witnessed and participated in Blacks and Whites disagreeing on key/critical issues INTRAracially...which I believe takes a large dose of courage and fortitude; considering our racial history.
Important Notes:
1.) Participants in these conversations were between the ages of 18-30 years. At 30 years, I was the oldest in the room.
2.) I don't subscribe to the sentiment often heard in the Mass Media that purports notions that the youth have little or NO problem with race. I do believe, however, if we are diligent and honest with our approaches to race we can make significant positive changes.
3.) I believe we are all aware that these conversations aren't the most comfortable, so "Kudos" to all those that were present and active in the conversation. I have no doubt you're a BETTER person for it.
Unresolved Questions
1.) Was intra-continental African slavery of the same type as American chattel slavery; in reference to humanity and brutality, of course?
2.) Is the term "oppression" over-used by Blacks as an excuse for non-performance OR are there active/contemporary mechanisms of oppresion at work in society which constrain Black freedoms?
During the time I've taken to submit this blog, I've watched the first press conference held by President-elect Barack Obama. I must say, I have the distinct feeling America, as a nation, made the correct choice...and I have little doubt we'll all be the better for it. The sun is now setting on the wonderful array of Autumn colors outside my window. Just as the autumn leaves and the setting sun have shown me today, CHANGE is natural...CHANGE is good.
Stay tuned for video uploads of our discussion....and feel free to leave your commentary!
I send you this message today after much contemplation and observation. The United States of America has done something that I NEVER thought I would live to see. I say this because my current contemplation and observation is a direct result of the election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States of America. I, for one, thought this acheivement was near impossible. [Because I was wrong, there is tremendous lesson in this event.] As I write this letter to you, the trees outside my apartment are decorated with bright autumn reds, oranges, and yellows...a natural sign of CHANGE. Like the trees, I and my country, are moving through a change as well.
I study Human Communication (Rhetoric), Culture, Politics, Race, and Power. I've also learned a substantial amount about Mass Media in the year 2008. I currently instruct an Introductory course on Mass Media at Loyola College in Maryland. My students submit four "reaction" papers during the period of a semester. These papers serve multiple functions, but above all, it allows them the freedom of expression. They receive the opportunity argue, extend, discredit, or agree with any material they feel is pertinent to material discussed in class. Though these assignments are usually submitted to ME, in the spirit of CHANGE, I am submitting a "reaction" paper to THEM (and anyone else in the world who reads these words).
This "reaction" paper is submitted in response to our inter-racial/inter-cultural discussions on Thursday, October 30th and Thursday, November 7th. My thoughts are as follows:
October 30th
Students within the Mass Media communication course I instruct at Loyola College in Maryland presented PetriDish to a group of media/cultural practitioners of whom I met during my tenure at Morgan State University. PetriDish is a blogspot that the class is constructing as a Final Semester Project. Its general bend is one of culture; more specifically the culture of Baltimore City, Maryland. For those who may not know, Loyola College is predominantly White and Morgan State University if predominantly Black. (These instituions are approximately 2 miles from each other.)
That initial meeting (October 30th) was, to my chagrin, an incomplete and unbalanced dialogue on race and culture...which also seemed to lack a clear structure or goal. As one who has conducted my share of inter-racial conversations on race, I DID notice some familiar patterns. My general assessments are as follows: 1.) Blacks speak with much more intensity and fervor on issues of race; 2.) Whites listen with more intensity and fervor on issues of race.
I was already familiar with these aformentioned observations, so consequently, we had to hold another meeting in hopes of gaining a greater understanding of such a pervasive yet elusive issue (race may very well be the ultimate paradox).
November 7th
Yesterday, November 7th, we came back together to "finish" our discussion on race and culture. Believing it beneficial to introduce a theoretical construct that could "guide" the conversation, we began our conversation familiarinzing ourselves with scholarly notions of Black Rage (Gladney, 1995; Henderson, 1996; West, 1994) and White Guilt (Lewis, 2006; McCarthy, 1998; Steele, 2006). After gaining an understanding of these two notions, and more importantly, understanding how they "cooperatively" act as impediments to "Buberian" dialogue between races....we seemed more able to move in a progressive direction on the subject. I observed in this particular meeting that my two earlier observations can be challenged due to my 1.)observation of Whites speaking with more fervor and intensity about their observations and worldview, and 2.) witnessing Blacks listen with a bit more interest and curiosity regarding Whitness. I also witnessed and participated in Blacks and Whites disagreeing on key/critical issues INTRAracially...which I believe takes a large dose of courage and fortitude; considering our racial history.
Important Notes:
1.) Participants in these conversations were between the ages of 18-30 years. At 30 years, I was the oldest in the room.
2.) I don't subscribe to the sentiment often heard in the Mass Media that purports notions that the youth have little or NO problem with race. I do believe, however, if we are diligent and honest with our approaches to race we can make significant positive changes.
3.) I believe we are all aware that these conversations aren't the most comfortable, so "Kudos" to all those that were present and active in the conversation. I have no doubt you're a BETTER person for it.
Unresolved Questions
1.) Was intra-continental African slavery of the same type as American chattel slavery; in reference to humanity and brutality, of course?
2.) Is the term "oppression" over-used by Blacks as an excuse for non-performance OR are there active/contemporary mechanisms of oppresion at work in society which constrain Black freedoms?
During the time I've taken to submit this blog, I've watched the first press conference held by President-elect Barack Obama. I must say, I have the distinct feeling America, as a nation, made the correct choice...and I have little doubt we'll all be the better for it. The sun is now setting on the wonderful array of Autumn colors outside my window. Just as the autumn leaves and the setting sun have shown me today, CHANGE is natural...CHANGE is good.
Stay tuned for video uploads of our discussion....and feel free to leave your commentary!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Poltics of Violence
This latest mention of an assassination attempt on presidential hopeful Barack Obama brings us to a grand total of three. [One during the primaries (Florida); one during DNC convention (Denver); and now, a week until election day (Tennessee).] No one likes talking about these particular issues, but everyone understands these particular issues. All it takes is a light reading of Thomas Hobbes to understand that violence has intense, dare I say essential, political function and utility.
Without substantial knowledge of the African-American historical condition, rhetorical rants of possessing weapons as defense against government munitions may appear pretentious, irrational, and simply unnecessary. But, one must consider the history of colonization and the violence meted out by the dominant power. Fanon
(1963) reminds us that the initial confrontation between colonizer and colonized “was colored by violence…[and] continued at the point of bayonet and under canon fire.” In essence, colonization is an intrusive occupation. In the DeadPrez song “Propaganda,” Stic.man is able to discuss the intrusive occupation of the government in a contemporary and futuristic sense when he states:
I don't want no computer chip in my arm
I don't wanna die by a nuclear bomb
I say we all rush the Pentagon, pull out guns
And grab the intercom. (DeadPrez, 2000g)
Stic.man is aggressively resisting the way in which the government is assuming an Orwellian “Big Brother” position in relation to the masses. Through resisting a computer chip in his arm, the rapper is refusing futuristic governmental intrusion of privacy through hyper-intelligent monitoring. Speaking in terms of technological advancements in instruments of war, which are always profitable for the rich, Stic.man also expresses his disapproval of being a casualty of rich people’s war games in that he does not want to die by a nuclear bomb. After highlighting the problems, the rapper/rhetor offers his solution; which happens to a violent usurping of the Pentagon. Stic.man calls for his audience to take control of the Pentagon through the use of force as illustrated through guns. Once inside, the intercom becomes his object of desire so he can them assume a rhetorical takeover and possibly change the minds of citizens.
So, like the parties involved in Senator Obama's assassination attempts, DeadPrez understands the value of addressing violence toward governmental agencies at the highest levels. Unlike the assassination fanatics, DeadPrez opts to exercise this violence RHETORICALLY and not in ACTUALITY.
Let me know how you feel...
Without substantial knowledge of the African-American historical condition, rhetorical rants of possessing weapons as defense against government munitions may appear pretentious, irrational, and simply unnecessary. But, one must consider the history of colonization and the violence meted out by the dominant power. Fanon
(1963) reminds us that the initial confrontation between colonizer and colonized “was colored by violence…[and] continued at the point of bayonet and under canon fire.” In essence, colonization is an intrusive occupation. In the DeadPrez song “Propaganda,” Stic.man is able to discuss the intrusive occupation of the government in a contemporary and futuristic sense when he states:
I don't want no computer chip in my arm
I don't wanna die by a nuclear bomb
I say we all rush the Pentagon, pull out guns
And grab the intercom. (DeadPrez, 2000g)
Stic.man is aggressively resisting the way in which the government is assuming an Orwellian “Big Brother” position in relation to the masses. Through resisting a computer chip in his arm, the rapper is refusing futuristic governmental intrusion of privacy through hyper-intelligent monitoring. Speaking in terms of technological advancements in instruments of war, which are always profitable for the rich, Stic.man also expresses his disapproval of being a casualty of rich people’s war games in that he does not want to die by a nuclear bomb. After highlighting the problems, the rapper/rhetor offers his solution; which happens to a violent usurping of the Pentagon. Stic.man calls for his audience to take control of the Pentagon through the use of force as illustrated through guns. Once inside, the intercom becomes his object of desire so he can them assume a rhetorical takeover and possibly change the minds of citizens.
So, like the parties involved in Senator Obama's assassination attempts, DeadPrez understands the value of addressing violence toward governmental agencies at the highest levels. Unlike the assassination fanatics, DeadPrez opts to exercise this violence RHETORICALLY and not in ACTUALITY.
Let me know how you feel...
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Pre-Debate Commentary
Hello GoodPeople,
I can't wait for tonight's debate....I don't think there was ever a doubt that it WOULD take place. I honestly don't know what Senator McCain was thinking...but I believe he's hurt himself by "suspending" the his campaign. (His vice-presidential pick is slowly unraveling...but we'll save commentary on her for a later post.)
Before we see these two men engage in contest tonight....let's view an international (European) perspective on the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.
I see this international perspective as important because FOREIGN POLICY, thanks to George Bush and a band of greedy Republican power-players, have caused serious damage to U.S. moral authority in the world. America NEEDS a leader whom the world can respect, and see has vastly different from the disrepectful "bully" approach that we have illustrated for eight years. It's time to wake up "red" America...COWBOY DIPLOMACY IS OVER. You got rich...quit complaining..
The following clip is a good example of WHY we should continue with this debate...note that Barack Obama is focused on COMMUNICATING to the American people. He seems to be focused on providing the American people with a clear choice on presidential policy differences...
I'll have more commentary after the debate...
I can't wait for tonight's debate....I don't think there was ever a doubt that it WOULD take place. I honestly don't know what Senator McCain was thinking...but I believe he's hurt himself by "suspending" the his campaign. (His vice-presidential pick is slowly unraveling...but we'll save commentary on her for a later post.)
Before we see these two men engage in contest tonight....let's view an international (European) perspective on the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.
I see this international perspective as important because FOREIGN POLICY, thanks to George Bush and a band of greedy Republican power-players, have caused serious damage to U.S. moral authority in the world. America NEEDS a leader whom the world can respect, and see has vastly different from the disrepectful "bully" approach that we have illustrated for eight years. It's time to wake up "red" America...COWBOY DIPLOMACY IS OVER. You got rich...quit complaining..
The following clip is a good example of WHY we should continue with this debate...note that Barack Obama is focused on COMMUNICATING to the American people. He seems to be focused on providing the American people with a clear choice on presidential policy differences...
I'll have more commentary after the debate...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)