Colonization and the Civil Rights Movement

Today's presentation of Albert Memmi's book The Colonizer and the Colonized was very well put together, and it showed me that this whole process of colonization is a lot more complex than I thought. To have colonization, both the colonizer and the colonized must experience dehumanization. The concept of dehumanization is somewhat similar to Gobineau's paradox of the conquering race, which argues the exact action that advacnes a nation (law of attraction) is what causes the devaluing of the dominant blood though miscegenation. So with dehumanization, the colonizer must first remove himself from humanity to understand the position of the colonized, who are dehumanized by the colonizer. What was so interesting to me is the fact that the colonial system will not function unless both parties experience dehumanization. But then again, this does make sense because the colonizer needs to have some knowledge of what life is like for the colonized in order to know the proper steps to take to begin the process of colonization.

The last question that was presented to the class was whether or not we believe "colonized" is an appropriate description for African-Americans today. We came to the conclusion that post-colonial would be a more accuate word to use beacuse although America is no longer a "colony," there are still aspects in which our society operates as one. This then led to African Americans and their struggle from slavery to now. Even though slavery and colonization are not the same, they are similar, and I will say that although African Americans are no longer "colonized," they still deal with a type of conflict in which they constantly have to work even harder to compete in American society.

After class, Dr. J and I had a brief conversation, and I told her that basically everything I've learned in our class coincides with the material in my African American History class. In History, we are discussing the pivotal events of the Civil Rights Movement, which sort of relates to the revolts of the colonized. Just as the colonized revolt and contribute to the end of colonization, participants in the Civil Rights Movement took the proper steps to bring about change for African-Americans. Although the two concepts are not exactly the same, there are several similarities between the two.

So what is your take on this? Do you think much has changed for African Americans? Do you think more needs to be done? How does the situation of African Americans relate to the colonizer and the colonized in your opinion?

And here's a short video about the Civil Rights Movement that kind of shows how the process of "colonization" was being broken as well as some forms of "dehumanization." Not the same thing, but there are some parallels.

Family Guy and Language

First of all, thank y’all for participating so much in our presentation. We really appreciate it. There was a lot of great discussion today in class. While working on our group presentation, Stanton brought up a family guy episode. We ended up watching the clip and found it interesting. Here are a couple clips from that episode:

 During the presentation, we talked about language as a way to create distance between the colonizer and the colonized. The higher form/more educated way of language became a privilege that the colonized was not privy to. This was just another way to ensure the structure of oppression. The lacking of this language for the colonized was an impairment because it prevented them from obtaining better jobs and a better way of life. Based off of our conversation in class and what we have learned about oppression, what does everyone think of these clips? What types of comments do they make on the current state of our society? At the end of class, we talked a little bit about the "post-colonial" period. How do clips like these influence thoughts about this period? Dr. J brought up the example of immigrants needing to learn at least a basic amount of English in order to survive in America. This seems to prove the point that language is very important.

Fanon and the Colonizer

     This is something of a backtrack, but Fanon is one of my favorite philosophers and I can't miss a chance to write about him. During discussion about him, something Dr. J said stuck with me. She said that she had a vested interest in there not being a revolution, in the sense of there not being essentially anarchy in the streets. We all have this interest. It seems, for Fanon, that the revolution of the third world would require violent revolution, but it's not clear what a revolution of the first world would look like. On the one hand, I think we can agree that a society without racism (whatever form that would take) would be better than racist hegemony, but on the other, violent overthrow of power structures might cause more damage than it would fix. The history of revolutions would seem to suggest this.

      Fanon, in Wretched of the Earth, which we did not read, suggests that the violence of the colonized is a direct result of the violence of the colonizer. That is, it is a psychological effect of colonialism to instill in its subjects the seeds of its own destruction. Dehumanizing force and coercion beget violence. But this is only one side of his account. He is conscious of the fact that colonialism itself inhibits the freedom of the colonizer, as well as the colonized. The colonizer him or herself is a slave to the function of colonization. They are free in a way that the colonized are not. They (or we, as the case may be) are free to act out their lives relatively uninhibited. But they, we must remain within a certain ideological ground, act as if certain things were true. The colonizing civilization requires its citizens to adhere strictly to the culture of colonialism.
One can see the beginnings of this at the end of "Racism and Culture:"

The end of race prejudice begins with a sudden incomprehension.

The occupant's spasmed and rigid culture, now liberated, opens at last to the culture of people who have really become brothers. The two cultures can affront each other, enrich each other.

The very act of resistance to colonization jars the colonizer and his or her worldview. Resistance begins (or can begin - there will remain adherents to the "forces of order") a process of opening up the space for both the former colonizer and the colonized to engage in mutually enriching dialogue. The two cultures may finally meet and recognize one another as equals.

      Thus, the colonizer, the everyday racist, and the myriad functionaries that serve and compose hegemony have an implicit and vested interest in the end of colonialism, racism, and the hegemony: the diversity of culture and the possibility of mutual enrichment. It's a thin interest, and it can be easily dismissed with claims of superiority, but if one can show another the value of education through cultural exchange, one might be able to demonstrate the ethically void and profoundly unfree situation which hegemony creates. As to whether or not this argument might outweigh an individual's economic interests, I suppose it would depend on the individual. What does seem certain to me is that words alone will not constitute legitimate social change. That would require action. It is my hope that such action need not be violent.

Did I Give My Consent?

Have you ever stopped to think about the boundaries of your consent? In theory we all have limitations, but do those limitations manifest themselves in what you do/don’t support?

            This conversation about the nature of consent was spurred by the Omi and Wanant discussion we had this week. In their essay, they establish that the consent of the governed is vital to any structure of hegemony. Hegemony is “rule constituted by a combination of coercion and consent that establishes and maintains power.” (Bernasconi 199) Coercion is the amount of force employed by the ruling group and consent it the degree of acceptance of imposed power by those who are ruled.

            By design there exists a binary between the privileged and the underprivileged. Lying at the foundation of the relationship is power. Both groups possess it, however, only one group’s power and privilege is obvious mainly due to claims of legitimacy. Nonetheless, there is power that lies within the underprivileged group; the power to maintain or upset the unequal power structure, and I’ll argue that the power manifests itself in the form of consent.

            As of recent, we have been introduced to the notion that a racist person can only exist within a racist culture. Yet, this truth still baffles me and I think it is because I deflect blame away from myself. Living in a racist culture means that everyone reared in that culture at some point has racist thoughts or posits racist presumptions, and the only way this is maintained is by my consent to allow society to continuously pretend that racism is abnormal. Because of this, I also consent to maintain and perpetuate the structure of racial oppression that I fall victim to.

            This realization is extremely powerful in recognizing my own hand in various spheres of oppression – mine and others alike. Just because one may find themselves as victim in one situation does not negate the potential to be perpetrator in another. Someone in class on Tuesday remarked that “we like to think that the world’s various systems of oppression are run by a mastermind or a group of masterminds. The truth is…we, citizens of society, run them ourselves.”

What is your reaction to this? What social structures of privilege or oppression have you lent your consent to? Does your consent have boundaries or limitations? What is the significance of this in the existence/non-existence of reverse racism?

I'll leave with this....

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition

If the institution of racism has been around since the great conquest of Native Americans, and has been proliferated by an everlasting hegemony and racial projects, is there a way to reverse and stop this system; to combat it without the world falling apart? That is the question that I ponder this sunny Friday afternoon. In class we heard Dr. J speak of her majesty’s loyal opposition and the power hegemony has through coercion and consent. In parliamentary governments the loyal opposition is a way for opposing parties to contradict the sitting cabinet with committing treason.  Basically, it was away to keep opposing political parties in check without a revolution occurring.  This system is able to succeed because, through coercion and consent, it is easy to make any particular policy seem like it benefits the individuals under it. When we consent to the policy we in turn stop questioning it and it becomes common sense.

 There have been many racial projects that are seen, as “common sense.” One of course is the affirmative action project. This project is set out to address the lack of opportunity for minorities in getting into higher education institutions and aims at redistributing access to higher education. As many see this as benefitting minorities and adding diversity to educational institutions, it is a project that seems like common sense.  Well, does it make sense when one asks does it really benefit minorities? Or is it all a way to introduce diversity for predominantly white institutions? Of course it doesn’t make sense. It goes against all “common sense.” When I was first presented the question of whom exactly does the project affirmative action benefit, I admit, I experienced some cognitive dissonance. From that day I have started to question some of the things that I see as common sense especially in the music that I listen to. Many messages and struggles rapped about by rappers like Kanye west and Common that I couldn't identify with in the past now make a lot more sense. 

Now back to my original question. Is there a way to reverse this hegemonic system that seems to make a lot of sense?  It seems that there are an increasing instances of loyal opposition (example from class: A black president), but is that enough? When will it come to pass that this perceived hegemony will cease to exist and we as a nation will be on equal ground? D.E.B Dubois proposed that the only way to reach equity among the races in America (primarily the white and black race) is by conserving the black race through black institutions. Well, I wonder now if that is true. From Dubois standpoint it seems that we would have to create an entire black nation as well; possibly a revolution in the form of loyal oppositions? 

Skin

“Both her father (Sam Neill) and mother (Alice Krige) are white, but Sandra Laing (Sophie Okonedo) is born with dark skin -- a complex problem in the era of South African apartheid that soon drives a wedge into the family in this poignant drama based on a true story. Though her parents fight to have the government classify her as white, Sandra grows up in a divided world, and experiences her parents can't understand make her question her identity.”

During Tuesday’s class when discussing the Phibbs court case from Omi and Winant’s essay, I instantly recalled a movie I’d watched over Christmas break with a similar story. Skin depicts the story of a African girl born to white parents, however, possess physical characteristics of someone belonging to the “black” race. In the beginning, I was unsure as to why her dark complexion mattered so much. Then I realized that there was a major debate as to whether she should be considered “black” or “white”, an important distinction necessary to make in a society so influenced heavily racial categorization. One’s life could be the difference between night and day just by what race you are said to be on your birth certificate. Another aspect about this dilemma is the internal conflict a person experiences. If I was born to white parents, inherently I would think I was white. However, if under these same conditions I appeared to be black and therefore society also deemed me black, I would have a major internal battle with who I was. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure what I would categorize myself.  This is still a reality for some people of mixed race to this day.  Though there are not as many social perks for being either white or black anymore, I often hear about an inner battle some people of mixed race experience. I have some cousins that are bi-racial and they have expressed that until they became comfortable with who they were, they constantly felt the need to try to please both races they belonged to or criticized if they identified with one race more than they did another.

How do you feel about these racial internal conflicts?

I'm waiting...

Omi and Winant describe the idea of racial formation as the “sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed” Maybe it’s just me, but I have yet to see any micro-level racial formations destroyed. 

I believe that we live in a world where the meaning of racist has been watered down to a somewhat meaningless definition. Before equal rights, deeming someone as racist would have been the same as calling them Hitler. Now it is so second-nature to take racism seriously that it becomes difficult to discuss the issue. Has society made our historical culture a thing of a past? What really makes racism a laughing matter? 

I believe that our cultures are starting to blend. We are beginning to accept our differences as true. As a result, People are becoming so accustomed to each other that we no longer need to patronize groups of people. 

Normally when I find error in my own actions, the first thing I do is feel pity. Pity for those I affected negatively and pity for myself. Once I learn from my wrongs I laugh on my past thinking to myself, “How could I have been so foolish?” Eventually, I calm down continue the course of my actions until the process is repeated, and it will be repeated because nobody is perfect. 

I believe that a large majority of the population engages in this same process that I do. There are still people out there that will believe that their actions are justifiable and no wrong doing has occurred-These are modern day racists. I believe that we are now approaching a social world that mostly realizes that racism is wrong. How else would comedians such as Dave Chapel, George Lopez, and Gabriel Iglesias make a living on making fun of races? 

If this is the case, then what has kept people from refraining from laughter and to accept their past as wrong? Why do we still need to reminisce on out past conduct as something comical? I mean, it really wasn’t that long ago that jokes were being made about women and their rights. But if someone were to make a joke on a woman’s role today, very few would find it funny.

This interpretation has led me to question- When, if ever, will these micro-level racial formations be destroyed?

But That's Not Racist

In our discussion on Tuesday about Omi and Winant, we established new concepts when considering and distinguishing between race and racism. They established race as an element of human culture that is always and necessarily a social historical process. Whereas they describe racism in the form of racial formation as, an entity that involves both social structure and cultural representation in its perspective instead of relying on only one of the two when attempting to understand race.

Omi and Winant go even further to declare the United States as a racial dictatorship. Evidence of this label can be seen in the “white” American identity and the formation of the “color line” within the United States society. Furthermore we discussed that this unwritten dictatorship became possible through many levels of coercion and consent due to hegemony within the original colonies.  In the Merriam-Webster dictionary hegemony is defined as a preponderant influence or authority over others; the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group.

As most of us know, in order for the colonies to flourish there had to be an exploited working class. Yet, people still needed a reason to justify the establishment of these classes. This is where hegemony truly stamps its mark on the culture of the United States. Consent was acquired through the many coercive pseudo-sciences to make clear distinctions between the races.

In result many of these stereotypes and distinctions between races still linger around today. While many may joke or make light of them, it still pronounces a critical flaw within our culture that these anecdotes are still relevant.

Here is a short clip that jokes about stereotypes. I had trouble putting the video on the page but here is the URL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemYHDRy_Gw

The title is But That’s Not Racist, it’s kind of funny but they touch on many stereotypes that are present and that people joke about today. But my question for this blog goes back to Omi and Winant declaration that race as an element of human culture that is always and necessarily a social historical process. Since humans have such a negative past when it comes to race, does that make it ok to continue create new distinctions between races just to articulate a point or persuade groups of people?

Word Usage, and Appropriation as Interpolation (not Interpellation)

Famously, Aimé Cesairé appropriated the French racial epithet negré, a term traditionally used for demonization, 
for his own creative endeavors, namely poetry. This primarily linguistic move led to a popular political 
movement called Negritude, the aim of which was to garner the power of self-repsentation for all those 
impacted by the African Diaspora. Likewise, in the United States, the signifier "nigger" has successfully 
been robbed, to some degree and in some contexts, of its descructive power in white hands in the same way 
as negré. By appropriation, each distinct Black population, please pardon my vast generalization for just
a moment, was able to reclaim a negative word in order to give it new, perhaps positive, connotation. 
Often times in history, we see certain words, phrases, mannerisms, and creative mediums 
used, or stolen (depending on your perspective), from peripheral political groups (Jazz and Blues are two
examples of this). Granted, these once burgeoning art forms were not created in a vacuum. It is impossible
to say that one race can lay absolute claim to each form; however, we do historically and mostly accurately
attribute their origins to Black musicians, and a Black ontology. Over time, these forms have been co-opted
into the hegemony, meaning that they have become popular with whites as well. Building on Omi and Winant,
we can say that this political move has resulted in a somewhat re-signification of Blues and Jazz as traditional
American rather than Black forms--taking away their potentially destabilizing influence. This movement
on the one hand granted a certain legitimization to Black musicians and thus power, while on the other hand 
it also garnered a certain coercive influence for White hegemony. The reverse appropriation of negré and
nigger has caused a much different reaction. Rather than white washing these signs, they have been used
against the hegemony that originally bestowed them with power. (I encourage everyone to watch Samuel
Jackson's Django interview, where a reporter asked him about the use of the word nigger in the film. He
responded, of course, but you have to use the word. The reporter refused to do so and became visibly 
uncomfortable.) The term, although used in many contexts, metonymically invokes many historically and 
culturally shameful episodes in the course of United States' development as a country, most importantly 
slavery and Jim Crow. These moment of interpolation, where a repressed period in history (repressed 
in class and in cultural (at least white) consciousness is brought back to the current moment, facilitate an 
inversion in the still prevalent power dynamic of white over Black. The question I want to ask, and that 
has been asked, should these terms continue to be used given their etymologies. Also, are there other 
ways in which this power dynamic is inverted in every day life?       

Comedy and Privilege

In class on Tuesday, we talked about the line between placating those who are on the wrong side of the racial hegemony in order to maintain stability and actually changing the shape of the power structure in a subversive or revolutionary way.  I’m interested in Omi and Winant and what their concept of hegemony might tell us about white privilege and how it can and cannot be revealed and challenged.   I wanted to investigate this through comedy, because why not. 

Here’s a clip of Louis C.K. talking about his daughter, history, and white privilege. 

It’s funny for a few reasons.  First, Jay Leno doesn’t seem to know what to do with him.  He tries to change the subject and it doesn’t work.  The audience is clearly laughing, but it’s one of those situations where Louis C.K., in his usual style, is walking a line between making the audience laugh at truth and making them uncomfortable.

Here, in contrast, is a video from Anderson Cooper with the woman who made the “Shit Black Girls Say to White Girls” video, when that whole trend exploded.   Clips of Francesca’s video can be seen in the first minute.  It’s a long segment, but to me the question at around 4:45 is the most interesting.  Francesca is constantly defending herself against the charge of reverse-racism, and this particular questioner seem furious and uncomfortable.  It’s an interesting exercise in understanding positions of power. What does it mean that Francesca has to present things that are clearly racist as “ignorant” (as if that’s better?) in order to avoid being attacked as a reverse racist?  What nerve did she touch in her video that Louis C.K. avoided?

Both of these comics are examining racism and its byproducts.  Louis C.K., as a white man, clearly benefits from the power structure, so his interrogation of it is less threatening.  If he is calling his audience out on their racism and their role in the oppression of others, then he is also calling himself out. Francesca, as a black woman, differentiates between herself and the white audience in her video, making clear the damage that racism has done to her, not the damage that has been done by her. 

Interestingly, the “Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls” now has a series of links defending itself against charges of racism.  Francesca even removed it from YouTube for a while. 

So, what do y’all think of this?  How does the race (or gender?) of the comics matter?  Why? 

Combating the Party scenario

After Professor J’s lecture on Frantz Fanon last Thursday, all I could think about was the party situation she presented to the class in order to personalize the “gaze” or “look” theory that we talked about in class.  We’ve all been in that situation whether it be at a party, with a group of friends our family, etc.  Almost every time there’s a change or something different about us someone will notice and we will step outside of ourselves and look back at us noticing the same thing and seconding guessing whether or not it was the right thing to do, to wear, to change, etc.  This analyzing can only be explained, at least from my point of view, from a social construct and is a result of going against the social norm.  The main point I wanted to discuss was the ways in which we could possibly combat these situations where someone is viewed as an object rather than a human being.  In class we talked about affirmation, objectifying the other person by demeaning them or combating from a religious perspective.  We came to the conclusion that affirmation and objectification of the other person does not belittle or cause the other person the same feeling that is left with the person being “gazed” upon and the religious route, although one I prefer and wish would solve any situation, in today’s society may not effect every person in a way that would force them to soul search and realize the wrong they are doing.  I got the feeling in class that we were not as much looking for a way to make the other person feel objectified, but rather how we could come out of that situation at the party without alienating from ourselves and avoid looking at ourselves in a judging way trying to figure out what we were doing wrong when in reality we weren’t.  In my opinion, and I think this is more relevant today than in Fanon’s time, but the authority of the other person either strengthens or weakens the credibility of the person casting judgment or objectifying another.  For example in Fanon’s situation on the train with the child he could combat what the child said by thinking to himself “you’re just a child, what do you know” or blaming it on bad parenting.  So a way to combat it today would be noticing the level of credibility of another human being to cast such objectifying judgments and then decide whether or not it is worth the analyzation or self-conscious thoughts that go along with being judged.  This thought process is very difficult because most humans take what people say about them very seriously and if not they definitely think about it for some time, but I think more than ever today people know when to brush off what people say if it is someone with zero credibility in their minds.  I guess my question to the class would be is this be a possible process to combat what we talked about in class and if so what steps would you take?  More importantly who would you deem credible and do you think it would be possible to decipher credible judgments from ones that are not?

I'll have my autonomy and a large frosty please!

I have been thinking about the objectification situation Dr. J talked about in the instance of being called a faggot at a party.  It struck a lot of thought because if I collected pennies from every time this scenario happened to me growing up, I’d own a cruise ship. I really want to attempt to break this scenario down because I think it is a great example of the existential crisis of being labeled as inferior by your peers, which applies to race, religion, sexuality, political views etc.

 I grew up with all older brothers and male cousins and being called a fag is almost part of your name.  The theme is here is typically masculinity or even hypermasculinity.  However, it really depends on the context as well, because we all became really desensitized to this behavior in my family. It was so extreme, that not being called a faggot was almost offensive.  However I could see that if some stranger came up and told that to me, my older brother would have kicked his ass.  This word is definitely a hate word in a foreign context, but in the home it was very watered down connotation. Being called a faggot on a regular basis wasn’t so much of a simple reminder to “hey, don’t grow up to be a homosexual” or “I hate you” as it was “hey, don’t be weak, don’t cry, don’t complain”. It is more of a type of in home psychological training.  So this language and demeanor strongly depends on the context which it is used I think.  “Hate words” like that have an abstract meaning that has complex psychological implications.  It could be jealousy, it could be hate, it could be situation irony, people use this word in many different ways.  However usually this type of discrimination is used to break someone down mentally and place themselves above you or vice versa.  The best way I’ve found to deal with this jab at your existence is to become resistant to the objectification.  If you know who or what you, then the are insults are meaningless.  It merely becomes a blank word. Almost like the person just mispronounced your name, and you want to kindly correct them.  It really throws people off when someone calls you that and you just smile and ask them how their day is going and if they need help with anything.  It’s a complete objectification reversal.  But with this level of resistance built up I think you do not objectify yourself and separate yourself from the situation as much.  So I think the key is not necessarily fighting back, but is rather not reacting what so ever and being completely immune to random forms of hate and attempts at social separation.

This social separation issue runs deep in human psychology I believe in the attempt to understand the self and its relation with others.  This situation could be anything, ie in Nazi Germany there were little skin color differences, but the main discrimination target was Judaism.  Thinking about it now  this seems like a really random and obscure thing to discriminate against.  As if that culture had to work really hard to find something to infantilize and make inferior. Which it seems like people that are insecure with their existence tend to make such attempts at lifting themselves above another.  Skin color just happens to be the easiest target for someone psychologically insecure with themselves to attempt separate themselves from others.  As long as people are insecure with themselves I think social structures will always attempt to form a social hierarchy, the same as it happens on the individual “calling someone a faggot” level.  Personally, as a white male I haven’t had to deal with the racial inferiority existential issue, however there is a strong masculine issue to deal with growing up that I discussed earlier.  Everyone has their own struggle with autonomy and existence.  Mine personally at Rhodes was the greek system.  It dominates the social culture here almost the same as race. Initially, as someone completely ignorant of greek life when I transferred in here my sophomore year, my first reaction was similar to the objectification crisis. I wanted to tell it to fuck off and do my own thing and rise above the inferiority of not being greek.  However I realize that there’s nothing wrong with not changing who I am for a particular social system just as black people should not attempt to change being black, but what is wrong is how you (and how I reacted) react to it I think. And to some degree I reacted to it.  Just as if someone called me faggot and I called them a faggot back. However there does appear to be some sort of hedonistic autonomic pleasure to telling domineering social systems attempting to change who you are to fuck off however.  But the real key appears to be just being above the trauma and not letting it bother you if you can’t change it.  -Meaning to not necessarily fight back either and make enemies. The best appears to lead by example and others will follow.  I think this concept applies to all forms of existential crises.  Either lead, follow or just don’t worry about something you can’t change.  

What do you guys think?

Should people fight back against domineering systems and make enemies out of them or just ignore / rise above the abuse and eventually people will see that the oppressed are happy and others will follow?

Please comment!!! :D

Alienation, Anomie, and the "Gaze"

One theme which I found to be particularly interesting that was brought up in the readings this week was that of the experience of anomie/alienation for blacks living within a multitude of nations across the globe. This experience is a direct result of racism, a social fact which permeates all societies because of the shared history of colonization. Alienation is an experience referring to the physical and/or psychological distancing/isolation of the self from others. Similarly, anomie occurs when normative social order and moral guidance is broken down into a structural crisis leaving the individual feeling a sense of vertigo, confusion, and a loss of meaning or purpose in life. Ironically, Fanon points out, it is this same feeling that whites are trying to escape when they push and project it onto blacks and other people of color. “The presence of the Negroes beside the whites is in a way an insurance policy on humanness. When the whites feel that they have become too mechanized, they turn to the men of color and ask them for a little human sustenance.” When the capitalist system of labor begins to alienate whites from their products of labor, themselves, and their fellow man (Marx’s theory of alienation), they then turn around and use the power of their “gaze” to project that same feeling of anomie onto other races. For Fanon, this objectifying “gaze” of the whites transcends the subjectivity (“pour soi”) of blacks and forces them into a position of facticity (“en soi”).  Thus, as Du Bois pointed out, blacks are left strangely aware of a certain double consciousness. Fanon expounds upon this idea exclaiming, “I wanted to be typically Negro—it was no longer possible. I wanted to be white—that was a joke.” So what does this mean? Senghor believed that the only option left for the black man was that of negritude. He admitted that there were certain physical facts of race that could not be denied, but a battle could still be made on the grounds of culture to fight for the restoration of the black man. Unlike biological or physiological miscegenation which is non-voluntary and occurs spontaneously, cultural miscegenation, he says, is always voluntary, and we remain free to appropriate cultural values. Thus, blacks have a duty to fight for their own cultural identity, and negritude should exist in positive relation to the degree of alienation that blacks experience within society. Blacks have to create a racial identity for themselves through culture in order to have a position from which to fight their oppressors. But, as Fanon points, creating an identity based on the challenging predetermined assumptions of whites is counterproductive and unintentionally reifying. It creates a system which mirrors Hegel’s dialectic. Negritude, Fanon notes, mirrors “the theoretical and practical assertion of the supremacy of the white man is its thesis; the position of negritude as an antithetical value is the moment of negativity. But this negative moment is insufficient by itself…they know that it is intended to prepare the synthesis or realization of the human in a society without races. Thus negritude is the root of its own destruction, it is a transition and not a conclusion…” So, I ask, what do you do when stuck within a dialectic cycle? If the entire system is broken would everyone be left feelings a sense of anomie, depression, and desire? Or would we be able to move forward with a sense of positivity and hope for the future? Something new can only be created once the existing relationship is broken down. But, where do you start?

Before you ponder that extremely complex problem, here is a brief comic clip which reminded me of Fanon’s illustration of “the gaze” courtesy of Dave Chappelle.