Gahndi’s work was centered around nonviolent acts of defiance, such as the march to get salt for India. In comparison, The Wretched of the Earth talks about violent and nonviolent methods of decolonization. To what extent do you think Gahdi’s beliefs would align with this statement, “there are some individuals who are convinced of the ineffectiveness of violent methods; for them, there is no doubt about it, every attempt to break colonial oppression by force is a hopeless effort, an attempt at suicide, because in the innermost recesses of their brains the settler’s tanks and airplanes occupy a huge place. When they are told “Action must be taken,” they see bombs raining down on them, armored cars coming at them on every path, machine-gunning and police action . . . and they sit quiet. They are beaten from the start. There is no need to demonstrate their incapacity to triumph by violent methods; they take it for granted in their everyday life and in their political maneuver” (62)?
In part 1 of “Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses that with decolonization, the colonized country knows that it will experience violence in the midst of its freedom. Fanon proceeds to mention that those that are colonized often feel envious of the colonizers. The colonizers did also use violence in their regime to take over a country, so it is believed that the same retaliation must be used in order to regain freedom. Fanon mentions that the animalistic treatment of the colonized society, their envy, and repression of their epistemologies are all contingent with the right to bring violence into their decolonization strategy. How would this strategy, if it had been used in Gandhi’s salt march, had a different outcome in their attempt to break away from the British? The protestors were still abused violently regardless of their peaceful protests. Would violence vs. violence have made a difference in this scenario?
This part one reading begins by discussing the idea of “self and other” He talks about the division of the europeans and the rest of the world. The self would be the Europeans and the others are the enslaved or natives. The middle class people also known as Bourgeoisie are mentioned in part one. The middle class helps the dialogue between the Europeans and the enslaved or natives. He then goes on to highlight the model of colonization. It begins with the idea of enlightenment to distinguish the self and others. In reality the Europeans made these ideas of enlightenment tho distance themselves from the crimes of enslavement and they are all lies. The christianity was also used to explain why they needed to do this to these people by either enslaving them or oppressing them. These ideals have no benefit for the natives whole do not require anything from the outside world. In part one he says ” After all, let them bawl their heads off, it relieves their feelings; dogs that don’t bite. This points towards literature that has been written against the European ideology not having bringing any worry in the minds of the Europeans colonizers. To them, these writings aren’t anything more than a dog that barks but will not bite. The natives in India have a powerful voice behind them and this is a major flaw in the Europeans idealistic way of thinking.
What do you think drove the Europeans to ignore the literature being produced in this time period by the natives?
The Wretched Earth delves into the topics of colonization and all the violence that it has caused. The author’s belief is that any form or method of decolonizing previously colonized areas will ensue violence. Even going as far as to say “whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (35). He explains that the deep social divisions between classes not only helped contributed to this violence but created a deep-rooted disconnection between these classes. He delves deeper into colonization explaining how it was created with violence as its main tool, by the use of superior weapons and knowledge. He explains how the colonial world is separated into two places, military barracks and police stations whereas the colonizer’s world is in almost perfect condition with “modern conveniences and opportunities”. He describes the world as “Manichaean”, divided into light and dark where the white colonizers are the light and native peoples are the dark. This reading was extremely interesting to me because while I realize that the overall effects of colonization are awful and resulted in some of the worst atrocities in human history. However, the attitude that Fanon writes in is that this colonizing world is doing so with the sole intention of causing chaos, mayhem, or destruction essentially saying they are all inherently evil. Again while I do think that the colonizer’s actions have caused evil, I would like to think that the decision-makers in these colonizing nations are not making decisions inherently out of evil. The main question this brings me to is simply do you think that we are making decisions purely out of evil with the intent to keep the colonized nations separated from us? Or do you think that the intentions may be good, but in reality are not carried out effectively/were effective at all?
In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon states that Europe is wealthy because it has stolen its wealth from the developing world. “This European opulence is literally a scandal for it was built with the sweat and corpses of blacks, Arabs, Indians, and Asians. This we are determined to never forget” (Fanon, 53). Fanon goes on to state that when the colonized demand independence they are told that will entail returning to the “Dark Ages.” In addition, the colonial power will apply economic pressure to the young nation- which can be seen as a form of neocolonialism.
Newly independent nations must now choose between capitalist and socialist economic systems. “The Third World must not be content to define itself in relation to values which preceded it. On the contrary, the underdeveloped countries must endeavor to focus on their very own values as well as methods and styles specific to them” (Fanon 55). I am wondering how a country can come to define these values and styles for their future when they have been ravaged by colonization, which has stolen away much of this? He says that “perhaps everything needs to be started over again…” (Fanon 56). What might this look like?
Fanon believes that violence is a necessary force to end oppression and colonization, arguing that nonviolence is insufficient for liberation and that violence is the only language the colonizer will understand. He explains that, “At the level of individuals, 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” (94). Although Fanon argues that violence is an effective force in ending the colonization of the mind of the colonized, he also explains that the colonizer views violence as the only language the colonized can understand, a belief summarized in Sartre’s preface: “Beaten, undernourished, ill terrified — but only up to a certain point — he [the native] has, whether he’s black, yellow, or white, always the same traits of character: he’s a sly-boots, a lazybones, and a thief, who lives on nothing, and who understands only violence” (16). If the colonizer portrays the colonized as an inferior being partially as a result of their alleged ability to only understand violence, how does the use of violence as a revolutionary force cleanse the colonized rather than reinforce the colonization of the mind? If violence is a tool of the oppressor, how can the oppressed use violence without emulating those who oppress them?
The goal of colonialism is to control and take power over other people and their land. Colonizers impose their cultural norms and practices no matter what it takes. More often than not, this would lead to violence. In order for the oppressed to gain freedom, they would have to use violence. In Wretched for the Earth, Fanon states, “The exploited realize that their liberation implies using every means available, and force is the first” (Fanon 23). In contrast, Thoreau chooses to live in solitude to liberate himself. He believes that a simple life with little to no belongings is all it takes to become free. These perspectives of liberation are drastically different and are not entirely comparable. However, what insight could Thoreau give for the colonized to achieve liberation? Is violence the only answer? Should they act in other ways that pursue their own self-interest? If they were to use nonviolence as a way to achieve liberation, what strategies used by Gandhi could be implemented? Can nonviolence achieve full liberation?
Part one of Fanon’s piece involves discussing colonization. He discusses the church, comparing DDT to Christianity and explains that the practice of Christianity alienates the colonized. He says that the church is simply the “white man’s church” (pg.7) and that the church “does not call the colonized o the ways of God, but to the ways of the white man, to the ways of the master, the ways of the oppressor.” (pg.7) In this sense, he is trying to say that Christianity does not call on the colonized for the purpose of religion, but to further colonize them to the ways of the western culture. It is accurate to say that a religious body can simply be trying to further the practice of colonization? I also found it very interesting when he began discussing dance, “The colonized’s way of relaxing is precisely this muscular orgy during which the most brutal aggressiveness and impulsive violence are channeled, transformed, and spirited away.” (pg.19) How does this embrace of dance further his message regarding the colonized and the colonizer?
Part one of Wretched of the Earth focuses on colonization, specifically the relationship between the colonized and the colonizer. Chapter one, On Violence, felt especially relevant in today’s climate, in particular since the murder of George Floyd, the resulting protests and the ever-increasing momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement. “In capitalist countries a multitude of sermonizers, counselors, and “confusion-mongers” intervene between the exploited and authorities. In colonial regions, however, the proximity and frequent, direct intervention by the police and the military ensure the colonized are kept under close scrutiny, and contained by rifle butts and napalm. We have seen how the government’s agent uses a language of pure violence…and brings violence into the homes and minds of the colonized subject,” (p. 4). Would you agree that the U.S falls under both categories, capitalist and colonial? Is there even any evidence to prove otherwise? Both of these descriptions, that of the capitalist countries and the colonial regions, to me at least, seem to pertain to the way the United States handles such matters. Having witnessed firsthand the mistreatment of protesters, being wrongfully tear gassed seemingly unprovoked, amidst a peaceful gathering for social justice, I feel it is safe to argue that both police and confusion-mongers have made their intentions clear- to silence, violate, and aggravate. How are we to be allies of liberation, let alone assist in the fight to achieve liberation for the oppressed and colonized- when we are only met with violence?
In Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses the violence associated with colonization and “only gives in when confronted with greater violence,” (23). This perspective is very different from Gandhi’s and rejects nonviolence as an effective form of revolution and/or liberation. These two contrasting strategies to fight the oppressor reminds me of the polarizing beliefs behind the use of violence in the BLM movement. In relation to Black liberation in America today, do you agree with Gandhi’s use of nonviolence or Fanon’s call to fight violence with violence? Racial minorities in America experience violence like police brutality and hate crimes at a disproportionate rate. What more can we do to motivate change based off either nonviolent or violent methods? In what situations of violence would you disagree with and what situations of violence could potentially produce change?
At the beginning of Frantz Fanon’s book “The Wretched of the Earth”, he acknowledged the violence that followed up behind colonization and decolonization. Fanon states “The singularity of the colonial context lies in the fact that economic reality, inequality, and enormous disparities in lifestyles never manage to mask the human reality” (5). Without a doubt, this quote signifies that colonization has created inequalities. When violence became a factor there is a question that can be raised- was the violence because of the communities that experienced these inequalities or was it because of the various people who created the inequalities? Does this seem familiar at all in our world today?
In The Wretched of the Earth Fanon describes how the use of violence can be used to free the minds of individual colonized subjects: “At the individual level, violence is a cleansing force. it rids the colonized of their inferiority complex , of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self confidence. Even if the armed struggle has been symbolic, and even if they have been demobilized by rapid decolonization, the people have time to realize that liberation was the achievement of each and every one and no special merit should go to the leader.” (51) To me, this quote seems to hearken back to ideas advances by Thoreau and Gandhi regarding self artistry, although in the views of Thoreau and Gandhi violence is not the way to achieve personal growth and self cultivation. Do you think that differing material conditions, proximity to violence, or severity of conditions might account for this difference in view, or could this be explained in other ways?
In part one of Wretched of the Earth, Fanon speaks to the necessity of violence in order to decolonize. In fact, he argues that the only means which can be employed to destabilize and overturn colonial order, is through violence. The colonialist world without complexity that Fanon speaks to, groups the colonized as one mass of inferior beings, and continuously brings “violence into the homes and minds of the colonized subject,” (4). I find it fascinating how, given the physical and emotional violence that occurs through colonialism, Fanon still argues for violence as the only means to decolonize. He later explains how “…the colonized masses intuitively believe that their liberation must be achieved and can only be achieved by force,” (33). Do they believe this given the direct violence they have beard or for other reasons? I find that Fanon contradicts himself, saying “…The underdeveloped countries must endeavor to focus on their very own values as well as methods and style specific to them,” (55). Why not do that from the start in the process of reclaiming their rights of independence and demanding decolonization, as Gandhi would say? Or at least try first? How important is doing this- focusing on methods, styles and morals different than the colonizer- in the decolonization of the mind throughout the fight for decolonization?
Fanon states: “These young nations accepted to take up the challenge after the unconditional withdrawal of the colonizer. The country finds itself under new management, but in actual fact everything has to be started over from scratch, everything has to be rethought,” (56). Why does he support the use of colonial tactics of violence, physically and mentally, to fight colonialism, when he simultaneously preaches the necessity to completely start from scratch so that the colonized (now decolonized) elites, “whose behavior and ways of thinking, picked up from their rubbing shoulders with the colonialist bourgeoisie, (don’t remain) intact”? (12). Do you think the immediate use of violence actually works against the colonized, speaking to their colonized minds, to believe that violence is the only answer? I think Gandhi could greatly inform the decolonization of the mind, but I think Fanon might argue the need to fight first and reclaim the self after. I must specify, however, that I am talking about the immediate use of violence, and I do believe the use of violence after attempts of non-violence is justified in many circumstances.
In “The Wretched of the Earth” it was describing colonization and how the colonized world is divided into what species or race you belong to. It also goes on to describe an economic superstructure that is essentially laid out as ” You are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich.” This leads me to believe that they would also accept the statement “You are poor because of the color of your skin”. Does thinking this way actually hurt people of color? Think about it if all you are ever told is that you are not successful because you are not white do you think that hearing that demotivates people to change because they fear that simply because they are not white means that they cannot be economically successful? It is essentially saying that you cant be successful because of the color of your skin which I find to be an incredibly false statement. Should there be a narrative change that takes the blame off of the color of your skin and places more of the blame on the governing systems holding people of color back?
I found the first readings of Wretched Earth somewhat of a 180 from Gandhi’s emphasis on nonviolence and civil disobedience, while still having clear parallels. Fanon bases his stance on the necessary use of violence on the idea that violent practices and a violent creation of colonized and colonizers warrants and demands the use of violence in return. He also believes that accepted narrative of the colonized being disempowered is entirely false, and needs to be rejected in order for things to change. It’s interesting to see the parallels of this logic to Gandhi’s, that the root of oppression lies in the acceptance of such condition, yet the means of addressing or changing that are entirely different for the two of them. To me, I feel like the cause for these different views on violence could come from the difference between Gandhi and Fanon’s relationship with the violence they’ve experienced. Do you think Gandhi’s position of past privilege within his society relates to his lacking feel and draw to violence, whereas Fanon’s more direct relationship to the violence of colonization justifies his draw to violence?
The novel, “The Wretched of the Earth,” by Frantz Fanon speaks on the violence, both visible and invisible that decolonization has and is causing for people of color. As said in part 1 of the novel, “national liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the headings used or the formulas introduces, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (35). According to Fanon, decolonization is “simply the replacing of a certain “species” of men by another “species” of men” (35). Decolonization puts into play the struggle between two separate “species:” the colonizers and the colonized. Invisible violence is created through the established systems and ideals created by the colonizers such as education, recognition, law enforcement, etc. The ones being exploited are separated form those in power. “It is neither the act of owning factories, nor estates, nor bank balance which distinguishes the governing classes. The governing race is first and foremost those who come from elsewhere, those who are unlike the original inhabitants, “the others” (40). “The others” are successful because they have told the indigenous that they are inferior. As successful as the colonized could be, the colonizers have and still do diminish their success through the implementation of corrupt systems. In terms of present day social, political, and economic equality issues, would Fanon agree with violence to produce justice? If so, to what extent?
In “The Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon discusses the colonized peoples and their concerns with the colonizers’ power they hold over them. He empathizes with the colonized because of their unintentional involvement with the settlers, forcing them to be a part of the violent acts attributed to colonialism as a whole. He also emphasizes that by the act of colonialism being put into action, the colonized must resort to violence in their attempts to rule the colonizers. He also speaks of militarism and the role that the military plays in colonialism, stating that militarism as a defense mechanism only ensures and increases violence within a society. The colonized only choice, in this matter, is to create an uprising of violence in order to achieve independence. After reading part one from Fanon and “Hindu Swaraj” by Gandhi, how do you think that Gandhi would have responded to Fanon’s argument of violence? Do you believe he would have completely criticized and disagreed with Fanon, or would he have understood the points that Fanon made? Do you think Gandhi would have taken Fanon’s writings into account regarding the salt march?
I think it is interesting to compare Fanon and Gandhi along with non-violence versus violent action. Non-violence has made the world change with examples from Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela and many others, however we must critically analyze whether or not non-violence always produces desired outcomes. Would non-violent action work against Nazi Germany? I don’t believe so, but I also don’t want to advocate for violence or the military industrial complex. Fanon says that, “The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.” Is nonviolent action the best way to redistribute wealth with violence only being necessary with crimes against humanity? Or do you believe that wealth inequality in our society is a crime against humanity?
Franz Fanon has a much different take on ‘violence’ than our previous authors, Thoreau and Gandhi. I fully agree with Fanon’s comment discussing that the most successful means to decolonization is uprooting the current social structure and rebuilding it from the bottom up. However, he also states that “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” and I’m not sure I or our past authors would agree with this statement as Gandhi for example pushes for non-violence wholeheartedly. Based on past events, this notion definitely rings true, but I do believe there is always an alternative that follows more along the lines of Gandhi and Thoreau’s perspectives. I was surprised to hear that ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ was one of the basic reading materials for the Black Panther party. Especially after watching the videos in class which stated that the members would follow police to insure if someone was racially profiled, there would be no brutality on the officers end. Although they were armed, their procedures seems quite non-violent to me. I am curious that if Gandhi was still around when the Black Panthers were founded, how would he react? Would he support their movement but push it towards more non-violent tactics? Would he disapprove of the reading materials?
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon writes, “The lumpenproletariat, once it is constituted, brings all its forces to endanger the “security” of the town, and is the sign of the irrevocable decay, the gangrene ever present at the heart of colonial domination. So the pimps, the hooligans, the unemployed, and the petty criminals, urged on from behind, throw themselves into the struggle for liberation like stout working men. These classless idlers will by militant and decisive action discover the path that leads to nationhood. They won’t become reformed characters to please colonial society, fitting in with the morality of its rulers; quite on the contrary, they take for granted the impossibility of their entering the city save by hand grenades and revolvers. These workless less-than-men are rehabilitated in their own eyes and in the eyes of history. The prostitutes too, and the maids who are paid two pounds a month, all the hopeless dregs of humanity, all who turn in circles between suicide and madness, will recover their balance, once more go forward, and march proudly in the great procession of the awakened nation” (Fanon 130). This quote is so powerful in the context of Fanon’s discussion of revolution. He warns through this chapter that there are many ways a revolution can go awry, and he has seen from past example that short-lived uprisings do not have long term revolutionary potential. He instead, advocates for unity between the urban and rural proletariat, whose interests are encouraged to be separate through intense oppression of the rural population. Fanon describes this oppression as “petrification of the country districts” (Fanon 109), because rural, Aboriginal people are lead to believe that the urban, modern people are the ones supporting the interests that are wearing away at their culture, location, and way of life, but in reality, the colonizing apparatus (including the government and processes by which those living in the colonized area support the state) is the one responsible. My question is, can a line be drawn between the urban and colonizing apparatus as a whole, since the urban workers are often supporting and enforcing colonization’s power by working as people who help the settlers operate? And, going along with this question, if this line cannot be drawn, is there any hope for this idea of a united lumpenproletariat?
In comparing Gandhi and Fanon, we learn about the violence that comes with colonization, and how the colonized are roped in. Fanon argued that colonization is always a violent process, with factors such as military installation, uprisings, and the struggle between colonized and colonizer. As we know with Gandhi, he enforced non violence against the colonizer, although those who organized received violent acts. How would either of these individuals react to the same strategies with settler colonialism? While many of the same aspects are involved, how would people who have been impacted, such as Native Americans be able to deal with their colonizers? The same distinction between colonizer/colonized is seen that Fanon describes. Any form of involvement with government or policy making is denied, or undermined for native peoples by the colonizer in both scenarios, but how do you deal with a whole new population who is calling your home theirs with the strategies provided by both?
I believe my favorite quote when reading the Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon was, “But this creation owes nothing of its legitimacy to any supernatural power; the “thing” which has been colonized becomes man during the same process by which it frees itself.” (p 36-37) The creation that comes about from decolonization is the free man, or the man that one was always supposed to be. I think that line is beautiful. When introducing the happenings of decolonization, Fanon stated that a country can collapse when decolonized because of the reliance. But, the fact that even though the chaos of freedom will be inevitable, the freedom itself is what is the important thing to fight for. After all we have discussed about colonization in class, my main question is: How can a country flourish after decolonization? What kind of systems should be implemented and what should the reconstruction process look like? What would be the ideal framework for reconstruction?
While reading Fanon’s work I started out thinking he may agree with Ghandi in the sense that, violence is a factor in decolonization, but I came to realize quite quickly he had a different idea of how to employ violence to be this weapon of decolonization. Fanon seems to believe that colonization has created a dynamic between the colonizer and the colonized or oppressed, where the only successful rebuttal to this oppression is violence of a degree equal or more violent than that of the party in control. It is interesting to think about how they both see violence as a necessary step in decolonization but differ so greatly in their beliefs of who should be committing this violence. With both of these individuals advocating for the same end result of freedom, you have to wonder where their thought processes went separate ways, to where Fanon concludes this passive nature in which Ghandi claims is so effective in uprooting the oppression of the colonizers is useless and actually a surrender to the colonization. Could the stark difference in their belief on use of violence be a result of their upbringing and gap in social class that Fanon refers to? Why did they come to such opposite conclusions of this utilization of violence?
In “Hind Swaraj” Gandhi writes about soul force in opposition with brute force. According to Gandhi, soul force does not harm others in any way and allows defiance of the government without violence. Gandhi agrees that soul force is actually braver and smarter than brute force because any violence from the opposition would then strengthen the nonviolent cause. Soul force creates a space for individuals of all abilities to actively participate and create change. Gandhi saw nonviolence as a better strategy and even went to jail a few times with the hope of strengthening his cause.
In “The Wretched of the Earth,” Frantz Fanon claims that violence is necessary when fighting an opposition that maintains its control and power through violence. Fanon says, “A fine sight they are too, the believers in nonviolence, saying that they are neither executioners nor victims. Very well then; if you’re not victims when the government which you’ve voted for, when the army in which your younger brothers are serving without hesitation or remorse have undertaken race murder, you are, without a shadow of doubt, executioners. And if you choose to be victims and to risk being put in prison for a day or two, you are simply choosing to pull your irons out of the fire. But you will not be able to pull them out; they’ll have to stay there till the end” (25).
How would Gandhi respond to Fanon’s strong criticism of nonviolent practitioners? Is nonviolence or violence the answer when opposing a force that relies on violence?
I have been interested to see the comparison of Gandhi and Fanon, and their ways of protest. On one hand, Gandhi has gone down in history for his success at peaceful protests, and he influenced thousands of people to join him. I think this is inspiring, but at the same time it can be somewhat unrealistic. As Sartre writes in the preface: “When they are taught what shame and hunger and pain are, all that is stirred up in them is a volcanic fury whose force is equal to that of the pressure put upon them. You said they understand nothing but violence? Of course; first, the only violence is the settlers; but soon they will make it their own; that is to say, the same violence is thrown back upon us as when our reflection comes forward to meet us when we go toward a mirror.” What aspects of Gandhi and Fanon’s atmosphere were so different as to have to resort to two opposite protest tactics? How do you think Gandhi’s protest would have been different if he used violence?
“We have seen how the colonized always dream of taking the colonist’s place. Not of becoming a colonist, but of replacing him. This hostile, oppressive and aggressive world, bulldozing the colonized masses, represents not only the hell they would like to escape as quickly as possible but a paradise within arm’s reach guarded by ferocious watchdogs.” (Fanon, 16)
A place or a time period that can be both hell and paradise. This ambiguous feature of decolonization expressed by Fanon really illustrated not only the horror among the lives of the colonized but also how this horror has not scared them off but rather made them numb to fear. Fanon strongly emphasizes the violence among both the colonists and the colonized, but explains that this such violence among the colonized is directly a consequence of their oppression and the force used against them in order to assimilate their culture and colonize their people. Possibly to a lesser extent, what other situations parallel this dichotomy thought by the ‘natives’ of decolonization? To the colonists there is no bad among colonizing, meaning that this hell and paradise as described by Fanon is a highly perspective based theory. Does this then mean that colonized peoples actually do not see paradise within decolonization but instead paradise within the complete extinction of colonization… meaning there is no existence of decolonization either?
In the first part On Violence, Fanon talks about the relationship between colonizers and the colonized. In our system today, it is believed that even if we tear down colonialism, we will adopt it again in other ways. Fanon states, “In its narcissistic monologue the colonialist bourgeoisie, by way of its academics, had implanted in the minds of the colonized that the essential values- meaning Western values- remain eternal despite all errors attributable to man” (Fanon, 11) This quote describes how we have been taught that it is human nature to gain control over others, to be violent, and to focus on the individual rather than working as a community. I agree with Fanon in this statement that it is a myth that the characteristics of colonization are a part of human nature. But later in this chapter, Fanon states, “Nonviolence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around the negotiating table before the irreparable is done, before any bloodshed or regrettable act is committed.” (Fanon, 23) Unlike Gandhi, Fanon seems to be against the use of nonviolence if people want to see a change. In the quote, he seems to believe that this violence that comes after negotiating is a part of human nature. He believes that we have no other choice but to turn to violence if we want to see change due to our instincts. Is human nature truly violent? What exactly is human nature if it’s not violent or persuaded by outside forces?
I found the following quote from “Wretched of the Earth” to be a good example of how Fanon views violence as a means of social change, especially now that we have discussed his background and an overview of his ideas. “The existence of an armed struggle is indicative that the people are determined to put their faith only in violent methods. The very same people who had it constantly drummed into them that the only language they understood was that of force, now decide to express themselves with force.” I find this quote to be interesting when put into context of what is happening in our world today. The question that came to mind as I read over this quote was: What role does violence play in the big picture of relations both nationally and internationally? Which instances of past violence have scarred others in ways that now motivate others to express the same forces upon their aggressor(s)?
In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon states that the world is compartmentalised into two, the colonised or ‘native’ sector and the colonist’s sector. On p.5, Fanon states that when “looking at the immediacies of the colonial context, it is clear that what divides this world is first and foremost what species, what race one belongs to… The cause is the effect: You are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich.” Prior to this quote, he explains the two sectors confront one another, that as long as one group is exceeding what is necessary, there is no hope of conciliation. How much do you think his ideas of compartmentalisation and conciliation not being possible affect his view on violence vs. nonviolence for decolonization? If you were able to sit down with Gandhi and Fanon to have a conversation about their views of violence vs. non violence, how would this conversation go? Fanon believes that violence is the language that the colonizers understand, would Gandhi be able to explain himself in a way in which Fanon would see his point of view and vice versa?
On page 40, Fanon says “In the colonies, the foreigner coming from another country imposed his rule by means of guns and machines.” The foreigner, or the settler, uses machinery to colonize and oppress the native. The Black Panther Party also utilized guns to protest police brutality. I wonder what Gandhi would say on this subject. While it is made clear in the Hind Swaraj he is wholly against the use of violence to fight colonialism, his discussion on machinery and violence does not overlap quite as much as Fanon’s does. He does discuss machinery and violence when addressing the atom bomb- how we create entire armies to protect machinery, but it seems like his main concern is focused on machinery and labour. The displacement of human labour specifically- “Men go on ‘saving labour’ till thousands are without work and starving on the street.” I just wonder how he would react or go about discussing this topic with Fanon. In the Hind Swaraj, Gandhi makes the statement that ‘England did not take India, we gave it to them’. Fanon writes something which struck me as somewhat similar- “The status ‘native’ is a nervous condition introduced and maintained by the settler among colonized people with their consent,” (p.20). I’m not sure if these statements are actually as similar as they look, but it seemed worth noting. I think they would agree on the fact that Native peoples have the power and ability to fight against and extract settlers from their land, as to what power and how they use it, not so much. Fanon advocates for the use of violence and anger to defeat the settler. Gandhi advocates for non-violent protest of the masses. Gandhi also argues that we should not use machinery for producing things which we can produce without its aid. I understand this argument in the context of labour more so than the context of violent protest, and I wonder how Fanon would respond to such an argument. I am not exactly sure how to articulate it, this is the best I could do: but if the colonized are oppressed with machinery (whether this be with actual weapons or exploitative industrialization/mechanization), when attacked by the oppressor with such machinery, how can one directly retaliate when in immediate danger without the aid of this machinery? This goes for more extended conflicts too, if the oppressor continues to use violent methods and machinery. Or is the use of the weapons brought about by the settler (in certain contexts), a contradiction to the complete extraction of the settler and the society they bring?
In part 1 of “Wretched of the Earth,” Frantz Fanon explores the necessity of violence as a way to end colonization. Fanon states decolonization cannot come as a result of “magical practices, nor of a natural shock, nor of a friendly understanding” (29). Fanon goes on to explain that colonization was first marked by violence and therefore must end by the same accord in order to free the colonized. Fanon’s view is quite different from Gandhi’s use of non-violent demonstrations to further India’s independence. Would Gandhi think that there was a place for violence in protest after listening to Fanon? Does the use of violence to oppose violence make you any less humane?
In the preface of The Wretched of The Earth, pg lii-liii reads, “In order to rid themselves of [repressed rage] they end up massacring each other, tribes battle one against each other since they cannot confront the enemy –“, this is expanded upon when Fanon refers to muscular tension, this repressed rage that is perpetuated by the colonizers which, “periodically erupts into bloody fighting between tribes, clans, and individuals” (17), Fanon goes on to explain that this rage is inevitable and essentially must come out even if it’s aimed in the wrong direction. This uncalculated anger is what Fanon refers to as suicidal conduct that in turn is reinforcing colonial existence (18). Based on Fanon’s explanation, this inevitable frustration and aggression can be channeled in two ways, either towards your own people, which only aids the colonists in their own narrative, or channel it collectively in a more strategic way towards decolonization via “direction and organization” (21).
It’s clear here, a lot of us are questioning if violence is the only way, and if it is how does that make the natives any more humane and compassionate than the oppressors? We can all share the same conclusion that non-violence isn’t just about “compromise” or “negotiation” (24), because Gandhi acted nonviolently with the intention of receiving exactly what they set out to receive, no compromises accepted; and showed us that it is possible to attain your desires without violence via Fanon’s aforementioned direction and organization, and also achieve a sense of shame within the oppressors and their nation, which to me, is more effective.
However, my question is less about nonviolence vs violence, and more about what caught my attention being: the portion of the preface that states, “and you can count on colonial policy to fuel rivalries”. This rang through my head the entire reading, often leading me to see a pattern of the colonized reacting in ways linear to the colonizer’s mission; especially the portions whereabouts the colonized are not only physically manipulated but mentally, in that they “want to take the colonists place”(23), they envy their power and possessions. Furthermore, “It is not right, my fellow countrymen, you who know all the crimes committed in our name, it is really not right to breathe a word about them to anybody –for fear of having to pass judgment on yourselves. –silence has a damaging effect” (lxii). I cannot help but see an alarming resemblance between these ideas and America’s current happenings, first of all, it is no longer acceptable to be blissful in your ignorance and say, “I don’t pay attention to politics” given that now, more than ever, our parties are so polarized and your political affiliation is entirely linear with your moral and ethical standpoints. I think it is a good thing to be passionate, in the know, and to use your voice as a channel for change, especially considering that, “your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressor” (1viii).
That being laid out, my question is fueled by this idea of rivalry being used to the oppressor’s advantage.
Is it concerning that our countries political affiliations are so polarized? To the point where now people are cutting off friends and families are cutting ties. Do you see any resemblance between “natives” turning against one another for lack of a better outlet, only helping the colonizers in their operation to facilitate control, and left-wing, right-wing rivalries that exist today within our nation? Though standing up for what you believe in is extremely important, do you think these intense conflicts of interest within our own country are dangerous and veering us away from the ability to effectively be agents of change? Are these polarities on purpose?
Fanon, through the Wretched of the Earth, takes definitive stances on the role of violence in the colonialism as well as how violence should be used in response by those being colonized. He argues that, due to the violent and all encompassing (economic, political, psychological) scope of colonialism, those in the third world experiencing such oppression need their own formulation of revolutionary resistance. Due to his formal training as a psychiatrist, the overarching analysis in Wretched of the Earth is centered around the psychological dimensions of colonial oppression, and how the other forms of domination (economic, political, martial) inform the complex psychological phenomena present in both the colonized and the colonizer. I found Jean Paul Sartre’s preface to Wretched of the Earth to be an incredibly fascinating one, based on two fundamental positions which Sartre takes to be true regarding Fanon’s work and colonialism as a whole. Sartre argues that, due to the devastating and transformational effects of colonialism over the past 300 years (at the time), the third world needs its own theoretical work which analyses and point out the contradictions and negative/positive aspects of colonial relations. This would be in contrast to, for instance, Karl Marx’s work being foundational to any true radical analysis or action taken in opposition to an capitalist economy or oppressive regime in the west. Sartre here I do not think argues that for instance Marx would still not be very important for those in the third world, but that, due to these historical dynamics, the “language” of and conditions under which any revolutionary thought might be formulated must answer this colonial relationship in a way that Marx and others in the west simply didn’t have to. I think this is the most fundamental point made in Sartre’s preface, and I also think that, due to Fanon’s desire for decolonization as a holistic, top-down tearing down of colonial-systems, it is fundamental to The Wretched of the Earth as well.
A little late, but another question:
“Obviously the violence channeled into the liberation struggle does not vanish as if by magic after hoisting the national colors. It has even less reason to disappear since nation-building still continues to operate inside the framework of critical competition between capitalism and socialism”(35). Does this mean that after colonial foreign intrusion and the introduction of colonies as a market and the colonized as consumers in said market, even after the colonized get their independence, they have to change their model of fiscal operation in order to be linear with modern economics now that they feel they need to develop and compete with other nations?
And is it possible/practical for a post-colonial country to self-sufficiently sustain itself outside of the global economic structure, especially today?
In part I of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon puts a lot of emphasis on the significance of violence. He discusses a lot about how colonialism stands upon the basis of violence and dominance/superiority in order to establish itself and prosper, so in order to combat this dominance, the colonized must reciprocate this violence to establish their power. “The peasantry… has nothing to lose and everything to gain.The underprivileged and starving peasant is the exploited who very soon discovers that only violence pays… When Monsieur Guy Mollet capitulated the the French settlers in Algeria in 1956, the FLN in a famous tract stated that colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat” (Fanon page 23). This violence stems from constant violence from the colonizer, making violence, in a sense, a colonial construct (and an important tool of colonialism), and that is what Fanon is stating throughout the whole first chapter. The unconscious recognition of colonial constructs as the norm by the colonized is seen in many instances throughout the first chapter. Fanon emphasizes this by pointing out the few colonized people that reap benefits from the colonizer and international trading. “The intellectual who, for his part, has adopted the abstract, universal values of the colonizer is prepared to fight so that colonist and colonized can live in peace in a new world. But what he does not see, because precisely colonialism and all its modes of thought have seeped into him, is that the colonist is no longer interested in staying on and coexisting once the colonial context has disappeared” (Fanon page 9). Colonialism takes hold of colonies and establishes itself as superior, forcing the native people to subdue and creating a feeling of inferiority. All existing institutions are seen by the colonialist as inferior to their own foreign institutions for two reasons: (1) they do not comply with the needs of colonial society, and (2) are not accumulating capital for the colonialist. This entitlement from the colonialists comes from their sense of decree by god, that they are carrying out the will of god, that they are god’s people. This, of course, is non-existent and projects their own unconscious dedication to their ego (colonialist ego, that is). Fanon has a sort of critique of Marx’s ideas on economic class, stating that, in a colonial sense, economic class is based on race and and “divine right”. “The cause is effect: you are rich because you are right, you are white because you are rich. This is why a Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched when it comes to addressing the colonial issue. It is not just the concept of a precapitalist society, so effectively studied by Marx, which needs to be reexamined here. The serf is essentially different from the knight, but a reference to divine right is needed to justify this difference in status” (Fanon page 5). Europe and colonialism have no real dignity and they survive on its expansion and dominance over all other ideologies. The colonized people have nowhere to go when they are facing attacks or troubles, so they become frustrated when the colonizer (who has established himself as the law and the enforcement) does nothing and beats them. They are kicked while they are down and, with morale at such a low, will even attack their own brother if looked at wrong (Fanon page 17). It is a defense mechanism that lacks common sense, due to complete defeat and confusion of what to turn to and how to act. Colonialism perpetuates despair in the colonized people to maintain its power. That is why Fanon urges violence against the colonialists as the only way to defeat it. “For the colonized, life can only materialize from the rotting cadaver of the colonist” (Fanon page 50). My question is: can we find a way to decolonize the first world? If violence is necessary for the decolonization of the third world, is it necessary for the first world either? If so, and when there is massive amounts of destruction as a result, will the society attempt to restructure from scratch or run back to its colonial ways?
In Chapter 1, “Concerning Violence” in The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon describes the colonial world as being Manichean, where the colonized is seen as absolutely evil and the colonizer as absolutely good. Differences between class, gender, religion, etc. are erased through this view, while the colonized group can be usually seen as subhuman or animalistic through the colonizer’s eyes. On page 39 in the Grove Weidenfeld edition of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon states, “This world divided into compartments, this world in two is inhabited by two different species.”
I think of Gandhi during statements such as this, in how he fought his whole life for the liberation of India from the British, acting as the colonized in such instances, while making clear his racism against Black people. In 2018, a statue of Gandhi was removed from the University of Ghana’s campus for his quotes on the Black population in South Africa being “dirty” and “like animals” and for his views that white people in South Africa should be the predominating race there. He lived and fought as a colonized person, and petitioned against the oppressive rule of the British while at the same time using hate and negativity to view Black people as less than him, reflecting exactly how the British saw India.
What “species,” then, would Gandhi be considered according to Fanon’s work? Through this black-and-white lens of Manicheanism, would Gandhi be the colonizer or the colonized? What does this complexity of viewpoints that Gandhi has reflect on the conscious of the colonized person in general?
Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth begins with an analysis of decolonization, followed by a description of the colonial world. I found those descriptions very interesting as he discusses the need to essentially uproot the overall colonial structures of the world in order to effectively decolonize it. Fanon states that, “The colonial world is a Manichean world…The native is declared insensible to ethics; he represents not only the absence of values, but also the negation values. He is, let us dare to admit, the enemy of values, and in this sense he is the absolute evil” (42). This statement highlights the constant dehumanization of colonized people, and emphasizes the need for change as drastic as uprooting colonial structures as a result of those negative perceptions of those who are colonized. Is it ever truly possible to alter such deeply rooted colonial structures in place around our world without causing outrage and an increase in those dehumanizing ideals and views toward colonized people?
Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth discusses the role of violence in decolonization and colonialism. He discusses the roles that violence as in colonization, “Nonviolence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around the negotiating table before the irreparable is done, before any bloodshed or regrettable act is committed” (Fanon, 23). He believes that nonviolence was created by the colonialist bourgeoise for the business elite and colonized intellectual. it’s meant to end the problem before acts of violence begin. Which is very different form what Gandhi believes, he believed that nonviolence was really the only right way to protest something. Fanon believed that violence was bound to happen when decolonizing since colonization was a violent event, “decolonization is always a violent event” (Fanon, 1). Since Fanon believed something very different from Gandhi would they be able to come to an agreement on protests and movements? Would they be able to hypothetically plan a protest that they both would agree with? Based on what Fanon believes with decolonization, how would he view the summer protests for BLM?
There are some similarities in the readings of Gandhi’s “Hindu Swaraj” and Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” in regards to trying to overcome colonization and colonizers. “Come, then, comrades; it would be as well to decide at once to change our ways. We must shake off the heavy darkness in which we were plunged, and leave it behind.The new day which is already at hand must find us firm, prudent, and resolute.” (Fanon, 311) In this quote Fanon is explaining how the Third World is facing the issue of either becoming like Europe or becoming their own nation. A nation not built in on racial hatreds, slavery, exploitation or the genocide of people. Both Gandhi and Fanon are displaying that they must not be like the Europeans and be under their rule. However, they do both have their separate ideals in doing so. While Gandhi takes the approach of resistance in nonviolent protests, Fanon believes the only way to decolonize is through violence because that’s what was used to colonize in the beginning. How do you think Gandhi would respond to Fanon’s method of decolonization and vice versa? Also what would an ideal Third World look like in the eyes of Fanon if not to follow the path of Europe?
In a more lengthy quote from The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon writes,“In spite of his frequently honest conduct and his sincere declarations, the leader as seen objectively is the fierce defender of these interests, today combined, of the national bourgeoisie and the ex-colonial companies. His honesty, which is his soul’s true bent, crumbles away little by little. His contact with the masses is so unreal that he comes to believe that his authority is hated and that the services he has rendered his country are being called in question…The leader is all the more necessary in that there is no party. During the period of the struggle for independence there was one right enough, a party led by the present leader. But since then this party is sadly disintegrated; nothing is left but the shell of a party, the name, the emblem, the motto, ” (p.166-169). This quote makes me wonder who or what Fanon would define as a leader, or what he would think about those considered “natural born leaders”. In this passage is he referring exclusively to elected leaders? Or people that find themselves in some sort of unspoken position of authority? Would he consider himself a leader, as this book became such an important part of the formation and education of the Black Panther Party? To what extent might Gandhi agree with these views, given his critique of Parliament? While this question may not be as relevant to the material, I also found myself wondering what he might think about religious leaders.
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Gahndi’s work was centered around nonviolent acts of defiance, such as the march to get salt for India. In comparison, The Wretched of the Earth talks about violent and nonviolent methods of decolonization. To what extent do you think Gahdi’s beliefs would align with this statement, “there are some individuals who are convinced of the ineffectiveness of violent methods; for them, there is no doubt about it, every attempt to break colonial oppression by force is a hopeless effort, an attempt at suicide, because in the innermost recesses of their brains the settler’s tanks and airplanes occupy a huge place. When they are told “Action must be taken,” they see bombs raining down on them, armored cars coming at them on every path, machine-gunning and police action . . . and they sit quiet. They are beaten from the start. There is no need to demonstrate their incapacity to triumph by violent methods; they take it for granted in their everyday life and in their political maneuver” (62)?
In part 1 of “Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses that with decolonization, the colonized country knows that it will experience violence in the midst of its freedom. Fanon proceeds to mention that those that are colonized often feel envious of the colonizers. The colonizers did also use violence in their regime to take over a country, so it is believed that the same retaliation must be used in order to regain freedom. Fanon mentions that the animalistic treatment of the colonized society, their envy, and repression of their epistemologies are all contingent with the right to bring violence into their decolonization strategy. How would this strategy, if it had been used in Gandhi’s salt march, had a different outcome in their attempt to break away from the British? The protestors were still abused violently regardless of their peaceful protests. Would violence vs. violence have made a difference in this scenario?
This part one reading begins by discussing the idea of “self and other” He talks about the division of the europeans and the rest of the world. The self would be the Europeans and the others are the enslaved or natives. The middle class people also known as Bourgeoisie are mentioned in part one. The middle class helps the dialogue between the Europeans and the enslaved or natives. He then goes on to highlight the model of colonization. It begins with the idea of enlightenment to distinguish the self and others. In reality the Europeans made these ideas of enlightenment tho distance themselves from the crimes of enslavement and they are all lies. The christianity was also used to explain why they needed to do this to these people by either enslaving them or oppressing them. These ideals have no benefit for the natives whole do not require anything from the outside world. In part one he says ” After all, let them bawl their heads off, it relieves their feelings; dogs that don’t bite. This points towards literature that has been written against the European ideology not having bringing any worry in the minds of the Europeans colonizers. To them, these writings aren’t anything more than a dog that barks but will not bite. The natives in India have a powerful voice behind them and this is a major flaw in the Europeans idealistic way of thinking.
What do you think drove the Europeans to ignore the literature being produced in this time period by the natives?
The Wretched Earth delves into the topics of colonization and all the violence that it has caused. The author’s belief is that any form or method of decolonizing previously colonized areas will ensue violence. Even going as far as to say “whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (35). He explains that the deep social divisions between classes not only helped contributed to this violence but created a deep-rooted disconnection between these classes. He delves deeper into colonization explaining how it was created with violence as its main tool, by the use of superior weapons and knowledge. He explains how the colonial world is separated into two places, military barracks and police stations whereas the colonizer’s world is in almost perfect condition with “modern conveniences and opportunities”. He describes the world as “Manichaean”, divided into light and dark where the white colonizers are the light and native peoples are the dark. This reading was extremely interesting to me because while I realize that the overall effects of colonization are awful and resulted in some of the worst atrocities in human history. However, the attitude that Fanon writes in is that this colonizing world is doing so with the sole intention of causing chaos, mayhem, or destruction essentially saying they are all inherently evil. Again while I do think that the colonizer’s actions have caused evil, I would like to think that the decision-makers in these colonizing nations are not making decisions inherently out of evil. The main question this brings me to is simply do you think that we are making decisions purely out of evil with the intent to keep the colonized nations separated from us? Or do you think that the intentions may be good, but in reality are not carried out effectively/were effective at all?
In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon states that Europe is wealthy because it has stolen its wealth from the developing world. “This European opulence is literally a scandal for it was built with the sweat and corpses of blacks, Arabs, Indians, and Asians. This we are determined to never forget” (Fanon, 53). Fanon goes on to state that when the colonized demand independence they are told that will entail returning to the “Dark Ages.” In addition, the colonial power will apply economic pressure to the young nation- which can be seen as a form of neocolonialism.
Newly independent nations must now choose between capitalist and socialist economic systems. “The Third World must not be content to define itself in relation to values which preceded it. On the contrary, the underdeveloped countries must endeavor to focus on their very own values as well as methods and styles specific to them” (Fanon 55). I am wondering how a country can come to define these values and styles for their future when they have been ravaged by colonization, which has stolen away much of this? He says that “perhaps everything needs to be started over again…” (Fanon 56). What might this look like?
Fanon believes that violence is a necessary force to end oppression and colonization, arguing that nonviolence is insufficient for liberation and that violence is the only language the colonizer will understand. He explains that, “At the level of individuals, 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” (94). Although Fanon argues that violence is an effective force in ending the colonization of the mind of the colonized, he also explains that the colonizer views violence as the only language the colonized can understand, a belief summarized in Sartre’s preface: “Beaten, undernourished, ill terrified — but only up to a certain point — he [the native] has, whether he’s black, yellow, or white, always the same traits of character: he’s a sly-boots, a lazybones, and a thief, who lives on nothing, and who understands only violence” (16). If the colonizer portrays the colonized as an inferior being partially as a result of their alleged ability to only understand violence, how does the use of violence as a revolutionary force cleanse the colonized rather than reinforce the colonization of the mind? If violence is a tool of the oppressor, how can the oppressed use violence without emulating those who oppress them?
The goal of colonialism is to control and take power over other people and their land. Colonizers impose their cultural norms and practices no matter what it takes. More often than not, this would lead to violence. In order for the oppressed to gain freedom, they would have to use violence. In Wretched for the Earth, Fanon states, “The exploited realize that their liberation implies using every means available, and force is the first” (Fanon 23). In contrast, Thoreau chooses to live in solitude to liberate himself. He believes that a simple life with little to no belongings is all it takes to become free. These perspectives of liberation are drastically different and are not entirely comparable. However, what insight could Thoreau give for the colonized to achieve liberation? Is violence the only answer? Should they act in other ways that pursue their own self-interest? If they were to use nonviolence as a way to achieve liberation, what strategies used by Gandhi could be implemented? Can nonviolence achieve full liberation?
Part one of Fanon’s piece involves discussing colonization. He discusses the church, comparing DDT to Christianity and explains that the practice of Christianity alienates the colonized. He says that the church is simply the “white man’s church” (pg.7) and that the church “does not call the colonized o the ways of God, but to the ways of the white man, to the ways of the master, the ways of the oppressor.” (pg.7) In this sense, he is trying to say that Christianity does not call on the colonized for the purpose of religion, but to further colonize them to the ways of the western culture. It is accurate to say that a religious body can simply be trying to further the practice of colonization? I also found it very interesting when he began discussing dance, “The colonized’s way of relaxing is precisely this muscular orgy during which the most brutal aggressiveness and impulsive violence are channeled, transformed, and spirited away.” (pg.19) How does this embrace of dance further his message regarding the colonized and the colonizer?
Part one of Wretched of the Earth focuses on colonization, specifically the relationship between the colonized and the colonizer. Chapter one, On Violence, felt especially relevant in today’s climate, in particular since the murder of George Floyd, the resulting protests and the ever-increasing momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement. “In capitalist countries a multitude of sermonizers, counselors, and “confusion-mongers” intervene between the exploited and authorities. In colonial regions, however, the proximity and frequent, direct intervention by the police and the military ensure the colonized are kept under close scrutiny, and contained by rifle butts and napalm. We have seen how the government’s agent uses a language of pure violence…and brings violence into the homes and minds of the colonized subject,” (p. 4). Would you agree that the U.S falls under both categories, capitalist and colonial? Is there even any evidence to prove otherwise? Both of these descriptions, that of the capitalist countries and the colonial regions, to me at least, seem to pertain to the way the United States handles such matters. Having witnessed firsthand the mistreatment of protesters, being wrongfully tear gassed seemingly unprovoked, amidst a peaceful gathering for social justice, I feel it is safe to argue that both police and confusion-mongers have made their intentions clear- to silence, violate, and aggravate. How are we to be allies of liberation, let alone assist in the fight to achieve liberation for the oppressed and colonized- when we are only met with violence?
In Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses the violence associated with colonization and “only gives in when confronted with greater violence,” (23). This perspective is very different from Gandhi’s and rejects nonviolence as an effective form of revolution and/or liberation. These two contrasting strategies to fight the oppressor reminds me of the polarizing beliefs behind the use of violence in the BLM movement. In relation to Black liberation in America today, do you agree with Gandhi’s use of nonviolence or Fanon’s call to fight violence with violence? Racial minorities in America experience violence like police brutality and hate crimes at a disproportionate rate. What more can we do to motivate change based off either nonviolent or violent methods? In what situations of violence would you disagree with and what situations of violence could potentially produce change?
At the beginning of Frantz Fanon’s book “The Wretched of the Earth”, he acknowledged the violence that followed up behind colonization and decolonization. Fanon states “The singularity of the colonial context lies in the fact that economic reality, inequality, and enormous disparities in lifestyles never manage to mask the human reality” (5). Without a doubt, this quote signifies that colonization has created inequalities. When violence became a factor there is a question that can be raised- was the violence because of the communities that experienced these inequalities or was it because of the various people who created the inequalities? Does this seem familiar at all in our world today?
In The Wretched of the Earth Fanon describes how the use of violence can be used to free the minds of individual colonized subjects: “At the individual level, violence is a cleansing force. it rids the colonized of their inferiority complex , of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self confidence. Even if the armed struggle has been symbolic, and even if they have been demobilized by rapid decolonization, the people have time to realize that liberation was the achievement of each and every one and no special merit should go to the leader.” (51) To me, this quote seems to hearken back to ideas advances by Thoreau and Gandhi regarding self artistry, although in the views of Thoreau and Gandhi violence is not the way to achieve personal growth and self cultivation. Do you think that differing material conditions, proximity to violence, or severity of conditions might account for this difference in view, or could this be explained in other ways?
In part one of Wretched of the Earth, Fanon speaks to the necessity of violence in order to decolonize. In fact, he argues that the only means which can be employed to destabilize and overturn colonial order, is through violence. The colonialist world without complexity that Fanon speaks to, groups the colonized as one mass of inferior beings, and continuously brings “violence into the homes and minds of the colonized subject,” (4). I find it fascinating how, given the physical and emotional violence that occurs through colonialism, Fanon still argues for violence as the only means to decolonize. He later explains how “…the colonized masses intuitively believe that their liberation must be achieved and can only be achieved by force,” (33). Do they believe this given the direct violence they have beard or for other reasons? I find that Fanon contradicts himself, saying “…The underdeveloped countries must endeavor to focus on their very own values as well as methods and style specific to them,” (55). Why not do that from the start in the process of reclaiming their rights of independence and demanding decolonization, as Gandhi would say? Or at least try first? How important is doing this- focusing on methods, styles and morals different than the colonizer- in the decolonization of the mind throughout the fight for decolonization?
Fanon states: “These young nations accepted to take up the challenge after the unconditional withdrawal of the colonizer. The country finds itself under new management, but in actual fact everything has to be started over from scratch, everything has to be rethought,” (56). Why does he support the use of colonial tactics of violence, physically and mentally, to fight colonialism, when he simultaneously preaches the necessity to completely start from scratch so that the colonized (now decolonized) elites, “whose behavior and ways of thinking, picked up from their rubbing shoulders with the colonialist bourgeoisie, (don’t remain) intact”? (12). Do you think the immediate use of violence actually works against the colonized, speaking to their colonized minds, to believe that violence is the only answer? I think Gandhi could greatly inform the decolonization of the mind, but I think Fanon might argue the need to fight first and reclaim the self after. I must specify, however, that I am talking about the immediate use of violence, and I do believe the use of violence after attempts of non-violence is justified in many circumstances.
In “The Wretched of the Earth” it was describing colonization and how the colonized world is divided into what species or race you belong to. It also goes on to describe an economic superstructure that is essentially laid out as ” You are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich.” This leads me to believe that they would also accept the statement “You are poor because of the color of your skin”. Does thinking this way actually hurt people of color? Think about it if all you are ever told is that you are not successful because you are not white do you think that hearing that demotivates people to change because they fear that simply because they are not white means that they cannot be economically successful? It is essentially saying that you cant be successful because of the color of your skin which I find to be an incredibly false statement. Should there be a narrative change that takes the blame off of the color of your skin and places more of the blame on the governing systems holding people of color back?
I found the first readings of Wretched Earth somewhat of a 180 from Gandhi’s emphasis on nonviolence and civil disobedience, while still having clear parallels. Fanon bases his stance on the necessary use of violence on the idea that violent practices and a violent creation of colonized and colonizers warrants and demands the use of violence in return. He also believes that accepted narrative of the colonized being disempowered is entirely false, and needs to be rejected in order for things to change. It’s interesting to see the parallels of this logic to Gandhi’s, that the root of oppression lies in the acceptance of such condition, yet the means of addressing or changing that are entirely different for the two of them. To me, I feel like the cause for these different views on violence could come from the difference between Gandhi and Fanon’s relationship with the violence they’ve experienced. Do you think Gandhi’s position of past privilege within his society relates to his lacking feel and draw to violence, whereas Fanon’s more direct relationship to the violence of colonization justifies his draw to violence?
The novel, “The Wretched of the Earth,” by Frantz Fanon speaks on the violence, both visible and invisible that decolonization has and is causing for people of color. As said in part 1 of the novel, “national liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the headings used or the formulas introduces, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (35). According to Fanon, decolonization is “simply the replacing of a certain “species” of men by another “species” of men” (35). Decolonization puts into play the struggle between two separate “species:” the colonizers and the colonized. Invisible violence is created through the established systems and ideals created by the colonizers such as education, recognition, law enforcement, etc. The ones being exploited are separated form those in power. “It is neither the act of owning factories, nor estates, nor bank balance which distinguishes the governing classes. The governing race is first and foremost those who come from elsewhere, those who are unlike the original inhabitants, “the others” (40). “The others” are successful because they have told the indigenous that they are inferior. As successful as the colonized could be, the colonizers have and still do diminish their success through the implementation of corrupt systems. In terms of present day social, political, and economic equality issues, would Fanon agree with violence to produce justice? If so, to what extent?
In “The Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon discusses the colonized peoples and their concerns with the colonizers’ power they hold over them. He empathizes with the colonized because of their unintentional involvement with the settlers, forcing them to be a part of the violent acts attributed to colonialism as a whole. He also emphasizes that by the act of colonialism being put into action, the colonized must resort to violence in their attempts to rule the colonizers. He also speaks of militarism and the role that the military plays in colonialism, stating that militarism as a defense mechanism only ensures and increases violence within a society. The colonized only choice, in this matter, is to create an uprising of violence in order to achieve independence. After reading part one from Fanon and “Hindu Swaraj” by Gandhi, how do you think that Gandhi would have responded to Fanon’s argument of violence? Do you believe he would have completely criticized and disagreed with Fanon, or would he have understood the points that Fanon made? Do you think Gandhi would have taken Fanon’s writings into account regarding the salt march?
I think it is interesting to compare Fanon and Gandhi along with non-violence versus violent action. Non-violence has made the world change with examples from Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela and many others, however we must critically analyze whether or not non-violence always produces desired outcomes. Would non-violent action work against Nazi Germany? I don’t believe so, but I also don’t want to advocate for violence or the military industrial complex. Fanon says that, “The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.” Is nonviolent action the best way to redistribute wealth with violence only being necessary with crimes against humanity? Or do you believe that wealth inequality in our society is a crime against humanity?
Franz Fanon has a much different take on ‘violence’ than our previous authors, Thoreau and Gandhi. I fully agree with Fanon’s comment discussing that the most successful means to decolonization is uprooting the current social structure and rebuilding it from the bottom up. However, he also states that “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” and I’m not sure I or our past authors would agree with this statement as Gandhi for example pushes for non-violence wholeheartedly. Based on past events, this notion definitely rings true, but I do believe there is always an alternative that follows more along the lines of Gandhi and Thoreau’s perspectives. I was surprised to hear that ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ was one of the basic reading materials for the Black Panther party. Especially after watching the videos in class which stated that the members would follow police to insure if someone was racially profiled, there would be no brutality on the officers end. Although they were armed, their procedures seems quite non-violent to me. I am curious that if Gandhi was still around when the Black Panthers were founded, how would he react? Would he support their movement but push it towards more non-violent tactics? Would he disapprove of the reading materials?
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon writes, “The lumpenproletariat, once it is constituted, brings all its forces to endanger the “security” of the town, and is the sign of the irrevocable decay, the gangrene ever present at the heart of colonial domination. So the pimps, the hooligans, the unemployed, and the petty criminals, urged on from behind, throw themselves into the struggle for liberation like stout working men. These classless idlers will by militant and decisive action discover the path that leads to nationhood. They won’t become reformed characters to please colonial society, fitting in with the morality of its rulers; quite on the contrary, they take for granted the impossibility of their entering the city save by hand grenades and revolvers. These workless less-than-men are rehabilitated in their own eyes and in the eyes of history. The prostitutes too, and the maids who are paid two pounds a month, all the hopeless dregs of humanity, all who turn in circles between suicide and madness, will recover their balance, once more go forward, and march proudly in the great procession of the awakened nation” (Fanon 130). This quote is so powerful in the context of Fanon’s discussion of revolution. He warns through this chapter that there are many ways a revolution can go awry, and he has seen from past example that short-lived uprisings do not have long term revolutionary potential. He instead, advocates for unity between the urban and rural proletariat, whose interests are encouraged to be separate through intense oppression of the rural population. Fanon describes this oppression as “petrification of the country districts” (Fanon 109), because rural, Aboriginal people are lead to believe that the urban, modern people are the ones supporting the interests that are wearing away at their culture, location, and way of life, but in reality, the colonizing apparatus (including the government and processes by which those living in the colonized area support the state) is the one responsible. My question is, can a line be drawn between the urban and colonizing apparatus as a whole, since the urban workers are often supporting and enforcing colonization’s power by working as people who help the settlers operate? And, going along with this question, if this line cannot be drawn, is there any hope for this idea of a united lumpenproletariat?
In comparing Gandhi and Fanon, we learn about the violence that comes with colonization, and how the colonized are roped in. Fanon argued that colonization is always a violent process, with factors such as military installation, uprisings, and the struggle between colonized and colonizer. As we know with Gandhi, he enforced non violence against the colonizer, although those who organized received violent acts. How would either of these individuals react to the same strategies with settler colonialism? While many of the same aspects are involved, how would people who have been impacted, such as Native Americans be able to deal with their colonizers? The same distinction between colonizer/colonized is seen that Fanon describes. Any form of involvement with government or policy making is denied, or undermined for native peoples by the colonizer in both scenarios, but how do you deal with a whole new population who is calling your home theirs with the strategies provided by both?
I believe my favorite quote when reading the Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon was, “But this creation owes nothing of its legitimacy to any supernatural power; the “thing” which has been colonized becomes man during the same process by which it frees itself.” (p 36-37) The creation that comes about from decolonization is the free man, or the man that one was always supposed to be. I think that line is beautiful. When introducing the happenings of decolonization, Fanon stated that a country can collapse when decolonized because of the reliance. But, the fact that even though the chaos of freedom will be inevitable, the freedom itself is what is the important thing to fight for. After all we have discussed about colonization in class, my main question is: How can a country flourish after decolonization? What kind of systems should be implemented and what should the reconstruction process look like? What would be the ideal framework for reconstruction?
While reading Fanon’s work I started out thinking he may agree with Ghandi in the sense that, violence is a factor in decolonization, but I came to realize quite quickly he had a different idea of how to employ violence to be this weapon of decolonization. Fanon seems to believe that colonization has created a dynamic between the colonizer and the colonized or oppressed, where the only successful rebuttal to this oppression is violence of a degree equal or more violent than that of the party in control. It is interesting to think about how they both see violence as a necessary step in decolonization but differ so greatly in their beliefs of who should be committing this violence. With both of these individuals advocating for the same end result of freedom, you have to wonder where their thought processes went separate ways, to where Fanon concludes this passive nature in which Ghandi claims is so effective in uprooting the oppression of the colonizers is useless and actually a surrender to the colonization. Could the stark difference in their belief on use of violence be a result of their upbringing and gap in social class that Fanon refers to? Why did they come to such opposite conclusions of this utilization of violence?
In “Hind Swaraj” Gandhi writes about soul force in opposition with brute force. According to Gandhi, soul force does not harm others in any way and allows defiance of the government without violence. Gandhi agrees that soul force is actually braver and smarter than brute force because any violence from the opposition would then strengthen the nonviolent cause. Soul force creates a space for individuals of all abilities to actively participate and create change. Gandhi saw nonviolence as a better strategy and even went to jail a few times with the hope of strengthening his cause.
In “The Wretched of the Earth,” Frantz Fanon claims that violence is necessary when fighting an opposition that maintains its control and power through violence. Fanon says, “A fine sight they are too, the believers in nonviolence, saying that they are neither executioners nor victims. Very well then; if you’re not victims when the government which you’ve voted for, when the army in which your younger brothers are serving without hesitation or remorse have undertaken race murder, you are, without a shadow of doubt, executioners. And if you choose to be victims and to risk being put in prison for a day or two, you are simply choosing to pull your irons out of the fire. But you will not be able to pull them out; they’ll have to stay there till the end” (25).
How would Gandhi respond to Fanon’s strong criticism of nonviolent practitioners? Is nonviolence or violence the answer when opposing a force that relies on violence?
I have been interested to see the comparison of Gandhi and Fanon, and their ways of protest. On one hand, Gandhi has gone down in history for his success at peaceful protests, and he influenced thousands of people to join him. I think this is inspiring, but at the same time it can be somewhat unrealistic. As Sartre writes in the preface: “When they are taught what shame and hunger and pain are, all that is stirred up in them is a volcanic fury whose force is equal to that of the pressure put upon them. You said they understand nothing but violence? Of course; first, the only violence is the settlers; but soon they will make it their own; that is to say, the same violence is thrown back upon us as when our reflection comes forward to meet us when we go toward a mirror.” What aspects of Gandhi and Fanon’s atmosphere were so different as to have to resort to two opposite protest tactics? How do you think Gandhi’s protest would have been different if he used violence?
“We have seen how the colonized always dream of taking the colonist’s place. Not of becoming a colonist, but of replacing him. This hostile, oppressive and aggressive world, bulldozing the colonized masses, represents not only the hell they would like to escape as quickly as possible but a paradise within arm’s reach guarded by ferocious watchdogs.” (Fanon, 16)
A place or a time period that can be both hell and paradise. This ambiguous feature of decolonization expressed by Fanon really illustrated not only the horror among the lives of the colonized but also how this horror has not scared them off but rather made them numb to fear. Fanon strongly emphasizes the violence among both the colonists and the colonized, but explains that this such violence among the colonized is directly a consequence of their oppression and the force used against them in order to assimilate their culture and colonize their people. Possibly to a lesser extent, what other situations parallel this dichotomy thought by the ‘natives’ of decolonization? To the colonists there is no bad among colonizing, meaning that this hell and paradise as described by Fanon is a highly perspective based theory. Does this then mean that colonized peoples actually do not see paradise within decolonization but instead paradise within the complete extinction of colonization… meaning there is no existence of decolonization either?
In the first part On Violence, Fanon talks about the relationship between colonizers and the colonized. In our system today, it is believed that even if we tear down colonialism, we will adopt it again in other ways. Fanon states, “In its narcissistic monologue the colonialist bourgeoisie, by way of its academics, had implanted in the minds of the colonized that the essential values- meaning Western values- remain eternal despite all errors attributable to man” (Fanon, 11) This quote describes how we have been taught that it is human nature to gain control over others, to be violent, and to focus on the individual rather than working as a community. I agree with Fanon in this statement that it is a myth that the characteristics of colonization are a part of human nature. But later in this chapter, Fanon states, “Nonviolence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around the negotiating table before the irreparable is done, before any bloodshed or regrettable act is committed.” (Fanon, 23) Unlike Gandhi, Fanon seems to be against the use of nonviolence if people want to see a change. In the quote, he seems to believe that this violence that comes after negotiating is a part of human nature. He believes that we have no other choice but to turn to violence if we want to see change due to our instincts. Is human nature truly violent? What exactly is human nature if it’s not violent or persuaded by outside forces?
I found the following quote from “Wretched of the Earth” to be a good example of how Fanon views violence as a means of social change, especially now that we have discussed his background and an overview of his ideas. “The existence of an armed struggle is indicative that the people are determined to put their faith only in violent methods. The very same people who had it constantly drummed into them that the only language they understood was that of force, now decide to express themselves with force.” I find this quote to be interesting when put into context of what is happening in our world today. The question that came to mind as I read over this quote was: What role does violence play in the big picture of relations both nationally and internationally? Which instances of past violence have scarred others in ways that now motivate others to express the same forces upon their aggressor(s)?
In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon states that the world is compartmentalised into two, the colonised or ‘native’ sector and the colonist’s sector. On p.5, Fanon states that when “looking at the immediacies of the colonial context, it is clear that what divides this world is first and foremost what species, what race one belongs to… The cause is the effect: You are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich.” Prior to this quote, he explains the two sectors confront one another, that as long as one group is exceeding what is necessary, there is no hope of conciliation. How much do you think his ideas of compartmentalisation and conciliation not being possible affect his view on violence vs. nonviolence for decolonization? If you were able to sit down with Gandhi and Fanon to have a conversation about their views of violence vs. non violence, how would this conversation go? Fanon believes that violence is the language that the colonizers understand, would Gandhi be able to explain himself in a way in which Fanon would see his point of view and vice versa?
On page 40, Fanon says “In the colonies, the foreigner coming from another country imposed his rule by means of guns and machines.” The foreigner, or the settler, uses machinery to colonize and oppress the native. The Black Panther Party also utilized guns to protest police brutality. I wonder what Gandhi would say on this subject. While it is made clear in the Hind Swaraj he is wholly against the use of violence to fight colonialism, his discussion on machinery and violence does not overlap quite as much as Fanon’s does. He does discuss machinery and violence when addressing the atom bomb- how we create entire armies to protect machinery, but it seems like his main concern is focused on machinery and labour. The displacement of human labour specifically- “Men go on ‘saving labour’ till thousands are without work and starving on the street.” I just wonder how he would react or go about discussing this topic with Fanon. In the Hind Swaraj, Gandhi makes the statement that ‘England did not take India, we gave it to them’. Fanon writes something which struck me as somewhat similar- “The status ‘native’ is a nervous condition introduced and maintained by the settler among colonized people with their consent,” (p.20). I’m not sure if these statements are actually as similar as they look, but it seemed worth noting. I think they would agree on the fact that Native peoples have the power and ability to fight against and extract settlers from their land, as to what power and how they use it, not so much. Fanon advocates for the use of violence and anger to defeat the settler. Gandhi advocates for non-violent protest of the masses. Gandhi also argues that we should not use machinery for producing things which we can produce without its aid. I understand this argument in the context of labour more so than the context of violent protest, and I wonder how Fanon would respond to such an argument. I am not exactly sure how to articulate it, this is the best I could do: but if the colonized are oppressed with machinery (whether this be with actual weapons or exploitative industrialization/mechanization), when attacked by the oppressor with such machinery, how can one directly retaliate when in immediate danger without the aid of this machinery? This goes for more extended conflicts too, if the oppressor continues to use violent methods and machinery. Or is the use of the weapons brought about by the settler (in certain contexts), a contradiction to the complete extraction of the settler and the society they bring?
In part 1 of “Wretched of the Earth,” Frantz Fanon explores the necessity of violence as a way to end colonization. Fanon states decolonization cannot come as a result of “magical practices, nor of a natural shock, nor of a friendly understanding” (29). Fanon goes on to explain that colonization was first marked by violence and therefore must end by the same accord in order to free the colonized. Fanon’s view is quite different from Gandhi’s use of non-violent demonstrations to further India’s independence. Would Gandhi think that there was a place for violence in protest after listening to Fanon? Does the use of violence to oppose violence make you any less humane?
In the preface of The Wretched of The Earth, pg lii-liii reads, “In order to rid themselves of [repressed rage] they end up massacring each other, tribes battle one against each other since they cannot confront the enemy –“, this is expanded upon when Fanon refers to muscular tension, this repressed rage that is perpetuated by the colonizers which, “periodically erupts into bloody fighting between tribes, clans, and individuals” (17), Fanon goes on to explain that this rage is inevitable and essentially must come out even if it’s aimed in the wrong direction. This uncalculated anger is what Fanon refers to as suicidal conduct that in turn is reinforcing colonial existence (18). Based on Fanon’s explanation, this inevitable frustration and aggression can be channeled in two ways, either towards your own people, which only aids the colonists in their own narrative, or channel it collectively in a more strategic way towards decolonization via “direction and organization” (21).
It’s clear here, a lot of us are questioning if violence is the only way, and if it is how does that make the natives any more humane and compassionate than the oppressors? We can all share the same conclusion that non-violence isn’t just about “compromise” or “negotiation” (24), because Gandhi acted nonviolently with the intention of receiving exactly what they set out to receive, no compromises accepted; and showed us that it is possible to attain your desires without violence via Fanon’s aforementioned direction and organization, and also achieve a sense of shame within the oppressors and their nation, which to me, is more effective.
However, my question is less about nonviolence vs violence, and more about what caught my attention being: the portion of the preface that states, “and you can count on colonial policy to fuel rivalries”. This rang through my head the entire reading, often leading me to see a pattern of the colonized reacting in ways linear to the colonizer’s mission; especially the portions whereabouts the colonized are not only physically manipulated but mentally, in that they “want to take the colonists place”(23), they envy their power and possessions. Furthermore, “It is not right, my fellow countrymen, you who know all the crimes committed in our name, it is really not right to breathe a word about them to anybody –for fear of having to pass judgment on yourselves. –silence has a damaging effect” (lxii). I cannot help but see an alarming resemblance between these ideas and America’s current happenings, first of all, it is no longer acceptable to be blissful in your ignorance and say, “I don’t pay attention to politics” given that now, more than ever, our parties are so polarized and your political affiliation is entirely linear with your moral and ethical standpoints. I think it is a good thing to be passionate, in the know, and to use your voice as a channel for change, especially considering that, “your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressor” (1viii).
That being laid out, my question is fueled by this idea of rivalry being used to the oppressor’s advantage.
Is it concerning that our countries political affiliations are so polarized? To the point where now people are cutting off friends and families are cutting ties. Do you see any resemblance between “natives” turning against one another for lack of a better outlet, only helping the colonizers in their operation to facilitate control, and left-wing, right-wing rivalries that exist today within our nation? Though standing up for what you believe in is extremely important, do you think these intense conflicts of interest within our own country are dangerous and veering us away from the ability to effectively be agents of change? Are these polarities on purpose?
Fanon, through the Wretched of the Earth, takes definitive stances on the role of violence in the colonialism as well as how violence should be used in response by those being colonized. He argues that, due to the violent and all encompassing (economic, political, psychological) scope of colonialism, those in the third world experiencing such oppression need their own formulation of revolutionary resistance. Due to his formal training as a psychiatrist, the overarching analysis in Wretched of the Earth is centered around the psychological dimensions of colonial oppression, and how the other forms of domination (economic, political, martial) inform the complex psychological phenomena present in both the colonized and the colonizer. I found Jean Paul Sartre’s preface to Wretched of the Earth to be an incredibly fascinating one, based on two fundamental positions which Sartre takes to be true regarding Fanon’s work and colonialism as a whole. Sartre argues that, due to the devastating and transformational effects of colonialism over the past 300 years (at the time), the third world needs its own theoretical work which analyses and point out the contradictions and negative/positive aspects of colonial relations. This would be in contrast to, for instance, Karl Marx’s work being foundational to any true radical analysis or action taken in opposition to an capitalist economy or oppressive regime in the west. Sartre here I do not think argues that for instance Marx would still not be very important for those in the third world, but that, due to these historical dynamics, the “language” of and conditions under which any revolutionary thought might be formulated must answer this colonial relationship in a way that Marx and others in the west simply didn’t have to. I think this is the most fundamental point made in Sartre’s preface, and I also think that, due to Fanon’s desire for decolonization as a holistic, top-down tearing down of colonial-systems, it is fundamental to The Wretched of the Earth as well.
Can Fanon’s decolonized society find a distinct identity when not defined by the colonized/colonizer distinction?
A little late, but another question:
“Obviously the violence channeled into the liberation struggle does not vanish as if by magic after hoisting the national colors. It has even less reason to disappear since nation-building still continues to operate inside the framework of critical competition between capitalism and socialism”(35). Does this mean that after colonial foreign intrusion and the introduction of colonies as a market and the colonized as consumers in said market, even after the colonized get their independence, they have to change their model of fiscal operation in order to be linear with modern economics now that they feel they need to develop and compete with other nations?
And is it possible/practical for a post-colonial country to self-sufficiently sustain itself outside of the global economic structure, especially today?
In part I of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon puts a lot of emphasis on the significance of violence. He discusses a lot about how colonialism stands upon the basis of violence and dominance/superiority in order to establish itself and prosper, so in order to combat this dominance, the colonized must reciprocate this violence to establish their power. “The peasantry… has nothing to lose and everything to gain.The underprivileged and starving peasant is the exploited who very soon discovers that only violence pays… When Monsieur Guy Mollet capitulated the the French settlers in Algeria in 1956, the FLN in a famous tract stated that colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat” (Fanon page 23). This violence stems from constant violence from the colonizer, making violence, in a sense, a colonial construct (and an important tool of colonialism), and that is what Fanon is stating throughout the whole first chapter. The unconscious recognition of colonial constructs as the norm by the colonized is seen in many instances throughout the first chapter. Fanon emphasizes this by pointing out the few colonized people that reap benefits from the colonizer and international trading. “The intellectual who, for his part, has adopted the abstract, universal values of the colonizer is prepared to fight so that colonist and colonized can live in peace in a new world. But what he does not see, because precisely colonialism and all its modes of thought have seeped into him, is that the colonist is no longer interested in staying on and coexisting once the colonial context has disappeared” (Fanon page 9). Colonialism takes hold of colonies and establishes itself as superior, forcing the native people to subdue and creating a feeling of inferiority. All existing institutions are seen by the colonialist as inferior to their own foreign institutions for two reasons: (1) they do not comply with the needs of colonial society, and (2) are not accumulating capital for the colonialist. This entitlement from the colonialists comes from their sense of decree by god, that they are carrying out the will of god, that they are god’s people. This, of course, is non-existent and projects their own unconscious dedication to their ego (colonialist ego, that is). Fanon has a sort of critique of Marx’s ideas on economic class, stating that, in a colonial sense, economic class is based on race and and “divine right”. “The cause is effect: you are rich because you are right, you are white because you are rich. This is why a Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched when it comes to addressing the colonial issue. It is not just the concept of a precapitalist society, so effectively studied by Marx, which needs to be reexamined here. The serf is essentially different from the knight, but a reference to divine right is needed to justify this difference in status” (Fanon page 5). Europe and colonialism have no real dignity and they survive on its expansion and dominance over all other ideologies. The colonized people have nowhere to go when they are facing attacks or troubles, so they become frustrated when the colonizer (who has established himself as the law and the enforcement) does nothing and beats them. They are kicked while they are down and, with morale at such a low, will even attack their own brother if looked at wrong (Fanon page 17). It is a defense mechanism that lacks common sense, due to complete defeat and confusion of what to turn to and how to act. Colonialism perpetuates despair in the colonized people to maintain its power. That is why Fanon urges violence against the colonialists as the only way to defeat it. “For the colonized, life can only materialize from the rotting cadaver of the colonist” (Fanon page 50). My question is: can we find a way to decolonize the first world? If violence is necessary for the decolonization of the third world, is it necessary for the first world either? If so, and when there is massive amounts of destruction as a result, will the society attempt to restructure from scratch or run back to its colonial ways?
In Chapter 1, “Concerning Violence” in The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon describes the colonial world as being Manichean, where the colonized is seen as absolutely evil and the colonizer as absolutely good. Differences between class, gender, religion, etc. are erased through this view, while the colonized group can be usually seen as subhuman or animalistic through the colonizer’s eyes. On page 39 in the Grove Weidenfeld edition of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon states, “This world divided into compartments, this world in two is inhabited by two different species.”
I think of Gandhi during statements such as this, in how he fought his whole life for the liberation of India from the British, acting as the colonized in such instances, while making clear his racism against Black people. In 2018, a statue of Gandhi was removed from the University of Ghana’s campus for his quotes on the Black population in South Africa being “dirty” and “like animals” and for his views that white people in South Africa should be the predominating race there. He lived and fought as a colonized person, and petitioned against the oppressive rule of the British while at the same time using hate and negativity to view Black people as less than him, reflecting exactly how the British saw India.
What “species,” then, would Gandhi be considered according to Fanon’s work? Through this black-and-white lens of Manicheanism, would Gandhi be the colonizer or the colonized? What does this complexity of viewpoints that Gandhi has reflect on the conscious of the colonized person in general?
Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth begins with an analysis of decolonization, followed by a description of the colonial world. I found those descriptions very interesting as he discusses the need to essentially uproot the overall colonial structures of the world in order to effectively decolonize it. Fanon states that, “The colonial world is a Manichean world…The native is declared insensible to ethics; he represents not only the absence of values, but also the negation values. He is, let us dare to admit, the enemy of values, and in this sense he is the absolute evil” (42). This statement highlights the constant dehumanization of colonized people, and emphasizes the need for change as drastic as uprooting colonial structures as a result of those negative perceptions of those who are colonized. Is it ever truly possible to alter such deeply rooted colonial structures in place around our world without causing outrage and an increase in those dehumanizing ideals and views toward colonized people?
Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth discusses the role of violence in decolonization and colonialism. He discusses the roles that violence as in colonization, “Nonviolence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around the negotiating table before the irreparable is done, before any bloodshed or regrettable act is committed” (Fanon, 23). He believes that nonviolence was created by the colonialist bourgeoise for the business elite and colonized intellectual. it’s meant to end the problem before acts of violence begin. Which is very different form what Gandhi believes, he believed that nonviolence was really the only right way to protest something. Fanon believed that violence was bound to happen when decolonizing since colonization was a violent event, “decolonization is always a violent event” (Fanon, 1). Since Fanon believed something very different from Gandhi would they be able to come to an agreement on protests and movements? Would they be able to hypothetically plan a protest that they both would agree with? Based on what Fanon believes with decolonization, how would he view the summer protests for BLM?
There are some similarities in the readings of Gandhi’s “Hindu Swaraj” and Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” in regards to trying to overcome colonization and colonizers. “Come, then, comrades; it would be as well to decide at once to change our ways. We must shake off the heavy darkness in which we were plunged, and leave it behind.The new day which is already at hand must find us firm, prudent, and resolute.” (Fanon, 311) In this quote Fanon is explaining how the Third World is facing the issue of either becoming like Europe or becoming their own nation. A nation not built in on racial hatreds, slavery, exploitation or the genocide of people. Both Gandhi and Fanon are displaying that they must not be like the Europeans and be under their rule. However, they do both have their separate ideals in doing so. While Gandhi takes the approach of resistance in nonviolent protests, Fanon believes the only way to decolonize is through violence because that’s what was used to colonize in the beginning. How do you think Gandhi would respond to Fanon’s method of decolonization and vice versa? Also what would an ideal Third World look like in the eyes of Fanon if not to follow the path of Europe?
In a more lengthy quote from The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon writes,“In spite of his frequently honest conduct and his sincere declarations, the leader as seen objectively is the fierce defender of these interests, today combined, of the national bourgeoisie and the ex-colonial companies. His honesty, which is his soul’s true bent, crumbles away little by little. His contact with the masses is so unreal that he comes to believe that his authority is hated and that the services he has rendered his country are being called in question…The leader is all the more necessary in that there is no party. During the period of the struggle for independence there was one right enough, a party led by the present leader. But since then this party is sadly disintegrated; nothing is left but the shell of a party, the name, the emblem, the motto, ” (p.166-169). This quote makes me wonder who or what Fanon would define as a leader, or what he would think about those considered “natural born leaders”. In this passage is he referring exclusively to elected leaders? Or people that find themselves in some sort of unspoken position of authority? Would he consider himself a leader, as this book became such an important part of the formation and education of the Black Panther Party? To what extent might Gandhi agree with these views, given his critique of Parliament? While this question may not be as relevant to the material, I also found myself wondering what he might think about religious leaders.