5 ms·

The Rebel’s Clinic: A biography of Frantz Fanon

26 points by Thevet 3y ago

mxroeoek 3y ago
[dead]
mitchbob 3y ago
https://archive.ph/nJBHA https://archive.ph/nJBHA
blast 3y ago
Also interesting about Fanon: https://mg.co.za/article/2019-06-06-00-the-radical-afterlives-of-frantz-fanon/ https://mg.co.za/article/2019-06-06-00-the-radical-afterlive...
rramadass 3y ago
Quite interesting perspectives but the actual article's title is named "The doctor who saw colonialism as a sickness". So the editorializing of the title is quite uncalled for. Some notable takeaways (still applicable today albeit under different guises); > As a pioneer of “social therapy,” an approach that classified personal pathologies as political symptoms, > he grasped that racism was an abyss in its own right. > the psychic distortions that imperialism inflicts on colonists and colonized alike. > He saw firsthand that colonialism exiles us from ourselves: > At the core of Fanon’s increasingly radical approach to mental health care was his conviction that, as Shatz puts it, “some forms of psychological suffering have their roots not in an individual’s psychic constitution but in oppressive social relations.” > The forms that mental illness takes within a certain society are good guides to its neuroses, and Fanon knew well that the racist phobias and fantasies of his European patients functioned as windows onto the world that colonialism had wrought. > But even the most innovative clinical techniques did not go far enough for Fanon, who knew that political solutions are the only long-term remedy for political diseases. Colonialism is “a system of pathological relations masquerading as normality,” Shatz eloquently writes, > In his view, anti-colonial violence was “a kind of medicine, rekindling a sense of power and self-mastery” that allowed the colonized to recover their dignity by way of self-assertion. > The abolition of imperialism was the best medicine, both for Algerians and for everyone else who lived under colonialism, but in the interim, its indignities smarted — and even after it was dismantled, its traumas would linger. > At a conference in 1956, he warned against the “exoticism” that occupiers often adopt toward native populations, > All of them were victims of what Fanon called the “mental disorders of colonial warfare,” which plagued him in equal measure. In a world so sick, no one could be cured, not even the doctors.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pvg 3y ago
  So the editorializing of the title is quite uncalled for. This is one of the weedsier HN title rules, book review titles are changed to the title of the book.
stareatgoats 3y ago
Frantz Fanon was a central figure to the anti-colonial movements that arose in the so-called third world in the latter part of the last century, in the countries that were at the tail end of the decolonization era. His influence as an inspirator can hardly be underestimated, and it spread to various anti-racist leftist movements in the co-called first world too. He embodied the ideology that always arises where there is discernible injustices and oppression: that of opposing military might with military means, and with slight concern for the civilians that get caught in the middle. It is the streak in anti-oppression movements that loathe pacifism and the tactics of people like MLK and Gandhi. It was certainly an inspiration to Malcolm X, and the Black Panther movement. It is likely an inspiration for Hamas. One might be tempted to approve of his thinking and the explicit condoning of violence, and argue that it no different that the violence perpetrated by the colonizers, occupiers, oppressors. But careful analysis seems to me indicate that there is a difference - the societies liberated by such ideologies become unruly as they essentially condone violence as means to an end, and might be why societies like South Africa are now riddled with violence like almost no other country in the world. We need to get away from this endless downward spiral of violence. The only viable alternative seems to be appealing to the conscience of the honorable people that make up the bulk of any society, even though they might be caught up as cogs in an oppressive machinery. The powerful should be given the chance to demonstrate that they are not in fact the monsters that they may appear to be in the eyes of the oppressed. A revival of the philosophy of Gandhi and MLK for our age, in other words.
- debok 3y ago
  The South African situation is very nuanced. The ANC had a violent faction, and a more peaceful faction aimed at reconciliation. The well-known Nelson Mandela belonged to the latter faction. Note that I said "more peaceful" and not "peaceful." Nelson Mandela also participated in sabotage attacks during Apartheid. Those two factions are still alive in the ANC now that it is the ruling party. It just takes a different shape now that violence isn't the modus operandi anymore. You could call it a far-left radical faction, and a moderate faction. The far-left radical faction is heavily influenced by Fanon, they openly admit it. Also on the far-left you have the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) who were kicked out of the ANC for being too far-left. They also claim to be Fanonian. They are openly calling for violence, while simultaneously denying that they are calling for violence. The violence prevalent in South Africa is caused by a wide array of causes, of which I expect Fanonian thought to be one of the lesser causes (but a cause none-the-less). A bigger cause is an inept and corrupt government by a political party that is still stuck in revolutionary rhetoric 30 years after it's victory. Their inept and corrupt governance caused degradation in law-enforcement, to the point where it is almost non-existent. Pair this with the abject poverty and fatherlessness caused by Apartheid, and you have yourself an unruly and violent populace. Fanonian thought only factors in when things get political. In my opinion that is less commonplace than the media (both mainstream and otherwise) suggests. Our violence is mostly just normal plain old crime.
hackandthink 3y ago
[flagged]
Perceval 3y ago
Another recent review: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/15/the-rebels-clinic-the-revolutionary-lives-of-frantz-fanon-adam-shatz-book-review-the-complete-man-ian-fleming https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/15/the-rebels-cli...
Corvus 3y ago
CBC Radio had a documentary on Fanon, including archive interviews with people who knew him. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decolonizing-the-mind-the-life-and-work-of-frantz-fanon-1.6609671 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decolonizing-the-mind-the-lif...

26 points by Thevet 3y ago

mxroeoek 3y ago

[dead]

mitchbob 3y ago

https://archive.ph/nJBHA https://archive.ph/nJBHA

blast 3y ago

Also interesting about Fanon: https://mg.co.za/article/2019-06-06-00-the-radical-afterlives-of-frantz-fanon/ https://mg.co.za/article/2019-06-06-00-the-radical-afterlive...

rramadass 3y ago

Quite interesting perspectives but the actual article's title is named "The doctor who saw colonialism as a sickness". So the editorializing of the title is quite uncalled for. Some notable takeaways (still applicable today albeit under different guises); > As a pioneer of “social therapy,” an approach that classified personal pathologies as political symptoms, > he grasped that racism was an abyss in its own right. > the psychic distortions that imperialism inflicts on colonists and colonized alike. > He saw firsthand that colonialism exiles us from ourselves: > At the core of Fanon’s increasingly radical approach to mental health care was his conviction that, as Shatz puts it, “some forms of psychological suffering have their roots not in an individual’s psychic constitution but in oppressive social relations.” > The forms that mental illness takes within a certain society are good guides to its neuroses, and Fanon knew well that the racist phobias and fantasies of his European patients functioned as windows onto the world that colonialism had wrought. > But even the most innovative clinical techniques did not go far enough for Fanon, who knew that political solutions are the only long-term remedy for political diseases. Colonialism is “a system of pathological relations masquerading as normality,” Shatz eloquently writes, > In his view, anti-colonial violence was “a kind of medicine, rekindling a sense of power and self-mastery” that allowed the colonized to recover their dignity by way of self-assertion. > The abolition of imperialism was the best medicine, both for Algerians and for everyone else who lived under colonialism, but in the interim, its indignities smarted — and even after it was dismantled, its traumas would linger. > At a conference in 1956, he warned against the “exoticism” that occupiers often adopt toward native populations, > All of them were victims of what Fanon called the “mental disorders of colonial warfare,” which plagued him in equal measure. In a world so sick, no one could be cured, not even the doctors.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pvg 3y ago
So the editorializing of the title is quite uncalled for. This is one of the weedsier HN title rules, book review titles are changed to the title of the book.

stareatgoats 3y ago

Frantz Fanon was a central figure to the anti-colonial movements that arose in the so-called third world in the latter part of the last century, in the countries that were at the tail end of the decolonization era. His influence as an inspirator can hardly be underestimated, and it spread to various anti-racist leftist movements in the co-called first world too. He embodied the ideology that always arises where there is discernible injustices and oppression: that of opposing military might with military means, and with slight concern for the civilians that get caught in the middle. It is the streak in anti-oppression movements that loathe pacifism and the tactics of people like MLK and Gandhi. It was certainly an inspiration to Malcolm X, and the Black Panther movement. It is likely an inspiration for Hamas. One might be tempted to approve of his thinking and the explicit condoning of violence, and argue that it no different that the violence perpetrated by the colonizers, occupiers, oppressors. But careful analysis seems to me indicate that there is a difference - the societies liberated by such ideologies become unruly as they essentially condone violence as means to an end, and might be why societies like South Africa are now riddled with violence like almost no other country in the world. We need to get away from this endless downward spiral of violence. The only viable alternative seems to be appealing to the conscience of the honorable people that make up the bulk of any society, even though they might be caught up as cogs in an oppressive machinery. The powerful should be given the chance to demonstrate that they are not in fact the monsters that they may appear to be in the eyes of the oppressed. A revival of the philosophy of Gandhi and MLK for our age, in other words.

debok 3y ago
The South African situation is very nuanced. The ANC had a violent faction, and a more peaceful faction aimed at reconciliation. The well-known Nelson Mandela belonged to the latter faction. Note that I said "more peaceful" and not "peaceful." Nelson Mandela also participated in sabotage attacks during Apartheid. Those two factions are still alive in the ANC now that it is the ruling party. It just takes a different shape now that violence isn't the modus operandi anymore. You could call it a far-left radical faction, and a moderate faction. The far-left radical faction is heavily influenced by Fanon, they openly admit it. Also on the far-left you have the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) who were kicked out of the ANC for being too far-left. They also claim to be Fanonian. They are openly calling for violence, while simultaneously denying that they are calling for violence. The violence prevalent in South Africa is caused by a wide array of causes, of which I expect Fanonian thought to be one of the lesser causes (but a cause none-the-less). A bigger cause is an inept and corrupt government by a political party that is still stuck in revolutionary rhetoric 30 years after it's victory. Their inept and corrupt governance caused degradation in law-enforcement, to the point where it is almost non-existent. Pair this with the abject poverty and fatherlessness caused by Apartheid, and you have yourself an unruly and violent populace. Fanonian thought only factors in when things get political. In my opinion that is less commonplace than the media (both mainstream and otherwise) suggests. Our violence is mostly just normal plain old crime.

hackandthink 3y ago

[flagged]

Perceval 3y ago

Another recent review: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/15/the-rebels-clinic-the-revolutionary-lives-of-frantz-fanon-adam-shatz-book-review-the-complete-man-ian-fleming https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/15/the-rebels-cli...

Corvus 3y ago

CBC Radio had a documentary on Fanon, including archive interviews with people who knew him. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decolonizing-the-mind-the-life-and-work-of-frantz-fanon-1.6609671 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decolonizing-the-mind-the-lif...