Franz Fanon

Although I agree with Robbie that Franz Fanon is very bias and believes that africans are the only ones that are colonized, I believe that Fanon presents a lot of valid points. One thought of his that I agree with is that when people are colonized by foreign rule, they take on the foreign culture and lose pare of their own. Similar to India when the East India Company took over, the foreign country that is imposing rule (England in this case) teaches their language in schools and slowly changes aspects of the countries culture to make it more like their own. This leaves the country being colonized no choice but to conform to these changes and deal with them. I can see where Franz's anger comes from because it is very difficult giving up everything that you believe in for something that someone else forces you to believe. It is especially hard because as Franz says, French....which identifies blackness with evil and sin, showing that the French though that the Africans were horrible and much worse than themselves. It would be harding trying to adapt to a culture in which your people are the epitome of evil. Therefore although I don't agree with everything Franz said, he did have valid arguments on a lot of his views towards colinization. 

Dinesh D'Souza - Racism

After I finished reading a biography on Dinesh D'Souza, I proceeded to read the other blogs posted about D'Souza, learning about many of the books he published. Already, by just some of the "loud" titles I was able to grasp more of a concept of who he was. I found a website with favorite D'Souza quotes, a few of the quotes which interested me more than others. I notice a pattern with a strong hatred against African Americans in his book The End of Racism, “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.” (from D’Souza’s book, The End of Racism)  Shows off D'Souza's negative attitude and selfishness. “If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?” (from The End of Racism), I find it ironic that his book is titled The End of Racism, while he is making very racist remarks all throughout his book, contributing to racism as well. Madalena has discussed this particular book in depth and I very much agree with the opinions she gave. As Madalena said, "I do not believe racism is an inborn trait" which I entirely believe with. I think racism (in the present) is acquired from popular forms of media or influences. 

Dinesh D'Souza: What's So Great about Christianity?

I read an interview conducted by Albert Mohler with Dinesh D'Souzawith about D'Souza's book: What's So Great About Christianity? In this interview Dinesh talks about his reasoning for writing this novel and what he considers militant atheists. I liked what Dinesh had to say because he seems special compared to other argumentative authors. Dinesh has been a secular writer for fifteen years. One quote of his that I find particularly interesting is, "I felt that something new is happening today. That is, we’re seeing for the first time atheism become a serious option for people and particularly for young people." I definitely think that this statement is true and that more and more kids my age and younger are becoming atheist. I have heard that during my parents generation children did not choose their religion and were often forced to fit into their parents mold. I, unlike the large majority of my friends, consider myself religious and am not afraid to share my beliefs. This is the main reason why I chose this interview because I am Catholic and I think Christianity is great so I wanted to hear Dinesh's point of view. In his interview Dinesh cites Christopher Hitchens an atheist writer who is considered by D'Souza as both "witty and stylish." Later D'Souza defines new atheism as "clothed in the garb of morality." Another good point that D'Souza makes is that atheism is now becoming more and more popular in pop culture, universities, and sometimes even government. Later he explains,"The atheists have very clearly said that their goal is to go after our children. In other words, they know that they have not won the battle for the current generation, but they are hoping that through the schools, and through the universities, as young Christians come into school, come into college—and remember, as in my case, when I went to college I was a Christian, but the Christianity I learned was very juvenile." I agree with him that atheism is not as popular with my parents and D'Souza's generation, however it is growing more and more popular in my generation. The final point that he makes that I find particularly interesting is he says, "But the Christianity I learned was ultimately a Christianity of habit. It was not a thoughtful Christianity." I think that this is a large problem in the Christian community and it will soon create even larger problems in the following years. The church is extremely low on priests and more and more kids are refusing to go to church. Not only are less kids attending, the ones attending are often forced to be there and don't geninuely believe what they are being taught. I believe that this may lead to a long slow demise of the Catholic Church.

Franz Fanon

When researching about Franz Fanon, the theme that I saw throughout the records were that he believed in education. He thought that colonization was a terrible thing, although he seemed to have a bias, as he focuses on the oppression of African Americans. His famous quote, " "To speak . . . means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization" (17-18), from his book "Black Skin, White Masks", shows how the power of education can be usefull. He says that if the people of a country are educated enough, they will not fall into the "white mans trap", as Fanon calls it.
I do agree with Fanon, in that if the people of a country are educated then they will more acurately be able to judge when they are being taken advantage of. This happened with the indians in america, where they were not literate enough to know when they were signing away land for a tiny amount of money. I also agree that racism is brought upon by colonization. This is because when colonization happens, the colonizers culture is generally forced upon the nation.
However, it seems to me that Fanon has a narrow minded view, because his focus is entirely on African Americans. Even his book is "Black Skin, White Masks", as well as most of his points. He should realize that colonization, although more frequently happens to third world countries in Africa, happens elsewhere to different ethnicities as well. Another thing is that I read somewhere that he does not give woman equal status as men, and often refers to the whole of humanity as "Men", instead of also including Woman.

http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Fanon.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz_Fanon (because I did look there, although it wasn't my primary source)

Black Skin, White Masks

One thing that I found extremely interesting about Franz Fanon is how he got his start to write his famous work "Black Skin, White Masks". Originally, he wrote the book and submitted is to serve as his thesis at Lyon. It turned out to get rejected, and this led him to publish the book, which differed from it's original title, "The Disalienation Of A Black Man". Essentially, the piece talks about how the black man seems to be dominated in a white culture, and how this somehow influences him to adapt to the cultures of the white men, possibly out of sheer fear.  This seems like a pretty big statement, and I am not totally sure that I agree with it. It seems hard to believe now, at least in our society today, that such a powerful, and to be honest, what seems like a bit of a drastic theory. It seems that Fanon sees no power in his race, and that because of this, they have had to turn to other customs in order to survive. I think that it is something that must be experienced on an emotional level to understand, and so it is hard to really have an opinion, but in terms of what I know, which is very little, I find a theory of this magnitude very difficult to accept.

Speaking for the religious side of things

We were told to find out as much as we could about either Franz Fanon or Dinesh D'Souza. So I though, what better way to learn about these guys than to watch them in action, so I watched this video of D'Souza debating with Christopher Hitchens about what is the truth, god or science.  D'Souza, being one who strongly believes that God is the answer to the world, decides to try and prove Scientific Laws completely wrong, and therefore since science isn't the answer, then god must be.  I agree with what monica has to say.  The reason he has such strong beliefs is because he grew up in india and there everyone is religious.  However growing up in a purely religious environment puts him at a huge disadvantage.  In order to argue one side or the other, you must have equal knowledge of each side, and this is where he is lacking.  Also, in this video he contradicts himself by first "proving" that all scientific laws are completely false.  Later to only prove his point that god must exist through the use of science and its laws.  I do believe that he has a point, however, I don't truly understand it or agree with it.

However, I think that speaking for the religious side of things is one of the hardest things to support.  There is no evidence at all, no way you can test to see if there is a god or not.  In order to "prove" there is a good you simply have to disprove every other idea out there that exists, and D'Souza attempts to do this.  His side is much harder to argue, and this is why I respect him.  Maybe I only feel this way because I am much more of a science guy that a religious one.

Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book called What's So Great About America? in which he defends the U.S. against lots of different verbal attacks. He said that people in the U.S. weren't grateful enough and criticized too many things when they should be happy for living here. He then claimed that the United States and our culture was superior to much of the world, saying: If one begins with the multicultural premise that all cultures are equal, then the world as it is makes very little sense," he says. "Some cultures have completely outperformed others in providing the things that all people seek -- health, food, housing, security and the amenities of life." I disagree with some of what he is saying here, but I think that Dinesh made a valid point when he said that we should be happy to live in the United States because we could be living in a place with no clean water or a place that is being destroyed by genocide. However, I disagree with his statement that all cultures are not equal. Cultures do not provide homes, food, or anything else he named - they provide STYLES of food and houses, and provide history and something of an identity for people. Cultures cannot possibly outperform one another because cultures cannot "perform" anything. Sure, some governments may be better than others at caring for its people, but all cultures, however different they may be, are no better or worse than any other culture.

Dinesh D'Souza

After reading an article called "The Closing of the Conservative Mind, Part I," which was written by Dinesh D'Souza I was able to learn about his views. D'Souza is an extreme leftist who is Islamic, and has written a book called The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. He has received many threats from angry rightist American who speak of him as a follower of Bin Laden. The problem with D'Souza is that because he grew up in India, he doesn't understand how people could disagree withhis believes, he is single minded an has no clue how to understand someone else's perspective. In his book D'Souza blames "American liberal policies and actions taken by named individuals in power." I personally feel that through reading responses that people have had from his book, and how Americans feel that he is blaming America I find it impossible to understand why he doesn't understand people harsh feelings towards the book. Lastly this article clearly illustrated how extreme someone's view points can be.

Regarding Frantz Fanon

This is a response to Caitlin's post below.

Not to be annoyingly challenging, but I politely disagree with your post. I feel that your thought of individuality and the power of distinguishing personal views from peers is a bit cliche and innocently idealistic. I agree with Fanton. I feel like people are constantly adapting to their surroundings, hence how children learn how to do...everything. It's a survival instinct. If colonization were to happen, and the colonies spread their influence all over the native land, I think that their actions and words could change the way the natives speak. Humans subconsciously adapt to their environment to survive. One example is Stockholm Syndrome. In order to survive, a prisoner gains sympathy for the higher power holding them captive. Fanton said, "Man's tragedy, Nietzsche said, is that he was once a child. . . . However painful it may be for me to accept this conclusion, I am obliged to state it: For the black man there is only one destiny. And it is white" Even Fanton agrees that the truth is grim, but the truth is indeed the truth. Even in America, citizens from other countries adapt to the American life. It's for practicality and for survival. It's human instinct.

Mr. Outspoken Concervative Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza, a Indian immigrant now living in the U.S., is a very outspoken conservative political commentator. He has written about a dozen novels in the span of his life, and many articles ranging from topics such as Ronald Raegan, why the Left is responsible for 9/11, and why religion is actually flourishing and not dying. His very opinionated piece on religion,titled God knows why faith is thriving helps give a look into his religious views and into his political views. Religion, a very controversial subject to undertake is handled in what I believe to be a very formal and well thought out fashion.
D'Souza offers his views on how atheism is anti-progressive, with his reasoning being that areas with high atheist percentages have dwindling populations and how people with religions have something to look forward to, while those that are atheist have nothing. This, he derives, is why religion helps strengthen populations. While he makes some very valid points and observations, he fails to examine modern religion and atheism through different lenses. He spends a very large part of his article explaining how economics affect religion and vice versa, but does not examine the actual dynamic between religion and atheism very much. He mentions how the prospect of the afterlife only very briefly, and goes on to talk mostly about economics and population. This makes him seem to be more interested in the economic stimulus that religion causes in countries, rather than the argument that exists between believers and non-believers.
His case is very well thought out, and even though I am on the non-believing side, I have to say that he did a very good job handling the subject.

Franz Fanon

Franz Fanon's books seem to uncover the philosophy and psychology behind colonialism. While we traditionally focus on who was being colonized and who was colonizing, Fanon delves into understanding the relationship between the colonized and colonizers. In his book Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon argues that racism is an effect of colonization. His point is that when you are colonized by a language, you are inadvertently accepting the collective mindset and culture of the colonizer. Thus, should that colonizer be racist or discriminatory, you too become that way. However, I disagree. I believe that people have the ability to separate themselves as individuals from society as a unit. Therefore, people don't need to blindly follow norms and cultural standards should their personal views differ. Particularly during times of colonization would this concept be apparent. Colonized peoples may experience anger and resentment towards their colonizers and would subsequently be less likely to follow that path. Thus, even if they are forced to speak the language of the colonizers, that doesn't mean "above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization," as Fanon argues. It simply means that they are coerced to conform to certain aspects of the new culture, yet I believe that their belief system or moral code can remain unchanged. Thus, while Fanon writes that ramifications such as racism are inherent to colonization, I believe that colonized subjects can maintain their own sense of culture and ethics.  

The Wretched of the Earth

Franz Fanon's work of The Wretched of the Earth is supposed to be fiery and inspirational, yet I believe it's actually just unhelpful. Fanon says that, "Europe undertook the leadership of the world with ardour, cynicism and violence," and has "a succession of negations of man, and an avalanche of murders", justifying "her crimes" and legitimizing "the slavery in which she holds four-fifths of humanity". He even writes that Africans should not try to imitate Europe in any way because, "a former European colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States of America became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions."

Fanon goes over and over the point that Africans need to go in a new direction, and not follow the European or American way. He declares that they "must turn over a new leaf... work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man," but he offers absolutely no solution to this dilemma. I think it's pointless to just point out a "problem" like this and not give any effort to solve it.

Dinesh D'Souza and "The End of Racism"

In 1995, Dinesh D'Souza published a controversial bestseller titled The End of Racism. The book discusses how America is no longer fighting racism because people have simply accepted that racism exists, thus stifled progress to prove such ideas wrong. Dinesh D'Souza explores questions regarding racial prejudice and whether or not such a characteristic is innate or culturally acquired. Although I could not find D'Souza's answer to this question, I believe that every individual recognizes racial differences, but I do not believe that racism is an inborn trait. I know that I sometimes use racial profiling and I am sure that this is not naturally a part of me. I most likely observed it in movies or perhaps, unfortunately, from my family. I do not believe that racism started with differences in color; I believe it began with cultural divides and people trying to comprehend why cultures differ. I believe racism developed from confusions and misunderstandings that can occur from language barriers. It was easier to label someone as being strange or foreign rather than trying to find common ground.

Franz Fanon

Franz Fanon was born July 20, 1925. He lived a relatively short life, dying December 6, 1961 after being diagnosed with leukemia.
He wrote multiple books, including Black Skin, White Masks and The Wretched of the Earth. In The Wretched of the Earth, he analyzes the role played by race, class, and violence in the fight for freedom. This is his most fiery work, saying that in order to overthrow the white dominance of colonies "absolute violence" is required. He has been established as one of the leading an anti-colonial thinkers of the 20th century. His works have helped drive many of the anti-colonial movements in the last 40 years.