Upon watching The Battle of Algiers, my mind went back to two quotes from the chapter “On Violence” of Wretched of the Earth. “…The FLN in a famous tract stated that colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat. No Algerian really thought these terms to violent. The tract merely expressed what every Algerian felt deep down: colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with reason. It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence,” (25). and on the next page, “Instruments are important in the field of violence since in the end everything is based on the allocation of these instruments of force…But guerilla warfare, that instrument of violence, would amount to nothing if it did not count as a new factor in the global competition between cartels and monopolies.” (26).
I feel as though these really reign true in the case of the Battle of Algiers, and the way it was presented as a film. From what I personally gathered, the film seemed to depict the FLN as freedom fighters, only resorting to “terrorist” attacks and violence when they have absolutely nothing else to pit against the French, and non-violence has proven ineffective against them. It was legitimately their only means left against the French, only further supporting Fanon’s claim that everything is based on the distribution and utilization of arms in the eyes of the colonist. The French had a goal of domination, while the FLN had a goal of liberation, and addressing the issue of drugs and prostitution in the Casbah. Given that the French had turned a blind eye to these issues, the next step for the FLN was to target their police force. To me, it was clear that the FLN had no ill intention against French civilians, but any nonviolent strategies fell on deaf ears, thus leading to last resort efforts.
Had he had the chance to view the film prior to his death, how do you think Fanon would interpret the cinematic elements of the Battle of Algiers? Do you think he would agree with the way the FLN was portrayed in their public and private gatherings, as well as their interactions with civil society? What do you think his biggest critique of the film would be?
In the first chapter, “On Violence,” Frantz Fanon the role of colonialism in dehumanizing and othering those who are being colonized. Fanon points out that humanism and colonialism are not easily distinguishable due to the fact that concrete, universal thoughts about humanity and what defines human nature were being formed around the time of Western colonialism. In chapter one Fanon says, “The “native” sector is not complementary to the European sector. The two confront each other, but not in the service of a higher unity. Governed by a purely Aristotelian logic, they follow the dictates of mutual exclusions: There is no conciliation possible, one of them is superfluous. The colonist’s sector is a sector built to last, all stone and steel. It’s a sector of lights and paved roads, where the trash cans constantly overflow with strange and wonderful garbage, undreamed-of leftovers…The colonized’s sector is a sector that crouches and cowers, a sector on its knees, a sector that is prostrate” (Fanon 4-5). What does Fanon mean when he says, “the two confront each other but not in the service of a higher unity?
In what way does Fanon ask us to look deeper into our analysis of colonialism and precapitalism?
The Battle of Algiers was extremely telling and interesting in regards to the way it presented colonialism. The film does an excellent job of showing the harsh truth of colonialism as well as the violence associated with de-colonialism through striking imagery. It really reminds me of a quote from the beginning of a part of The Wretched Earth where Fannon says “whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon.” (35). This was probably my biggest takeaway from the film, showing not only the impacts colonialism has had, but how the processes of de-colonizing are just as harmful. As presented in the documentary with the FLN, they not only have to fight the colonial power but also completely rework how their society has operated for hundreds of years. This obviously creates conflict between the country’s native people who likely oppose colonialism, but also oppose yet another governing body telling them what they can and cannot do. Fannon explains that “The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it.” (37). While Fannon does not discredit the positives that do occur from decolonization such as the unification and formation of a nation, but he continuously states that decolonization always results in some form of violence or disruption of the colonized countries’ society. The question that this brings me to is rather open-ended but I can’t help but think if there isn’t any way to decolonize a nation without violence and chaos? And if there there isn’t, is there at least a better way to have gone about decolonization, or did what happened needed to be done?
The first time I watched this film was in a class on terrorism. At the time, we watched it in the context of looking at both the French government and FLN as “terrorist” groups, and how this definition may shift when looking at it through different lenses. This time I attempted to watched it, it was through with the writings of Fanon in mind. As Fanon states, “The Colonist makes history, and he knows it… The history he writes is therefore not the history of the country he is despoiling, but the history of his own nation’s looting, raping, and starving to death” (Fanon, 15). I think this quote sets an interesting context because in my opinion the film sets the viewer up to be on the side of the colonized, as we see the negative effects French colonization has had. Society tends to liken violence (unless enacted by the government) as immoral. However, Fanon pushes back against this. While he doesn’t relish in the loss of human life, he does recognize that the colonized must use violence to break free of the colonizer, we see this in The Battle of Algiers. The FLN uses violence because, like Fanon states, this is the language that the colonizer understands. In the Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity, Fanon writes on the weaknesses associated with organizing the colonized into a nationalist party. “The notion of a party is a notion imported from the metropolis” (64). By working within a party, you are working within the system of colonization. I am a bit confused regarding Fanon views on nationalist parties. What is his difference in views between the FLN and other nationalist parties?
Fanon and Gandhi both recognize the power of economics as a revolutionary force despite their different approaches to the use of violence as a form of protest. Fanon laments the capitalist system as an expansion of colonial oppression, stating that “If we want to increase the national revenue, and decrease the importing of certain products which are useless, or even harmful, if we want to increase agricultural production and overcome illiteracy, we must explain what we are about” (194). Gandhi echoes this sentiment through his concept of Swadeshi where he calls upon his followers to boycott British goods. He states that India will not achieve success “by copying the doubtful example of the West” (Gandhi, 4). Do Gandhi and Fanon’s recognition of the effectiveness of economic protest as a revolutionary force despite their differing views on violence indicate that it is the most effective form of protest? Why would groups like the FLN use violent and more personally dangerous protests when economic protests can often be effective and less risky?
Both Fanon, Gandhi, and The Battle of Algiers utilize different forces to transform into a de-colonized society. These different forms of transformation rely on either violence or non-violence. The Battle of Algiers puts into perspective what force is needed to transform a society and become liberated from the colonizer. This film strengthens Fanon’s statement that violence is the only language that the colonizer understands. In contrast, Gandhi utilizes non-violence to transform his society. Gandhi’s force was to boycott British goods and utilize the power of economics for transformation.
In one of my other classes, we are having conversations about small and large-scale transformations. In order to liberate from the colonizer, violence and non-violence have been utilized for transformation. Was the violence in Algeria considered small-scale or large-scale? What could be more effective for transformation? In the example of Gandhi, was boycotting British goods large-scale or small-scale? In terms of utilizing economic power for transformation, what actions could be taken to exemplify large-scale or small-scale efforts? More broadly, are large-scale or small-scale transformations needed to transform into a decolonized society?
As we briefly discussed in class, Fanon sees a clear distinction and gives a good illustration of the difference between the capitalist societies and the colonies in terms of the people’s subjugation. He draws distinctions between the ways in which the colonies are kept in line and kept oppressed, through direct violence and the “policeman”, and the capitalist society is kept in line by the education system, where morals are taught and oppression is learned.
Fanon writes “these aesthetic expressions of respect for the established order serve to create around the exploited person an atmosphere of submission and of inhibition which lightens the task of policing considerably…moral teachers separate the exploited from those in powers.” He then writes that in contrast, in the colonial countries, “the agents of government speak the language of pure force.”
This then makes me consider the role of violent and nonviolent operations for change. I think it can be justified that in the places where brute force and violence are the tools for oppression, this is where violent decolonization has its place. The Battle of Algiers can be a perfect example for this, as with many of Fanon’s examples of violently colonized worlds.
I wonder, however, if some principles of Gandhi’s nonviolent tactics should be held on to in cases where countries are not necessarily violently oppressed, or at least not as directly and extremely as colonized countries. When capitalist countries are for the most part “nonviolently” oppressed, through systemic means that are potentially less obvious, does violent decolonization make sense? Or is the smartest, most strategic mode of decolonization through nonviolence, which is what Gandhi might suggest?
I think a lot of this would depend on what is considered violence, if my perception of capitalist inhibition is skewed and it’s more violent than non, and if colonialism could ever be nonviolent, even within a capitalist country.
“We cannot be held responsible that in this war psychiatric phenomena entailing disorders affecting behavior and thought have taken on importance where those who carry out the ‘pacification’ are concerned, or that these same disorders are notable among the ‘pacified’ population. The truth is that colonialism in its essence was already taking on the aspect of a fertile purveyor for psychiatric hospitals….The defensive attitudes created by this violent bringing together of the colonized man and the colonial system form themselves into a structure which then reveals the colonized personality. This ‘sensitivity’ is easily understood if we simply study and are alive to the number and depth of the injuries upon a native during a single day spent amongst the colonial regime.”
The quotes above from pages 249 and 250 really struck me as crucial points Fanon is trying to portray. In these quotes he reminds us that if we pay enough attention to the ways in which colonization affects native populations, it is immediately clear as to who these people are suffering in more ways than one. Fanon mentions that “…colonialism forces the people it dominates to ask themselves the question constantly: ‘in reality, who am I? (150)” I think often we overlook the effects that colonialism play on mental health, especially for the colonized. Fanon gives us a glimpse into what mental health struggles look like for colonized populations in the chapter Colonial War and Mental Disorders. Having read the stories that Fanon portrays, how do we as a society oftentimes overlook the extent to which people suffer mentally at the hands of colonization? Are we overly focused on other effects of colonization, and could overlooking some effects impact our viewpoints and the ways in which we go about making change?
To preface: The Battle of Algiers film surprised me in the sense that (regrettably) my immediate reaction was, “oh no, a film made in the ’60s, black and white, entirely subtitles”. However, I was very wrong, in that this film was incredibly done, from the videography mimicking some film tactics used in documentaries, to the overall visual aid in helping me to see and better understand the colonialism vs. revolution dichotomy –panning out in a viewer-friendly, very comprehensive way.
In the face of French colonizers, Algerians organized an anti-colonialist group, the FLN, (National Liberation Front). The organized violence and strategic attacks against the French colonists really impeded upon and negatively impacted “the colonist’s state of bliss”. Paris’s response was to put Algeria under tight police control and close off its streets. The governor-general decree was that the purchasing of wound care for gunshots must be approved by the government and that health care institutions had to keep police informed about wounded patients. I found this to be both menacing and brilliant. What an ingenious way to control a population -by enforcing legal precedent upon health care institutions to be inside eyes on reporting the wounded in order to delineate who may be affiliated with the FLN. To me, this blood bath tracing only exemplifies why violence, in my opinion, is not the most effective way to run a revolution, especially if you care about discretion in order to stay at the forefront of the movement; I suppose for Gandhi, discretion wasn’t a crucial element considering being in jail for defying laws was desirable. I perceived this particular situation to make the FLN more vulnerable in essentially getting themselves caught when it was evident the leaders wanted to stay very undetected in order to remain involved with and around organizing the next move against the French. This film made me think about the portion of Fanon’s work that refers to a colonized nation’s realization of self-worth, which when the masses are enlightened with the reality of violence leading to desired goals, it creates a psychological narrative that equates problem-solving with aggression as the only effective strategy. “At the individual, violence is a cleansing force. It rids the colonized of their inferiority complex –restoring their self-confidence– Violence hoists people up to the level of the leader” (51), whereabouts, especially after successes, the masses are, “enlightened by violence”(52). Is it possible to believe that after a young nation has just been so liberated through violence, that once de-colonized, they could shift gears to be less fueled by aggression, and more rational and holistic in their governing approaches, or is this unrealistic? If so, is this example a key driver to support the notion that the revolutionary use of violence is problematic as a precursor to the building and solidarity of a newly “freed” nation?
Many times during the Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness chapter, Fanon describes the levels within a colonized society as a caste system. Fanon first states this in the quote, “This new caste is an insult and an outrage, especially since the immense majority, nine-tenths of the population, continue to starve to death. The way this caste gets rich quickly, pitilessly and scandalously, is matched by a determined resurgence of the people and the promise of violent days ahead.” (113) I would have to agree that this system in place has caused a caste-like system but I do not believe that everyone gets rich quickly. It is nearly impossible to move up the economic ladder but it is easy to go down in this particular caste system. There is this promise that in a capitalist society that everyone can become wealthy if they work hard enough but this is not the case. In this society, people have to be pushed down for other’s gain. If this is truly the traditional caste system, then it is nearly impossible to move through the different caste levels. Yes, this caste system is impossible to move through if you are at the bottom from birth. If you are in the middle class, then it is easier to move up if you are willing to harm others in the process. Has this system caused a permanent caste system that we can never break out of? If we called this social-economic status we have created a caste system, would people be more willing to change it?
The Battle of Algiers film was quite brilliantly done. Although I know “who’s side I am on,” the film itself is presented through a fairly non-bias lens in my opinion, as it does not present one side as the villain and one side as the hero, but rather shows the brutal violent tactics both sides used as means to obtain their goals. In this way, the film cannot be critiqued as supporting one side. Although, the film does show why the FLN, the National Liberation Front, had to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation, after the French were unwilling to meet their demands. Some of the first dialogue in the film says, “…to avoid bloodshed we propose the French negotiate with us to restore self-determination,” or something of the like. With that said, Fanon offers a very interesting viewpoint on the liberation of the collective consciousness of the colonized people, explaining how “violence is a cleansing force. It rids the colonized of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self-confidence,” (51). I don’t believe this is entirely depicted in the film. Earlier, Fanon speaks to the importance of structuring the collective consciousness in order to strengthen their (Algeria’s) resistance (footnotes, p49). The film definitely shows the “circle of hatred” in Algeria that Fanon explains so well, where terror is met with counterterror, and violence with counterviolence (47) but I wonder how liberating it can truly be for the colonized, psychologically, to break this circle with the same tactics used against them. He similarly argues and advocates for strategic planning in relation to the collective consciousness of the colonized, saying “…one does not win a national war…or transform the individual if one neglects to raise the consciousness of the men in combat,” (86). I wonder, how important is it unite the collective consciousness before turning to violence? Does Fanon truly believe the collective consciousness is united and enlightened through violence and is this depicted in the film? Although he ends Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity saying, “Violence alone, perpetrated by the people, violence organized and guided by the leadership, provides the key for the masses to decipher social reality,” (96), he later moves into the lasting psychological dimensions of colonialism. What do you think Gandhi would say regarding tactics to fight psychological warfare, and how might this relate to the process of the decolonization of the mind?
The battle of the Algiers depicts a battle for independence between the French Government and Algerian rebels as the rebels seek independence. Soldiers from both sides show how war leaves no respect for humanity. The people of Algeria are fighting to combat colonialism, “in accordance with Islamic principles and the respect of basic liberties, regardless of race or religion.” The Algerian people sought negotiations with the French to earn their self-determination without bloodshed. Obviously, they did not get their wish.
I think that this film serves as evidence to Fanon’s belief that violence is the only language a colonizer understands, which differs greatly from Gandhi. Do you think that if Gandhi was born in Algeria that he could have led the decolonization of Algeria nonviolently? Or do you think different situations require different means for different ends? I am curious if anyone thinks Gandhi’s approach would be successful in this context. I do not believe it would.
Fanon writes about the national bourgeoisie and how it underdeveloped, saying that it’s intentions are not in the right place. Fanon writes “In its willful narcissism, the national bourgeoisie has lulled itself into thinking that it can supplant the metropolitan bourgeoisie to its own advantage” (98). I feel like this way of thinking comes from seeing how the colonists chose to take over and how they believed they were all knowing. This class is made up of the business elite and university graduates who find themselves scattered around the capital. Feeling that they are the elite is a result of how they were colonized. Fanon writes about how the bourgeoisie should work in an undeveloped country saying “the imperative duty of an authentic national bourgeoisie is to betray the vocation to which it is destined, to learn from the people, and make them available to them the intellectual and technical capital it culled from its time in colonial universities” (99). Although this is not the case, if this country is striving for nationhood why do they not want to ensure that the system is working for everyone and not just the business elite and the educated?
Watching the 1966 film, The Battle of Algiers, it did a good job of storytelling what we learned from Fanon. A colonial state is associated with hostility, and brute force to control. Fanon’s argument that the colonizer only imposes violence rings true for this story. In a professional manner, the Algerians made propositions and requests relating to independence. These were not met, and violence ensued. Once war happens, a feedback loop of hatred is created among the sides involved, as long as the sides are willing to participate. While this film correlates well with Fanon’s writings, I wonder if the Algerians could have taken a non violent approach. I am not saying that is what should have happened, I would just like to know if there were any ways, such as the salt march led by Gandhi, that the Algerians could have stood up to the French without bloodshed? It is easy for me to assume something like that to be so easy, not being ruled under the French as an Algerian. I am sure there is much more to the situation that I do not understand, I just wonder what kind of possibilities could have been available given a leader such as Gandhi.
The film we watched corresponded well to Franz Fanon’s perspective on decolonization and the innate violence that ensues throughout the process. Last class we discussed the concept of the colonized transitioning from ‘object’ to ‘subject’ by leading profound revolutions. This can clearly be seen in The Battle of Algiers as the National Liberation Front, or FLN, grew quickly in strength and numbers. After 130+ years of French occupation, the FLN’s aim was “independence and restoration of the Algerian State”, proposing that the French negotiate with them for their right to self-determination. As we’ve seen many times in history, the colonizer rejected this notion and continued to allow the country to fall apart due to excessive drug and alcohol use, etc. I saw this action through the lens of Fanon’s statement that read: “They govern in their own interests, and they have the courage of their own strength. They have created legitimacy, and they are strong in their own right” (pg. 181). The FLN decided it was time to take matters into their own hands to clean up their country, and at the moment you had to choose whether to pick a side or possibly lose your life. And just as Fanon knew, violence of course ensued when no changes were being met, however, at the beginning the National Liberation Front committed extremely organized attacks on the French police. Only those targeted were hurt and it was so swift, if you blink you missed it. Do you think this method of “sneak attacks” is more or less effective towards reaching their goal of liberation? On one hand, they were ensuring an easy escape for themselves, while also not harming innocent civilians. But on the other, they were not exactly standing up for themselves or their country because who is to say that the police individual that was killed will not be easily replaced by another. What would Fanon’s reaction be to their plan of organized crime?
In the third chapter of “Wretched of the Earth”, Fanon discusses how the colonized bourgeoisie would behave after independence. One quote to analyze states “We have said that the colonized bourgeoisie which attains power utilizes the aggressiveness of its class to grab the jobs previously held by foreigners. In the aftermath of independence, faced with the human consequences of colonialism, it wages a ruthless struggle against the lawyers, tradespeople, landowners, doctors, and high-ranking civil servants “who insult the national dignity.” Fanon believes that the colonized bourgeoisie will want to take the jobs that the foreigners (the colonizers) once had. This is an interesting comparison to make to Gandhi’s beliefs in “Hind Swaraj”, as he believes the independence of a colonized country should lead back to its traditional village economy. If the global south were to become wholly independent, would it make sense for them to take the jobs of the foreigners or to transition into the economies they once had prior to colonization?
The Battle of Algiers seemed to be a parallel to the sentiment of Fanon with the decolonization of the French being one that was ultimately quite bloody. In accordance to Ghandi’s reasoning, the Algerians started by attempting a peaceful and negotiated independence from French rule only to create no traction and be silenced by French authority. From this, the FLN counterforce turned to violence in order to begin the path back to self rule in Algeria. This is where I saw the shift towards Fanon’s way of thinking as the Algerians came to find the only language the French colonizers understand is violence in the conversation of decolonization. I thought back to how Gandhi faced the same failure when trying to come to terms with the British but this did not deter him from maintaining the principle of non-violence. Gandhi was able to speak to the colonial oppressors in another language they understood, which was money. The salt march and other events that ensued all hit the pockets of colonial powers and eventually caused enough financial damage that the British no longer wanted the hassle associated with retaining power. So I question if Fanon’s logic was truly the best course of action in Algeria or if a less violent approach would have been able to create a similar result of independence and success? Who is to say the FLN could not have created as organized forms of nonviolent disobedience as Gandhi was able to do in India? Was Gandhi’s movement potentially drawing a lot of it’s success from the mass numbers they had on the British or would a movement similars to Gandhi’s be even more successful on a smaller scale like Algeria?
Fanon says “The peasantry is systematically disregarded for the most part but the propaganda put out by most nationalist parties. And it is clear that in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they ave noting to lose and everything to gain, The starving peasant, outside the class system, is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence plays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization are simply a question of ratline strength” (61). How is this shown throughout the Battle of Algeriers? Who stands to lose the most in these systems? How can violence be liberating to those lower in the class system?
Like some other people mentioned, I was pleasantly surprised about the quality of the film and how well the efforts for decolonization were depicted. As Fanon mentioned and as shown throughout the film, the process of decolonization influences an aspect of violence. Though it was shocking and gruesome to see members of the FLN bomb popular social areas, I am reminded of this quote by Fanon: “Europe has laid her hands on our continents, and we must slash at her fingers till she lets go. It’s a good moment; nothing can happen at Bizerta, at Elizabethville or in the Algerian bled* that the whole world does not hear about. The rival blocs take opposite sides, and hold each other in check; let us take advantage of this paralysis, let us burst into history, forcing it by our invasion into universality for the first time. Let us start fighting; and if we’ve no other arms, the waiting knife’s enough” (13). Algerians have been pushed away from their home and are completely iced out by the French. A scene that stood out to me was when Ali first got arrested in the opening of the film. The narrator announced his occupation, relationship status, economic status, etc. The words used to describe Ali all had a sort of negative connotation. This same characterization was done with another Algerian man when the police caught the wrong man after the murder of a cop. This leads me to my question, could a nonviolent movement, such as Gandhi’s have any form of influence in the climate of Algeria? Furthermore, I understand that Fanon approves of violence as a of the long-term oppression of communities, however, is the violence in Algeria by the FLN (the 3 bombings for example) warranted?
The Battle of Algiers, the opening scene shows the main character running away from the police and then getting tripped by a white man. The main character punches him in the face, resorting to violence, but when he gets hauled away by the police you understand why he punched the man. That trip will have affected the next year or so of his life, because they start listing how many times he’s been detained for small crimes, and the lengthy amount of times that he has been in for. This makes me think about how race and class has so much to do with, like Fanon explains, the appropriate action that one has towards initiating violence with colonizers. Is there a third option for protest, besides peace and violence? Can violence be a better option than peace in some cases?
The Battle of Algiers is a remarkable film which details the organizing and efforts behind the final battle in attempts to win the capital of Algeria. Many scenes exemplified the role that racial and cultural hierarchies took in this time period, especially as a means to justify and continue colonist rule in Algeria. There are scenes throughout the movie that reference events where people were arrested for not looking French, or European. Of particular note, the scene where the women are placing bombs in cafes, they are only allowed to pass unnoticed by the occupying soldiers because they are not wearing veils. Following the scenes of the bombing, paratroopers arrive from France and begin devising ways to rid Algeria of these “terrorists”, as the French describe them. It is so ironic that the French, who are occupying land, destroying cultures, committing countless murders and violations of human rights, are declaring anyone other than themselves as perpetrators of terror. It’s also interesting how, during the meeting of the French soldiers and inspector general, that they specify, not all of the Arabs in the area are dangerous, but a small number of them, who must be “eliminated”. Colonialism is a project instructed by a powerful minority, and perpetuated by a majority who has been miseducated and manipulated to invest in ideas such as European/white supremacy and colonial occupation — a practice that is carried out by people who were not necessarily those organizing the colonial project, but are guilty because of their actions. I think this is an idea that the women grapple with as they are placing the bombs. The camera pans from a woman’s face, showing thoughtful expressions and eyes, to the crowd of French people in the cafe, including children. Similar scenes are shot in the airport and the dance hall. In this moment, I am wondering where her justification and strength is coming from. An analysis of the film I read mentions, “The audience understands a fundamental truth about war; no one’s morality is left unscathed when your existence is threatened by an external force” (Anonymous). I think that captures these scenes perfectly, as I believe these women were not suspending their moralities, but rather grappling with them as their lives, families, and cultures are continually threatened and eroded by the French government. It is also interesting to consider how these acts of direct and coordinated violence to achieve decolonization contrast with Ghandi’s messages and action, and I wonder if people participating in Ghandi’s movement also had similar moral grapplings, but perhaps in another direction. Were they concerned they were not doing enough, not being direct enough or threatening enough to be taken seriously? Similarly, I wonder if these women considered the opposite, perhaps if they were less upfront, if the pushback would perhaps be less harsh, and make way for transformative change? I would argue, in considering these questions, that the women and their communities in The Battle of Algiers were pushed to a point where they did not see an alternative than to meet the dynamics of colonial violence with other violent responses.
After watching the Battle of Algiers, I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. There was a large similarity in the efforts of decolonization in the film and what Fanon talks about. Anti Colonial violence runs throughout the film and is seen in many of the scenes. My question is what is the goal of this film overall? And its effectiveness of it’s goal message? Is it trying to show an example of how to fight back against colonial powers and empower people to do the same? Is violence the better option? Does Fanon support people’s actions in the ways that are seen in this film? What does violence mean for the people fighting against the powers? Does it dehumanize them or is it emotionally draining for them?
After watching the Battle of Algiers, I was really intrigued by the similarities in the film and different excerpts from Fanon. My question is, “In efforts of decolonization, is violence the only way of making a drastic change?” Ghandi might argue otherwise, but there are many examples of violence that has worked (in the case of The Black Panthers).
The Battle of Algiers showed the story of Algerian rebels fighting against colonialist France for their freedom. The FLN followed a more violent approach like we read about in the Wretched of the Earth by Fantz Fanon. Fanon believes that persistent violence and uprising against the colonizer will prevail and action that is not violent against the oppressor is useless. The FLN in the Battle of Algiers felt the same way and persisted with violent action, but, in the end, failed to free themselves from France. This happened because of the relentlessness of the French soldiers as consistently manipulative and oppressive. For example, in the Battle of Algiers, the French soldiers would constantly be saying how “the FLN is dead, give up” or “the rebellion is dwindling, give up” even when it was not. The oppressor loves psychological warfare. Both the Battle of Algiers and the Wretched of the Earth are promoting radical violent behavior against colonialism. If I were in their shoes, I would act the same way.
Gandhi in Hind Swaraj talks about the complete opposite of Fanon. He promotes non-violent forms of civil unrest and protest, and I think he has a very good point. Fighting back gives the oppressor a reason to increase violence AND it compromises the colonized peoples’ role as the victim. Gandhi discusses how citizens of the west are heavily influenced by press, and are also not necessarily evil. If the west reads consistent stories about colonized people being physically beaten for non-violently protesting, they will not support their governments. On the other hand, the media could portray colonized people that act out violently against the oppressor with the label of “savage”.
Both authors make really good points on colonialism and revolution.
Both authors make valid points, but the circumstances are different in every situation. My question would be: would violent revolution force change in the US, or would it start a deathly war?
I thoroughly enjoyed watching The Battle of Algiers, especially after learning that it was shot on-location using non-professional actors who lived through the actual battle in real life. It did such a good job exposing the violence of the French against the Algerian citizens during the Algerian War that it was banned in France for five years after its release. It was a great film to watch coupled with Fanon because it showed the physical violence that the colonized must face on a daily basis and showed how counter-violence was truly the only thing that the colonizers could understand. I noticed that there were strategic places where the main characters would use violence (i.e. the women hiding bombs in their purses and setting them off in public places) and where they would refrain from using violence at all (when they had a stand-off with the French police and did not shoot them, even with a gun in hand). Would Fanon agree that direct violence does not need to happen whenever possible to attack the colonizers? Would he argue that violence comes in more than one form?
Considering the film The Battle of Algiers and Fanon, I think there are some points that are highlighted in both. Fanon discusses that there is going to be violence when decolonizing. The film shows increasing violence form both sides. Which is another point Fanon describes as violence will be met with violence. It does make me wonder is Fanon would agree with the type of violence used? If he would agree with the bombs? Or would he claim that they should expect the violence that they are met with?
The Battle of Algiers depicts the resistance lead by the National Liberation Front (FLN) against French colonizers. This was a violent fight for independence and Algerians came together to resist the French. This reminded me of a quote from Fanon’s book which reads, “After one or two centuries of exploitation the national cultural landscape has radically shriveled… little movement can be seen,” (172). Colonization strips the nation of their culture and transforms the people into slaves of the colonizer to be exploited. Therefore, I would argue that culture is powerful enough to unify and fight for liberation from the oppressor. In the modern day, how can oppressed groups strengthen their cultural bonds? Is it possible to reimagine culture for groups who have lost it?
The film, “The Battle of Algiers” is a great film that has many connections to Fanon’s novel, “The Wretched of the Earth,” mainly in the sense that both pieces are very heavily tied to the idea of decolonization. The movie depicts a liberation front that is challenging the colonial practices that were set forth by the French. Fanon describes the difficulty in the process of decolonization, “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red hot cannonballs and bloody knives,” (Fanon 3). The Battle of Algiers is somewhat of a personification of decolonization. And much of the movie is wrapped up in the brutality that comes with a community trying to resist colonial practices. I believe the changes that we see within the main character of the film is the cause of efforts to promote decolonization. He engages in harsh practices and even at one point takes the life of another man in the name of decolonization. “Decolonization is truly the creation of new men,” (Fanon 2), the main character throughout the film adapts and changes to the efforts that are being put forth by the liberation effort. He becomes a man who is tired of the colonial history that has been plaguing his country and tries to take action into his own hands through different methods. I believe if Fanon were to see the film he would be quite satisfied. “Decolonization, therefore, implies the urgent need to thoroughly challenge the colonial situation,” (Fanon 2), and this is exactly what the liberation front is doing throughout the film. So my question would be, are there any other ways to approach the obviously violent nature of decolonization? Is there a more humane way to approach the wretched colonial histories that many countries have had to deal with throughout history? If so, why would they be more successful?
”If you really wish your country to avoid regression, or at best halts and uncertainties, a rapid step must be taken from national consciousness to political and social consciousness. The nation does not exist in a program which has been worked out by revolutionary leaders and taken up with full understanding and enthusiasm by the masses. The nation’s effort must constantly be adjusted into the general background of underdeveloped countries. The battle line against hunger, against ignorance, against poverty, and against unawareness ought to be ever present in the muscles and the intelligences of men and women.” (pg. 203). This passage from Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth most directly connected, at least for me, with some of the themes which appear in the Battle of Algiers. This “rapid step” towards political and social consciousness for Fanon happens in part by the kinds of actions shown in the Battle of Algiers, a movie about the war which Fanon personally participated in. For Fanon, through a deconstruction of one’s socio-economic presuppositions, and a conscious awareness of how material conditions create a social-reality which must be understood contextually, it might be possible for one to engage in emancipatory action which is truly effective in its capacity to create a society free of such dehumanizing institutions and social-relations as colonialism. The Battle of Algiers is the manifestation of this revolutionary consciousness, and its capacity to show the more gruesome and dark realities of such revolutionary actions reflects its striving to maintain a degree of authenticity typically lost in the rush to make previous events of history fantastical, and not the complex emotions gripping those involved.
Are the origins of revolutionary thought contingent on the recognition of this relationship between political and social consciousness and the capacity for emancipatory action?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Upon watching The Battle of Algiers, my mind went back to two quotes from the chapter “On Violence” of Wretched of the Earth. “…The FLN in a famous tract stated that colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat. No Algerian really thought these terms to violent. The tract merely expressed what every Algerian felt deep down: colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with reason. It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence,” (25). and on the next page, “Instruments are important in the field of violence since in the end everything is based on the allocation of these instruments of force…But guerilla warfare, that instrument of violence, would amount to nothing if it did not count as a new factor in the global competition between cartels and monopolies.” (26).
I feel as though these really reign true in the case of the Battle of Algiers, and the way it was presented as a film. From what I personally gathered, the film seemed to depict the FLN as freedom fighters, only resorting to “terrorist” attacks and violence when they have absolutely nothing else to pit against the French, and non-violence has proven ineffective against them. It was legitimately their only means left against the French, only further supporting Fanon’s claim that everything is based on the distribution and utilization of arms in the eyes of the colonist. The French had a goal of domination, while the FLN had a goal of liberation, and addressing the issue of drugs and prostitution in the Casbah. Given that the French had turned a blind eye to these issues, the next step for the FLN was to target their police force. To me, it was clear that the FLN had no ill intention against French civilians, but any nonviolent strategies fell on deaf ears, thus leading to last resort efforts.
Had he had the chance to view the film prior to his death, how do you think Fanon would interpret the cinematic elements of the Battle of Algiers? Do you think he would agree with the way the FLN was portrayed in their public and private gatherings, as well as their interactions with civil society? What do you think his biggest critique of the film would be?
In the first chapter, “On Violence,” Frantz Fanon the role of colonialism in dehumanizing and othering those who are being colonized. Fanon points out that humanism and colonialism are not easily distinguishable due to the fact that concrete, universal thoughts about humanity and what defines human nature were being formed around the time of Western colonialism. In chapter one Fanon says, “The “native” sector is not complementary to the European sector. The two confront each other, but not in the service of a higher unity. Governed by a purely Aristotelian logic, they follow the dictates of mutual exclusions: There is no conciliation possible, one of them is superfluous. The colonist’s sector is a sector built to last, all stone and steel. It’s a sector of lights and paved roads, where the trash cans constantly overflow with strange and wonderful garbage, undreamed-of leftovers…The colonized’s sector is a sector that crouches and cowers, a sector on its knees, a sector that is prostrate” (Fanon 4-5). What does Fanon mean when he says, “the two confront each other but not in the service of a higher unity?
In what way does Fanon ask us to look deeper into our analysis of colonialism and precapitalism?
The Battle of Algiers was extremely telling and interesting in regards to the way it presented colonialism. The film does an excellent job of showing the harsh truth of colonialism as well as the violence associated with de-colonialism through striking imagery. It really reminds me of a quote from the beginning of a part of The Wretched Earth where Fannon says “whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon.” (35). This was probably my biggest takeaway from the film, showing not only the impacts colonialism has had, but how the processes of de-colonizing are just as harmful. As presented in the documentary with the FLN, they not only have to fight the colonial power but also completely rework how their society has operated for hundreds of years. This obviously creates conflict between the country’s native people who likely oppose colonialism, but also oppose yet another governing body telling them what they can and cannot do. Fannon explains that “The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it.” (37). While Fannon does not discredit the positives that do occur from decolonization such as the unification and formation of a nation, but he continuously states that decolonization always results in some form of violence or disruption of the colonized countries’ society. The question that this brings me to is rather open-ended but I can’t help but think if there isn’t any way to decolonize a nation without violence and chaos? And if there there isn’t, is there at least a better way to have gone about decolonization, or did what happened needed to be done?
The first time I watched this film was in a class on terrorism. At the time, we watched it in the context of looking at both the French government and FLN as “terrorist” groups, and how this definition may shift when looking at it through different lenses. This time I attempted to watched it, it was through with the writings of Fanon in mind. As Fanon states, “The Colonist makes history, and he knows it… The history he writes is therefore not the history of the country he is despoiling, but the history of his own nation’s looting, raping, and starving to death” (Fanon, 15). I think this quote sets an interesting context because in my opinion the film sets the viewer up to be on the side of the colonized, as we see the negative effects French colonization has had. Society tends to liken violence (unless enacted by the government) as immoral. However, Fanon pushes back against this. While he doesn’t relish in the loss of human life, he does recognize that the colonized must use violence to break free of the colonizer, we see this in The Battle of Algiers. The FLN uses violence because, like Fanon states, this is the language that the colonizer understands. In the Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity, Fanon writes on the weaknesses associated with organizing the colonized into a nationalist party. “The notion of a party is a notion imported from the metropolis” (64). By working within a party, you are working within the system of colonization. I am a bit confused regarding Fanon views on nationalist parties. What is his difference in views between the FLN and other nationalist parties?
Fanon and Gandhi both recognize the power of economics as a revolutionary force despite their different approaches to the use of violence as a form of protest. Fanon laments the capitalist system as an expansion of colonial oppression, stating that “If we want to increase the national revenue, and decrease the importing of certain products which are useless, or even harmful, if we want to increase agricultural production and overcome illiteracy, we must explain what we are about” (194). Gandhi echoes this sentiment through his concept of Swadeshi where he calls upon his followers to boycott British goods. He states that India will not achieve success “by copying the doubtful example of the West” (Gandhi, 4). Do Gandhi and Fanon’s recognition of the effectiveness of economic protest as a revolutionary force despite their differing views on violence indicate that it is the most effective form of protest? Why would groups like the FLN use violent and more personally dangerous protests when economic protests can often be effective and less risky?
Both Fanon, Gandhi, and The Battle of Algiers utilize different forces to transform into a de-colonized society. These different forms of transformation rely on either violence or non-violence. The Battle of Algiers puts into perspective what force is needed to transform a society and become liberated from the colonizer. This film strengthens Fanon’s statement that violence is the only language that the colonizer understands. In contrast, Gandhi utilizes non-violence to transform his society. Gandhi’s force was to boycott British goods and utilize the power of economics for transformation.
In one of my other classes, we are having conversations about small and large-scale transformations. In order to liberate from the colonizer, violence and non-violence have been utilized for transformation. Was the violence in Algeria considered small-scale or large-scale? What could be more effective for transformation? In the example of Gandhi, was boycotting British goods large-scale or small-scale? In terms of utilizing economic power for transformation, what actions could be taken to exemplify large-scale or small-scale efforts? More broadly, are large-scale or small-scale transformations needed to transform into a decolonized society?
As we briefly discussed in class, Fanon sees a clear distinction and gives a good illustration of the difference between the capitalist societies and the colonies in terms of the people’s subjugation. He draws distinctions between the ways in which the colonies are kept in line and kept oppressed, through direct violence and the “policeman”, and the capitalist society is kept in line by the education system, where morals are taught and oppression is learned.
Fanon writes “these aesthetic expressions of respect for the established order serve to create around the exploited person an atmosphere of submission and of inhibition which lightens the task of policing considerably…moral teachers separate the exploited from those in powers.” He then writes that in contrast, in the colonial countries, “the agents of government speak the language of pure force.”
This then makes me consider the role of violent and nonviolent operations for change. I think it can be justified that in the places where brute force and violence are the tools for oppression, this is where violent decolonization has its place. The Battle of Algiers can be a perfect example for this, as with many of Fanon’s examples of violently colonized worlds.
I wonder, however, if some principles of Gandhi’s nonviolent tactics should be held on to in cases where countries are not necessarily violently oppressed, or at least not as directly and extremely as colonized countries. When capitalist countries are for the most part “nonviolently” oppressed, through systemic means that are potentially less obvious, does violent decolonization make sense? Or is the smartest, most strategic mode of decolonization through nonviolence, which is what Gandhi might suggest?
I think a lot of this would depend on what is considered violence, if my perception of capitalist inhibition is skewed and it’s more violent than non, and if colonialism could ever be nonviolent, even within a capitalist country.
“We cannot be held responsible that in this war psychiatric phenomena entailing disorders affecting behavior and thought have taken on importance where those who carry out the ‘pacification’ are concerned, or that these same disorders are notable among the ‘pacified’ population. The truth is that colonialism in its essence was already taking on the aspect of a fertile purveyor for psychiatric hospitals….The defensive attitudes created by this violent bringing together of the colonized man and the colonial system form themselves into a structure which then reveals the colonized personality. This ‘sensitivity’ is easily understood if we simply study and are alive to the number and depth of the injuries upon a native during a single day spent amongst the colonial regime.”
The quotes above from pages 249 and 250 really struck me as crucial points Fanon is trying to portray. In these quotes he reminds us that if we pay enough attention to the ways in which colonization affects native populations, it is immediately clear as to who these people are suffering in more ways than one. Fanon mentions that “…colonialism forces the people it dominates to ask themselves the question constantly: ‘in reality, who am I? (150)” I think often we overlook the effects that colonialism play on mental health, especially for the colonized. Fanon gives us a glimpse into what mental health struggles look like for colonized populations in the chapter Colonial War and Mental Disorders. Having read the stories that Fanon portrays, how do we as a society oftentimes overlook the extent to which people suffer mentally at the hands of colonization? Are we overly focused on other effects of colonization, and could overlooking some effects impact our viewpoints and the ways in which we go about making change?
To preface: The Battle of Algiers film surprised me in the sense that (regrettably) my immediate reaction was, “oh no, a film made in the ’60s, black and white, entirely subtitles”. However, I was very wrong, in that this film was incredibly done, from the videography mimicking some film tactics used in documentaries, to the overall visual aid in helping me to see and better understand the colonialism vs. revolution dichotomy –panning out in a viewer-friendly, very comprehensive way.
In the face of French colonizers, Algerians organized an anti-colonialist group, the FLN, (National Liberation Front). The organized violence and strategic attacks against the French colonists really impeded upon and negatively impacted “the colonist’s state of bliss”. Paris’s response was to put Algeria under tight police control and close off its streets. The governor-general decree was that the purchasing of wound care for gunshots must be approved by the government and that health care institutions had to keep police informed about wounded patients. I found this to be both menacing and brilliant. What an ingenious way to control a population -by enforcing legal precedent upon health care institutions to be inside eyes on reporting the wounded in order to delineate who may be affiliated with the FLN. To me, this blood bath tracing only exemplifies why violence, in my opinion, is not the most effective way to run a revolution, especially if you care about discretion in order to stay at the forefront of the movement; I suppose for Gandhi, discretion wasn’t a crucial element considering being in jail for defying laws was desirable. I perceived this particular situation to make the FLN more vulnerable in essentially getting themselves caught when it was evident the leaders wanted to stay very undetected in order to remain involved with and around organizing the next move against the French. This film made me think about the portion of Fanon’s work that refers to a colonized nation’s realization of self-worth, which when the masses are enlightened with the reality of violence leading to desired goals, it creates a psychological narrative that equates problem-solving with aggression as the only effective strategy. “At the individual, violence is a cleansing force. It rids the colonized of their inferiority complex –restoring their self-confidence– Violence hoists people up to the level of the leader” (51), whereabouts, especially after successes, the masses are, “enlightened by violence”(52). Is it possible to believe that after a young nation has just been so liberated through violence, that once de-colonized, they could shift gears to be less fueled by aggression, and more rational and holistic in their governing approaches, or is this unrealistic? If so, is this example a key driver to support the notion that the revolutionary use of violence is problematic as a precursor to the building and solidarity of a newly “freed” nation?
Many times during the Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness chapter, Fanon describes the levels within a colonized society as a caste system. Fanon first states this in the quote, “This new caste is an insult and an outrage, especially since the immense majority, nine-tenths of the population, continue to starve to death. The way this caste gets rich quickly, pitilessly and scandalously, is matched by a determined resurgence of the people and the promise of violent days ahead.” (113) I would have to agree that this system in place has caused a caste-like system but I do not believe that everyone gets rich quickly. It is nearly impossible to move up the economic ladder but it is easy to go down in this particular caste system. There is this promise that in a capitalist society that everyone can become wealthy if they work hard enough but this is not the case. In this society, people have to be pushed down for other’s gain. If this is truly the traditional caste system, then it is nearly impossible to move through the different caste levels. Yes, this caste system is impossible to move through if you are at the bottom from birth. If you are in the middle class, then it is easier to move up if you are willing to harm others in the process. Has this system caused a permanent caste system that we can never break out of? If we called this social-economic status we have created a caste system, would people be more willing to change it?
The Battle of Algiers film was quite brilliantly done. Although I know “who’s side I am on,” the film itself is presented through a fairly non-bias lens in my opinion, as it does not present one side as the villain and one side as the hero, but rather shows the brutal violent tactics both sides used as means to obtain their goals. In this way, the film cannot be critiqued as supporting one side. Although, the film does show why the FLN, the National Liberation Front, had to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation, after the French were unwilling to meet their demands. Some of the first dialogue in the film says, “…to avoid bloodshed we propose the French negotiate with us to restore self-determination,” or something of the like. With that said, Fanon offers a very interesting viewpoint on the liberation of the collective consciousness of the colonized people, explaining how “violence is a cleansing force. It rids the colonized of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self-confidence,” (51). I don’t believe this is entirely depicted in the film. Earlier, Fanon speaks to the importance of structuring the collective consciousness in order to strengthen their (Algeria’s) resistance (footnotes, p49). The film definitely shows the “circle of hatred” in Algeria that Fanon explains so well, where terror is met with counterterror, and violence with counterviolence (47) but I wonder how liberating it can truly be for the colonized, psychologically, to break this circle with the same tactics used against them. He similarly argues and advocates for strategic planning in relation to the collective consciousness of the colonized, saying “…one does not win a national war…or transform the individual if one neglects to raise the consciousness of the men in combat,” (86). I wonder, how important is it unite the collective consciousness before turning to violence? Does Fanon truly believe the collective consciousness is united and enlightened through violence and is this depicted in the film? Although he ends Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity saying, “Violence alone, perpetrated by the people, violence organized and guided by the leadership, provides the key for the masses to decipher social reality,” (96), he later moves into the lasting psychological dimensions of colonialism. What do you think Gandhi would say regarding tactics to fight psychological warfare, and how might this relate to the process of the decolonization of the mind?
The battle of the Algiers depicts a battle for independence between the French Government and Algerian rebels as the rebels seek independence. Soldiers from both sides show how war leaves no respect for humanity. The people of Algeria are fighting to combat colonialism, “in accordance with Islamic principles and the respect of basic liberties, regardless of race or religion.” The Algerian people sought negotiations with the French to earn their self-determination without bloodshed. Obviously, they did not get their wish.
I think that this film serves as evidence to Fanon’s belief that violence is the only language a colonizer understands, which differs greatly from Gandhi. Do you think that if Gandhi was born in Algeria that he could have led the decolonization of Algeria nonviolently? Or do you think different situations require different means for different ends? I am curious if anyone thinks Gandhi’s approach would be successful in this context. I do not believe it would.
Fanon writes about the national bourgeoisie and how it underdeveloped, saying that it’s intentions are not in the right place. Fanon writes “In its willful narcissism, the national bourgeoisie has lulled itself into thinking that it can supplant the metropolitan bourgeoisie to its own advantage” (98). I feel like this way of thinking comes from seeing how the colonists chose to take over and how they believed they were all knowing. This class is made up of the business elite and university graduates who find themselves scattered around the capital. Feeling that they are the elite is a result of how they were colonized. Fanon writes about how the bourgeoisie should work in an undeveloped country saying “the imperative duty of an authentic national bourgeoisie is to betray the vocation to which it is destined, to learn from the people, and make them available to them the intellectual and technical capital it culled from its time in colonial universities” (99). Although this is not the case, if this country is striving for nationhood why do they not want to ensure that the system is working for everyone and not just the business elite and the educated?
Watching the 1966 film, The Battle of Algiers, it did a good job of storytelling what we learned from Fanon. A colonial state is associated with hostility, and brute force to control. Fanon’s argument that the colonizer only imposes violence rings true for this story. In a professional manner, the Algerians made propositions and requests relating to independence. These were not met, and violence ensued. Once war happens, a feedback loop of hatred is created among the sides involved, as long as the sides are willing to participate. While this film correlates well with Fanon’s writings, I wonder if the Algerians could have taken a non violent approach. I am not saying that is what should have happened, I would just like to know if there were any ways, such as the salt march led by Gandhi, that the Algerians could have stood up to the French without bloodshed? It is easy for me to assume something like that to be so easy, not being ruled under the French as an Algerian. I am sure there is much more to the situation that I do not understand, I just wonder what kind of possibilities could have been available given a leader such as Gandhi.
The film we watched corresponded well to Franz Fanon’s perspective on decolonization and the innate violence that ensues throughout the process. Last class we discussed the concept of the colonized transitioning from ‘object’ to ‘subject’ by leading profound revolutions. This can clearly be seen in The Battle of Algiers as the National Liberation Front, or FLN, grew quickly in strength and numbers. After 130+ years of French occupation, the FLN’s aim was “independence and restoration of the Algerian State”, proposing that the French negotiate with them for their right to self-determination. As we’ve seen many times in history, the colonizer rejected this notion and continued to allow the country to fall apart due to excessive drug and alcohol use, etc. I saw this action through the lens of Fanon’s statement that read: “They govern in their own interests, and they have the courage of their own strength. They have created legitimacy, and they are strong in their own right” (pg. 181). The FLN decided it was time to take matters into their own hands to clean up their country, and at the moment you had to choose whether to pick a side or possibly lose your life. And just as Fanon knew, violence of course ensued when no changes were being met, however, at the beginning the National Liberation Front committed extremely organized attacks on the French police. Only those targeted were hurt and it was so swift, if you blink you missed it. Do you think this method of “sneak attacks” is more or less effective towards reaching their goal of liberation? On one hand, they were ensuring an easy escape for themselves, while also not harming innocent civilians. But on the other, they were not exactly standing up for themselves or their country because who is to say that the police individual that was killed will not be easily replaced by another. What would Fanon’s reaction be to their plan of organized crime?
In the third chapter of “Wretched of the Earth”, Fanon discusses how the colonized bourgeoisie would behave after independence. One quote to analyze states “We have said that the colonized bourgeoisie which attains power utilizes the aggressiveness of its class to grab the jobs previously held by foreigners. In the aftermath of independence, faced with the human consequences of colonialism, it wages a ruthless struggle against the lawyers, tradespeople, landowners, doctors, and high-ranking civil servants “who insult the national dignity.” Fanon believes that the colonized bourgeoisie will want to take the jobs that the foreigners (the colonizers) once had. This is an interesting comparison to make to Gandhi’s beliefs in “Hind Swaraj”, as he believes the independence of a colonized country should lead back to its traditional village economy. If the global south were to become wholly independent, would it make sense for them to take the jobs of the foreigners or to transition into the economies they once had prior to colonization?
The Battle of Algiers seemed to be a parallel to the sentiment of Fanon with the decolonization of the French being one that was ultimately quite bloody. In accordance to Ghandi’s reasoning, the Algerians started by attempting a peaceful and negotiated independence from French rule only to create no traction and be silenced by French authority. From this, the FLN counterforce turned to violence in order to begin the path back to self rule in Algeria. This is where I saw the shift towards Fanon’s way of thinking as the Algerians came to find the only language the French colonizers understand is violence in the conversation of decolonization. I thought back to how Gandhi faced the same failure when trying to come to terms with the British but this did not deter him from maintaining the principle of non-violence. Gandhi was able to speak to the colonial oppressors in another language they understood, which was money. The salt march and other events that ensued all hit the pockets of colonial powers and eventually caused enough financial damage that the British no longer wanted the hassle associated with retaining power. So I question if Fanon’s logic was truly the best course of action in Algeria or if a less violent approach would have been able to create a similar result of independence and success? Who is to say the FLN could not have created as organized forms of nonviolent disobedience as Gandhi was able to do in India? Was Gandhi’s movement potentially drawing a lot of it’s success from the mass numbers they had on the British or would a movement similars to Gandhi’s be even more successful on a smaller scale like Algeria?
Fanon says “The peasantry is systematically disregarded for the most part but the propaganda put out by most nationalist parties. And it is clear that in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they ave noting to lose and everything to gain, The starving peasant, outside the class system, is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence plays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization are simply a question of ratline strength” (61). How is this shown throughout the Battle of Algeriers? Who stands to lose the most in these systems? How can violence be liberating to those lower in the class system?
Like some other people mentioned, I was pleasantly surprised about the quality of the film and how well the efforts for decolonization were depicted. As Fanon mentioned and as shown throughout the film, the process of decolonization influences an aspect of violence. Though it was shocking and gruesome to see members of the FLN bomb popular social areas, I am reminded of this quote by Fanon: “Europe has laid her hands on our continents, and we must slash at her fingers till she lets go. It’s a good moment; nothing can happen at Bizerta, at Elizabethville or in the Algerian bled* that the whole world does not hear about. The rival blocs take opposite sides, and hold each other in check; let us take advantage of this paralysis, let us burst into history, forcing it by our invasion into universality for the first time. Let us start fighting; and if we’ve no other arms, the waiting knife’s enough” (13). Algerians have been pushed away from their home and are completely iced out by the French. A scene that stood out to me was when Ali first got arrested in the opening of the film. The narrator announced his occupation, relationship status, economic status, etc. The words used to describe Ali all had a sort of negative connotation. This same characterization was done with another Algerian man when the police caught the wrong man after the murder of a cop. This leads me to my question, could a nonviolent movement, such as Gandhi’s have any form of influence in the climate of Algeria? Furthermore, I understand that Fanon approves of violence as a of the long-term oppression of communities, however, is the violence in Algeria by the FLN (the 3 bombings for example) warranted?
The Battle of Algiers, the opening scene shows the main character running away from the police and then getting tripped by a white man. The main character punches him in the face, resorting to violence, but when he gets hauled away by the police you understand why he punched the man. That trip will have affected the next year or so of his life, because they start listing how many times he’s been detained for small crimes, and the lengthy amount of times that he has been in for. This makes me think about how race and class has so much to do with, like Fanon explains, the appropriate action that one has towards initiating violence with colonizers. Is there a third option for protest, besides peace and violence? Can violence be a better option than peace in some cases?
The Battle of Algiers is a remarkable film which details the organizing and efforts behind the final battle in attempts to win the capital of Algeria. Many scenes exemplified the role that racial and cultural hierarchies took in this time period, especially as a means to justify and continue colonist rule in Algeria. There are scenes throughout the movie that reference events where people were arrested for not looking French, or European. Of particular note, the scene where the women are placing bombs in cafes, they are only allowed to pass unnoticed by the occupying soldiers because they are not wearing veils. Following the scenes of the bombing, paratroopers arrive from France and begin devising ways to rid Algeria of these “terrorists”, as the French describe them. It is so ironic that the French, who are occupying land, destroying cultures, committing countless murders and violations of human rights, are declaring anyone other than themselves as perpetrators of terror. It’s also interesting how, during the meeting of the French soldiers and inspector general, that they specify, not all of the Arabs in the area are dangerous, but a small number of them, who must be “eliminated”. Colonialism is a project instructed by a powerful minority, and perpetuated by a majority who has been miseducated and manipulated to invest in ideas such as European/white supremacy and colonial occupation — a practice that is carried out by people who were not necessarily those organizing the colonial project, but are guilty because of their actions. I think this is an idea that the women grapple with as they are placing the bombs. The camera pans from a woman’s face, showing thoughtful expressions and eyes, to the crowd of French people in the cafe, including children. Similar scenes are shot in the airport and the dance hall. In this moment, I am wondering where her justification and strength is coming from. An analysis of the film I read mentions, “The audience understands a fundamental truth about war; no one’s morality is left unscathed when your existence is threatened by an external force” (Anonymous). I think that captures these scenes perfectly, as I believe these women were not suspending their moralities, but rather grappling with them as their lives, families, and cultures are continually threatened and eroded by the French government. It is also interesting to consider how these acts of direct and coordinated violence to achieve decolonization contrast with Ghandi’s messages and action, and I wonder if people participating in Ghandi’s movement also had similar moral grapplings, but perhaps in another direction. Were they concerned they were not doing enough, not being direct enough or threatening enough to be taken seriously? Similarly, I wonder if these women considered the opposite, perhaps if they were less upfront, if the pushback would perhaps be less harsh, and make way for transformative change? I would argue, in considering these questions, that the women and their communities in The Battle of Algiers were pushed to a point where they did not see an alternative than to meet the dynamics of colonial violence with other violent responses.
After watching the Battle of Algiers, I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. There was a large similarity in the efforts of decolonization in the film and what Fanon talks about. Anti Colonial violence runs throughout the film and is seen in many of the scenes. My question is what is the goal of this film overall? And its effectiveness of it’s goal message? Is it trying to show an example of how to fight back against colonial powers and empower people to do the same? Is violence the better option? Does Fanon support people’s actions in the ways that are seen in this film? What does violence mean for the people fighting against the powers? Does it dehumanize them or is it emotionally draining for them?
After watching the Battle of Algiers, I was really intrigued by the similarities in the film and different excerpts from Fanon. My question is, “In efforts of decolonization, is violence the only way of making a drastic change?” Ghandi might argue otherwise, but there are many examples of violence that has worked (in the case of The Black Panthers).
The Battle of Algiers showed the story of Algerian rebels fighting against colonialist France for their freedom. The FLN followed a more violent approach like we read about in the Wretched of the Earth by Fantz Fanon. Fanon believes that persistent violence and uprising against the colonizer will prevail and action that is not violent against the oppressor is useless. The FLN in the Battle of Algiers felt the same way and persisted with violent action, but, in the end, failed to free themselves from France. This happened because of the relentlessness of the French soldiers as consistently manipulative and oppressive. For example, in the Battle of Algiers, the French soldiers would constantly be saying how “the FLN is dead, give up” or “the rebellion is dwindling, give up” even when it was not. The oppressor loves psychological warfare. Both the Battle of Algiers and the Wretched of the Earth are promoting radical violent behavior against colonialism. If I were in their shoes, I would act the same way.
Gandhi in Hind Swaraj talks about the complete opposite of Fanon. He promotes non-violent forms of civil unrest and protest, and I think he has a very good point. Fighting back gives the oppressor a reason to increase violence AND it compromises the colonized peoples’ role as the victim. Gandhi discusses how citizens of the west are heavily influenced by press, and are also not necessarily evil. If the west reads consistent stories about colonized people being physically beaten for non-violently protesting, they will not support their governments. On the other hand, the media could portray colonized people that act out violently against the oppressor with the label of “savage”.
Both authors make really good points on colonialism and revolution.
Both authors make valid points, but the circumstances are different in every situation. My question would be: would violent revolution force change in the US, or would it start a deathly war?
I thoroughly enjoyed watching The Battle of Algiers, especially after learning that it was shot on-location using non-professional actors who lived through the actual battle in real life. It did such a good job exposing the violence of the French against the Algerian citizens during the Algerian War that it was banned in France for five years after its release. It was a great film to watch coupled with Fanon because it showed the physical violence that the colonized must face on a daily basis and showed how counter-violence was truly the only thing that the colonizers could understand. I noticed that there were strategic places where the main characters would use violence (i.e. the women hiding bombs in their purses and setting them off in public places) and where they would refrain from using violence at all (when they had a stand-off with the French police and did not shoot them, even with a gun in hand). Would Fanon agree that direct violence does not need to happen whenever possible to attack the colonizers? Would he argue that violence comes in more than one form?
Considering the film The Battle of Algiers and Fanon, I think there are some points that are highlighted in both. Fanon discusses that there is going to be violence when decolonizing. The film shows increasing violence form both sides. Which is another point Fanon describes as violence will be met with violence. It does make me wonder is Fanon would agree with the type of violence used? If he would agree with the bombs? Or would he claim that they should expect the violence that they are met with?
The Battle of Algiers depicts the resistance lead by the National Liberation Front (FLN) against French colonizers. This was a violent fight for independence and Algerians came together to resist the French. This reminded me of a quote from Fanon’s book which reads, “After one or two centuries of exploitation the national cultural landscape has radically shriveled… little movement can be seen,” (172). Colonization strips the nation of their culture and transforms the people into slaves of the colonizer to be exploited. Therefore, I would argue that culture is powerful enough to unify and fight for liberation from the oppressor. In the modern day, how can oppressed groups strengthen their cultural bonds? Is it possible to reimagine culture for groups who have lost it?
The film, “The Battle of Algiers” is a great film that has many connections to Fanon’s novel, “The Wretched of the Earth,” mainly in the sense that both pieces are very heavily tied to the idea of decolonization. The movie depicts a liberation front that is challenging the colonial practices that were set forth by the French. Fanon describes the difficulty in the process of decolonization, “In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red hot cannonballs and bloody knives,” (Fanon 3). The Battle of Algiers is somewhat of a personification of decolonization. And much of the movie is wrapped up in the brutality that comes with a community trying to resist colonial practices. I believe the changes that we see within the main character of the film is the cause of efforts to promote decolonization. He engages in harsh practices and even at one point takes the life of another man in the name of decolonization. “Decolonization is truly the creation of new men,” (Fanon 2), the main character throughout the film adapts and changes to the efforts that are being put forth by the liberation effort. He becomes a man who is tired of the colonial history that has been plaguing his country and tries to take action into his own hands through different methods. I believe if Fanon were to see the film he would be quite satisfied. “Decolonization, therefore, implies the urgent need to thoroughly challenge the colonial situation,” (Fanon 2), and this is exactly what the liberation front is doing throughout the film. So my question would be, are there any other ways to approach the obviously violent nature of decolonization? Is there a more humane way to approach the wretched colonial histories that many countries have had to deal with throughout history? If so, why would they be more successful?
”If you really wish your country to avoid regression, or at best halts and uncertainties, a rapid step must be taken from national consciousness to political and social consciousness. The nation does not exist in a program which has been worked out by revolutionary leaders and taken up with full understanding and enthusiasm by the masses. The nation’s effort must constantly be adjusted into the general background of underdeveloped countries. The battle line against hunger, against ignorance, against poverty, and against unawareness ought to be ever present in the muscles and the intelligences of men and women.” (pg. 203). This passage from Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth most directly connected, at least for me, with some of the themes which appear in the Battle of Algiers. This “rapid step” towards political and social consciousness for Fanon happens in part by the kinds of actions shown in the Battle of Algiers, a movie about the war which Fanon personally participated in. For Fanon, through a deconstruction of one’s socio-economic presuppositions, and a conscious awareness of how material conditions create a social-reality which must be understood contextually, it might be possible for one to engage in emancipatory action which is truly effective in its capacity to create a society free of such dehumanizing institutions and social-relations as colonialism. The Battle of Algiers is the manifestation of this revolutionary consciousness, and its capacity to show the more gruesome and dark realities of such revolutionary actions reflects its striving to maintain a degree of authenticity typically lost in the rush to make previous events of history fantastical, and not the complex emotions gripping those involved.
Are the origins of revolutionary thought contingent on the recognition of this relationship between political and social consciousness and the capacity for emancipatory action?