Frantz Fanon The Wrenched Of The Earth Summary

Normocephalic atraumatic. Pupils equally round and reactive to light, extraocular motions intact. Oral cavity shows oropharynx clear but slightly dried mucosal membranes. TM (tympanic membranes) clear. Neck, supple. There is no thyromegaly, no JVD. No cervical supraclavicular, axillary, or inguinal lymphadenopathy.

Summary of Diane Mooney’s “Newfoundlandese, If You Please” In Diane Mooney’s expository essay “Newfoundlandese, If You Please,” she discussed the relationship between the cultures and languages, and how the cultures influence the dialect in different regions in Newfoundland. She narrated her own story to explain the difficulty of understanding the dialect of French descendant in Newfoundland even she is from an Irish migration on the East Coast. She gives some example of different region of Newfoundland has its own enunciation. She cited the speech could tell who settled on this land first and in which area.

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

Non-violence is a peaceful strategy people used in the 1900’s to revolt against the government. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mohandas Gandhi had the most success in changing the way we live today. How did they get nonviolence to work? Well they were very disobedient, disciplined, and determined to make a change in society.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

In Martin Luther King Jr.’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he expresses his belief that nonviolence is the key to peace and equality. In his speech, King states that he will not “accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction” (2). This statement shows how dedicated Martin Luther King Jr. is to showing that violence is not the answer. He refuses to let his followers stand witness and partake in sending nations down a violent road. King mentions in his speech several times the tragedy of violence, guiding readers away from any more destruction by refusing to accept any more violence in this fight for peace and equality. In addition to this, King uses

We see brutality everywhere, we approach a problem with the easy way out, violence. That's the solution we all resort to when we see no change or when we feel that the injustices that have been done are too much to go unanswered for. Civil rights activist Cesar Chavez published an article claiming that nonviolent resistance has always been more beneficial than violent protest. Chavez’s purpose in this article is to advertise the negative effects of violence and provide a solution for it. In his article Chavez uses an inspirational and objective tone to illustrate how the effects of nonviolent resistance over time outweigh those of violent protest, he creates an appeal to emotion, logic, and authority to persuade followers of God, minorities, and people who have suffered injustices that have gone unanswered for. Chavez uses many rhetorical devices, the most prominent being: repetition, rhetorical questions and allusions to explain why nonviolence protest is better to accomplish their efforts.

The history of violence in the world is well documented. However it is also possible to use non-violence to bring about change. This DBQ will look at two countries where a non-violent movement was successful.

To achieve peace by disobeying the law seems counter-intuitive. The structures of society support the morals of a nation, but still with human nature comes the possibility of unjust laws and discrimination. Civil leaders such as Gandhi, Thoreau, and Martin Luther King Jr., preached and lived the necessity of civil disobedience and peaceful protest. Nowadays, organizing a movement is relatively easy, but with every assembly there appears to be a select few who radicalize and incite violence. When peaceful resistance is maintained throughout the entirety of the movement, then there will be positive outcomes. Unlike the armed militants of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge whose message of violence and chaos was rejected by

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

Mankind has long accepted violence as a fair means to achieve equality. In human history, the most thorough changes are brought in by the most radical overthrow of the old structure, knocking down the walls that separated the silent majority from the minority, sweeping aside the commands of the oppressors, tearing down the chains of oppression that once trapped them away from their inherent rights of freedom, in an effort to achieve justice for themselves and their countries. Revolutions in particular illustrated that the groups that desire reform but are willing to compromise for stability, take longer to implement changes, while the groups that are more devoted to revolutionary change and are often unafraid to use violence, could implement

The Europeans used violence as a tool in the initial colonization of Africa, in the World Wars against their own African soldiers and against other European countries, and in attempts to quell African independence movements (Laumann). Africans participated in the violence of many wars in the 1900’s and in freedom movements. Fidel Castro, a Cuban hero of the revolution, is a good example of colonial African violence to gain independence from Europe. He provided African nations with “Cuban military, technical, and medical assistance” as well as made contact with various “leaders of guerilla movements” (Laumann 71). Nelson Mandela is another revolutionary hero who helped free South Africa with the help of Fidel Castro. This is the primary difference in the moral argument of violence in colonial Africa, the World Wars era and the independence of African nation states. European countries implemented violence for the sake of control and power. They created a hierarchy system and placed themselves at the top while using violence to keep everyone else in line. The African soldiers, though some were volunteers, were forced into violence by the European powers. Later, they were forced to violence by the need to defend their homeland from the unjust colonization. Mandela was referred to as a terrorist in his time due to his violent tactics. Since the reasoning behind the violence on each side stems

Martin Luther King Jr. and President Barack Obama both have similar viewpoints on how to handle problems, but their positions in society make them think differently about when violence actually needed to obtain peace. King is a firm believer that nonviolence is the best way to obtain a goal and proves so when he says that nonviolence is the answer to the biggest political question of the time, and he is clearly stating that nonviolence is the answer to the big problem of that time period, which just happens to be the injustice of discrimination. Another example of King showing that he is a firm believer in nonviolence is when he says the method for solving any conflict must not include any form of aggression, revenge, or retaliation. Here King makes a clear statement that the key to solving any problem is not to use any form of violence. On the other hand, Obama makes it apparent that he believes that violence is necessary at a certain time to maintain peace and to keep the peace. So, when Obama says that nonviolence could not have stopped Hitler's armies, he gave a clear example of a time when nonviolence would not have worked. Hitler is one of the most infamous people in the history of the world and his rampage across the world could not have been stopped by sit-ins or a few nonviolent rallies; he had to be stopped with force, or he would have continued to murder more and more innocent people until he had no one else to murder. Another example of Obama’s viewpoint is when

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

In Frantz Fanon’s text “Concerning Violence” he establishes his response to colonization and decolonization to be the simple act of violence against the oppressor. I find that Fanon’s reasoning’s for using the sole practice of violence to directly reflect his past experiences. Fanon was affected directly and indirectly by experiencing the Fascist and Colonial violence as an African man and also witnessing the atrocities of his peers while growing up in Martinique. He also witnessed the atrocities of WWII when he fought against Nazi Germany and during the Algerian War as Algerians tried to gain independence from France. His only answer to the dehumanizing violent atrocities was to fight back with extreme violence to regain freedom from the world’s