>From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>
>> (Cf. The French Revolution happened _after, or
>> rather because_ France lost many of its colonies in North America --
>> remember that in 1755 France held most of North America -- and India
>> during the Seven Years' War, the New World aspect of which is known
>> as the French and Indian War here).
>
>French possesions in India were never all that significant. They held few
>pockets. Ultimately French lost to British imperialism in 18th century, not
>to the Indian anti-imperialism. Thus, the loss of Indian possesions by
>France is not pertinent to the point about the role of anti-colonial
>movement in radicalising the heart of the empire.
I agree that French possessions in India were relatively insignificant, but losing to a competing empire -- as France did in both North America and India -- can be as effective at creating problems for the power elite as losing to anti-colonial insurgents. (Cf. Russia circa WW1.)
>Sartre attributed May 68 to the Vietnam War, i.e. the war against the US.
>and not to the the loss of colonies by France. (Sartre's interview, The
>Itinerary of a Thought, NLR 58) Sartre could be wrong, but Fanon died long
>before May, 68 to have known the origins of May, 68.
I don't see Sartre's view as incompatible with mine. If the French had been fighting side by side with Americans in '68, the French view of the Vietnam War then would have been very different.
> > In short, leftists at the heart of an empire get a fighting chance
>> when it _loses_ its colonies.
>
>Yes, if there are many colonies left to lose.
The US power elite have a world to lose (from their point of view), I think. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>