Whither Freedom?
Whither Freedom?
Is freedom what was defined by the ideas of the enlightenment? The world-changing ideas of freedom of speech, liberty, secularism, and human autonomy. If so, why did their thinkers contradict themselves? Why did their idea of liberty conveniently exclude the African slaves they owned? Why were these ideas said to apply universally when they were based on the experience and analysis of Western culture? While in practical experience, they were oppressive.
Who gave the mandate of deciding what was best for humanity to the white man?
If they valued the idea of liberty so much, why did they try to take away most of the liberties of their colonized peoples? Rather than continuing this chain of rhetorical questions, let me make my point: was not colonization contrary to the ideals of freedom held by the colonizer himself in his home country. (I mention 'himself' specifically as the male identity of the colonizer was important as I will explain later). Their ideal of reason contradicted itself when they justified colonization by saying they had to "impose" their ideas on the "natives" to "civilize" them, ignoring the inherent contradiction in their practice when, at the same time, they purposely deprived and drained them. Frantz Fanon writes in 'Unveiling Africa' that the French planned systematically to suppress and erase the culture of the Algerian women. And their primary target was women. The most outward expression of the unique identity of Algerian culture was the veil worn by the women. Interestingly, the clothes of the Algerian man were not given half as much importance as those worn by the women. Fanon mentions that the French had concluded that the woman was pivotal in Algerian society and that they must "conquer the women; we must go and find them behind the veil where they hide themselves and in the houses where the men keep them out of sight". As discussed in the last class, there actually was this burning curiosity fuelled by perverted male desire to actually see what lied beneath the veil. Fanon mentions incidents of European men complaining no not have seen the wives of the men who have worked for them for 20 years or so. The colonizers went to the extent to start campaigns against them under the guise of helping the women, "liberating" them. Even the institution that is often said to be the bedrock of 'modern' society, school, was used to enforce this unveiling campaign. Veiling was equated with being anti-modern. What strikes me is how deep and long-reaching the effects of these things are. Colonization isn't something that just affects a society collectively, but every person on a personal and psychological level and Fanon states. I have knows girls among my friends and family who had to rebel against their families to don the veil. Their decision was stringently opposed from their families with people from the community attaching the labels of backward, non-modern, and "narrow-minded", the same word Fanon used half a century ago for the context of a different country. These things show how colonization truly affects the minds of a people; the very terminology they used has been carried forward after the gaining official independence from them.
However, Fanon focuses only on veiling as a cultural practice, and does not talk about it as a religious practice from which it originates. A discussion centred on that could have better explained French aversion to it.
So who defines freedom? The institutions we trust so much had such sinister male-led motives behind them. So I end with a question in the way that our teacher is fond of: given the countless variations and opinions surrounding the one idea of freedom humans have not been able to figure out over the course of their existence, can humans find the answer to it themselves?
If they valued the idea of liberty so much, why did they try to take away most of the liberties of their colonized peoples? Rather than continuing this chain of rhetorical questions, let me make my point: was not colonization contrary to the ideals of freedom held by the colonizer himself in his home country. (I mention 'himself' specifically as the male identity of the colonizer was important as I will explain later). Their ideal of reason contradicted itself when they justified colonization by saying they had to "impose" their ideas on the "natives" to "civilize" them, ignoring the inherent contradiction in their practice when, at the same time, they purposely deprived and drained them. Frantz Fanon writes in 'Unveiling Africa' that the French planned systematically to suppress and erase the culture of the Algerian women. And their primary target was women. The most outward expression of the unique identity of Algerian culture was the veil worn by the women. Interestingly, the clothes of the Algerian man were not given half as much importance as those worn by the women. Fanon mentions that the French had concluded that the woman was pivotal in Algerian society and that they must "conquer the women; we must go and find them behind the veil where they hide themselves and in the houses where the men keep them out of sight". As discussed in the last class, there actually was this burning curiosity fuelled by perverted male desire to actually see what lied beneath the veil. Fanon mentions incidents of European men complaining no not have seen the wives of the men who have worked for them for 20 years or so. The colonizers went to the extent to start campaigns against them under the guise of helping the women, "liberating" them. Even the institution that is often said to be the bedrock of 'modern' society, school, was used to enforce this unveiling campaign. Veiling was equated with being anti-modern. What strikes me is how deep and long-reaching the effects of these things are. Colonization isn't something that just affects a society collectively, but every person on a personal and psychological level and Fanon states. I have knows girls among my friends and family who had to rebel against their families to don the veil. Their decision was stringently opposed from their families with people from the community attaching the labels of backward, non-modern, and "narrow-minded", the same word Fanon used half a century ago for the context of a different country. These things show how colonization truly affects the minds of a people; the very terminology they used has been carried forward after the gaining official independence from them.
However, Fanon focuses only on veiling as a cultural practice, and does not talk about it as a religious practice from which it originates. A discussion centred on that could have better explained French aversion to it.
So who defines freedom? The institutions we trust so much had such sinister male-led motives behind them. So I end with a question in the way that our teacher is fond of: given the countless variations and opinions surrounding the one idea of freedom humans have not been able to figure out over the course of their existence, can humans find the answer to it themselves?
Comments
Even when you mention Unveiling Alegeria, I dont see a dominant argument that your textual references reinforce. Even the question at the end of your blog doesn't link to the rest of the paragraphs.
Think about coherency and reinforcement when you write a blog. this will also help you structure your argument well.