In Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth,” specifically in The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, he touches on the concept of Gultang’s Theory of Imperialism, which we learned about in SD 3700 (Environment and Development in the Global South). Specifically, this theory emphasizes how there is a relationship between the core and a periphery nation (the colonizer and the colonized), as well as between the elites and non-elites within each nation. Specifically, the relationship expresses that the desires of the elite’s of both nations are synonymous (i.e. the government officials in the colonizer country and those in the colonized). In contrast, the elite and the non elite populations within both the colonized (periphery) and the colonizer (core) country have a conflict of interests (although this disharmony in interests is greatly exacerbated within the periphery, or colonized, nation). This leads to a minority of those in the colonized country reaping the benefits of being under colonial rule, at the expense of the majority of the population (i.e. most people are impoverished). This can be seen in “Wretched of the Earth” because Fanon states that the colonizers in this situation enable “a specific sector to grow relatively wealthy, while the rest of the colony continues, or rather sinks, into underdevelopment and poverty” (106). This depicts the advantageous relationship between the elites of the core and periphery nation highlighted in Gultang’s theory, as well as the conflict of interests between the non-elites and elites of the colonized nation. Keeping Gultan’s theory in mind, do you agree with me in thinking that Fanon’s book exemplifies the series of relationships that are evident within this theory? Furthermore, do you think it would be possible to have a colonial relationship that isn’t exploitative? Could there be a way for the entirety of the colonized country to benefit rather than just the elites?
In “Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon emphasizes the importance of an honest party working for the people. This honest party working for the people is in contrast to the current situation of politicians working for the government. Fanon also believes that politicians should live in rural areas instead of being centralized in cities. He goes on to say, “No administrative pretext can justify the bustle of the capital already overpopulated and overdeveloped compared with nine tenths of the territory” (127-8). Fanon states this because the general public lives in rural areas. So if most people live in rural areas and politicians are working for the people, then shouldn’t politicians live surrounded by the people? As a result of politicians moving to rural areas, they will understand and be forced to live the general publics way of life. Since the current government fails to work for the people, politicians living in rural areas will in turn allow the government to work for, not against, the people. Do you agree with Fanon’s proposition that politicians should live in rural areas? What other advantages would come from this besides what Fanon has already stated? What about disadvantages?
On page 156-159, Fanon talks about the pitfalls of nationalism as a unifying force. He explains that without an analysis of colonialism and it’s effects on the nation, no theory of unity will ever bring forth true collective action. He continues, explaining that through colonialism, certain regions or factions of people are favored economically, which produces inequality, envy, and conflict between groups. According to Fanon then, what is the role of identity in the process of shedding colonialism? Does he believe that the material benefits of this process are sufficient, or does he call for unity under a different sort of identity?
Within part III of Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses national consciousness while offering a critical examination of the consciousness that is had in developed countries and places like Algeria and how to transform that consciousness into something more collective. Fanon states; “In order to arrive at this notion of party we must first and foremost rid ourselves of the very Western, very bourgeois, and hence very disparaging, idea that the masses are incapable of governing themselves” (Fanon, 130). Fanon is very blatantly criticizing colonial rule in this quote but could he also be criticizing the structure of Western governments within their own developed nations? It seems throughout this passage that Fanon offers up an autonomous and possibly even bioregional solution or alternative to colonial rule. Later on, Fanon also states; “An isolated individual can resist understanding an issue, but the group, the village, grasps it with disconcerting speed” (Fanon, 130). What, or who cultivates this resistance to understanding? How are these barriers broken down and what enables a group or village to grasp understanding?
In the Chapter: The Trials and Tribulations of a National Consciousness, Fanon writes:
“If we really want to safeguard our countries from regression, paralysis, or collapse, we must rapidly switch from a national consciousness to a social and political consciousness (pg. 142).”
In the section this quote is from, Fanon is criticizing nationalism and how it leads to an inevitable regression of the country. He argues for shifting to a consciousness focusing on social and political issues instead of blindly following and supporting whatever your country does. Citizens should recognize the social problems that exist and weaponize their role in the political structure in order to fix these problems. He also mentions that underdeveloped countries reach social and political consciousness before developed nations do. I was wondering why that might be? Is it because of the education developed nations teach children? Do developed nations need their citizens to maintain a nationalist philosophy in order to keep their status? Also is it possible for members of a developed nation to have a sense of nationalism and also have a social and political consciousness? Can you support your nation while also acknowledging its major flaws and working towards fixing them? Or are they exclusive?
In Fanon’s Chapter “The Trial and Tribulations of National Consciousness,” Fanon brings to the readers attention the concept of western bourgeoisies in relation to tourism. On page 102 Fanon writes, “U.S. Businessmen, banking magnates and technocrats jet “down to the tropics,” and for a week to ten days wallow in the sweetest depravity of their private “reserves”.” By this quote Fanon is discussing/describing how tourism in developing countries such as Latin America is only for those who reside in the Western Bourgeoisies, not even for the people within Latin America. Tourism has become a significant component in developing countries to satisfy the life, business, and economic privilege of westernized nations. The reality is that while tourist who reside in westernized nations are able to enjoy these luxuries that westernized industries provide, the locals within that country cannot afford to participate in the same privilege. Instead the western industries that own and run the tourist businesses displace agency of the local people in the developing countries. Not only are the local people’s opinions not taken into account their labor is what helps support the tourist attractions for the privileged western population. Fanon goes onto say on page 102 that a similar scenario can be seen with the national landowners, where large farmers obtain and control numerous amounts of land. Then the workers who farm the land become exploited while providing labor. My question is can westernized bourgeoisies be more inclusive when making executive decisions such as bringing in tourist/tourism in developing countries? Or furthermore how can tourism be mutually beneficial for the local people not just western tourists.
In the film “The Battle of Algiers,” the torture and suffering that many Algerians endured at the hands of the French is depicted. The FLN was leading the resistance against the French, unifying many Algerians to fight for independence. It is easy to connect this film to the work of Fanon, watching a violent decolonization take place. The protest and revolt that the Algerians employed was not peaceful, but it was entirely warranted, and the French utilized violence in an attempt to diminish any power that the Algerians had. In this weeks reading, Fanon was critical of nationalism. In the case of the Algerians, it seemed nationalism was a bit beneficial, if you would consider what they were compelled by nationalism? Can nationalism ever be useful? Or will it always spiral into something unhealthy and detrimental? Is nationalism possible while also recognizing the pitfalls of a country?
In the section On Violence Fanon states “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” (Fanon, 23). How can this menatilty, of violence being the only force to take down colonialism, in the film “The Battle of Algiers” ? Was it actually the majority that felt this or a small minority, according to the French military forces? Was it violence that created their independence or the on going protests seen at the end of the film, or a mixture of both?
In the chapter, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon emphasizes how decolonization does not mean the end of colonialism. Fanon says, “colonialism shamelessly pulls all these strings, only too content to see the Africans, who were once in league against it, tear at each other’s throats” (107). The film, “The Battle of Algiers,” demonstrates the hardships the Algierians had to face during the 1950s. Many were killed from both French and Algerian people as they fought for control. This relates to the film by showing similarities regarding their situations. Would Fanon and the people included in “The Battle of Algiers” suggest the same solutions to fix the problem to the other group? While both took place many years ago, these issues also seem to continue in today’s society. What will it take for these acts of violence to come to an end?
Fanon’s “The Wretched of Earth” continues to draw correlations in my head to modern society. Specifically, when Fanon describes the colonized world as the “Manichaean World” (a.k.a divided between light and dark). The light being white colonizers (in the eyes of society throughout history), and the dark being the black colonized people. We continue to see similar themes like this in our world today, always looking at ways to try and tear down what the colonizers have set into our system. Fanon discusses the bourgeoisie constantly controlling the economic status of society because they fear the decolonization mindset as this could mean the loss of everything these few people have set to achieve. With such a divided nation of America we live in today, it seems most things discussed by Fanon are seeing a reality. From Fanon’s perspective, on what level (local, regional, meta) is the most affective for decolonizing ourselves and society? Is the decolonization of societal norms only a result of violence?
In “Wretched of the Earth”, Fanon details the link between national culture and national struggle. Fanon argues that national culture is rooted in the resistance of people opposing a dominant colonial force. “A national culture under colonial development is a contested culture whose destruction is sought in a systematic fashion. It very quickly becomes a culture condemned to secrecy. This idea of a clandestine culture is immediately seen in the reactions of the occupying power which interprets attachment to traditions as faithfulness to the spirit of the nation and as a refusal to submit” (Fanon, 191). This culture that is rooted in resistance is also portrayed in the film “The Battle of Algiers”. What brings the Algerians together and what inspires them to persevere is their widespread opposition towards the French. Is a national struggle necessary for a nation to develop a national culture? What other ways may a nation develop a culture besides collective resistance? Which method is the most effective in developing a long-term national culture?
In Battle of Algiers, Ben M’Hidi, says that it’s “hard to start a revolution, even harder to sustain it, and hardest to win it. It gets even harder after you win it.” This reminds me of Fanon’s chapter “Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity” because he emphasizes that spontaneity (of violence and terror) is only effective in the initial phase of the revolution (82). Revolutions aren’t won by violence alone, leaders of the insurrection must replace their old terrorist reputation with a new narrative being the defenders of freedom. If leaders don’t relinquish spontaneity and become organized, the insurrection will surely fail. During 1950’s French-occupied Algeria, what steps did the National Liberation Front (FNL) take to change the hearts and minds of the people so that real governmental change could take place in Algeria? The strike organized to demonstrate, to the United Nations, Algeria’s unity in wanting independence from France resulted in the ruling out of any direct intervention in Algeria. These were not the desired results. What steps could revolutionaries take after initial violence to gain independence strategically and un-spontaneously?
In part III, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon states “Colonialism almost never exploits the entire country. It is content with extracting natural resources and exporting them to the metropolitan industries thereby enabling a specific sector to grow relatively wealthy, while the rest of the colony continues, or rather sinks, into underdevelopment and poverty.” (106) I think this is a very relevant quote in history as well as the present day. Colonialism is essentially exploitation. Even after liberation, many former colonies experience an economic crisis because they are unprepared to enter a global market since much of the country is underdeveloped. In this chapter, Fanon highlights that in most decolonized societies, what follows after independence, is just as bad as what preceded it. Thus, the underdeveloped national middle-class end up stepping into the position of the colonizers and gain personal wealth at the cost of exploiting their own countrymen. How exactly is there a shift in this ownership and why do the bourgeoisie adapt a colonist way of thinking? How does this struggle for control over national resources turn into racial and ethnic conflicts?
In Fanon’s, Wretched of the Earth Part IV, the author begins to speak about the desire to create an Algerian national culture and the issues colonized intellectuals face. How a culture must be created in new, the indigenous culture has taken a “hammer to the head” and bringing culture to a “continental scale” wouldnt identify Algeria as an individual nation. “Within the political parties, or rather parallel to them, we find the cultured class of colonized intellectuals. The recognition of a national culture and its right to exist represent their favorite stamping ground. Whereas the politicians integrate their action in the present, the intellectuals place themselves in the context of history. Faced with the colonized intellectual’s debunking of the colonialist theory of a precolonial barbarism, colonialism’s response is mute.” What is a nations culture if it has been stripped from them, but the colonized?
As we look throughout history, it becomes clear that decolonization is rooted in much of world’s depression and violence. More specifically, this further creates the belief that one nation can run and take over another, due to their belief that they are more powerful. However, many of these groups that are taken over are ethic groups. Because of this, it seems that nationalism becomes a way to support the domination over other nations. We are able to see this in both “The Battle of Algiers” and Fanon’s reading. More specifically, we are able to recognize a divide and violence between the people. With this in mind, we can certainly relate these issues to things happening today. Nevertheless, is there a way to reach decolonization without violence? How are we able to relate current social and racial issues in America to “The Battle of Algiers”? Is there a way to enable peace through decolonization?
I really enjoyed watching the movie. It was fantastic. I think it is very important to see films like these because of the perspective it provides. Western Audiences are often only given western perspectives on issues and it is important for us to see the whole conflict clearly without any additional filters. One of the scene which I am still trying to process is the wedding scene, which roughly occurred during minute 22-25 in the film. Several things were said which I am still trying to process with Fanon perspective in part 4 of Wretched of the earth. In The Battle of Algiers, The man preforming the wedding says that the people have been oppressed for 130 years and preform their wedding in secrete. He was says, “This is why the FLN has to make decisions concerning the civil life of the Algerian people. With this marriage we fulfill our duty, a duty of resistance” (0:23:00). I would agree that this is a form of resistance, however, I am a little confused on what Fanon might think of this ceremony or quote. While Fanon would agree with resistance, would he question the Algerian’s efforts to keep the Precolonial culture? Part four discussed the how majority of precolonial culture has been destroyed and it’s important for nations that are seeking independence to take merit in the precolonial culture, because it is extremely valuable, but that the culture should be willing to change to include their trials and tribulations under colonial rule. The rebuilding of culture is important the nationhood and ultimate success of the independence movement. So, what would Fanon opinions be on the FLN attempt to hold on to precolonial culture? Would he agree with this attempt or has a different opinion how to develop the Algerian’s culture?
In part IV of Wretched of the Earth Fanon speaks on culture at a national scale. Fanon notes that culture is now being limited and “cut off” (216) and that now culture “finds its refuge beside a hearth that glows with passionate emotion, and from there makes its way by realistic paths which are the only means by which it may be made fruitful, homogeneous, and consistent” (216). Showing a contrast to the anti-culture that free-market liberalism creates Fanon shows that it is better when
“The sari becomes sacred” (220) instead of seeking “shoes that come from Paris or Italy” (220). Our modern anti-culture, the product of market liberalization “is becoming more and more shriveled up, inert, and empty” (237). Fanon says it is only then, when culture is embraced over anti-culture, that “the language of the ruling power is felt to burn your lips” (220). An important step in healing is fighting for culture over anti-culture. Fanon goes on to show that this is where our power lies. For only after national culture is found and embraced does “men and women… fighting with their bare hands against French colonialism in Algeria” (232) begin. Finding a national culture is the first fight, the first battle because “A national culture under colonial domination is a contested culture whose destruction is sought in systematic fashion” (236). This fight for culture might be seen as a side effect or even a distraction, but Fanon says it’s actually central to everything because “The poverty of the people, national oppression, and the inhibition of culture are one and the same thing” (237).
How does our modern anti-culture inhibit our grassroots agency?
“A frequent mistake, and one which is moreover hardly justifiable, is to try to find cultural expressions for and to give new values to native culture within the framework of colonial domination” (243).
Do we find a national culture in order to build a new system or must we build the new system first and then find and define our national culture?
In chapter 4 of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses native intellectuals and how they react to colonialism. He writes that colonialism doesn’t only take control of and hold “a people in its grip”,” but it also “turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.” Native intellectuals react by researching and uncovering the true past of their country’s history. The 20th century literary movement known as Negritude is a good example of this “uncovering” from native intellectuals. It separated black culture from European culture as its own unique form. What are some other examples, past or present, in which a country’s history is distorted or retold in order to push a certain narrative? Many people accuse the way American history is taught for example, claiming its “whitewashed.” What are other examples from the past or present?
Fanon discusses the state of the formerly colonized people post independence, when the urgent task becomes that of forming a nation. He states that “it is commonly thought with criminal flippancy that to politicize the masses means from time to time haranguing them with a major political speech” (138). Fanon argues that the elite population, or the bourgeoisie, in the new nation attempts to manipulate the rest of the country by utilizing emotional appeals which play on their feelings rather than communicating with the masses’ minds and needs. “It is thought that for a leader or head of state to speak on major current issues in a pedantic tone of voice is sufficient as obligation to politicize the masses”, Fanon conveys the danger, instability, and counterproductivity presented through this type of politicization (138). Fanon instead supports politics that is of the mind instead of the heart, and that “political education means opening up the mind, awakening the mind, and introducing it to the world” (138). It is necessary for a democratic postcolonial nation to encourage and invite the entirety of the public to discuss the issues that affect their lives directly and indirectly. It is clear that silencing the voices of the people does not follow a democratic state, in which ways would this be prevalent today in relation with the condition of the United States? For example, in the first 2020 presidential debate, U.S. president Donald Trump stated that more violence has been shown from the left as opposed to the right, as well as dodged the question presented directly to him on whether or not he would condemn white supremacists, who have conducted racially driven violence for many years. How might Fanon interpret this distortion of the truth as a way to discourage the voices of those experiencing injustice?
During the film, Colonel Matieu said something to the effect of, it was in the best interest of France to put Algiers under strict police control. The next shots show intense militarization even more so than was previously present in this area, and a radio broadcast is played over the next few minutes essentially blaming the Arabs in the nation for the state of things and the violence. The methods of control used here by the French are not rare in the history of colonialism, obviously most countries have followed this pattern. Another comparison to this is Nazi Germany, who represent a dictatorship with colonialistic ambitions by beginning more discreetly and then expanded outwards and as they went forced people under their militaristic regime and “cleansed” the human population in the process. The recent months in the Black Lives Matter movement and the responses of dismissiveness and increased militarization towards a movement only asking for basic human rights. My first question, considering these comparisons, as well as the recent protesting in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and the response by the police and the population in the country who oppose the movement, as well as the election coming up, if the current administration were to remain in power, could what we have seen so far in the response to be a prerequisite for a similar pattern of militarization leading to a form of internal colonization?
Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth and the film Battle of Algiers both focus on the subject of violent revolution and overthrow of European colonizers. The film depicts fighters of the FLN in their mission to defeat and drive out the French military utilizing guerrilla warfare and bombings. Does the film draw parallels to modern day life as the United States enters our second decade of violent involvement in Afghanistan and other places in the Middle East? Would Fanon have seen our occupation of the mid-east as a reason for a call to arms and violent direct action?
In Wretched of the Earth Fanon talks about all the tangible negatives of colonization, how negatives can be seen with one’s eyes, how the people are suffering and being exploited. In part four of Fanon’s book he starts to talk about the mental effects of colonization and even elaborates in part five about how mental illness is also a side effect of colonization. On page 172 a quote stuck out to me, “After one or two centuries of exploitation the national cultural landscape has radically shriveled. It has become an inventory of behavioral patterns, traditional costumes, and miscellaneous customs. Little movement can be seen. There is no real creativity…” (172). What this quote shows is how colonization sucks culture and life right out of the nations that are trapped in the cycle, even after nations becomes free the colonization of the mind still has huge effects on them, leading to the dying nature of their culture, an example of this is how some nations in Africa still speak French as their main language, this show how colonization is still very much effecting them. Even though this loss culture cannot be quantitatively be seen it is still happening when looked at close enough. My question is that in another century will these nations have regained their traditional culture or will colonization cause the assimilation to the western way to go too far? How can this cycle be broken and allow for nations to regain their culture? Lastly will the breaking of the cycle be violent like Fanon talks about with generally colonization or can it be an overall shift in thinking in these nations that are effected by a loss of culture?
When watching “The Battle of Algiers” and seeing the French response to the FLN and the Algerians’ resistance to colonialism, I found myself drawing connections between the tactics the French were using against the Algerians and some of the tactics that were used by the Nazis during the Holocaust. When the French found out that the Arabs were the main ones that were involved and organizing these “attacks” against them, they completely sealed off their living quarters and essentially fenced them in. They also had mandatory identification checks at the gates to regulate who could and couldn’t come in or leave. This reminded me of how the Jews were treated and how they were singled out and kept separate from the rest of the population. There was also a particular scene where the French military was discussing how to find and identify the people involved in the resistance and the general said “We must comb it thoroughly and question all its inhabitants”. Similarities can be drawn between this and the checks the Nazis did to determine Jewish lineage. Another tactic the French used was attempting to shift public opinion and vilify the FLN and resistance. They would tell the public that the FLN wanted to starve them and condemn them to poverty and essentially attempted to manipulate them into hatred and opposition to the FLN. The French wanted to keep power and thus attempted to organize the Algerians against a collective “enemy”. Does it seem like a common tactic that oppressed or minority groups are used as scapegoats in order to further push the agenda of those in power? Can this be seen within any movements or resistance in the world today?
In the third chapter of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon gives the reader a detailed analysis of the “national bourgeoisie” or the colonized bourgeoisie. On page 122 Fanon says, “What makes a bourgeoisie is not its attitude, taste, or manners. It is not even its aspiration. The bourgeoisie is above all the direct product of precise economic realities.” Fanon goes on to explain how the national bourgeoisie is aware that they are making no advancements in independence under the rule of the party, he says, “The party becomes a tool for individual advancement…The party, which has become a genuine instrument of power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, reinforces the state apparatus and determines the containment and immobilization of the people. The party helps the State keep its grip on the people. It is increasingly an instrument of coercion and cleary antidemocractic.” (116). What does Fanon’s critique of the national bourgeoisie and the party say about the impacts of economic and cultural colonization? How does this impact the fight for real liberation and nationalism? What does it say about Western politics, culture, and ideas of “freedom”?
Page 168 continues the discussion about the “national struggle”, which Fanon argues is created through the fire and the beating of liberation. “To fight for national culture first of all means fighting for the liberation of the nation, the tangible matrix from which culture can grow. One cannot divorce the combat for culture from the people’s struggle for liberation.” Furthermore, Fanon goes onto bring in an example from the Algerian fighters, as we saw in the film: “For example, all the men and women fighting French colonialism in Algeria with their bare hands, are no strangers to the national culture of Algeria. The Algerian national culture takes form and shape during the fight, in prison, facing the guillotine, and in the capture and destruction of the French military positions” (168). And he raises a great point: the majority of nations were formed through fighting for one’s own home, the country’s collective home-ship. What does this say about the nature of a nation? How does this struggle affect the culture going forwards? What are other key examples of nations that have not been born through conflict and strife? Obviously the comparison in terms of a nation struggling to separate itself from its colonizer is ironically America (obviously I know that we faced far different struggles and treatment at the hands of the British, and that we were not slaves, but I’m mainly choosing this example because of its familiarity). We struggled and fought and even wrote the founding papers of our nation during these times and in this patriotic, youthful mind-state. The Algerians certainly used this mindset in the creation of their new nation.
As the United States marches at a quick step towards nationalism, with its vain pageantry and performative patriotism, while the fundamental ideals that are ostensibly being celebrated are neglected at best and more often willfully eroded, I see parallels to the processes described by Fanon in the section, “The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness.” On page 105, Fanon writes, “We let ourselves be tempted by the mirage of whose configuration is the most satisfying for the mind, and taking our ideal for reality, we believed we only needed to condemn territoriality and its natural offshoot, micro nationalism, to get the better of them and ensure the success of our chimerical endeavor.” He continues in the next paragraph, “wherever this national bourgeoisie has proven to be incapable of expanding its vision of the world, there is a return to tribalism, and we watch with a raging heart as ethnic tensions triumph.” Though Sartre says in the book’s prologue that “The Wretched of the Earth” is a book about us yet not for us, how might we use such passages as a lens through which to view our own contemporary society? Are we not also living in a society with an increasingly dominate bourgeoisie that fails to articulate a coherent aspirational path for the nation, relying instead on flag waving and trite sloganeering? How closely is this related to the conspicuous rise of tribalism and micro nationalism within the United States today, also along racial and ideological lines?
In The Battle of Algiers, Women were not suicide bombers, but they were used to their advantage. One of the most glaringly obvious reasons is that the women are not supposed to be touched and therefore are able to slip through checkpoints without being patted down. Their traditional burkhas are also an advantage which they use to hide the bombs they wear. In the film, the women carry the bombs in their purses and simply leave them pushed under tables or seats. The women are depicted as more ‘Europeanized’ Algerians and therefore go through the checkpoints easily and without a hassle. These women are seen as unsuspecting and docile, the French could not imagine that they would be carrying explosives in their bags. The film represents these women as cunning and fearless and the French as easily fooled by a pretty ‘Europeanized’ face. This film depicts a trend that is becoming more and more popular today, female bombers. Women are often seen as peacekeepers, as passive and meek; no one suspects a pretty girl. However, the women in this film make immense sacrifices for their cause by cutting and dying their hair and taking on a more ‘European’ look. Algerian women being involved in the struggle for independence and playing an active role in political protests and armed attacks could be interpreted in different ways with different meanings. To you, does this represent women’s empowerment or oppression within an Islamic society?
Although the later half of The Wretched Of The Earth” seems to be more engaging and interesting then the first half of the book. I cannot say that I will have any good reflections or questions this week because in my haste to complete this assignment, I misread the reading assignments and completed the entirety of “A month And A Day & Letters’ ‘ that was supposed to be assigned for next week. As what I have skimmed over from the chapter “The Trials And Tribulations of National Consciousness”, it seems as though the national bourgeoisie has only thoughts of expansion and gives no consideration to the destinations with their country. Throughout the chapter, it continuously pushes out that the national bourgeoisie is a dictatorship that works to establish a full system of exploitation in theory of creating the perfect Utopian society. My question will not be a complicated one but simply looking at the reflection of this ideology and determining what type of society would be created if the bourgeoisie would extinguish their single-party system and work to improve their incompetencies of social relations and politics? If such changes occurred, could the developed and underdeveloped countries both have similar relations as to the idea of the ruling bourgeoisie or would it constantly be a power difference that separates these two classes?
One quote from that really stuck out to me was on page 111. Fanon describes that “The national bourgeoise increasingly turns its back on the interior, on the realities of a country gone to waste, and looks toward the former metropolis and the foreign capitalists who secure its services. He goes on to describe that the bourgeoisie choose a leader that “stabilizes the regime and perpetuates the domination of the bourgeoisie.” This quote reminds me of the system we have in place in the United States today, and I wonder, has anything changed, or has colonialism just been disguised and given a different name? Has the bourgeoisie just gotten better at hiding the blatant racism and inequality by brainwashing the proletariat into thinking we all have equal opportunity under our current system?
I cannot help but think how relevant “The Battle of Algiers” is in today’s context of BLM. We are faced with the questions as to what means should be applied to reach the desired ends. I have found myself faced with internal contradictions; should the revolution be violent or non-violent? From my privileged perspective, of course I would want the world to remain peaceful but is that for my sake? Who am I to tell a marginalized people that they must remain peaceful when their brothers and sisters are being murdered and it is justified in our social structure? In this film, the FLN was faced with similar ideas. They began the revolution by killing police officers, and that eventually escalated into a chain of violence. Does this mean that the killings (of police) were wrong? I am unsure how to ethically state that these murders were “justified acts of violence” but I can also understand how the Algerians felt that there was no other way to make meaningful change. My question is: should BLM get violent in order to see immediate change? Or does the movement remain peaceful and possibly allow the racist system to be perpetuated? I guess my overall thoughts are that people who are having violence committed against them must seek violent retaliation, at least in the beginning, to begin a revolution and mobilize. After the initial violence, then they can organize and call out the dominant powers unjustifiable history of violence. Unfortunately, as we can see in BLM, protestors that have caused violence have made right-wing groups to frame the entire movement as violent. It is a hard decision to make, but it must be made in order to proceed and organize effectively.
The documentary, “The Battle of Algiers” shows how the FLN led resistance in Algeria against their colonial ruler by shooting french policeman. In return, the Chief of Police plants a bomb in the Arab quarters and kills many dwellers. The FLN compromised lives of the Muslim Algerian pollution in wanting Algerian independence. Fanon writes in “The Wretched of the Earth” “ Violence among the colonized will spread in proportion to the violence exerted by the colonial regime” (46). Also, said by an actor in the documentary ““Murder all the bastard and well have some peace”. Is justified violence necessary to create full meaningful change? Was FLN violent tactics necessary for independence? Why or why not? Additionally, when the protests of the BLM movement are labeled as violent because of one bad actor, the movement is wrongly categorized and stereotyped. Even when the movement does what they’re told and stays peaceful, people find a way to discret such peaceful means. Are more violent means necessary for the BLM movement?
“Colonialism almost never exploits the entire country. It is content with extracting natural resources and exporting them to the metropolitan industries thereby enabling a specific sector to grow relatively wealthy, while the rest of the colony continues, or rather sinks, into underdevelopment and poverty” (106). I believe that this is a prime example of the dependency theory where the colonists serve as the metropole and the specific regions of the colony serve as the satellites, thus creating an exploitative relationship that leads to further poverty and underdevelopment of the satellite. The dependency theory makes perfect sense in a world where developed nations constantly exploit developing nations which pushes them further into poverty. So why is it that the dependency theory has been proven time and time again and yet there has not been any action taken to end that cycle? Is is strictly capitalistic greed or are there other potential reasons?
On page 149 Fanon said, “The result was to hammer into the heads of the indigenous population that if the colonist were to leave they would regress into barbarism, degradation, and bestiality”. Fanon believes that the colonists created a sense of reliance between indigenous people and the colonists, meaning without the colonist they believe they would fall apart. I believe this is true, colonists act as if their form of development is the only way and that the people who are behind them are less than them and need their help. This ends up erasing culture and history from these indigenous populations. The colonists made it seem as if without them in the picture the indigenous population would be violent and chaotic. I think this mentality is still true within colonists today, colonists envision themselves as heroes and extremely necessary for third world countries to survive and instill this mentality within the third world. Would our world be better off if indigenous people never interacted with colonists? Today I would say the modern colonist would be the US, we have 307 embassys globally. Is this modern colonist mindset altering and erasing history for indigenous people to this day? How would our world differ today if colonists never created this reliance between them and indigenous people?
On page 87, Fanon discusses the necessity of including all parts of the indigenous communities in the struggle against colonizers. He discusses the lumpenproletariat, wisely pointing out that “It will
always respond to the call to revolt, but if the insurrection thinks it can afford to ignore it, then this famished underclass will pitch itself into the armed struggle and take part in the conflict, this
time on the side of the oppressor. The oppressor, who never misses an opportunity to let the blacks tear at each other’s throats, is only too willing to exploit those characteristic flaws of the lumpenproletariat, namely its lack of political consciousness and ignorance.” (Fanon 87). He exposes colonial attitudes towards the colonized clearly in this discussion, pointing out that colonizers will use any advantage they have to make their job easier, and deflect blame onto others. If multiple pieces to the black resistance, rather than uniting, are left to fight one another, then they each see the other as the enemy, and the colonizers continue their actions unharmed.
In my mind, this is very similar to tactics used against the Black Lives Matter movement by white people in power. What similarities do you see in the tactics of those in power in both of these scenarios?
On page 181, Fanon says “Imperialism, which today is waging war against a genuine struggle for human liberation, sows seeds of decay here and there that must be mercilessly rooted out from our land and from our minds.” I connect this to how imperialism is still waging a war against liberation in today’s society. Imperialism is so deeply rooted in the way the US functions. How is the current fight for sovereignty similar to what Fanon is speaking of?
In “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon, he writes about National Consciousness. He talks about how going through struggle especially while building a nation and fighting for independence, this struggle creates a sense of identity and national consciousness. By this, I believe that he means when a nation struggles as one, it is where things begin happening and changes are being made. He goes on to say, “The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.” I chose this quote because I believe that it depicts what I am trying to say. I believe that it is saying regardless of economic or political systems, nations such as this one has gotten out of hand, and that it is time for society to address that and come to a solution as how to fix it; changes need to be made. So, for this week my question is societies world-wide are struggling; how can we create a sense of national consciousness on subjects such as climate change and what Fanon was writing about in The Wretched of The Earth like we have with COVID-19?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth,” specifically in The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, he touches on the concept of Gultang’s Theory of Imperialism, which we learned about in SD 3700 (Environment and Development in the Global South). Specifically, this theory emphasizes how there is a relationship between the core and a periphery nation (the colonizer and the colonized), as well as between the elites and non-elites within each nation. Specifically, the relationship expresses that the desires of the elite’s of both nations are synonymous (i.e. the government officials in the colonizer country and those in the colonized). In contrast, the elite and the non elite populations within both the colonized (periphery) and the colonizer (core) country have a conflict of interests (although this disharmony in interests is greatly exacerbated within the periphery, or colonized, nation). This leads to a minority of those in the colonized country reaping the benefits of being under colonial rule, at the expense of the majority of the population (i.e. most people are impoverished). This can be seen in “Wretched of the Earth” because Fanon states that the colonizers in this situation enable “a specific sector to grow relatively wealthy, while the rest of the colony continues, or rather sinks, into underdevelopment and poverty” (106). This depicts the advantageous relationship between the elites of the core and periphery nation highlighted in Gultang’s theory, as well as the conflict of interests between the non-elites and elites of the colonized nation. Keeping Gultan’s theory in mind, do you agree with me in thinking that Fanon’s book exemplifies the series of relationships that are evident within this theory? Furthermore, do you think it would be possible to have a colonial relationship that isn’t exploitative? Could there be a way for the entirety of the colonized country to benefit rather than just the elites?
In “Wretched of the Earth,” Fanon emphasizes the importance of an honest party working for the people. This honest party working for the people is in contrast to the current situation of politicians working for the government. Fanon also believes that politicians should live in rural areas instead of being centralized in cities. He goes on to say, “No administrative pretext can justify the bustle of the capital already overpopulated and overdeveloped compared with nine tenths of the territory” (127-8). Fanon states this because the general public lives in rural areas. So if most people live in rural areas and politicians are working for the people, then shouldn’t politicians live surrounded by the people? As a result of politicians moving to rural areas, they will understand and be forced to live the general publics way of life. Since the current government fails to work for the people, politicians living in rural areas will in turn allow the government to work for, not against, the people. Do you agree with Fanon’s proposition that politicians should live in rural areas? What other advantages would come from this besides what Fanon has already stated? What about disadvantages?
On page 156-159, Fanon talks about the pitfalls of nationalism as a unifying force. He explains that without an analysis of colonialism and it’s effects on the nation, no theory of unity will ever bring forth true collective action. He continues, explaining that through colonialism, certain regions or factions of people are favored economically, which produces inequality, envy, and conflict between groups. According to Fanon then, what is the role of identity in the process of shedding colonialism? Does he believe that the material benefits of this process are sufficient, or does he call for unity under a different sort of identity?
Within part III of Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses national consciousness while offering a critical examination of the consciousness that is had in developed countries and places like Algeria and how to transform that consciousness into something more collective. Fanon states; “In order to arrive at this notion of party we must first and foremost rid ourselves of the very Western, very bourgeois, and hence very disparaging, idea that the masses are incapable of governing themselves” (Fanon, 130). Fanon is very blatantly criticizing colonial rule in this quote but could he also be criticizing the structure of Western governments within their own developed nations? It seems throughout this passage that Fanon offers up an autonomous and possibly even bioregional solution or alternative to colonial rule. Later on, Fanon also states; “An isolated individual can resist understanding an issue, but the group, the village, grasps it with disconcerting speed” (Fanon, 130). What, or who cultivates this resistance to understanding? How are these barriers broken down and what enables a group or village to grasp understanding?
In the Chapter: The Trials and Tribulations of a National Consciousness, Fanon writes:
“If we really want to safeguard our countries from regression, paralysis, or collapse, we must rapidly switch from a national consciousness to a social and political consciousness (pg. 142).”
In the section this quote is from, Fanon is criticizing nationalism and how it leads to an inevitable regression of the country. He argues for shifting to a consciousness focusing on social and political issues instead of blindly following and supporting whatever your country does. Citizens should recognize the social problems that exist and weaponize their role in the political structure in order to fix these problems. He also mentions that underdeveloped countries reach social and political consciousness before developed nations do. I was wondering why that might be? Is it because of the education developed nations teach children? Do developed nations need their citizens to maintain a nationalist philosophy in order to keep their status? Also is it possible for members of a developed nation to have a sense of nationalism and also have a social and political consciousness? Can you support your nation while also acknowledging its major flaws and working towards fixing them? Or are they exclusive?
In Fanon’s Chapter “The Trial and Tribulations of National Consciousness,” Fanon brings to the readers attention the concept of western bourgeoisies in relation to tourism. On page 102 Fanon writes, “U.S. Businessmen, banking magnates and technocrats jet “down to the tropics,” and for a week to ten days wallow in the sweetest depravity of their private “reserves”.” By this quote Fanon is discussing/describing how tourism in developing countries such as Latin America is only for those who reside in the Western Bourgeoisies, not even for the people within Latin America. Tourism has become a significant component in developing countries to satisfy the life, business, and economic privilege of westernized nations. The reality is that while tourist who reside in westernized nations are able to enjoy these luxuries that westernized industries provide, the locals within that country cannot afford to participate in the same privilege. Instead the western industries that own and run the tourist businesses displace agency of the local people in the developing countries. Not only are the local people’s opinions not taken into account their labor is what helps support the tourist attractions for the privileged western population. Fanon goes onto say on page 102 that a similar scenario can be seen with the national landowners, where large farmers obtain and control numerous amounts of land. Then the workers who farm the land become exploited while providing labor. My question is can westernized bourgeoisies be more inclusive when making executive decisions such as bringing in tourist/tourism in developing countries? Or furthermore how can tourism be mutually beneficial for the local people not just western tourists.
In the film “The Battle of Algiers,” the torture and suffering that many Algerians endured at the hands of the French is depicted. The FLN was leading the resistance against the French, unifying many Algerians to fight for independence. It is easy to connect this film to the work of Fanon, watching a violent decolonization take place. The protest and revolt that the Algerians employed was not peaceful, but it was entirely warranted, and the French utilized violence in an attempt to diminish any power that the Algerians had. In this weeks reading, Fanon was critical of nationalism. In the case of the Algerians, it seemed nationalism was a bit beneficial, if you would consider what they were compelled by nationalism? Can nationalism ever be useful? Or will it always spiral into something unhealthy and detrimental? Is nationalism possible while also recognizing the pitfalls of a country?
In the section On Violence Fanon states “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” (Fanon, 23). How can this menatilty, of violence being the only force to take down colonialism, in the film “The Battle of Algiers” ? Was it actually the majority that felt this or a small minority, according to the French military forces? Was it violence that created their independence or the on going protests seen at the end of the film, or a mixture of both?
In the chapter, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon emphasizes how decolonization does not mean the end of colonialism. Fanon says, “colonialism shamelessly pulls all these strings, only too content to see the Africans, who were once in league against it, tear at each other’s throats” (107). The film, “The Battle of Algiers,” demonstrates the hardships the Algierians had to face during the 1950s. Many were killed from both French and Algerian people as they fought for control. This relates to the film by showing similarities regarding their situations. Would Fanon and the people included in “The Battle of Algiers” suggest the same solutions to fix the problem to the other group? While both took place many years ago, these issues also seem to continue in today’s society. What will it take for these acts of violence to come to an end?
Fanon’s “The Wretched of Earth” continues to draw correlations in my head to modern society. Specifically, when Fanon describes the colonized world as the “Manichaean World” (a.k.a divided between light and dark). The light being white colonizers (in the eyes of society throughout history), and the dark being the black colonized people. We continue to see similar themes like this in our world today, always looking at ways to try and tear down what the colonizers have set into our system. Fanon discusses the bourgeoisie constantly controlling the economic status of society because they fear the decolonization mindset as this could mean the loss of everything these few people have set to achieve. With such a divided nation of America we live in today, it seems most things discussed by Fanon are seeing a reality. From Fanon’s perspective, on what level (local, regional, meta) is the most affective for decolonizing ourselves and society? Is the decolonization of societal norms only a result of violence?
In “Wretched of the Earth”, Fanon details the link between national culture and national struggle. Fanon argues that national culture is rooted in the resistance of people opposing a dominant colonial force. “A national culture under colonial development is a contested culture whose destruction is sought in a systematic fashion. It very quickly becomes a culture condemned to secrecy. This idea of a clandestine culture is immediately seen in the reactions of the occupying power which interprets attachment to traditions as faithfulness to the spirit of the nation and as a refusal to submit” (Fanon, 191). This culture that is rooted in resistance is also portrayed in the film “The Battle of Algiers”. What brings the Algerians together and what inspires them to persevere is their widespread opposition towards the French. Is a national struggle necessary for a nation to develop a national culture? What other ways may a nation develop a culture besides collective resistance? Which method is the most effective in developing a long-term national culture?
In Battle of Algiers, Ben M’Hidi, says that it’s “hard to start a revolution, even harder to sustain it, and hardest to win it. It gets even harder after you win it.” This reminds me of Fanon’s chapter “Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity” because he emphasizes that spontaneity (of violence and terror) is only effective in the initial phase of the revolution (82). Revolutions aren’t won by violence alone, leaders of the insurrection must replace their old terrorist reputation with a new narrative being the defenders of freedom. If leaders don’t relinquish spontaneity and become organized, the insurrection will surely fail. During 1950’s French-occupied Algeria, what steps did the National Liberation Front (FNL) take to change the hearts and minds of the people so that real governmental change could take place in Algeria? The strike organized to demonstrate, to the United Nations, Algeria’s unity in wanting independence from France resulted in the ruling out of any direct intervention in Algeria. These were not the desired results. What steps could revolutionaries take after initial violence to gain independence strategically and un-spontaneously?
In part III, The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness, Fanon states “Colonialism almost never exploits the entire country. It is content with extracting natural resources and exporting them to the metropolitan industries thereby enabling a specific sector to grow relatively wealthy, while the rest of the colony continues, or rather sinks, into underdevelopment and poverty.” (106) I think this is a very relevant quote in history as well as the present day. Colonialism is essentially exploitation. Even after liberation, many former colonies experience an economic crisis because they are unprepared to enter a global market since much of the country is underdeveloped. In this chapter, Fanon highlights that in most decolonized societies, what follows after independence, is just as bad as what preceded it. Thus, the underdeveloped national middle-class end up stepping into the position of the colonizers and gain personal wealth at the cost of exploiting their own countrymen. How exactly is there a shift in this ownership and why do the bourgeoisie adapt a colonist way of thinking? How does this struggle for control over national resources turn into racial and ethnic conflicts?
In Fanon’s, Wretched of the Earth Part IV, the author begins to speak about the desire to create an Algerian national culture and the issues colonized intellectuals face. How a culture must be created in new, the indigenous culture has taken a “hammer to the head” and bringing culture to a “continental scale” wouldnt identify Algeria as an individual nation. “Within the political parties, or rather parallel to them, we find the cultured class of colonized intellectuals. The recognition of a national culture and its right to exist represent their favorite stamping ground. Whereas the politicians integrate their action in the present, the intellectuals place themselves in the context of history. Faced with the colonized intellectual’s debunking of the colonialist theory of a precolonial barbarism, colonialism’s response is mute.” What is a nations culture if it has been stripped from them, but the colonized?
As we look throughout history, it becomes clear that decolonization is rooted in much of world’s depression and violence. More specifically, this further creates the belief that one nation can run and take over another, due to their belief that they are more powerful. However, many of these groups that are taken over are ethic groups. Because of this, it seems that nationalism becomes a way to support the domination over other nations. We are able to see this in both “The Battle of Algiers” and Fanon’s reading. More specifically, we are able to recognize a divide and violence between the people. With this in mind, we can certainly relate these issues to things happening today. Nevertheless, is there a way to reach decolonization without violence? How are we able to relate current social and racial issues in America to “The Battle of Algiers”? Is there a way to enable peace through decolonization?
I really enjoyed watching the movie. It was fantastic. I think it is very important to see films like these because of the perspective it provides. Western Audiences are often only given western perspectives on issues and it is important for us to see the whole conflict clearly without any additional filters. One of the scene which I am still trying to process is the wedding scene, which roughly occurred during minute 22-25 in the film. Several things were said which I am still trying to process with Fanon perspective in part 4 of Wretched of the earth. In The Battle of Algiers, The man preforming the wedding says that the people have been oppressed for 130 years and preform their wedding in secrete. He was says, “This is why the FLN has to make decisions concerning the civil life of the Algerian people. With this marriage we fulfill our duty, a duty of resistance” (0:23:00). I would agree that this is a form of resistance, however, I am a little confused on what Fanon might think of this ceremony or quote. While Fanon would agree with resistance, would he question the Algerian’s efforts to keep the Precolonial culture? Part four discussed the how majority of precolonial culture has been destroyed and it’s important for nations that are seeking independence to take merit in the precolonial culture, because it is extremely valuable, but that the culture should be willing to change to include their trials and tribulations under colonial rule. The rebuilding of culture is important the nationhood and ultimate success of the independence movement. So, what would Fanon opinions be on the FLN attempt to hold on to precolonial culture? Would he agree with this attempt or has a different opinion how to develop the Algerian’s culture?
In part IV of Wretched of the Earth Fanon speaks on culture at a national scale. Fanon notes that culture is now being limited and “cut off” (216) and that now culture “finds its refuge beside a hearth that glows with passionate emotion, and from there makes its way by realistic paths which are the only means by which it may be made fruitful, homogeneous, and consistent” (216). Showing a contrast to the anti-culture that free-market liberalism creates Fanon shows that it is better when
“The sari becomes sacred” (220) instead of seeking “shoes that come from Paris or Italy” (220). Our modern anti-culture, the product of market liberalization “is becoming more and more shriveled up, inert, and empty” (237). Fanon says it is only then, when culture is embraced over anti-culture, that “the language of the ruling power is felt to burn your lips” (220). An important step in healing is fighting for culture over anti-culture. Fanon goes on to show that this is where our power lies. For only after national culture is found and embraced does “men and women… fighting with their bare hands against French colonialism in Algeria” (232) begin. Finding a national culture is the first fight, the first battle because “A national culture under colonial domination is a contested culture whose destruction is sought in systematic fashion” (236). This fight for culture might be seen as a side effect or even a distraction, but Fanon says it’s actually central to everything because “The poverty of the people, national oppression, and the inhibition of culture are one and the same thing” (237).
How does our modern anti-culture inhibit our grassroots agency?
“A frequent mistake, and one which is moreover hardly justifiable, is to try to find cultural expressions for and to give new values to native culture within the framework of colonial domination” (243).
Do we find a national culture in order to build a new system or must we build the new system first and then find and define our national culture?
In chapter 4 of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon discusses native intellectuals and how they react to colonialism. He writes that colonialism doesn’t only take control of and hold “a people in its grip”,” but it also “turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.” Native intellectuals react by researching and uncovering the true past of their country’s history. The 20th century literary movement known as Negritude is a good example of this “uncovering” from native intellectuals. It separated black culture from European culture as its own unique form. What are some other examples, past or present, in which a country’s history is distorted or retold in order to push a certain narrative? Many people accuse the way American history is taught for example, claiming its “whitewashed.” What are other examples from the past or present?
Fanon discusses the state of the formerly colonized people post independence, when the urgent task becomes that of forming a nation. He states that “it is commonly thought with criminal flippancy that to politicize the masses means from time to time haranguing them with a major political speech” (138). Fanon argues that the elite population, or the bourgeoisie, in the new nation attempts to manipulate the rest of the country by utilizing emotional appeals which play on their feelings rather than communicating with the masses’ minds and needs. “It is thought that for a leader or head of state to speak on major current issues in a pedantic tone of voice is sufficient as obligation to politicize the masses”, Fanon conveys the danger, instability, and counterproductivity presented through this type of politicization (138). Fanon instead supports politics that is of the mind instead of the heart, and that “political education means opening up the mind, awakening the mind, and introducing it to the world” (138). It is necessary for a democratic postcolonial nation to encourage and invite the entirety of the public to discuss the issues that affect their lives directly and indirectly. It is clear that silencing the voices of the people does not follow a democratic state, in which ways would this be prevalent today in relation with the condition of the United States? For example, in the first 2020 presidential debate, U.S. president Donald Trump stated that more violence has been shown from the left as opposed to the right, as well as dodged the question presented directly to him on whether or not he would condemn white supremacists, who have conducted racially driven violence for many years. How might Fanon interpret this distortion of the truth as a way to discourage the voices of those experiencing injustice?
During the film, Colonel Matieu said something to the effect of, it was in the best interest of France to put Algiers under strict police control. The next shots show intense militarization even more so than was previously present in this area, and a radio broadcast is played over the next few minutes essentially blaming the Arabs in the nation for the state of things and the violence. The methods of control used here by the French are not rare in the history of colonialism, obviously most countries have followed this pattern. Another comparison to this is Nazi Germany, who represent a dictatorship with colonialistic ambitions by beginning more discreetly and then expanded outwards and as they went forced people under their militaristic regime and “cleansed” the human population in the process. The recent months in the Black Lives Matter movement and the responses of dismissiveness and increased militarization towards a movement only asking for basic human rights. My first question, considering these comparisons, as well as the recent protesting in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and the response by the police and the population in the country who oppose the movement, as well as the election coming up, if the current administration were to remain in power, could what we have seen so far in the response to be a prerequisite for a similar pattern of militarization leading to a form of internal colonization?
Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth and the film Battle of Algiers both focus on the subject of violent revolution and overthrow of European colonizers. The film depicts fighters of the FLN in their mission to defeat and drive out the French military utilizing guerrilla warfare and bombings. Does the film draw parallels to modern day life as the United States enters our second decade of violent involvement in Afghanistan and other places in the Middle East? Would Fanon have seen our occupation of the mid-east as a reason for a call to arms and violent direct action?
In Wretched of the Earth Fanon talks about all the tangible negatives of colonization, how negatives can be seen with one’s eyes, how the people are suffering and being exploited. In part four of Fanon’s book he starts to talk about the mental effects of colonization and even elaborates in part five about how mental illness is also a side effect of colonization. On page 172 a quote stuck out to me, “After one or two centuries of exploitation the national cultural landscape has radically shriveled. It has become an inventory of behavioral patterns, traditional costumes, and miscellaneous customs. Little movement can be seen. There is no real creativity…” (172). What this quote shows is how colonization sucks culture and life right out of the nations that are trapped in the cycle, even after nations becomes free the colonization of the mind still has huge effects on them, leading to the dying nature of their culture, an example of this is how some nations in Africa still speak French as their main language, this show how colonization is still very much effecting them. Even though this loss culture cannot be quantitatively be seen it is still happening when looked at close enough. My question is that in another century will these nations have regained their traditional culture or will colonization cause the assimilation to the western way to go too far? How can this cycle be broken and allow for nations to regain their culture? Lastly will the breaking of the cycle be violent like Fanon talks about with generally colonization or can it be an overall shift in thinking in these nations that are effected by a loss of culture?
When watching “The Battle of Algiers” and seeing the French response to the FLN and the Algerians’ resistance to colonialism, I found myself drawing connections between the tactics the French were using against the Algerians and some of the tactics that were used by the Nazis during the Holocaust. When the French found out that the Arabs were the main ones that were involved and organizing these “attacks” against them, they completely sealed off their living quarters and essentially fenced them in. They also had mandatory identification checks at the gates to regulate who could and couldn’t come in or leave. This reminded me of how the Jews were treated and how they were singled out and kept separate from the rest of the population. There was also a particular scene where the French military was discussing how to find and identify the people involved in the resistance and the general said “We must comb it thoroughly and question all its inhabitants”. Similarities can be drawn between this and the checks the Nazis did to determine Jewish lineage. Another tactic the French used was attempting to shift public opinion and vilify the FLN and resistance. They would tell the public that the FLN wanted to starve them and condemn them to poverty and essentially attempted to manipulate them into hatred and opposition to the FLN. The French wanted to keep power and thus attempted to organize the Algerians against a collective “enemy”. Does it seem like a common tactic that oppressed or minority groups are used as scapegoats in order to further push the agenda of those in power? Can this be seen within any movements or resistance in the world today?
In the third chapter of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon gives the reader a detailed analysis of the “national bourgeoisie” or the colonized bourgeoisie. On page 122 Fanon says, “What makes a bourgeoisie is not its attitude, taste, or manners. It is not even its aspiration. The bourgeoisie is above all the direct product of precise economic realities.” Fanon goes on to explain how the national bourgeoisie is aware that they are making no advancements in independence under the rule of the party, he says, “The party becomes a tool for individual advancement…The party, which has become a genuine instrument of power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, reinforces the state apparatus and determines the containment and immobilization of the people. The party helps the State keep its grip on the people. It is increasingly an instrument of coercion and cleary antidemocractic.” (116). What does Fanon’s critique of the national bourgeoisie and the party say about the impacts of economic and cultural colonization? How does this impact the fight for real liberation and nationalism? What does it say about Western politics, culture, and ideas of “freedom”?
Page 168 continues the discussion about the “national struggle”, which Fanon argues is created through the fire and the beating of liberation. “To fight for national culture first of all means fighting for the liberation of the nation, the tangible matrix from which culture can grow. One cannot divorce the combat for culture from the people’s struggle for liberation.” Furthermore, Fanon goes onto bring in an example from the Algerian fighters, as we saw in the film: “For example, all the men and women fighting French colonialism in Algeria with their bare hands, are no strangers to the national culture of Algeria. The Algerian national culture takes form and shape during the fight, in prison, facing the guillotine, and in the capture and destruction of the French military positions” (168). And he raises a great point: the majority of nations were formed through fighting for one’s own home, the country’s collective home-ship. What does this say about the nature of a nation? How does this struggle affect the culture going forwards? What are other key examples of nations that have not been born through conflict and strife? Obviously the comparison in terms of a nation struggling to separate itself from its colonizer is ironically America (obviously I know that we faced far different struggles and treatment at the hands of the British, and that we were not slaves, but I’m mainly choosing this example because of its familiarity). We struggled and fought and even wrote the founding papers of our nation during these times and in this patriotic, youthful mind-state. The Algerians certainly used this mindset in the creation of their new nation.
As the United States marches at a quick step towards nationalism, with its vain pageantry and performative patriotism, while the fundamental ideals that are ostensibly being celebrated are neglected at best and more often willfully eroded, I see parallels to the processes described by Fanon in the section, “The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness.” On page 105, Fanon writes, “We let ourselves be tempted by the mirage of whose configuration is the most satisfying for the mind, and taking our ideal for reality, we believed we only needed to condemn territoriality and its natural offshoot, micro nationalism, to get the better of them and ensure the success of our chimerical endeavor.” He continues in the next paragraph, “wherever this national bourgeoisie has proven to be incapable of expanding its vision of the world, there is a return to tribalism, and we watch with a raging heart as ethnic tensions triumph.” Though Sartre says in the book’s prologue that “The Wretched of the Earth” is a book about us yet not for us, how might we use such passages as a lens through which to view our own contemporary society? Are we not also living in a society with an increasingly dominate bourgeoisie that fails to articulate a coherent aspirational path for the nation, relying instead on flag waving and trite sloganeering? How closely is this related to the conspicuous rise of tribalism and micro nationalism within the United States today, also along racial and ideological lines?
In The Battle of Algiers, Women were not suicide bombers, but they were used to their advantage. One of the most glaringly obvious reasons is that the women are not supposed to be touched and therefore are able to slip through checkpoints without being patted down. Their traditional burkhas are also an advantage which they use to hide the bombs they wear. In the film, the women carry the bombs in their purses and simply leave them pushed under tables or seats. The women are depicted as more ‘Europeanized’ Algerians and therefore go through the checkpoints easily and without a hassle. These women are seen as unsuspecting and docile, the French could not imagine that they would be carrying explosives in their bags. The film represents these women as cunning and fearless and the French as easily fooled by a pretty ‘Europeanized’ face. This film depicts a trend that is becoming more and more popular today, female bombers. Women are often seen as peacekeepers, as passive and meek; no one suspects a pretty girl. However, the women in this film make immense sacrifices for their cause by cutting and dying their hair and taking on a more ‘European’ look. Algerian women being involved in the struggle for independence and playing an active role in political protests and armed attacks could be interpreted in different ways with different meanings. To you, does this represent women’s empowerment or oppression within an Islamic society?
Although the later half of The Wretched Of The Earth” seems to be more engaging and interesting then the first half of the book. I cannot say that I will have any good reflections or questions this week because in my haste to complete this assignment, I misread the reading assignments and completed the entirety of “A month And A Day & Letters’ ‘ that was supposed to be assigned for next week. As what I have skimmed over from the chapter “The Trials And Tribulations of National Consciousness”, it seems as though the national bourgeoisie has only thoughts of expansion and gives no consideration to the destinations with their country. Throughout the chapter, it continuously pushes out that the national bourgeoisie is a dictatorship that works to establish a full system of exploitation in theory of creating the perfect Utopian society. My question will not be a complicated one but simply looking at the reflection of this ideology and determining what type of society would be created if the bourgeoisie would extinguish their single-party system and work to improve their incompetencies of social relations and politics? If such changes occurred, could the developed and underdeveloped countries both have similar relations as to the idea of the ruling bourgeoisie or would it constantly be a power difference that separates these two classes?
One quote from that really stuck out to me was on page 111. Fanon describes that “The national bourgeoise increasingly turns its back on the interior, on the realities of a country gone to waste, and looks toward the former metropolis and the foreign capitalists who secure its services. He goes on to describe that the bourgeoisie choose a leader that “stabilizes the regime and perpetuates the domination of the bourgeoisie.” This quote reminds me of the system we have in place in the United States today, and I wonder, has anything changed, or has colonialism just been disguised and given a different name? Has the bourgeoisie just gotten better at hiding the blatant racism and inequality by brainwashing the proletariat into thinking we all have equal opportunity under our current system?
I cannot help but think how relevant “The Battle of Algiers” is in today’s context of BLM. We are faced with the questions as to what means should be applied to reach the desired ends. I have found myself faced with internal contradictions; should the revolution be violent or non-violent? From my privileged perspective, of course I would want the world to remain peaceful but is that for my sake? Who am I to tell a marginalized people that they must remain peaceful when their brothers and sisters are being murdered and it is justified in our social structure? In this film, the FLN was faced with similar ideas. They began the revolution by killing police officers, and that eventually escalated into a chain of violence. Does this mean that the killings (of police) were wrong? I am unsure how to ethically state that these murders were “justified acts of violence” but I can also understand how the Algerians felt that there was no other way to make meaningful change. My question is: should BLM get violent in order to see immediate change? Or does the movement remain peaceful and possibly allow the racist system to be perpetuated? I guess my overall thoughts are that people who are having violence committed against them must seek violent retaliation, at least in the beginning, to begin a revolution and mobilize. After the initial violence, then they can organize and call out the dominant powers unjustifiable history of violence. Unfortunately, as we can see in BLM, protestors that have caused violence have made right-wing groups to frame the entire movement as violent. It is a hard decision to make, but it must be made in order to proceed and organize effectively.
The documentary, “The Battle of Algiers” shows how the FLN led resistance in Algeria against their colonial ruler by shooting french policeman. In return, the Chief of Police plants a bomb in the Arab quarters and kills many dwellers. The FLN compromised lives of the Muslim Algerian pollution in wanting Algerian independence. Fanon writes in “The Wretched of the Earth” “ Violence among the colonized will spread in proportion to the violence exerted by the colonial regime” (46). Also, said by an actor in the documentary ““Murder all the bastard and well have some peace”. Is justified violence necessary to create full meaningful change? Was FLN violent tactics necessary for independence? Why or why not? Additionally, when the protests of the BLM movement are labeled as violent because of one bad actor, the movement is wrongly categorized and stereotyped. Even when the movement does what they’re told and stays peaceful, people find a way to discret such peaceful means. Are more violent means necessary for the BLM movement?
“Colonialism almost never exploits the entire country. It is content with extracting natural resources and exporting them to the metropolitan industries thereby enabling a specific sector to grow relatively wealthy, while the rest of the colony continues, or rather sinks, into underdevelopment and poverty” (106). I believe that this is a prime example of the dependency theory where the colonists serve as the metropole and the specific regions of the colony serve as the satellites, thus creating an exploitative relationship that leads to further poverty and underdevelopment of the satellite. The dependency theory makes perfect sense in a world where developed nations constantly exploit developing nations which pushes them further into poverty. So why is it that the dependency theory has been proven time and time again and yet there has not been any action taken to end that cycle? Is is strictly capitalistic greed or are there other potential reasons?
On page 149 Fanon said, “The result was to hammer into the heads of the indigenous population that if the colonist were to leave they would regress into barbarism, degradation, and bestiality”. Fanon believes that the colonists created a sense of reliance between indigenous people and the colonists, meaning without the colonist they believe they would fall apart. I believe this is true, colonists act as if their form of development is the only way and that the people who are behind them are less than them and need their help. This ends up erasing culture and history from these indigenous populations. The colonists made it seem as if without them in the picture the indigenous population would be violent and chaotic. I think this mentality is still true within colonists today, colonists envision themselves as heroes and extremely necessary for third world countries to survive and instill this mentality within the third world. Would our world be better off if indigenous people never interacted with colonists? Today I would say the modern colonist would be the US, we have 307 embassys globally. Is this modern colonist mindset altering and erasing history for indigenous people to this day? How would our world differ today if colonists never created this reliance between them and indigenous people?
On page 87, Fanon discusses the necessity of including all parts of the indigenous communities in the struggle against colonizers. He discusses the lumpenproletariat, wisely pointing out that “It will
always respond to the call to revolt, but if the insurrection thinks it can afford to ignore it, then this famished underclass will pitch itself into the armed struggle and take part in the conflict, this
time on the side of the oppressor. The oppressor, who never misses an opportunity to let the blacks tear at each other’s throats, is only too willing to exploit those characteristic flaws of the lumpenproletariat, namely its lack of political consciousness and ignorance.” (Fanon 87). He exposes colonial attitudes towards the colonized clearly in this discussion, pointing out that colonizers will use any advantage they have to make their job easier, and deflect blame onto others. If multiple pieces to the black resistance, rather than uniting, are left to fight one another, then they each see the other as the enemy, and the colonizers continue their actions unharmed.
In my mind, this is very similar to tactics used against the Black Lives Matter movement by white people in power. What similarities do you see in the tactics of those in power in both of these scenarios?
On page 181, Fanon says “Imperialism, which today is waging war against a genuine struggle for human liberation, sows seeds of decay here and there that must be mercilessly rooted out from our land and from our minds.” I connect this to how imperialism is still waging a war against liberation in today’s society. Imperialism is so deeply rooted in the way the US functions. How is the current fight for sovereignty similar to what Fanon is speaking of?
In “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon, he writes about National Consciousness. He talks about how going through struggle especially while building a nation and fighting for independence, this struggle creates a sense of identity and national consciousness. By this, I believe that he means when a nation struggles as one, it is where things begin happening and changes are being made. He goes on to say, “The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.” I chose this quote because I believe that it depicts what I am trying to say. I believe that it is saying regardless of economic or political systems, nations such as this one has gotten out of hand, and that it is time for society to address that and come to a solution as how to fix it; changes need to be made. So, for this week my question is societies world-wide are struggling; how can we create a sense of national consciousness on subjects such as climate change and what Fanon was writing about in The Wretched of The Earth like we have with COVID-19?