Fanon, postcolonialism and the ethics of difference raises a host of crucial
questions regarding the relevance of Fanon today: in today’s world, where
violence and terror have gone global, what conclusions might we draw from
Fanon’s work? Should we keep on blaming Fanon for the colonial violence, which
he internalized and struggled against, and overlook the fact that the very
Manichaeism that previously governed the economy of colonial societies is now
generating violence and terror on a global scale? Has the new humanism which he
inaugurates in the concluding section of The Wretched of the Earth turned out to
be nothing but a vain plea? What grounds for optimism does he allow us, if any?
What is to be salvaged from his ethics and politics in this age of
globalization? Fanon, postcolonialism and the ethics of difference offers a
new reading of Fanon’s work, challenging many of the reconstructions of Fanon in
critical and postcolonial theory and in cultural studies and probing a host of
crucial issues: the intersectionality of gender and colonial politics; the
biopolitics of colonialism; Marxism and decolonization; tradition, translation
and humanism. Fanon, postcolonialism and the ethics of difference underscores
the ethical dimension of Fanon’s work by focusing on his project of
decolonization and humanism.
]), pp. 1–2.
5 D. Nally, ‘“That coming storm”: the Irish Poor Law, colonialbiopolitics, and the Great
Famine’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98:3 (2008), 714–41.
6 D. Nally, ‘The biopolitics of food provisioning’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36:1 (January 2011), 37–53 on p. 38.
7 See Chapter 2.
8 M. Turner, After the Famine: Irish Agriculture, 1859–1914 (Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 58.
9 L. M. Cullen, The Emergence of Modern Ireland 1600–1900 (London: Batsford Academic
and Education, 1981
Garden cities and colonial planning: transnationality and urban ideas in Africa and Palestine
The celebrated notion of ‘sanitation
syndrome’ with reference to colonialbiopolitical struggles
was firstly coined by Maynard Swanson in ‘The sanitation
syndrome: bubonic plague and urban native policy in the Cape Colony,
1900–1909’, Journal of American History , 18
(1977), 387–410. We borrowed the term ‘biopolitical
struggle’ from Sharad
Anti-Cook agitation: Towards a colonialbiopolitics
Cook's authoritarian and cold style of administration, and his unwillingness to contemplate the survival of Aboriginal communities, had made him anathema to many who fought for a different northern regime. There was no shortage of vitriol, much of it sent south by northern correspondents. The journalist Fred Thompson wrote of the ‘One-Eyed Chief Protector, Dr. C. E. Cook, who has shown himself to be utterly devoid of any feeling of humanity in his dealings with the aboriginals, half-castes and
Famine (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,
2011); D. Nally, ‘“That coming storm”: The
Irish poor law, colonialbiopolitics, and the great
famine’, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers , 98:3 (2008), 714–41.
Nally, ‘“That coming