Frantz Fanon’s book, ‘Wretched of the Earth,’ takes a very different approach to disbanding colonial countries from their homeland than Gandhi did. Specifically, Fanon emphasizes that “decolonization is always a violent event” (1). Fanon goes on to talk about the colonizers. He states that “all colonists are the same” and that they all are “absolute evil,” “malevolent powers” that are capable of “destroying everything within reach” (6; 49). He also outlines colonizers as “the enemy of values” (6). That being said, is it possible to be a citizen of a colonizing country (like you and me) and not be categorized as evil and the “enemy of values” (6)? Or do we, by association, also bear the same title? Are we, as citizens, part of the problem or is it strictly the government and the politicians who are the evil beings and the colonizers?
I think its important to think of the colonizer as a product of their environment; in the same sense as Michael Foucault describing criminals as a product of oppressive legal infrastructure. Empathy is something the colonizer lacks and if we do not look onto the colonist with consideration, we are no more virtuous. The colonizer is a product of culture and expectation not necessarily a product of inherent greed or malevolence. Although, people cannot avoid participating in colonialism if they exist in a colonialist nation. Our consumer and political choices are limited to a scarce variety that almost always contribute to the exploitation of developing nations and their citizens. Our most ethical choices at grocery stores, retail shops, and hardware stores are in some way connected to some variety of colonialism (organic food is connected to immigrant worker injustices; most of our clothes are manufactured in the periphery; metals are mined in Africa). We are also misled by greenwashing methods into thinking our choices are ethical, but the level of obscenity is only marginally less than that of products not marketed as sustainable. We are part of the problem until we lead the market in a precise direction and until political and consumer options expand. Politicians, like doctors, lawyers, and capitalists, are concerned with economic gain and power. Until sustainability and international unity start to get them votes and campaign funds, they will not enact change. I think we are part of the problem but we can be drivers of gradual progressive change by demanding peace and virtue through nonviolent action.
I find the idea of violence against others and sometimes in ourselves is sometimes the fear in which is put upon us through the entrapment and configuration of our own ideologies. My basis for my question and this comment come from the passage on page lii, where it talks about how anger is used in the presence of fear or helplessness but the violence that comes from this anger if push amongst themselves and seems to only enlighten the work of the oppressors. My question states; Could the use of violence attained from decolonization through the perspective of the oppressed be used to obliterate the oppressors without fully acknowledging the fear that pushes us to fight against our own brothers? Will we have to fall into the hands of violence to be free or is there something that could replace it and still be able to have the same outcome?
Frantz Fannon’s book, “The Wretched of the Earth,” speaks about the racial discrimination and injustices that happened during his time. Fanon says, “the singularity of the colonial context lies in the fact that economic reality, inequality, and enormous disparities in lifestyles never manage to mask the human reality” (5). By this, he is saying that the injustices occurring in people’s lives as a society still do not make their lives better as individuals. How is this displayed in today’s society? Also, Fanon says, “the cause is effect: you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich” (5), as he refers to the relationship between race and social class. As the world continues to grow as a community, this statement has started to become less false. While there is still a difference, we are better than what we used to be. If this stigma was never created, how would our society look today?
“The great mistake, the inherent flaw of most of the political parties in the underdeveloped regions has been traditionally to address first and foremost the most politically conscious elements: the urban proletariat, the small tradesmen and the civil servants, i.e., a tiny section of the population which represents barely more than one percent (Fanon, 64).”
The colonized intellectuals make up 1% of the country and make up most of the political parties. Therefore, they decide how the other 99% live. The colonized intellectuals, also known as the urban proletariat, are the most privileged in society and they do not want to dismantle colonial power because then they will lose their privilege and power. This means that there is a conflict of interest between the urban proletariat and the masses. Furthermore, the urban proletariat believe that the masses are politically unconscious and generally uneducated. The colonists work to maintain their power over the masses by basically pitting them against each other. This idea of causing conflict between the general public reminds me of something that is happening today with the political parties. With the world being so divided then not much progress can be made. If nobody can agree on anything then nothing will change. There is a major problem with our two party system because it forces a divide between society and makes people have to choose either democrat or republican. I believe Fanon would agree with me because he states that political parties act in ways that are counterproductive to the developing nation. It is hard to imagine the US without a two party system. What do you think the US would look like without a two party system? What would need to be done in order for that to happen?
At the beginning of ‘Wretched of the Earth’, Fanon elaborates on the violence experienced during both colonization and decolonization. Fanon explains how intermediaries, such as police officers or the military, often instilled violence in those that were being colonized. “In colonial countries, on the contrary, the policeman and the soldier, by their immediate presence and their frequent and direct action maintain contact with the native and advise him by means of rifle-butts and napalm not to budge. It is obvious here that the agents of government speak the language of pure force. The intermediary does not lighten the oppression, nor seek to hide domination…yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native” (30). Of those that became violent, was it because of the act of violence they encountered or because of who performed said act of violence? How is this reflective of what is currently happening in the United States?
In Fanon’s discussion on violence on page 12 he states “…in the end we all want the same thing.” This quote really stood out to me because throughout Fanon’s section on violence he outlines the underlying issues that seem to have caused violence throughout the history of America or first world countries. Starting from the colonizers to the colonized Fanon looks at how white privilege has provoked violence over the course of history. The quote on page 12 poses a good statement and question on why does violence occur at all, especially if people or “all want the same thing.” All people want the same thing which is to live a or “the good life” whatever that looks like. From Fanon’s ideas that he presents one significant reason for violence stems from coming into space or location with an agenda. When a “colonizer” came into America for instance they colonized the land that belonged to the Native Americans and their agenda in this case was to take the land for themselves. An agenda ultimately, takes away anyone’s voice or more importantly, their agency and their power to make executive decisions or have their opinion be heard. The concept of agency and coming into a space with an agenda can definitely cause violence to erupt because at the end of the day if people are not getting “the same thing” as others, such as basic rights or resources then violence occurs as a result. An additional term that is connect to agency is exclusion because if someone agency is taken away people are being excluded from something and their voice may become oppressed. When multiple voices are exclude violence can break out result as well.
A similar scenario occurs with the treatment of minorities in America or the interaction/trade between first and third world countries, where people’s agency is taken away.
How can people become aware or educated on eliminating the issue of exclusion, as well as understanding that “we all want the same thing?”
Furthermore, do you think if people understood that “we all want the same thing,” would there be less violence in the long run?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi advocates for a revolution of the oppressed by acts of non-violence. He believes that the means by which people achieve liberation directly correlates with the ends resulting from the revolution. If people chose to achieve liberation by violence their freedom and power will result in violence. If people achieve liberation non-violently, their freedom will constitute peace. In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon sees it differently. He believes that colonialism “is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence” (23). In other words, liberation can only be achieved by force or through violence. In comparison, MLK shares the same ideas as Gandhi, and Malcolm X shares the same ideas as Fanon. Malcolm rejected King’s message of nonviolence, and King rejected Malcolm’s message of violence. At present day, with the continued struggle for Black liberation through the BLM movement, how can we as a generation determine the most effective way to bring about change in our society? What is the best strategy in the fight against racism and police brutality? Should we follow the methods of Fanon and Malcolm or Gandhi and King? Is there a middle ground to explore in the methods of Stokely Carmichael?
Many others have pointed out the opposing nature of Gandhi’s and Fanon’s approaches to decolonization. Both recognize the brutality that colonization necessitates; Gandhi likens Britain to a Tiger, and Fanon writes “‘Europe, where they are never done talking of Man, yet murder men everywhere they find them'” (Preface p.11). Both revile the domination colonization brings, both in the material, as well as the epistemological sense. However, obviously their responses to the injustices of colonization were in direct opposition; Gandhi stressed nonviolence, while Fanon writes “decolonization is always a violent event” (p.1). Gandhi’s methods were ultimately able to allow India to gain independence, however I believe that Fanon would argue that India was not successfully decolonized, as it remained entangled with the global capitalist matrix of power after gaining independence. As Andre Frank argues, and Fanon would most likely agree, the global capitalist system necessarily creates a “core” and a “periphery”, the former extracting value from the latter, and participation in this system (often coerced) creates a codependent relationship between core nations and periphery nations. As India was unable to break free from this state of codependency with capitalism, I believe Fanon might argue that India remains a colony. Fanon writes “we must achieve revolutionary socialism all together everywhere, or else one by one we would be defeated by our former masters” (Preface p.11). He also writes “decolonization… is clearly an agenda for total disorder” (p.1). Both of these quotations suggest that Fanon believes that decolonization is not complete when the colonizers are removed, but when the systems they imposed are removed as well. When comparing the opposing approaches to decolonization of Gandhi and Fanon, I am reminded of the well-known Audre Lorde quote “We cannot dismantle the Master’s house with the Master’s tools”. I felt at first that Gandhi’s approach was most in line with Lorde’s idea. However, I was troubled by a couple of questions:
Is the violence of oppressors equal to violence of the oppressed? In other words, is the Master’s tool of violence the same tool in the hands of the oppressed?
My initial response is that, as the violence of oppressors is used as a tool to create and perpetuate additional violences, and the violence of the oppressed is often viewed as a final and, as Fanon argues, necessary response to oppression, that violence of the oppressed is far more ethical, but I’m curious to hear what others think. I’m also troubled by the question of whether or not a nonviolent movement could create the “total disorder” that Fanon argues is necessary for decolonization to be fully realized, but the question of whether or not it’s possible to dismantle the global capitalist matrix of power, the “Master’s house”, without the use of violence is probably too vague to be a very good discussion question…
In Frantz Fanon’s “The wretched of the Earth,” he seems to criticize some cultural and ritualistic practices, such as dance and the belief in different religious or mythological beings, such as Legba. He argues that these distract from the real enemy to fear- colonialism or the colonist(s) and he states that “everything is permitted, for in fact the sole purpose of the gathering is to let out the supercharged libido and the stifles aggressiveness spew out volcanically. Symbolic killings, figurative cavalcades, and imagined multiple murders, everything has to come out. The ill humors seep out, tumultuous as lave flows” (Fanon, 20). Why does he believe it is a waste of energy to practice these cultural aspects and that it defers from using that energy to face the colonists? Would giving up certain cultural aspects not also be a form of giving in to colonialism? Why does he believe that “another aspect of the colonized’s affectivity can be seen when it is drained of the energy by the ecstasy of dance” (19)? Why does he have such a critique against “phantasy” (19)?
Within the preface written by Sartre, there is a clear call to action, but also a clear call to learn and unlearn as part of the decolonization process. Sartre draws a line between men and the “native” or the “other”, a line which has existed since colonization began. Sartre argues that the colonizer is the only subject in society that gets to be a man, while others are deduced to be inhuman and subhuman. One comparison with Gandhi and Fanon is that many of the premises for decolonization are similar, such as the argument that colonization is to some extent consensual; “The status of the “native” is a neurosis introduced and maintained by the colonist in the colonized with their consent” (Sartre, IIV). This is interesting because many other philosophers and writers draw from the idea of a “rule by consent” in modern society, where the oppressed maintain oppressed through lies and distractions. “In order to delay the final reckoning and the hour of truth, they have given us the Grand Magician as our leader whose function is to keep us in the dark at any cost” (Sartre, IXI). One question that I would like to ask here would be who is the “Grand Magician”? Is rule by consent recognizable and what forms does it take within our government and elsewhere?
Another topic within the preface was about who the book was written for. Sartre states; “This book had certainly no need for a preface, especially as it is not addressed to us… we, too, peoples of Europe, we are being decolonized: meaning the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation” (Satre, IVII). It seems to be that the book’s audience is the colonists, the revolutionaries, and the common people who are oppressed. How does the colonist become decolonized? What is the primary audience of the book or is there one?
In the Preface to The Wretched of the Earth Jean-Paul Sartre states,
“If violence were only a thing of the future, if exploitation and oppression never existed on earth, perhaps displays of nonviolence might relieve the conflict. But if the entire regime, even your nonviolent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors (pg. lviii).”
So in this quote and throughout the rest of the preface the inevitability of violence is a major theme. In this quote Sartre writes about how being passive in times of conflict or revolution, means you are really taking the side of the oppressor. The lack of deliberate effort to change the system means you are playing into the system and enabling the problem. The thing in this quote that caught my attention is the “even your nonviolent thoughts” part. I think that it is safe to say that Sartre believes in and frankly advocates for violence. But, with this line is Sartre arguing that nonviolence, even just having violent thoughts, is equivalent to being passive? Is violence the only way to be non-passive? If we were to try to go about implementing direct change and putting a new system into place, but in the most non-violent way possible, is that still being passive? Do we need violence to truly implement change?
It is clear that colonization and decolonization has resulted in the mask of human identity. More specifically, colonization has resulted in the hopes to benefit and strengthen society, yet, in all reality, it has caused society to go unaware of their increasing destruction. In other words, in ‘Wretched of the Earth’, Fanon writes, “the singularity of the colonial context lies in the fact that economic reality, inequality, and enormous disparities in lifestyles never manage to mask the human reality” (5). Nevertheless, this shows that colonization has resulted in disproportionate impacts and intersectionality. However, society has chosen to ignore these inequalities. Moreover, my question is whether or not these issues are masking inequalities, or just masking our own perception of reality? More specifically, colonization has changed society in a negative way, yet would this have happened if humans were not blinded by the benefits of colonization?
In Frantz Fanon’s writing, The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon states “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon”. It is the complete upending of the social order and the total replacement of the colonial class with the natives to whom the land of the nation truly belongs. “Friendly understanding”, as Fanon puts it, cannot accomplish this goal, given the circumstances of colonialism in which the colonizer sees the colonized as subhuman, bordering on evil. The violent removal of the colonial system is also, according to Fanon, necessary for the mental health and wellbeing of the native. He states “When the native is confronted with the colonial order of things, he finds he is in a state of permanent tension”. The subhuman characterization of the native by the colonial power is damaging to the mental health of indigenous peoples. For Fanon, overthrowing the colonial order through violence asserts the humanity of the native, and solidifies their confidence in that humanity. Therefore, he argues that the use of violence in decolonization is not just inevitable but it is fully justified. Sartre’s Preface to Wretched of the Earth he usefully described the process of colonial revolution as ‘man recreating himself’(19). It also provides a sense of physical, mental, and metaphysical ‘freedom’. Fanon suggests that ‘violence … frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect’ (94). So revolutionary violence is not just cathartic, but it also allows the colonial subjects to recreate themselves or restore the way that they were prior to colonialism. When thinking about American History and America’s history of violence this is not entirely the case. The revolutionary war was the “violence” that allowed them to be free from Britain, but their violence towards the Natives made them still the colonizers as well. How do you think the colonization of America would be different if roles had been reversed, for example, if the Natives had been violent, and the colonizers and Britain had been nonviolent.
I was wondering what everyone thought of Part 1, On Violence? After reading this section I could not stop thinking about what a dialogue between Fanon and Gandhi would look like. I think it would be similar to that in Hind Swaraj, where the Editor and Reader use the analogy of the colonizers being a tiger (What is Swaraj). In that analogy, Gandhi is speaking to the use of violence and how that by using violence, the native people have essentially adopted the colonizers view/ spirt which allowed for their condition in the first place. Fanon’s view is much different than this. He says, “The very same people who had it constantly drummed into them that the only language they understood was that of force, now decide to express themselves with force” (42). To me, this is Fanon saying that violence and force is undistinguishable from the human condition; that people as a whole are violent in nature. So, the response to violence should be violence because violent natures only understand force. As students, and future practitioners, of Sustainable Development, what are your opinions to these views of Gandhi and Fanon? How might these two ideas, violence and non-violence, change the overall development of a nation? Can you use both, or are we limited to only using one ideology?
Page lviii of the preface by Sartre contains a passage says, “The pacifists are a fine sight: neither victims nor torturers! Come now! If you are not a victim when the government you voted for and the army your young brothers served in, commits “genocide” without hesitation or remorse, then you are undoubtedly a torturer… Get this into your head… But if the entire regime, even your non-violent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose than to put you in the side of the oppressors.” This passage really stuck out to me, and made me immediately think of today’s Black Lives Matter protests, as it speaks so clearly to the mindset and state of the America today (even though of course he’s talking about Europe in the passage). The entire “democracy” of America was built upon the backs of slaves and is made to stack the odds against people of color and towards their oppression. Policies, economics, and even something as trivial as everyday interactions all incorporate different, far-reaching aspects and mentalities of oppression and racism. Further more, as is evidenced in the first section of the passage, white people have the luxury and the privilege of stepping away; and non-action is still a form of violence, as it simply allows who Sartre calls “Torturers” to do continue said violence. What do you all think that Fanon and Sartre would think of the Black Lives Matter movement and the world’s mindset on race today? Likewise, what do you think pacifism’s role in protest is if peaceful protests no longer seem to work? What role does violence play in a peaceful protest?
In the preface of the Wretched of the Earth, Sartre warns the descendants of colonizers that “the fire that warms and enlightens them is not yours” (xlviii). I think this is an important statement to make for the audience of colonizers when reading Fanon’s book. Fanon intended for the Wretched of the Earth to be written for his brothers and sisters being oppressed by Europe and the West to better understand the tactics of the colonizers and stoke the embers of revolution among the colonized. As white people, descended from Europeans, there is much to learn about our true selves by listening to the testimony of the victims of colonialism and empire. Because of the extreme and prolonged nature of colonial violence, Fanon states that “decolonization is always a violent event” (1). This is a big departure from Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence as a means of decolonization. Fanon also disagrees with Gandhi about the importance of religion and instead sees it as a tool to further control the colonized. Fanon asks, “what are the forces in the colonial period which offer new channels, new agents of empowerment for the violence of the colonized?” (21). This led me to question if there are new agents of empowerment that have risen since the publication of this book, or if conversely, the agents Fanon recognizes no longer hold as much weight in empowering the colonized. Can you identify any new channels to empowerment for the subaltern? Is violence still the only meaningful way to disentangle oneself from the colonial mission?
In Frantz Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth”, he describes colonization as this system that fragments a native country as well as the people within its thinking, beliefs, religion, and ultimately their autonomy all together. Fannon expresses that the injustices in which the colonized lives are no secret to anyone. “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the word, is clearly an agenda for total disorder.” (page 2) This implies that the colonizers have wiped everything that the “native” known and has clearly set a new and orderly standard for the colonized to follow by. The new world the colonizers creates intentionally makes the disparities and inequalities large and open for everyone to see. They (the colonizers) try their hardest to keep the colonized in their shanty towns and cramped neighborhoods. The colonized are now the “others” although it is really the colonizers who are the foreigners. The native people want to move away from this oppression, because they are not “evil” or “impervious to ethics”. The natives just want to be considered first.
They want to regain their native values and morals that are not validated through the colonizers eyes. Why does questioning the colonizers status quo seen as violence? If violence is the only clear path for change, what does it take for the natives to understand that moving upward and becoming “new men” or “the first” will not be a regression in their development as a society but actually a revolution that allows them to progress freely and on their own terms?
In Frantz Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth”, he describes colonization as this system that fragments a native country as well as the people within its thinking, beliefs, religion, and ultimately their autonomy all together. Fannon expresses that the injustices in which the colonized lives are no secret to anyone. “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the word, is clearly an agenda for total disorder.” (page 2) This implies that the colonizers have wiped everything that the “native” known and has clearly set a new and orderly standard for the colonized to follow by. The new world the colonizers creates intentionally makes the disparities and inequalities large and open for everyone to see. They (the colonizers) try their hardest to keep the colonized in their shanty towns and cramped neighborhoods. The colonized are now the “others” although it is really the colonizers who are the foreigners. The native people want to move away from this oppression, because they are not “evil” or “impervious to ethics”. The natives just want to be considered first. They want to regain their native values and morals that are not validated through the colonizers eyes. Why does questioning the colonizers status quo seen as violence? If violence is the only clear path for change, what does it take for the natives to understand that moving upward and becoming “new men” or “the first” will not be a regression in their development as a society but actually a revolution that allows them to progress freely and on their own terms?
Fanon describes the emotions of the colonized as “kept on edge like a running sore flinching from a caustic agent”. He continually uses medical terminology through the book to describe colonization as almost an illness, while Gandhi has an educational background with law and seems to approach colonization as almost a legal battle that can be won through nonviolent means. Fanon has a much more militant and radical approach to the removal of colonists. I propose that it is part of their educational background that cause them to have such differing theoretical opinions on how to deal with colonization, what do you think?
On page 1 Fanon begins to speak about violence, he says in the opening statement,”…decolonization is always a violent event”. He believes that decolonization causes disorder which reigns true to todays day and age. Currently in our own country the Black Lives Matter movement could become a decolonization movement if there is enough traction for change. The ‘colonizers’ in this country would be considered the white supremicists and those who don’t accept the fact that change needs to happen. There has been violence and disorder that has come along with this movement, according to Fanon that is how National Restoration always occurs, with violence.He goes on to say on page 4, “In colonial regions, however, the proximity and frequent, direct intervention by the police and the military ensure the colonized are kept under close scrutiny, and contained by rifle butts and napalm.” This quote in itself directly relates to our current political climate, we have had several instances of the military ensuring that those who are attempting decolonization are contained. Ghandi believes a more peaceful route in order to achieve change. In reality which is more effective, peacefully protesting for a change or violently creating change? Also what is the appropriote response from the oppressors/colonizers when there is civil unrest?
In Wretched of The Earth there is some talk in the preface about how Fanon is the first writer to talk about history in a complexed way since Engels, they are referring to how we shape history and are always living in history and constantly changing it because without people there is no history. Fanon talks about this on page 36, he says “. The settler and the native are old acquaintances. In fact, the settler is right when he speaks of knowing “them” well. For it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and who perpetuates his existence. The settler owes the fact of his very existence, that is to say, his property, to the colonial system” (36). When I brake this quote down the settler and the native did not exist before colonization, they were simple two different groups of people living in different places of the world. The natives and the settlers only became these titles when the settlers came to colonize places around the world. In order to break these titles down and decolonize we will have to change the fundamentals of our society. To decolonize the oppressor has to completely change the way they live completely, we see effects of colonization in all parts of our daily lives. My question is because decolonization will fundamentally change how the colonizers live will we ever see it actually happen? Is it possible for there to be a peaceful decolonization process or will there have to be violence from the oppressed to make the oppressors listen? Is it even possible to completely decolonize in the stage of society?
In Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth,” when he discusses the way the colonized are treated by the colonizers, he remarks, “For they know they are not animals. And at the very moment when they discover their humanity, they begin to sharpen their weapons to secure its victory” (Fanon 8). The colonized have had their dignity stripped away by the colonizers and are treated as less than human. During colonization, this was very obvious, but it is still going on today in more subtle ways. The question I would like to ask is how do those who have power today dehumanize people of color, or the colonized? How do today’s “colonizers” rob the “colonized” of their dignity, and how does this perpetuate their power and oppression?
Considering these two quotes on page 15 of the “On Violence” section, Fanon says “The Colonist makes history and he knows it. And because he refers constantly to the history of his metropolis, he plainly indicates that here he is the extension of his metropolis.” A few sentences later he goes on to say, “A world cocksure of itself, crushing with its stoniness the backbones of those scarred by the whip. That is the colonial world.” Do you agree with the first quote a colonist is the extension of his metropolis? Does this extend to all members of a colonizing society, are we all extensions of the societies we inhabit, whether we are complicit with their actions or not? In reference to the second quote would this qualify the U.S. as a colonizing society, considering the historical marginalization of “native” Americans, African Americans, and other minority groups that is still currently being perpetuated?
In The Wretched of the Earth, author Frantz Fanon explains the ways in which the colonizer creates an identity of those that are colonized. Colonizers influence a sense of inferiority and submission, and the only way to decolonize a people is to create “new men” with a different mindset that is more focused on freedom than submission. The western ideals are considered supreme, even though these ideals are not applicable to the struggles faced within the colonies. In his novel, Fanon explains the Manichaean world, which is a world divided into colonizer and colonized, white and black, good and evil. The colonized are depicted as evil and are degraded to subhuman or even animals and beasts, removing the aspects of gender, religion, and class. Fanon also expresses that capitalist nations are “wrong to think the fundamental issue of our time is the war between the socialist regime and them” when the expanse of colonialism has created immense exploitation globally “and the underdeveloped regions must receive generous investments and technical aid” (61). Rather than investing in the Cold War, nations should invest in the development and aid of nations that had been colonized, as well as pay reparations to those who had been colonized. Would reparations be able to make up for the many years of hardships experienced by the third world due to colonization, such as the erasure and alterations of various cultures, violence, and robbery? In what manner might reparations be paid from nations that were once colonizers?
In the first chapter of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon advocates for violence as liberation. Fanon states multiple times that the nationalist political parties and the intellectual and business elite do nothing to banish colonial oppressions, instead they talk of “philosophic-political discourses on the subject of the rights of peoples to self-determination, the human rights of dignity and freedom from hunger, and the countless declarations of the principle ‘one man one vote.’ The nationalist political parties never insist on the need for confrontation precisely because their aim is not the radical overthrow of the system.” (22). Fanon uses this statement to support his claim that nonviolent actions organized by the colonized intellectual do not oppose the colonizer, but exist within the framework that the colonizer uses to oppress the colonized. Fanon says that real decolonization cannot be achieved through a liberation movement that is catered towards the language of the colonizer instead of the colonized and asks for compromise within the terms of the colonizer’s political scope. Fanon says that this kind of decolonization results in the colonizer replying with “the strategy of containment” (31). Therefore, the continued containment of violence is an act of oppression not liberation. Fanon uses this notion to support his argument for the realignment of built up aggression into an expression of liberation. To understand Fanon’s reframing of violence not as evil, but as expression, I think looking to his passage about dance and possession is particularly helpful. The entirety of the last paragraph on page 19-20 is important to look to, “The colonized’s way of relaxing is precisely this muscular orgy during which the most brutal aggressiveness and impulsive violence are channeled, transformed, and spirited away. The dance circle is a permissive circle. It protects and empowers. At a fixed time and a fixed date men and women assemble in a given place, and under the solemn gaze of the tribe launch themselves into a seemingly disarticulated, but in fact extremely ritualized, pantomime when the exorcism, liberation, and expression of a community are grandiosely and spontaneously played out through shaking of the head, and back and forward thrusts of the body. Everything is permitted in the dance circle. The hillock, which has been climbed as if to get closer to the moon, the river bank, which has been descended whenever the dance symbolizes ablution, washing, and purification, are sacred places. Everything is permitted, for in fact the sole purpose of the gathering is to let the supercharged libido and the stifled aggressiveness spew out volcanically. Symbolic killings, figurative cavalcades, and imagined multiple murders, everything has to come out. The ill humors seep out, tumultuous as lava flows.” (19-20). After reading this passage how do you think the colonized can use the ritual of dance and possession in a literal and symbolic way to achieve liberation? How could spiritual and psychological decolonization be tackled through the qualities of this ritual and the qualities of violence? And what tactics can be drawn from the phenomena of dance and possession that would aid in a liberation that is unique to the colonized?
In “The Wretched of the Earth”, a statement by Frantz Fanon that I found very interesting was when he was talking about the colonists and how they are the true foreigners. He says “The ruling species is first and foremost the outsider from elsewhere, different from the indigenous population, “the others” (5). It’s fascinating and absolutely despicable that the colonists completely twisted the narrative and manipulated people so much that so many still believe that the indigenous or native people are “the others” or “outsiders” and treat them as such. People have been brainwashed into believing that colonization was an amazing thing and was the only possible way for society to flourish, and that it works in everyone’s best interests. Fanon asserts that violence is the way to address these horrible wrongs, as the colonizers have always used violence on them. On page 5 and 6 he states “The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world…tirelessly punctuated the destruction of the indigenous social fabric…this same violence will be vindicated and appropriated when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.” Do you think that this is the way to go and that Fanon makes a good case for using violence, or is non-violence the way to address these issues?
In the Preface to “The Wretched of the Earth,” Jean-Paul Sartre states, “the elite is revealing its true nature — a gang. Our beloved values are losing their feathers; if you take a closer look there is not one that isn’t tainted with blood.” (liv) This conjured for me an image of contemporary world leaders meeting for a mob sit down, with Xi, Putin, Trump, Erdogan, and MBS representing the heads New York’s Five Families. I wonder how Fanon would respond to the rise of openly dynastic authoritarian strongmen, particularly in the United States. Would he applaud their saying the quiet part out loud? Does Trump’s open contempt for democracy and egalitarianism do much of the revolutionaries’ work for them? On page 2, Fanon writes, “Decolonization never goes unnoticed, for it focuses on and fundamentally alters being, and transforms the spectator crushed to a nonessential state into a privileged actor, captured in a virtually grandiose fashion by the spotlight of History.” I wonder what Fanon would say about REcolonization; is that going unnoticed by the spotlight of History? Is that not what the United States is undergoing today, a return to the subjugation of the populace by stupendously wealthy transnational corporations and their political valets?
In part 1 “On Violence,” Frantz Fanon discusses how the colonist makes history. Fanon says “The colonist makes history. His life is an epic, an odyssey. He is invested with the very beginning: ‘We made this land.’… ‘If we leave, all will be lost, and this land will return to the Dark Ages.'” (14-15). This is an idea we see in the current teaching of history in the U.S. The idea that the colonist history is “accurate” and the colonized history is somehow false. White-washed American history is romanticized in a way and that is why I connect it back to Fanon’s idea of colonist history being treated as “epic.” I also connect it to this continuing theme of colonists pulling the colonized out of “Dark Ages.” Just like how white American’s have painted themselves as heroes throughout history. There is current action being taken with the 1619 project to address how history of the U.S. is taught and how history should be centered. I don’t really have a question necessarily, but I think it’s a valuable discussion to connect Fanon’s ideas back to the current struggles in the U.S. and how U.S. history is taught in schools.
Fanon, in part one, mentions both direct (3) and indirect (7) oppression and suppression as a way of colonizing lands and minds of native peoples. He goes on to say that when the colonized decide to fight back against their oppressors and the colonizers realize they have lost their power, they resort to relationships built with the “elite” natives (9). It is with these natives colonizing forces still exert some control through “morals, values, and technology” (9). Can this relationship be described as a core and periphery structure? This structure may be seen as an indirect form of oppression/dominance because it is carried out through relationships between the ruling classes but does it spill over into a direct form as well with the establishment of strong borders and military’s that carry out the interest of the core?
Fanon writes in Wretched of the Earth “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (33). Why? Fanon later explains that decolonization is always violent because anything connected to colonization is violent, including its undoing. Colonization was created by violence and is violence in itself which Fanon shows using personification: “The violence which has ruled over the ordering of the colonial world, which has ceaselessly drummed the rhythm for the destruction of native social forms” (49). Fanon continues, “that same violence will be claimed and taken over by the native at the moment when, deciding to embody history in his own person, he surges into the forbidden quarters. To wreck the colonial world is henceforward a mental picture of action” (49). Fanon shows that colonization is taking that which is not yours and manipulating what is outside of your self. Fanon suggests away to take back personal ownership through “the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us” (17). Even this act of reclaiming personal autonomy is disruptive and most likely not accepted by the dominant culture. Already we see with this small step that decolonization makes waves, We will only have peace once colonization is destroyed. How can we encourage people who seek peace to not discount the violence that will be used to create peace by destroying violence/colonization?
Fanon, in part one, mentions both direct and indirect ways in which colonizers control the colonized. He speaks on strong borders and police forces as well as schools for the natives (3). He says that when the the colonized finally decide to fight back and the colonizers realize they have lost their complete dominance over them, they resort to other means in which to fulfill their power grab over their subjects. On page 9, Fanon mentions that there is a relationship built between the elite in the colonizing world and the elite “natives”. He says that they maintain their control by establishing the values, morals, culture, technology etc. (9). Can this be described as a core-periphery structure? How can a structure as such be broken? Do colonizers intentionally create power vacuums for native elites as a way to maintain their connection?
Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth” seems as timely as ever to read. As protests fueled by racial violence continue throughout the U.S., and even other countries, Fanon’s sentiments can be seen all over social media. While people aren’t often quoting him, they repeat his ideas. The President calls protestors “thugs,” and justifies violence on the side of the police, but is disgusted by even the slightest display of violence by protestors. Police forces are quite clearly the colonizers, abusing residents of the U.S., most often Black and Brown residents, and earning overtime for making an arrest or writing tickets at the end of their shifts. In the preface, Sartre discusses Fanon’s ideas of decolonization, and the violence that is necessary. On page lvii, Sartre writes that “we, too, […] are being decolonized, meaning the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation.” What does Sartre mean when he says that we are being decolonized? What are things that we currently do that are reflective of colonialism? Are we policing ourselves as well?
Nearing the end of the section “Concerning Violence’, Fanon discusses the development of European economies which stemmed from the exploitation of colonized lands and peoples. He states “Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from the under-developed peoples… So when we hear the head of the European state declare with his hand on his heart that he must come to the help of the poor under-developed peoples, we do not tremble with gratitude. Quite the contrary; we say to ourselves: ‘It’s a just reparation which will be paid to us.’ Nor will we acquiesce in the help for under-developed countries being a programme of ‘sisters of charity.'” (81) These statements stood out to me, as they detail a phenomenon that we often discuss in SD courses- the building of wealth via extraction from “under-developed countries”- but Fanon also comments on the irony and hypocrisy of European states as they offer their “help”. We can draw parallels from this to our discussions on the World Bank, the IMF, etc. and consider the impact of the countless loans that have been made and the programs that have been created in these countries which have created fairly small amounts of change. Fanon’s use of the word “reparation” can raise the question of whether colonizing countries should be paying significant unconditional reparations rather than conditional loans which prolong a dependence of previously colonized countries on their “mother countries.” Though the likelihood of this happening is minimal, the question remains- is this concept something that we should be pushing to the forefront of the global stage? Would this provide decolonized countries the capacity of self-determination?
In Frantz Fanons, “Wretched of The Earth, Fanon notes that colonization is “always a violent event.” The power structure that keeps people colonized are violent and have to be matched with violence. Fanon writes, “It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence” (23, Fanon). Dr. Martin Luther King embraced the principle of non-violence. Why does Fanon accept or advocate violence as a necessary tool for social change?
In Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” he states “the proof of success lies in a whole social structure being changed from the bottom up” (35), and history has shown the successes of those who were able to change their circumstances through community solidarity in non-violent ways, such as that of the Southern Civil Rights Movement. But Fanon later suggests that in order for the oppressed to become their own leaders: “That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace (too quickly, some say) the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence” (37). He continuously suggests that violence is necessary in order to overthrow the dominance of colonialism. We can see this parallel in today’s BLM movement concerning Police Brutality. The police is the “intermediary” for the government and African Americans are the “natives” in the quote: “The intermediary does not lighten the oppression, nor seek to hide the domination; he shows them up and puts them into practice with the clear conscience of an upholder of the peace; yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native” (38). Therefore, in order to change their marginalization, are those being discriminated against required to commit reciprocated responses of violence? Or can peace be acquired by peaceful means? Two different perspectives as seen in the writings of Fanon and Gandhi.
In Part 1, of Frantz Fanon’s, “Wretched of the Earth” he opens with a statement of “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” and then goes on to explain why. He states that decolonization means overturning a political and ontological system, meaning those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, “the wretched” being raised to the top. Do you think this is possible without violence? If so, how could we achieve this without completely destabilizing the existing order? Are there any examples in history that have restructured their social hierarchy without the means of violence? One question I have always thought about when reading and talking about colonization is why do the colonizers force Western culture on societies, and why do they believe it is the most superior form of human civilization? Fanon talks about the colonized world being divided into two opposing parts, the “white” side and the “black” and “Arab” side. The natives (black and Arab) tend to protest and react negatively as a way to counteract the results of this colonialism. According to Fanon, decolonization is “no more and no less that the abolition of one zone, its burial in the depths of the Earth or its expulsion from the country” what does he mean by this? Does he mean to say that the process of decolonization is not immediate but will happen in several stages if accomplished? I also thought it was interesting that he argues that real help in the process can come from the communist countries, who are already opposed to the capitalist west.
On the subject of neutrality Fanon writes “Some liken it [neutrality] to a kind of loathsome mercantilism which consists of taking handouts left and right. But although neutrality, a creation of the Cold War, allows underdeveloped countries to receive economic aid from both sides, it does not permit either of these two sides to come to the aid of the underdeveloped regions the way they should (40-41).
I find this perspective on neutrality very interesting. I agree with Fanon as he says that a country cannot come to the aid of a neutral nation to the fullest extent because of its neutrality; a nation cannot risk providing aid to a country that will not commit to being an ally. In addition to being an SD major, I am also a history major and I have studied numerous wars and conflicts. Not once has this concept of neutrality ever occurred to me. I could see how a country claiming neutrality could take advantage of the aid given by the other sides, as Fanon suggests in the first sentence. Fanon’s idea of neutrality being a hinderance to a nation is particularly fascinating. I would be curious of other historical examples of this being the case.
My question is whether or not this idea of neutrality has been exhibited in today’s society? I know that this book was first published in 1961, but I wonder if this idea has expanded to be used as a form of scare tactic amongst warring nations? By this I mean are there any recent examples of a nation using the distribution of aid as a manipulation tactic to secure alliance with another country?
Fanon makes a clear argument for the justification and need for violence. However, I am unclear why Fanon thinks that violence is an effective tactic for decolonization. On page 79, Fanon states that “violence of the native is only hopeless if we compare it to the abstract military machine of the oppressor. On the other hand, if we situate that dynamic of the international situation, we see at once that it constitutes a terrible menace for the oppressor”. What does Fanon mean by this? Is he just implying that violence is so annoying and implicates the oppressor on the world stage? He later expresses that the violence of the oppressed signals to the world how dire the situation, and how angry people are. Is this the purpose of the violence, and where the efficacy lies? Violence as a signal of inequality that must be addressed?
In “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon, he writes about how decolonization and colonialism are deeply rooted in violence, specifically in Africa. This violence causes a divide between the colonist and the colonized; power positions. He goes on to say, “Colonialism hardly ever exploits the whole of a country. It contents itself with bringing to light the natural resources, which it extracts, and exports to meet the needs of the mother country’s industries, thereby allowing certain sectors of the colony to become relatively rich. But the rest of the colony follows its path of under-development and poverty, or at all events sinks into it more deeply.” I chose this quote because I believe that Fanon explains what I was trying to say. I believe that he is saying that colonialism causes the exploitation of poor countries and communities, as well as the extraction of its resources for the economic and political gain of the colonizers. This in turn leaves the colonized poor, oppressed and displaced. My question for this week is, what kind of movements or unions would he suggest that would work best to avoid this from happening to the colonized? I believe that he would suggest something with power and maybe even involving violence. I say this because in chapter two he states “The true revolution is eventually led by the masses who have discovered that, through violence, they can liberate their souls at the same time that they fight colonial oppression.”
Fanon argues in his book “Wretched of the Earth” that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve anti-colonialist goals and that anticolonialism is inherently violent through the process of replacing one group of people with another. Fanon also argues that colonizers view the colonized as lesser human beings, a class of people which requires no second thought. I believe Fanon is likely correct- decolonizing almost always come with some form of violence. What steps can we take in the US to decolonize ourselves for the benefit of society and the benefit of Natives as well?
In Wretched of the Earth Frantz Fanon discusses how colonization is a always a violent process, and so decolonization must also be an inherently violent process in order successfully fight the colonist. Fanon also writes that violence is a deeper concept than simply physically harmful acts, but can also be structural and cultural-precisely the methods of violence that the colonists use. They do things such as portray the native as sub-human and destroy their self-identity and dignity as people. He believes the idea that the colonized should be expected to use nonviolent resistance reflects a double standard of colonization. Do you agree with Fanon’s philosophy on colonization and violence? And how does it compare to Gandhi’s views on colonization and violent vs. nonviolent resistance?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Frantz Fanon’s book, ‘Wretched of the Earth,’ takes a very different approach to disbanding colonial countries from their homeland than Gandhi did. Specifically, Fanon emphasizes that “decolonization is always a violent event” (1). Fanon goes on to talk about the colonizers. He states that “all colonists are the same” and that they all are “absolute evil,” “malevolent powers” that are capable of “destroying everything within reach” (6; 49). He also outlines colonizers as “the enemy of values” (6). That being said, is it possible to be a citizen of a colonizing country (like you and me) and not be categorized as evil and the “enemy of values” (6)? Or do we, by association, also bear the same title? Are we, as citizens, part of the problem or is it strictly the government and the politicians who are the evil beings and the colonizers?
I think its important to think of the colonizer as a product of their environment; in the same sense as Michael Foucault describing criminals as a product of oppressive legal infrastructure. Empathy is something the colonizer lacks and if we do not look onto the colonist with consideration, we are no more virtuous. The colonizer is a product of culture and expectation not necessarily a product of inherent greed or malevolence. Although, people cannot avoid participating in colonialism if they exist in a colonialist nation. Our consumer and political choices are limited to a scarce variety that almost always contribute to the exploitation of developing nations and their citizens. Our most ethical choices at grocery stores, retail shops, and hardware stores are in some way connected to some variety of colonialism (organic food is connected to immigrant worker injustices; most of our clothes are manufactured in the periphery; metals are mined in Africa). We are also misled by greenwashing methods into thinking our choices are ethical, but the level of obscenity is only marginally less than that of products not marketed as sustainable. We are part of the problem until we lead the market in a precise direction and until political and consumer options expand. Politicians, like doctors, lawyers, and capitalists, are concerned with economic gain and power. Until sustainability and international unity start to get them votes and campaign funds, they will not enact change. I think we are part of the problem but we can be drivers of gradual progressive change by demanding peace and virtue through nonviolent action.
I find the idea of violence against others and sometimes in ourselves is sometimes the fear in which is put upon us through the entrapment and configuration of our own ideologies. My basis for my question and this comment come from the passage on page lii, where it talks about how anger is used in the presence of fear or helplessness but the violence that comes from this anger if push amongst themselves and seems to only enlighten the work of the oppressors. My question states; Could the use of violence attained from decolonization through the perspective of the oppressed be used to obliterate the oppressors without fully acknowledging the fear that pushes us to fight against our own brothers? Will we have to fall into the hands of violence to be free or is there something that could replace it and still be able to have the same outcome?
Frantz Fannon’s book, “The Wretched of the Earth,” speaks about the racial discrimination and injustices that happened during his time. Fanon says, “the singularity of the colonial context lies in the fact that economic reality, inequality, and enormous disparities in lifestyles never manage to mask the human reality” (5). By this, he is saying that the injustices occurring in people’s lives as a society still do not make their lives better as individuals. How is this displayed in today’s society? Also, Fanon says, “the cause is effect: you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich” (5), as he refers to the relationship between race and social class. As the world continues to grow as a community, this statement has started to become less false. While there is still a difference, we are better than what we used to be. If this stigma was never created, how would our society look today?
“The great mistake, the inherent flaw of most of the political parties in the underdeveloped regions has been traditionally to address first and foremost the most politically conscious elements: the urban proletariat, the small tradesmen and the civil servants, i.e., a tiny section of the population which represents barely more than one percent (Fanon, 64).”
The colonized intellectuals make up 1% of the country and make up most of the political parties. Therefore, they decide how the other 99% live. The colonized intellectuals, also known as the urban proletariat, are the most privileged in society and they do not want to dismantle colonial power because then they will lose their privilege and power. This means that there is a conflict of interest between the urban proletariat and the masses. Furthermore, the urban proletariat believe that the masses are politically unconscious and generally uneducated. The colonists work to maintain their power over the masses by basically pitting them against each other. This idea of causing conflict between the general public reminds me of something that is happening today with the political parties. With the world being so divided then not much progress can be made. If nobody can agree on anything then nothing will change. There is a major problem with our two party system because it forces a divide between society and makes people have to choose either democrat or republican. I believe Fanon would agree with me because he states that political parties act in ways that are counterproductive to the developing nation. It is hard to imagine the US without a two party system. What do you think the US would look like without a two party system? What would need to be done in order for that to happen?
At the beginning of ‘Wretched of the Earth’, Fanon elaborates on the violence experienced during both colonization and decolonization. Fanon explains how intermediaries, such as police officers or the military, often instilled violence in those that were being colonized. “In colonial countries, on the contrary, the policeman and the soldier, by their immediate presence and their frequent and direct action maintain contact with the native and advise him by means of rifle-butts and napalm not to budge. It is obvious here that the agents of government speak the language of pure force. The intermediary does not lighten the oppression, nor seek to hide domination…yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native” (30). Of those that became violent, was it because of the act of violence they encountered or because of who performed said act of violence? How is this reflective of what is currently happening in the United States?
In Fanon’s discussion on violence on page 12 he states “…in the end we all want the same thing.” This quote really stood out to me because throughout Fanon’s section on violence he outlines the underlying issues that seem to have caused violence throughout the history of America or first world countries. Starting from the colonizers to the colonized Fanon looks at how white privilege has provoked violence over the course of history. The quote on page 12 poses a good statement and question on why does violence occur at all, especially if people or “all want the same thing.” All people want the same thing which is to live a or “the good life” whatever that looks like. From Fanon’s ideas that he presents one significant reason for violence stems from coming into space or location with an agenda. When a “colonizer” came into America for instance they colonized the land that belonged to the Native Americans and their agenda in this case was to take the land for themselves. An agenda ultimately, takes away anyone’s voice or more importantly, their agency and their power to make executive decisions or have their opinion be heard. The concept of agency and coming into a space with an agenda can definitely cause violence to erupt because at the end of the day if people are not getting “the same thing” as others, such as basic rights or resources then violence occurs as a result. An additional term that is connect to agency is exclusion because if someone agency is taken away people are being excluded from something and their voice may become oppressed. When multiple voices are exclude violence can break out result as well.
A similar scenario occurs with the treatment of minorities in America or the interaction/trade between first and third world countries, where people’s agency is taken away.
How can people become aware or educated on eliminating the issue of exclusion, as well as understanding that “we all want the same thing?”
Furthermore, do you think if people understood that “we all want the same thing,” would there be less violence in the long run?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi advocates for a revolution of the oppressed by acts of non-violence. He believes that the means by which people achieve liberation directly correlates with the ends resulting from the revolution. If people chose to achieve liberation by violence their freedom and power will result in violence. If people achieve liberation non-violently, their freedom will constitute peace. In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon sees it differently. He believes that colonialism “is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence” (23). In other words, liberation can only be achieved by force or through violence. In comparison, MLK shares the same ideas as Gandhi, and Malcolm X shares the same ideas as Fanon. Malcolm rejected King’s message of nonviolence, and King rejected Malcolm’s message of violence. At present day, with the continued struggle for Black liberation through the BLM movement, how can we as a generation determine the most effective way to bring about change in our society? What is the best strategy in the fight against racism and police brutality? Should we follow the methods of Fanon and Malcolm or Gandhi and King? Is there a middle ground to explore in the methods of Stokely Carmichael?
Many others have pointed out the opposing nature of Gandhi’s and Fanon’s approaches to decolonization. Both recognize the brutality that colonization necessitates; Gandhi likens Britain to a Tiger, and Fanon writes “‘Europe, where they are never done talking of Man, yet murder men everywhere they find them'” (Preface p.11). Both revile the domination colonization brings, both in the material, as well as the epistemological sense. However, obviously their responses to the injustices of colonization were in direct opposition; Gandhi stressed nonviolence, while Fanon writes “decolonization is always a violent event” (p.1). Gandhi’s methods were ultimately able to allow India to gain independence, however I believe that Fanon would argue that India was not successfully decolonized, as it remained entangled with the global capitalist matrix of power after gaining independence. As Andre Frank argues, and Fanon would most likely agree, the global capitalist system necessarily creates a “core” and a “periphery”, the former extracting value from the latter, and participation in this system (often coerced) creates a codependent relationship between core nations and periphery nations. As India was unable to break free from this state of codependency with capitalism, I believe Fanon might argue that India remains a colony. Fanon writes “we must achieve revolutionary socialism all together everywhere, or else one by one we would be defeated by our former masters” (Preface p.11). He also writes “decolonization… is clearly an agenda for total disorder” (p.1). Both of these quotations suggest that Fanon believes that decolonization is not complete when the colonizers are removed, but when the systems they imposed are removed as well. When comparing the opposing approaches to decolonization of Gandhi and Fanon, I am reminded of the well-known Audre Lorde quote “We cannot dismantle the Master’s house with the Master’s tools”. I felt at first that Gandhi’s approach was most in line with Lorde’s idea. However, I was troubled by a couple of questions:
Is the violence of oppressors equal to violence of the oppressed? In other words, is the Master’s tool of violence the same tool in the hands of the oppressed?
My initial response is that, as the violence of oppressors is used as a tool to create and perpetuate additional violences, and the violence of the oppressed is often viewed as a final and, as Fanon argues, necessary response to oppression, that violence of the oppressed is far more ethical, but I’m curious to hear what others think. I’m also troubled by the question of whether or not a nonviolent movement could create the “total disorder” that Fanon argues is necessary for decolonization to be fully realized, but the question of whether or not it’s possible to dismantle the global capitalist matrix of power, the “Master’s house”, without the use of violence is probably too vague to be a very good discussion question…
In Frantz Fanon’s “The wretched of the Earth,” he seems to criticize some cultural and ritualistic practices, such as dance and the belief in different religious or mythological beings, such as Legba. He argues that these distract from the real enemy to fear- colonialism or the colonist(s) and he states that “everything is permitted, for in fact the sole purpose of the gathering is to let out the supercharged libido and the stifles aggressiveness spew out volcanically. Symbolic killings, figurative cavalcades, and imagined multiple murders, everything has to come out. The ill humors seep out, tumultuous as lave flows” (Fanon, 20). Why does he believe it is a waste of energy to practice these cultural aspects and that it defers from using that energy to face the colonists? Would giving up certain cultural aspects not also be a form of giving in to colonialism? Why does he believe that “another aspect of the colonized’s affectivity can be seen when it is drained of the energy by the ecstasy of dance” (19)? Why does he have such a critique against “phantasy” (19)?
Within the preface written by Sartre, there is a clear call to action, but also a clear call to learn and unlearn as part of the decolonization process. Sartre draws a line between men and the “native” or the “other”, a line which has existed since colonization began. Sartre argues that the colonizer is the only subject in society that gets to be a man, while others are deduced to be inhuman and subhuman. One comparison with Gandhi and Fanon is that many of the premises for decolonization are similar, such as the argument that colonization is to some extent consensual; “The status of the “native” is a neurosis introduced and maintained by the colonist in the colonized with their consent” (Sartre, IIV). This is interesting because many other philosophers and writers draw from the idea of a “rule by consent” in modern society, where the oppressed maintain oppressed through lies and distractions. “In order to delay the final reckoning and the hour of truth, they have given us the Grand Magician as our leader whose function is to keep us in the dark at any cost” (Sartre, IXI). One question that I would like to ask here would be who is the “Grand Magician”? Is rule by consent recognizable and what forms does it take within our government and elsewhere?
Another topic within the preface was about who the book was written for. Sartre states; “This book had certainly no need for a preface, especially as it is not addressed to us… we, too, peoples of Europe, we are being decolonized: meaning the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation” (Satre, IVII). It seems to be that the book’s audience is the colonists, the revolutionaries, and the common people who are oppressed. How does the colonist become decolonized? What is the primary audience of the book or is there one?
In the Preface to The Wretched of the Earth Jean-Paul Sartre states,
“If violence were only a thing of the future, if exploitation and oppression never existed on earth, perhaps displays of nonviolence might relieve the conflict. But if the entire regime, even your nonviolent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors (pg. lviii).”
So in this quote and throughout the rest of the preface the inevitability of violence is a major theme. In this quote Sartre writes about how being passive in times of conflict or revolution, means you are really taking the side of the oppressor. The lack of deliberate effort to change the system means you are playing into the system and enabling the problem. The thing in this quote that caught my attention is the “even your nonviolent thoughts” part. I think that it is safe to say that Sartre believes in and frankly advocates for violence. But, with this line is Sartre arguing that nonviolence, even just having violent thoughts, is equivalent to being passive? Is violence the only way to be non-passive? If we were to try to go about implementing direct change and putting a new system into place, but in the most non-violent way possible, is that still being passive? Do we need violence to truly implement change?
It is clear that colonization and decolonization has resulted in the mask of human identity. More specifically, colonization has resulted in the hopes to benefit and strengthen society, yet, in all reality, it has caused society to go unaware of their increasing destruction. In other words, in ‘Wretched of the Earth’, Fanon writes, “the singularity of the colonial context lies in the fact that economic reality, inequality, and enormous disparities in lifestyles never manage to mask the human reality” (5). Nevertheless, this shows that colonization has resulted in disproportionate impacts and intersectionality. However, society has chosen to ignore these inequalities. Moreover, my question is whether or not these issues are masking inequalities, or just masking our own perception of reality? More specifically, colonization has changed society in a negative way, yet would this have happened if humans were not blinded by the benefits of colonization?
In Frantz Fanon’s writing, The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon states “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon”. It is the complete upending of the social order and the total replacement of the colonial class with the natives to whom the land of the nation truly belongs. “Friendly understanding”, as Fanon puts it, cannot accomplish this goal, given the circumstances of colonialism in which the colonizer sees the colonized as subhuman, bordering on evil. The violent removal of the colonial system is also, according to Fanon, necessary for the mental health and wellbeing of the native. He states “When the native is confronted with the colonial order of things, he finds he is in a state of permanent tension”. The subhuman characterization of the native by the colonial power is damaging to the mental health of indigenous peoples. For Fanon, overthrowing the colonial order through violence asserts the humanity of the native, and solidifies their confidence in that humanity. Therefore, he argues that the use of violence in decolonization is not just inevitable but it is fully justified. Sartre’s Preface to Wretched of the Earth he usefully described the process of colonial revolution as ‘man recreating himself’(19). It also provides a sense of physical, mental, and metaphysical ‘freedom’. Fanon suggests that ‘violence … frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect’ (94). So revolutionary violence is not just cathartic, but it also allows the colonial subjects to recreate themselves or restore the way that they were prior to colonialism. When thinking about American History and America’s history of violence this is not entirely the case. The revolutionary war was the “violence” that allowed them to be free from Britain, but their violence towards the Natives made them still the colonizers as well. How do you think the colonization of America would be different if roles had been reversed, for example, if the Natives had been violent, and the colonizers and Britain had been nonviolent.
I was wondering what everyone thought of Part 1, On Violence? After reading this section I could not stop thinking about what a dialogue between Fanon and Gandhi would look like. I think it would be similar to that in Hind Swaraj, where the Editor and Reader use the analogy of the colonizers being a tiger (What is Swaraj). In that analogy, Gandhi is speaking to the use of violence and how that by using violence, the native people have essentially adopted the colonizers view/ spirt which allowed for their condition in the first place. Fanon’s view is much different than this. He says, “The very same people who had it constantly drummed into them that the only language they understood was that of force, now decide to express themselves with force” (42). To me, this is Fanon saying that violence and force is undistinguishable from the human condition; that people as a whole are violent in nature. So, the response to violence should be violence because violent natures only understand force. As students, and future practitioners, of Sustainable Development, what are your opinions to these views of Gandhi and Fanon? How might these two ideas, violence and non-violence, change the overall development of a nation? Can you use both, or are we limited to only using one ideology?
Page lviii of the preface by Sartre contains a passage says, “The pacifists are a fine sight: neither victims nor torturers! Come now! If you are not a victim when the government you voted for and the army your young brothers served in, commits “genocide” without hesitation or remorse, then you are undoubtedly a torturer… Get this into your head… But if the entire regime, even your non-violent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose than to put you in the side of the oppressors.” This passage really stuck out to me, and made me immediately think of today’s Black Lives Matter protests, as it speaks so clearly to the mindset and state of the America today (even though of course he’s talking about Europe in the passage). The entire “democracy” of America was built upon the backs of slaves and is made to stack the odds against people of color and towards their oppression. Policies, economics, and even something as trivial as everyday interactions all incorporate different, far-reaching aspects and mentalities of oppression and racism. Further more, as is evidenced in the first section of the passage, white people have the luxury and the privilege of stepping away; and non-action is still a form of violence, as it simply allows who Sartre calls “Torturers” to do continue said violence. What do you all think that Fanon and Sartre would think of the Black Lives Matter movement and the world’s mindset on race today? Likewise, what do you think pacifism’s role in protest is if peaceful protests no longer seem to work? What role does violence play in a peaceful protest?
In the preface of the Wretched of the Earth, Sartre warns the descendants of colonizers that “the fire that warms and enlightens them is not yours” (xlviii). I think this is an important statement to make for the audience of colonizers when reading Fanon’s book. Fanon intended for the Wretched of the Earth to be written for his brothers and sisters being oppressed by Europe and the West to better understand the tactics of the colonizers and stoke the embers of revolution among the colonized. As white people, descended from Europeans, there is much to learn about our true selves by listening to the testimony of the victims of colonialism and empire. Because of the extreme and prolonged nature of colonial violence, Fanon states that “decolonization is always a violent event” (1). This is a big departure from Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence as a means of decolonization. Fanon also disagrees with Gandhi about the importance of religion and instead sees it as a tool to further control the colonized. Fanon asks, “what are the forces in the colonial period which offer new channels, new agents of empowerment for the violence of the colonized?” (21). This led me to question if there are new agents of empowerment that have risen since the publication of this book, or if conversely, the agents Fanon recognizes no longer hold as much weight in empowering the colonized. Can you identify any new channels to empowerment for the subaltern? Is violence still the only meaningful way to disentangle oneself from the colonial mission?
In Frantz Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth”, he describes colonization as this system that fragments a native country as well as the people within its thinking, beliefs, religion, and ultimately their autonomy all together. Fannon expresses that the injustices in which the colonized lives are no secret to anyone. “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the word, is clearly an agenda for total disorder.” (page 2) This implies that the colonizers have wiped everything that the “native” known and has clearly set a new and orderly standard for the colonized to follow by. The new world the colonizers creates intentionally makes the disparities and inequalities large and open for everyone to see. They (the colonizers) try their hardest to keep the colonized in their shanty towns and cramped neighborhoods. The colonized are now the “others” although it is really the colonizers who are the foreigners. The native people want to move away from this oppression, because they are not “evil” or “impervious to ethics”. The natives just want to be considered first.
They want to regain their native values and morals that are not validated through the colonizers eyes. Why does questioning the colonizers status quo seen as violence? If violence is the only clear path for change, what does it take for the natives to understand that moving upward and becoming “new men” or “the first” will not be a regression in their development as a society but actually a revolution that allows them to progress freely and on their own terms?
In Frantz Fanon’s, “The Wretched of the Earth”, he describes colonization as this system that fragments a native country as well as the people within its thinking, beliefs, religion, and ultimately their autonomy all together. Fannon expresses that the injustices in which the colonized lives are no secret to anyone. “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the word, is clearly an agenda for total disorder.” (page 2) This implies that the colonizers have wiped everything that the “native” known and has clearly set a new and orderly standard for the colonized to follow by. The new world the colonizers creates intentionally makes the disparities and inequalities large and open for everyone to see. They (the colonizers) try their hardest to keep the colonized in their shanty towns and cramped neighborhoods. The colonized are now the “others” although it is really the colonizers who are the foreigners. The native people want to move away from this oppression, because they are not “evil” or “impervious to ethics”. The natives just want to be considered first. They want to regain their native values and morals that are not validated through the colonizers eyes. Why does questioning the colonizers status quo seen as violence? If violence is the only clear path for change, what does it take for the natives to understand that moving upward and becoming “new men” or “the first” will not be a regression in their development as a society but actually a revolution that allows them to progress freely and on their own terms?
Fanon describes the emotions of the colonized as “kept on edge like a running sore flinching from a caustic agent”. He continually uses medical terminology through the book to describe colonization as almost an illness, while Gandhi has an educational background with law and seems to approach colonization as almost a legal battle that can be won through nonviolent means. Fanon has a much more militant and radical approach to the removal of colonists. I propose that it is part of their educational background that cause them to have such differing theoretical opinions on how to deal with colonization, what do you think?
On page 1 Fanon begins to speak about violence, he says in the opening statement,”…decolonization is always a violent event”. He believes that decolonization causes disorder which reigns true to todays day and age. Currently in our own country the Black Lives Matter movement could become a decolonization movement if there is enough traction for change. The ‘colonizers’ in this country would be considered the white supremicists and those who don’t accept the fact that change needs to happen. There has been violence and disorder that has come along with this movement, according to Fanon that is how National Restoration always occurs, with violence.He goes on to say on page 4, “In colonial regions, however, the proximity and frequent, direct intervention by the police and the military ensure the colonized are kept under close scrutiny, and contained by rifle butts and napalm.” This quote in itself directly relates to our current political climate, we have had several instances of the military ensuring that those who are attempting decolonization are contained. Ghandi believes a more peaceful route in order to achieve change. In reality which is more effective, peacefully protesting for a change or violently creating change? Also what is the appropriote response from the oppressors/colonizers when there is civil unrest?
In Wretched of The Earth there is some talk in the preface about how Fanon is the first writer to talk about history in a complexed way since Engels, they are referring to how we shape history and are always living in history and constantly changing it because without people there is no history. Fanon talks about this on page 36, he says “. The settler and the native are old acquaintances. In fact, the settler is right when he speaks of knowing “them” well. For it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and who perpetuates his existence. The settler owes the fact of his very existence, that is to say, his property, to the colonial system” (36). When I brake this quote down the settler and the native did not exist before colonization, they were simple two different groups of people living in different places of the world. The natives and the settlers only became these titles when the settlers came to colonize places around the world. In order to break these titles down and decolonize we will have to change the fundamentals of our society. To decolonize the oppressor has to completely change the way they live completely, we see effects of colonization in all parts of our daily lives. My question is because decolonization will fundamentally change how the colonizers live will we ever see it actually happen? Is it possible for there to be a peaceful decolonization process or will there have to be violence from the oppressed to make the oppressors listen? Is it even possible to completely decolonize in the stage of society?
In Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth,” when he discusses the way the colonized are treated by the colonizers, he remarks, “For they know they are not animals. And at the very moment when they discover their humanity, they begin to sharpen their weapons to secure its victory” (Fanon 8). The colonized have had their dignity stripped away by the colonizers and are treated as less than human. During colonization, this was very obvious, but it is still going on today in more subtle ways. The question I would like to ask is how do those who have power today dehumanize people of color, or the colonized? How do today’s “colonizers” rob the “colonized” of their dignity, and how does this perpetuate their power and oppression?
Considering these two quotes on page 15 of the “On Violence” section, Fanon says “The Colonist makes history and he knows it. And because he refers constantly to the history of his metropolis, he plainly indicates that here he is the extension of his metropolis.” A few sentences later he goes on to say, “A world cocksure of itself, crushing with its stoniness the backbones of those scarred by the whip. That is the colonial world.” Do you agree with the first quote a colonist is the extension of his metropolis? Does this extend to all members of a colonizing society, are we all extensions of the societies we inhabit, whether we are complicit with their actions or not? In reference to the second quote would this qualify the U.S. as a colonizing society, considering the historical marginalization of “native” Americans, African Americans, and other minority groups that is still currently being perpetuated?
In The Wretched of the Earth, author Frantz Fanon explains the ways in which the colonizer creates an identity of those that are colonized. Colonizers influence a sense of inferiority and submission, and the only way to decolonize a people is to create “new men” with a different mindset that is more focused on freedom than submission. The western ideals are considered supreme, even though these ideals are not applicable to the struggles faced within the colonies. In his novel, Fanon explains the Manichaean world, which is a world divided into colonizer and colonized, white and black, good and evil. The colonized are depicted as evil and are degraded to subhuman or even animals and beasts, removing the aspects of gender, religion, and class. Fanon also expresses that capitalist nations are “wrong to think the fundamental issue of our time is the war between the socialist regime and them” when the expanse of colonialism has created immense exploitation globally “and the underdeveloped regions must receive generous investments and technical aid” (61). Rather than investing in the Cold War, nations should invest in the development and aid of nations that had been colonized, as well as pay reparations to those who had been colonized. Would reparations be able to make up for the many years of hardships experienced by the third world due to colonization, such as the erasure and alterations of various cultures, violence, and robbery? In what manner might reparations be paid from nations that were once colonizers?
In the first chapter of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon advocates for violence as liberation. Fanon states multiple times that the nationalist political parties and the intellectual and business elite do nothing to banish colonial oppressions, instead they talk of “philosophic-political discourses on the subject of the rights of peoples to self-determination, the human rights of dignity and freedom from hunger, and the countless declarations of the principle ‘one man one vote.’ The nationalist political parties never insist on the need for confrontation precisely because their aim is not the radical overthrow of the system.” (22). Fanon uses this statement to support his claim that nonviolent actions organized by the colonized intellectual do not oppose the colonizer, but exist within the framework that the colonizer uses to oppress the colonized. Fanon says that real decolonization cannot be achieved through a liberation movement that is catered towards the language of the colonizer instead of the colonized and asks for compromise within the terms of the colonizer’s political scope. Fanon says that this kind of decolonization results in the colonizer replying with “the strategy of containment” (31). Therefore, the continued containment of violence is an act of oppression not liberation. Fanon uses this notion to support his argument for the realignment of built up aggression into an expression of liberation. To understand Fanon’s reframing of violence not as evil, but as expression, I think looking to his passage about dance and possession is particularly helpful. The entirety of the last paragraph on page 19-20 is important to look to, “The colonized’s way of relaxing is precisely this muscular orgy during which the most brutal aggressiveness and impulsive violence are channeled, transformed, and spirited away. The dance circle is a permissive circle. It protects and empowers. At a fixed time and a fixed date men and women assemble in a given place, and under the solemn gaze of the tribe launch themselves into a seemingly disarticulated, but in fact extremely ritualized, pantomime when the exorcism, liberation, and expression of a community are grandiosely and spontaneously played out through shaking of the head, and back and forward thrusts of the body. Everything is permitted in the dance circle. The hillock, which has been climbed as if to get closer to the moon, the river bank, which has been descended whenever the dance symbolizes ablution, washing, and purification, are sacred places. Everything is permitted, for in fact the sole purpose of the gathering is to let the supercharged libido and the stifled aggressiveness spew out volcanically. Symbolic killings, figurative cavalcades, and imagined multiple murders, everything has to come out. The ill humors seep out, tumultuous as lava flows.” (19-20). After reading this passage how do you think the colonized can use the ritual of dance and possession in a literal and symbolic way to achieve liberation? How could spiritual and psychological decolonization be tackled through the qualities of this ritual and the qualities of violence? And what tactics can be drawn from the phenomena of dance and possession that would aid in a liberation that is unique to the colonized?
In “The Wretched of the Earth”, a statement by Frantz Fanon that I found very interesting was when he was talking about the colonists and how they are the true foreigners. He says “The ruling species is first and foremost the outsider from elsewhere, different from the indigenous population, “the others” (5). It’s fascinating and absolutely despicable that the colonists completely twisted the narrative and manipulated people so much that so many still believe that the indigenous or native people are “the others” or “outsiders” and treat them as such. People have been brainwashed into believing that colonization was an amazing thing and was the only possible way for society to flourish, and that it works in everyone’s best interests. Fanon asserts that violence is the way to address these horrible wrongs, as the colonizers have always used violence on them. On page 5 and 6 he states “The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world…tirelessly punctuated the destruction of the indigenous social fabric…this same violence will be vindicated and appropriated when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.” Do you think that this is the way to go and that Fanon makes a good case for using violence, or is non-violence the way to address these issues?
In the Preface to “The Wretched of the Earth,” Jean-Paul Sartre states, “the elite is revealing its true nature — a gang. Our beloved values are losing their feathers; if you take a closer look there is not one that isn’t tainted with blood.” (liv) This conjured for me an image of contemporary world leaders meeting for a mob sit down, with Xi, Putin, Trump, Erdogan, and MBS representing the heads New York’s Five Families. I wonder how Fanon would respond to the rise of openly dynastic authoritarian strongmen, particularly in the United States. Would he applaud their saying the quiet part out loud? Does Trump’s open contempt for democracy and egalitarianism do much of the revolutionaries’ work for them? On page 2, Fanon writes, “Decolonization never goes unnoticed, for it focuses on and fundamentally alters being, and transforms the spectator crushed to a nonessential state into a privileged actor, captured in a virtually grandiose fashion by the spotlight of History.” I wonder what Fanon would say about REcolonization; is that going unnoticed by the spotlight of History? Is that not what the United States is undergoing today, a return to the subjugation of the populace by stupendously wealthy transnational corporations and their political valets?
In part 1 “On Violence,” Frantz Fanon discusses how the colonist makes history. Fanon says “The colonist makes history. His life is an epic, an odyssey. He is invested with the very beginning: ‘We made this land.’… ‘If we leave, all will be lost, and this land will return to the Dark Ages.'” (14-15). This is an idea we see in the current teaching of history in the U.S. The idea that the colonist history is “accurate” and the colonized history is somehow false. White-washed American history is romanticized in a way and that is why I connect it back to Fanon’s idea of colonist history being treated as “epic.” I also connect it to this continuing theme of colonists pulling the colonized out of “Dark Ages.” Just like how white American’s have painted themselves as heroes throughout history. There is current action being taken with the 1619 project to address how history of the U.S. is taught and how history should be centered. I don’t really have a question necessarily, but I think it’s a valuable discussion to connect Fanon’s ideas back to the current struggles in the U.S. and how U.S. history is taught in schools.
Fanon, in part one, mentions both direct (3) and indirect (7) oppression and suppression as a way of colonizing lands and minds of native peoples. He goes on to say that when the colonized decide to fight back against their oppressors and the colonizers realize they have lost their power, they resort to relationships built with the “elite” natives (9). It is with these natives colonizing forces still exert some control through “morals, values, and technology” (9). Can this relationship be described as a core and periphery structure? This structure may be seen as an indirect form of oppression/dominance because it is carried out through relationships between the ruling classes but does it spill over into a direct form as well with the establishment of strong borders and military’s that carry out the interest of the core?
Fanon writes in Wretched of the Earth “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (33). Why? Fanon later explains that decolonization is always violent because anything connected to colonization is violent, including its undoing. Colonization was created by violence and is violence in itself which Fanon shows using personification: “The violence which has ruled over the ordering of the colonial world, which has ceaselessly drummed the rhythm for the destruction of native social forms” (49). Fanon continues, “that same violence will be claimed and taken over by the native at the moment when, deciding to embody history in his own person, he surges into the forbidden quarters. To wreck the colonial world is henceforward a mental picture of action” (49). Fanon shows that colonization is taking that which is not yours and manipulating what is outside of your self. Fanon suggests away to take back personal ownership through “the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us” (17). Even this act of reclaiming personal autonomy is disruptive and most likely not accepted by the dominant culture. Already we see with this small step that decolonization makes waves, We will only have peace once colonization is destroyed. How can we encourage people who seek peace to not discount the violence that will be used to create peace by destroying violence/colonization?
Fanon, in part one, mentions both direct and indirect ways in which colonizers control the colonized. He speaks on strong borders and police forces as well as schools for the natives (3). He says that when the the colonized finally decide to fight back and the colonizers realize they have lost their complete dominance over them, they resort to other means in which to fulfill their power grab over their subjects. On page 9, Fanon mentions that there is a relationship built between the elite in the colonizing world and the elite “natives”. He says that they maintain their control by establishing the values, morals, culture, technology etc. (9). Can this be described as a core-periphery structure? How can a structure as such be broken? Do colonizers intentionally create power vacuums for native elites as a way to maintain their connection?
Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth” seems as timely as ever to read. As protests fueled by racial violence continue throughout the U.S., and even other countries, Fanon’s sentiments can be seen all over social media. While people aren’t often quoting him, they repeat his ideas. The President calls protestors “thugs,” and justifies violence on the side of the police, but is disgusted by even the slightest display of violence by protestors. Police forces are quite clearly the colonizers, abusing residents of the U.S., most often Black and Brown residents, and earning overtime for making an arrest or writing tickets at the end of their shifts. In the preface, Sartre discusses Fanon’s ideas of decolonization, and the violence that is necessary. On page lvii, Sartre writes that “we, too, […] are being decolonized, meaning the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation.” What does Sartre mean when he says that we are being decolonized? What are things that we currently do that are reflective of colonialism? Are we policing ourselves as well?
Nearing the end of the section “Concerning Violence’, Fanon discusses the development of European economies which stemmed from the exploitation of colonized lands and peoples. He states “Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from the under-developed peoples… So when we hear the head of the European state declare with his hand on his heart that he must come to the help of the poor under-developed peoples, we do not tremble with gratitude. Quite the contrary; we say to ourselves: ‘It’s a just reparation which will be paid to us.’ Nor will we acquiesce in the help for under-developed countries being a programme of ‘sisters of charity.'” (81) These statements stood out to me, as they detail a phenomenon that we often discuss in SD courses- the building of wealth via extraction from “under-developed countries”- but Fanon also comments on the irony and hypocrisy of European states as they offer their “help”. We can draw parallels from this to our discussions on the World Bank, the IMF, etc. and consider the impact of the countless loans that have been made and the programs that have been created in these countries which have created fairly small amounts of change. Fanon’s use of the word “reparation” can raise the question of whether colonizing countries should be paying significant unconditional reparations rather than conditional loans which prolong a dependence of previously colonized countries on their “mother countries.” Though the likelihood of this happening is minimal, the question remains- is this concept something that we should be pushing to the forefront of the global stage? Would this provide decolonized countries the capacity of self-determination?
In Frantz Fanons, “Wretched of The Earth, Fanon notes that colonization is “always a violent event.” The power structure that keeps people colonized are violent and have to be matched with violence. Fanon writes, “It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence” (23, Fanon). Dr. Martin Luther King embraced the principle of non-violence. Why does Fanon accept or advocate violence as a necessary tool for social change?
In Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” he states “the proof of success lies in a whole social structure being changed from the bottom up” (35), and history has shown the successes of those who were able to change their circumstances through community solidarity in non-violent ways, such as that of the Southern Civil Rights Movement. But Fanon later suggests that in order for the oppressed to become their own leaders: “That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace (too quickly, some say) the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence” (37). He continuously suggests that violence is necessary in order to overthrow the dominance of colonialism. We can see this parallel in today’s BLM movement concerning Police Brutality. The police is the “intermediary” for the government and African Americans are the “natives” in the quote: “The intermediary does not lighten the oppression, nor seek to hide the domination; he shows them up and puts them into practice with the clear conscience of an upholder of the peace; yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native” (38). Therefore, in order to change their marginalization, are those being discriminated against required to commit reciprocated responses of violence? Or can peace be acquired by peaceful means? Two different perspectives as seen in the writings of Fanon and Gandhi.
In Part 1, of Frantz Fanon’s, “Wretched of the Earth” he opens with a statement of “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” and then goes on to explain why. He states that decolonization means overturning a political and ontological system, meaning those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, “the wretched” being raised to the top. Do you think this is possible without violence? If so, how could we achieve this without completely destabilizing the existing order? Are there any examples in history that have restructured their social hierarchy without the means of violence? One question I have always thought about when reading and talking about colonization is why do the colonizers force Western culture on societies, and why do they believe it is the most superior form of human civilization? Fanon talks about the colonized world being divided into two opposing parts, the “white” side and the “black” and “Arab” side. The natives (black and Arab) tend to protest and react negatively as a way to counteract the results of this colonialism. According to Fanon, decolonization is “no more and no less that the abolition of one zone, its burial in the depths of the Earth or its expulsion from the country” what does he mean by this? Does he mean to say that the process of decolonization is not immediate but will happen in several stages if accomplished? I also thought it was interesting that he argues that real help in the process can come from the communist countries, who are already opposed to the capitalist west.
On the subject of neutrality Fanon writes “Some liken it [neutrality] to a kind of loathsome mercantilism which consists of taking handouts left and right. But although neutrality, a creation of the Cold War, allows underdeveloped countries to receive economic aid from both sides, it does not permit either of these two sides to come to the aid of the underdeveloped regions the way they should (40-41).
I find this perspective on neutrality very interesting. I agree with Fanon as he says that a country cannot come to the aid of a neutral nation to the fullest extent because of its neutrality; a nation cannot risk providing aid to a country that will not commit to being an ally. In addition to being an SD major, I am also a history major and I have studied numerous wars and conflicts. Not once has this concept of neutrality ever occurred to me. I could see how a country claiming neutrality could take advantage of the aid given by the other sides, as Fanon suggests in the first sentence. Fanon’s idea of neutrality being a hinderance to a nation is particularly fascinating. I would be curious of other historical examples of this being the case.
My question is whether or not this idea of neutrality has been exhibited in today’s society? I know that this book was first published in 1961, but I wonder if this idea has expanded to be used as a form of scare tactic amongst warring nations? By this I mean are there any recent examples of a nation using the distribution of aid as a manipulation tactic to secure alliance with another country?
Fanon makes a clear argument for the justification and need for violence. However, I am unclear why Fanon thinks that violence is an effective tactic for decolonization. On page 79, Fanon states that “violence of the native is only hopeless if we compare it to the abstract military machine of the oppressor. On the other hand, if we situate that dynamic of the international situation, we see at once that it constitutes a terrible menace for the oppressor”. What does Fanon mean by this? Is he just implying that violence is so annoying and implicates the oppressor on the world stage? He later expresses that the violence of the oppressed signals to the world how dire the situation, and how angry people are. Is this the purpose of the violence, and where the efficacy lies? Violence as a signal of inequality that must be addressed?
In “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon, he writes about how decolonization and colonialism are deeply rooted in violence, specifically in Africa. This violence causes a divide between the colonist and the colonized; power positions. He goes on to say, “Colonialism hardly ever exploits the whole of a country. It contents itself with bringing to light the natural resources, which it extracts, and exports to meet the needs of the mother country’s industries, thereby allowing certain sectors of the colony to become relatively rich. But the rest of the colony follows its path of under-development and poverty, or at all events sinks into it more deeply.” I chose this quote because I believe that Fanon explains what I was trying to say. I believe that he is saying that colonialism causes the exploitation of poor countries and communities, as well as the extraction of its resources for the economic and political gain of the colonizers. This in turn leaves the colonized poor, oppressed and displaced. My question for this week is, what kind of movements or unions would he suggest that would work best to avoid this from happening to the colonized? I believe that he would suggest something with power and maybe even involving violence. I say this because in chapter two he states “The true revolution is eventually led by the masses who have discovered that, through violence, they can liberate their souls at the same time that they fight colonial oppression.”
Fanon argues in his book “Wretched of the Earth” that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve anti-colonialist goals and that anticolonialism is inherently violent through the process of replacing one group of people with another. Fanon also argues that colonizers view the colonized as lesser human beings, a class of people which requires no second thought. I believe Fanon is likely correct- decolonizing almost always come with some form of violence. What steps can we take in the US to decolonize ourselves for the benefit of society and the benefit of Natives as well?
In Wretched of the Earth Frantz Fanon discusses how colonization is a always a violent process, and so decolonization must also be an inherently violent process in order successfully fight the colonist. Fanon also writes that violence is a deeper concept than simply physically harmful acts, but can also be structural and cultural-precisely the methods of violence that the colonists use. They do things such as portray the native as sub-human and destroy their self-identity and dignity as people. He believes the idea that the colonized should be expected to use nonviolent resistance reflects a double standard of colonization. Do you agree with Fanon’s philosophy on colonization and violence? And how does it compare to Gandhi’s views on colonization and violent vs. nonviolent resistance?