After reading the first two parts of The Wretched Of The Earth and watching Battle of the Algiers, it is obvious that the FLN’s approach to liberation from their colonists was much different from Gandhi’s non-violent movement in India. With that being said, both movements achieved victory in gaining independence. Another movement, which is taking place currently, is the battle between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I bring this topic up because of the similarities I saw between the FLN, Gandhi, and this contemporary issue.
So far, it seems that the Palestinians, by way of Hamas, have chosen to follow the FLN’s model for independence, which includes terrorism and war. If the Palestinians wish to continue this avenue, they must hope for international support for their movement and international opposition to Israel. I say this because that is how the Algeria, even though they technically lost the war to France, was able to gain their independence from French occupation.
My question therefore is this: Is it better to take the route of Gandhi or the route of the FLN? Should we support the Palestinians because of their acts of terrorism against colonial occupation, or should we encourage them to practice non-violent protests even though they have been experiencing oppressive occupation for almost 80 years? What would you do and how would you feel in their shoes? Can this movement learn from Gandhi’s example, and if so how would real change occur?
The reason I asks these questions is because all three of these movement are very similar, especially the movements in Algeria and Palestine. It is hard for many today to morally support Palestinian terrorism, but it is easy to understand the Algerians and their terrorists acts of the past. I am not sure if there is a correct answer to my questions as I know they are more complicated to answer than I have portrayed, but I think it is an important connection to think about in relation to past and contemporary issues.
Importance of a colonized world to stay in regime is its ability to stay as a “compartmentalized world” (3). This factor of preventing decolonization stuck out to me because I relate the most it. In our current world individualism and differences are focused on so much more than our collective similarities. This is because if we focused on our similarities, even within our differences, we would see that they root from the reproduction of colonization i.e. capitalism. I feel as I emerge into my 20’s and because of the environment I am in, I notice more rhetoric and movements toward community development and local resistance. This follows Fanon’s thinking which emphasizes that “decolonization unifies this world by radical decision to remove its heterogeneity by unifying it on the grounds of nation and sometimes race” (10). Later in the book Fanon elaborates more on national consciousness and I feel as if -at least in my sphere- this “consciousness” is starting to develop at local levels near me.
So what I wonder is, what other solutions does Fanon provide to the difficulties of decolonization?
I ask this because Fanon explains the limitations of decolonization and why they exist but then explains how decolonization means something so different than we imagine. I interpret he envisions decolonizing as reclaiming traditions and also continuing to move forward.
Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth provides a sharp criticism of the effects of colonialism.
In Part II, Fanon discusses how the oppressed rural masses initiate rebellion against colonial powers. Fanon sees the peasantry as the revolutionary class, driven by deep-seated hate. However, he argues that without direction, the haphazard uprisings are doomed to fail. A structured revolutionary organization and leadership are essential for channeling this raw energy into sustained action. He cautions against over-reliance on spontaneity, which may give way to chaos or be easily suppressed. Fanon says, “Spontaneity is the direct expression of the masses’ growing awareness, but it is not enough.” This recognition points to a problem in many anti-colonial struggles, which is the lack of political education and organization. Although the masses may begin the revolution, their efforts may be short-lived if they are not coupled with a strong strategic plan. Fanon suggests that spontaneous actions need to be converted into sustained political movements capable of bringing about systemic change.
In Part III, Fanon observes that this new elite often seeks personal enrichment, maintaining relationships with former colonial powers, and failing to develop an independent and self-sufficient national economy. This leads to a form of neo-colonialism, where the country is politically independent but economically dependent. The national bourgeoisie, he claims, becomes the “agent of the oppressor,” perpetuating the same systems of inequality. Fanon also highlights the dangers of ethnic and tribal divisions in post-colonial societies. The nationalist elites often exploit these divisions to maintain their power, rather than uniting the people for a common cause. He writes, “The bourgeoisie steps into the shoes of the former European settlement, to become, in its turn, the agent of the oppressor.” Fanon calls for a more genuine national consciousness, rooted in the people and their needs, rather than the ambitions of elites. Fanon emphasizes the importance of political education in transforming spontaneous revolt into sustained revolution.
Why is political education so valuable in ensuring the success of revolutionary movements, both during and after the struggle for independence?
Fanon is a strong advocate that decolonization will always involve violence. Colonization occurred through lifetimes of acts of violence so the only way to decolonize is to reciprocate violence. Through the use of police and military, there is always a way for the colonizers to keep the colonized out of their world. These world’s are not equal and the colonized are never able to escape the wrath of colonization. “Let us be honest, the colonist knows perfectly well that no jargon is a substitute for reality” (Fanon 10). No matter what ideas the colonizers push forward about the colonized being able to exist in a new world that is separate, Fanon argues that this type of dialect just continues the acts of colonization. The colonizers who claim to be intellectuals simply oversee and enforce the looting of others rights. The creation of these two separate worlds is divided by “species”, meaning race. “The oppressor, ensconced in his sector, creates the spiral, the spiral of domination, exploitation and looting” (Fanon 14). This forces the colonized to always be living on edge as they are already seen guilty in the eyes of the colonist. Despite this, the colonized do not want to compete with the colonizers. Instead, Fanon says that the goal of the colonized masses is to take the place of the colonizers. With this in mind, it is apparent that nonviolence has no place in decolonization. So, what would the world look like if the colonized were able to take the place of the colonizers? What role would violence play in this envisioned world of decolonization?
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon explains his reasoning and views on colonialism and the diminishing of cultures and peoples in face of it. Something that also stood out to me was his constant theme of motive and belief in a cause.
“Moreover, 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.” (pg 61)
This book reinforces over and over that the only way to make a change is to take a stand. Now, what should be flourishing different peoples and ways of life, colonizers have tainted our very thoughts. Maps, history, stories, speech, and the like are altered because of this.
“Africa is divided into Black and White, and the names that are substituted—Africa South of the Sahara, Africa North of the Sahara—do not manage to hide this latent racism. Here, it is affirmed that White Africa has a thousand-year-old tradition of culture; that she is Mediterranean, that she is a continuation of Europe, and that she shares in Greco-Latin civilization. Black Africa is looked on as a region that is inert, brutal, uncivilized, in a word, savage. There, all day long you may hear unpleasant remarks about veiled women, polygamy, and the supposed disdain the Arabs have for the feminine sex. All such remarks are reminiscent in their aggressiveness of those that are so often heard coming from the settler’s lips. The national bourgeoisie of each of these two great regions, which has totally assimilated colonialist thought in its most corrupt form, takes over from the Europeans and establishes in the continent a racial philosophy which is extremely harmful for the future of Africa. By its laziness and will to imitation, it promotes the ingrafting and stiffening of racism which was characteristic of the colonial era” (159-160)
I liked that the film The Battle of Algiers was in black and white and I think that the National Liberation Front (FLN) put Fanon’s words into practice. Here we have an organized group of people willing to fight for the same cause and what they believe to be justice. FLN didn’t necessarily win in terms of fighting, but Algiers gained its independence which is what they were fighting for.
My question is this: Is Fanon right and this is the only true way to decolonize? Through violence? Is it a form of ‘justice’ considering past events? Both sides harmed innocents in the film, but would Fanon see them as innocents?
In Fanon’s writing we see the call for violence to end colonization. While he is not giving a blueprint to the colonized he does tell them that this is the only effective way to respond, fighting fire with fire. The colonized often respond to the violence with a “told you so” mentality; they say “see we told you they were too savage to govern a country”. However Fanon gets us to think through the context of the violence committed. The violence is something the colonized endured until they broke, deciding it was time to fight back. Sartre phrases the problem well, “How come he cannot recognize his own cruelty now turned against him? How come he cannot see his own savagery as a colonist in the savagery of these oppressed peasants who have absorbed it through every pore and for which they can find no cure?” (pg. lvii) The colonizer often ignores the evils committed by their government and police as it benefits or at least does not harm them. This ignorance allows them to forget that they are in fact invaders occupying another country. I appreciate the preface of Fanon’s book as it helps to deconstruct the idea of an innocent bystander. Fanon says bystanders are not innocent as they are compliant. We can see this ideal in The Battle of Algiers film as shops and restaurants full of civilians are bombed. Though I find this belief to be true the children murdered never had the opportunity to make a difference. However, I recognize that the colonizers also murdered children. This leads me to my first question: can the murder of others be justified by the murder of your own community?
Community is another important aspect of building a revolution. Without loyal community members the revolution will fail, as we see in the film when the man is tortured and forced to give up the leader’s location. Even beyond the revolution Fanon speaks on how the governing of their reformed nation will be the most difficult part. One thing is for certain though the colonized do not wish to be like the colonizer. Western society has created a world consisting of binaries but the colonized see a different path, one where there is not an oppressor and oppressed but humans. “Once their rage explodes, they recover their lost coherence, they experience self-knowledge through reconstruction of themselves; from afar we see their war as the triumph of barbarity; but it proceeds on its own to gradually emancipate the fighter and progressively eliminates the colonial darkness inside and out. As soon as it begins it is merciless. Either one must remain terrified or become terrifying—which means surrendering to the dissociations of a fabricated life or conquering the unity of one’s native soil. When the peasants lay hands on a gun, the old myths fade, and one by one the taboos are overturned: a fighter’s weapon is his humanity. For in the first phase of the revolt killing is a necessity: killing a European is killing two birds with one stone, eliminating in one go oppressor and oppressed: leaving one man dead and the other man free.” We see in this quote talk of regaining humanity, however i ask, did the colonized ever lost their humanity? While they have been treated less than and have been forced to take up arms against the colonizer, they were always working towards a free society and supporting their community. I find the actions of the colonized, especially as seen in the film, as very human, something the colonizer can try to take but they can never have.
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses the violence that comes from the colonial regime. Violence enacted to perpetuate the colonial regime, and thereby it will be “violence alone, perpetrated by the people, violence organized and guided by the leadership, [that] provides the key for the masses to decipher social reality.” (Fanon, 96).
The Battle of Algiers film expressed the words of Fanon. Depicting the violence enacted by French officials unto the Algerians through countless acts of destruction. The French officials in the film condemned the National Liberation Front (FLN) for acts of violence, while they were enacting the same kinds of violence on the Algerian people. Fanon recognizes this, the hypocrisy of the French colonialists and states that the “colonized man liberates himself in and through violence,” whereby violence is the only solution to power (Fanon, 44).
Fanon also discusses how the colonized expels liberation or freedom through violence. Although this violence is not learned from the colonizer, it is justified through vengeance. This response is to counteract the colonizer’s expressions that the two men are not equal. Whereby the colonized states that the two men are equal and therefore both sides “admit the consequences” of the violent actions.
Through Fanon’s writing he states that violence is necessary to generate change. Before I state my question, I want to state that I am aware of the definition of violence. However, my question is if violence is really the correct word to use when describing the acts of the FLN? Is there another word to describe this course of action?
Fanon’s writing in the book The Wretched of the Earth is a blatant criticism of colonialism and the suggestion that it’s possible that in some cases violence is the only option to decolonize. As is demonstrated with his statements in the preface and we discussed in class by Jean Paul sartre directed at colonizers themselves, like,
“He demolishes the tactics of colonialism, the complex play of relations uniting and opposing the colonists and the “metropolitans.” For the sake of his brothers, his aim is to teach them how to outwit us. In short, the Third World discovers itself and speaks to itself through this voice. We know it is not a uniform world, and it still contains subjected peoples, some of whom have acquired a false independence, others who are fighting to conquer their sovereignty, and yet others who have won their freedom, but who live under the constant threat of imperialist aggression. These differences are born out of colonial history,”
Displaying his knowledge on the subject of liberation, from first world countries like europe, and his stance that liberation is necessary from colonialtic idea. These ideas, however, The Battle of Algeirs film showed through the FLN’s approach to liberation, which although not peaceful, was united, and a blatant approach at detachment from a larger entity had me wondering. We talk so much about how humanity separates itself from nature and itself within those constructs. I’m curious where war manifests and establishes itself in that structure of liberation and necessary violence.
Is it another psychological symptom of how humanity keeps leaning towards consumerism and colonialism that its disregarding human life and pitting everyone against each other?
Or is war a way to implement those ideas in the minds of the public via the minds of war-torn soldiers, who in some cases are forced to fight for beliefs they themselves don’t believe? Or die trying to protect their own, whether they’re at war on foreign soil or the place that’s supposed to be home?
In Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, Fannon attacks colonialism and the injustices that come along with it through a multidisciplinary approach.
Fanon examines the dehumanizing effects of colonialization through an individualized and nationalized perspective. Along with an evaluation of the colonized, Fanon also addresses the impacts colonization has on the colonizers.
Fanon goes on to argue in part 1 that, “colonialism is inherently violent.” Emphasizing that the act of colonizing another country, state, or individual entity is maintaining through some degree of violence. The acts of the colonizers over time have always been built on a premise of control and violent actions that create an environment which strips individuals or groups of their dignity and humanity. On the flip side of this argument, he states that “the only way to go about separating oneself from a colonized regime is through liberating forms of violence.” The necessary response to the oppression and psychological warfare that is colonialism, is to counteract with violent revolts. As the readings move along, we also saw in part two that Fanon effectively breaks down the main actors in liberating violence. The social classes of the colonized is often a key determinant that will dictate how violent revolts and protests will be carried out. While all of the colonized are under the same rule, social status seems to be a dividing factor that determines not only the urge to revolts but the success ratio that a revolt will obtain. Each social class has differing views about the colonizers in many cases. This differentiation is largely determined by social status and the positions in society held by each individual. All of these factors play a role in the success of liberation movements that in fanon’s assumptions, can only be carried out through acts of violence.
Questions:
In today’s modern age we still see revolts and protests, but with overwhelming government and military forces much of it is never truly able to be carried out. How has our modern times changed the process of liberations and revolutions?
If Fanon’s opinions still applicable in today’s times? What are some examples we have seen of this in the last twenty years?
The class resources provided this week including the film “The Battle of Algiers” and Fanon’s writing “The Wretched of the Earth” illustrated to me different forms of action taken to achieve liberation, however, noticing how the efforts/actions taken in both of these sources ultimately achieved liberation and independence has led to questions I have surrounding the effectiveness of different forms of action (violent/non-violent). In the film “The Battle of Algiers” we are shown how forms of violence were used as a way for the Algerian’s community to become liberated from the French forces that have inflicted both systematic violence and oppression onto them. However, in Fanon’s writing, “The Wretched of the Earth” we are shown the opposite which is Gandhi’s non-violent approachs to liberation. These non-violent forms include acts of civil disobedience and peaceful protests that were commonly used in the fight for liberation/achieving independence.
My question is, based on the examples of achieving liberation in both the film and the writing, even though violence can achieve liberation…should it be a commonly used tool in the fight for liberation? Or could the use of violence in fighting oppression only lead to the cycle continuing?
Fanon argues expressively for the need for violence to overcome colonial oppression in “The Wretched of the Earth,” but he also argues that violence is not merely perpetrated by colonists and revolutionaries. Rather, he discusses the violence aided and abetted by the non-revolutionary colonized populations, especially the religious and ‘petit bourgeois’ of Algeria. He claims that it is only the peasant class which is truly revolutionary, because they are not blind to their oppression (as the religious are), and they do not benefit from the exploitation of the country (as the merchant class does).
However, if the end goal of the FLN was a free and united Algeria, was this divisive rhetoric the best method for achieving it? Yes, ultimately one could consider “Wretched of the Earth” a project in consciousness-raising (i.e. educating those participating in violence in an attempt to convince them to stop), but to what extent is it effective to highlight these class differences when the Algerians with the most direct influence over the colonial project are the ones he derides?
Considering the political landscape Fanon describes between the power of the nationalist parties within the structure of colonialism, however, perhaps this was an effective method. Is it reasonable to think that this was effective at garnering support from the petit bourgeois, as they became less enamored with the ineffectiveness of status quo politics?
Frantz Fanon explains in The Wretched of the Earth that colonialism is rooted in violence and that decolonization cannot occur peacefully. He claims that violence is the only way for the Third World to decolonize as that is the only language, so to speak, that Western civilizations understand. This is evident in the film The Battle of the Algiers, which depicts the FLN fighting for independence against the colonial French occupation of Algeria. This conflict was extremely grim and violent and wasn’t resolved until 1962.
In regards to this context, I can’t help but think about our own country’s political state and how far it has fallen. Politicians are no longer professional, but instead aggressive towards each other. Voters and supporters of these politicians have turned to violent acts such as riots and even assassination attempts, all of which does nothing but make both parties despise each other more.
My question is this; was Fanon right in his assumption that violence is the only language that the West understands? Is it truly the only effective method of change in our society? How does our history of colonialism play into this claim?
In The Battle of Algiers, the distinction between the lesser of two evils is blurred. The film does a good job at reflecting the complexities of war and resistance. The Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) is portrayed as the resistance, they are the ones fighting for independence and liberation from French colonial rule. While we as viewers might label them more so as “good guys”, they are in fact using acts of violence. This violence, in a way, undermined their cause and harmed innocent people in the process. The French military/police force in the film represents the oppressive colonial regime. This group is very familiar with brutal violence and will do anything to maintain colonial dominance.
In the end, there are no clear heroes or villains because both sides are committing acts of violence for different reasons.The suffering of innocent civilians caught between these two forces raises ethical questions about the methods being used to fight for independence. In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon argues powerfully for the role of violence in resistance. He quotes “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.” Fanon argues that violence is crucial not only for liberation but also for reclaiming human dignity and identity.
I believe that the film suggests that violence gives life to more violence, creating a never-ending cycle that perpetuates human suffering. As we saw in the film, FLN’s public bombings prompted the French military to conduct raids in Algerian neighborhoods, where they arrested and tortured suspects in front of their families. As both sides retaliated, innocent civilians frequently suffered as a result. So… are the FLN’s acts of violence justifiable if it is their aim to liberate their people? Can violence ever lead us to a just outcome? Or does it merely prolong the conflict?
Fanon articulates the profound impact of colonialism on the psyche and social structures of colonized peoples, particularly focusing on the role of youth in the struggle for liberation. Fanon emphasizes that the youth are not merely passive recipients of colonial oppression; rather, they are vital agents of change and revolution. He notes that the youth, often disillusioned and idle due to the disintegration of traditional structures, are susceptible to both the allure of Western culture and the call to action against colonial powers. Fanon states, “The young people of the towns, idle and often illiterate, are a prey to all sorts of disintegrating influences.” He highlights the vulnerability of youth within the colonial context, where their energies and aspirations can be easily influenced. This duality presents a critical opportunity for engagement, as they possess the potential to either succumb to the distractions of colonial influence or rise up to reclaim their identity and agency.
In this light, Fanon’s text serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of youth engagement in contemporary struggles against oppression and injustice. It prompts us to consider how we can empower young people today to become active participants in shaping their futures, drawing from the lessons of history that Fanon articulates.
How can the themes of youth engagement and empowerment in Fanon’s work inform contemporary movements for social justice and liberation? In what ways can we apply Fanon’s insights about the role of youth in revolutionary struggles to today’s socio-political contexts?
In The Wretched of the Earth Fanon explains that colonialism keeps power by dividing society, creating a strict separation between the colonizers and the colonized, often based on race. This division creates an unequal world where the colonizers hold power and control, keeping the colonized in a state of constant oppression. Fanon argues that decolonization—a movement to reclaim identity and independence—must involve violence, as colonialism itself was built and maintained through violent force. For Fanon, violence becomes a way for the colonized to break free and assert their worth, challenging the colonizers’ view that they are inferior. He believes that, to achieve true freedom, the colonized must disrupt the oppressive system through organized resistance. This theme is illustrated in The Battle of Algiers which shows the violence used by both French officials and Algerian freedom fighters, highlighting the harsh realities of colonial struggle and the determination for liberation. The affects of colonization are felt forever being passed on from generation to generation through the suppressing of certain ideas and potential colonial influence that is placed on the youth.
My question is how long would it take for a colonized country take to become completely decolonized or is that even possible? Because I feel as though even after initial decolonization, there would be so many influences still left behind that would ultimately make the country still not decolonized, so how long what it take for a country to get back to their traditions and origins after decolonizing.
For this week of class we examined Part II and III of Frantz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth. Additionally, we watched a very captivating movie called The Battle of Algiers (1966), directed by Gillo Pontecorvo.
My discussion will be focused on the movie we watched. I felt a strong connection to this movie because of the role women play in the Algerian War. I wonder how many women in this country, colonized, oppressed by France, in the 1950’s, felt like their inconsequential lives were powerful and meaningful again. The agency of women does not get overlooked in this film and I really enjoyed how much Pontecorvo highlighted this beautiful metamorphosis.
The National Liberation Front utilizes how the French army will overlook these women as fighters. Their strategic deception and bomb filled purses launches a series of attacks that sends a incredible message to the French. I would like to ask if anyone else noticed how the elevation and empowerment of women in the film foreshadowed the same fate for the rest of the country?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
After reading the first two parts of The Wretched Of The Earth and watching Battle of the Algiers, it is obvious that the FLN’s approach to liberation from their colonists was much different from Gandhi’s non-violent movement in India. With that being said, both movements achieved victory in gaining independence. Another movement, which is taking place currently, is the battle between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I bring this topic up because of the similarities I saw between the FLN, Gandhi, and this contemporary issue.
So far, it seems that the Palestinians, by way of Hamas, have chosen to follow the FLN’s model for independence, which includes terrorism and war. If the Palestinians wish to continue this avenue, they must hope for international support for their movement and international opposition to Israel. I say this because that is how the Algeria, even though they technically lost the war to France, was able to gain their independence from French occupation.
My question therefore is this: Is it better to take the route of Gandhi or the route of the FLN? Should we support the Palestinians because of their acts of terrorism against colonial occupation, or should we encourage them to practice non-violent protests even though they have been experiencing oppressive occupation for almost 80 years? What would you do and how would you feel in their shoes? Can this movement learn from Gandhi’s example, and if so how would real change occur?
The reason I asks these questions is because all three of these movement are very similar, especially the movements in Algeria and Palestine. It is hard for many today to morally support Palestinian terrorism, but it is easy to understand the Algerians and their terrorists acts of the past. I am not sure if there is a correct answer to my questions as I know they are more complicated to answer than I have portrayed, but I think it is an important connection to think about in relation to past and contemporary issues.
Cole Tomlin
Importance of a colonized world to stay in regime is its ability to stay as a “compartmentalized world” (3). This factor of preventing decolonization stuck out to me because I relate the most it. In our current world individualism and differences are focused on so much more than our collective similarities. This is because if we focused on our similarities, even within our differences, we would see that they root from the reproduction of colonization i.e. capitalism. I feel as I emerge into my 20’s and because of the environment I am in, I notice more rhetoric and movements toward community development and local resistance. This follows Fanon’s thinking which emphasizes that “decolonization unifies this world by radical decision to remove its heterogeneity by unifying it on the grounds of nation and sometimes race” (10). Later in the book Fanon elaborates more on national consciousness and I feel as if -at least in my sphere- this “consciousness” is starting to develop at local levels near me.
So what I wonder is, what other solutions does Fanon provide to the difficulties of decolonization?
I ask this because Fanon explains the limitations of decolonization and why they exist but then explains how decolonization means something so different than we imagine. I interpret he envisions decolonizing as reclaiming traditions and also continuing to move forward.
Dez
Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth provides a sharp criticism of the effects of colonialism.
In Part II, Fanon discusses how the oppressed rural masses initiate rebellion against colonial powers. Fanon sees the peasantry as the revolutionary class, driven by deep-seated hate. However, he argues that without direction, the haphazard uprisings are doomed to fail. A structured revolutionary organization and leadership are essential for channeling this raw energy into sustained action. He cautions against over-reliance on spontaneity, which may give way to chaos or be easily suppressed.
Fanon says, “Spontaneity is the direct expression of the masses’ growing awareness, but it is not enough.” This recognition points to a problem in many anti-colonial struggles, which is the lack of political education and organization. Although the masses may begin the revolution, their efforts may be short-lived if they are not coupled with a strong strategic plan. Fanon suggests that spontaneous actions need to be converted into sustained political movements capable of bringing about systemic change.
In Part III, Fanon observes that this new elite often seeks personal enrichment, maintaining relationships with former colonial powers, and failing to develop an independent and self-sufficient national economy. This leads to a form of neo-colonialism, where the country is politically independent but economically dependent. The national bourgeoisie, he claims, becomes the “agent of the oppressor,” perpetuating the same systems of inequality.
Fanon also highlights the dangers of ethnic and tribal divisions in post-colonial societies. The nationalist elites often exploit these divisions to maintain their power, rather than uniting the people for a common cause. He writes, “The bourgeoisie steps into the shoes of the former European settlement, to become, in its turn, the agent of the oppressor.” Fanon calls for a more genuine national consciousness, rooted in the people and their needs, rather than the ambitions of elites.
Fanon emphasizes the importance of political education in transforming spontaneous revolt into sustained revolution.
Why is political education so valuable in ensuring the success of revolutionary movements, both during and after the struggle for independence?
Hanna Cowles
Fanon is a strong advocate that decolonization will always involve violence. Colonization occurred through lifetimes of acts of violence so the only way to decolonize is to reciprocate violence. Through the use of police and military, there is always a way for the colonizers to keep the colonized out of their world. These world’s are not equal and the colonized are never able to escape the wrath of colonization. “Let us be honest, the colonist knows perfectly well that no jargon is a substitute for reality” (Fanon 10). No matter what ideas the colonizers push forward about the colonized being able to exist in a new world that is separate, Fanon argues that this type of dialect just continues the acts of colonization. The colonizers who claim to be intellectuals simply oversee and enforce the looting of others rights. The creation of these two separate worlds is divided by “species”, meaning race. “The oppressor, ensconced in his sector, creates the spiral, the spiral of domination, exploitation and looting” (Fanon 14). This forces the colonized to always be living on edge as they are already seen guilty in the eyes of the colonist. Despite this, the colonized do not want to compete with the colonizers. Instead, Fanon says that the goal of the colonized masses is to take the place of the colonizers. With this in mind, it is apparent that nonviolence has no place in decolonization. So, what would the world look like if the colonized were able to take the place of the colonizers? What role would violence play in this envisioned world of decolonization?
Anna Gardner
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon explains his reasoning and views on colonialism and the diminishing of cultures and peoples in face of it. Something that also stood out to me was his constant theme of motive and belief in a cause.
“Moreover, 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.” (pg 61)
This book reinforces over and over that the only way to make a change is to take a stand. Now, what should be flourishing different peoples and ways of life, colonizers have tainted our very thoughts. Maps, history, stories, speech, and the like are altered because of this.
“Africa is divided into Black and White, and the names that are substituted—Africa South of the Sahara, Africa North of the Sahara—do not manage to hide this latent racism. Here, it is affirmed that White Africa has a thousand-year-old tradition of culture; that she is Mediterranean, that she is a continuation of Europe, and that she shares in Greco-Latin civilization. Black Africa is looked on as a region that is inert, brutal, uncivilized, in a word, savage. There, all day long you may hear unpleasant remarks about veiled women, polygamy, and the supposed disdain the Arabs have for the feminine sex. All such remarks are reminiscent in their aggressiveness of those that are so often heard coming from the settler’s lips. The national bourgeoisie of each of these two great regions, which has totally assimilated colonialist thought in its most corrupt form, takes over from the Europeans and establishes in the continent a racial philosophy which is extremely harmful for the future of Africa. By its laziness and will to imitation, it promotes the ingrafting and stiffening of racism which was characteristic of the colonial era” (159-160)
I liked that the film The Battle of Algiers was in black and white and I think that the National Liberation Front (FLN) put Fanon’s words into practice. Here we have an organized group of people willing to fight for the same cause and what they believe to be justice. FLN didn’t necessarily win in terms of fighting, but Algiers gained its independence which is what they were fighting for.
My question is this: Is Fanon right and this is the only true way to decolonize? Through violence? Is it a form of ‘justice’ considering past events? Both sides harmed innocents in the film, but would Fanon see them as innocents?
Anna Harrison
In Fanon’s writing we see the call for violence to end colonization. While he is not giving a blueprint to the colonized he does tell them that this is the only effective way to respond, fighting fire with fire. The colonized often respond to the violence with a “told you so” mentality; they say “see we told you they were too savage to govern a country”. However Fanon gets us to think through the context of the violence committed. The violence is something the colonized endured until they broke, deciding it was time to fight back. Sartre phrases the problem well, “How come he cannot recognize his own cruelty now turned against him? How come he cannot see his own savagery as a colonist in the savagery of these oppressed peasants who have absorbed it through every pore and for which they can find no cure?” (pg. lvii) The colonizer often ignores the evils committed by their government and police as it benefits or at least does not harm them. This ignorance allows them to forget that they are in fact invaders occupying another country. I appreciate the preface of Fanon’s book as it helps to deconstruct the idea of an innocent bystander. Fanon says bystanders are not innocent as they are compliant. We can see this ideal in The Battle of Algiers film as shops and restaurants full of civilians are bombed. Though I find this belief to be true the children murdered never had the opportunity to make a difference. However, I recognize that the colonizers also murdered children. This leads me to my first question: can the murder of others be justified by the murder of your own community?
Community is another important aspect of building a revolution. Without loyal community members the revolution will fail, as we see in the film when the man is tortured and forced to give up the leader’s location. Even beyond the revolution Fanon speaks on how the governing of their reformed nation will be the most difficult part. One thing is for certain though the colonized do not wish to be like the colonizer. Western society has created a world consisting of binaries but the colonized see a different path, one where there is not an oppressor and oppressed but humans. “Once their rage explodes, they recover their lost coherence, they experience self-knowledge through reconstruction of themselves; from afar we see their war as the triumph of barbarity; but it proceeds on its own to gradually emancipate the fighter and progressively eliminates the colonial darkness inside and out. As soon as it begins it is merciless. Either one must remain terrified or become terrifying—which means surrendering to the dissociations of a fabricated life or conquering the unity of one’s native soil. When the peasants lay hands on a gun, the old myths fade, and one by one the taboos are overturned: a fighter’s weapon is his humanity. For in the first phase of the revolt killing is a necessity: killing a European is killing two birds with one stone, eliminating in one go oppressor and oppressed: leaving one man dead and the other man free.” We see in this quote talk of regaining humanity, however i ask, did the colonized ever lost their humanity? While they have been treated less than and have been forced to take up arms against the colonizer, they were always working towards a free society and supporting their community. I find the actions of the colonized, especially as seen in the film, as very human, something the colonizer can try to take but they can never have.
Alaina Case
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses the violence that comes from the colonial regime. Violence enacted to perpetuate the colonial regime, and thereby it will be “violence alone, perpetrated by the people, violence organized and guided by the leadership, [that] provides the key for the masses to decipher social reality.” (Fanon, 96).
The Battle of Algiers film expressed the words of Fanon. Depicting the violence enacted by French officials unto the Algerians through countless acts of destruction. The French officials in the film condemned the National Liberation Front (FLN) for acts of violence, while they were enacting the same kinds of violence on the Algerian people. Fanon recognizes this, the hypocrisy of the French colonialists and states that the “colonized man liberates himself in and through violence,” whereby violence is the only solution to power (Fanon, 44).
Fanon also discusses how the colonized expels liberation or freedom through violence. Although this violence is not learned from the colonizer, it is justified through vengeance. This response is to counteract the colonizer’s expressions that the two men are not equal. Whereby the colonized states that the two men are equal and therefore both sides “admit the consequences” of the violent actions.
Through Fanon’s writing he states that violence is necessary to generate change. Before I state my question, I want to state that I am aware of the definition of violence. However, my question is if violence is really the correct word to use when describing the acts of the FLN? Is there another word to describe this course of action?
Megan langlois
Fanon’s writing in the book The Wretched of the Earth is a blatant criticism of colonialism and the suggestion that it’s possible that in some cases violence is the only option to decolonize. As is demonstrated with his statements in the preface and we discussed in class by Jean Paul sartre directed at colonizers themselves, like,
“He demolishes the tactics of colonialism, the complex play of relations uniting and opposing the colonists and the “metropolitans.” For the sake of his brothers, his aim is to teach them how to outwit us. In short, the Third World discovers itself and speaks to itself through this voice. We know it is not a uniform world, and it still contains subjected peoples, some of whom have acquired a false independence, others who are fighting to conquer their sovereignty, and yet others who have won their freedom, but who live under the constant threat of imperialist aggression. These differences are born out of colonial history,”
Displaying his knowledge on the subject of liberation, from first world countries like europe, and his stance that liberation is necessary from colonialtic idea. These ideas, however, The Battle of Algeirs film showed through the FLN’s approach to liberation, which although not peaceful, was united, and a blatant approach at detachment from a larger entity had me wondering. We talk so much about how humanity separates itself from nature and itself within those constructs. I’m curious where war manifests and establishes itself in that structure of liberation and necessary violence.
Is it another psychological symptom of how humanity keeps leaning towards consumerism and colonialism that its disregarding human life and pitting everyone against each other?
Or is war a way to implement those ideas in the minds of the public via the minds of war-torn soldiers, who in some cases are forced to fight for beliefs they themselves don’t believe? Or die trying to protect their own, whether they’re at war on foreign soil or the place that’s supposed to be home?
Weekly Discussion Questions week 4
Cooper White
In Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, Fannon attacks colonialism and the injustices that come along with it through a multidisciplinary approach.
Fanon examines the dehumanizing effects of colonialization through an individualized and nationalized perspective. Along with an evaluation of the colonized, Fanon also addresses the impacts colonization has on the colonizers.
Fanon goes on to argue in part 1 that, “colonialism is inherently violent.” Emphasizing that the act of colonizing another country, state, or individual entity is maintaining through some degree of violence. The acts of the colonizers over time have always been built on a premise of control and violent actions that create an environment which strips individuals or groups of their dignity and humanity. On the flip side of this argument, he states that “the only way to go about separating oneself from a colonized regime is through liberating forms of violence.” The necessary response to the oppression and psychological warfare that is colonialism, is to counteract with violent revolts. As the readings move along, we also saw in part two that Fanon effectively breaks down the main actors in liberating violence. The social classes of the colonized is often a key determinant that will dictate how violent revolts and protests will be carried out. While all of the colonized are under the same rule, social status seems to be a dividing factor that determines not only the urge to revolts but the success ratio that a revolt will obtain. Each social class has differing views about the colonizers in many cases. This differentiation is largely determined by social status and the positions in society held by each individual. All of these factors play a role in the success of liberation movements that in fanon’s assumptions, can only be carried out through acts of violence.
Questions:
In today’s modern age we still see revolts and protests, but with overwhelming government and military forces much of it is never truly able to be carried out. How has our modern times changed the process of liberations and revolutions?
If Fanon’s opinions still applicable in today’s times? What are some examples we have seen of this in the last twenty years?
The class resources provided this week including the film “The Battle of Algiers” and Fanon’s writing “The Wretched of the Earth” illustrated to me different forms of action taken to achieve liberation, however, noticing how the efforts/actions taken in both of these sources ultimately achieved liberation and independence has led to questions I have surrounding the effectiveness of different forms of action (violent/non-violent). In the film “The Battle of Algiers” we are shown how forms of violence were used as a way for the Algerian’s community to become liberated from the French forces that have inflicted both systematic violence and oppression onto them. However, in Fanon’s writing, “The Wretched of the Earth” we are shown the opposite which is Gandhi’s non-violent approachs to liberation. These non-violent forms include acts of civil disobedience and peaceful protests that were commonly used in the fight for liberation/achieving independence.
My question is, based on the examples of achieving liberation in both the film and the writing, even though violence can achieve liberation…should it be a commonly used tool in the fight for liberation? Or could the use of violence in fighting oppression only lead to the cycle continuing?
Perry Daughtry
Rose Benton
Fanon argues expressively for the need for violence to overcome colonial oppression in “The Wretched of the Earth,” but he also argues that violence is not merely perpetrated by colonists and revolutionaries. Rather, he discusses the violence aided and abetted by the non-revolutionary colonized populations, especially the religious and ‘petit bourgeois’ of Algeria. He claims that it is only the peasant class which is truly revolutionary, because they are not blind to their oppression (as the religious are), and they do not benefit from the exploitation of the country (as the merchant class does).
However, if the end goal of the FLN was a free and united Algeria, was this divisive rhetoric the best method for achieving it? Yes, ultimately one could consider “Wretched of the Earth” a project in consciousness-raising (i.e. educating those participating in violence in an attempt to convince them to stop), but to what extent is it effective to highlight these class differences when the Algerians with the most direct influence over the colonial project are the ones he derides?
Considering the political landscape Fanon describes between the power of the nationalist parties within the structure of colonialism, however, perhaps this was an effective method. Is it reasonable to think that this was effective at garnering support from the petit bourgeois, as they became less enamored with the ineffectiveness of status quo politics?
By Evan Morgan
Frantz Fanon explains in The Wretched of the Earth that colonialism is rooted in violence and that decolonization cannot occur peacefully. He claims that violence is the only way for the Third World to decolonize as that is the only language, so to speak, that Western civilizations understand. This is evident in the film The Battle of the Algiers, which depicts the FLN fighting for independence against the colonial French occupation of Algeria. This conflict was extremely grim and violent and wasn’t resolved until 1962.
In regards to this context, I can’t help but think about our own country’s political state and how far it has fallen. Politicians are no longer professional, but instead aggressive towards each other. Voters and supporters of these politicians have turned to violent acts such as riots and even assassination attempts, all of which does nothing but make both parties despise each other more.
My question is this; was Fanon right in his assumption that violence is the only language that the West understands? Is it truly the only effective method of change in our society? How does our history of colonialism play into this claim?
Michelle Hood
In The Battle of Algiers, the distinction between the lesser of two evils is blurred. The film does a good job at reflecting the complexities of war and resistance. The Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) is portrayed as the resistance, they are the ones fighting for independence and liberation from French colonial rule. While we as viewers might label them more so as “good guys”, they are in fact using acts of violence. This violence, in a way, undermined their cause and harmed innocent people in the process. The French military/police force in the film represents the oppressive colonial regime. This group is very familiar with brutal violence and will do anything to maintain colonial dominance.
In the end, there are no clear heroes or villains because both sides are committing acts of violence for different reasons.The suffering of innocent civilians caught between these two forces raises ethical questions about the methods being used to fight for independence. In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon argues powerfully for the role of violence in resistance. He quotes “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.” Fanon argues that violence is crucial not only for liberation but also for reclaiming human dignity and identity.
I believe that the film suggests that violence gives life to more violence, creating a never-ending cycle that perpetuates human suffering. As we saw in the film, FLN’s public bombings prompted the French military to conduct raids in Algerian neighborhoods, where they arrested and tortured suspects in front of their families. As both sides retaliated, innocent civilians frequently suffered as a result. So… are the FLN’s acts of violence justifiable if it is their aim to liberate their people? Can violence ever lead us to a just outcome? Or does it merely prolong the conflict?
Fanon articulates the profound impact of colonialism on the psyche and social structures of colonized peoples, particularly focusing on the role of youth in the struggle for liberation. Fanon emphasizes that the youth are not merely passive recipients of colonial oppression; rather, they are vital agents of change and revolution. He notes that the youth, often disillusioned and idle due to the disintegration of traditional structures, are susceptible to both the allure of Western culture and the call to action against colonial powers. Fanon states, “The young people of the towns, idle and often illiterate, are a prey to all sorts of disintegrating influences.” He highlights the vulnerability of youth within the colonial context, where their energies and aspirations can be easily influenced. This duality presents a critical opportunity for engagement, as they possess the potential to either succumb to the distractions of colonial influence or rise up to reclaim their identity and agency.
In this light, Fanon’s text serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of youth engagement in contemporary struggles against oppression and injustice. It prompts us to consider how we can empower young people today to become active participants in shaping their futures, drawing from the lessons of history that Fanon articulates.
How can the themes of youth engagement and empowerment in Fanon’s work inform contemporary movements for social justice and liberation? In what ways can we apply Fanon’s insights about the role of youth in revolutionary struggles to today’s socio-political contexts?
Aaron Batty
Jonathan Phillips
In The Wretched of the Earth Fanon explains that colonialism keeps power by dividing society, creating a strict separation between the colonizers and the colonized, often based on race. This division creates an unequal world where the colonizers hold power and control, keeping the colonized in a state of constant oppression. Fanon argues that decolonization—a movement to reclaim identity and independence—must involve violence, as colonialism itself was built and maintained through violent force. For Fanon, violence becomes a way for the colonized to break free and assert their worth, challenging the colonizers’ view that they are inferior. He believes that, to achieve true freedom, the colonized must disrupt the oppressive system through organized resistance. This theme is illustrated in The Battle of Algiers which shows the violence used by both French officials and Algerian freedom fighters, highlighting the harsh realities of colonial struggle and the determination for liberation. The affects of colonization are felt forever being passed on from generation to generation through the suppressing of certain ideas and potential colonial influence that is placed on the youth.
My question is how long would it take for a colonized country take to become completely decolonized or is that even possible? Because I feel as though even after initial decolonization, there would be so many influences still left behind that would ultimately make the country still not decolonized, so how long what it take for a country to get back to their traditions and origins after decolonizing.
For this week of class we examined Part II and III of Frantz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth. Additionally, we watched a very captivating movie called The Battle of Algiers (1966), directed by Gillo Pontecorvo.
My discussion will be focused on the movie we watched. I felt a strong connection to this movie because of the role women play in the Algerian War. I wonder how many women in this country, colonized, oppressed by France, in the 1950’s, felt like their inconsequential lives were powerful and meaningful again. The agency of women does not get overlooked in this film and I really enjoyed how much Pontecorvo highlighted this beautiful metamorphosis.
The National Liberation Front utilizes how the French army will overlook these women as fighters. Their strategic deception and bomb filled purses launches a series of attacks that sends a incredible message to the French. I would like to ask if anyone else noticed how the elevation and empowerment of women in the film foreshadowed the same fate for the rest of the country?
Cecilia Roche