“Independence has certainly brought the colonized peoples moral reparation and recognized their dignity. But they have not yet had time to elaborate a society or build and ascertain values.. As for the leaders, when confronted with such a situation, they hesitate and choose a policy of neutrality.” (40)
“your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors.” (lviii)
I want to hear about some ideas as to how this violence of neutrality is continued. Is it a personal decision to stay neutral or systematically built in? (I think it’s systematic and personal, it’s a whole thing.) How has it been built in?
Gandhi led India in a non-violent means to opposing the British colonization the country. He takes the position that violence should be countered with non-violence if the end goal is a non-violent state. Fanon agrees with Gandhi by saying that colonization is a violent action, however Fanon takes the claim that the effort of decolonization is violent as well, “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives. For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between the two protagonists” (3). He says that decolonization creates a new man and is not carried out without a violent struggle. I am interested in the conversation between Gandhi and Fanon; as Fanon claims that the human reality is compartmentalization and division (5). Would Gandhi entertain Fanon in the conversation of violence for the sake of decolonization and what would he say about violence from the colonized as an actor in perpetuating the inequality? Gandhi believed that through non-violence the European power would simply retreat and allow for his vision of Hind Swaraj, while Fanon takes the stance that in order to have a decolonized space there must be a violent struggle.
In the section “On Violence” in The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon asserts that “The colonial world is a world divided in two,” (p.3), these two parts being the colonist’s sector and the ‘native’ sector, with police stations representing the border. He claims that this division engenders envy in the colonized, as their sector is “famished” and “disreputable” (p.4), while the colonist’s sector is “a belly fully of good things,” (p. 4). This envy may be considered to be part of what stirs the need for violence in the colonized, and what causes fear in the colonist that the colonized will try to take their place.
Instead of violently attacking the colonists, Fanon finds that the colonized often begin by attacking each other. This may be seen as a training of their aggression (p. 15) or as an attempt to ignore colonialism by pursuing blood feuds and pretending “everything is as it used to be,” (p. 17). Historically, colonizers have used this sort of violence to their advantage, purposefully dividing and turning the colonized against one another. Fanon nods to this colonist desire for division (which they pretend is individualism) when he says ““Brother,’ ‘sister,’ ‘comrade’ are words outlawed by the colonialist bourgeoisie because in their thinking my brother is my wallet and my comrade, my scheming,” (p. 11)
For Fanon, is division bad, or a leverage point that can be used to decolonize? Can violent actions create unity? Must they spring from unity instead?
“The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world, which tirelessly punctuated the destruction of the indigenous social fabric, and demolished unchecked the systems of reference of the country’s economy, lifestyles, and modes of dress, this same violence will be will be vindicated and appropriated, when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.”
This shows Fanon’s point of view that only violence will be able to overthrow colonial powers, since colonialism is inherently violent and began with violence. There was no “gentleman’s handshake” that began colonialism, therefore it cannot end with a “gentleman’s handshake”. This thinking clashes directly with Gandhi who advocates for a non-violent approach when it comes to resisting colonialism. I would be interested for these two to have a talk together. Specifically, I would be curious for them to discuss Gandhi’s idea about the means justifying and aligning with the ends. Do you think Fanon believes that his means justify and align with the end result he envisions? Do you think these two individuals could agree on anything regarding fighting colonial power?
“The customs of the colonized, their traditions, their myths, especially their myths, are the very mark of this indigence and innate depravity. This is why we should place DDT, which destroys parasites, carriers of disease, on the same level as Christianity, which roots out heresy, natural impulses, and evil” (7).
I thought it was interesting how different Fanon and Gandhi’s perspectives were on religion, and how this played into their overall opinions on violence. Whereas Gandhi utilizes his religious background and believes it is a way to bring people together, since many core values of scripture are similar and are centered around compassion and general respect for others, Fanon tends to argue that religion is used for evil purposes, to exploit and control people. Whereas Fanon states that violence is necessary for change, Gandhi argues the opposite. I’m interested in what a conversation about the use of violence in resistance would look like between these two parties. I also wonder if Gandhi would criticize Fanon’s lack of moral principles in regard to violence.
Pg 14 the wretched of the earth excerpt. The question of truth must also be taken into consideration. For the people, only fellow nationals are ever owed the truth. No absolute truth, no discourse on the transparency of the soul can erode this position. In answer to the lie of the colonial situation, the colonized subject responds with a lie. Behavior toward fellow nationalist is open and honest, but strained and indecipherable towards the colonized subject responds with a lie. Behavior towards fellow nationalists is open and honest, but strained and indecipherable towards the colonists. Truth is what hastes the dislocation of the colonial regime, what fosters the emergence of the nation. Truth is what protects the natives and undoes the foreigners. In the colonial context there is no truthful behavior. And good is quite simply what hurts them the most.
I chose this excerpt because I think truth is one of the most important parts of any movement without it any movement would fall apart and lead to nothing. I also liked how Gandhi and Fanon had the same understanding of truth but just had different ideas on how to use it. Gandhi was more open with his opponents while Fanon only wanted his followers to know the truth of his movement. My question is that is it better to have everything out in the open or to not show your hand to your opponent or a mix of both ideals.
In Jean-Paul Sartre’s preface to TheWretched of The Earth by Frantz Fanon, he tackles the complex, uncomfortable experience of the “colonizer” which I understood to be the privileged class that benefits from project of colonialism. Sartre is, in some sense, addressing a lot of our experiences. He writes:
You, who are so liberal and so humane, who have such an exaggerated adoration of culture that it verges on affectation, you pretend to forget that you own colonies and that in them men are massacred in your name. Fanon reveals to his comrades-above all to some of them who are rather too Westernized-the solidarity of the people of the mother country and of their representatives in the colonies. Have the courage to read this book, for in the first place it will make you ashamed, and shame, as Marx said, is a revolutionary sentiment. (Sartre lv)
In the first chapter of The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon addresses the experience of the colonizer and the inherent, deeply engrained fear of violent revolution. As a member of a privileged society founded on colonization, genocide, and slavery, do you feel this fear of revolution? Are your perceptions on social movements shaped by your cultural and political framework? Do you feel that your opinions on the question of violence are shaped by this subconscious fear and opposition to violent revolution? Shame, an uncomfortable feeling that arises in any conversation surrounding America’s history/our benefitting from it, can be argued as a place to start. Can shame on the part of the colonizer plant a revolutionary seed in the way that anger and pain on the part of the colonized can? Have you ever grappled with feelings of shame in a social-change context? How can that be transformed to overcome the fear of violent revolution?
“At the individual level we witness a genuine negation of common sense. Whereas the colonist or police officer can beat the colonized subject day in and day out, insult him and shove him to his knees, it is not uncommon to see the colonized subject draw his knife at the slightest hostile or aggressive look from another colonized subject. For the colonized subject’s last resort is to defend his personality against his fellow countryman. Internecine feuds merely perpetuate age-old grudges entrenched in memory. By throwing himself muscle and soul into his blood feuds, the colonized subject endeavors to convince himself that colonialism has never existed, that everything is as it used to be and history marches on. Here we grasp the full significance of the all too familiar “head-in-the-sand” behavior at a collective level, as if this collective immersion in a fratricidal bloodbath suffices to mask the obstacle and postpone the inevitable alternative, the inevitable emergence of the armed struggle against colonialism”(pg 17)
Many people who join or are raised in colonized regions have been known to develop a pattern of nativism, with the gaze that my family has lived here for an X period. The violence that is internalized as a part of this nativist thinking comes to fruition in a variety of odd ways. All attempts to grasp problems that stem from colonialism and not the root of the issue itself. Misattributing the issues creates distractive habits that go after micro-social issues. Breakages and desperation are present in violent acts. Fanon later points out that intellectuals and nationals often separate themselves from these violent actions as if they are above such an act. It is important to note that violence in and of itself is an ineffective method to make drastic change and doing so is an act of suicide. As a result of this bureaucracy and acceptance of domination, via means of violence, the oppressor uses is the way it is. This is always the way it is. This keeps swaths of the population in boxes. Those in more rural regions panic almost immediately as they are the ones who have maintained their way of life for so long and aren’t willing to lose it. Much like the idea of human rights, embodied in practices such as one man, one vote. Where our consideration of the political is often summed up and practiced by a large chunk of the population on rare occasions. This anger in the face of danger may lead to conduct that reinforces the colonial powers holding. Aka if someone acts violently, more violent measures can be taken by the state. Along with issues being allocated towards the will of a God, those who are in poverty, suffer the wrongdoing of others, and what has been conjured up by men is seen are something so far off and inhumane- unfixable.
In the “Violence” section of The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, he describes the animosity of the colonized masses toward the colonizer as one of righteous jealousy. Fanon writes:
“The masses, however, have no intention of looking on as the chances of individual success improve. What they demand is not the status of the colonist, but his palace. In their immense majority the colonized want the colonist’s farm. There is no question of them competing with the colonists. They want to take his place.”
The colonized people’s will to usurp the place of the colonizer and seize their means of production for themselves is presented by Fanon in a manner which suggests he does not disapprove of this behavior. Notably, this perspective stands in stark opposition to Gandhi’s position of shunning the machinery and materialistic culture of the British. Combined with their diametrically opposed view on the use of violence for decolonization, these figures fought for the same end goal of decolonization, but could hardly be more opposed in terms of means. What, in terms of their backgrounds and the specific context of their decolonization efforts, could have led to their differing views on the aforementioned issues.
Fanon writes about violence and how it is the only way to fight the violence of colonialism. History shows that humans tend to fight one another, and some argue it is in our nature to commit violence. In the preface Sartre says, “is it not rather the case that, since we cannot crush the natives, violence comes back on its tracks, accumulates in the very depths of our nature and seeks a way out?” (Pg.25) talking about the French civil war. Fanon says, “The intellectual who for his part has followed the colonialist with regard to the universal abstract will fight in order that the settler and the native may live together in peace in a new world. But the thing he does not see, precisely because he is permeated by colonialism and all its ways of thinking, is that the settler, from the moment that the colonial context disappears, has no longer any interest in remaining or in co-existing” (Pg. 45).
Is there a way to have peace everywhere? Or is violence something that is so ingrained in us that we cannot achieve it?
-McKinzie Sturgell (sorry about the page numbers I must have a different version)
In this week’s reading, the Preface by Sartre divided the world into two groups, the mean and natives describing the colonizers and the colonized. He describes the colonizers as having the power of language and controlling the narrative while the colonized are silenced and dehumanized. Part 1 analyzes the psychological impact of colonialism on the colonized which leads them to feeling overpowered and alienated. The reading also has themes of racial identity and cultural assimilation as well as celebrating black identity.
Do you believe that violence is necessary for liberation as Fanon argues? Do you agree with this? what are some consequences and ethical considerations of using violence to fight for freedom?
In chapter one Fanon states “The colonial world is a world cut in two.” He goes on to explain “The settler’s town is a well-fed town … a town of white people, of foreigners” and “the native town … a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute.” He discusses that these are the only two groups in the world. Is he correct? How does this division encourage violence?
In the preface Sartre states “He speaks of you often, never to you.” He is claiming that this book is not addressed to Europeans. Does this mean Fanon does not want any “colonizers” to read this book or just that it is not written for them?
Referring to Tuck and Yang, does Fanon use decolonization as a metaphor?
Does Fanon believe that the only way for natives to decolonize is by becoming the “colonizers”? In the sense that he states they need to return that same violence. What would Gandhi think?
Throughout Fanon’s book he continuously touches on the idea of the colonized subject being subjected to psychological and physical violence throughout every structure put in place, whether that be education, social change, or simply direct violence. The laws put in place perpetuate the colonial class which does not allow for any change or progress to be made in favor of the colonized subject.
On page 3 he says “By penetrating its geographical configuration and classification we shall be able to delineate the backbone on which the decolonized society is reorganized. The colonized world is divided into two. The dividing line, the border is represented by the barracks and the police stations.” This comparison of the these two sections of the world illustrate a society that is characterized by violence and oppression on one side of the barrack, and the other is characterized by using force through any means necessary in the name of modernity. Fanon later goes on to explain that decolonization is intrinsically violent due to the subjection of violence that the colonized forces have felt upon themselves.
When thinking of my question I began to think about violence and if it’s something that lives inside all of us, or if it is the result of oppressive forces over time. I like to believe that we are not intrinsically violent, because if that is the case what hope is left. Do you think that Fanon’s argument is still relevant today in modern society? Is violence needed to become liberated from colonial forces? Is that even possible in todays society, a society in which the colonized/colonizer have a created a system that has now become so intertwined. Are these dividing lines still prevalent today?
Fanon describes western values and how they are implanted into the minds of the colonized. The value that he first mentions and one that stuck out to me is individualism. He states that “the colonized intellectual learned from his masters that the individual must assert himself. The colonialist bourgeoisie hammered into the colonized mind the notion of a society of individuals where each is locked in his subjectivity, where wealth lies in thought. But the colonized intellectual who is lucky enough to bunker down with the people during the liberation struggle, will soon discover the falsity of this theory. Involvement in the organization of the struggle will already introduce him to a different vocabulary. ‘Brother,’ ‘Sister,’ ‘comrade’ are words outlawed by the colonialist bourgeoisie because in their thinking my brother is my wallet and my comrade, my scheming.” (11)
This is a value that I believe is plaguing our society today. Toxic individuality fuels the decision making of our society and leads to the enhancement of greed for materialistic gain. My question revolves around the individualistic values of our society and where and how they are promulgated in our lives.
How has the pervasiveness of individuality in our school system from young children to graduate students impacted our ability to achieve social change? Has the promotion of our individuality been used against us whether it be through politics, marketing, or more? How could we begin to un-indoctrinate ourselves from the toxicity of this value?
In the “Violence” section of The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon it dives into the nature of violence and its much larger effects on the world. Some of the interactions it describes are the strength and weakness of spontaneity, the pitfalls of national consciousness, and the intuition of the colonized masses that their liberation can only be achieved by force. These ideas are important because it helps provide insight into the complex dynamics of violence, resistance, and liberation in the context of colonialism and oppression. They also prompt critical analysis of the role of violence in social and political change, the power dynamics between the colonizers and the colonized, and the psychological and spiritual motivations behind the use of force as a means of liberation. Additionally, the text raises questions about the ethical and strategic considerations of responding to violence with greater violence, as well as the underlying factors that drive individuals and communities to believe in the efficacy of violence as a tool for freedom and empowerment. These were all new ideas to me and I thought it brought on a new point of view on issues involved with how liberation and how those are used to transform a society.
When reading the preface and first chapter “On Violence” in the novel The Wretched of the Earth it is very prevalent that the views Fanon has on decolonization is starkly different than the views Gandhi had. Fanon takes a very pro violence approach while Gandhi has a very non-violence approach. In the “On Violence”chapter Fanon spends a lot of time thoughtfully describing the relationship and dynamic of the colonists and the colonized. This discussion connects to when we talked about colonialism and imperialism.
“Spoiled children of yesterday’s colonialism and today’s governing powers, they oversee the looting of a few national resources. Ruthless in their scheming and legal pilfering they use the poverty, now nationwide, to work their way to the top through import-export holdings, limited companies, playing the stock market, and nepotism. They insist on the nationalization of business transactions, i.e., reserving contracts and business deals for nationalizing the theft of the nation (pg. 12)”
In this quote Fanon is describing a typical dynamic between the colonizer and the colonized. An exploitative relationship where the colonizer uses the colonized in order to gain either environmental materials (commodities) or monopoly resources (money). There are obvious roles between the colonizer and the colonized, for example Europeans have been the colonizer across many continents including Africa. As well as the United States has been the colonizer to countries and peoples such as Hawaii and Native Americans. However, this relationship of the colonist and the colonized is usually portrayed on a continental or government level. My question is are people in the modern age being colonized on a micro level? Fanon’s description of stock markets and nepotism reminded me of the modern age and how a few people become rich by exploiting thousands of workers (for example shein exploiting children or Elon Musk who is exploitative to make EV vehicles). In this sense is mico-colonization happening on a small scale? Who are the micro-colonizers, and who are the people being colonized today? Who are the group of people who are from the global south that live in the global north? How do you go about decolonizing in a place like the U.S where these dynamics are not obvious?
Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth is a critical look at colonialism, the practice of taking political control of another country with the intention of establishing a settlement and exploiting the people economically. This chapter serves as a sort of guidebook for understanding the colonized and their struggle, and in it, Fanon ultimately argues that colonialism, an inherently racist and violent practice, can only be overcome by using violence in return. Fanon implies that there is no end to the violence of colonialism and that it doesn’t stop once power is established. Rather, violence is a constant presence that is front and center in lives of all colonized individuals. A quote from this chapter that reflects these sentiments reads:
“The violence which has ruled over the ordering of the colonial world, which has ceaselessly drummed the rhythm for the destruction of native social forms and broken up without reserve the systems of reference of the economy, the customs of dress and external life, that same violence will be claimed and taken over by the native at the moment when, deciding to embody history in his own person, he surges into the forbidden quarters” (pg 40).
The question that comes to mind is whether the author would still hold these beliefs after seeing the success that non-violent movements have had. Would the author still see violence as a necessity for overcoming colonial power, or would the author have a different mindset about this now? What arguments might the author still have in favor of violence in the present day?
“On Violence” in Wretched of the Earth is immensely connected to the world in which we are witnessing today. I was immediately sucked into Frantz Fanon’s words, writing down quotes and sharing them with friends who are similarly interested in decolonization.
Many quotes stuck out to me, but two in particular tie together nicely.
“The colonist and the colonized are old acquaintances. And consequently, the colonist is right when he says he ‘knows’ them. It is the colonist who fabricated and continues to fabricate the colonized subject. The colonist derives his validity, i.e., his wealth, from the colonial system.” (Fanon 2).
“To blow the colonial world to smithereens is henceforth a clear image within the grasp and imagination of every colonized subject. To dislocate the colonial world does not mean that once the borders have been eliminated there will be a right of way between the two sectors. To destroy the colonial world means nothing less than demolishing the colonist’s sector, or burying it deep within the earth or banishing it from the territory.” (Fanon 6).
This is, to destroy the colonist’s sector is to destroy the colonist’s validity, in turn shifting the balance of power.
What is the colonist’s sector? How can we destroy it? What consequences may follow?
In part 1 of Frantz Fanon’s ”The Wretched of the Earth”, how belief that violence is a necessary tool in the process of decolonization is made clear.
“Wherever an authentic liberation struggle has been fought, wherever the blood of the people has been shed and the armed phase has lasted long enough to encourage the intellectuals to withdraw to their rank and file base, there is an effective eradication of the superstructure borrowed by these intellectuals from the colonist bourgeois circles” (pages 10-11)
Fanon brings up how liberation struggles that have been characterized by long suffering and resistance, have a transformative effect on the consciousness of others. This speaks to the importance of resistance and violence in response to oppression as a real instigator for decolonization.
I would like to discuss Fanon’s ideas in the context of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and the Palestinian Resistance Movement. More specifically, how Gaza’s use of violent resistance and the transformative effect it has had on the consciousness of the Global North. Furthermore, how do you think Gandhi would respond to the ongoing genocide in Gaza?
I found Sartre’s preface a really interesting introduction to further conversation about colonization with a different perpsective than Ghandi. Both Ghandi and Fanon agree that mobilizing communities is an important aspect to decolonization, but their approaches to violence are largely different. On the fourth page of the preface, Sartre brings up how Third World countries struggle to find ways to independence and freedom with the lingering threats of opression and colonial history. Sartre goes further to say,
“The unity of the Third World, therefore, is not complete: it is a work in progress that begins with all the colonized in every pre- or post-independent country, united under the leadership of the peasant class. This is what Fanon explains to his brothers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: we shall achieve revolutionary socialism everywhere and all together or we shall be beaten one by one by our former tyrants. He hides nothing: neither the weakness nor the disagreements nor the mystification.”
In comparison to Ghandi’s approach to his non-violent march to the coast and the dramatization/attempts at bringing attention to the movement, I thought it was really interesting that Fanon didn’t want to mystify anything. He states that being upfront about their mission is important to really bringing people towards the cause. Ghandi also saw success with his approach, so which one will prove most long standing? Does being upfront and unapologetic about the revolution build more trust for the communities of the Third World that are interested in the movment? How does this translate to social movements today, has social media led to more dramatization or does it also require people to be upfront about every aspect of their movement?
Fanon mentions the muscular tension involved in a colonized person’s daily experience. This tension he says is the fuel for revolution, the driving force leading colonized to dream every day of taking the place of the colonist. For Fanon, this is the justification for violence. That through violence this tension is eased, and the humanity that has been stripped from the colonized returns through the shedding of the colonist’s blood.
In our world now, colonization exists in the psyche, in the embodiment of inferiority, and in each person’s individual beliefs about themselves and the space they take. How do you think Fanon would address this current status of colonization, where the physical everyday tortures aren’t as prevalent, and yet the oppression remains? How can people within a colonial “metropolis,” who are still subjected to the oppression of colonial legacy, alleviate their own tension? Is it through violence? Or is there another way, more applicable to the current colonial situation?
In the Preface of Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth”, there is a conversation between colonialism and native peoples. Fanon states, “For in those countries where colonialism has deliberately held up development, the peasantry when it rises, quickly stands out as the revolutionary class”.
It seems that the “peasantry or lower class” is quickly villainized when they attempt to stand up for themselves within the colonist society. They are quickly shut down from rising or fighting for themselves and their rights. This is severely harmful to the native populations, even going to the lengths that Fanon says, “If this suppressed fury fails to find an outlet, it turns into a vacuum and devastates the oppressed creatures themselves. In order to free themselves they even massacre each other.”
My question is: Why is capitalist society so against the thought of uprising or revolution? And how do the suppressed turn against each other and what can be done to prevent that from happening?
In the preface and part 1 of reading Frantz Fanon, the “you” was referring to talking about you and not to you, where you are the object and not the subject. This was an interesting way to talk about a group of people while not singling out any individual. Using this made the reading have a strong self presence and made it assertive all while keeping it pretty centralized amongst people. European colonization created a different living style that has gotten people excluded from the humanism they deserve. The decolonization would help bring about the creation of a new man. The critique of Western humanism in the reading was constant and brought up how those people live. What types of critiques would be big versus small, and how could we implement any changes for improving situations? Are there possible situations where we could bring back the “native” qualities within the now dehumanized and colonized setting?
“Decolonization never takes place unnoticed, for it influences individuals and modifies them fundamentally” (Fanon 36). Colonization is a violent act therefore the consciousness developed from detrimental social construction must be dismantled and completely transformed in order to generate peace and equity within society. It seems that Fanon compare a colonized society with one that is not by comparing antiquity with modernity. Colonization is a sterilized reality that has cut and hidden the depth of humanity. This humanity is one that is more connected with nature, diversity, and therefore with a more apparent depth of being. I would argue that our current American society is ignorant of the abhorrent impact of colonization on the collective psyche. So what must be done to return this land to one of mystery, depth, diversity, art, peace and soulful living? I think peaceful resistance is possible but only with the upheaval of a nation willing to be a voice for change. Although the acts may not be violent, the change that could occur may destroy the physical and mental foundations of superficial and devastating realities colonization has imparted.
Both Gandhi and Fanon have ideas of peaceful power and a peaceful act of decolonization; they just have different ideas in how they think is the best way to achieve that. For Gandhi, he believes that a peaceful return of government and control is the only way to ensure that you get a peaceful rule in return. Fanon disagrees with that in saying that you must react with the same amount of violence to gain victory and then revert to the peaceful independence that you want to see. I made this conclusion based on this quote from Fanon in the Violence chapter of “The Wretched of Earth”. “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives. For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between the two protagonists. This determination to have the last move up to the front, to have them clamber up (too quickly, say some) the famous echelons of an organized society, can only succeed by resorting to every means, including, of course, violence (pg.3)”. My question is, is there such a thing as necessary violence and if so could there be a balance between what is necessary and what is trying to be achieved?
“The colonial world is a compartmentalized world.” This quote from Fanon, though not a leading conversation piece really stuck out to me. It got me thinking of all of the conceptions of what is seen as the status quo that are constantly being challenged and pushed back on. Ideas of why some are considered the ‘haves or the have nots’, conceptions of gender, and conversations of race are all constantly being questioned, however it has felt that in the past half a century or so, these topics are becoming nationwide discussions. So many aspects of human existence have been labeled or “compartmentalized” as a result of colonialism, but I wonder if there was ever a way to escape it. Is this desire to categorize the world an innate human inclination, or is it a direct response to colonization?
“And you will be convinced on reading Fanon’s last chapter that it is better to be a “native” in the pit of misery than an erstwhile colonist. It is not right that a police officer should be obliged to torture ten hours a day: at that rate his nerves will go to pieces, unless torturers are forbidden to work overtime in their own interest.” The Wretched of the Earth, preface by Franz Fanon
This quote towards the end of the preface makes me think about the other factors in the colonial matrix that not only reduce the oppressed but also reduce the oppressor. Machismo and recent waves of toxic masculinity come to mind as relevant tools in the colonial matrix. This similar cycle of pain beggetting pain was something I Identified in Gandhi’s writings when he talked about Elites in the Hindi society oppressing other fellow Hindus to perpetuate and capitalize on the Raj’s opression. This being of the last big points in the preface leads me to believe that it’s relatively important in giving context to the rest of the reading. The quote to me really puts in your face and the raw tone that Fanon is going to give you throughout the book. There’s two sides in this book, native and colonizer and both sides are being negatively affected by colonialism.
Do jobs like lawyers, Cops, or politicians inherently beget colonial violence to its appliers and the people they apply their particular trade to. Or do these vocations become in a sense corrupted by a colonial society? If these professions are inherently bad or colonial in nature, is their a society without them, what would that look like?
Summary: Fanon, in “The Wretched of the Earth,” asserts the necessity of violence in decolonization struggles, arguing that it is a transformative force that erases the colonial superstructure. He highlights how violence becomes a tool for embodying history and reclaiming agency from colonial powers. However, the effectiveness and continued relevance of violence in modern decolonization efforts are questioned, especially in light of successful non-violent movements. Fanon also critiques the implantation of Western values, particularly individualism, in the minds of the colonized, pointing out its falsity and role in perpetuating greed and social division. This prompts reflection on how these values impact society today and whether they are used against individuals for political or commercial gain.
Question :Given the success of non-violent movements in achieving social change, do you think violence is still a necessary tool for decolonization and resistance against oppressive systems? How can individuals and societies combat the negative impacts of toxic individualism and promote more communal values for greater social change?
In the preface, Sartre is talking about you, not to you. He is bringing awareness to the fact that colonization dehumanizes people. He notes that violence is necessary in Natives asserting themselves and gaining back respect that they lost long ago. A shift in attitudes is not going to be easy, and he notes that a violent future is in store for the colonized individuals. He also notes “you have to fight, or rot in concentration camps.” History repeats itself if not handled correctly and proper education and guidance is not provided, so relating back to Ghandi’s story surrounding the salt tax, would a huge social change such as decolonization be possible using Ghandi’s nonviolent practices? Would this change last long term or quickly revert back to how it was before?
On page 44, Fanon describes the importance of violent praxis in the lives of revolutionaries. In this description, he goes so far as to state that, within the process of decolonization, violence and work are conflated and “to work means to work towards the death of the colonist” (44). I thought this was a really interesting reconceptualization of what it means to work. Whereas before, work was likely primarily defined in terms of the creation of goods and assets for the colonial regime, it has now been turned upside down as a tool of rebellion against imperialism. Thinking within this framework, what lessons can Fanon lend to the United States’ revolutionary and anti-establishment movements? Put in another way, how can transforming conceptions of work into pointed acts of retaliation against an oppressive system be achieved and create impactful sociopolitical change?
PS: Let’s pretend I turned this in on February 22 🙂
Fanon alludes to the strength of mass participation and community organization, particularly among the colonized:
“This colonized intellectual, pulverized by colonialist culture, will also discover the strength of the village assemblies, the power of the people’s commissions and the extraordinary productiveness of neighborhood and section committee meetings” (Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, 11)
How does this speak to the form of social activism and movement organization that he and/or Gandhi advocate for? How is the strength he mentions excercised in some movements?
In Part I of The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon examines the tensions that build up in colonial societies and the mechanisms through which such tensions are released. For instance, Fanon states “The colonized subject will first train this aggressiveness sedimented in his muscles against his own people. This is the period when black turns on black, and police officers and magistrates don’t know which way to turn…” (Fanon). Curiously, instead of banding together to fight the common enemy, the colonized fight among themselves. I feel like this is very similar to the current political landscape of the United States. The whole political system and the people at the very top are extremely corrupt. Yet, instead of fighting the system, the political parties fight against each other. This is interesting because, at the end of the day, they all want the same thing: an equitable system that is going to work for the people. I believe that, in this circumstance, people feel so hopeless about the country and its political system that one of the only things they can think to do is fight each other. I wonder if the same mechanism applies in the colonial context. Are the colonized just so hopeless that they will ever free themselves from the colonizer that they turn against each other instead? Is this response from the colonized intentional or unconscious? If it is intentional, what might they hope to gain from this aggression toward their own peers?
When I read the preface and part I, one thing that stood out to me was how Fanon described how Western values of “harmony and wisdom” and cultures of intellectualism serve to reinforce colonial violence. The colonized are told to “be reasonable,” and held to a double standard of non-violent decolonization with tolerance for the colonizer, while the very process of colonization was (and is) rife with violence.
Fanon writes, “The supremacy of white values is stated with such violence, the victorious confrontation of these values with the lifestyle and beliefs of the colonized is so impregnated with aggressiveness …”
Not only are the colonized held to a double standard, but the ostensibly peaceful, reasonable white values are actually the very reasons the colonizers give as they violently suppress the colonized’s own values, culture, and traditions. The values of the colonizers are so hypocritical, “that as a counter measure the colonized rightly make a mockery of them whenever they are mentioned.”
In addition to being logically twisted, the espousing and teaching of Western values to the colonized serve a purpose of creating hierarchy and systems for colonized intellectuals to navigate and replicate even during the process of decolonization:
“the fostering of love for harmony and wisdom, those aesthetic forms of respect for the status quo, instill in the exploited a mood of submission and inhibition which considerably eases the task of the agents of law and order.”
Fanon writes that intellectualism is all too often a distraction from the most important question:
“Bread and land: how do we go about getting bread and land?”
Fanon writes of the colonized intellectual: “Committed to certain frontline issues he tends to lose sight of the unity of the movement and in the event of failure at the local level he succumbs to doubt, even despair.” Though most of us are, as white Americans descended from Europeans, on some level, colonizers, I believe many in SD try to take on work similar to Fanon’s “colonized intellectual.” We become caught up in “the notion of disciplines, specialized areas and fields” and lose track of what is truly righteous, good, or worthwhile in the world. In other words, how do we, the (unwilling) colonizers or the “metropolitan” actually further the cause of getting the oppressed food and land, and not just voice our dissent in an echo chamber?
I have always been interested in these sorts of questions surrounding violence- what constitutes it, how we perceive it, how we excuse and justify it. Fanon writes about violence in the context of colonialism and decolonization. For me, this called to mind questions about violence in the modern state. While it is true that colonization and apartheid are by no means relics of the past, and are in fact still ongoing projects, it is interesting how the dynamics of a colonizing state have replicated themselves even within countries engaging in global economic imperialism. Fanon notes that “In the colonies it is the policeman and the soldier who are the official, instituted go-betweens, the spokesmen of the settler and his rule of oppression.” Policing is an inherently violent project- an expression of the necropolitical power of the state. This dynamic is seen within colonizing countries like the United States, where police utilize violence against the citizenry. The Black Panther party recognized this method of internal colonization, and it is still deeply entrenched today. My questions for the week are: How is colonial violence expressed internally? What are the difference between an internal and an external colonial project?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
“Independence has certainly brought the colonized peoples moral reparation and recognized their dignity. But they have not yet had time to elaborate a society or build and ascertain values.. As for the leaders, when confronted with such a situation, they hesitate and choose a policy of neutrality.” (40)
“your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors.” (lviii)
I want to hear about some ideas as to how this violence of neutrality is continued. Is it a personal decision to stay neutral or systematically built in? (I think it’s systematic and personal, it’s a whole thing.) How has it been built in?
Gandhi led India in a non-violent means to opposing the British colonization the country. He takes the position that violence should be countered with non-violence if the end goal is a non-violent state. Fanon agrees with Gandhi by saying that colonization is a violent action, however Fanon takes the claim that the effort of decolonization is violent as well, “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives. For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between the two protagonists” (3). He says that decolonization creates a new man and is not carried out without a violent struggle. I am interested in the conversation between Gandhi and Fanon; as Fanon claims that the human reality is compartmentalization and division (5). Would Gandhi entertain Fanon in the conversation of violence for the sake of decolonization and what would he say about violence from the colonized as an actor in perpetuating the inequality? Gandhi believed that through non-violence the European power would simply retreat and allow for his vision of Hind Swaraj, while Fanon takes the stance that in order to have a decolonized space there must be a violent struggle.
-Mary Quinn Fullwood
In the section “On Violence” in The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon asserts that “The colonial world is a world divided in two,” (p.3), these two parts being the colonist’s sector and the ‘native’ sector, with police stations representing the border. He claims that this division engenders envy in the colonized, as their sector is “famished” and “disreputable” (p.4), while the colonist’s sector is “a belly fully of good things,” (p. 4). This envy may be considered to be part of what stirs the need for violence in the colonized, and what causes fear in the colonist that the colonized will try to take their place.
Instead of violently attacking the colonists, Fanon finds that the colonized often begin by attacking each other. This may be seen as a training of their aggression (p. 15) or as an attempt to ignore colonialism by pursuing blood feuds and pretending “everything is as it used to be,” (p. 17). Historically, colonizers have used this sort of violence to their advantage, purposefully dividing and turning the colonized against one another. Fanon nods to this colonist desire for division (which they pretend is individualism) when he says ““Brother,’ ‘sister,’ ‘comrade’ are words outlawed by the colonialist bourgeoisie because in their thinking my brother is my wallet and my comrade, my scheming,” (p. 11)
For Fanon, is division bad, or a leverage point that can be used to decolonize? Can violent actions create unity? Must they spring from unity instead?
I must reveal my identity -Opal Napier
Alena Dastur
On page 5 and 6, Fanon says:
“The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world, which tirelessly punctuated the destruction of the indigenous social fabric, and demolished unchecked the systems of reference of the country’s economy, lifestyles, and modes of dress, this same violence will be will be vindicated and appropriated, when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.”
This shows Fanon’s point of view that only violence will be able to overthrow colonial powers, since colonialism is inherently violent and began with violence. There was no “gentleman’s handshake” that began colonialism, therefore it cannot end with a “gentleman’s handshake”. This thinking clashes directly with Gandhi who advocates for a non-violent approach when it comes to resisting colonialism. I would be interested for these two to have a talk together. Specifically, I would be curious for them to discuss Gandhi’s idea about the means justifying and aligning with the ends. Do you think Fanon believes that his means justify and align with the end result he envisions? Do you think these two individuals could agree on anything regarding fighting colonial power?
Alissa Odom
“The customs of the colonized, their traditions, their myths, especially their myths, are the very mark of this indigence and innate depravity. This is why we should place DDT, which destroys parasites, carriers of disease, on the same level as Christianity, which roots out heresy, natural impulses, and evil” (7).
I thought it was interesting how different Fanon and Gandhi’s perspectives were on religion, and how this played into their overall opinions on violence. Whereas Gandhi utilizes his religious background and believes it is a way to bring people together, since many core values of scripture are similar and are centered around compassion and general respect for others, Fanon tends to argue that religion is used for evil purposes, to exploit and control people. Whereas Fanon states that violence is necessary for change, Gandhi argues the opposite. I’m interested in what a conversation about the use of violence in resistance would look like between these two parties. I also wonder if Gandhi would criticize Fanon’s lack of moral principles in regard to violence.
Alex smith
Pg 14 the wretched of the earth excerpt. The question of truth must also be taken into consideration. For the people, only fellow nationals are ever owed the truth. No absolute truth, no discourse on the transparency of the soul can erode this position. In answer to the lie of the colonial situation, the colonized subject responds with a lie. Behavior toward fellow nationalist is open and honest, but strained and indecipherable towards the colonized subject responds with a lie. Behavior towards fellow nationalists is open and honest, but strained and indecipherable towards the colonists. Truth is what hastes the dislocation of the colonial regime, what fosters the emergence of the nation. Truth is what protects the natives and undoes the foreigners. In the colonial context there is no truthful behavior. And good is quite simply what hurts them the most.
I chose this excerpt because I think truth is one of the most important parts of any movement without it any movement would fall apart and lead to nothing. I also liked how Gandhi and Fanon had the same understanding of truth but just had different ideas on how to use it. Gandhi was more open with his opponents while Fanon only wanted his followers to know the truth of his movement. My question is that is it better to have everything out in the open or to not show your hand to your opponent or a mix of both ideals.
Ellen Kraai
In Jean-Paul Sartre’s preface to The Wretched of The Earth by Frantz Fanon, he tackles the complex, uncomfortable experience of the “colonizer” which I understood to be the privileged class that benefits from project of colonialism. Sartre is, in some sense, addressing a lot of our experiences. He writes:
You, who are so liberal and so humane, who have such an exaggerated adoration of culture that it verges on affectation, you pretend to forget that you own colonies and that in them men are massacred in your name. Fanon reveals to his comrades-above all to some of them who are rather too Westernized-the solidarity of the people of the mother country and of their representatives in the colonies. Have the courage to read this book, for in the first place it will make you ashamed, and shame, as Marx said, is a revolutionary sentiment. (Sartre lv)
In the first chapter of The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon addresses the experience of the colonizer and the inherent, deeply engrained fear of violent revolution. As a member of a privileged society founded on colonization, genocide, and slavery, do you feel this fear of revolution? Are your perceptions on social movements shaped by your cultural and political framework? Do you feel that your opinions on the question of violence are shaped by this subconscious fear and opposition to violent revolution? Shame, an uncomfortable feeling that arises in any conversation surrounding America’s history/our benefitting from it, can be argued as a place to start. Can shame on the part of the colonizer plant a revolutionary seed in the way that anger and pain on the part of the colonized can? Have you ever grappled with feelings of shame in a social-change context? How can that be transformed to overcome the fear of violent revolution?
– Kobe Early, 2/21/24
“At the individual level we witness a genuine negation of common sense. Whereas the colonist or police officer can beat the
colonized subject day in and day out, insult him and shove him
to his knees, it is not uncommon to see the colonized subject
draw his knife at the slightest hostile or aggressive look from
another colonized subject. For the colonized subject’s last resort is to defend his personality against his fellow countryman.
Internecine feuds merely perpetuate age-old grudges entrenched
in memory. By throwing himself muscle and soul into his blood
feuds, the colonized subject endeavors to convince himself that
colonialism has never existed, that everything is as it used to be
and history marches on. Here we grasp the full significance of
the all too familiar “head-in-the-sand” behavior at a collective
level, as if this collective immersion in a fratricidal bloodbath
suffices to mask the obstacle and postpone the inevitable alternative, the inevitable emergence of the armed struggle against colonialism”(pg 17)
Many people who join or are raised in colonized regions have been known to develop a pattern of nativism, with the gaze that my family has lived here for an X period. The violence that is internalized as a part of this nativist thinking comes to fruition in a variety of odd ways. All attempts to grasp problems that stem from colonialism and not the root of the issue itself. Misattributing the issues creates distractive habits that go after micro-social issues. Breakages and desperation are present in violent acts. Fanon later points out that intellectuals and nationals often separate themselves from these violent actions as if they are above such an act. It is important to note that violence in and of itself is an ineffective method to make drastic change and doing so is an act of suicide. As a result of this bureaucracy and acceptance of domination, via means of violence, the oppressor uses is the way it is. This is always the way it is. This keeps swaths of the population in boxes. Those in more rural regions panic almost immediately as they are the ones who have maintained their way of life for so long and aren’t willing to lose it. Much like the idea of human rights, embodied in practices such as one man, one vote. Where our consideration of the political is often summed up and practiced by a large chunk of the population on rare occasions. This anger in the face of danger may lead to conduct that reinforces the colonial powers holding. Aka if someone acts violently, more violent measures can be taken by the state. Along with issues being allocated towards the will of a God, those who are in poverty, suffer the wrongdoing of others, and what has been conjured up by men is seen are something so far off and inhumane- unfixable.
In the “Violence” section of The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, he describes the animosity of the colonized masses toward the colonizer as one of righteous jealousy. Fanon writes:
“The masses, however, have no intention of looking on as the chances of individual success improve. What they demand is not the status of the colonist, but his palace. In their immense majority the colonized want the colonist’s farm. There is no question of them competing with the colonists. They want to take his place.”
The colonized people’s will to usurp the place of the colonizer and seize their means of production for themselves is presented by Fanon in a manner which suggests he does not disapprove of this behavior. Notably, this perspective stands in stark opposition to Gandhi’s position of shunning the machinery and materialistic culture of the British. Combined with their diametrically opposed view on the use of violence for decolonization, these figures fought for the same end goal of decolonization, but could hardly be more opposed in terms of means. What, in terms of their backgrounds and the specific context of their decolonization efforts, could have led to their differing views on the aforementioned issues.
Fanon writes about violence and how it is the only way to fight the violence of colonialism. History shows that humans tend to fight one another, and some argue it is in our nature to commit violence. In the preface Sartre says, “is it not rather the case that, since we cannot crush the natives, violence comes back on its tracks, accumulates in the very depths of our nature and seeks a way out?” (Pg.25) talking about the French civil war. Fanon says, “The intellectual who for his part has followed the colonialist with regard to the universal abstract will fight in order that the settler and the native may live together in peace in a new world. But the thing he does not see, precisely because he is permeated by colonialism and all its ways of thinking, is that the settler, from the moment that the colonial context disappears, has no longer any interest in remaining or in co-existing” (Pg. 45).
Is there a way to have peace everywhere? Or is violence something that is so ingrained in us that we cannot achieve it?
-McKinzie Sturgell (sorry about the page numbers I must have a different version)
In this week’s reading, the Preface by Sartre divided the world into two groups, the mean and natives describing the colonizers and the colonized. He describes the colonizers as having the power of language and controlling the narrative while the colonized are silenced and dehumanized. Part 1 analyzes the psychological impact of colonialism on the colonized which leads them to feeling overpowered and alienated. The reading also has themes of racial identity and cultural assimilation as well as celebrating black identity.
Do you believe that violence is necessary for liberation as Fanon argues? Do you agree with this? what are some consequences and ethical considerations of using violence to fight for freedom?
-Emily Duhon
Ella Harris
In chapter one Fanon states “The colonial world is a world cut in two.” He goes on to explain “The settler’s town is a well-fed town … a town of white people, of foreigners” and “the native town … a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute.” He discusses that these are the only two groups in the world. Is he correct? How does this division encourage violence?
In the preface Sartre states “He speaks of you often, never to you.” He is claiming that this book is not addressed to Europeans. Does this mean Fanon does not want any “colonizers” to read this book or just that it is not written for them?
Referring to Tuck and Yang, does Fanon use decolonization as a metaphor?
Does Fanon believe that the only way for natives to decolonize is by becoming the “colonizers”? In the sense that he states they need to return that same violence. What would Gandhi think?
Ren Pommarane
Throughout Fanon’s book he continuously touches on the idea of the colonized subject being subjected to psychological and physical violence throughout every structure put in place, whether that be education, social change, or simply direct violence. The laws put in place perpetuate the colonial class which does not allow for any change or progress to be made in favor of the colonized subject.
On page 3 he says “By penetrating its geographical configuration and classification we shall be able to delineate the backbone on which the decolonized society is reorganized. The colonized world is divided into two. The dividing line, the border is represented by the barracks and the police stations.” This comparison of the these two sections of the world illustrate a society that is characterized by violence and oppression on one side of the barrack, and the other is characterized by using force through any means necessary in the name of modernity. Fanon later goes on to explain that decolonization is intrinsically violent due to the subjection of violence that the colonized forces have felt upon themselves.
When thinking of my question I began to think about violence and if it’s something that lives inside all of us, or if it is the result of oppressive forces over time. I like to believe that we are not intrinsically violent, because if that is the case what hope is left. Do you think that Fanon’s argument is still relevant today in modern society? Is violence needed to become liberated from colonial forces? Is that even possible in todays society, a society in which the colonized/colonizer have a created a system that has now become so intertwined. Are these dividing lines still prevalent today?
Joe Davis Weekly Discussion Question
Fanon describes western values and how they are implanted into the minds of the colonized. The value that he first mentions and one that stuck out to me is individualism. He states that “the colonized intellectual learned from his masters that the individual must assert himself. The colonialist bourgeoisie hammered into the colonized mind the notion of a society of individuals where each is locked in his subjectivity, where wealth lies in thought. But the colonized intellectual who is lucky enough to bunker down with the people during the liberation struggle, will soon discover the falsity of this theory. Involvement in the organization of the struggle will already introduce him to a different vocabulary. ‘Brother,’ ‘Sister,’ ‘comrade’ are words outlawed by the colonialist bourgeoisie because in their thinking my brother is my wallet and my comrade, my scheming.” (11)
This is a value that I believe is plaguing our society today. Toxic individuality fuels the decision making of our society and leads to the enhancement of greed for materialistic gain. My question revolves around the individualistic values of our society and where and how they are promulgated in our lives.
How has the pervasiveness of individuality in our school system from young children to graduate students impacted our ability to achieve social change? Has the promotion of our individuality been used against us whether it be through politics, marketing, or more? How could we begin to un-indoctrinate ourselves from the toxicity of this value?
In the “Violence” section of The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon it dives into the nature of violence and its much larger effects on the world. Some of the interactions it describes are the strength and weakness of spontaneity, the pitfalls of national consciousness, and the intuition of the colonized masses that their liberation can only be achieved by force. These ideas are important because it helps provide insight into the complex dynamics of violence, resistance, and liberation in the context of colonialism and oppression. They also prompt critical analysis of the role of violence in social and political change, the power dynamics between the colonizers and the colonized, and the psychological and spiritual motivations behind the use of force as a means of liberation. Additionally, the text raises questions about the ethical and strategic considerations of responding to violence with greater violence, as well as the underlying factors that drive individuals and communities to believe in the efficacy of violence as a tool for freedom and empowerment. These were all new ideas to me and I thought it brought on a new point of view on issues involved with how liberation and how those are used to transform a society.
Grady Vardeman
Winifred Rhea-Unruh
When reading the preface and first chapter “On Violence” in the novel The Wretched of the Earth it is very prevalent that the views Fanon has on decolonization is starkly different than the views Gandhi had. Fanon takes a very pro violence approach while Gandhi has a very non-violence approach. In the “On Violence” chapter Fanon spends a lot of time thoughtfully describing the relationship and dynamic of the colonists and the colonized. This discussion connects to when we talked about colonialism and imperialism.
“Spoiled children of yesterday’s colonialism and today’s governing powers, they oversee the looting of a few national resources. Ruthless in their scheming and legal pilfering they use the poverty, now nationwide, to work their way to the top through import-export holdings, limited companies, playing the stock market, and nepotism. They insist on the nationalization of business transactions, i.e., reserving contracts and business deals for nationalizing the theft of the nation (pg. 12)”
In this quote Fanon is describing a typical dynamic between the colonizer and the colonized. An exploitative relationship where the colonizer uses the colonized in order to gain either environmental materials (commodities) or monopoly resources (money). There are obvious roles between the colonizer and the colonized, for example Europeans have been the colonizer across many continents including Africa. As well as the United States has been the colonizer to countries and peoples such as Hawaii and Native Americans. However, this relationship of the colonist and the colonized is usually portrayed on a continental or government level. My question is are people in the modern age being colonized on a micro level? Fanon’s description of stock markets and nepotism reminded me of the modern age and how a few people become rich by exploiting thousands of workers (for example shein exploiting children or Elon Musk who is exploitative to make EV vehicles). In this sense is mico-colonization happening on a small scale? Who are the micro-colonizers, and who are the people being colonized today? Who are the group of people who are from the global south that live in the global north? How do you go about decolonizing in a place like the U.S where these dynamics are not obvious?
Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth is a critical look at colonialism, the practice of taking political control of another country with the intention of establishing a settlement and exploiting the people economically. This chapter serves as a sort of guidebook for understanding the colonized and their struggle, and in it, Fanon ultimately argues that colonialism, an inherently racist and violent practice, can only be overcome by using violence in return. Fanon implies that there is no end to the violence of colonialism and that it doesn’t stop once power is established. Rather, violence is a constant presence that is front and center in lives of all colonized individuals. A quote from this chapter that reflects these sentiments reads:
“The violence which has ruled over the ordering of the colonial world, which has ceaselessly drummed the rhythm for the destruction of native social forms and broken up without reserve the systems of reference of the economy, the customs of dress and external life, that same violence will be claimed and taken over by the native at the moment when, deciding to embody history in his own person, he surges into the forbidden quarters” (pg 40).
The question that comes to mind is whether the author would still hold these beliefs after seeing the success that non-violent movements have had. Would the author still see violence as a necessity for overcoming colonial power, or would the author have a different mindset about this now? What arguments might the author still have in favor of violence in the present day?
-Carter Sullivan
“On Violence” in Wretched of the Earth is immensely connected to the world in which we are witnessing today. I was immediately sucked into Frantz Fanon’s words, writing down quotes and sharing them with friends who are similarly interested in decolonization.
Many quotes stuck out to me, but two in particular tie together nicely.
“The colonist and the colonized are old acquaintances. And consequently, the colonist is right when he says he ‘knows’ them. It is the colonist who fabricated and continues to fabricate the colonized subject. The colonist derives his validity, i.e., his wealth, from the colonial system.” (Fanon 2).
“To blow the colonial world to smithereens is henceforth a clear image within the grasp and imagination of every colonized subject. To dislocate the colonial world does not mean that once the borders have been eliminated there will be a right of way between the two sectors. To destroy the colonial world means nothing less than demolishing the colonist’s sector, or burying it deep within the earth or banishing it from the territory.” (Fanon 6).
This is, to destroy the colonist’s sector is to destroy the colonist’s validity, in turn shifting the balance of power.
What is the colonist’s sector? How can we destroy it? What consequences may follow?
In part 1 of Frantz Fanon’s ”The Wretched of the Earth”, how belief that violence is a necessary tool in the process of decolonization is made clear.
“Wherever an authentic liberation struggle has been fought, wherever the blood of the people has been shed and the armed phase has lasted long enough to encourage the intellectuals to withdraw to their rank and file base, there is an effective eradication of the superstructure borrowed by these intellectuals from the colonist bourgeois circles” (pages 10-11)
Fanon brings up how liberation struggles that have been characterized by long suffering and resistance, have a transformative effect on the consciousness of others. This speaks to the importance of resistance and violence in response to oppression as a real instigator for decolonization.
I would like to discuss Fanon’s ideas in the context of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and the Palestinian Resistance Movement. More specifically, how Gaza’s use of violent resistance and the transformative effect it has had on the consciousness of the Global North. Furthermore, how do you think Gandhi would respond to the ongoing genocide in Gaza?
Samia Pegram
Sophie Griengl-Schott
I found Sartre’s preface a really interesting introduction to further conversation about colonization with a different perpsective than Ghandi. Both Ghandi and Fanon agree that mobilizing communities is an important aspect to decolonization, but their approaches to violence are largely different. On the fourth page of the preface, Sartre brings up how Third World countries struggle to find ways to independence and freedom with the lingering threats of opression and colonial history. Sartre goes further to say,
“The unity of the Third World, therefore, is not complete: it is a work in progress that begins with all the colonized in every pre- or post-independent country, united under the leadership of the peasant class. This is what Fanon explains to his brothers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: we shall achieve revolutionary socialism everywhere and all together or we shall be beaten one by one by our former tyrants. He hides nothing: neither the weakness nor the disagreements nor the mystification.”
In comparison to Ghandi’s approach to his non-violent march to the coast and the dramatization/attempts at bringing attention to the movement, I thought it was really interesting that Fanon didn’t want to mystify anything. He states that being upfront about their mission is important to really bringing people towards the cause. Ghandi also saw success with his approach, so which one will prove most long standing? Does being upfront and unapologetic about the revolution build more trust for the communities of the Third World that are interested in the movment? How does this translate to social movements today, has social media led to more dramatization or does it also require people to be upfront about every aspect of their movement?
Fanon mentions the muscular tension involved in a colonized person’s daily experience. This tension he says is the fuel for revolution, the driving force leading colonized to dream every day of taking the place of the colonist. For Fanon, this is the justification for violence. That through violence this tension is eased, and the humanity that has been stripped from the colonized returns through the shedding of the colonist’s blood.
In our world now, colonization exists in the psyche, in the embodiment of inferiority, and in each person’s individual beliefs about themselves and the space they take. How do you think Fanon would address this current status of colonization, where the physical everyday tortures aren’t as prevalent, and yet the oppression remains? How can people within a colonial “metropolis,” who are still subjected to the oppression of colonial legacy, alleviate their own tension? Is it through violence? Or is there another way, more applicable to the current colonial situation?
Malcolm Vaughn
Karissa Scott
In the Preface of Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth”, there is a conversation between colonialism and native peoples. Fanon states, “For in those countries where colonialism has deliberately held up development, the peasantry when it rises, quickly stands out as the revolutionary class”.
It seems that the “peasantry or lower class” is quickly villainized when they attempt to stand up for themselves within the colonist society. They are quickly shut down from rising or fighting for themselves and their rights. This is severely harmful to the native populations, even going to the lengths that Fanon says, “If this suppressed fury fails to find an outlet, it turns into a vacuum and devastates the oppressed creatures themselves. In order to free themselves they even massacre each other.”
My question is: Why is capitalist society so against the thought of uprising or revolution? And how do the suppressed turn against each other and what can be done to prevent that from happening?
Sam Platt
In the preface and part 1 of reading Frantz Fanon, the “you” was referring to talking about you and not to you, where you are the object and not the subject. This was an interesting way to talk about a group of people while not singling out any individual. Using this made the reading have a strong self presence and made it assertive all while keeping it pretty centralized amongst people. European colonization created a different living style that has gotten people excluded from the humanism they deserve. The decolonization would help bring about the creation of a new man. The critique of Western humanism in the reading was constant and brought up how those people live. What types of critiques would be big versus small, and how could we implement any changes for improving situations? Are there possible situations where we could bring back the “native” qualities within the now dehumanized and colonized setting?
“Decolonization never takes place unnoticed, for it influences individuals and modifies them fundamentally” (Fanon 36). Colonization is a violent act therefore the consciousness developed from detrimental social construction must be dismantled and completely transformed in order to generate peace and equity within society. It seems that Fanon compare a colonized society with one that is not by comparing antiquity with modernity. Colonization is a sterilized reality that has cut and hidden the depth of humanity. This humanity is one that is more connected with nature, diversity, and therefore with a more apparent depth of being. I would argue that our current American society is ignorant of the abhorrent impact of colonization on the collective psyche. So what must be done to return this land to one of mystery, depth, diversity, art, peace and soulful living? I think peaceful resistance is possible but only with the upheaval of a nation willing to be a voice for change. Although the acts may not be violent, the change that could occur may destroy the physical and mental foundations of superficial and devastating realities colonization has imparted.
Madeline Ryan
02/22/2023
Caitlin Langley
Both Gandhi and Fanon have ideas of peaceful power and a peaceful act of decolonization; they just have different ideas in how they think is the best way to achieve that. For Gandhi, he believes that a peaceful return of government and control is the only way to ensure that you get a peaceful rule in return. Fanon disagrees with that in saying that you must react with the same amount of violence to gain victory and then revert to the peaceful independence that you want to see. I made this conclusion based on this quote from Fanon in the Violence chapter of “The Wretched of Earth”. “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives. For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between the two protagonists. This determination to have the last move up to the front, to have them clamber up (too quickly, say some) the famous echelons of an organized society, can only succeed by resorting to every means, including, of course, violence (pg.3)”. My question is, is there such a thing as necessary violence and if so could there be a balance between what is necessary and what is trying to be achieved?
Kendall Wade
2/25/24
“The colonial world is a compartmentalized world.” This quote from Fanon, though not a leading conversation piece really stuck out to me. It got me thinking of all of the conceptions of what is seen as the status quo that are constantly being challenged and pushed back on. Ideas of why some are considered the ‘haves or the have nots’, conceptions of gender, and conversations of race are all constantly being questioned, however it has felt that in the past half a century or so, these topics are becoming nationwide discussions. So many aspects of human existence have been labeled or “compartmentalized” as a result of colonialism, but I wonder if there was ever a way to escape it. Is this desire to categorize the world an innate human inclination, or is it a direct response to colonization?
Carlos Carmona
2/26/24
“And you will be convinced on reading Fanon’s last chapter that it is better to be a “native” in the pit of misery than an erstwhile colonist. It is not right that a police officer should be obliged to torture ten hours a day: at that rate his nerves will go to pieces, unless torturers are forbidden to work overtime in their own interest.” The Wretched of the Earth, preface by Franz Fanon
This quote towards the end of the preface makes me think about the other factors in the colonial matrix that not only reduce the oppressed but also reduce the oppressor. Machismo and recent waves of toxic masculinity come to mind as relevant tools in the colonial matrix. This similar cycle of pain beggetting pain was something I Identified in Gandhi’s writings when he talked about Elites in the Hindi society oppressing other fellow Hindus to perpetuate and capitalize on the Raj’s opression. This being of the last big points in the preface leads me to believe that it’s relatively important in giving context to the rest of the reading. The quote to me really puts in your face and the raw tone that Fanon is going to give you throughout the book. There’s two sides in this book, native and colonizer and both sides are being negatively affected by colonialism.
Do jobs like lawyers, Cops, or politicians inherently beget colonial violence to its appliers and the people they apply their particular trade to. Or do these vocations become in a sense corrupted by a colonial society? If these professions are inherently bad or colonial in nature, is their a society without them, what would that look like?
Elizabeth Cassam
Summary: Fanon, in “The Wretched of the Earth,” asserts the necessity of violence in decolonization struggles, arguing that it is a transformative force that erases the colonial superstructure. He highlights how violence becomes a tool for embodying history and reclaiming agency from colonial powers. However, the effectiveness and continued relevance of violence in modern decolonization efforts are questioned, especially in light of successful non-violent movements. Fanon also critiques the implantation of Western values, particularly individualism, in the minds of the colonized, pointing out its falsity and role in perpetuating greed and social division. This prompts reflection on how these values impact society today and whether they are used against individuals for political or commercial gain.
Question :Given the success of non-violent movements in achieving social change, do you think violence is still a necessary tool for decolonization and resistance against oppressive systems? How can individuals and societies combat the negative impacts of toxic individualism and promote more communal values for greater social change?
3/3/24
colby kitts
In the preface, Sartre is talking about you, not to you. He is bringing awareness to the fact that colonization dehumanizes people. He notes that violence is necessary in Natives asserting themselves and gaining back respect that they lost long ago. A shift in attitudes is not going to be easy, and he notes that a violent future is in store for the colonized individuals. He also notes “you have to fight, or rot in concentration camps.” History repeats itself if not handled correctly and proper education and guidance is not provided, so relating back to Ghandi’s story surrounding the salt tax, would a huge social change such as decolonization be possible using Ghandi’s nonviolent practices? Would this change last long term or quickly revert back to how it was before?
Anne Elise Russell
On page 44, Fanon describes the importance of violent praxis in the lives of revolutionaries. In this description, he goes so far as to state that, within the process of decolonization, violence and work are conflated and “to work means to work towards the death of the colonist” (44). I thought this was a really interesting reconceptualization of what it means to work. Whereas before, work was likely primarily defined in terms of the creation of goods and assets for the colonial regime, it has now been turned upside down as a tool of rebellion against imperialism. Thinking within this framework, what lessons can Fanon lend to the United States’ revolutionary and anti-establishment movements? Put in another way, how can transforming conceptions of work into pointed acts of retaliation against an oppressive system be achieved and create impactful sociopolitical change?
PS: Let’s pretend I turned this in on February 22 🙂
Samantha Cullen
Fanon alludes to the strength of mass participation and community organization, particularly among the colonized:
“This colonized intellectual, pulverized by colonialist culture, will also discover the strength of the village assemblies, the power of the people’s commissions and the extraordinary productiveness of neighborhood and section committee meetings” (Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, 11)
How does this speak to the form of social activism and movement organization that he and/or Gandhi advocate for? How is the strength he mentions excercised in some movements?
Nicole Travers
In Part I of The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon examines the tensions that build up in colonial societies and the mechanisms through which such tensions are released. For instance, Fanon states “The colonized subject will first train this aggressiveness sedimented in his muscles against his own people. This is the period when black turns on black, and police officers and magistrates don’t know which way to turn…” (Fanon). Curiously, instead of banding together to fight the common enemy, the colonized fight among themselves. I feel like this is very similar to the current political landscape of the United States. The whole political system and the people at the very top are extremely corrupt. Yet, instead of fighting the system, the political parties fight against each other. This is interesting because, at the end of the day, they all want the same thing: an equitable system that is going to work for the people. I believe that, in this circumstance, people feel so hopeless about the country and its political system that one of the only things they can think to do is fight each other. I wonder if the same mechanism applies in the colonial context. Are the colonized just so hopeless that they will ever free themselves from the colonizer that they turn against each other instead? Is this response from the colonized intentional or unconscious? If it is intentional, what might they hope to gain from this aggression toward their own peers?
Erik Olson
When I read the preface and part I, one thing that stood out to me was how Fanon described how Western values of “harmony and wisdom” and cultures of intellectualism serve to reinforce colonial violence. The colonized are told to “be reasonable,” and held to a double standard of non-violent decolonization with tolerance for the colonizer, while the very process of colonization was (and is) rife with violence.
Fanon writes, “The supremacy of white values is stated with such violence, the victorious confrontation of these values with the lifestyle and beliefs of the colonized is so impregnated with aggressiveness …”
Not only are the colonized held to a double standard, but the ostensibly peaceful, reasonable white values are actually the very reasons the colonizers give as they violently suppress the colonized’s own values, culture, and traditions. The values of the colonizers are so hypocritical, “that as a counter measure the colonized rightly make a mockery of them whenever they are mentioned.”
In addition to being logically twisted, the espousing and teaching of Western values to the colonized serve a purpose of creating hierarchy and systems for colonized intellectuals to navigate and replicate even during the process of decolonization:
“the fostering of love for harmony and wisdom, those aesthetic forms of respect for the status quo, instill in the exploited a mood of submission and inhibition which considerably eases the task of the agents of law and order.”
Fanon writes that intellectualism is all too often a distraction from the most important question:
“Bread and land: how do we go about getting bread and land?”
Fanon writes of the colonized intellectual: “Committed to certain frontline issues he tends to lose sight of the unity of the movement and in the event of failure at the local level he succumbs to doubt, even despair.” Though most of us are, as white Americans descended from Europeans, on some level, colonizers, I believe many in SD try to take on work similar to Fanon’s “colonized intellectual.” We become caught up in “the notion of disciplines, specialized areas and fields” and lose track of what is truly righteous, good, or worthwhile in the world. In other words, how do we, the (unwilling) colonizers or the “metropolitan” actually further the cause of getting the oppressed food and land, and not just voice our dissent in an echo chamber?
Audrey Mase
I have always been interested in these sorts of questions surrounding violence- what constitutes it, how we perceive it, how we excuse and justify it. Fanon writes about violence in the context of colonialism and decolonization. For me, this called to mind questions about violence in the modern state. While it is true that colonization and apartheid are by no means relics of the past, and are in fact still ongoing projects, it is interesting how the dynamics of a colonizing state have replicated themselves even within countries engaging in global economic imperialism. Fanon notes that “In the colonies it is the policeman and the soldier
who are the official, instituted go-betweens, the spokesmen of the settler and his rule of oppression.” Policing is an inherently violent project- an expression of the necropolitical power of the state. This dynamic is seen within colonizing countries like the United States, where police utilize violence against the citizenry. The Black Panther party recognized this method of internal colonization, and it is still deeply entrenched today. My questions for the week are: How is colonial violence expressed internally? What are the difference between an internal and an external colonial project?