For this weeks reading there was a being discussion on civil unrest. “The characteristic, virtually endemic weakness of the underdeveloped countries’ national consciousness is not the only consequence of colonized subject’s mutilation by colonial regime” How do people in countries different from the USA rise up against something they know is morally wrong. In places like the United States you cannot be legally killed for speaking out, but is very different in other countries. The systems put in place were to replicate those of colonists home countries and now that they have left, there has still be the same system put in place but worse. Is it the duty of these counties to improve on themselves or should there be an outside help to forcefully change the systematic changes?
“The Battle of Algiers”showcased both sides of the politics, struggles, and crimes that were committed during the Algerian War. The rebellious group utilized guerrilla warfare and terrorism to reclaim their country that had been occupied and exploited at the expense of the people for 130 years. As a response, the French government repressed and tortured all those a part of the rebellious group and enacted various war crimes. Many in France didn’t like this and reporters started to challenge the general for better treatment of the insurgents. The general told them that if the French people were so against these devious actions, they would need to make a decision if human rights or the retention of Algeria were more important to them. For lack of better words and still quite pertinent to the French, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”. It is morally impossible to denounce a systemic problem that one still benefits from. This is where I begin to think associationally. In Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster’s book, “What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism” they argue that the constant need for growth in a system is impossible for earth and ecology which is a closed and finite system. This would indicate that for future sustainability of our population, there is a substantial need to either completely leave or systematically alter the way economics are structured towards any type of growth. A large undertaking. These solutions brought forth would warrant some serious sacrifices to the western way of life, but there is no perfect solution to these problems deeply ingrained in our society. Like our larger model of growth economics the Algerian War presents the question that if success is based off of the suffering of others, how will there be any way for equal flourishing? How much does society need to sacrifice in order to create equal flourishing and how much is society willing to sacrifice in order to ensure the prosperity of all people and environments?
As Algeria struggled for independence from France, “The Battle of Algiers” symbolizes the horrors committed by both the French and the Algerian people during the 1950s. The film focuses on members of the FLN, a nationalist political party comprised of guerilla fighters. Men, women, and Algerians of all ages both participated in and were victims of this violence. In response to the Algerian people’s violence, the French government begins to retaliate with bombings, police raids, and increased restrictions. Ali La Pointe, the leader of the FLN, is the main protagonist in this film and was involved in many assassinations and bombings done by the FLN. French Colonel Mathieu, an experienced and brutal military officer, is assigned to dismantle the FLN network. To gather information and put an end to the rebellion, he used harsh tactics, including the widespread torture of FLN members and their supporters. In the end, “The Battle of Algiers” is a historical account of the Algerian War of Independence and provides a more comprehensive commentary on the nature of colonialism, resistance, and the human capacity for both violence and resilience.
Throughout history, revolutionary movements have used various strategies to achieve their goals. While some have used nonviolent tactics, others have used violence to achieve their goals. Is violence the most effective way to achieve a revolution, given historical examples and outcomes?
In “The Battle of Algiers”, while Algeria fought against the French for their independence, one of the members of the FLN, which is where Algerian people participated in guerrilla fighting for the nationalists political party, held a wedding. This wedding was in private, they even discussed how one day, their weddings would be able to be held in public again one day. One of the members performing the ceremony said, “Remember, we are at war against colonialism”, (The Battle of Algiers, 23:05). This quote stood out to me as it reminded me of or almost every conflict occurring all over the world is due to colonialism. However, we are taught in school that colonialism is a good thing and that economic prosperity is the ultimate goal, no matter the cost. It is only when the problems start affecting the very people responsible for colonialism that we start to talk about it. What event has to occur to wake up the members of the Western world and stop sacrificing the wellbeing of others to get what we want? I would argue that several events have already occurred that I would think would be enough, but clearly that is not the case. Something as simple as a wedding having to be hidden away as a result of colonialism should be enough. The simple act of two people falling in love and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together but are not allowed should be more than enough to open our eyes.
So this is more of a general question I had that only grew after viewing “The Battle of Algiers”. In this world we are split between the Global North and Global South all due to the overwhelming power and allure provided by Capitalism, as the film shows the horrors of “war” it just completely baffles me how there are genuinely people who don’t see any problem with the system which is causing an entire issue of problems due to capitalism just making things like Colonialism seem alright, this leads into my question, “With all the problems that capitalism has caused such as the colonization of some places and blatant racism, all for the white man to profit, why hasn’t anyone managed to propose an alternative method that doesn’t cause so many conflicts?”
The film, “Battle of Algiers” is an epic film that highlights the extremely violent acts committed by both the French forces and Algerian guerilla fighters during the Algerian War of Independence. The specific atrocities committed by the French were frowned upon and denounced by the French people, and support for maintaining control of Algeria in France dwindled. This film gained popularity in the US in the late 60s due to many Americans relating to the situation of losing support for their war in Vietnam (consequently another French colony).
I would imagine that the Vietnamese and the Algerians at the time of these conflicts would have sympathized with one another and their respective causes. We can look back and see the tide of both of those conflicts turn when the aggressing country’s media and home front supporters began to call for an end to war. Why is media support such an important factor in conflict, and why did it play such a large role in the outcomes of these conflicts in particular?
Frantz Fanon believed that colonialism was inherently violent and that revolutionary violence was necessary for the colonialized to liberate themselves. Fanon did not believe in random acts of uncalled-for violence. The film “The Battle of Algiers,” showcases the violence issued by both the French and Algerian sides. The film particularly focused on the violent acts committed by the Alergian National Liberation Front (FLN)
Given Fanon’s beliefs on violence, do you think that he would have approved or disproved of the FLN’s use of violence?
Frantz Fanon believed that colonialism was inherently violent and that revolutionary violence was necessary for the colonialized to liberate themselves. Fanon did not believe in random acts of uncalled-for violence. He emphasized that revolutionary violence needs to be stratigeic, and directed only towards dismantaling colonial oppresion rather than through the lense of revenge. The film “The Battle of Algiers,” showcases the violence issued by both the French and Algerian sides. The film particularly focused on the violent acts committed by the Alergian National Liberation Front (FLN). It focused on violence as a response to colonial oppression, asa transformative force that allows them to reclaim agency over thier own fate.
In Wretched of the Earth, the conversation of violence and civil unrest in order to take back from colonial powers is considered an intrinsic necessity. This is not only concerning the reacquisition of land but also of “his own intellectual possessions” (Fanon 13). Franz Fanon insists that this reclamation cannot be passive but rather that, as famously written, “decolonization is always a violent act” (Fanon 1)
These ideas were incredibly popular within the Black Panther Party especially considering Wretched of the Earth was a required read for members. A quote by Stokely Carmichael or Kwame Ture, a Black Panther Party member, reminded me of Fanon’s ideas; “in order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” Naturally the USA was the center of action and thought for the Black Panther but I feel like it is not a far stretch to apply this to other colonial powers like France.
Do you think that this idea of revolutionary violence is sustainable; was this perhaps seen as the only solution in an everchanging and multifaceted colonial and imperialist world? What do you think as an individual concerning this idea and what do you think, taking in society as a whole and what people could do with this mindset? -Iona Blackburn
For reflection question #4 I wanted to focus on a specific dialog excerpt from the film The Battle of Algiers. About half way through the film there is a scene where Ali la Pointe, the leader of the Algerian Front de Liberation Nationale has a conversation with a fellow Algerian liberation fighter. Ali’s comrade explains to him, “Acts of violence don’t win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a start. But then the people themselves must act. That’s the rationale behind the strike, to mobilize all Algerians to access our strength.” (1:07:11) In this quote Ali’s peer shares his conclusion that violence, specifically the use of terrorism and urban guerrilla warfare, are necessary parts of revolution because their horrific impacts unite those targeted. This is a completely different viewpoint to nonviolent action which we discussed previously in class during our unit on Mahatma Gandhi and his publication Hind Swaraj. Gandhi taught the philosophy that a revolution won from violent tactics never truly achieves liberation. With these two conflicting philosophies in mind, Is using violence to achieve freedom ever morally right? Is Ali’s fellow freedom fighter correct in his statement that violence unites people together under a common cause?
The Battle of the Algiers is a film about the Algerian struggle under French colonial rule. We see the FLN fighting to gain freedom and independence for the Algerian people from the point of view of a young revolutionary named Ali La Pointe. The film takes us from his beginnings as a petty thief radicalized in prison to his rise to authority in the FLN and ultimately his capture and murder by the French in 1957. This film shows how violence can be used strategically to fight for political victory. In the scenes where the three women drop off the bombs we see French people humanized– dancing, eating ice cream, a child in a booster seat– a stark contrast to the French colonial figures directly opposing them so far throughout the film. Why did Pontecorvo make this thematic choice? What can the viewer gain from being forced to confront the harsh realities that revolutionary violence necessitates, just as the three FLN women had to?
In Chapter 1 of Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, we are introduced to the subject matter of decolonization and the methods through which Fanon believes this must be achieved. Decolonization is the liberation of a nation and the restoration of its culture at the hands of said nation. As the name of the chapter suggests, it is clear that Fanon does not believe decolonization can occur without violence and that violence is a necessary catalyst for decolonization. Fanon states that decolonization cannot occur through a “gentleman’s agreement” without still undermining the power of the nation attempting decolonization. In the chapter, Fanon describes decolonization stating, “Decolonization, therefore, implies the urgent need to thoroughly challenge the colonial situation. Its definition can, if we want to describe it accurately, be summed up in the well-known words: “The last shall be first.” Decolonization is verification of this. At a descriptive level, therefore, any decolonization is a success”. Building off of this quote, I’d like to ask what Fanon means when he describes decolonization as being the “verification” of a reversal in power dynamics? What is the degree to which decolonization must be achieved before it can be considered this “verification”?
The general plot summary of this film is the French are attempting to subdue an uprising of the Algerian people in their attempt to revolt against the French crown. The warfare in the film becomes increasingly violent and disturbing as the storyline progresses. The story presented here of colonial powers using violence to extinguish the potential for an uprising in a colonized country, and it is part of a larger conversation about what is the most suitable global economic system and whether or not it is ethical to have conflicts arise as a result of trying to spread capitalism. My question to the class would be this: How could avenues have been created so that countries like Algeria can revolt against countries like France without having to resort to violence and warfare? Could some sort of global entity have been formed to check the powers of more “developed” countries trying to maintain dominance over other nations?
I found the movie “The Battle of Algiers” to be quite disillusioning. Of course I’ve never really perceived colonialism as a good thing, but viewing the events of the Algerian War made it that much clearer how disturbing it is that colonists take over other people’s land in violent ways, but then frame natives as a problem when they decide to revolt. This was made clear to me in the scene where Lieutenant-Colonel Mathieu is addressing their methods of questioning (the torture), he says “Is it legal to set off bombs in public places?… No, gentlemen, believe me. It is a vicious circle. We could talk for hours to no avail because that is not the problem. The problem is this: the FLN want to throw us out of Algeria and we want to stay.” He then explains how they aren’t fascists or Nazis, but goes on to say “Therefore to be precise, it is my turn to ask a question. Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences.” (1:34:04-1:35:22). He is very aware of the cycle that the Algerians have been put in, and yet he still feels that France should occupy and dominate the land. He excuses the torture methods they use. Frantz Fanon talks about something similar beginning on page six of Wretched of the Earth, saying how the colonized become the “enemy of values.” This is a method that colonizers use to alienate and demoralize these people, believing that their colonization is the cure.
We know colonists colonize for the economic benefit and the access to resources, and we can assume that their extreme measures are taken selfishly. I find it absurd how when colonized people do stand up for themselves, western society cannot accept that the colonized’s actions are simply an equivalent reaction to the harsh reality colonizer’s have made for them. So then my question is, why is it so easy for colonizer’s to get away with horrendous acts, but deemed morally corrupt when the colonized push back? Is there a way to reframe this narrative?
The movie Battle of Algiers is about the violent uprising of the Algerian people to reclaim their country after 130 years of French colonialism. The movie begins and ends with the same scene, which depicts Ali in a bunker or hideout. However, the conclusion ends with Ali dying in an explosion ignited by Colonel Mathieu. In the beginning, the radio broadcast highlights the main idea of the movie discussing (FLN) intentions, which gives the viewer foreshadowing assumptions and an FLN foundational statement. The early progression of the movie starts with flashbacks of Ali’s life and violent FLN history. Shootings, bombings, and ultimate retaliation broke out in 1954, and in 1956 the FLN declared war against the French. Children and innocent people died in shootings and bombings. The bar is a great example of how innocent people died and how women were sneaky messengers carrying out violent attacks on the French. Another instance of a violent attack can be on French policemen in broad daylight, and the French fight back with curfews, raids, blockades, arrests, and torture of the rebels. Mounds of violent attacks and urbanized gorilla-like warfare sprang throughout the city against the French.
The film ends with Ali’s death in a bunker/hideout explosion, however, his death isn’t in vain. In 1960, the film concludes with a mass protest against French colonial rule. Hundreds of innocent people die in the final protest, but the people’s strive for independence is achieved. Gandhi would not approve of this uprising.
The film “The Battle of the Algiers” depicts life in French colonized Algeria, and the Algerians struggle for independence through violence and harsh resistance. Violence was present in both sides of this conflict, showing that people will mercilessly fight for both liberation and control. These opposing sides of the conflict feel deeply about their desires, and utilize acts of violence to uphold their beliefs, the Algerians were shown to kill police officers left and right, as an act of resistance against their oppressors, while the police arrest and kill people who are a part of the resistance. The beginning of the film, we are shown a man getting arrested for acts of resistance, and we see him witness a man be killed by guillotine. It can be assumed that the man getting guillotined was defiant of the French oppressors. At minute 37, we watch the French bomb a building full of civilians, children included. The Algerians, in turn, tend to their injured and then storm the streets screaming “murderers!” After this, you can see Algerians getting stopped at checkpoints, paralleling modern day Palestine, where papers are checked by Israeli soldiers to allow passage, thus taking away these peoples autonomies. So many times the colonialists will demonize those they have colonized, making it seem like they are the problem, but it is them that are the truly evil ones. The loss of autonomy that comes with colonialism is devastating to the oppressed populations, which leads them to do harm to their oppressors. Violent acts of defiance and protests are used by the oppressors to continue to demonize the colonized populations, and garner support for their oppressive acts. Watching both sides of this conflict was very eye-opening, and this film helped me understand the Algerian resistance movement, a movement I was not very familiar with previously, and helps me really conceptualize the fact that there are oppressive forces everywhere, all throughout history and that there will always be resistance movements as long as colonialism is present in our world.
How does this film reflect onto today, and the broader context of fighting against colonialism in the modern day?
How does the violence depicted in this film counter with the satyagraha movement in Indian independence or any other notable resistance movements?
In this week’s reading Wretched of the Earth, part II. It is possible that even though movements rely on the masses which can set one free from the struggle it might not be a solution for the long term. “The formation of nationalist parties in the colonized countries is contemporary with the birth of an intellectual and business elite”. I like this statement because he is highlighting how nationalism movements can often emerge alongside the rise of Western values. Nationalist parties and the elite develop together with educated individuals. Also, there is a sense of exclusion that is often subordinate to European administrators because of power and wealth. I wonder what if eastern countries have the same wealth as western countries, what would the emergence of eastern nationalism look like?
The Battle of Algiers offers a compelling narrative of Algerias battle for independence from French colonial rule. The film depicts the conflict between anti-colonial Algerian forces (Front de Libération Nationale [FLN]) and the French military, where both sides employ violent and ethically questionable strategies while vying for power in the capital city of Algiers. Assassinations, bombings, shootings, civil unrest, and torture become common as conflict intensifies, with the FLN adopting increasingly violent measures as the French government furthers oppression of Arab Algerians. This cycle of violence and oppression seems to be a self-perpetuating cycle, a phenomenon directly referenced by France’s Colonial Mathieu, and one that is alluded to throughout the film as a central theme. The film seemingly attempts to show both the French and Algerian forces as neither entirely good nor evil, landing on a more nuanced perspective that only strengthens the realism of the film and its strong message on anti-colonialism and revolutionary violence. In the films conclusions we see French forces eventually dismantle the FLN, killing or detaining many of their core member. The relative peace is short-lived, as civil unrest returns in a just a few years, ultimately leading to the countries long awaited independence.
How does this films portrayal of revolutionary war align and/or contrast with our understandings of anti-colonialism? How can we apply the concepts discussed by both Fanon and Gandhi to the story of Algerian independence?
It’s quite a contrast to go from reading about Gandhi’s ideas of nonviolence to Fanon’s encouragement of violent revolutions. For the forum this week, I wanted to talk about the prominence of women in revolutionary action shown in the film “The Battle of Algiers.” The Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) was an Algerian resistance group fighting against the French colonial government. In the film, we see three Algerian women cutting their hair and changing their clothes to disguise themselves as French women. The French soldiers then let them through all the checkpoints without question, while all other Algerians had to show papers and be searched. These three women then planted bombs at the airport, a cafe, and a dance hall, all occupied by innocent French civilians. There are other instances in the film of women participating in the revolution, such as when a woman gives a gun to Ali La Pointe. These women broke free of traditional gender roles during revolutionary times, while also using these societal roles to their advantage to further the FLN’s goals. This is shown when the men who lead the FLN dress up as women to try to escape the French military and almost succeed because women are overlooked in their society.
The breaking of gender norms by women during revolutions is not uncommon, however, typically after gaining independence, women are forced back into these traditional gender roles that were in place before. In his book “The Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon argues that decolonization must be a complete social transformation. He writes, “Decolonization is truly the creation of new men.” How does the regression back to traditional gender roles in post-independence societies contrast with the idea of a complete social transformation? Shouldn’t the creation of “new men” also include women, especially due to their immense sacrifices during the revolution?
The film “The Battle of Algiers” follows the life of Ali, one of the leaders of the FLN, the resistance group fighting against the French for independence, and the progress of the Algerian revolution in Algiers. The movie depicts a population that is under apartheid, and how their pride and freedom are being stripped from them, a people that the French have oppressed for 130 years. It shows the tactics used by the FLN, like guerrilla warfare, bombings, and hideouts, really painting a picture of the violence that facilitated this revolution and effectively humanizing the FLN and its members while keeping us grounded in reality. One of the French tactics to suppress the rebellion was to discredit and dehumanize the FLN and Arabs as a whole by blocking off the Casbah sector of Algiers, home to the Algerian population of the city, and using manipulation tactics. During the strike set up by the FLN, a policeman with a megaphone tells the passers-by that the FLN is trying to get them to shut down their stores and put them out of business to manipulate people into going back to work. This is an example of a manipulation tactic used by the French.
The strike initiated by the FLN created an opportunity for the French by making the Casbah an easy target for raids, which gave the French the resources to find the names of FLN members through torture. This led to the capture or killing of all of their top-ranking members including Ali our main character. After being captured one of the top-ranking members of the FLN was brought before the press, and when he was questioned about the morality of using women carrying bombs in baskets, he said “Give us your bombers and you can have our baskets”. Before the press conference could wrap up Colonel Mathieu cuts him off and shuts it down, saying that he is going to stop it before it goes in the opposite direction. I found this revolution to mirror the current state of Gaza and Palestine as a whole in many ways, and with that being said, that is not an attempt to downplay the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. How can we, as Americans, spread awareness and educate people about human rights violations that, are funded with their tax dollars, in our communities in a civil manner? Kind of like our classroom environment, non-confrontational and open to questions. Because together we can put pressure on our politicians, who want us to believe that the genocide in Palestine is not as simple to put an end to as making a phone call.
In this week’s reading of The Wretched of the Earth, I found Fanon’s chapter Concerning Violence to be particularly intriguing. I appreciated the emphasis on the systematic divide between settler and colonized, and the way that each of these roles and relationships are exercised in times of colonization and decolonization. One particular phrase, “The violence with which the supremacy of white values is affirmed…” stood out to me. Essentially all settler groups work to instill their European values in new regions, without any regard to the previously existing societal structure. Most of the time, these values are instilled with violence and force – but it is unfathomable and unacceptable for colonized groups to use the same violence and force to protect themselves. Fanon believes that there can be no decolonization without violence, so what are some examples that come to mind regarding the success of violent force from minority groups? What are some examples that come to mind where justice may have prevailed if violent force was used?
Fanon states in the chapter “On Violence,” “The struggle, they goes on. The people realize that life is an unending struggle. The violence of the colonized, we have said, unifies the people” (Fanon, 51).
Fanon is expressing that violence is a means of unification and connection that the colonized people share. However, do you think this type of relationship between the people and violence, could be problematic? Problematic in terms of prioritizing violence and conflict as a way to connect among people.
A common theme in The Battle of the Algiers and a connection point to The Wretched of the Earth that I picked up on was the “othering” and stigmatization of Algerians by French soldiers and sympathizers. In at least two scenes, we see white men stir conflict with Algerians on the basis of presumed mischief, which I attribute to bias. In the beginning of the film, Ali is running when he is tripped by a group of French sympathizers. They assume that he is up to some sort of mischief, and take it upon themselves to stop and interrogate him simply based on this assumption. At a later point, a FLN member shoots an officer and runs away. An Algerian bystander is quickly blamed for the shooting by the masses, despite playing no part in it. With this, we see how colonizing forces impede not only the physical and mental wellbeing of the colonized, but also their social wellbeing. Can you find any specific excerpts from Fanon’s work that speak to this observation? What do Fanon and Sartre say about the social status of the colonized? How are they made to be the “other” in their native lands?
The movie showed great perspectives from Fanon on how violence is used to combat violence, to take back what was taken in the manner in which it was taken. I think this plays into Fanons view on how the colonized wants to be in the place of the colonizer. switching the roles so one feels like they are in power when they felt oppressed for so long, in any context really; modern, ancient, social, political, physical, mental, in home or natural. I believe its in our genetics to try and rise to the top and stay there, and when we don’t feel that we are on top it tends to show in how we treat those we view as below us or that we have any power over. Its hard to stem away from a system that is so engrained within us and pops up after fighting the oppressor it is still within our homes and culture. Another great example was bring knifes to gun fights, Fanon stated that having the motivation to have a revolution is great but if you do not have the right gear to fight the revolution will die out and loss momentum. In the movie they stepped up their game with timed explosives as well as bigger and more guns, they used these in a variety of ways to get there message across and try and spark uprising within the general populace, which it did lead to. But the question is what is the modern form of bring a knife to a gun fight, where are we out matched in our future revolution, everyone seems to have guns or at least access to them. I think it is information, how it is spread or how people react to it, we as a public pale in comparison to the government and corporations who have control over this technology. So maybe the next step further would be our mind, body, and spirit, which we can train and improve to how it reacts and moves/creates through this world. We need a spiritual revolution, one that does not fear guns, but walks a path for all.
The Battle of Algiers was unsettling, to put it mildly, but history is unsettling. This film is about strong resistance to colonialism, telling the story of the brutal repression of the Algerian people. It depicts the realities of guerrilla warfare, uprisings, and manipulation tactics by the French military/police. This allows the viewer to use past instances to analyze current manipulation tactics and repression. The use of psychological warfare, such as dehumanizing the Algerians and the economic pressure, illustrates how colonial powers maintain control, a strategy that remains relevant today. The film also presents ethical questions about how resistance movements are perceived.
The French wanted to delegitimize the FLN through propaganda. However, the response of the FLN stressed the power difference in the war. This dynamic is relevant to current global conflict scenarios, most prominently in Palestine, where both parties resort to similar narratives to legitimize systemic violence perpetrated against oppressed, marginalized populations. As individuals, it is our responsibility to search for the truth behind the violence, especially when the very violence in question is financed with our tax dollars with a critical mindset. By encouraging open conversations like this one in a classroom, we can push for more awareness of current policies. How could America try to educate and hold people accountable in the future?
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon is an intense and eye opening exploration of colonialism’s far reaching effects. I liked how Fanon doesn’t just critique the colonial system but also dives into the psychological toll it takes on the oppressed, which makes the struggle for liberation feel so much more complex and urgent. His insights on the role of violence in decolonization were both shocking and thought provoking, essentially counter violence is a necessary act. I also appreciated his exploration of identity and nationalism. Fanon’s discussion on the challenges post-colonial societies face in rebuilding resonates deeply. It’s a difficult read, but the raw truths it presents are incredibly powerful and important to consider. My question would then be, do you believe that violence can ever be justified as a means of resistance, or are there alternative, non-violent methods that could have achieved similar outcomes in decolonization struggles?
Transitioning from Gandhi’s writings on nonviolence to Fanon’s psycho-social analysis of de-colonial violence has been a pretty jarring and fascinating point of contention to explore. I have found myself at times wondering why we, as Sustainable Development students, would read something like The Wretched of the Earth or watch The Battle of Algiers in the first place, and yet their relevance today is simultaneously impossible to ignore. I am of course talking about the parallels between the Algerian independence movement and the ongoing struggle for Palestinian liberation. From my understanding, there are substantial historical linkages between the two movements; the FLN has indeed served as direct inspiration for armed Palestinian resistance groups over the decades. The “Algerian question” has been replaced by the “Palestinian question” in the West today, and it should make us just as uncomfortable as European audiences were upon reading The Wretched of the Earth back in the 1960’s. So I will pose an uncomfortable question: how should we really be thinking about the tactics of violent resistance by Hamas? What are the implications of even re-framing this question in the first place? De-colonialism need not always be achieved through violence, as Gandhi’s movement showed, but historically speaking it often is. And when this violence does occur, it can only be understood within the dialectic of settler-colonialist violence, not as a mere abstracted act of barbarism as it so often is by the media. It’s easy to retroactively support violent revolution as a righteous cause, as we now do with Algeria, but what about those ongoing struggles today?
Both the Battle of Algiers and The Wretched of the Earth emphasize colonialisms violent and dehumanizing nature. Fanon states that colonization steals natives identity & dignity and sees violent resistance as a means of reclaiming self worth. Fanon also believes that decolonization is inherently violent as those systems were historically built and maintained that way. The film on the other hand is a powerful visual example of colonial violence pushing the oppressed to resort to extreme retaliation.
If colonial rule causes cycles of violent oppression, are there ways to decolonize without violence? How can we build a future without the colonial cycles while still being held accountable for the past?
What stood out to me about the movie was there was a theme of civil resistance against the government. I also noticed how there was racial oppression, and how that led to so much violence in this movie too. It really opened my eyes to the effects of racial oppression and white supremacy affected minority groups of people and how much power it had in society back then. It gave the audience a very clear image of the colonial violence. My question is how can we change how society views people without there being violence breaking out?
In Fannon’s book, Wretched on the Earth, he explains the role (note that wording) of violence in a fight for liberation or in revolution. I use the word role because I think that he is clear in his emphasis that violence is not always the first or only step. However, in his opinion violence does very much have a role in collective action. He says, ” Violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.” Here Fannon is justifying the retaliation against violence with violence, and is saying that in doing that the oppressed will be cleansed. I am very intrigued by this take on violence, as it has never been advertised to me like this but I also understand that I have never had to use violence for liberation. I can empathize with his cause and appreciate his frankness about how tit for tat can be an act of native healing. Do you think that he is right? Does inflicting violence make someone feel better on a personal level? Is it case by case? And if so, is it then immoral to make this the sole strategy for revolution?
In our reading this week of The Battle of Algiers, which takes place during the Algerian fight for independence from France, a sweet event takes place a private wedding. While their one individual states “Remember, we are at war against colonialism” (The Battle of Algiers, 23:05). This quote speaks volumes as to how we are taught in schools about colonialism and how it deemed a positive thing when in reality Onces it begins to spread to the west suddenly it is a negative and needs to be addressed. A question we could ask here would be, how would we be able to alter the narrative surrounding colonialism that way it acknowledges the lasting negative effects it has on countries rather than attempting to justify these actions based on economic growth?
In the film The Battle of Algiers, Algerians are aiming to gain independence from France. The National Liberation Front used tactics such as guerrilla warfare and public displays of violence to free themselves from the control French Nationalists. What stood out to me while watching the film was the female fighters who would often go unsuspected by the French while secretly providing help to the FLN. While they placed bombs in public areas and would easily pass by security measures, they were able to have a large impact on the battle for independence.
The film also highlights key themes such as colonialism and resistance. In the film, which takes place in the Casbah, Algerians are portrayed as inferior to the French, suffering from police brutality and segregation. The opening scene shows an Algerian man being questioned for information on the National Liberation Front which sets the stage for oppression. The colonial control by the French was enforced through checkpoints in the film, where Algerians would often be searched, further emphasizing Algerian oppression. I question if there is a way to fight oppression without violence or if that is even an effective measure. The role of violence in the Battle of Algiers gave Algerians their independence. How could anger and violence not break out in the face of oppression?
The FLN organized attacks in secretive, unsuspected ways. Would it have been possible for success had the FLN not used these tactics? I think the film suggests, similar to Frantz Fanon, that colonial violence must be fought with violence to change systemic issues. I also recognized that in accordance with Ghandi, violence creates more violence, but at what point can violence create freedom?
This movie showed how the country won its independence from France. I enjoyed this film because it showed many different aspects of different people’s lives who were affected or involved with the conflict. The women in this movie were very interesting and intriguing to watch as they completely used their societal norms against the French who imposed them. The fact that several women would carry purses and bags around the town made it easy for them to carry bombs and other weapons into the different checkpoints because the officers would not suspect these women of carrying out such an act. I thought it was very interesting to see such resourcefulness during that period. There was, in my opinion, no true main character in the movie because that is how life goes. There will be some people who stand out, but in the grand picture, everyone played their part to get to the goal the freedom fighters wished to accomplish.
The inclusion of having the French’s side portrayed as the bad guys of the film helped convey that what they did in the past was wrong and needs to be shown to the people so that they can learn and never repeat something like occupying a country that is trying to be free. The amount of control France had over Algiers is the reason people wanted to fight and kick out the ruling nation so that the country could prosper on its own. The way that newer generations will learn through watching and listening to different pieces of media to understand what life was like before their time. Seeing movies like this will help improve the public’s understanding of events that happened in the past.
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
For this weeks reading there was a being discussion on civil unrest. “The characteristic, virtually endemic weakness of the underdeveloped countries’ national consciousness is not the only consequence of colonized subject’s mutilation by colonial regime” How do people in countries different from the USA rise up against something they know is morally wrong. In places like the United States you cannot be legally killed for speaking out, but is very different in other countries. The systems put in place were to replicate those of colonists home countries and now that they have left, there has still be the same system put in place but worse. Is it the duty of these counties to improve on themselves or should there be an outside help to forcefully change the systematic changes?
“The Battle of Algiers”showcased both sides of the politics, struggles, and crimes that were committed during the Algerian War. The rebellious group utilized guerrilla warfare and terrorism to reclaim their country that had been occupied and exploited at the expense of the people for 130 years. As a response, the French government repressed and tortured all those a part of the rebellious group and enacted various war crimes. Many in France didn’t like this and reporters started to challenge the general for better treatment of the insurgents. The general told them that if the French people were so against these devious actions, they would need to make a decision if human rights or the retention of Algeria were more important to them. For lack of better words and still quite pertinent to the French, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”. It is morally impossible to denounce a systemic problem that one still benefits from. This is where I begin to think associationally. In Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster’s book, “What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism” they argue that the constant need for growth in a system is impossible for earth and ecology which is a closed and finite system. This would indicate that for future sustainability of our population, there is a substantial need to either completely leave or systematically alter the way economics are structured towards any type of growth. A large undertaking. These solutions brought forth would warrant some serious sacrifices to the western way of life, but there is no perfect solution to these problems deeply ingrained in our society. Like our larger model of growth economics the Algerian War presents the question that if success is based off of the suffering of others, how will there be any way for equal flourishing? How much does society need to sacrifice in order to create equal flourishing and how much is society willing to sacrifice in order to ensure the prosperity of all people and environments?
Tyler Nece
As Algeria struggled for independence from France, “The Battle of Algiers” symbolizes the horrors committed by both the French and the Algerian people during the 1950s. The film focuses on members of the FLN, a nationalist political party comprised of guerilla fighters. Men, women, and Algerians of all ages both participated in and were victims of this violence. In response to the Algerian people’s violence, the French government begins to retaliate with bombings, police raids, and increased restrictions. Ali La Pointe, the leader of the FLN, is the main protagonist in this film and was involved in many assassinations and bombings done by the FLN. French Colonel Mathieu, an experienced and brutal military officer, is assigned to dismantle the FLN network. To gather information and put an end to the rebellion, he used harsh tactics, including the widespread torture of FLN members and their supporters. In the end, “The Battle of Algiers” is a historical account of the Algerian War of Independence and provides a more comprehensive commentary on the nature of colonialism, resistance, and the human capacity for both violence and resilience.
Throughout history, revolutionary movements have used various strategies to achieve their goals. While some have used nonviolent tactics, others have used violence to achieve their goals. Is violence the most effective way to achieve a revolution, given historical examples and outcomes?
Aura Cochran
In “The Battle of Algiers”, while Algeria fought against the French for their independence, one of the members of the FLN, which is where Algerian people participated in guerrilla fighting for the nationalists political party, held a wedding. This wedding was in private, they even discussed how one day, their weddings would be able to be held in public again one day. One of the members performing the ceremony said, “Remember, we are at war against colonialism”, (The Battle of Algiers, 23:05). This quote stood out to me as it reminded me of or almost every conflict occurring all over the world is due to colonialism. However, we are taught in school that colonialism is a good thing and that economic prosperity is the ultimate goal, no matter the cost. It is only when the problems start affecting the very people responsible for colonialism that we start to talk about it. What event has to occur to wake up the members of the Western world and stop sacrificing the wellbeing of others to get what we want? I would argue that several events have already occurred that I would think would be enough, but clearly that is not the case. Something as simple as a wedding having to be hidden away as a result of colonialism should be enough. The simple act of two people falling in love and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together but are not allowed should be more than enough to open our eyes.
Parker Williamson
So this is more of a general question I had that only grew after viewing “The Battle of Algiers”. In this world we are split between the Global North and Global South all due to the overwhelming power and allure provided by Capitalism, as the film shows the horrors of “war” it just completely baffles me how there are genuinely people who don’t see any problem with the system which is causing an entire issue of problems due to capitalism just making things like Colonialism seem alright, this leads into my question, “With all the problems that capitalism has caused such as the colonization of some places and blatant racism, all for the white man to profit, why hasn’t anyone managed to propose an alternative method that doesn’t cause so many conflicts?”
-Connor Kuharcik
The film, “Battle of Algiers” is an epic film that highlights the extremely violent acts committed by both the French forces and Algerian guerilla fighters during the Algerian War of Independence. The specific atrocities committed by the French were frowned upon and denounced by the French people, and support for maintaining control of Algeria in France dwindled. This film gained popularity in the US in the late 60s due to many Americans relating to the situation of losing support for their war in Vietnam (consequently another French colony).
I would imagine that the Vietnamese and the Algerians at the time of these conflicts would have sympathized with one another and their respective causes. We can look back and see the tide of both of those conflicts turn when the aggressing country’s media and home front supporters began to call for an end to war. Why is media support such an important factor in conflict, and why did it play such a large role in the outcomes of these conflicts in particular?
-Jack Brion
Frantz Fanon believed that colonialism was inherently violent and that revolutionary violence was necessary for the colonialized to liberate themselves. Fanon did not believe in random acts of uncalled-for violence. The film “The Battle of Algiers,” showcases the violence issued by both the French and Algerian sides. The film particularly focused on the violent acts committed by the Alergian National Liberation Front (FLN)
Given Fanon’s beliefs on violence, do you think that he would have approved or disproved of the FLN’s use of violence?
Frantz Fanon believed that colonialism was inherently violent and that revolutionary violence was necessary for the colonialized to liberate themselves. Fanon did not believe in random acts of uncalled-for violence. He emphasized that revolutionary violence needs to be stratigeic, and directed only towards dismantaling colonial oppresion rather than through the lense of revenge. The film “The Battle of Algiers,” showcases the violence issued by both the French and Algerian sides. The film particularly focused on the violent acts committed by the Alergian National Liberation Front (FLN). It focused on violence as a response to colonial oppression, asa transformative force that allows them to reclaim agency over thier own fate.
In Wretched of the Earth, the conversation of violence and civil unrest in order to take back from colonial powers is considered an intrinsic necessity. This is not only concerning the reacquisition of land but also of “his own intellectual possessions” (Fanon 13). Franz Fanon insists that this reclamation cannot be passive but rather that, as famously written, “decolonization is always a violent act” (Fanon 1)
These ideas were incredibly popular within the Black Panther Party especially considering Wretched of the Earth was a required read for members. A quote by Stokely Carmichael or Kwame Ture, a Black Panther Party member, reminded me of Fanon’s ideas; “in order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” Naturally the USA was the center of action and thought for the Black Panther but I feel like it is not a far stretch to apply this to other colonial powers like France.
Do you think that this idea of revolutionary violence is sustainable; was this perhaps seen as the only solution in an everchanging and multifaceted colonial and imperialist world? What do you think as an individual concerning this idea and what do you think, taking in society as a whole and what people could do with this mindset? -Iona Blackburn
For reflection question #4 I wanted to focus on a specific dialog excerpt from the film The Battle of Algiers. About half way through the film there is a scene where Ali la Pointe, the leader of the Algerian Front de Liberation Nationale has a conversation with a fellow Algerian liberation fighter. Ali’s comrade explains to him, “Acts of violence don’t win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a start. But then the people themselves must act. That’s the rationale behind the strike, to mobilize all Algerians to access our strength.” (1:07:11) In this quote Ali’s peer shares his conclusion that violence, specifically the use of terrorism and urban guerrilla warfare, are necessary parts of revolution because their horrific impacts unite those targeted. This is a completely different viewpoint to nonviolent action which we discussed previously in class during our unit on Mahatma Gandhi and his publication Hind Swaraj. Gandhi taught the philosophy that a revolution won from violent tactics never truly achieves liberation. With these two conflicting philosophies in mind, Is using violence to achieve freedom ever morally right? Is Ali’s fellow freedom fighter correct in his statement that violence unites people together under a common cause?
Clara NeSmith
The Battle of the Algiers is a film about the Algerian struggle under French colonial rule. We see the FLN fighting to gain freedom and independence for the Algerian people from the point of view of a young revolutionary named Ali La Pointe. The film takes us from his beginnings as a petty thief radicalized in prison to his rise to authority in the FLN and ultimately his capture and murder by the French in 1957. This film shows how violence can be used strategically to fight for political victory. In the scenes where the three women drop off the bombs we see French people humanized– dancing, eating ice cream, a child in a booster seat– a stark contrast to the French colonial figures directly opposing them so far throughout the film. Why did Pontecorvo make this thematic choice? What can the viewer gain from being forced to confront the harsh realities that revolutionary violence necessitates, just as the three FLN women had to?
Aaron Batty
In Chapter 1 of Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, we are introduced to the subject matter of decolonization and the methods through which Fanon believes this must be achieved. Decolonization is the liberation of a nation and the restoration of its culture at the hands of said nation. As the name of the chapter suggests, it is clear that Fanon does not believe decolonization can occur without violence and that violence is a necessary catalyst for decolonization. Fanon states that decolonization cannot occur through a “gentleman’s agreement” without still undermining the power of the nation attempting decolonization. In the chapter, Fanon describes decolonization stating, “Decolonization, therefore, implies the urgent need to thoroughly challenge the colonial situation. Its definition can, if we want to describe it accurately, be summed up in the well-known words: “The last shall be first.” Decolonization is verification of this. At a descriptive level, therefore, any decolonization is a success”. Building off of this quote, I’d like to ask what Fanon means when he describes decolonization as being the “verification” of a reversal in power dynamics? What is the degree to which decolonization must be achieved before it can be considered this “verification”?
Sofie Crump
The general plot summary of this film is the French are attempting to subdue an uprising of the Algerian people in their attempt to revolt against the French crown. The warfare in the film becomes increasingly violent and disturbing as the storyline progresses. The story presented here of colonial powers using violence to extinguish the potential for an uprising in a colonized country, and it is part of a larger conversation about what is the most suitable global economic system and whether or not it is ethical to have conflicts arise as a result of trying to spread capitalism. My question to the class would be this: How could avenues have been created so that countries like Algeria can revolt against countries like France without having to resort to violence and warfare? Could some sort of global entity have been formed to check the powers of more “developed” countries trying to maintain dominance over other nations?
I found the movie “The Battle of Algiers” to be quite disillusioning. Of course I’ve never really perceived colonialism as a good thing, but viewing the events of the Algerian War made it that much clearer how disturbing it is that colonists take over other people’s land in violent ways, but then frame natives as a problem when they decide to revolt. This was made clear to me in the scene where Lieutenant-Colonel Mathieu is addressing their methods of questioning (the torture), he says “Is it legal to set off bombs in public places?… No, gentlemen, believe me. It is a vicious circle. We could talk for hours to no avail because that is not the problem. The problem is this: the FLN want to throw us out of Algeria and we want to stay.” He then explains how they aren’t fascists or Nazis, but goes on to say “Therefore to be precise, it is my turn to ask a question. Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences.” (1:34:04-1:35:22). He is very aware of the cycle that the Algerians have been put in, and yet he still feels that France should occupy and dominate the land. He excuses the torture methods they use. Frantz Fanon talks about something similar beginning on page six of Wretched of the Earth, saying how the colonized become the “enemy of values.” This is a method that colonizers use to alienate and demoralize these people, believing that their colonization is the cure.
We know colonists colonize for the economic benefit and the access to resources, and we can assume that their extreme measures are taken selfishly. I find it absurd how when colonized people do stand up for themselves, western society cannot accept that the colonized’s actions are simply an equivalent reaction to the harsh reality colonizer’s have made for them. So then my question is, why is it so easy for colonizer’s to get away with horrendous acts, but deemed morally corrupt when the colonized push back? Is there a way to reframe this narrative?
Ella Holmes
The movie Battle of Algiers is about the violent uprising of the Algerian people to reclaim their country after 130 years of French colonialism. The movie begins and ends with the same scene, which depicts Ali in a bunker or hideout. However, the conclusion ends with Ali dying in an explosion ignited by Colonel Mathieu. In the beginning, the radio broadcast highlights the main idea of the movie discussing (FLN) intentions, which gives the viewer foreshadowing assumptions and an FLN foundational statement. The early progression of the movie starts with flashbacks of Ali’s life and violent FLN history. Shootings, bombings, and ultimate retaliation broke out in 1954, and in 1956 the FLN declared war against the French. Children and innocent people died in shootings and bombings. The bar is a great example of how innocent people died and how women were sneaky messengers carrying out violent attacks on the French. Another instance of a violent attack can be on French policemen in broad daylight, and the French fight back with curfews, raids, blockades, arrests, and torture of the rebels. Mounds of violent attacks and urbanized gorilla-like warfare sprang throughout the city against the French.
The film ends with Ali’s death in a bunker/hideout explosion, however, his death isn’t in vain. In 1960, the film concludes with a mass protest against French colonial rule. Hundreds of innocent people die in the final protest, but the people’s strive for independence is achieved. Gandhi would not approve of this uprising.
The film “The Battle of the Algiers” depicts life in French colonized Algeria, and the Algerians struggle for independence through violence and harsh resistance. Violence was present in both sides of this conflict, showing that people will mercilessly fight for both liberation and control. These opposing sides of the conflict feel deeply about their desires, and utilize acts of violence to uphold their beliefs, the Algerians were shown to kill police officers left and right, as an act of resistance against their oppressors, while the police arrest and kill people who are a part of the resistance. The beginning of the film, we are shown a man getting arrested for acts of resistance, and we see him witness a man be killed by guillotine. It can be assumed that the man getting guillotined was defiant of the French oppressors. At minute 37, we watch the French bomb a building full of civilians, children included. The Algerians, in turn, tend to their injured and then storm the streets screaming “murderers!” After this, you can see Algerians getting stopped at checkpoints, paralleling modern day Palestine, where papers are checked by Israeli soldiers to allow passage, thus taking away these peoples autonomies. So many times the colonialists will demonize those they have colonized, making it seem like they are the problem, but it is them that are the truly evil ones. The loss of autonomy that comes with colonialism is devastating to the oppressed populations, which leads them to do harm to their oppressors. Violent acts of defiance and protests are used by the oppressors to continue to demonize the colonized populations, and garner support for their oppressive acts. Watching both sides of this conflict was very eye-opening, and this film helped me understand the Algerian resistance movement, a movement I was not very familiar with previously, and helps me really conceptualize the fact that there are oppressive forces everywhere, all throughout history and that there will always be resistance movements as long as colonialism is present in our world.
How does this film reflect onto today, and the broader context of fighting against colonialism in the modern day?
How does the violence depicted in this film counter with the satyagraha movement in Indian independence or any other notable resistance movements?
Caroline Laschinger
In this week’s reading Wretched of the Earth, part II. It is possible that even though movements rely on the masses which can set one free from the struggle it might not be a solution for the long term. “The formation of nationalist parties in the colonized countries is contemporary with the birth of an intellectual and business elite”. I like this statement because he is highlighting how nationalism movements can often emerge alongside the rise of Western values. Nationalist parties and the elite develop together with educated individuals. Also, there is a sense of exclusion that is often subordinate to European administrators because of power and wealth. I wonder what if eastern countries have the same wealth as western countries, what would the emergence of eastern nationalism look like?
Kye
The Battle of Algiers offers a compelling narrative of Algerias battle for independence from French colonial rule. The film depicts the conflict between anti-colonial Algerian forces (Front de Libération Nationale [FLN]) and the French military, where both sides employ violent and ethically questionable strategies while vying for power in the capital city of Algiers. Assassinations, bombings, shootings, civil unrest, and torture become common as conflict intensifies, with the FLN adopting increasingly violent measures as the French government furthers oppression of Arab Algerians. This cycle of violence and oppression seems to be a self-perpetuating cycle, a phenomenon directly referenced by France’s Colonial Mathieu, and one that is alluded to throughout the film as a central theme. The film seemingly attempts to show both the French and Algerian forces as neither entirely good nor evil, landing on a more nuanced perspective that only strengthens the realism of the film and its strong message on anti-colonialism and revolutionary violence. In the films conclusions we see French forces eventually dismantle the FLN, killing or detaining many of their core member. The relative peace is short-lived, as civil unrest returns in a just a few years, ultimately leading to the countries long awaited independence.
How does this films portrayal of revolutionary war align and/or contrast with our understandings of anti-colonialism? How can we apply the concepts discussed by both Fanon and Gandhi to the story of Algerian independence?
Max Lawrence
It’s quite a contrast to go from reading about Gandhi’s ideas of nonviolence to Fanon’s encouragement of violent revolutions. For the forum this week, I wanted to talk about the prominence of women in revolutionary action shown in the film “The Battle of Algiers.” The Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) was an Algerian resistance group fighting against the French colonial government. In the film, we see three Algerian women cutting their hair and changing their clothes to disguise themselves as French women. The French soldiers then let them through all the checkpoints without question, while all other Algerians had to show papers and be searched. These three women then planted bombs at the airport, a cafe, and a dance hall, all occupied by innocent French civilians. There are other instances in the film of women participating in the revolution, such as when a woman gives a gun to Ali La Pointe. These women broke free of traditional gender roles during revolutionary times, while also using these societal roles to their advantage to further the FLN’s goals. This is shown when the men who lead the FLN dress up as women to try to escape the French military and almost succeed because women are overlooked in their society.
The breaking of gender norms by women during revolutions is not uncommon, however, typically after gaining independence, women are forced back into these traditional gender roles that were in place before. In his book “The Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon argues that decolonization must be a complete social transformation. He writes, “Decolonization is truly the creation of new men.” How does the regression back to traditional gender roles in post-independence societies contrast with the idea of a complete social transformation? Shouldn’t the creation of “new men” also include women, especially due to their immense sacrifices during the revolution?
The film “The Battle of Algiers” follows the life of Ali, one of the leaders of the FLN, the resistance group fighting against the French for independence, and the progress of the Algerian revolution in Algiers. The movie depicts a population that is under apartheid, and how their pride and freedom are being stripped from them, a people that the French have oppressed for 130 years. It shows the tactics used by the FLN, like guerrilla warfare, bombings, and hideouts, really painting a picture of the violence that facilitated this revolution and effectively humanizing the FLN and its members while keeping us grounded in reality. One of the French tactics to suppress the rebellion was to discredit and dehumanize the FLN and Arabs as a whole by blocking off the Casbah sector of Algiers, home to the Algerian population of the city, and using manipulation tactics. During the strike set up by the FLN, a policeman with a megaphone tells the passers-by that the FLN is trying to get them to shut down their stores and put them out of business to manipulate people into going back to work. This is an example of a manipulation tactic used by the French.
The strike initiated by the FLN created an opportunity for the French by making the Casbah an easy target for raids, which gave the French the resources to find the names of FLN members through torture. This led to the capture or killing of all of their top-ranking members including Ali our main character. After being captured one of the top-ranking members of the FLN was brought before the press, and when he was questioned about the morality of using women carrying bombs in baskets, he said “Give us your bombers and you can have our baskets”. Before the press conference could wrap up Colonel Mathieu cuts him off and shuts it down, saying that he is going to stop it before it goes in the opposite direction. I found this revolution to mirror the current state of Gaza and Palestine as a whole in many ways, and with that being said, that is not an attempt to downplay the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. How can we, as Americans, spread awareness and educate people about human rights violations that, are funded with their tax dollars, in our communities in a civil manner? Kind of like our classroom environment, non-confrontational and open to questions. Because together we can put pressure on our politicians, who want us to believe that the genocide in Palestine is not as simple to put an end to as making a phone call.
Landon Dancy
In this week’s reading of The Wretched of the Earth, I found Fanon’s chapter Concerning Violence to be particularly intriguing. I appreciated the emphasis on the systematic divide between settler and colonized, and the way that each of these roles and relationships are exercised in times of colonization and decolonization. One particular phrase, “The violence with which the supremacy of white values is affirmed…” stood out to me. Essentially all settler groups work to instill their European values in new regions, without any regard to the previously existing societal structure. Most of the time, these values are instilled with violence and force – but it is unfathomable and unacceptable for colonized groups to use the same violence and force to protect themselves. Fanon believes that there can be no decolonization without violence, so what are some examples that come to mind regarding the success of violent force from minority groups? What are some examples that come to mind where justice may have prevailed if violent force was used?
Paige Kaine
Fanon states in the chapter “On Violence,” “The struggle, they goes on. The people realize that life is an unending struggle. The violence of the colonized, we have said, unifies the people” (Fanon, 51).
Fanon is expressing that violence is a means of unification and connection that the colonized people share. However, do you think this type of relationship between the people and violence, could be problematic? Problematic in terms of prioritizing violence and conflict as a way to connect among people.
Abbey Smith
A common theme in The Battle of the Algiers and a connection point to The Wretched of the Earth that I picked up on was the “othering” and stigmatization of Algerians by French soldiers and sympathizers. In at least two scenes, we see white men stir conflict with Algerians on the basis of presumed mischief, which I attribute to bias. In the beginning of the film, Ali is running when he is tripped by a group of French sympathizers. They assume that he is up to some sort of mischief, and take it upon themselves to stop and interrogate him simply based on this assumption. At a later point, a FLN member shoots an officer and runs away. An Algerian bystander is quickly blamed for the shooting by the masses, despite playing no part in it. With this, we see how colonizing forces impede not only the physical and mental wellbeing of the colonized, but also their social wellbeing. Can you find any specific excerpts from Fanon’s work that speak to this observation? What do Fanon and Sartre say about the social status of the colonized? How are they made to be the “other” in their native lands?
-Carson Mease
The movie showed great perspectives from Fanon on how violence is used to combat violence, to take back what was taken in the manner in which it was taken. I think this plays into Fanons view on how the colonized wants to be in the place of the colonizer. switching the roles so one feels like they are in power when they felt oppressed for so long, in any context really; modern, ancient, social, political, physical, mental, in home or natural. I believe its in our genetics to try and rise to the top and stay there, and when we don’t feel that we are on top it tends to show in how we treat those we view as below us or that we have any power over. Its hard to stem away from a system that is so engrained within us and pops up after fighting the oppressor it is still within our homes and culture. Another great example was bring knifes to gun fights, Fanon stated that having the motivation to have a revolution is great but if you do not have the right gear to fight the revolution will die out and loss momentum. In the movie they stepped up their game with timed explosives as well as bigger and more guns, they used these in a variety of ways to get there message across and try and spark uprising within the general populace, which it did lead to. But the question is what is the modern form of bring a knife to a gun fight, where are we out matched in our future revolution, everyone seems to have guns or at least access to them. I think it is information, how it is spread or how people react to it, we as a public pale in comparison to the government and corporations who have control over this technology. So maybe the next step further would be our mind, body, and spirit, which we can train and improve to how it reacts and moves/creates through this world. We need a spiritual revolution, one that does not fear guns, but walks a path for all.
-elan
The Battle of Algiers was unsettling, to put it mildly, but history is unsettling. This film is about strong resistance to colonialism, telling the story of the brutal repression of the Algerian people. It depicts the realities of guerrilla warfare, uprisings, and manipulation tactics by the French military/police. This allows the viewer to use past instances to analyze current manipulation tactics and repression. The use of psychological warfare, such as dehumanizing the Algerians and the economic pressure, illustrates how colonial powers maintain control, a strategy that remains relevant today. The film also presents ethical questions about how resistance movements are perceived.
The French wanted to delegitimize the FLN through propaganda. However, the response of the FLN stressed the power difference in the war. This dynamic is relevant to current global conflict scenarios, most prominently in Palestine, where both parties resort to similar narratives to legitimize systemic violence perpetrated against oppressed, marginalized populations. As individuals, it is our responsibility to search for the truth behind the violence, especially when the very violence in question is financed with our tax dollars with a critical mindset. By encouraging open conversations like this one in a classroom, we can push for more awareness of current policies. How could America try to educate and hold people accountable in the future?
-Fia Mascari
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon is an intense and eye opening exploration of colonialism’s far reaching effects. I liked how Fanon doesn’t just critique the colonial system but also dives into the psychological toll it takes on the oppressed, which makes the struggle for liberation feel so much more complex and urgent. His insights on the role of violence in decolonization were both shocking and thought provoking, essentially counter violence is a necessary act. I also appreciated his exploration of identity and nationalism. Fanon’s discussion on the challenges post-colonial societies face in rebuilding resonates deeply. It’s a difficult read, but the raw truths it presents are incredibly powerful and important to consider. My question would then be, do you believe that violence can ever be justified as a means of resistance, or are there alternative, non-violent methods that could have achieved similar outcomes in decolonization struggles?
-Will Bradford
Transitioning from Gandhi’s writings on nonviolence to Fanon’s psycho-social analysis of de-colonial violence has been a pretty jarring and fascinating point of contention to explore. I have found myself at times wondering why we, as Sustainable Development students, would read something like The Wretched of the Earth or watch The Battle of Algiers in the first place, and yet their relevance today is simultaneously impossible to ignore. I am of course talking about the parallels between the Algerian independence movement and the ongoing struggle for Palestinian liberation. From my understanding, there are substantial historical linkages between the two movements; the FLN has indeed served as direct inspiration for armed Palestinian resistance groups over the decades. The “Algerian question” has been replaced by the “Palestinian question” in the West today, and it should make us just as uncomfortable as European audiences were upon reading The Wretched of the Earth back in the 1960’s. So I will pose an uncomfortable question: how should we really be thinking about the tactics of violent resistance by Hamas? What are the implications of even re-framing this question in the first place? De-colonialism need not always be achieved through violence, as Gandhi’s movement showed, but historically speaking it often is. And when this violence does occur, it can only be understood within the dialectic of settler-colonialist violence, not as a mere abstracted act of barbarism as it so often is by the media. It’s easy to retroactively support violent revolution as a righteous cause, as we now do with Algeria, but what about those ongoing struggles today?
Jack Ely
Both the Battle of Algiers and The Wretched of the Earth emphasize colonialisms violent and dehumanizing nature. Fanon states that colonization steals natives identity & dignity and sees violent resistance as a means of reclaiming self worth. Fanon also believes that decolonization is inherently violent as those systems were historically built and maintained that way. The film on the other hand is a powerful visual example of colonial violence pushing the oppressed to resort to extreme retaliation.
If colonial rule causes cycles of violent oppression, are there ways to decolonize without violence? How can we build a future without the colonial cycles while still being held accountable for the past?
-Corrin Dotson
What stood out to me about the movie was there was a theme of civil resistance against the government. I also noticed how there was racial oppression, and how that led to so much violence in this movie too. It really opened my eyes to the effects of racial oppression and white supremacy affected minority groups of people and how much power it had in society back then. It gave the audience a very clear image of the colonial violence. My question is how can we change how society views people without there being violence breaking out?
Ciara Gurganus
In Fannon’s book, Wretched on the Earth, he explains the role (note that wording) of violence in a fight for liberation or in revolution. I use the word role because I think that he is clear in his emphasis that violence is not always the first or only step. However, in his opinion violence does very much have a role in collective action. He says, ” Violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.” Here Fannon is justifying the retaliation against violence with violence, and is saying that in doing that the oppressed will be cleansed. I am very intrigued by this take on violence, as it has never been advertised to me like this but I also understand that I have never had to use violence for liberation. I can empathize with his cause and appreciate his frankness about how tit for tat can be an act of native healing. Do you think that he is right? Does inflicting violence make someone feel better on a personal level? Is it case by case? And if so, is it then immoral to make this the sole strategy for revolution?
Posey Lester-Niles
In our reading this week of The Battle of Algiers, which takes place during the Algerian fight for independence from France, a sweet event takes place a private wedding. While their one individual states “Remember, we are at war against colonialism” (The Battle of Algiers, 23:05). This quote speaks volumes as to how we are taught in schools about colonialism and how it deemed a positive thing when in reality Onces it begins to spread to the west suddenly it is a negative and needs to be addressed. A question we could ask here would be, how would we be able to alter the narrative surrounding colonialism that way it acknowledges the lasting negative effects it has on countries rather than attempting to justify these actions based on economic growth?
-Lex Blake
In the film The Battle of Algiers, Algerians are aiming to gain independence from France. The National Liberation Front used tactics such as guerrilla warfare and public displays of violence to free themselves from the control French Nationalists. What stood out to me while watching the film was the female fighters who would often go unsuspected by the French while secretly providing help to the FLN. While they placed bombs in public areas and would easily pass by security measures, they were able to have a large impact on the battle for independence.
The film also highlights key themes such as colonialism and resistance. In the film, which takes place in the Casbah, Algerians are portrayed as inferior to the French, suffering from police brutality and segregation. The opening scene shows an Algerian man being questioned for information on the National Liberation Front which sets the stage for oppression. The colonial control by the French was enforced through checkpoints in the film, where Algerians would often be searched, further emphasizing Algerian oppression. I question if there is a way to fight oppression without violence or if that is even an effective measure. The role of violence in the Battle of Algiers gave Algerians their independence. How could anger and violence not break out in the face of oppression?
The FLN organized attacks in secretive, unsuspected ways. Would it have been possible for success had the FLN not used these tactics? I think the film suggests, similar to Frantz Fanon, that colonial violence must be fought with violence to change systemic issues. I also recognized that in accordance with Ghandi, violence creates more violence, but at what point can violence create freedom?
Ava Allen
This movie showed how the country won its independence from France. I enjoyed this film because it showed many different aspects of different people’s lives who were affected or involved with the conflict. The women in this movie were very interesting and intriguing to watch as they completely used their societal norms against the French who imposed them. The fact that several women would carry purses and bags around the town made it easy for them to carry bombs and other weapons into the different checkpoints because the officers would not suspect these women of carrying out such an act. I thought it was very interesting to see such resourcefulness during that period. There was, in my opinion, no true main character in the movie because that is how life goes. There will be some people who stand out, but in the grand picture, everyone played their part to get to the goal the freedom fighters wished to accomplish.
The inclusion of having the French’s side portrayed as the bad guys of the film helped convey that what they did in the past was wrong and needs to be shown to the people so that they can learn and never repeat something like occupying a country that is trying to be free. The amount of control France had over Algiers is the reason people wanted to fight and kick out the ruling nation so that the country could prosper on its own. The way that newer generations will learn through watching and listening to different pieces of media to understand what life was like before their time. Seeing movies like this will help improve the public’s understanding of events that happened in the past.
-Vincent Spinelli