Frantz Fanon Superstition

Over the past seven centuries, there has been a change of power triggering the change in values, culture and politics. These changes benefited some people while it isolated, alienated others. This feeling of alienation sparked the flame to various rebellions. In this essay, I am going to argue how alienation, caused by shifts in value, culture and political, caused specific rebellions during the colonial era, the antebellum era, post antebellum and the civil rights movement.

The process of decolonization proved to have its own struggles within those who were seeking their independence from imperialist powers. Evidently, these nationalist movements were different in many regions, but they generally shared the sentiment that “Westernization” had taken something away from them. This proved to be the case in Africa and Asia, where the colonization movement from imperialist powers was of strong presence, and that had trouble weakening during and after the Cold War. Part of this struggle was due to the forms of government that were imposed, and because many of these colonies had been in this position for such long time that they were not able to predict upcoming conflicts after their independence. However, in many cases, the problems were more complicated and often implied a combination of reaction to westernization and internal conflicts. Undoubtedly,

Throughout history, humanity has always yearned for better. When a leader, as an individual or an entire government, ceases to fuel their nation’s drive for better, the citizens take it into their own hands. From this sovereignty of the people, the idea of revolution is born. This idea has become prominent many times. One can analyze a country like France. Due to the government’s selfish actions, the third estate revolted. In countries like Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico, the citizens were tired of strict rule from a power that is an ocean away. This caused the people in Latin America to revolt against their leader, Spain. Although the French and Latin American Revolutions both were inspired by the American Revolution and Enlightenment ideas, the French Revolution was vastly unsuccessful compared to the Latin American Revolution which brought freedom to many countries.

A revolution, by definition, is the overthrow of one government followed by replacement with another. The American Revolution against the British during 1775 to 1783 and the French Revolution pitting the French people against their own government during 1789 to 1799 were both very important political and social turnovers. This movement towards the establishment of a constitutional government influenced political thought throughout the world. By closely examining three of the main causes of these revolutions, it is clear that although the two revolutions have their differences, the basis of cause for the revolutions have, overall, much stronger similarities.

Rebellion is not only caused by a restless revolutionary riot, but it can also be caused by small simple actions that

By depicting a sense of morals, Chavez is able to support the nature of nonviolence over any other possibility. The simplicity put into a single civil movement, allows for millions to participate from all across the country. The American people “yearn for justice,” and it is such yearning that appeals to such large crowds. Chavez also states that nonviolence “provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive.” By doing so, there is an advantage over the opposing side. Once escalated and turned violent, there is a “total demoralization” of the causae. In order to remain as morally good as the cause being fought, Chavez demonstrates how nonviolence would accomplish such.

The eighteenth century revolutions predate the Marxist framework which would ultimately changed the way in which revolutions are understood; as highly participatory mass-moments which sought to change some kind of social order. Gordon Wood acknowledges this as he states; “The social distinctions and economic deprivations that we today think of as the consequences of class divisions…were in the eighteenth century usually thought to be caused by abuses in government.” Skocpol also acknowledges the difference between modern and what the “liberal revolutions” of the eighteenth century. She writes that all revolutions that occur within the modern capitalist systems accomplish nothing but a more concentrated and centralized state bureaucracy. However Skocpol’s analysis takes a retrospective structuralist approach to understanding these eighteenth century social revolutions. Her analysis does not rely on the deprivation hypothesis nor any kind of ideology, but instead highlights the importance of the “revolutionary moment” where elites and peasants unite (through an “equal powers” negotiation) against the state (Stevens 10/16/17). By applying Skocpol’s model to the French, Haitian, and American Revolutions, we can see how well it holds up when applied to these various intertwined 18th century revolutions despite their drastically different outcomes.

Beginning in 1789, the French Revolution was a time of rebellion, passion, betrayal, death, violence, and perseverance. Before 1789, King Louis XVI was taxing his poorest people heavily, whilst the rich were hardly taxed at all. The socioeconomic system in place at the time, known as the ancien regime, ruthlessly upheld the status quo. When the tension in France rose to a boiling point, fiery, young rebels to rose up against the Monarchy, the Ancien Regime, and the Clergy. These revolutionaries desperately wanted change, and they had three main principles around which their movement centered: Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité. Liberty is the freedom to do as one pleases so long as one’s actions do not unjustifiably harm others. Equality is being considered the same. Fraternity is a sense of brotherhood and companionship. The goals of the French Revolution were initially achieved with alacrity, however they were abandoned with relative quickness as malcontented leaders quested for, and abused, power and authority.

The violence in France will not stop until equality is reached. The revolutionaries picture a time when all the people of France live equal. This reasoning is the core factor of why they are fighting against the system. When we learned the motive for Madame Defarge’s reasoning for hating the Marquis and anyone associated with him, she replies that everyone against the revolution should “...tell the Wind and Fire where to stop; not me!” (326). We learn here that she has not intent to stop until she gets even with the Evrémonde family. Madame Defarge’s idea of equality is the death of Charles Darnay and everyone associated with him. When Madame Defarge and Defarge were discussing the end of the revolution Defarge asked the question, “but one must stop somewhere. After all, the question is still where?” (324). Defarge questions Madame Defarge’s intent to stop somewhere but Madame Defarge replies with “At extermination” (324). This strengthens the fact that Madame Defarge believes the revolution will be complete with the death

Burkina Faso’s energy resources are limited to four (4) hydropower installations. All the hydrocarbons need to fuel the country are imported from the neighbouring countries having access to the sea, because Burkina Faso does not have any domestic oil resource (Ouédraogo, 2010). Burkina Faso is among the poorest countries in the world and the GDP is evaluated to $12.88 billion in 2013 (World Bank, 2013). Only 18% of the population has access to electricity including 40% in urban area and 3% in rural area. Burkina Faso has the highest electricity’s price in Africa; and is approaching 35 US cents the kWh due to the high price of the fuel imports (Briceño-Garmendia and Domínguez-Torres, 2011).

Decolonization is the undoing of colonialism, where a nation establishes and maintains its domination over dependent territories. In the words of Fanon, in the reading The Wretched of the Earth, “National liberation, national reawakening, restoration of the na­tion to the people or Commonwealth, whatever the name used, whatever the latest expression, decolonization is always a violent event.” (Fanon, 1). Frantz Fanon was one of many authors who supported decolonization struggles occurring after World War II. He breaks down decolonization into two senses: one being the physical act of freeing a territory from external control of a colonizer, and the other being the psychological act of freeing the consciousness of the native from the alienation caused by colonization. Fanon particularly advocated that violence was justified by overthrowing colonial oppression. In his reading, The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon wrote on why and how colonialism must be stopped. Fanon argued that the colonial infrastructure must be destroyed. “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is clearly an agenda for total disorder. But it cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic wand, a natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement. Decolonization, we know, is an historical process: In other words, it can only be understood, it can only find its significance and become self coherent insofar as we can discern the history-making movement which gives it form and substance,”

Franz Fanon, in his seminal work The Wretched of the Earth, argues that decolonisation alias restoring nationhood is always a ‘violent phenomenon’: “To tell the truth, the proof of success lies in a whole social structure being changed from the bottom up…. If we wish to describe it precisely, we might find it in the well-known words: "The last shall be first and the first last." Decolonization is the putting into practice of this sentence.”

Such an attitude entails drastic and violent methods. Through this violence the revolution can succeed. Yet even after the colonial regime is removed, the infrastructure that was imposed continues to control the people. The bourgeoisie, the individuals who led the revolution leave the proletariat and the peasants disappointed. That which they have been promised is often unfulfilled or can only be considered insufficient. The spirit of revolution remains, and in time the proletariat will rise again, continuing to trust in the process.

The first step would be to get a handle on it. “Direction”, what is it, where is it and how does it function?

Throughout history many societies have, and will likely continue to have revolutions as we as humans strive towards a utopian society. Each and every one of these revolution follows some pattern, a pattern that most often includes a great number of civilian casualties. But what is it that pushes such revolutions forward? Why have people risked and given their lives fighting against their own leadership? Looking at both the French Revolution and the Arab Spring can help uncover the answer to these questions, as for people to willingly risk their lives, they must have been living in destitute situations. Both of these societies did indeed have many social and economic problems, as well as a poor quality of life, specifically for the bottom class, or in the case of the French Revolution, the Third Estate. It is because of these issues that the people stood up to their leaders and demanded a better life, overtaking the government in the process.