critique of fanon:
Instead of decolonisation evoking for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it, we could conceive of decolonisation as a fundamental societal change, a radical change in both the economy and the broader societal values regarding social relations such as race relations and class relations. It is through such a programme that colonised people find their freedom. It is not, as Fanon claims, through violence that the colonised people find their freedom
(...) Fanon argues that violence for the colonised is therapeutic, that it is a “cleansing force”. As Albert (2004) points out, this is nonsense. “…violence has horrible effects on its perpetrators, more often than not causing them to devalue human life and elevate themselves to a higher status than others….” (p. 181) Colonial societies serve as evidence to support this view. And, there is no evidence to make us believe that violence perpetrated by the other side will not have the same effects.
(...) Fanon argues that the middle-class of the new post-colonial state is under-developed because it is reduced in numbers, has no capital, and is totally opposed to the revolutionary path. Eventually it falls into deplorable stagnation. For this middle-class, nationalisation of the economy simply means the transfer into native hands of those unfair advantages which are a legacy of the colonial period. Also, this middle-class “…will be quite content with the role of the Western bourgeoise’s business agent, and it will play its part without any complexes in a most dignified manner.” (p. 122)
(...)
Fanon adds that after independence this middle-class does not hesitate to invest the money it makes out of its native soil in foreign banks. Further, the new middle-class will spend large sums of money on material things, such as cars and country houses. Fanon refers to this middle-class as the “bourgeois dictatorship”. He argues that they are not real bourgeois in the true sense of the word, but rather a “…sort of little greedy caste, avid and voracious, with the mind of a huckster, only too glad to accept the dividends that the former colonial power hands out to it.” (p. 141)
(...) The logic that underlies Fanon’s analysis is that the post-colonial government and its new middle-class betray the revolution because, among other things, they want to be white or to occupy the position formerly occupied by the coloniser. For example, he writes that before independence the “…look that the native turns on the settler’s town is a look of lust, a look of envy; it expresses his dreams of possessions – all manner of possession: to sit at the settler’s table, to sleep in the settler’s bed, with his wife if possible.” (p. 30) History teaches us (e.g., see: ‘A people’s history of the United States’ by Howard Zinn) that when people are oppressed they always rebel sooner or later. Furthermore, they do not rebel because of lust or envy or because they want to sleep with the oppressor’s wife, but because they believe in justice, equity and freedom. And, in most cases, the revolution is betrayed because of the combination of issues such as the lack of vision regarding the new institutions we want for a democratic society and a mixture of internal and external forces. Internal forces refers to sections of society that might be resistance towards the new regime due to their own selfish interests, while external forces refers to the global economy and global political climate, such a the cold-war. To view post-colonial politics from this standpoint is more revealing and enables us not only to explain but to predict political and social phenomena. A theory based on flawed assumptions and that compels us to focus on lust, envy and desires to be white, forces us to chase after psychological reductionist dead-ends. [ok, but your critique of fanon is not as powerful as you may think, in the sense that i dont see your perspective as fundamentally at-odds with his own].
(...) To escape from the hegemony of the Western culture, Fanon argues that the native intellectual feels the need to turn backwards towards his unknown roots. As a result, the native intellectual sets a high value on the African customs and traditions. “The sari becomes sacred, and shoes that come from Paris or Italy are left off in favour of pampooties, while suddenly the language of the ruling power is felt to burn your lips.” (p. 178)
(...) The appreciation of certain Western ideas and the fact that certain post-colonial writers are influenced by Western writers and write in European languages should not be presented as a failure to create an authentic post-colonial cultural work, as Fanon presents it. To write in an African language or to quote only African writers does not necessarily translate into originality. [yes fine, but you only skirt the surface].
(...) As Albert points out the only real cultural salvation lies in eliminating racist institutions, dispelling colonialist ideologies and changing the colonial environment within which historical communities relate so that they might maintain and celebrate difference without violating solidarity. A radical post-colonial theory would encourage individuals to choose “… cultural communities they prefer rather than have elders or others of any description define their choice for them….” (Albert, 2006, p. 47)
[not very useful article. straw-manning fanon, and then presenting m. albert as revolutionary, post-colonial theorist?! on the other hand, i understand the point that fanon's politics occasionally mire themselves in the sticky sectarianism of reverse essentialisms. even still, this requires much more work than has been presented here.]