User:Tibim2017

Please explain what decolonization is according to Fanon. How does this differ from colonization? According to Fanon, decolonization can be termed as a process through which a country that is colonized gains freedom from the hands of the colonial authorities. Therefore, decolonization is achieved through independence and forming a free association status. Decolonization can either be achieved through peaceful negotiations or violence revolt from the colonized people. Albeit in fact, a nation or people could experience this procedure of decolonization gently, most of them go through battles in the process to gain their freedom. From his arguments in regards to the struggle for decolonization, Fanons portrays decolonization as brutal battle "decolonization is essentially the replacement of a specific "species" of individuals by another "species" of individuals” (Frantz, 1995) by the use of violence. Fanon describes the process and the stages of colonization and decolonization. First by explaining the division or the two zones, the settler and the native. We can relate the description of the two zones to the battle of Algiers movie, where the settler are enjoying clean, bright, neat and wide streets and high position jobs while the natives live in poor, narrow areas with poor lightings and experience a different lifestyle from the settlers. Colonization can be termed as the process of expansion of a given country's sovereignty and individuals outside its territory, regularly to ensure monetary control over their assets and the market in general. The term also imply a collection of believes that are applied to legitimize the oppression of the locals within a colony. Is decolonization possible without violence according to Fanon? Why or why not? Frantz Fanon contends that violence might be vital for the process of decolonization. He clarifies that this violence originates from the colonial experience and that the colonial violence is a reaction in the account of colonization. He provides a much nuanced investigation of the colonial experience and the experience of the local both remotely and internally. As indicated by Fanon, the locals needs unique strategies to accomplish freedom and liberty. Those strategies incorporate viciousness/violence, where colonizers ought to be driven by power to achieve radicalism and gain a feeling of a sense of pride “The colonized man finds his freedom in and through violence” (Frantz, 1995). Therefore, freedom can't be proficient through different means or friendly ways. Fanon utilized two contentions to legitimize the utilization of violence. The principal contention, he trusted that colonization in itself is an act of violence, occupation and is a progressing harm or a risk, the second contention is the division, the unequal treatment, and bigotry. In the colonized world both the Police and the Army are spokespersons of rulers that are always subduing the locals. He likewise depicts the division in the colonized state as not just division between the pilgrim and the local yet in addition division in class, amongst laborers and the intellectual class. Fanon trusted that a battle and the insurgency begin inside the country with the proletariat class who find that violence is the best way to attain freedom, and he depicted that the bourgeoisie or the intellectual class methods for opportunity are less adequate and they have a tendency to copy the colonizers. What does Fanon have to say about White values in the colonial context? Why do the colonized accept these values and how does that change during the process of decolonization? Why do the values of the colonized go unnoticed? Fanon had the belief that the whites utilized violence and different methods for persecution amid the colonial times. They applied values that devalued the blacks and as they were seen as lesser human beings. The colonized had to accept the values because they had not realized they could be decolonized themselves from the oppression of the whites. For example in Fanon's Black Skins/White Masks, Fanon contends that the black man is oblivious to the way that he is oppressed to a universally white subject. This white subject has been built as the first universal subject to which, best case scenario, the black man can just rough a copy. Since colonial talk has effectively stamped the blackness negativities and whiteness positivity, Fanon recommends that these classifications as of now create the black man as fundamentally immaterial, and therefore, he disguises what Fanon calls his 'epidermalization'. For in endeavoring to be the universal subject, the black man can just play out the first, and this attempts to create a split between the black man's cognizance and his own particular body. Do you agree with Fanon on his take on violence? Why or why not? "The colonized man finds his freedom in and through violence" (Frantz, 1995). Fanon expresses these words in his most direct verbalization of an idea of violence of the colonial times, The Wretched of the Earth. Fanon expounds on the colonial world for the benefit of every colonized person, despite the fact that Algeria is the main center of concentration in the book. At the point when pilgrim's administration neglects to put an end to the violence and understands that capturing and tormenting the locals leaders will prompt the most noticeably awful circumstance and make more outrage among the locals. The colonizer at that point understand that they have to pull back. Amid the freedom searching, some scholars tend to support a portion of the colonized world class and hope to keep a portion of the western culture and qualities. In any case, Fanon contends that the locals should dismiss the way of life of the west, as he trusts that western culture will degenerate the local leaders. I concur with Fanon, as I would like to think, I trust that the best way to compel the pilgrims to leave is through the use of violence. For instance, from the clash of Algiers, if the Algerians didn't react with brutality Algeria would have never been freed.