Talk:Frantz Fanon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Duplicate articles

There were two articles on Fanon (Frantz and Franz). <KF> 01:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category of writer

Shouldn't Fanon be categorized as Carribean writer? Or maybe French? At least Francophone? Or African diasporic? Anti-racist? Anti-colonial? He wasn't an Algerian national. - Guppy 09:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its a difficult one... I'd be inclined to agree, I think he could be definately classed as Carribean, or French or Francophone, but I think his connection to Algeria, the fact that he wrote so extensively about it, his burial there, work for the government warrants his inclusion in this category. Furthermore, he certainly was an Algerian in the sense that he was an inhabitant of Algeria. I'm thinking hard about this for the fr:Frantz Fanon article aswell. FrancisTyers 04:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Writers on philosophy are divided: some include him as African, others cite him as a relevant non-African philosopher, others ignore him altogether. On some of the central definition of African philosophy he certainly counts (good grief, I'm listed on one Web site as an African philosopher, and I'm a white Englishman who sometimes writes on African philosophy). My personal feeling is to go with the second approach, and treat him as relevant to but not part of African philosophy. What do others think? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fanon's work has had an impact on postcolonial thought and in particular postcolonial writing. His efforts to try to create a true Algerian identity in the wake of the end of French occupation demonstrate his commitment to recovering a positive ethnic identity which Algerians could rally around and lead them to prosper as a nation free of colonial influence. As such Fanon's work is important for all post-colonial nations. Whether Fanon is to be considered Algerian or French is not the question, but his influence has been felt specifically in postcolonial literature and theory throughout Africa, India, the Caribbean, S. E. Asia and even, to a certain extent in colonial nations such as Britain, France. L. P. Mackenzie 12.32 , 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Chirac statement really useful

Is it necessary to say that Jacques Chirac was stationed in Algeria during the Independence War in the middle of a sentence about torture in Algeria. I have never ever seen the slightest glimpse of Chirac implication in torture in Algeria,

[edit] NPOV?

From the last paragraph: "There is a sharp disjuncture between western academic usage of Fanon and Third World approaches. The former remains locked in a wrongheaded view of Fanon as an advocate of violence while the latter are concerned with overcoming the overwhelming physical and psychological violence of colonialist/imperialist power." Seems a bit eh... Mikkel 06:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's POV and/or misleading (Fanon clearly was an advocate of violence, although that's by no means all he was. I've changed it. VoluntarySlave 05:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, as a student at a prominent Ivy League university, I can attest that the sentence about academia is just false. Fanon is mentioned all the time, and I've never even heard of him being associated with anything violent. He is always invoked in the context of serious postcolonial theory and colonial consciousness, stuff like that. I find it hard to believe that postcolonial discourse taking place in former colonies has somehow reached a more bloodless pitch than it has here, if that's even possible. I'm not changing anything b/c I'm not an authoritythis, but I have left this message so as to suggest to someone a more qualified appraisal of fanon's academic reception. Hgparker 04:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that a big reason why people would think that western academics percieve Fanon as advocating violence is because Sartre always talked about that aspect of his writing. Secondly is the Richard Perle quote that the "Wretched of the Earth are so desperate that they do not fear death at the hands of what they see as the Great Satan." (National Post, 9-19-2001) This paragraph, then, should make a distinction for how Fanon is sometimes (mis?)read as primarily justifying violence rather than primarily advocating liberation. Smmurphy 05:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The thing about Sartre may be true, but Sartre was not part of the academic establishment in his time, nor do his works enjoy today any kind of non-passing-interest reception (I say this despite being a fan). We don't think of Baudrillard as a "terrorist" despite his rhetoric to that effect in some of his works. I completely agree with you about the distinction in reading Fanon (as violently or non-violently), and this distinction needs to be stressed, definitely. I just don't know if it's fair or accurate to assign the (mis)reading squarely to "academia." With that in mind I've edited the passage in question from

"There is a sharp disjuncture between western academic usage of Fanon and Third World approaches. The former continue to concentrate on Fanon solely as an advocate of violence, while the latter are concerned with overcoming the overwhelming physical and psychological violence of colonialist/imperialist power"

to "There is a sharp disjunction between the two dominant readings of Fanon, loosely associated with the West and Third World. The former concentrates on Fanon solely as an advocate of violence, while the latter is concerned with overcoming the overwhelming physical and psychological violence of colonialist/imperialist power." 140.180.150.213 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work, but I think that that part can just be axed. - FrancisTyers 21:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if it needs to be cut out, I think that we are just making that paragraph vague so that we don't have to figure out which leading scholars or groups hold which views. How about changing that part to:
...the Black Panthers, and many other movements for self-determination. The legacy of these varied groups has led to distinct readings of Fanon, based on the degree of emphasis placed on his militant means and his cultural liberation ends. Amoung some western leaders he is considered an advocate and apologist for violence (reference Perle quote), while to many post-colonial theorists his work established a template for overcoming the overwhelming physical and especially psychological violence of colonial and imperial oppression (do we need a reference here?). On the other hand, to the revolutionary leaders themselves, Fanon serves an ambiguous role: his goal appeals to humanitarianism and is lauded by the domestic and international left, while his acceptance of violence justifies and inspires gurrilla tactics for those who fight the battles.
The last sentence needs work, or may be left out. Hopefully this is acceptable in Princeton without removing the idea that two major and many possible minor readings of Fanon are important today. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd need a ref for that, also for the "revolutionary leaders" part too. Perhaps change to:
The political advisor Richard Perle considers Fanon to be an advocate and apologist for violence.
If we don't have quotes from other western leaders? PS. "amoung" -> "among". - FrancisTyers 21:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to blindly quote mine, but if I think about it long enough, I am sure I can figure out a French leader who has said something similar to Perle. The revolutionary leaders part would be found in a constructive comparitive politics text (again, I'll look this week). Once the sources are found, I'll plug that back in. P.S. I am thinking about starting a clandestine campaign to change the spelling of that word. If anyone wanted a hundred free edits added to their count, making that change in articles I've edited would do it. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL! I misspell it all the time aswell. It still looks wrong to me even now, even though I've looked it up in the dictionary countless times :) - FrancisTyers 22:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See Also?

Many of the things mentioned in the "see also" section are already mentioned in the article, and indeed in the templates for Pan Africanism at the bottom. Couldn't names such as Steve Biko's could be removed from the "see also," as its already in the article and at the bottom. Basically, I'm looking for reasons to leave any of the "see alsos" at the end, especially if they are already discussed in the article. Right now race theory, Marxist humanism, black/double consciousness, and existentialism are the only major things under "see also" that aren't mentioned in the article but should most definitely be - names of similar thinkers or groups that Fanon has influenced could go into other sections as well. The three schools of though/ideas could be included in the article fairly smoothly. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are included in the article then I don't think there is any reason to also put them in See also. I'd feel free to remove them. Phaedrus86 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of breadth in work section

How would something like this be cited? I mean, it seems to me we could just list the table of contents of a couple of his published works, and it would be clear that he is talking about these different subjects. If noone minds, I think I'll remove the "citation needed" thing, there. Also, we should update the page to conform to WP:FOOT. If I get around to it, and I mess up anything, let me know. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to find something that says the same thing, so we can cite that. It looks to me that the whole article is lifted from somewhere else. If we knew where then there might be copyright issues, and we would be obliged to rewrite it. As long as we don't then I think we should try and source all the statements made. Compared to most good Wikipedia articles there is an amazing lack of citation. I'll try and help out. Phaedrus86 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You can go ahead and look for that, I still think it seems a silly thing for which to ask for a citation. Otherwise, I used this article a couple years ago as a starting point for a presentation, so I went through quite a few of these references. I can probably dig up my sources, if you wanted to tag everything you think needs a citation that I don't get to. The basic skeleton of the article was written by Emkamau in June 2003, which I'm pretty sure wasn't copied. The article has grown steadily since then, and although individual sentences may be lifted (a problem with all of WP), I haven't noticed anything blatant since I've been around. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you find your sources then it would be handy to put them on the talk page, but please don't go out of your way. I will just keep trawling the Internet. I didn't mean to be insulting to previous authors, and I apologise if it looked that way. I can see by the history that you are quite right, the article evolved and was not copied. I think citations would help. I know that if I read an article that has lots of details that I can't immediately check, then I look for some sort of corroboration. If it's an academic work, you might be able to trust it. If it's Wikipedia or some other online volunteer encyclopedia then I don't know where the material comes from so I can't trust it. If there are lots of citations that I can immediately check to verify the material is from reliable sources then I can trust it more. People tell a lot of lies on the Internet :-) Phaedrus86 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in the arts

This article is beginning to develop a pop culture section. I understand that some feel the need to chronicle every mention of their favorite star by their other favorite star, and I see that WP is a place where that can possibly be acceptable. However, it is in a very real sense, trivia, which we should avoid (see WP:TRIV). What we should do is integrate these references into the article. By integrate, here we mean give the references context under which we can see how and why Fanon's name is used by others. From WP:TRIV:

Sections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article are a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Don't simply remove it, but seek to minimize it. It is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article. Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all.

I have tried to contextualize a couple of the references. In music, for instance, I've taken a couple from major artists, where information about the artists motives as well as the lyrics of the songs are readily available. The other mentions are either "pending integration" or "lacking sufficient context". Where mentions are not notable, however, they should be removed. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll delete the uncontexed references if no one has any problem with it. From here on out, we should endeavor to put references and context to references to Fanon in the arts. If anyone adds such, I don't see a problem with removing it if it doesn't seem to be notable and integrated/integratable into the article. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negritude

I would disagree with Fanon being described as a "negritude theorist". Though he was influenced by Aime Cesaire and felt that negritude was at least in some ways a step forward, Fanon disagreed with negritude. He felt that an individual's existence preceded his or her's essence, which is not in keeping with negritude. I think that part should be removed. Any thoughts? 65.95.175.173 23:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct (although I'm not sure how that the existentialist motto is a good starting point to understanding Fanon). That reference in the "arts" section is (probably my) sloppy writing. The article could probably do with a section on Fanon's influences, where talk of "negritude" could go. I'll add a stub of that with the connection between Fanon and negritude. There is lots more, though, so feel free to help out. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)