Talk:The Wretched of the Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Translation question
This article says that Richard Philcox's translation is better-accepted than Constance Farrington's -- I'm just wondering if anyone has a source for this? I'm not disagreeing with the claim (I have read the entire book in the original, but only pieces of Farrington's translation and none of Philcox's). I'm just wondering what about Philcox's translation makes it preferable. Anyway, that's a claim that should be cited in the article. My rain face 09:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"We believe that the conscious and organized undertaking by a colonized peopole to re-establish the sovereingty of that nation constitutes the most complete and obvious cultural manifestation that exists."
Frantz Fanon The Wretched of the Earth
[edit] Wimpy Anti-"Violence" proaganda
This is definitely to be flagged for NPOV. Too bad I'm too distracted these days by other "non-violent" events like the ongoing massacres in Lebanon and Ghaza -- and everywhere else the 'legitimate' governments and ruling-class have an interest.
Only the brainwashed product of a comfortable middle-class lifestyle can write such garbage about abstract "violence" (boo-hoo). I wonder how much "violence" the police in the locale where the writer lives practice daily on the heads of the local underclass? But I'll bet this writer doesn't frequent those neighborhoods...
This is pure imperialist propaganda: what's really being said is that the so-called 'authorities' have the right to murder people by the millions; but we're not supposed to say 'boo'. Instead, we're 'allowed' to practice this "non-violence" shite while we're supposedly patiently waiting to be butchered at their leisure. Garbage. NPOV please.
Frantz Fanon was a hero of the Algerian Revolution. The Wikipedia writer is a sleazy wimp. Change it.
Pazouzou 03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
read your comment carefully and what you are arguing about seems to be lost. I think this article is a little skewered in the wording of a couple of sentences. In particular the reading of the chapter 'on violence' is less advocating of violence than Satre's introduction. Furthermore the thesis itself does far more than advocate violence and I would urge Pazouzou to also consider the humanitarian grounding of Fanon that is increasingly evident as the text proceeds. This critique seems unfocussed. As a close reader of Fanon I would like to ask what you feel the amendments might be rather than questioning the privilege of the author. I will however do some housecleaning on the article in response. --Peej 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
