Reading: The Pitfalls of National Consciousness by Frantz Fanon

Some notes, so i don't forget where i put them:

the national middle class constantly demands the nationalization of the economy and of the trading sectors. This is because, from their point of view, nationalization does not mean placing the whole economy at the service of the nation and deciding to satisfy the needs of the nation. For them, nationalization does not mean governing the state with regard to the new social relations whose growth it has been decided to encourage. To them, nationalization quite simply means the transfer into native hands of those unfair advantages which are a legacy of the colonial period.

- wanting to govern as the oppressors did

- fed up & rather than changing how the system worked to benefit the people, they are giving the system which kept them down new blood. Except now, it's hiding behind an image of 'nationalism'.

- basically, they did it, i want to do it to. A mind state that colonialism bred into those colonized peoples, so when independence is on the horizon, rather than taking a true leap there instead is a 180 degree turn back into the cutthroat ways of a colonial system.

As an individual, it's easy (okay easier) to elevate past issues of inequality for the purpose of benefiting the nation. As a collective, minds swing every which way & some cling to those destructive ways which put them in the position wanting independence in the first place.

... and my cipher keeps rolling like a rollin' stone.

On Shelley's "A Defence of Poetry"

So the master slacker i am, i decided to start on some journal entries for my world lit class today. We're supposed to have at least 13 by next week (ain't no thang) but i did one on a piece that wasn't even mandatory. Oh well. Enjoysies:

I read Shelley’s “A Defence…” last semester & though the “wow” factor of his vernacular and threading of language that boasts of the use of poetry & poet’s abilities are lessened this time around, I still cling to some of the sentiments he highlights in its conclusion.

I feel poetry, and certainly literature, has that power to move because it is something one can feel without an actual touch. It is a compass for the wilderness within which guides & comforts us as we go about the journey. In the story of humanity, when there is a struggle to express in an open & clear fashion, we turn to poetry. “The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is Poetry” (824). It appeases the anxiety of our emotions which are otherwise left unexpressed.

I also admire the way Shelley compares the painter to the poet who “colour all that they combine with the evanescent hues of this ethereal world; a word, or a trait in the representation of a scene or a passion… and reanimate, in those who have ever experienced these emotions… the buried image of the past” (824). And it’s not something that the poet can help. Shelley writes that they are “compelled to serve, the Power which is seated upon the throne of their soul” (825). The source of this creative ability is embedded within and has less having to do with themselves because it is less their spirit than the spirit of the age (825). Though I feel that it is the spirit of the past mixed with the spirit of the age, I pretty much agree with Shelley.

No apologies for the blocks of text. Read muhf*cka! Chuch!