The parallels between Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth and Gillo Pontecorvo’s film, The Battle of Algiers. It comes to no surprise the film was banned in France for a period of time. At the most surface level, both portray the effectiveness and demand for violence by the colonized in response to the violent nature of the colonizers. Fanon argues violence is the means and the peasants are the masses to carry out the means, the lumpenproletariat. In the film, in the secrecy of rebellion, Lahadi Jaffer says “too many drunks, whores, junkies. People who talk too much, uncommitted people ready to sell us out. We must convince them or eliminate them. We must think of ourselves first and clean out the Kasbah” [17:40]. The mistrust at this point in the film is premature to Fanon’s perspective which unfolds at later intervals. Fanon states, “It is among these masses, in the people of the shanty towns and in the lumpenproletariat that the insurrection will find its urban spearhead … [the] radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people” (81). What turning points from Fanon’s perspective, Pontecorvo’s perspective, and your own shifts uncommitted peasant masses to commit? Does the film capture and portray a contrasting perspective of those drivers behind the peasant masses?
Between the film, “Battle of Algiers”, Fanon and Gandhi, there were many overlapping beliefs, methods and strategies. Ali (in the film) reminded me more of Fanon. The way I have been interpreting his book thus far, his strength, passion for equality among all people, his instinct for violence against violence, but yet his sincerity to his own people, their values, beliefs and ‘rights’. Saari, the leader of the FLN in the film reminded me more of Gandhi more in the fact that he saw that non-violence and passive resistence was a huge weight for action against the French. He seemed a lot more grounded and acceptive of the violence against the Algerians, but almost as if, that was part of the process for freedom and independence. Although Ali was an important figure head and very dedicated, I wondered if he would of been more educated, would he have possibly ‘turned himself over’ where he could bargain with the Colonel about what the Algerians were trying to accomplish and would there have been less violence, and maybe more non-violent measures to gain equality among the Algerians and French.
Between viewing The Battle of Algiers and our continued reading of Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth I picked up on many similarities. The methods that the FLN use against the French peoples are quite similar to the violent methods that Fanon discusses. The use of guerilla warfare and sneaky, calculated attacks in The Battle of Algiers also seems like something that Fanon would be quite fond of. In part two of the book on page 85 Fanon begins the discussion of guerilla warfare as it was used by the leaders of the Angolan uprising, and how it can be used in other peasant movements. The FLN’s use of guerilla warfare is impressive because they utilize the city to their advantage, in the words of Fanon “The enemy thinks he is in pursuit but we always manage to come up behind him, attacking him at the very moment when he least expects it.” (page 86) The FLN also consisted of the lumpenproletariat class as Fanon described, there were men, women and children; we also saw that Ali, our protagonist, had been arrested multiple times and was unemployed. These lumpenproletariat FLN leaders have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a revolution; they also utilize the things that they all have: strength and determination. Fanon uses a perfect analogy to describe lumpenproletariat leaders like the FLN leaders: “However hard it is kicked or stoned it continues to gnaw at the roots of the tree like a pack of rats.” (page 81) As we saw in the movie, the leaders of the FLN were unfortunately taken down before the end of the revolution, which led to its 2 year pause until it ramped back up again. Because these leaders died, people lost hope. Did this hierarchical structure to the leaders of the FLN aid or harm the movement? Do we think that Fanon would support this pyramid system, or would he view it as counteractive?
This week for class, we watched the movie called The Battle of Algiers. This movie detailed the struggle between the people of Algeria against the French colonists after well over 100 years of influence. It makes sense that we read The Wretched of the Earth at the same time we watched this movie because we see the ideas presented by Fanon correlate to the actions of the people of Algiers. One concept that certainly related was the idea of fighting colonial violence with violence. Although they had to commit acts of violence, it relates to the idea that the people saw it as a necessary action and the only way the French would listen. What are some other similarities between the actions of the FLN and the ideas presented by Frantz Fanon? Another part of the movie that stuck out to me was the strategy used by the FLN compared to the strategy used by French military forces. It seemed that the attacks by the FLN were far more coordinated and tried to avoid as many unnecessary casualties while the French attacks were more about attacking with whatever violence necessary and sending a message. However, they later came up with a new idea as the FLN persisted. This idea was to “cut off the head” of the FLN by taking out the main movers/leaders of the resistance. When they were able to do this, it put a significant damper on the Algerian resistant movement, so this raises the question: does a resistance thrive better with or without a “head?” Was it better for there to be a select few leaders or did the resistance thrive all as one group?
The film “The Battle of Algiers” exemplifies from the beginning the ideas that we have been discussing through are readings of Frantz Fanon’s book “The Wretched of the Earth”. Fanon talks about how violence is effective in decolonization because of the violent nature of colonization in the first place. At the beginning of the film you see what seems like the end of torturous session with the french army and an Algerian. The audience is able to tell very quickly that the Algerian has been tortured due to his physical and mental state. He seems to have given up some information in order to end the torture and the french soldiers then seem to be more “friendly” to him. They tell him to get dressed and that he will with them and perhaps be a soldier for them and work for them? The Algerian is extremely opposed to even though it seems as though he might be considered safe in this situation. But to him it is not safe because it further removes him from his people and his culture. We have been discussing how there are different forms of violence in colonization including the form that strips the colonized peoples of their identity and culture. When Fanon talks about the colonizer he says, “The former colonial power multiplies its demand and accumulates concessions and guarantees, taking fewer and fewer precautions to mask the hold it has over the national government” (Fanon 112). In the case of the film, the French are still very present but exemplify this idea by taking control of the police and barricading off parts of the city. Would Fanon agree more with the more radical acts of violence that individuals take in the film such as Ali, or would he think that the ideas of Jafaar, that are sometimes more cautious, are more strategic in decolonization?
“The Battle of Algiers” showed the brutality of the French colonists against the Algiers; however the latter fought back with the language that the colonists understand, violence. Fanon’s work in “The Wretched of the Earth,” speaks violence into action in the form of decolonization. It was obvious that the French viewed the Algiers as inferior through the quotes from Colonel Mathieu. Mathieu says, “It’s a faceless enemy, unrecognizable, blending with hundreds of others. It is everywhere. In cafes, in the alleys of Casbah, or in the very streets of the European quarter”(56:37). He addresses the FLN members as “it” over and over. I think what Colonel Mathieu couldn’t see, was how the Algiers were gaining autonomy and agency from the violence. The violence acted as a cleansing force to the colonized as Fanon states (51). Do you think the FLN would have been able to gain this agency if they used more non violent acts? From the film I could see how the violence by the colonists had such a strong psychological effect on the colonized and this created agency in the Algiers. The Algiers fought with passion and agency and the FLN united together against the French.
I also wonder if the outcome of the battle would have been different if the FLN did not go on strike or if they would have ended it early. It seemed like Ali thought they should be doing something but the other FLN leader convinced him it was the right thing to do. Do you think that the outcome would have been different if the strike did not happen and the FLN continued to use violence? Should the colonized ever rely on an organization like the UN to help them such as in the case of the Battle of Algiers?
There are many connections about violence and the politics between “Wretched of the Earth” and “The Battle of Algiers”. On page 146, Fanon Frantz states that, “At the first signs of a dispute, colonialism feigns comprehension by acknowledging with ostentatious humility that the territory is suffering from serious underdevelopment that requires major social and economic reforms.” Also on page 146, “Even when it comes to filling their bellies, colonialism proves to be inherently powerless.” These two quotes stuck out to me in relation to the scene in the film where soldiers are seen giving out bread and food to Algerians. However, this scene was in the middle of the altercations that had happened between the FLN and the French Army. Is this an example of the colonists attempting to solve the Algerians problems with a social approach, instead of the military approach? Why was it in between the fighting of the two groups? Was this an attempt to address the economic problems and development of Algeria?
There were several similarities and overarching themes between the film, “The Battle of Algiers” and Frantz Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth.” Most notably, the portrayals of violence and violence being needed in order to achieve a sort of freedom are very apparent observations from both media forms. In Fanon’s work, there is fairly explicit mention of possible reasons behind why colonialism had and continues to occur; one reason being the “backwardness” that the indigenous-to-be-colonized live by. Fanon states, “Black Africa is looked upon as a wild, savage, uncivilized, and lifeless region,” and then goes on to talk about how this “backward” group of people need to be Westernized in the form of colonialism (pg. 108). He states, “… the bourgeoisie ideology that proclaims all men to be essentially equal, manages to remain consistent with itself by urging the subhuman to rise to the level of Western humanity…” (pg. 110).
Using this, Fanon goes on to talk about how there is unity in knowledge and how language and power over another through this language, can cause dispossession. It is through intentions and explanation that can either strip the people of their sovereignty or allow them to understand (Fanon, pg. 131). I am wondering if this is the point that is being made about using violence against violence. Throughout the reading, film, and in class discussions, we have focused heavily on violence and what the ‘correct’ form of action is in attempts to decolonize and sort of earn back this state of having agency. I am wondering if it is through knowledge that violence was used in the film, or rather because the Algiers had no other option? Is there a difference between the two? What I mean is, in the spaces where violence is used against violence, is that done because that is the one similar language the two are able to speak and have meaning (knowledge); or is violence against violence a more common result in situations where all else has failed (no other option)?
I am also wondering where cooperation typically, and best fits in this situation. It was expressed early on in the film that cooperation was the first step towards any independence. Cooperation was shown through Ali attempting to kill the police officer, and although unsuccessful, he was able to gain the trust and backing of his fellow people. But here, violence was used first in order to prove a sort of cooperation and trust. We can also see through the film that cooperation and organization didn’t always lead to the end one might be hoping for, as seen by the strike. I don’t know if there is really a right or wrong answer, but I am wondering where (typically) cooperation fits in when violence has been decided as the answer.
This week I wanted to talk about the connections between Fanon, Gandhi and the film we watched, The Battle of Algiers. I really enjoyed watching this film, I think it was very well produced for the time period and it was one of the more interesting films we have watched. The film started with small scale attacks, killing a few policemen here and there then the violence increasing escalated. The most significant I think was the bombings from both sides of the war. What reminded me of Fanon in this film was the start of violence, and not really getting anywhere then the use of non violence. The FLN led a one week strike. I think Fanon would agree with both the use of violence and non violence to create change. How do you think Gandhi would react to this film? What Ideas would align with Gandhi’s beliefs?
(Understand, my response is coming from a person who spent a good portion of his adult life fighting the war on terror.)
I understand the plight of the downtrodden. I definitely understand wanting to rebel against a tyrannical government. It is of course what our nation was founded on.
However, as I watched this movie, there were certain things that bothered me. I do not like people who use bombs to indiscriminately kill. But there was a point in the movie where one of the head honcho’s brought up a good point. When confronted with the same question he said, “Then give me planes and napalm.”
Neither side had the moral high ground here. The French were using torcher, bombs, and executions. The Algerians were using bombs and children to kill their own people, the dregs of society as they saw it (drunks, drug users and prostitutes).
I did notice some similarities that didn’t change from the 1950’s to 2001. After 9/11 we found out that the reason terrorists were so hard to track was because they didn’t use standard methods of communication. The literally passed notes to each other. Cells were also set up in a similar manner, so that one group had no idea what the other was doing.
Here is my question: many probably feel quite a bit of sympathy for the Algerians. But I ask you this, what if this were to happen in the United States in 2022? Pick your disaffected group in modern society. Would you be ok with the random bombings of buildings with people in it that the disaffected thought of as the enemy? What if these tactics were used on January 6, 2020? Understand, you don’t have to agree with their cause, or lack there of. You might think the group is absolutely nuts. I’m sure many French people thought the same of the Algerians as their social areas became places of danger.
When looking at Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth and comparing I to the movie The Battle of Algeria, there are many similar connections to be made. I think that the events that occurred in The Battle of Algeria is a great example of what The Wretched of the Earth is trying to say about decolonization. That is the use of violence to either send a message or effectivly decolonize from First World order. We see this in the main character, Ali, and his rebellion. We see the violence of the French military with the unjust use for torture and killing to keep in control. We also see the racism in the dialogue between the French and the Algerians. Franz Fanon includes the major effect of racism on the control of colonialism and can be seen in the movie quite a lot.
After watching the film Battle of Algiers and reading Franz Gabon’s The Wretched Earth it is obvious that there are parallels between Violence and Revolution. In the Film there are violent revolutionists called the FLN who are against imperialism and the French rule over Algerians. It also has a religious aspect about it because the Algiers are Islamic and also obvious racism. The French reciprocate the violence of bombings and shootings. There are many attacks a day. Franz Fanon talks about how the colonized must rise up against the colonizers who have created the very corrupt system they live in. He states that there must be violence and that there will always be violence when there is a revolution, “..decolonization is always a violent event”. The FLN is doing exactly this. Fanon also states in his book that the colonizers only understand violence, and we see this happen in the film. The French start paying attention after violence has been struck against them. Fanon states “to destroy the colonial world means nothing less than demolishing the colonists sector, burning it deep within the earth..”(pg6) and he talks of the Algerian Revolution and one quote that stood out to me is “One of the greatest services, the Algerian revolution has rendered to Algerian intellectuals, was to put them in touch with the masses to allow them to see the extreme unspeakable poverty of the people in at the same time witness, the awakening of their intelligence and the development of their consciousness.” (pg 130). Fanon is saying here that the masses of people/peasants can overturn dictators and decolonize if they work together violently or nonviolently. We have talked a lot about non-violence earlier in the semester and how it does work. After learning about how violence can positively impact decolonization, what do you think Ghandi would tell the revolutionists in FLN? Do you think he would understand that violence might need to be met with more violence, especially in this situation? What do you think Fanon would say to Ghandi about the Battle of Algeirs?
Both the reading “The Wretched Earth” and the viewing of the film “Battle of Algiers” exemplify the use of violence and the struggle between colonized people and those who have colonized them. In the film as time continued so did the violence shown, the longer the film went on the more violence was escalated. Both sides used violence the french used torture and killing while the Algerians used more stealthy calculated methods of violence. The Algerian’s use of violence is largely for their freedom “One cannot divorce the combat for culture from the people’s struggle for liberation.” (168). Their struggle for freedom and the despair people had to face was constant as exemplified with this quote from The Wretched Earth“Everybody will be slaughtered or tortured, and within the context of the independent nation, everyone will suffer the same hunger and marasmus. (140).” While the use of violence by Algerian people was for their freedom at the end of the day many were injured and many innocent died at the hands of these attacks. Both the Algerian people and the French who colonized them used violence. Both suffered losses. While in many ways it is easy to emphasize with the Algerian people and the horrid conditions they had to face it is also easier to they still used violence like the French. At the end of it, many lost their lives to this conflict. What could have happened if more social or political options were chosen? If there non-violent efforts akin to Gandhian practices? Would non-violent efforts work in these situations?
The film, The Battle of Algiers, depicts the struggle faced between the FLN and the French authorities. By the end of the film, there is no resolution, instead, the conflict continues as the Algerians rise in demonstrations demanding still for their independence, pride, and freedom. The film visualizes militant struggle and the call for people to take ownership of their history in the fight for liberation. A lot of what is depicted connects to Fanon’s work in “The Wretched of the Earth.” Fanon’s work demonstrates that struggle can create a sort of consciousness. He says that “An isolated individual can resist understanding an issue, but the group, the village, grasps it with disconcerting speed”(130). It is seen in the film that for either side to advance they must work as a collective. Towards the beginning of the film, one of the children involved with the FLN says that “Men have two faces. One smiles, one cries.” Does this conflict with Fanon’s statement or support it? Also in conflict, it is generally accepted that each side has only one side to take to. Combat, as depicted in the film, is violent, and the men behind the weapon are categorized with this. However, there is more to an individual than the violence they must turn to as a form of agency. While violence can be used as a unifying force, are men condemned to violence from the start because of history? For both sides in this struggle, is there another method that could have been utilized to achieve the same goal? Is it possible to obtain liberation and maintain one’s culture?
In section III, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon speaks about how easily national consciousness can disappear. Much of this he attributes to the bourgeoisie, saying they took over the roles the colonists once had. “The national bourgeoisie of each of these two major regions, who have assimilated to the core the most despicable aspects of the colonial mentality, take over from the Europeans and lay the foundations for a racist philosophy that is terribly prejudicial to the future of Africa” (102). Furthermore, Fanon argues that the bourgeoisie weakened national identity for the purpose of gaining power. Similarly to Gandhi, Fanon believes the bourgeoisie should reject their status and join the “peasant masses”, who are responsible for developing national identity. When forming a new national identity, how can corruption and self-serving behavior at the expense of unity be prevented?
The Battle of Algiers tells the story of the FLN, a band of resistants attempting to liberate Algeria from French colonial rule. Several times throughout the movie, the police would compare the FLN movement as a tape worm, stating that you can only killing it by removing the head. The analogy implies that the FLN group cannot survive without their strong leaders. In “The Wretched of The Earth,” Fanon states that “…in certain regions the party is organized like a gang whose toughest member takes over the leadership. The leader’s ancestry and powers are readily mentioned, and in a knowing and slightly admiring tone it is quickly pointed out that he inspires awe in his close collaborators. In order to avoid these many pitfalls a persistent battle has to be waged to prevent the party from becoming a compliant instrument in the hands of a leader. Leader comes from the English verb “to lead,” meaning “to drive” in French.15 The driver of people no longer exists today. People are no longer a herd and do not need to be driven. If the leader drives me I want him to know that at the same time I am driving him. The nation should not be an affair run by a big boss. Hence the panic that grips government circles every time one of their leaders falls ill, because they are obsessed with the question of succession: What will happen to the country if the leader dies? The influential circles, who in their blind irresponsibility are more concerned with safeguarding their lifestyle, their cocktail parties, their paid travel and their profitable racketeering, have abdicated in favor of a leader and occasionally discover the spiritual void at the heart of the nation.” In this passage, Fanon acknowledges certain downfalls of having too strong of leadership. Would Fanon think that the FLN leadership had the capacity to reach such a point if able? Is there a possibility that strong leadership is necessary in the beginning stages of a movement yet there comes a time when ‘power’ should be shared?
In section III, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon speaks about how easily national consciousness can disappear. Much of this he attributes to the bourgeoisie, saying they took over the roles the colonists once had. “The national bourgeoisie of each of these two major regions, who have assimilated to the core the most despicable aspects of the colonial mentality, take over from the Europeans and lay the foundations for a racist philosophy that is terribly prejudicial to the future of Africa” (102). Furthermore, Fanon argues that the bourgeoisie weakened national identity for the purpose of gaining power. Similarly to Gandhi, Fanon believes the bourgeoisie should reject their status and join the “peasant masses”, who are responsible for developing national identity. When forming a new national identity, how can corruption and self-serving behavior at the expense of unity be prevented?
Violence can take many forms and I think as a Western society we like to view our violence as civilized because we slowly suffocate, and we view others violence as ugly or uncivilized because they use different tactics. I think “Wretched of the Earth” makes a good point when Franz Fanon says “A government or a party gets the people it deserves and sooner or later a people gets the government it deserves.”, he is saying that when the people deserve something they often get pushed to their limits to get it, in this case violence is that limit. He is saying that violence is useful because it often works, and that is also why many western cultures try to deem southern forms of violence as bad. Fanon wants the people to use violence early on rather than later because that way they are liberated faster and can set precedents. This correlates to “Battle of Algiers” because in the film we are introduced to a group of people fighting for the ruling they deserve and they are taking the leap and reaching for violence rather than waiting longer. The French used tactics that western societies view as usual and “just a part of war” like torture and gun violence, while the Algerians used methods that were uncivilized like bombings and other “sneaky” tactics. This contrast between methods but steady increase of violence on both sides show that violence can come in many forms, but often times it kills many, especially when both sides choose violence. But the point of the film is to show that one group being the Algerians were using violence as a way to end the violence against them, while the French were using violence as a control method and a way to keep oppressing the Algerians. I think this ties into the idea Fanon is trying to convey that violence is a tool meant to be used for the oppressed as a way to liberate themselves.
General Mathieu presents a dilemma for a Fanonian understanding of social change under colonialism. He is presented in the film as being passive and adverse to the colonial process playing out in Algeria. In the press conference, for example, he is seemingly putting the question of the French involvement in Algeria as a colonial entity onto the people of France itself. I find this interesting in comparing Fanon’s understanding of the inhumanity that colonization is supposedly supposed to embody as a main pillar of its existence. I wonder, then in what ways does Mathieu disrupt Fanon’s notion of the colonizer? What was the benefit of this film in showing the colonizer as having a semblance of humanity?
“The Wretched of the Earth,” by Frantz Fanon parts three and four were a direct continuation of his discourse on colonization and decolonization, and the existing violence acted upon therein, that can be summed up by a quote in the beginning of the book, “It is naked violence and only gives in to greater violence” (23). Onward, he finds somewhat an epiphany in remedying the backward motion, “The militant therefore is one who works” (44). Yet, despite the horrific events contained in the film, “Battle of Algiers,” juxtaposed with messages of hope in the unison of common bounds in humanity, he continues to find a way forward, “The party must be the direct expression of the masses. The party is not an administration with the mission of transmitting government orders. It is the vigorous spokesperson and and the incorruptible defender of the masses” (130). Here he prioritizes the political responsibility of new rule, indeed an advancement of concern in the defensive over the offensive, “No leader, whatever his worth, can replace the will of the people, and the national government, before concerning itself with international prestige, must first restore dignity to all citizens, furnish their minds, fill their eyes with human things and develop a human landscape for the sake of its enlightened and sovereign inhabitants” (144). Such a well-professed vision of the future, taking catastrophe and seeing it through to the evolving movements that liberated so many people there. “If culture is the expression of the national consciousness, I shall have no hesitation in saying, in the case in point, that national consciousness is the highest form of culture” (179). I believe he strikes a cord in the psyche of man, illustrating that the whole sometimes is simply just the sum of its parts, and through that struggle of freedom and self-actualization, becomes more consciously aware of each individual within it. My question is, how come I have never heard of this guy before?
In section III of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon speaks of intra-colonized violence as a form of misdirected anticolonial aggression. In The Battle of Algiers, the FLN is seen to rut out people and elements of Algerian society that they consider subversive or weakening, like pimps and drunks, through differing levels of violence. The FLN classifies this as strengthening the revolution, though this seems like it could also be considered a form of intra-colonized violence. Which is it? Or, is it both? Can violence between colonized peoples in a society be considered constructive to decolonization?
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon describes violence as a uniting national force which can be used to point the anger and injustice of the people towards a common enemy, in this case colonial rule. Fanon pictures this violence as coordinated guerilla warfare, and it is well realized in the film The Battle of Algiers. The FLN uses the French’s perceived homogeneity of the Algerians to hide often in plain sight, and slip into a crowd after committing violence. As a result of the violent resistance conducted by the FLN, a residence building gets bombed by french authorities resulting in destruction and death of innocents (37:10). This reminded me of the church bombings during the American Civil Rights movement. My question is if this violent strategy is viable in the modern age where the technological and military gap between the state and the people has only grown wider and wider. With GPS tracking, drones, and other surveillance state tactics, along with powerful weapons and machinery, do you think the hit and run guerilla tactics would be effective in a modern era, and would more civilians be possibly caught in the crossfire?
The film was fascinating in how it was portrayed. The outlook on violence is left to the viewer. Ethier way you look at it in this case the NLF took Fannon’s way of violence as the answer. But it is up to the viewer to interpret it as good or bad. Is the violence saving the NLF or are they terrorists attacking innocent people? I also find it interesting that women’s use of power in this is almost kind of like Gandhi In how they want to change but they choose to create change by not breaking any laws and remaining rather quiet compared to people like Djafar. It has a survival of the fittest aspect in that you have to do what you can to survive no matter the motives. This brings me back to Fannon’s explanation on page 19 When he describes liberation as ego boosting which is the case in the film, they got on a roll and keep going. He also says there is no real reason to fight the because of the mythical structures that contain far more terrifying adversaries that lead to permanent confrontation. He goes on to say all this turmoil od because someone wants reform for urgent issues that keep everyone on edge. This to me connects to the film because the NLF wanted to do the same things that the police should have been doing but they overstepped their boudnried to create reform that led to something worse than it should have been. Out of Ghandi and Fannon which tacic would fit the scenario better? Or could they have used fannons way in a different technique to create change?
The intentional structure of the FLN served many purposes in the initial phases of the fight for independence. As one of the main members or the organization stated before the strike began in the film, “Its hard enough to start a revolution, even harder to sustain it, and hardest of all to win it.” The members of the FLN served as representatives of the movement, and equipped the rest of the Algerians with the tools to reach the eventual end goal of independence. Once the internal structure of the FLN was dismantled by the French, the prediction was that the ‘tapeworm could no longer enlarge itself because the head had been chopped off’. This naive assumption was falsely proven when Algeria achieved decolonization nearly two years after the initial conflicts depicted in the film. The mobilization of thousands of Algerians in the capital after the main figures in the FLN were murdered or imprisoned revealed that the organization’s main role as acting as a catalyst had been achieved- the true fate of the movement was left within the hearts of the masses.
Fanon had philosophized that the lumpenproletariat was the strongest revolutionary force in society. In The Wretched of the Earth he states, “You could be sure of a new recruit when he could no longer go back into the colonial system (85)” . This belief correlated with recruitment strategies carried out by the FLN, as depicted by the role of Ali in the main sequences in the film. The majority of the film focused on the conflicts between the French army and the FLN, however much of the process of developing a revolutionary mindset within the rest of Algerians was left out of the narrative. Was this achieved solely by utilizing the lumpenproletariat as a means to set an example of violent resistance? What are other strategies that the FLN utilized to ensure that their actions would be carried out beyond themselves?
The film, Battle of Algiers, overlaps with many beliefs and methods that Fanon had an promoted. Early on in the film, the Algerians say that their combat is directed against colonialism and that to avoid bloodshed, the government should negotiate their propositions with them. I feel as though this directly parallels with Fanon from page 23-24 when he says, “Nonviolence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around the negotiating table before the irreparable is done…But if the masses take matters into their own hands and start burning and killing, it is not long before we see the ‘elite’ and the leaders of the bourgeois nationalists parties turn to the colonial authorities and tell them: this is terribly serious.. we must find an answer, we must find a compromise.” He is saying that with violence, the elites answer, which is what the Algerians intended when saying that to avoid bloodshed, their propositions should be heard? I would think that Fanon would support these ideas, as they fit into his perspective well, but what would our other authors think?
Fanon opens part 4 with the sentence ” Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.” (p. 145) Being in sustainable development, I think many of us would consider climate change and environmental justice our generation’s “mission.” However, outside of our community, I wonder if others of our generation would feel the same?
In the film the I noticed a lot of theming around the fact the French treated the Indigenous people of Algeria horribly. This is much like in Fanon speaks on in The Wretched of the Earth. The colonizer will always think that they are the native ones because of their factories and “luxurious” things. It is important to realize this in our daily lives when we critique American, and other western countries values.
Also the film is violent which agrees with Fanons point that decolonization is inherently violent. I wonder if he would agree with what the Algerians were doing of if he would advocate for more strategic planning and what not?
The Battle of Algiers and Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth overlap in their approach to decolonization in a number of ways. Firstly, and most obviously, violence is promoted in both mediums as a way to dismantle the colonial systems present because expressions of violence are clearly recognized and easily communicated to colonizers. Watching the film displayed the depth of Fanon’s transformation by the Algerian War and how he used the tactics used in this revolution to inspire his theory, which went on to inspire the Black Panther Party. This passing down of revolutionary knowledge made me wonder how intricately connected all social movements are to one another. This thought led me to reinterpret my idea of social change and understand that fighting one social battle is carrying a historic legacy of theory and tactics that might be overlooked. How are the social movements that you are a part of also fighting for similar goals or passing down the knowledge of prolific social movements? Is it important to recognize the origins of social movements to comprehend their weight and connect issues of the present to conflicts of the past? If so, why?
I thought that The Battle of Algiers demonstrated many of Fanon’s approaches for decolonizing. As Fanon has said before, decolonization does involve violence. I felt that the Algerian leader was much like the colonists in Fanon’s work, while the French government was the colonizers. To throw the French government, we see the Algerian leader participate in brutal violence with little to no limits on how far he will go.
After watching the movie “The Battle of Algiers”, I saw a lot that resembled what Fanon had said in his “The Wretched of the Earth”. Fanon has stated that violence is needed in decolonization and that is what we see in the movie. while reading Fanon, I read a quote that reminded me of the movie a bit. Fanon states ” colonialism was not seeking to be perceived by the indigenous population as a sweet, kindhearted mother who protects her child from a hostile environment, but rather a mother who consistently prevents her basically perverse child from committing suicide or giving free reign to its malevolent instincts. The colonial mother is protecting the child from itself, from its ego, it’s philosophy, it’s biology, and it’s ontological misfortune.” (Fanon, 149).
Do you think the French government in Algeria was protecting the Algerian people from its own actions? Do you think that they were doing them a kindness by occupying their motherland? After watching the movie and reading the quote stated above, I can see how Fanon saw the French government as a mother who was protecting Algeria from its own actions and self.
The film, Battle of Algiers shows the true ideals behind violence and decolonization through Fanon’s approaches. As it has been said through time violence and decolonization do not involve one another. In the film with the timeline of the Algieran war and continuing events we see the rise of many social movements such as the black panther party. when Fanon states that “Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.” (p. 145). I believe this relates with each time period due to the injustices and uncertainties of the future.
Questions: What tactics would better fit the new social movements? what would Ghandi and Fannon think?
Quick comparisons between the film “The Battle of Algiers” and Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” can be made with their shared overarching theme of anti-colonial violence. I was interesting in the film violence was used by both sides and never portrayed as a solely positive act. We have discussed how a fast assumption can be made that Fanon endorses violence and I think the same assumption can be made about the film. They have similar views of de-colonial violence being a necessary evil that is not to be taken lightly. In the film, three women are sent into the french public to place bombs. There is an interesting moment before each woman leaves the bag where they look around the room, and you can see the remorse in their eyes but not hesitation because they know it is necessary even when it doesn’t feel humane. I think this is an important distinction when looking at Fanon’s view on violence. Would you agree with how the film doesn’t pick a side when portraying violence from both parties? Or is there a moral difference between colonial violence and anti-colonial violence?
Between viewing the film, Battle of Algiers and our continued reading of Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, there were many correlating ideologies and methods used by Pontecorvo and Fanon. The rebellion of the FLN against the French followed suit with the methods of violence against colonialism discussed by Fanon. The idea of fighting violence with violence comes into play in both works, as we can see that although the FLN had to commit many acts of violence, they deemed it necessary to ensure the French would hear them. Fanon states that colonizers only understand violence which we see an example of in the film. The French only start paying attention to the FLN and their demands once they themselves have been struck by violence. Fanon speaks about the Algerian Revolution and says “One of the greatest services, the Algerian Revolution has rendered to Algerian intellectuals, was to put them in touch with the masses to allow them to see the extreme unspeakable poverty of the people in at the same time witness, the awakening of their intelligence and the development of their consciousness” (Fanon, 130). This is talking about gathering the masses of the lower class, or as Fanon says, peasants, and how these groups together are able to successfully decolonize by working together for the good of the people in their nation. After viewing the film and seeing how violence can help in the struggle toward decolonization, do you think Fanon would agree with the strategies and tactics used by the FLN or would he opt for different methods?
In part three, Fanon implies that the people haven’t actually come very far if they are still under a colonial system. Fanon argues that it makes little difference if the colonial power is pulling the strings of oppression from abroad or from directly within the nation. In both scenarios, he implies, it is still colonialism, and it must be dismantled just like the practice of colonialism was for so many. Like the colonial power, the dictator manipulates the formerly colonized and banks on their history of struggle and war to drum up support. My question is, can you think of a country that is currently going through this, or has gone through this? Is there any way for us to help or encourage this process?
Like everyone before me, I think that the main theme between Franz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth and Gillo Pontecorvo’s film The Battle of Algiers is the role of violence. Early on in Fanon’s writing, his take on the subject becomes clear, and he is strongly in favor of acts of violence. Frantz is in favor of violence due to the unjust behavior that has been done to him, his people, and all those colonized. This thought is cemented by quotes like, “It is obvious here that the agents of government speak the language of pure force.” and “…the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain…the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays.”
The film focuses on the Algerian revolution and the Algerians regaining their freedom using acts of resistance against the French.
In both perspectives, these acts of violence weren’t seen as a question of wrong or right, they were seen as a necessity to survival.
To further the severity of the situation in these two works, to further justify their stance on violence, after the release of Battle of Algiers, the French government banned the movie for upward of 5 years. This wouldn’t have been done if the French government didn’t acknowledge their wrongdoings in the situation. I am curious why the film was then unbanned? Perhaps people protested for it or did the French feel that enough time had passed and it was no longer a threat?
Nonetheless, the overarching theme of violence in both of these works sparked important conversations per their releases and have helped people gain true perspectives on history.
In the film, The Battle of Algiers it described the struggle between the people of Algeria against the French colonists after their rain of influence. The film shows many parallels to Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. The ideas of violence presented by Fanon correlate to the actions of the people of Algiers. Fanon argues that fighting violence with violence is the only way to bring about change by fighting for one’s people. We see that violence today is very prominent with the threat of war, actual war, environmental destruction and many more. Is the world condemned to violence? Are there other methods to ensure change?
In The Battle of Algiers and in Fanon’s “Wretched of The Earth”, there is an obvious overarching, connecting theme, which is that violence is needed to fight the violence of colonialism. It seems as if in both works, morals were not really a consideration, as if violence just had to happen based on the circumstances, and it was very mechanical- whether it is right or wrong was not really discussed. I have found these works interesting because they contrast a lot of the other works we have seen, in the sense that violence is not usually the answer. I believe that Fanon would agree and support a lot of the methods of violence and attempts at destruction of the French colonial structures, as he would probably say that those violent tactics of colonialism are the only language they speak, and so for them to understand that violence must ensue. I believe that both works make it obvious that in order to get the gears turning for change in the face of colonialism, it takes a lot of anger from the oppressed, which is what fuels the violence that is the driver for change. In Wretched of the Earth, Fanon states, “It is therefore a diplomacy in motion, in rage, which contrasts strangely with the petrified, motionless world of colonization” ( page 37). This idea is portrayed by the anger and warfare tactics of the FLN as well.
My question is, what if instead of using blatant violence and outward aggressions toward the French, the FLN had stayed on the down-low and more undercover? If they had been more controlled and methodical in their approaches could they have stayed more easily hidden, so the French would not know who to target and they could continue to do their work for longer periods of time?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
The parallels between Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth and Gillo Pontecorvo’s film, The Battle of Algiers. It comes to no surprise the film was banned in France for a period of time. At the most surface level, both portray the effectiveness and demand for violence by the colonized in response to the violent nature of the colonizers. Fanon argues violence is the means and the peasants are the masses to carry out the means, the lumpenproletariat. In the film, in the secrecy of rebellion, Lahadi Jaffer says “too many drunks, whores, junkies. People who talk too much, uncommitted people ready to sell us out. We must convince them or eliminate them. We must think of ourselves first and clean out the Kasbah” [17:40]. The mistrust at this point in the film is premature to Fanon’s perspective which unfolds at later intervals. Fanon states, “It is among these masses, in the people of the shanty towns and in the lumpenproletariat that the insurrection will find its urban spearhead … [the] radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people” (81). What turning points from Fanon’s perspective, Pontecorvo’s perspective, and your own shifts uncommitted peasant masses to commit? Does the film capture and portray a contrasting perspective of those drivers behind the peasant masses?
Between the film, “Battle of Algiers”, Fanon and Gandhi, there were many overlapping beliefs, methods and strategies. Ali (in the film) reminded me more of Fanon. The way I have been interpreting his book thus far, his strength, passion for equality among all people, his instinct for violence against violence, but yet his sincerity to his own people, their values, beliefs and ‘rights’. Saari, the leader of the FLN in the film reminded me more of Gandhi more in the fact that he saw that non-violence and passive resistence was a huge weight for action against the French. He seemed a lot more grounded and acceptive of the violence against the Algerians, but almost as if, that was part of the process for freedom and independence. Although Ali was an important figure head and very dedicated, I wondered if he would of been more educated, would he have possibly ‘turned himself over’ where he could bargain with the Colonel about what the Algerians were trying to accomplish and would there have been less violence, and maybe more non-violent measures to gain equality among the Algerians and French.
Between viewing The Battle of Algiers and our continued reading of Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth I picked up on many similarities. The methods that the FLN use against the French peoples are quite similar to the violent methods that Fanon discusses. The use of guerilla warfare and sneaky, calculated attacks in The Battle of Algiers also seems like something that Fanon would be quite fond of. In part two of the book on page 85 Fanon begins the discussion of guerilla warfare as it was used by the leaders of the Angolan uprising, and how it can be used in other peasant movements. The FLN’s use of guerilla warfare is impressive because they utilize the city to their advantage, in the words of Fanon “The enemy thinks he is in pursuit but we always manage to come up behind him, attacking him at the very moment when he least expects it.” (page 86) The FLN also consisted of the lumpenproletariat class as Fanon described, there were men, women and children; we also saw that Ali, our protagonist, had been arrested multiple times and was unemployed. These lumpenproletariat FLN leaders have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a revolution; they also utilize the things that they all have: strength and determination. Fanon uses a perfect analogy to describe lumpenproletariat leaders like the FLN leaders: “However hard it is kicked or stoned it continues to gnaw at the roots of the tree like a pack of rats.” (page 81) As we saw in the movie, the leaders of the FLN were unfortunately taken down before the end of the revolution, which led to its 2 year pause until it ramped back up again. Because these leaders died, people lost hope. Did this hierarchical structure to the leaders of the FLN aid or harm the movement? Do we think that Fanon would support this pyramid system, or would he view it as counteractive?
This week for class, we watched the movie called The Battle of Algiers. This movie detailed the struggle between the people of Algeria against the French colonists after well over 100 years of influence. It makes sense that we read The Wretched of the Earth at the same time we watched this movie because we see the ideas presented by Fanon correlate to the actions of the people of Algiers. One concept that certainly related was the idea of fighting colonial violence with violence. Although they had to commit acts of violence, it relates to the idea that the people saw it as a necessary action and the only way the French would listen. What are some other similarities between the actions of the FLN and the ideas presented by Frantz Fanon? Another part of the movie that stuck out to me was the strategy used by the FLN compared to the strategy used by French military forces. It seemed that the attacks by the FLN were far more coordinated and tried to avoid as many unnecessary casualties while the French attacks were more about attacking with whatever violence necessary and sending a message. However, they later came up with a new idea as the FLN persisted. This idea was to “cut off the head” of the FLN by taking out the main movers/leaders of the resistance. When they were able to do this, it put a significant damper on the Algerian resistant movement, so this raises the question: does a resistance thrive better with or without a “head?” Was it better for there to be a select few leaders or did the resistance thrive all as one group?
The film “The Battle of Algiers” exemplifies from the beginning the ideas that we have been discussing through are readings of Frantz Fanon’s book “The Wretched of the Earth”. Fanon talks about how violence is effective in decolonization because of the violent nature of colonization in the first place. At the beginning of the film you see what seems like the end of torturous session with the french army and an Algerian. The audience is able to tell very quickly that the Algerian has been tortured due to his physical and mental state. He seems to have given up some information in order to end the torture and the french soldiers then seem to be more “friendly” to him. They tell him to get dressed and that he will with them and perhaps be a soldier for them and work for them? The Algerian is extremely opposed to even though it seems as though he might be considered safe in this situation. But to him it is not safe because it further removes him from his people and his culture. We have been discussing how there are different forms of violence in colonization including the form that strips the colonized peoples of their identity and culture. When Fanon talks about the colonizer he says, “The former colonial power multiplies its demand and accumulates concessions and guarantees, taking fewer and fewer precautions to mask the hold it has over the national government” (Fanon 112). In the case of the film, the French are still very present but exemplify this idea by taking control of the police and barricading off parts of the city. Would Fanon agree more with the more radical acts of violence that individuals take in the film such as Ali, or would he think that the ideas of Jafaar, that are sometimes more cautious, are more strategic in decolonization?
“The Battle of Algiers” showed the brutality of the French colonists against the Algiers; however the latter fought back with the language that the colonists understand, violence. Fanon’s work in “The Wretched of the Earth,” speaks violence into action in the form of decolonization. It was obvious that the French viewed the Algiers as inferior through the quotes from Colonel Mathieu. Mathieu says, “It’s a faceless enemy, unrecognizable, blending with hundreds of others. It is everywhere. In cafes, in the alleys of Casbah, or in the very streets of the European quarter”(56:37). He addresses the FLN members as “it” over and over. I think what Colonel Mathieu couldn’t see, was how the Algiers were gaining autonomy and agency from the violence. The violence acted as a cleansing force to the colonized as Fanon states (51). Do you think the FLN would have been able to gain this agency if they used more non violent acts? From the film I could see how the violence by the colonists had such a strong psychological effect on the colonized and this created agency in the Algiers. The Algiers fought with passion and agency and the FLN united together against the French.
I also wonder if the outcome of the battle would have been different if the FLN did not go on strike or if they would have ended it early. It seemed like Ali thought they should be doing something but the other FLN leader convinced him it was the right thing to do. Do you think that the outcome would have been different if the strike did not happen and the FLN continued to use violence? Should the colonized ever rely on an organization like the UN to help them such as in the case of the Battle of Algiers?
There are many connections about violence and the politics between “Wretched of the Earth” and “The Battle of Algiers”. On page 146, Fanon Frantz states that, “At the first signs of a dispute, colonialism feigns comprehension by acknowledging with ostentatious humility that the territory is suffering from serious underdevelopment that requires major social and economic reforms.” Also on page 146, “Even when it comes to filling their bellies, colonialism proves to be inherently powerless.” These two quotes stuck out to me in relation to the scene in the film where soldiers are seen giving out bread and food to Algerians. However, this scene was in the middle of the altercations that had happened between the FLN and the French Army. Is this an example of the colonists attempting to solve the Algerians problems with a social approach, instead of the military approach? Why was it in between the fighting of the two groups? Was this an attempt to address the economic problems and development of Algeria?
There were several similarities and overarching themes between the film, “The Battle of Algiers” and Frantz Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth.” Most notably, the portrayals of violence and violence being needed in order to achieve a sort of freedom are very apparent observations from both media forms. In Fanon’s work, there is fairly explicit mention of possible reasons behind why colonialism had and continues to occur; one reason being the “backwardness” that the indigenous-to-be-colonized live by. Fanon states, “Black Africa is looked upon as a wild, savage, uncivilized, and lifeless region,” and then goes on to talk about how this “backward” group of people need to be Westernized in the form of colonialism (pg. 108). He states, “… the bourgeoisie ideology that proclaims all men to be essentially equal, manages to remain consistent with itself by urging the subhuman to rise to the level of Western humanity…” (pg. 110).
Using this, Fanon goes on to talk about how there is unity in knowledge and how language and power over another through this language, can cause dispossession. It is through intentions and explanation that can either strip the people of their sovereignty or allow them to understand (Fanon, pg. 131). I am wondering if this is the point that is being made about using violence against violence. Throughout the reading, film, and in class discussions, we have focused heavily on violence and what the ‘correct’ form of action is in attempts to decolonize and sort of earn back this state of having agency. I am wondering if it is through knowledge that violence was used in the film, or rather because the Algiers had no other option? Is there a difference between the two? What I mean is, in the spaces where violence is used against violence, is that done because that is the one similar language the two are able to speak and have meaning (knowledge); or is violence against violence a more common result in situations where all else has failed (no other option)?
I am also wondering where cooperation typically, and best fits in this situation. It was expressed early on in the film that cooperation was the first step towards any independence. Cooperation was shown through Ali attempting to kill the police officer, and although unsuccessful, he was able to gain the trust and backing of his fellow people. But here, violence was used first in order to prove a sort of cooperation and trust. We can also see through the film that cooperation and organization didn’t always lead to the end one might be hoping for, as seen by the strike. I don’t know if there is really a right or wrong answer, but I am wondering where (typically) cooperation fits in when violence has been decided as the answer.
This week I wanted to talk about the connections between Fanon, Gandhi and the film we watched, The Battle of Algiers. I really enjoyed watching this film, I think it was very well produced for the time period and it was one of the more interesting films we have watched. The film started with small scale attacks, killing a few policemen here and there then the violence increasing escalated. The most significant I think was the bombings from both sides of the war. What reminded me of Fanon in this film was the start of violence, and not really getting anywhere then the use of non violence. The FLN led a one week strike. I think Fanon would agree with both the use of violence and non violence to create change. How do you think Gandhi would react to this film? What Ideas would align with Gandhi’s beliefs?
(Understand, my response is coming from a person who spent a good portion of his adult life fighting the war on terror.)
I understand the plight of the downtrodden. I definitely understand wanting to rebel against a tyrannical government. It is of course what our nation was founded on.
However, as I watched this movie, there were certain things that bothered me. I do not like people who use bombs to indiscriminately kill. But there was a point in the movie where one of the head honcho’s brought up a good point. When confronted with the same question he said, “Then give me planes and napalm.”
Neither side had the moral high ground here. The French were using torcher, bombs, and executions. The Algerians were using bombs and children to kill their own people, the dregs of society as they saw it (drunks, drug users and prostitutes).
I did notice some similarities that didn’t change from the 1950’s to 2001. After 9/11 we found out that the reason terrorists were so hard to track was because they didn’t use standard methods of communication. The literally passed notes to each other. Cells were also set up in a similar manner, so that one group had no idea what the other was doing.
Here is my question: many probably feel quite a bit of sympathy for the Algerians. But I ask you this, what if this were to happen in the United States in 2022? Pick your disaffected group in modern society. Would you be ok with the random bombings of buildings with people in it that the disaffected thought of as the enemy? What if these tactics were used on January 6, 2020? Understand, you don’t have to agree with their cause, or lack there of. You might think the group is absolutely nuts. I’m sure many French people thought the same of the Algerians as their social areas became places of danger.
When looking at Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth and comparing I to the movie The Battle of Algeria, there are many similar connections to be made. I think that the events that occurred in The Battle of Algeria is a great example of what The Wretched of the Earth is trying to say about decolonization. That is the use of violence to either send a message or effectivly decolonize from First World order. We see this in the main character, Ali, and his rebellion. We see the violence of the French military with the unjust use for torture and killing to keep in control. We also see the racism in the dialogue between the French and the Algerians. Franz Fanon includes the major effect of racism on the control of colonialism and can be seen in the movie quite a lot.
After watching the film Battle of Algiers and reading Franz Gabon’s The Wretched Earth it is obvious that there are parallels between Violence and Revolution. In the Film there are violent revolutionists called the FLN who are against imperialism and the French rule over Algerians. It also has a religious aspect about it because the Algiers are Islamic and also obvious racism. The French reciprocate the violence of bombings and shootings. There are many attacks a day. Franz Fanon talks about how the colonized must rise up against the colonizers who have created the very corrupt system they live in. He states that there must be violence and that there will always be violence when there is a revolution, “..decolonization is always a violent event”. The FLN is doing exactly this. Fanon also states in his book that the colonizers only understand violence, and we see this happen in the film. The French start paying attention after violence has been struck against them. Fanon states “to destroy the colonial world means nothing less than demolishing the colonists sector, burning it deep within the earth..”(pg6) and he talks of the Algerian Revolution and one quote that stood out to me is “One of the greatest services, the Algerian revolution has rendered to Algerian intellectuals, was to put them in touch with the masses to allow them to see the extreme unspeakable poverty of the people in at the same time witness, the awakening of their intelligence and the development of their consciousness.” (pg 130). Fanon is saying here that the masses of people/peasants can overturn dictators and decolonize if they work together violently or nonviolently. We have talked a lot about non-violence earlier in the semester and how it does work. After learning about how violence can positively impact decolonization, what do you think Ghandi would tell the revolutionists in FLN? Do you think he would understand that violence might need to be met with more violence, especially in this situation? What do you think Fanon would say to Ghandi about the Battle of Algeirs?
Both the reading “The Wretched Earth” and the viewing of the film “Battle of Algiers” exemplify the use of violence and the struggle between colonized people and those who have colonized them. In the film as time continued so did the violence shown, the longer the film went on the more violence was escalated. Both sides used violence the french used torture and killing while the Algerians used more stealthy calculated methods of violence. The Algerian’s use of violence is largely for their freedom “One cannot divorce the combat for culture from the people’s struggle for liberation.” (168). Their struggle for freedom and the despair people had to face was constant as exemplified with this quote from The Wretched Earth“Everybody will be slaughtered or tortured, and within the context of the independent nation, everyone will suffer the same hunger and marasmus. (140).” While the use of violence by Algerian people was for their freedom at the end of the day many were injured and many innocent died at the hands of these attacks. Both the Algerian people and the French who colonized them used violence. Both suffered losses. While in many ways it is easy to emphasize with the Algerian people and the horrid conditions they had to face it is also easier to they still used violence like the French. At the end of it, many lost their lives to this conflict. What could have happened if more social or political options were chosen? If there non-violent efforts akin to Gandhian practices? Would non-violent efforts work in these situations?
The film, The Battle of Algiers, depicts the struggle faced between the FLN and the French authorities. By the end of the film, there is no resolution, instead, the conflict continues as the Algerians rise in demonstrations demanding still for their independence, pride, and freedom. The film visualizes militant struggle and the call for people to take ownership of their history in the fight for liberation. A lot of what is depicted connects to Fanon’s work in “The Wretched of the Earth.” Fanon’s work demonstrates that struggle can create a sort of consciousness. He says that “An isolated individual can resist understanding an issue, but the group, the village, grasps it with disconcerting speed”(130). It is seen in the film that for either side to advance they must work as a collective. Towards the beginning of the film, one of the children involved with the FLN says that “Men have two faces. One smiles, one cries.” Does this conflict with Fanon’s statement or support it? Also in conflict, it is generally accepted that each side has only one side to take to. Combat, as depicted in the film, is violent, and the men behind the weapon are categorized with this. However, there is more to an individual than the violence they must turn to as a form of agency. While violence can be used as a unifying force, are men condemned to violence from the start because of history? For both sides in this struggle, is there another method that could have been utilized to achieve the same goal? Is it possible to obtain liberation and maintain one’s culture?
In section III, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon speaks about how easily national consciousness can disappear. Much of this he attributes to the bourgeoisie, saying they took over the roles the colonists once had. “The national bourgeoisie of each of these two major regions, who have assimilated to the core the most despicable aspects of the colonial mentality, take over from the Europeans and lay the foundations for a racist philosophy that is terribly prejudicial to the future of Africa” (102). Furthermore, Fanon argues that the bourgeoisie weakened national identity for the purpose of gaining power. Similarly to Gandhi, Fanon believes the bourgeoisie should reject their status and join the “peasant masses”, who are responsible for developing national identity. When forming a new national identity, how can corruption and self-serving behavior at the expense of unity be prevented?
Sorry, I forgot to add my name to the post!
The Battle of Algiers tells the story of the FLN, a band of resistants attempting to liberate Algeria from French colonial rule. Several times throughout the movie, the police would compare the FLN movement as a tape worm, stating that you can only killing it by removing the head. The analogy implies that the FLN group cannot survive without their strong leaders. In “The Wretched of The Earth,” Fanon states that “…in certain regions the party is organized like a gang whose toughest member takes over the leadership. The leader’s ancestry and powers are readily mentioned, and in a knowing and slightly admiring tone it is quickly pointed out that he inspires awe in his close collaborators. In order to avoid these many pitfalls a persistent battle has to be waged to prevent the party from becoming a compliant instrument in the hands of a leader. Leader comes from the English verb “to lead,” meaning “to drive” in French.15 The driver of people no longer exists today. People are no longer a herd and do not need to be driven. If the leader drives me I want him to know that at the same time I am driving him. The nation should not be an affair run by a big boss. Hence the panic that grips government circles every time one of their leaders falls ill, because they are obsessed with the question of succession: What will happen to the country if the leader dies? The influential circles, who in their blind irresponsibility are more concerned with safeguarding their lifestyle, their cocktail parties, their paid travel and their profitable racketeering, have abdicated in favor of a leader and occasionally discover the spiritual void at the heart of the nation.” In this passage, Fanon acknowledges certain downfalls of having too strong of leadership. Would Fanon think that the FLN leadership had the capacity to reach such a point if able? Is there a possibility that strong leadership is necessary in the beginning stages of a movement yet there comes a time when ‘power’ should be shared?
In section III, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon speaks about how easily national consciousness can disappear. Much of this he attributes to the bourgeoisie, saying they took over the roles the colonists once had. “The national bourgeoisie of each of these two major regions, who have assimilated to the core the most despicable aspects of the colonial mentality, take over from the Europeans and lay the foundations for a racist philosophy that is terribly prejudicial to the future of Africa” (102). Furthermore, Fanon argues that the bourgeoisie weakened national identity for the purpose of gaining power. Similarly to Gandhi, Fanon believes the bourgeoisie should reject their status and join the “peasant masses”, who are responsible for developing national identity. When forming a new national identity, how can corruption and self-serving behavior at the expense of unity be prevented?
Violence can take many forms and I think as a Western society we like to view our violence as civilized because we slowly suffocate, and we view others violence as ugly or uncivilized because they use different tactics. I think “Wretched of the Earth” makes a good point when Franz Fanon says “A government or a party gets the people it deserves and sooner or later a people gets the government it deserves.”, he is saying that when the people deserve something they often get pushed to their limits to get it, in this case violence is that limit. He is saying that violence is useful because it often works, and that is also why many western cultures try to deem southern forms of violence as bad. Fanon wants the people to use violence early on rather than later because that way they are liberated faster and can set precedents. This correlates to “Battle of Algiers” because in the film we are introduced to a group of people fighting for the ruling they deserve and they are taking the leap and reaching for violence rather than waiting longer. The French used tactics that western societies view as usual and “just a part of war” like torture and gun violence, while the Algerians used methods that were uncivilized like bombings and other “sneaky” tactics. This contrast between methods but steady increase of violence on both sides show that violence can come in many forms, but often times it kills many, especially when both sides choose violence. But the point of the film is to show that one group being the Algerians were using violence as a way to end the violence against them, while the French were using violence as a control method and a way to keep oppressing the Algerians. I think this ties into the idea Fanon is trying to convey that violence is a tool meant to be used for the oppressed as a way to liberate themselves.
General Mathieu presents a dilemma for a Fanonian understanding of social change under colonialism. He is presented in the film as being passive and adverse to the colonial process playing out in Algeria. In the press conference, for example, he is seemingly putting the question of the French involvement in Algeria as a colonial entity onto the people of France itself. I find this interesting in comparing Fanon’s understanding of the inhumanity that colonization is supposedly supposed to embody as a main pillar of its existence. I wonder, then in what ways does Mathieu disrupt Fanon’s notion of the colonizer? What was the benefit of this film in showing the colonizer as having a semblance of humanity?
“The Wretched of the Earth,” by Frantz Fanon parts three and four were a direct continuation of his discourse on colonization and decolonization, and the existing violence acted upon therein, that can be summed up by a quote in the beginning of the book, “It is naked violence and only gives in to greater violence” (23). Onward, he finds somewhat an epiphany in remedying the backward motion, “The militant therefore is one who works” (44). Yet, despite the horrific events contained in the film, “Battle of Algiers,” juxtaposed with messages of hope in the unison of common bounds in humanity, he continues to find a way forward, “The party must be the direct expression of the masses. The party is not an administration with the mission of transmitting government orders. It is the vigorous spokesperson and and the incorruptible defender of the masses” (130). Here he prioritizes the political responsibility of new rule, indeed an advancement of concern in the defensive over the offensive, “No leader, whatever his worth, can replace the will of the people, and the national government, before concerning itself with international prestige, must first restore dignity to all citizens, furnish their minds, fill their eyes with human things and develop a human landscape for the sake of its enlightened and sovereign inhabitants” (144). Such a well-professed vision of the future, taking catastrophe and seeing it through to the evolving movements that liberated so many people there. “If culture is the expression of the national consciousness, I shall have no hesitation in saying, in the case in point, that national consciousness is the highest form of culture” (179). I believe he strikes a cord in the psyche of man, illustrating that the whole sometimes is simply just the sum of its parts, and through that struggle of freedom and self-actualization, becomes more consciously aware of each individual within it. My question is, how come I have never heard of this guy before?
In section III of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon speaks of intra-colonized violence as a form of misdirected anticolonial aggression. In The Battle of Algiers, the FLN is seen to rut out people and elements of Algerian society that they consider subversive or weakening, like pimps and drunks, through differing levels of violence. The FLN classifies this as strengthening the revolution, though this seems like it could also be considered a form of intra-colonized violence. Which is it? Or, is it both? Can violence between colonized peoples in a society be considered constructive to decolonization?
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon describes violence as a uniting national force which can be used to point the anger and injustice of the people towards a common enemy, in this case colonial rule. Fanon pictures this violence as coordinated guerilla warfare, and it is well realized in the film The Battle of Algiers. The FLN uses the French’s perceived homogeneity of the Algerians to hide often in plain sight, and slip into a crowd after committing violence. As a result of the violent resistance conducted by the FLN, a residence building gets bombed by french authorities resulting in destruction and death of innocents (37:10). This reminded me of the church bombings during the American Civil Rights movement. My question is if this violent strategy is viable in the modern age where the technological and military gap between the state and the people has only grown wider and wider. With GPS tracking, drones, and other surveillance state tactics, along with powerful weapons and machinery, do you think the hit and run guerilla tactics would be effective in a modern era, and would more civilians be possibly caught in the crossfire?
The film was fascinating in how it was portrayed. The outlook on violence is left to the viewer. Ethier way you look at it in this case the NLF took Fannon’s way of violence as the answer. But it is up to the viewer to interpret it as good or bad. Is the violence saving the NLF or are they terrorists attacking innocent people? I also find it interesting that women’s use of power in this is almost kind of like Gandhi In how they want to change but they choose to create change by not breaking any laws and remaining rather quiet compared to people like Djafar. It has a survival of the fittest aspect in that you have to do what you can to survive no matter the motives. This brings me back to Fannon’s explanation on page 19 When he describes liberation as ego boosting which is the case in the film, they got on a roll and keep going. He also says there is no real reason to fight the because of the mythical structures that contain far more terrifying adversaries that lead to permanent confrontation. He goes on to say all this turmoil od because someone wants reform for urgent issues that keep everyone on edge. This to me connects to the film because the NLF wanted to do the same things that the police should have been doing but they overstepped their boudnried to create reform that led to something worse than it should have been. Out of Ghandi and Fannon which tacic would fit the scenario better? Or could they have used fannons way in a different technique to create change?
The intentional structure of the FLN served many purposes in the initial phases of the fight for independence. As one of the main members or the organization stated before the strike began in the film, “Its hard enough to start a revolution, even harder to sustain it, and hardest of all to win it.” The members of the FLN served as representatives of the movement, and equipped the rest of the Algerians with the tools to reach the eventual end goal of independence. Once the internal structure of the FLN was dismantled by the French, the prediction was that the ‘tapeworm could no longer enlarge itself because the head had been chopped off’. This naive assumption was falsely proven when Algeria achieved decolonization nearly two years after the initial conflicts depicted in the film. The mobilization of thousands of Algerians in the capital after the main figures in the FLN were murdered or imprisoned revealed that the organization’s main role as acting as a catalyst had been achieved- the true fate of the movement was left within the hearts of the masses.
Fanon had philosophized that the lumpenproletariat was the strongest revolutionary force in society. In The Wretched of the Earth he states, “You could be sure of a new recruit when he could no longer go back into the colonial system (85)” . This belief correlated with recruitment strategies carried out by the FLN, as depicted by the role of Ali in the main sequences in the film. The majority of the film focused on the conflicts between the French army and the FLN, however much of the process of developing a revolutionary mindset within the rest of Algerians was left out of the narrative. Was this achieved solely by utilizing the lumpenproletariat as a means to set an example of violent resistance? What are other strategies that the FLN utilized to ensure that their actions would be carried out beyond themselves?
The film, Battle of Algiers, overlaps with many beliefs and methods that Fanon had an promoted. Early on in the film, the Algerians say that their combat is directed against colonialism and that to avoid bloodshed, the government should negotiate their propositions with them. I feel as though this directly parallels with Fanon from page 23-24 when he says, “Nonviolence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around the negotiating table before the irreparable is done…But if the masses take matters into their own hands and start burning and killing, it is not long before we see the ‘elite’ and the leaders of the bourgeois nationalists parties turn to the colonial authorities and tell them: this is terribly serious.. we must find an answer, we must find a compromise.” He is saying that with violence, the elites answer, which is what the Algerians intended when saying that to avoid bloodshed, their propositions should be heard? I would think that Fanon would support these ideas, as they fit into his perspective well, but what would our other authors think?
Fanon opens part 4 with the sentence ” Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.” (p. 145) Being in sustainable development, I think many of us would consider climate change and environmental justice our generation’s “mission.” However, outside of our community, I wonder if others of our generation would feel the same?
In the film the I noticed a lot of theming around the fact the French treated the Indigenous people of Algeria horribly. This is much like in Fanon speaks on in The Wretched of the Earth. The colonizer will always think that they are the native ones because of their factories and “luxurious” things. It is important to realize this in our daily lives when we critique American, and other western countries values.
Also the film is violent which agrees with Fanons point that decolonization is inherently violent. I wonder if he would agree with what the Algerians were doing of if he would advocate for more strategic planning and what not?
The Battle of Algiers and Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth overlap in their approach to decolonization in a number of ways. Firstly, and most obviously, violence is promoted in both mediums as a way to dismantle the colonial systems present because expressions of violence are clearly recognized and easily communicated to colonizers. Watching the film displayed the depth of Fanon’s transformation by the Algerian War and how he used the tactics used in this revolution to inspire his theory, which went on to inspire the Black Panther Party. This passing down of revolutionary knowledge made me wonder how intricately connected all social movements are to one another. This thought led me to reinterpret my idea of social change and understand that fighting one social battle is carrying a historic legacy of theory and tactics that might be overlooked. How are the social movements that you are a part of also fighting for similar goals or passing down the knowledge of prolific social movements? Is it important to recognize the origins of social movements to comprehend their weight and connect issues of the present to conflicts of the past? If so, why?
I thought that The Battle of Algiers demonstrated many of Fanon’s approaches for decolonizing. As Fanon has said before, decolonization does involve violence. I felt that the Algerian leader was much like the colonists in Fanon’s work, while the French government was the colonizers. To throw the French government, we see the Algerian leader participate in brutal violence with little to no limits on how far he will go.
Jade!
After watching the movie “The Battle of Algiers”, I saw a lot that resembled what Fanon had said in his “The Wretched of the Earth”. Fanon has stated that violence is needed in decolonization and that is what we see in the movie. while reading Fanon, I read a quote that reminded me of the movie a bit. Fanon states ” colonialism was not seeking to be perceived by the indigenous population as a sweet, kindhearted mother who protects her child from a hostile environment, but rather a mother who consistently prevents her basically perverse child from committing suicide or giving free reign to its malevolent instincts. The colonial mother is protecting the child from itself, from its ego, it’s philosophy, it’s biology, and it’s ontological misfortune.” (Fanon, 149).
Do you think the French government in Algeria was protecting the Algerian people from its own actions? Do you think that they were doing them a kindness by occupying their motherland? After watching the movie and reading the quote stated above, I can see how Fanon saw the French government as a mother who was protecting Algeria from its own actions and self.
The film, Battle of Algiers shows the true ideals behind violence and decolonization through Fanon’s approaches. As it has been said through time violence and decolonization do not involve one another. In the film with the timeline of the Algieran war and continuing events we see the rise of many social movements such as the black panther party. when Fanon states that “Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.” (p. 145). I believe this relates with each time period due to the injustices and uncertainties of the future.
Questions: What tactics would better fit the new social movements? what would Ghandi and Fannon think?
Quick comparisons between the film “The Battle of Algiers” and Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” can be made with their shared overarching theme of anti-colonial violence. I was interesting in the film violence was used by both sides and never portrayed as a solely positive act. We have discussed how a fast assumption can be made that Fanon endorses violence and I think the same assumption can be made about the film. They have similar views of de-colonial violence being a necessary evil that is not to be taken lightly. In the film, three women are sent into the french public to place bombs. There is an interesting moment before each woman leaves the bag where they look around the room, and you can see the remorse in their eyes but not hesitation because they know it is necessary even when it doesn’t feel humane. I think this is an important distinction when looking at Fanon’s view on violence. Would you agree with how the film doesn’t pick a side when portraying violence from both parties? Or is there a moral difference between colonial violence and anti-colonial violence?
Between viewing the film, Battle of Algiers and our continued reading of Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, there were many correlating ideologies and methods used by Pontecorvo and Fanon. The rebellion of the FLN against the French followed suit with the methods of violence against colonialism discussed by Fanon. The idea of fighting violence with violence comes into play in both works, as we can see that although the FLN had to commit many acts of violence, they deemed it necessary to ensure the French would hear them. Fanon states that colonizers only understand violence which we see an example of in the film. The French only start paying attention to the FLN and their demands once they themselves have been struck by violence. Fanon speaks about the Algerian Revolution and says “One of the greatest services, the Algerian Revolution has rendered to Algerian intellectuals, was to put them in touch with the masses to allow them to see the extreme unspeakable poverty of the people in at the same time witness, the awakening of their intelligence and the development of their consciousness” (Fanon, 130). This is talking about gathering the masses of the lower class, or as Fanon says, peasants, and how these groups together are able to successfully decolonize by working together for the good of the people in their nation. After viewing the film and seeing how violence can help in the struggle toward decolonization, do you think Fanon would agree with the strategies and tactics used by the FLN or would he opt for different methods?
In part three, Fanon implies that the people haven’t actually come very far if they are still under a colonial system. Fanon argues that it makes little difference if the colonial power is pulling the strings of oppression from abroad or from directly within the nation. In both scenarios, he implies, it is still colonialism, and it must be dismantled just like the practice of colonialism was for so many. Like the colonial power, the dictator manipulates the formerly colonized and banks on their history of struggle and war to drum up support. My question is, can you think of a country that is currently going through this, or has gone through this? Is there any way for us to help or encourage this process?
Like everyone before me, I think that the main theme between Franz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth and Gillo Pontecorvo’s film The Battle of Algiers is the role of violence. Early on in Fanon’s writing, his take on the subject becomes clear, and he is strongly in favor of acts of violence. Frantz is in favor of violence due to the unjust behavior that has been done to him, his people, and all those colonized. This thought is cemented by quotes like, “It is obvious here that the agents of government speak the language of pure force.” and “…the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain…the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays.”
The film focuses on the Algerian revolution and the Algerians regaining their freedom using acts of resistance against the French.
In both perspectives, these acts of violence weren’t seen as a question of wrong or right, they were seen as a necessity to survival.
To further the severity of the situation in these two works, to further justify their stance on violence, after the release of Battle of Algiers, the French government banned the movie for upward of 5 years. This wouldn’t have been done if the French government didn’t acknowledge their wrongdoings in the situation. I am curious why the film was then unbanned? Perhaps people protested for it or did the French feel that enough time had passed and it was no longer a threat?
Nonetheless, the overarching theme of violence in both of these works sparked important conversations per their releases and have helped people gain true perspectives on history.
In the film, The Battle of Algiers it described the struggle between the people of Algeria against the French colonists after their rain of influence. The film shows many parallels to Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. The ideas of violence presented by Fanon correlate to the actions of the people of Algiers. Fanon argues that fighting violence with violence is the only way to bring about change by fighting for one’s people. We see that violence today is very prominent with the threat of war, actual war, environmental destruction and many more. Is the world condemned to violence? Are there other methods to ensure change?
In The Battle of Algiers and in Fanon’s “Wretched of The Earth”, there is an obvious overarching, connecting theme, which is that violence is needed to fight the violence of colonialism. It seems as if in both works, morals were not really a consideration, as if violence just had to happen based on the circumstances, and it was very mechanical- whether it is right or wrong was not really discussed. I have found these works interesting because they contrast a lot of the other works we have seen, in the sense that violence is not usually the answer. I believe that Fanon would agree and support a lot of the methods of violence and attempts at destruction of the French colonial structures, as he would probably say that those violent tactics of colonialism are the only language they speak, and so for them to understand that violence must ensue. I believe that both works make it obvious that in order to get the gears turning for change in the face of colonialism, it takes a lot of anger from the oppressed, which is what fuels the violence that is the driver for change. In Wretched of the Earth, Fanon states, “It is therefore a diplomacy in motion, in rage, which contrasts strangely with the petrified, motionless world of colonization” ( page 37). This idea is portrayed by the anger and warfare tactics of the FLN as well.
My question is, what if instead of using blatant violence and outward aggressions toward the French, the FLN had stayed on the down-low and more undercover? If they had been more controlled and methodical in their approaches could they have stayed more easily hidden, so the French would not know who to target and they could continue to do their work for longer periods of time?