In reading “The Wretched of the Earth,” by Frantz Fanon I was enamored with the preface authored by John-Paul Satre. The voice, rhythm, cadence and message, designed to enthrall the reader into an enunciation of colonialism, the colonizer and the colonized. Marking Fanon’s journey into decolonization.
The beginning of part one, aptly titled “Violence,” revitalizes the perspective of both sides in the the equation, “Decolonization is the encounter between two congenitally antagonistic forces that in fact owe their singularity to the kind of reification secreted and nurtured by the colonial situation” (2). To this end the common theme of one retaining a sense of ‘dignity’ arises, perhaps born of the struggle, but most importantly of the land (9). Fanon speaks of the colonial world as compartmentalized, all the while the backbone of the decolonized to be reorganized (3). This dichotomy brings forth revolution, where some flee and some fight. “The colonist makes history and he knows it” (15). So then capitalism is raised alongside the “forces of violence that erupt in colonial territories” (27). There is much ado to the altercation of Third World Countries, as the increased pace of commerce contrasts to cultural norms and are often breached beyond repair, or reparation.
What instances can you think of when a country has liberated itself from colonialism and how well have they done since?
In the preface written by Jean-Paul Sartre, he writes “A ‘french-speaking’ ex-native bends the language to new requirements, fashions it for his own use, and speaks to the colonized alone: ‘Natives of all the underdeveloped countries unite!’ What a downfall. For the fathers, we were the only interlocutors; for the sons, we no longer count: we are the object of their discourse.”
That being said, on pages 5 and 6 of “On Violence,” Fanon states, “The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world, which tirelessly punctuated the destruction of the indigenous social fabric, and demolished unchecked the systems of reference of the country’s economy, lifestyles, and modes of dress, this same violence will be vindicated and appropriated when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.”
Sartre’s statement suggests that the genuine “colonized” don’t really exist anymore, that the fathers “were the only interlocutors.” Furthermore, Europeans and natives/people of other nationalities etc. are increasingly integrating, meaning overtime there are less and less indigenous and native peoples. And, even when there are, are they truly the colonized? Yes, of course, they are still forever affected and impacted by colonialism, and this pain and struggle is intergenerational, but as Sartre states, “for the sons, we no longer count: we are the object of their discourse.” Does this mean that the colonized can’t really take over the “forbidden cities” as Fanon states because they don’t really exist anymore? Isn’t everyone now technically a result of colonialism? Is this how you guys interpreted these statements, and if not, how did you interpret them?
One of the things I found interesting while reading“The Wretched of the Earth,” was the mentioned duality between colonists and those they colonized and the subject of violence. The use of violence by those who have been colonized is frowned upon not only for its connections to colonizers but because violence only breeds more violence “The violence of colonial regime and the counterviolence of the colonized balance each other and respond to each other in an extraordinary reciprocal homogeneity. The greater the number of metropolitan settlers the more terrible the violence will be.” (46). The use of violence by colonized people in many ways eliminates their cultural identity and separation from those who colonized them. When violence is used it can lead to the erasure of a culture’s practices “Violence in its practice is totalizing and national. As a result, it harbors in its depths the elimination of regionalism and tribalism” (51). When colonized people act with violence to separate themselves from colonists’ ways of life they are in a way only acting in a method that a colonist would. The reason for colonized people acting with violence is because they believe they must use it to gain their liberation from those who have colonized them “As we have seen, the colonized masses intuitively believe that their liberation must be achieved and can only be achieved by force.” (33). However to truly move away from colonizers those that have been colonized must seek liberation in a different way. This also shares many of the ideals taught in Gandhi’s teachings and reflects the same idea that the use of violence is a characteristic trait of colonial countries and people.
What methods do you think countries can use to liberate themselves without the use of violence? Do you think there are situations where violence is the only response or only way for a country or people to achieve liberty?
On page 8, 12, and 13 of the preface Jean-Paul Sartre mentions culture and the erasure of culture, but not in the way we are used to hearing it. We as westerners are used to hearing of indigenous or cultural erasure elsewhere but Sartre is using our lack of comprehension as a scare tactic in a sense. He is saying that with the fall of colonialism westerners culture will fall, as it is based around exploitation and runs off of others, but once it ends we will be the ones in the dark without community and earthly ties to hold us together. This is analogy is depicted the best on page 13 with the bonfire scene when western ideals become overthrown and now the westerns and colonizers are the ones left in the cold unable to join the fire. I really like this portion about culture on page 15 “Everything will be done to wipe out their traditions, to substitute our language for theirs and to destroy their culture without giving them
ours”. This is because it really shows that colonizers take everything down to the essence of persons, and the call out for Europeans and colonizers happening in this preface its truly put into perspective when you realize you’d hate for that to happen to you. That is what I believe is the message coming across in the preface, Sartre is telling the Europeans to pick up a book about them because they would hate it and truly see themselves, and what they will lose when it ends, but they can help themselves by letting it end civilized. In part 1 Fanon mentions that the native people of a place only become natives because of settlers, before them they were just the people of that place. This goes in hand with what I was highlighting above that colonizer culture comes from exploitation and the presence of other cultures, this is a double edged sword as the native or colonized only get their title from their oppressors.
When decolonization happens what aspects of culture will change, since much has been lost or forced out will the old come back, or will changed version that include colonizer mindsets stay?
At the end of Part 1 of “The Wretched of the Earth”, Frantz Fanon talks about how these “third” world countries might operate if they became truly independent or how the colonizers might still be present. In his section “On Violence in the International Context” he writes, “Today, National independence and nation building in the underdeveloped regions take on an entirely new aspect. In these regions, except for some remarkable achievement, every country suffers form the same lack of infrastructure” (Fanon 53). He says this in comparison to the development of European countries to show that the same cannot be said for both. Later Fanon writes, “the apotheosis of independence becomes the curse of independence. The sweeping powers of coercion of the colonial authorities condemn the young nation to regression. IN other words, the colonial power says: ‘If you want independence, take it and suffer the consequences” (Fanon 54). Is he saying that third world or underdeveloped countries are doomed either way? What is his argument on how third world countries should go about gaining independence what does he want it to look like once they get it?
In this first part of “Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon talks about independence and colonization, and the steps it might take to get to achieve a form of decolonization. One of the sections that caught my eye throughout the reading seemed to tie together thoughts of action and why we have seen action the way that we have in policy thus far. It reads,
“From the point of view of political tactics and History, the liberation of the colonies poses a theoretical problem of crucial importance at the current time: When can it be said that the situation is ripe for a national liberation movement? What should be the first line of action? Because decolonization comes in many shapes, reason wavers and abstains from declaring what is a true decolonization and what is not. We shall see that for the politically committed, urgent decisions are needed on means and tactics, i.e., direction and organization. Anything else is but blind voluntarism with the terribly reactionary risks this implies” (21).
Here, I am wondering the reason for little action in the process of decolonization. This specific section following Fanon’s previous words has made me question the reasons for issues we see in decolonization and if much of it stems from disagreements in how to proceed in a situation or more so from unwillingness to put in any effort to do so.
Fanon also talks heavily about the relationships between the colonizers and the colonized. On page 23 he writes, “What they demand is not the status of the colonist, but his place. In their immense majority the colonized want the colonist’s farm. There is no question for them of competing with the colonist. They want to take his place.”
Here, I am wondering if the colonized not only want to take the place of the colonizers, but if Fanon thinks the colonized should or do want to exchange places with the colonizers? Would Fanon (or do you) think that the colonized would’ve wanted an exchange? To what extents? Do the colonized only want better for themselves or do they want to see the colonizers struggle as they have?
In this first part of “Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon talks about independence and colonization, and the steps it might take to get to achieve a form of decolonization. One of the sections that caught my eye throughout the reading seemed to tie together thoughts of action and why we have seen action the way that we have in policy thus far. It reads,
“From the point of view of political tactics and History, the liberation of the colonies poses a theoretical problem of crucial importance at the current time: When can it be said that the situation is ripe for a national liberation movement? What should be the first line of action? Because decolonization comes in many shapes, reason wavers and abstains from declaring what is a true decolonization and what is not. We shall see that for the politically committed, urgent decisions are needed on means and tactics, i.e., direction and organization. Anything else is but blind voluntarism with the terribly reactionary risks this implies” (21).
Here, I am wondering the reason for such little action being done in the process of decolonization. This specific section following Fanon’s previous words has made me question the reasons for issues we see in decolonization and if much of it stems from disagreements in how to proceed in a situation or more so from unwillingness to put in any effort to do so.
Fanon also talks heavily about the relationships between the colonizers and the colonized. On page 23 he writes, “What they demand is not the status of the colonist, but his place. In their immense majority the colonized want the colonist’s farm. There is no question for them of competing with the colonist. They want to take his place.”
Here, I am wondering if the colonized not only want to take the place of the colonizers, but if Fanon thinks the colonized should or do want to exchange places with the colonizers? Would Fanon (or do you) think that the colonized would’ve wanted an exchange? To what extents? Do the colonized only want better for themselves or do they want to see the colonizers struggle as they have?
Beginning “The Wretched of the Earth” brings a new light to the discussion of colonialism. Fanon, from his background, has experienced the injustices rooted in it. He calls for the driving out of colonialism, no matter the means necessary to achieve this. Reading through the first part, “On Violence, paints a clear message that he believes in the deployment of violence and an agenda for liberation. Sartre and Fanon speak about achieving these objectives concerning both the colonists and those the colonized. Both introduce a theme of animality that arises from the violence called for with decolonization. Sartre says, “And I am not saying it is impossible to change a man into an animal. I am saying they can’t do it without weakening him considerably: beating is never enough, pressure has to be brought by undernourishing him” (lvi). Does colonization create the capability for one to become animalistic? Would this mean a reversion in progress? And Fanon says, “The colonized know all that and roar with laughter every time they hear themselves called an animal by the other, for they know they are not animals. And at the very moment when they discover their humanity, they begin to sharpen their weapons to secure its victory” (8). Do you view colonists or colonized as the animals they are sometimes described as? If so, why? And do you think it is possible to be dominated but not domesticated?
Fanon’s work is very different from Gandhi’s work that we just read. With Gandhi still on my mind, I found myself constantly battling between the viewpoints of violence and nonviolence. Fanon begins to describe the relationship between the colonist and the colonized which was based on violent nature. Fanon states, “The colonist’s sector is a sector built to last, all stone and steel… The colonized’s sector is a famished sector, hungry for bread, meat, shoes, coal, and light”(4). Colonialism created these compartmentalized sectors inevitably creating violence at the core. Colonialism is an act of violence and Fanon says that decolonization also must be an act of violence. In order to decolonize these sectors, Fanon says we must demolish the colonial sector (6). I can’t help but wonder if violence really is the method for decolonization. If the colonized use violence as their weapon, are they not just reproducing the works of colonialism and then becoming new colonists? If violence is the right method, will violence ever end? Decolonization can be a long process and there are many things that need decolonizing so will there ever be a point of peace if violence is the method used? On page 31 Fanon says, “But let us return to this atmospheric violence, this violence rippling under the skin… But how do we get from the atmosphere of violence to setting violence in motion?” Do you think that the colonized can have that atmosphere of violence to create agency and anger but then instead of setting violence in motion, can non-violence in the spirit of violence be set in motion?
In our reading this week “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon I found the use of violence very interesting. Colonized peoples use of violence were to gain a sort of liberation among another whether it’s an outsider. As stated “the colonized masses intuitively believe that their liberation must be achieved and can only be achieved by force.” (Fanon,33). As we have also learned from Gahndi in the past week was his idea that violence is a characteristic as of that from “colonial countries” and its people. It has been looked down upon by those in which have been previously colonized such as in his case. Question: 1) If countries weren’t to use the use of violence to conquer another what would they do? 2)Is there another form of liberation? 3) If a country has moved away from colonialism, what are they doing to stay liberated?
In this weeks reading, we were to start “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon and read the chapter titled “On Violence”. One of the central themes of this reading was that violence was used to free the people of colonialism. From this, I found a quote that stuck out to me in my reading. The quote from Fanon says ” For they know that they are not animals. And at the very moment when they discover their humanity, they begin to sharpen their weapons to secure its victory”(Fanon,8). In the past week we have analyzed Ghandi and his usage of passive resistance while he condemns the use of violent resistance while in Fanon, violence seems like the way to becoming liberated from colonial oppression. My question is “what other ways are there to becoming free besides using violence or passive resistance?
In “On Violence” Fanon states: “At whatever level we study it- individual encounters, a change of name for a sports club, the guest list at a cocktail party, members of a police force or the board of directors of a state or private bank- decolonization is quite simply the substitution of one “species” of mankind for another.” While he goes on to reference the “blank slate” of a decolonized country, this initial phrasing makes it seem as if the colonial structures and cultures will be maintained throughout decolonization. While that is not his intention, it is a good critique of the revolutionary cycle of revolutionaries becoming despots in turn. Fanon specifies that violence is needed for true revolution, to the almost exclusion of other methods. Does utilizing violence for revolution accelerate the revolutionary cycle?
Fanon seems to believe in a nexus between the relationality of violence and the colonized world. It is imperative in order to construct this world, as well in order to dismantle it. Based on what I have read so far, I question the role of “state-making” in his theorizing of the aftermath of decolonization. He references many times a “new state” (explicitly and implicitly), a state being the entity wherein force is administered lawfully. I am intrigued to see how Fanon sees the structuring of a truly post-colonial society. Speculatively, I wonder if he believes in the individual as a mode of achieving this, meaning – is this method of forced decolonization able to be catalyzed by an individual? Or the “blurred masses”?
This is a tough read. Violence, non-violence, colonized, colonist – seems to me like this guy is pretty angry and somewhat of a racist. (Just my impression) but he seems to single out all the ‘bad’ that came about from the colonist and how the colonized were always left out and left behind. But what I noticed in a few places in “On Violence” pg 61, he talks about the need to ending war and that underdeveloped regions must receive investments and technical aids, but on pg 51 he talks about violence being a cleansing force, and that it emboldens the colonized. He makes numerous points that the colonist ‘have’ and ‘are’ what they are, because of the colonized, which I understand, however, if he would of been, what is considered in his opinion the “colonist” would he still have the same strong feelings? Would he be more apt to side with only violence to maintain control of the colonialism way of life? Would he still advocate strongly for reparations?
In our first reading of “The Wretched of the Earth” Fanon discusses the relationship of the colonized and colonizers and the action of decolonization. About the inherent violence of colonizers he writes, “The colonized, who have made up their mind to make such an agenda into a driving force, have been prepared for violence from time immemorial. As soon as they are born it is obvious to them that their cramped world, riddled with taboos, can only be challenged by out and out violence.” Violence seems to not just be a necessity for colonizers to achieve what they want, but something they have ingrained in them. If violence enacted by colonizing forces is a given, why would they not expect or be prepared for violence as a response to their actions?
One thing I liked about Fanon’s critical approach in this week’s reading, was his skepticism over action and the need for deliberate planning and organization. When he talks about the frustration and impulsiveness that will inevitably kill the movements, I thought his points to be very crucial to understanding social movements. I also thought it was interesting how he brought up the social dynamics of the colonized and colonizers especially when he states, “There is brutality and contempt for subtleties and individual cases which is typically revolutionary, but there is another type of brutality with surprising resemblances to the first one which is typically counterrevolutionary, adventurist, and anarchist. If this pure, total brutality is not immediately contained it will, without fail, bring down the movement within a few weeks.” (95), this sense of a social dynamic working in due part to colonialism stood out to me within this reading. Another approach that stood out to me was his viewpoint surrounding organization, he states, “clarification is needed and the people have to realize where they are going and how to get there. The war is not one battle but a succession of local struggles, none of which, in fact, is decisive. There is, therefore, a need to save one’s strength and not to waste it by throwing everything into the balance.” (91).
When reading these passages and considering his ideas, I questioned Fanon’s methodology of enacting such organization and what social planning would be crucial to the buildup of a successful socially organized movement.
For class this week, we read the preface and parts 1 and 2 of “The Wretched of the earth” by Frantz Fanon. The first part was titled “On Violence” and addressed violence with regard to the relationship between colonizers and those who have been colonized. Fanon talks about the need to resort to violence in order to be free from colonization. One quote from this chapter that stuck out to me was, “The starving peasant, outside the class system, is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization are simply a question of relative strength” (Fanon, 61). This quote really stuck out to me because it looks at the desperation that some of the colonized face and how it may be seen that violence is their only answer to the exploitation associated with colonialism. Fanon looks at the case in Algeria as well where no one believed it was too extreme to be violent against colonizers because it is an act of violence that can only be ended by greater violence. This raises the question: do you agree that greater violence is the only way to decolonize or is there another way to help prevent colonial influence? The second chapter titled “Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity” looks at the relationship between the rural and urban areas of countries that have been colonized. While colonialism may bring problems to the country, some wealthier people may still reap some benefits. However, this brings more internal conflict because those in the rural areas that make up a greater amount of the population do not benefit at all from colonialism. What responsibility do the wealthy and elites of colonized countries bear for the negative impacts of colonialism?
Both Gandhi and Fanon are both focused on how to achieve independence in the face of colonization, yet their approaches strongly differ. Both agree that colonists are violent in nature, and both acknowledge how colonial violence provoke an urge for violence by those who are colonized. However, Gandhi, through the format of reader and editor, addresses calls for violence by “radicals”, saying that violence will maintain the principles of English civilization. “You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English, and, when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want” (27-28). Meanwhile, Fanon takes an opposite stance, saying “From the moment national consciousness reaches an embryonic stage of development, it is reinforced by the bloodbath in the colonies which signifies that between oppressors and oppressed, force is the only solution” (32). However, like Gandhi’s approaches, Fanon sees violence of the colonized as a means of unity. Throughout history, there are many examples of different groups unifying against a common enemy, and then fighting each other the common enemy is defeated (i.e. the US and Russia being allies for WWII and the following emergence of the cold war). Is Fanon’s violence a means to true unity? Or is this unity that only exists while fighting colonizers?
I enjoyed reading Fanon until my head started to spin a bit. I love his points but he jumps to and from each one quickly and sporadically. If any of my interpretations of his arguments are wrong, pardon me, I was keeping up as best I could. I agree with many others on the blog: it is a dramatic shift to go from Gandhi to Fanon, it is a complete 180. Whereas Gandhi’s method of a revolution out from under the rule of colonists was complete peace and non-violence, Fanon says the only way out is direct violence onto colonizers. Fanon’s descriptive writing paints us a description of what this could look like to emphasize his point: “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives.” (pg 3) Fanon seems to be sold on the fact that the way things started is how things must be put to an end: unrestricted violence. I question why Fanon thinks this is the only option, and how he thinks things will look after this bloodbath of a revolution? I understand wanting to punish colonists for all the horrendous and unspeakable acts they have committed on colonized peoples, but pointing that energy right back at them is not the only way. I will admit violence may be the fastest, but it is the bloodiest and it will likely lead to the loss of so many colonized peoples lives; what is Fanon’s solution for this?
“The colonized, underdeveloped man is today a political creature in the most global sense of the term. Independence has certainly brought the colonized peoples moral reparation and recognized their dignity. But they have not yet had time to elaborate a society or build and ascertain values. The glowing focal point where the citizen and individual develop and mature in a growing number of areas does not yet exist. Situated in a kind of indeterminate state they have fairly quickly convinced themselves that everything is decided elsewhere for everyone at the same time. As for the leaders, when confronted with such a situation, they hesitate and choose a policy of neutrality.”(40)
Fanon argues decolonization is a violent event by substituting a “species” of mankind for another. The colonized individual was created by colonial politics. Why does the pattern of neocolonialism keep reoccurring by the very revolutionists that fight to end colonialism? It seems from Fanon’s perspective that given the right amount of time that society can rebuild in a non-colonial way. A post colonial situation that does not end up corrupted is argued that it is pushed not by the working class but the peasant class. The suffering of colonialism will be felt for a long time. So, is Fanon’s idea of violence really a driving force for decolonial change?
“The colonist bourgeoisie hammered into the colonized mind the notion of a society of individuals where each is locked in his subjectivity, where wealth lies in thought. But the colonized intellectual who is lucky enough to bunker down with the people during the liberation struggle, will soon discover the falsity of this theory. Involvement in the organization of the struggle will already introduce him to a different vocabulary. “Brother,” “sister,” “comrade” are words outlawed by the colonist bourgeoisie because in their thinking is my wallet and my comrade, my scheming.”
“This colonized intellectual, pulverized by colonist culture, will also discover the strength of the village assemblies, the power of the people’s commissions and the extraordinary productiveness of neighborhood and section committee meetings.”
– page 11
I thought that these quotes were interesting because Fanon basically described one of the manipulation tactics of colonists. It also shows the values of the colonists vs the colonized. The colonists force the idea of thinking as an individual, prioritizing his own desires, needs and values. They don’t consider others thoughts when making decisions. They pass on this mindset to the colonized. However, the colonized eventually realize that that’s not true. They find strength in sharing their thoughts with others. The power of the collective people and rejection of the “every man for himself” concept is able to assist in dismantling colonization.
In the first chapter of “On Violence”, as is the theme of this book is, the necessity of violence to decolonize. Frantz Fanon and Gandhi’s views share the same destination, but the journey could not be more different. Violent means of achievement aside, Fanon briefly discusses the absurdity and irresponsibility in which Western authority addresses aid to the Third World. It is an incompleteness of “righting” a wrong. In reference to the “generous” aid of European nations, Fanon sees through its’ illusion of “charity”. Fanon states, “such aid must be considered the final stage of a dual consciousness—the consciousness of the colonized that it is their due and the consciousness of the capitalist powers that effectively they must pay up” (59). Simply said, after colonialism has stripped the Third World of immeasurable amounts of value, “aid” is already less than what they are owed. Charity is treating a symptom caused by the colonizers and disguised as “generosity”.
What is the way to right the wrong that has been done? Is it possible to put a value on it, to compensate for it, to make amends? In addition, who should have the right to determine what that is? It is clear, an apology does nothing. What has been done and not be undone, but what would it take to resolve the atrocities done in the name of colonialism?
In the first chapter of “On Violence”, as is the theme of this book is, the necessity of violence to decolonize. Frantz Fanon and Gandhi’s views share the same destination, but the journey could not be more different. A violent means of achievement aside, Fanon briefly discusses the absurdity and irresponsibility in which Western authority addresses aid to the Third World. It is an incompleteness of “righting” a wrong. In reference to the “generous” aid of European nations, Fanon sees through its’ illusion of “charity”. Fanon states, “such aid must be considered the final stage of a dual consciousness—the consciousness of the colonized that it is their due and the consciousness of the capitalist powers that effectively they must pay up” (59). Simply said, after colonialism has stripped the Third World of immeasurable amounts of value, “aid” is already less than what they are owed. Charity is treating a symptom caused by the colonizers and disguised as “generosity”.
What is the way to right the wrong that has been done? Is it possible to put a value on it, to compensate for it, to make amends? In addition, who should have the right to determine what that is? It is clear, an apology does nothing. What has been done and not be undone, but what would it take to resolve the atrocities done in the name of colonialism?
On page 10 of “The Wretched of The Earth,” Frantz Fanon states: “But the colonized intellectual introduces a variation on the demand and in fact, there seems to be no lack of motivation to fill senior positions as administrators, technicians, and experts. The colonized however, equate this nepotism with acts of sabotage and it is not unusual to hear them declare: “What is the point of being independent then… ?”
This quote reminded of the principle of self actualization and the different ways of thought that can fill an individuals’ head. Thoreau preached about finding yourself through realizing your individual connectedness with the natural world. This excerpt from Fanon shows how societal pressures of monotony, uniformity, and submission can alienate one from themselves.
Fanon’s quote shows a realistic view of societal pressures and how the psyche of the colonizer responds to such stress. Does Thoreau’s privileges allow him to understand and perceive the world in a different way than that of a colonized individual? Would Fanon assert that finding personal freedom could stem from a connectedness with the natural world or would he think such assertion to be tone deaf given the realities of colonialism?
Throughout the first reading of “The Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon uses an extremely critical approach when discussing the relationship between the colonized and the colonizers and acting upon decolonization. He speaks about the need to be free of colonization and it is clear that he is not afraid to use violence in order to do so. He says that decolonization cannot be accomplished through a “gentleman’s agreement” as colonization itself occurred through the use of violence. He speaks upon the violence of colonizers and says “The colonized, who have made up their mind to make such an agenda into a driving force, have been prepared for violence from time immemorial. As soon as they are born it is obvious to them that their cramped world, riddled with taboos, can only be challenged by out and out violence.” Fanon’s ideas are deeply rooted in the concept that violence is the universal language of the world and it seems as if he believes it is truly necessary for true revolution. Have there been any cases of successful uses of violence in the move towards liberation?
There is a reason I do not read Stephen King; he takes too long to get to the point. Fortunately, here, Fanon really makes his point early on (page 2 in fact) the rest just seems to be the justification for his point. He says, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is clearly an agenda for total disorder. But it cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic want, natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement.” I will admit, I only made it to page 10. It was more and more of “colonizer bad, colonized are not bad”. And I don’t disagree here. But here’s the thing, when do we switch from civil disobedience to being not so civil to each other, aka: war? Do we do it because of a 3% tax on tea? If that’s the case, the amount of taxes we are charged with in this country, war should be a regular thing. But let’s look at it a different way. Let’s look at the events of 9/11. Let’s say the terrorists killed thousands by slamming a couple of passenger jets into a couple of large buildings because the United States is colonizing the Middle East. Because they were feeling oppressed, are they now justified in their actions? War never effects just the warriors. There are always civilian casualties.
I was curious about how Fanon died. I figured he was probably assassinated. Turns out he died of leukemia. But in looking that up, I saw he influenced a more than a few people. The most notable names I recognized were Malcom X and Che Guevara. Both of whom lived violent lives and were themselves assassinated. This got me to thinking, what would Fanon say about the events that happened on January 6, 2021? If the perpetrators of that even had invoked Fanon’s name instead of, say, Thomas Jefferson, would the media have portrayed the circumstances (circus) any differently or would they have said those people were misrepresenting Fanon?
One thing I found most striking when reading the Wretched of the Earth was the inclusion of the preface by Jean-Paul Sartre. I found it interesting to read the words of a prolific French writer in a work denouncing the occupation of Algeria by France. However, Sartre makes no attempt to dance around his role, instead urging his fellow Europeans to leave their preconceptions behind in favor of understanding the mind of the colonized. On page 13, Sartre poses the question itself:
“In this case, you will say, let’s throw away this book. Why read it if it is not written for us? For two reasons: the first is that Fanon explains you to his brothers and shows them the mechanism by which we are estranged from ourselves; take advantage of this, and get to know yourselves seen in the light of truth, objectively. Our victims know us by their scars and by their chains, and it is this that makes their evidence irrefutable. It is enough that they show us what we have made of them for us to
realize what we have made of ourselves… You see, I, too, am incapable of ridding myself of subjective illusions; I, too, say to you: “All is lost, unless … ” As a European,
I steal the enemy’s book, and out of it I fashion a remedy
for Europe. Make the most of it.”
Sartre illustrates the complexity when reading these works from a European perspective, using the words of revolutionaries to find ideas to better Western culture. Where is our place to project ourselves when reading the words of Fanon? Is it right to use them in a way to better our own culture?
One thing I found most striking when reading the Wretched of the Earth was the inclusion of the preface by Jean-Paul Sartre. I found it interesting to read the words of a prolific French writer in a work denouncing the occupation of Algeria by France. However, Sartre makes no attempt to dance around his role, instead urging his fellow Europeans to leave their preconceptions behind in favor of understanding the mind of the colonized. On page 13, Sartre poses the question itself:
“In this case, you will say, let’s throw away this book. Why read it if it is not written for us? For two reasons: the first is that Fanon explains you to his brothers and shows them the mechanism by which we are estranged from ourselves; take advantage of this, and get to know yourselves seen in the light of truth, objectively. Our victims know us by their scars and by their chains, and it is this that makes their evidence irrefutable. It is enough that they show us what we have made of them for us to
realize what we have made of ourselves… You see, I, too, am incapable of ridding myself of subjective illusions; I, too, say to you: “All is lost, unless … ” As a European,
I steal the enemy’s book, and out of it I fashion a remedy
for Europe. Make the most of it.”
Sartre illustrates the complexity when reading these works from a European perspective, using the words of revolutionaries to find ideas to better Western culture. Where is our place to project ourselves when reading the words of Fanon? Is it right to use them in a way to better our own culture?
A quote from chapter one that I found intriguing was on page 42, it states: “That is why we must put the DDT which destroys parasites, the bearers of disease, on the same level as the Christian religion which wages war on embryonic heresies and instincts, and on evil as yet unborn. The recession of yellow fever and the advance of evangelization form part of the same balance sheet.” The critique and analogy of Christian colonizers to a chemical that destroys parasites is a harsh and yet truthful point. Religion has been seen to be a driver of colonization. In its infancy religion was one of its strongest points, however Fanon also uses the modern day context of its spread, an inherent bad, to the good it hides behind, the recession of illnesses to due to western medicine. That brings up a question of how much religion plays in colonization in the modern day? Or has it lost importance in place of other values and exploit ?
The Preface of The Wretched of the Earth written by John-Paul Satre is an extremely engaging, passionate, and exciting introduction to Fanon’s work, his core ideologies, and intended audience. Initially it is made clear that the book was not created for the consumption of Europeans, yet Europeans are still encouraged to read it in hopes that they will come face to face with the reality of a colonized person.
“Europeans, open this book, look inside. After taking a short walk in the night you will see strangers gathered around a fire, get closer and listen. They are discussing the fate reserved for your trading posts and for the mercenaries defending them. They might see you, but they will go on talking among themselves without even lowering their voices (xlviii)” .
Who are the enemy Europeans that the book is targeting ? Fanon’s point of view is that the biggest divide in society is between the colonizer and the colonized, instead of the ruling class and working class (5) . In the preface, John-Paul Satre is critical of the ‘metropolitan left’ (liv), also known as the petty bourgeoisie/upper middle class, who disguise their allegiance to the colonizer under a facade of intellect and empathy. This warranted critique of the ‘metropolitan left’ is prevalent throughout the preface, however, there is hardly any mention of the European working class. Has the European working class benefited from the violence of colonialism? Could they be a potential ally for Fanon’s cause?
Reading this and thinking about his words of decolonization and how he describes it in the book appealed to many different examples in the world past and present. The quote that stuck out to me the most was “But every time Western values are mentioned they produce in the native a sort of stiffening or muscular lockjaw. During the period of decolonization, the native’s reason is appealed to. He is offered definite values, he is told fre quently that decolonization need not mean regression, and that he must put his trust in qualities which are well- tried, solid, and highly esteemed. But it so happens that when the native hears a speech about Western culture he pulls out his knife—or at least he makes sure it is within reach”. This makes me think of tourism in 3rd world counties westernization makes promises to the natives that they know are not true or that these can get out of. The natives end up taking care of non native people and have no time or energy to take care of their own people. They are caught in a “lockjaw” because it’s already too late to do anything. Tourism crates a false world that only the natives can see when all we see all the glamour that comes with it. This is something I think about when reading the piece above that connects to decolonization and the false truths that go along with it. Do you see a connection in this of how it can be compared?
I found the choice to include a preface written by a colonizer for an anti-colonial book by an author from a colonized country interesting. Sartre acknowledges throughout that Fanon’s book was not written for Europeans and that it “leaves you out in the cold” ( xlix). After reading the first section of Fanon’s writing, I wonder what he would think of Sartre’s interpretation of his book and how he would respond to Sartre’s inclusion of a call to action for Europeans?
The preface starts out pretty blunt when discussing colonialism. I felt like it was written really well and got the point across. For example, Sartre says, “They selected adolescents, branded the principles of Western culture on their foreheads with a red-hot iron, and gagged their mouths withs sounds, pompous awkward words that twisted their tongues” (xlix). I felt like this was a really good sentence to describe the brutality of colonialism. Branding shows the force of beliefs and that native peoples were treated like animals, gagging shows more use of force and control, and words that twisted their tongues further shows how they pushed their livelihoods on them. As I said, this is pretty blunt but it also is metaphorical, which I felt personally helped improve the power behind it.
Are difficult subjects and the information and points behind them portrayed better in a metaphorical way or through blunt language? Or perhaps a mix of both?
Fanon describes a domino effect of violence where violence is seen as a form of liberation. When colonists used force and violence to control the colonized, the colonized then responded with violence. The colonized are controlled by police and soldiers, meaning they can only free themselves (liberation) by reversing the dynamic and using that same violence back on them. Thus the cycle of violence. What is the role of violence in colonialism? What would/ could it look like without it? Would change have been effective? How could it be enforced without violence?
Throughout this reading I thought a lot about the emotion of rage and where it comes from. This reading is a little dry in my opinion but it provides valuable insight to very early minds that are precise in their words and thoughts. On page 17 Fanon says, “For the colonized subject’s last resort is to defend his personality against his fellow countryman.” This quote to me shows how the colonized are in a different world when it comes to the colonizer and the rage built up due to the “exhibitionist” (17). Additionally, I thought on page 18 it was very interesting how prehistorical societies attach great importance to the unconscious. Thinking systematically, that does make sense, but how would the importance of unconscious be thought about in today’s time? I think it would be hard due to the private vs social life due to the extensive amounts of technology since the colonizer time.
I love the atmosphere and attitude that is presented in the preface of Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth”. I feel like it does a wonderful job of setting the stage of the whole book and captures the emotion that was the inspiration for it. Jean-Paul Sartre states on page lii, “In countries where colonialism has deliberately halted development, the peasantry, when it decided to revolt, very quickly emerges as the radical class. It is all too familiar with naked oppression, suffers far worse than the urban workers, and to prevent it from dying of hunger, nothing less will do than the demolition of every existing structure.” I love the irony presented in the idea that the peasantry arises as the radical class when they are being oppressed to the point of death or near-death. It seems like common sense that they would rise up, but colonialism has made this seem radical. My question is: Although the irony is clear to those who see what is going on, how can the fact that colonialism and its systems are completely ridiculous and is no longer, and has never, served the people of the world or the earth itself be brought to the forefront so that change can be made?
In Frantz Fanon’s reading “On Violence,” I could immediately feel his rage through his words. He starts the chapter with decolonization, his first sentence of the chapter opens pretty bluntly, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is clearly an agenda for total disaster.” He goes on to explain how the colonized only way to be liberated from the colonists is by violence. This was much different from our previous reading by Gandhi, who was for peaceful fights. I found Fanon’s approach to be interesting, because to me his use of violence came from the rage within his personal views. He didn’t think the colonized could fight back without violence. I personally believe he could’ve found other ways to push for liberation without violence. Do you think violence is the only answer to decolonization?
I think that this reading opened my eyes to how violence can be used to enact social change and dismantle systemic oppression. However, as we saw through studying Gandhi it is not the only way possible to achieve radical change. His argument is that colonization was successful due to using all means necessary to implement it and he argues that it will take all means including violence to dismantle it. I agree that it has a place within the tools needed to enact authentic liberation from colonization.
Frantz Fanon and Jean-Paul Sartre both seam to agree that violence is necessary in decolonization because it was such a crucial player in colonization. At the end of the Preface by Sartre he turns to the reader. I found it interesting and powerful how he uses ‘we’ in this section. Including the masses as the colonizers and the ones at fault. In this quote Sartre states “we, too, peoples or Europe, we are being decolonized: meaning the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation. Let’s take a good look at ourselves, if we have the courage, and let’s see what has come of us.” (Sartre, lxiii). I read this as a decolonization of the mind. Do you feel like Fanon ad Sartre are also stating that violence will be necessary through a shift in thought? What would this look like?
On the first page of “On Violence,” Fanon states in his introduction, “National liberation, national reawakening, restoration of the nation to the people or Commonwealth, whatever the name used, whatever the latest expression, decolonization is always a violent event.” This introduction confused me at first because I have taken many SD classes that focus on decolonization as a necessity to end systemic oppression. After getting through my defensive initial response to this statement I was able to accept his point. I realized the wisdom in his point that decolonization is unimaginative and continues to operate within the constraints of the colonial system rather than eradicating and overcoming it. what do you think about his opinion of decolonization? do you agree or disagree?
In “On Violence,” talks at length about colonization and the many corrupt ways of thinking that associated with it. One quote that stood out to me was “During the period of decolonization the colonized are called upon to be reasonable. They are offered rock solid vales, they are told in great detail that decolonization should not mean regression, and that they must rely on values which have proved to be reliable and worthwhile”. The reason this stood out to me was because the colonizers always move to a defensive point of view when the idea of decolonization comes up. Fanon also mentions this in the chapter and says that this way of thinking is not only a colonizers outlook but also is what keeps free thinking from happening. Fanon writes “I the period of decolonization the colonized masses thumb their noses at these very values, shower them with insults and vomit them up.” This again not only proves that Fanon is passionate about the outlook but also gives the blunt truth about the way the colonizer sees all people without the same way of thinking as them. Has violence been overlooked by the colonized as a way to discredit the past? if so, is this why the colonized thumb their noses and try to often forget the past?
Coming from just reading Ghandi, we can see how radically different Fanons idea to create change is. Ghandi approached change in a peaceful manor while Fanon believe the only way to create change is through violence. In “On Violence”, Fanon says ” In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knifes.For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between two protagonists” (3). This use of imagery shows just exactly how he feels about colonization and decolonization. He tells us that the same violence used to take away the culture of ingenious people and to colonize the western world is a apart of history. This is why he believes the only way to change the system again is to revisit history and use this same violence to create change. After reading these two men, do you think Fanon or Ghandi has a better idea of creating change? why?
A couple of key findings I found in The Wretch of the Earth would be the idea of using violence to combat violence. This is different for other countries such as Western countries like the United State. Here, if a violent act would occur from government or authority figures, there is usually the encouragement of peaceful protest to limit the amount of scrutiny caused by the oppressed. However, Fraz Fanon is saying the opposite for Third World colonized countries. With the violent acts committed by the colonizers, there needs to be violent acts followed by the colonized. He says that decolonization is not a “gentlemen’s agreement” and their needs to be serious conflict to show power. Other thing I found interesting is the idea that Eastern Block and Western Block of Soviet Union and the United States had a great influence on whether these Third World Countries should choose a socialist government or a capitalist government. Fraz seems to believe that capitalist government is the way to go with developing countries. Did the pressure of choosing a side of governments discourage Third World developing countries from wanting to seek any aid in the true efforts of helping to decolonize?
In chapter one, Fanon discusses the relationship between the colonialist bourgeoisie and the colonized intellectual. To assimilate to the culture of their oppressors—the colonists—the colonized intellectuals have had to assimilate to colonialist bourgeoisie thinking and are thus always in danger of becoming “demagogues.” (A “demagogue” is a political leader who uses exploitation and prejudice like the colonists to rule.) By becoming demagogues, the colonized intellectuals become the oppressors in more ways than one. Thus, the intellectual is a “mimic man,” following suit after the example set by the colonialists. My question is, do you think that there has been a demagogue in the last 50 years in the United States? Do you think that there has been a situation similar to this in any other countries recently?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In reading “The Wretched of the Earth,” by Frantz Fanon I was enamored with the preface authored by John-Paul Satre. The voice, rhythm, cadence and message, designed to enthrall the reader into an enunciation of colonialism, the colonizer and the colonized. Marking Fanon’s journey into decolonization.
The beginning of part one, aptly titled “Violence,” revitalizes the perspective of both sides in the the equation, “Decolonization is the encounter between two congenitally antagonistic forces that in fact owe their singularity to the kind of reification secreted and nurtured by the colonial situation” (2). To this end the common theme of one retaining a sense of ‘dignity’ arises, perhaps born of the struggle, but most importantly of the land (9). Fanon speaks of the colonial world as compartmentalized, all the while the backbone of the decolonized to be reorganized (3). This dichotomy brings forth revolution, where some flee and some fight. “The colonist makes history and he knows it” (15). So then capitalism is raised alongside the “forces of violence that erupt in colonial territories” (27). There is much ado to the altercation of Third World Countries, as the increased pace of commerce contrasts to cultural norms and are often breached beyond repair, or reparation.
What instances can you think of when a country has liberated itself from colonialism and how well have they done since?
In the preface written by Jean-Paul Sartre, he writes “A ‘french-speaking’ ex-native bends the language to new requirements, fashions it for his own use, and speaks to the colonized alone: ‘Natives of all the underdeveloped countries unite!’ What a downfall. For the fathers, we were the only interlocutors; for the sons, we no longer count: we are the object of their discourse.”
That being said, on pages 5 and 6 of “On Violence,” Fanon states, “The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world, which tirelessly punctuated the destruction of the indigenous social fabric, and demolished unchecked the systems of reference of the country’s economy, lifestyles, and modes of dress, this same violence will be vindicated and appropriated when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.”
Sartre’s statement suggests that the genuine “colonized” don’t really exist anymore, that the fathers “were the only interlocutors.” Furthermore, Europeans and natives/people of other nationalities etc. are increasingly integrating, meaning overtime there are less and less indigenous and native peoples. And, even when there are, are they truly the colonized? Yes, of course, they are still forever affected and impacted by colonialism, and this pain and struggle is intergenerational, but as Sartre states, “for the sons, we no longer count: we are the object of their discourse.” Does this mean that the colonized can’t really take over the “forbidden cities” as Fanon states because they don’t really exist anymore? Isn’t everyone now technically a result of colonialism? Is this how you guys interpreted these statements, and if not, how did you interpret them?
One of the things I found interesting while reading“The Wretched of the Earth,” was the mentioned duality between colonists and those they colonized and the subject of violence. The use of violence by those who have been colonized is frowned upon not only for its connections to colonizers but because violence only breeds more violence “The violence of colonial regime and the counterviolence of the colonized balance each other and respond to each other in an extraordinary reciprocal homogeneity. The greater the number of metropolitan settlers the more terrible the violence will be.” (46). The use of violence by colonized people in many ways eliminates their cultural identity and separation from those who colonized them. When violence is used it can lead to the erasure of a culture’s practices “Violence in its practice is totalizing and national. As a result, it harbors in its depths the elimination of regionalism and tribalism” (51). When colonized people act with violence to separate themselves from colonists’ ways of life they are in a way only acting in a method that a colonist would. The reason for colonized people acting with violence is because they believe they must use it to gain their liberation from those who have colonized them “As we have seen, the colonized masses intuitively believe that their liberation must be achieved and can only be achieved by force.” (33). However to truly move away from colonizers those that have been colonized must seek liberation in a different way. This also shares many of the ideals taught in Gandhi’s teachings and reflects the same idea that the use of violence is a characteristic trait of colonial countries and people.
What methods do you think countries can use to liberate themselves without the use of violence? Do you think there are situations where violence is the only response or only way for a country or people to achieve liberty?
On page 8, 12, and 13 of the preface Jean-Paul Sartre mentions culture and the erasure of culture, but not in the way we are used to hearing it. We as westerners are used to hearing of indigenous or cultural erasure elsewhere but Sartre is using our lack of comprehension as a scare tactic in a sense. He is saying that with the fall of colonialism westerners culture will fall, as it is based around exploitation and runs off of others, but once it ends we will be the ones in the dark without community and earthly ties to hold us together. This is analogy is depicted the best on page 13 with the bonfire scene when western ideals become overthrown and now the westerns and colonizers are the ones left in the cold unable to join the fire. I really like this portion about culture on page 15 “Everything will be done to wipe out their traditions, to substitute our language for theirs and to destroy their culture without giving them
ours”. This is because it really shows that colonizers take everything down to the essence of persons, and the call out for Europeans and colonizers happening in this preface its truly put into perspective when you realize you’d hate for that to happen to you. That is what I believe is the message coming across in the preface, Sartre is telling the Europeans to pick up a book about them because they would hate it and truly see themselves, and what they will lose when it ends, but they can help themselves by letting it end civilized. In part 1 Fanon mentions that the native people of a place only become natives because of settlers, before them they were just the people of that place. This goes in hand with what I was highlighting above that colonizer culture comes from exploitation and the presence of other cultures, this is a double edged sword as the native or colonized only get their title from their oppressors.
When decolonization happens what aspects of culture will change, since much has been lost or forced out will the old come back, or will changed version that include colonizer mindsets stay?
At the end of Part 1 of “The Wretched of the Earth”, Frantz Fanon talks about how these “third” world countries might operate if they became truly independent or how the colonizers might still be present. In his section “On Violence in the International Context” he writes, “Today, National independence and nation building in the underdeveloped regions take on an entirely new aspect. In these regions, except for some remarkable achievement, every country suffers form the same lack of infrastructure” (Fanon 53). He says this in comparison to the development of European countries to show that the same cannot be said for both. Later Fanon writes, “the apotheosis of independence becomes the curse of independence. The sweeping powers of coercion of the colonial authorities condemn the young nation to regression. IN other words, the colonial power says: ‘If you want independence, take it and suffer the consequences” (Fanon 54). Is he saying that third world or underdeveloped countries are doomed either way? What is his argument on how third world countries should go about gaining independence what does he want it to look like once they get it?
In this first part of “Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon talks about independence and colonization, and the steps it might take to get to achieve a form of decolonization. One of the sections that caught my eye throughout the reading seemed to tie together thoughts of action and why we have seen action the way that we have in policy thus far. It reads,
“From the point of view of political tactics and History, the liberation of the colonies poses a theoretical problem of crucial importance at the current time: When can it be said that the situation is ripe for a national liberation movement? What should be the first line of action? Because decolonization comes in many shapes, reason wavers and abstains from declaring what is a true decolonization and what is not. We shall see that for the politically committed, urgent decisions are needed on means and tactics, i.e., direction and organization. Anything else is but blind voluntarism with the terribly reactionary risks this implies” (21).
Here, I am wondering the reason for little action in the process of decolonization. This specific section following Fanon’s previous words has made me question the reasons for issues we see in decolonization and if much of it stems from disagreements in how to proceed in a situation or more so from unwillingness to put in any effort to do so.
Fanon also talks heavily about the relationships between the colonizers and the colonized. On page 23 he writes, “What they demand is not the status of the colonist, but his place. In their immense majority the colonized want the colonist’s farm. There is no question for them of competing with the colonist. They want to take his place.”
Here, I am wondering if the colonized not only want to take the place of the colonizers, but if Fanon thinks the colonized should or do want to exchange places with the colonizers? Would Fanon (or do you) think that the colonized would’ve wanted an exchange? To what extents? Do the colonized only want better for themselves or do they want to see the colonizers struggle as they have?
In this first part of “Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon talks about independence and colonization, and the steps it might take to get to achieve a form of decolonization. One of the sections that caught my eye throughout the reading seemed to tie together thoughts of action and why we have seen action the way that we have in policy thus far. It reads,
“From the point of view of political tactics and History, the liberation of the colonies poses a theoretical problem of crucial importance at the current time: When can it be said that the situation is ripe for a national liberation movement? What should be the first line of action? Because decolonization comes in many shapes, reason wavers and abstains from declaring what is a true decolonization and what is not. We shall see that for the politically committed, urgent decisions are needed on means and tactics, i.e., direction and organization. Anything else is but blind voluntarism with the terribly reactionary risks this implies” (21).
Here, I am wondering the reason for such little action being done in the process of decolonization. This specific section following Fanon’s previous words has made me question the reasons for issues we see in decolonization and if much of it stems from disagreements in how to proceed in a situation or more so from unwillingness to put in any effort to do so.
Fanon also talks heavily about the relationships between the colonizers and the colonized. On page 23 he writes, “What they demand is not the status of the colonist, but his place. In their immense majority the colonized want the colonist’s farm. There is no question for them of competing with the colonist. They want to take his place.”
Here, I am wondering if the colonized not only want to take the place of the colonizers, but if Fanon thinks the colonized should or do want to exchange places with the colonizers? Would Fanon (or do you) think that the colonized would’ve wanted an exchange? To what extents? Do the colonized only want better for themselves or do they want to see the colonizers struggle as they have?
Beginning “The Wretched of the Earth” brings a new light to the discussion of colonialism. Fanon, from his background, has experienced the injustices rooted in it. He calls for the driving out of colonialism, no matter the means necessary to achieve this. Reading through the first part, “On Violence, paints a clear message that he believes in the deployment of violence and an agenda for liberation. Sartre and Fanon speak about achieving these objectives concerning both the colonists and those the colonized. Both introduce a theme of animality that arises from the violence called for with decolonization. Sartre says, “And I am not saying it is impossible to change a man into an animal. I am saying they can’t do it without weakening him considerably: beating is never enough, pressure has to be brought by undernourishing him” (lvi). Does colonization create the capability for one to become animalistic? Would this mean a reversion in progress? And Fanon says, “The colonized know all that and roar with laughter every time they hear themselves called an animal by the other, for they know they are not animals. And at the very moment when they discover their humanity, they begin to sharpen their weapons to secure its victory” (8). Do you view colonists or colonized as the animals they are sometimes described as? If so, why? And do you think it is possible to be dominated but not domesticated?
Fanon’s work is very different from Gandhi’s work that we just read. With Gandhi still on my mind, I found myself constantly battling between the viewpoints of violence and nonviolence. Fanon begins to describe the relationship between the colonist and the colonized which was based on violent nature. Fanon states, “The colonist’s sector is a sector built to last, all stone and steel… The colonized’s sector is a famished sector, hungry for bread, meat, shoes, coal, and light”(4). Colonialism created these compartmentalized sectors inevitably creating violence at the core. Colonialism is an act of violence and Fanon says that decolonization also must be an act of violence. In order to decolonize these sectors, Fanon says we must demolish the colonial sector (6). I can’t help but wonder if violence really is the method for decolonization. If the colonized use violence as their weapon, are they not just reproducing the works of colonialism and then becoming new colonists? If violence is the right method, will violence ever end? Decolonization can be a long process and there are many things that need decolonizing so will there ever be a point of peace if violence is the method used? On page 31 Fanon says, “But let us return to this atmospheric violence, this violence rippling under the skin… But how do we get from the atmosphere of violence to setting violence in motion?” Do you think that the colonized can have that atmosphere of violence to create agency and anger but then instead of setting violence in motion, can non-violence in the spirit of violence be set in motion?
In our reading this week “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon I found the use of violence very interesting. Colonized peoples use of violence were to gain a sort of liberation among another whether it’s an outsider. As stated “the colonized masses intuitively believe that their liberation must be achieved and can only be achieved by force.” (Fanon,33). As we have also learned from Gahndi in the past week was his idea that violence is a characteristic as of that from “colonial countries” and its people. It has been looked down upon by those in which have been previously colonized such as in his case. Question: 1) If countries weren’t to use the use of violence to conquer another what would they do? 2)Is there another form of liberation? 3) If a country has moved away from colonialism, what are they doing to stay liberated?
In this weeks reading, we were to start “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon and read the chapter titled “On Violence”. One of the central themes of this reading was that violence was used to free the people of colonialism. From this, I found a quote that stuck out to me in my reading. The quote from Fanon says ” For they know that they are not animals. And at the very moment when they discover their humanity, they begin to sharpen their weapons to secure its victory”(Fanon,8). In the past week we have analyzed Ghandi and his usage of passive resistance while he condemns the use of violent resistance while in Fanon, violence seems like the way to becoming liberated from colonial oppression. My question is “what other ways are there to becoming free besides using violence or passive resistance?
In “On Violence” Fanon states: “At whatever level we study it- individual encounters, a change of name for a sports club, the guest list at a cocktail party, members of a police force or the board of directors of a state or private bank- decolonization is quite simply the substitution of one “species” of mankind for another.” While he goes on to reference the “blank slate” of a decolonized country, this initial phrasing makes it seem as if the colonial structures and cultures will be maintained throughout decolonization. While that is not his intention, it is a good critique of the revolutionary cycle of revolutionaries becoming despots in turn. Fanon specifies that violence is needed for true revolution, to the almost exclusion of other methods. Does utilizing violence for revolution accelerate the revolutionary cycle?
Fanon seems to believe in a nexus between the relationality of violence and the colonized world. It is imperative in order to construct this world, as well in order to dismantle it. Based on what I have read so far, I question the role of “state-making” in his theorizing of the aftermath of decolonization. He references many times a “new state” (explicitly and implicitly), a state being the entity wherein force is administered lawfully. I am intrigued to see how Fanon sees the structuring of a truly post-colonial society. Speculatively, I wonder if he believes in the individual as a mode of achieving this, meaning – is this method of forced decolonization able to be catalyzed by an individual? Or the “blurred masses”?
This is a tough read. Violence, non-violence, colonized, colonist – seems to me like this guy is pretty angry and somewhat of a racist. (Just my impression) but he seems to single out all the ‘bad’ that came about from the colonist and how the colonized were always left out and left behind. But what I noticed in a few places in “On Violence” pg 61, he talks about the need to ending war and that underdeveloped regions must receive investments and technical aids, but on pg 51 he talks about violence being a cleansing force, and that it emboldens the colonized. He makes numerous points that the colonist ‘have’ and ‘are’ what they are, because of the colonized, which I understand, however, if he would of been, what is considered in his opinion the “colonist” would he still have the same strong feelings? Would he be more apt to side with only violence to maintain control of the colonialism way of life? Would he still advocate strongly for reparations?
In our first reading of “The Wretched of the Earth” Fanon discusses the relationship of the colonized and colonizers and the action of decolonization. About the inherent violence of colonizers he writes, “The colonized, who have made up their mind to make such an agenda into a driving force, have been prepared for violence from time immemorial. As soon as they are born it is obvious to them that their cramped world, riddled with taboos, can only be challenged by out and out violence.” Violence seems to not just be a necessity for colonizers to achieve what they want, but something they have ingrained in them. If violence enacted by colonizing forces is a given, why would they not expect or be prepared for violence as a response to their actions?
One thing I liked about Fanon’s critical approach in this week’s reading, was his skepticism over action and the need for deliberate planning and organization. When he talks about the frustration and impulsiveness that will inevitably kill the movements, I thought his points to be very crucial to understanding social movements. I also thought it was interesting how he brought up the social dynamics of the colonized and colonizers especially when he states, “There is brutality and contempt for subtleties and individual cases which is typically revolutionary, but there is another type of brutality with surprising resemblances to the first one which is typically counterrevolutionary, adventurist, and anarchist. If this pure, total brutality is not immediately contained it will, without fail, bring down the movement within a few weeks.” (95), this sense of a social dynamic working in due part to colonialism stood out to me within this reading. Another approach that stood out to me was his viewpoint surrounding organization, he states, “clarification is needed and the people have to realize where they are going and how to get there. The war is not one battle but a succession of local struggles, none of which, in fact, is decisive. There is, therefore, a need to save one’s strength and not to waste it by throwing everything into the balance.” (91).
When reading these passages and considering his ideas, I questioned Fanon’s methodology of enacting such organization and what social planning would be crucial to the buildup of a successful socially organized movement.
For class this week, we read the preface and parts 1 and 2 of “The Wretched of the earth” by Frantz Fanon. The first part was titled “On Violence” and addressed violence with regard to the relationship between colonizers and those who have been colonized. Fanon talks about the need to resort to violence in order to be free from colonization. One quote from this chapter that stuck out to me was, “The starving peasant, outside the class system, is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization are simply a question of relative strength” (Fanon, 61). This quote really stuck out to me because it looks at the desperation that some of the colonized face and how it may be seen that violence is their only answer to the exploitation associated with colonialism. Fanon looks at the case in Algeria as well where no one believed it was too extreme to be violent against colonizers because it is an act of violence that can only be ended by greater violence. This raises the question: do you agree that greater violence is the only way to decolonize or is there another way to help prevent colonial influence? The second chapter titled “Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity” looks at the relationship between the rural and urban areas of countries that have been colonized. While colonialism may bring problems to the country, some wealthier people may still reap some benefits. However, this brings more internal conflict because those in the rural areas that make up a greater amount of the population do not benefit at all from colonialism. What responsibility do the wealthy and elites of colonized countries bear for the negative impacts of colonialism?
Both Gandhi and Fanon are both focused on how to achieve independence in the face of colonization, yet their approaches strongly differ. Both agree that colonists are violent in nature, and both acknowledge how colonial violence provoke an urge for violence by those who are colonized. However, Gandhi, through the format of reader and editor, addresses calls for violence by “radicals”, saying that violence will maintain the principles of English civilization. “You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English, and, when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want” (27-28). Meanwhile, Fanon takes an opposite stance, saying “From the moment national consciousness reaches an embryonic stage of development, it is reinforced by the bloodbath in the colonies which signifies that between oppressors and oppressed, force is the only solution” (32). However, like Gandhi’s approaches, Fanon sees violence of the colonized as a means of unity. Throughout history, there are many examples of different groups unifying against a common enemy, and then fighting each other the common enemy is defeated (i.e. the US and Russia being allies for WWII and the following emergence of the cold war). Is Fanon’s violence a means to true unity? Or is this unity that only exists while fighting colonizers?
I enjoyed reading Fanon until my head started to spin a bit. I love his points but he jumps to and from each one quickly and sporadically. If any of my interpretations of his arguments are wrong, pardon me, I was keeping up as best I could. I agree with many others on the blog: it is a dramatic shift to go from Gandhi to Fanon, it is a complete 180. Whereas Gandhi’s method of a revolution out from under the rule of colonists was complete peace and non-violence, Fanon says the only way out is direct violence onto colonizers. Fanon’s descriptive writing paints us a description of what this could look like to emphasize his point: “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives.” (pg 3) Fanon seems to be sold on the fact that the way things started is how things must be put to an end: unrestricted violence. I question why Fanon thinks this is the only option, and how he thinks things will look after this bloodbath of a revolution? I understand wanting to punish colonists for all the horrendous and unspeakable acts they have committed on colonized peoples, but pointing that energy right back at them is not the only way. I will admit violence may be the fastest, but it is the bloodiest and it will likely lead to the loss of so many colonized peoples lives; what is Fanon’s solution for this?
“The colonized, underdeveloped man is today a political creature in the most global sense of the term. Independence has certainly brought the colonized peoples moral reparation and recognized their dignity. But they have not yet had time to elaborate a society or build and ascertain values. The glowing focal point where the citizen and individual develop and mature in a growing number of areas does not yet exist. Situated in a kind of indeterminate state they have fairly quickly convinced themselves that everything is decided elsewhere for everyone at the same time. As for the leaders, when confronted with such a situation, they hesitate and choose a policy of neutrality.”(40)
Fanon argues decolonization is a violent event by substituting a “species” of mankind for another. The colonized individual was created by colonial politics. Why does the pattern of neocolonialism keep reoccurring by the very revolutionists that fight to end colonialism? It seems from Fanon’s perspective that given the right amount of time that society can rebuild in a non-colonial way. A post colonial situation that does not end up corrupted is argued that it is pushed not by the working class but the peasant class. The suffering of colonialism will be felt for a long time. So, is Fanon’s idea of violence really a driving force for decolonial change?
“The colonist bourgeoisie hammered into the colonized mind the notion of a society of individuals where each is locked in his subjectivity, where wealth lies in thought. But the colonized intellectual who is lucky enough to bunker down with the people during the liberation struggle, will soon discover the falsity of this theory. Involvement in the organization of the struggle will already introduce him to a different vocabulary. “Brother,” “sister,” “comrade” are words outlawed by the colonist bourgeoisie because in their thinking is my wallet and my comrade, my scheming.”
“This colonized intellectual, pulverized by colonist culture, will also discover the strength of the village assemblies, the power of the people’s commissions and the extraordinary productiveness of neighborhood and section committee meetings.”
– page 11
I thought that these quotes were interesting because Fanon basically described one of the manipulation tactics of colonists. It also shows the values of the colonists vs the colonized. The colonists force the idea of thinking as an individual, prioritizing his own desires, needs and values. They don’t consider others thoughts when making decisions. They pass on this mindset to the colonized. However, the colonized eventually realize that that’s not true. They find strength in sharing their thoughts with others. The power of the collective people and rejection of the “every man for himself” concept is able to assist in dismantling colonization.
In the first chapter of “On Violence”, as is the theme of this book is, the necessity of violence to decolonize. Frantz Fanon and Gandhi’s views share the same destination, but the journey could not be more different. Violent means of achievement aside, Fanon briefly discusses the absurdity and irresponsibility in which Western authority addresses aid to the Third World. It is an incompleteness of “righting” a wrong. In reference to the “generous” aid of European nations, Fanon sees through its’ illusion of “charity”. Fanon states, “such aid must be considered the final stage of a dual consciousness—the consciousness of the colonized that it is their due and the consciousness of the capitalist powers that effectively they must pay up” (59). Simply said, after colonialism has stripped the Third World of immeasurable amounts of value, “aid” is already less than what they are owed. Charity is treating a symptom caused by the colonizers and disguised as “generosity”.
What is the way to right the wrong that has been done? Is it possible to put a value on it, to compensate for it, to make amends? In addition, who should have the right to determine what that is? It is clear, an apology does nothing. What has been done and not be undone, but what would it take to resolve the atrocities done in the name of colonialism?
In the first chapter of “On Violence”, as is the theme of this book is, the necessity of violence to decolonize. Frantz Fanon and Gandhi’s views share the same destination, but the journey could not be more different. A violent means of achievement aside, Fanon briefly discusses the absurdity and irresponsibility in which Western authority addresses aid to the Third World. It is an incompleteness of “righting” a wrong. In reference to the “generous” aid of European nations, Fanon sees through its’ illusion of “charity”. Fanon states, “such aid must be considered the final stage of a dual consciousness—the consciousness of the colonized that it is their due and the consciousness of the capitalist powers that effectively they must pay up” (59). Simply said, after colonialism has stripped the Third World of immeasurable amounts of value, “aid” is already less than what they are owed. Charity is treating a symptom caused by the colonizers and disguised as “generosity”.
What is the way to right the wrong that has been done? Is it possible to put a value on it, to compensate for it, to make amends? In addition, who should have the right to determine what that is? It is clear, an apology does nothing. What has been done and not be undone, but what would it take to resolve the atrocities done in the name of colonialism?
On page 10 of “The Wretched of The Earth,” Frantz Fanon states: “But the colonized intellectual introduces a variation on the demand and in fact, there seems to be no lack of motivation to fill senior positions as administrators, technicians, and experts. The colonized however, equate this nepotism with acts of sabotage and it is not unusual to hear them declare: “What is the point of being independent then… ?”
This quote reminded of the principle of self actualization and the different ways of thought that can fill an individuals’ head. Thoreau preached about finding yourself through realizing your individual connectedness with the natural world. This excerpt from Fanon shows how societal pressures of monotony, uniformity, and submission can alienate one from themselves.
Fanon’s quote shows a realistic view of societal pressures and how the psyche of the colonizer responds to such stress. Does Thoreau’s privileges allow him to understand and perceive the world in a different way than that of a colonized individual? Would Fanon assert that finding personal freedom could stem from a connectedness with the natural world or would he think such assertion to be tone deaf given the realities of colonialism?
Throughout the first reading of “The Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon uses an extremely critical approach when discussing the relationship between the colonized and the colonizers and acting upon decolonization. He speaks about the need to be free of colonization and it is clear that he is not afraid to use violence in order to do so. He says that decolonization cannot be accomplished through a “gentleman’s agreement” as colonization itself occurred through the use of violence. He speaks upon the violence of colonizers and says “The colonized, who have made up their mind to make such an agenda into a driving force, have been prepared for violence from time immemorial. As soon as they are born it is obvious to them that their cramped world, riddled with taboos, can only be challenged by out and out violence.” Fanon’s ideas are deeply rooted in the concept that violence is the universal language of the world and it seems as if he believes it is truly necessary for true revolution. Have there been any cases of successful uses of violence in the move towards liberation?
There is a reason I do not read Stephen King; he takes too long to get to the point. Fortunately, here, Fanon really makes his point early on (page 2 in fact) the rest just seems to be the justification for his point. He says, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is clearly an agenda for total disorder. But it cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic want, natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement.” I will admit, I only made it to page 10. It was more and more of “colonizer bad, colonized are not bad”. And I don’t disagree here. But here’s the thing, when do we switch from civil disobedience to being not so civil to each other, aka: war? Do we do it because of a 3% tax on tea? If that’s the case, the amount of taxes we are charged with in this country, war should be a regular thing. But let’s look at it a different way. Let’s look at the events of 9/11. Let’s say the terrorists killed thousands by slamming a couple of passenger jets into a couple of large buildings because the United States is colonizing the Middle East. Because they were feeling oppressed, are they now justified in their actions? War never effects just the warriors. There are always civilian casualties.
I was curious about how Fanon died. I figured he was probably assassinated. Turns out he died of leukemia. But in looking that up, I saw he influenced a more than a few people. The most notable names I recognized were Malcom X and Che Guevara. Both of whom lived violent lives and were themselves assassinated. This got me to thinking, what would Fanon say about the events that happened on January 6, 2021? If the perpetrators of that even had invoked Fanon’s name instead of, say, Thomas Jefferson, would the media have portrayed the circumstances (circus) any differently or would they have said those people were misrepresenting Fanon?
One thing I found most striking when reading the Wretched of the Earth was the inclusion of the preface by Jean-Paul Sartre. I found it interesting to read the words of a prolific French writer in a work denouncing the occupation of Algeria by France. However, Sartre makes no attempt to dance around his role, instead urging his fellow Europeans to leave their preconceptions behind in favor of understanding the mind of the colonized. On page 13, Sartre poses the question itself:
“In this case, you will say, let’s throw away this book. Why read it if it is not written for us? For two reasons: the first is that Fanon explains you to his brothers and shows them the mechanism by which we are estranged from ourselves; take advantage of this, and get to know yourselves seen in the light of truth, objectively. Our victims know us by their scars and by their chains, and it is this that makes their evidence irrefutable. It is enough that they show us what we have made of them for us to
realize what we have made of ourselves… You see, I, too, am incapable of ridding myself of subjective illusions; I, too, say to you: “All is lost, unless … ” As a European,
I steal the enemy’s book, and out of it I fashion a remedy
for Europe. Make the most of it.”
Sartre illustrates the complexity when reading these works from a European perspective, using the words of revolutionaries to find ideas to better Western culture. Where is our place to project ourselves when reading the words of Fanon? Is it right to use them in a way to better our own culture?
testing
One thing I found most striking when reading the Wretched of the Earth was the inclusion of the preface by Jean-Paul Sartre. I found it interesting to read the words of a prolific French writer in a work denouncing the occupation of Algeria by France. However, Sartre makes no attempt to dance around his role, instead urging his fellow Europeans to leave their preconceptions behind in favor of understanding the mind of the colonized. On page 13, Sartre poses the question itself:
“In this case, you will say, let’s throw away this book. Why read it if it is not written for us? For two reasons: the first is that Fanon explains you to his brothers and shows them the mechanism by which we are estranged from ourselves; take advantage of this, and get to know yourselves seen in the light of truth, objectively. Our victims know us by their scars and by their chains, and it is this that makes their evidence irrefutable. It is enough that they show us what we have made of them for us to
realize what we have made of ourselves… You see, I, too, am incapable of ridding myself of subjective illusions; I, too, say to you: “All is lost, unless … ” As a European,
I steal the enemy’s book, and out of it I fashion a remedy
for Europe. Make the most of it.”
Sartre illustrates the complexity when reading these works from a European perspective, using the words of revolutionaries to find ideas to better Western culture. Where is our place to project ourselves when reading the words of Fanon? Is it right to use them in a way to better our own culture?
A quote from chapter one that I found intriguing was on page 42, it states: “That is why we must put the DDT which destroys parasites, the bearers of disease, on the same level as the Christian religion which wages war on embryonic heresies and instincts, and on evil as yet unborn. The recession of yellow fever and the advance of evangelization form part of the same balance sheet.” The critique and analogy of Christian colonizers to a chemical that destroys parasites is a harsh and yet truthful point. Religion has been seen to be a driver of colonization. In its infancy religion was one of its strongest points, however Fanon also uses the modern day context of its spread, an inherent bad, to the good it hides behind, the recession of illnesses to due to western medicine. That brings up a question of how much religion plays in colonization in the modern day? Or has it lost importance in place of other values and exploit ?
The Preface of The Wretched of the Earth written by John-Paul Satre is an extremely engaging, passionate, and exciting introduction to Fanon’s work, his core ideologies, and intended audience. Initially it is made clear that the book was not created for the consumption of Europeans, yet Europeans are still encouraged to read it in hopes that they will come face to face with the reality of a colonized person.
“Europeans, open this book, look inside. After taking a short walk in the night you will see strangers gathered around a fire, get closer and listen. They are discussing the fate reserved for your trading posts and for the mercenaries defending them. They might see you, but they will go on talking among themselves without even lowering their voices (xlviii)” .
Who are the enemy Europeans that the book is targeting ? Fanon’s point of view is that the biggest divide in society is between the colonizer and the colonized, instead of the ruling class and working class (5) . In the preface, John-Paul Satre is critical of the ‘metropolitan left’ (liv), also known as the petty bourgeoisie/upper middle class, who disguise their allegiance to the colonizer under a facade of intellect and empathy. This warranted critique of the ‘metropolitan left’ is prevalent throughout the preface, however, there is hardly any mention of the European working class. Has the European working class benefited from the violence of colonialism? Could they be a potential ally for Fanon’s cause?
Reading this and thinking about his words of decolonization and how he describes it in the book appealed to many different examples in the world past and present. The quote that stuck out to me the most was “But every time Western values are mentioned they produce in the native a sort of stiffening or muscular lockjaw. During the period of decolonization, the native’s reason is appealed to. He is offered definite values, he is told fre quently that decolonization need not mean regression, and that he must put his trust in qualities which are well- tried, solid, and highly esteemed. But it so happens that when the native hears a speech about Western culture he pulls out his knife—or at least he makes sure it is within reach”. This makes me think of tourism in 3rd world counties westernization makes promises to the natives that they know are not true or that these can get out of. The natives end up taking care of non native people and have no time or energy to take care of their own people. They are caught in a “lockjaw” because it’s already too late to do anything. Tourism crates a false world that only the natives can see when all we see all the glamour that comes with it. This is something I think about when reading the piece above that connects to decolonization and the false truths that go along with it. Do you see a connection in this of how it can be compared?
I found the choice to include a preface written by a colonizer for an anti-colonial book by an author from a colonized country interesting. Sartre acknowledges throughout that Fanon’s book was not written for Europeans and that it “leaves you out in the cold” ( xlix). After reading the first section of Fanon’s writing, I wonder what he would think of Sartre’s interpretation of his book and how he would respond to Sartre’s inclusion of a call to action for Europeans?
The preface starts out pretty blunt when discussing colonialism. I felt like it was written really well and got the point across. For example, Sartre says, “They selected adolescents, branded the principles of Western culture on their foreheads with a red-hot iron, and gagged their mouths withs sounds, pompous awkward words that twisted their tongues” (xlix). I felt like this was a really good sentence to describe the brutality of colonialism. Branding shows the force of beliefs and that native peoples were treated like animals, gagging shows more use of force and control, and words that twisted their tongues further shows how they pushed their livelihoods on them. As I said, this is pretty blunt but it also is metaphorical, which I felt personally helped improve the power behind it.
Are difficult subjects and the information and points behind them portrayed better in a metaphorical way or through blunt language? Or perhaps a mix of both?
Fanon describes a domino effect of violence where violence is seen as a form of liberation. When colonists used force and violence to control the colonized, the colonized then responded with violence. The colonized are controlled by police and soldiers, meaning they can only free themselves (liberation) by reversing the dynamic and using that same violence back on them. Thus the cycle of violence. What is the role of violence in colonialism? What would/ could it look like without it? Would change have been effective? How could it be enforced without violence?
Throughout this reading I thought a lot about the emotion of rage and where it comes from. This reading is a little dry in my opinion but it provides valuable insight to very early minds that are precise in their words and thoughts. On page 17 Fanon says, “For the colonized subject’s last resort is to defend his personality against his fellow countryman.” This quote to me shows how the colonized are in a different world when it comes to the colonizer and the rage built up due to the “exhibitionist” (17). Additionally, I thought on page 18 it was very interesting how prehistorical societies attach great importance to the unconscious. Thinking systematically, that does make sense, but how would the importance of unconscious be thought about in today’s time? I think it would be hard due to the private vs social life due to the extensive amounts of technology since the colonizer time.
I love the atmosphere and attitude that is presented in the preface of Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth”. I feel like it does a wonderful job of setting the stage of the whole book and captures the emotion that was the inspiration for it. Jean-Paul Sartre states on page lii, “In countries where colonialism has deliberately halted development, the peasantry, when it decided to revolt, very quickly emerges as the radical class. It is all too familiar with naked oppression, suffers far worse than the urban workers, and to prevent it from dying of hunger, nothing less will do than the demolition of every existing structure.” I love the irony presented in the idea that the peasantry arises as the radical class when they are being oppressed to the point of death or near-death. It seems like common sense that they would rise up, but colonialism has made this seem radical. My question is: Although the irony is clear to those who see what is going on, how can the fact that colonialism and its systems are completely ridiculous and is no longer, and has never, served the people of the world or the earth itself be brought to the forefront so that change can be made?
In Frantz Fanon’s reading “On Violence,” I could immediately feel his rage through his words. He starts the chapter with decolonization, his first sentence of the chapter opens pretty bluntly, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is clearly an agenda for total disaster.” He goes on to explain how the colonized only way to be liberated from the colonists is by violence. This was much different from our previous reading by Gandhi, who was for peaceful fights. I found Fanon’s approach to be interesting, because to me his use of violence came from the rage within his personal views. He didn’t think the colonized could fight back without violence. I personally believe he could’ve found other ways to push for liberation without violence. Do you think violence is the only answer to decolonization?
I think that this reading opened my eyes to how violence can be used to enact social change and dismantle systemic oppression. However, as we saw through studying Gandhi it is not the only way possible to achieve radical change. His argument is that colonization was successful due to using all means necessary to implement it and he argues that it will take all means including violence to dismantle it. I agree that it has a place within the tools needed to enact authentic liberation from colonization.
Frantz Fanon and Jean-Paul Sartre both seam to agree that violence is necessary in decolonization because it was such a crucial player in colonization. At the end of the Preface by Sartre he turns to the reader. I found it interesting and powerful how he uses ‘we’ in this section. Including the masses as the colonizers and the ones at fault. In this quote Sartre states “we, too, peoples or Europe, we are being decolonized: meaning the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation. Let’s take a good look at ourselves, if we have the courage, and let’s see what has come of us.” (Sartre, lxiii). I read this as a decolonization of the mind. Do you feel like Fanon ad Sartre are also stating that violence will be necessary through a shift in thought? What would this look like?
On the first page of “On Violence,” Fanon states in his introduction, “National liberation, national reawakening, restoration of the nation to the people or Commonwealth, whatever the name used, whatever the latest expression, decolonization is always a violent event.” This introduction confused me at first because I have taken many SD classes that focus on decolonization as a necessity to end systemic oppression. After getting through my defensive initial response to this statement I was able to accept his point. I realized the wisdom in his point that decolonization is unimaginative and continues to operate within the constraints of the colonial system rather than eradicating and overcoming it. what do you think about his opinion of decolonization? do you agree or disagree?
In “On Violence,” talks at length about colonization and the many corrupt ways of thinking that associated with it. One quote that stood out to me was “During the period of decolonization the colonized are called upon to be reasonable. They are offered rock solid vales, they are told in great detail that decolonization should not mean regression, and that they must rely on values which have proved to be reliable and worthwhile”. The reason this stood out to me was because the colonizers always move to a defensive point of view when the idea of decolonization comes up. Fanon also mentions this in the chapter and says that this way of thinking is not only a colonizers outlook but also is what keeps free thinking from happening. Fanon writes “I the period of decolonization the colonized masses thumb their noses at these very values, shower them with insults and vomit them up.” This again not only proves that Fanon is passionate about the outlook but also gives the blunt truth about the way the colonizer sees all people without the same way of thinking as them. Has violence been overlooked by the colonized as a way to discredit the past? if so, is this why the colonized thumb their noses and try to often forget the past?
Coming from just reading Ghandi, we can see how radically different Fanons idea to create change is. Ghandi approached change in a peaceful manor while Fanon believe the only way to create change is through violence. In “On Violence”, Fanon says ” In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knifes.For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between two protagonists” (3). This use of imagery shows just exactly how he feels about colonization and decolonization. He tells us that the same violence used to take away the culture of ingenious people and to colonize the western world is a apart of history. This is why he believes the only way to change the system again is to revisit history and use this same violence to create change. After reading these two men, do you think Fanon or Ghandi has a better idea of creating change? why?
A couple of key findings I found in The Wretch of the Earth would be the idea of using violence to combat violence. This is different for other countries such as Western countries like the United State. Here, if a violent act would occur from government or authority figures, there is usually the encouragement of peaceful protest to limit the amount of scrutiny caused by the oppressed. However, Fraz Fanon is saying the opposite for Third World colonized countries. With the violent acts committed by the colonizers, there needs to be violent acts followed by the colonized. He says that decolonization is not a “gentlemen’s agreement” and their needs to be serious conflict to show power. Other thing I found interesting is the idea that Eastern Block and Western Block of Soviet Union and the United States had a great influence on whether these Third World Countries should choose a socialist government or a capitalist government. Fraz seems to believe that capitalist government is the way to go with developing countries. Did the pressure of choosing a side of governments discourage Third World developing countries from wanting to seek any aid in the true efforts of helping to decolonize?
In chapter one, Fanon discusses the relationship between the colonialist bourgeoisie and the colonized intellectual. To assimilate to the culture of their oppressors—the colonists—the colonized intellectuals have had to assimilate to colonialist bourgeoisie thinking and are thus always in danger of becoming “demagogues.” (A “demagogue” is a political leader who uses exploitation and prejudice like the colonists to rule.) By becoming demagogues, the colonized intellectuals become the oppressors in more ways than one. Thus, the intellectual is a “mimic man,” following suit after the example set by the colonialists. My question is, do you think that there has been a demagogue in the last 50 years in the United States? Do you think that there has been a situation similar to this in any other countries recently?