Instead of answering a question this week, come up with 2 to 3 questions of your own relating to The Wretched of the Earth that you would like to discuss in class. At least one of these questions should be open-ended (i.e., not a yes/no question). Pick discussion questions that you think will facilitate our analysis of the reading.
HIST 285 / AFS 270 | SPRING 2019
1:
Does Fanon’s classification of colonized individuals as fitting into one of three class-separated groups (urban elite, urban workers, and rural workers) relegate anti colonial movements to narrow definitions of class and class interactions? If it does, what are the repercussions of this limited classification and what could be done to accurately broaden their parameters?
2:
Fanon argues that violence is what awakens the general colonized population to the injustice of colonization and that violence is, ultimately, what would be necessary in gaining liberation. This notion is contrary to the idea of peaceful protest, to which most people theoretically subscribe, and can challenge modern views of anti violence. What can be learned about resistance from Fanon’s belief that violence is necessary in conjunction with a figure like Nelson Mandela’s belief that resistance should be peaceful? Is there a definitive, proper way to resist?
1- The rhetoric that Fanon uses to illustrate the colonized subjects view of the colonizer is very unique. Fanon uses words of envy, jealousy, and revenge to describe the colonized subjects sentiments towards the lives that colonizers lead. For example, Fanon states, “The gaze that the colonized subject casts at the colonist’s sector is a look of lust, a look of envy…The colonized man is an envious man. And it’s true there is not one colonized subject who at least once a day does not dream of taking the place of the colonist” (Fanon 1963). Do you think that this diction is only fueling negative stereotypes surrounding colonized subjects? Why does Fanon choose to coincide with these stereotypes? In continuation, why does Fanon not consider that the colonized are not vengeful and jealous of the lives lived by colonists but, instead, simply want the same basic rights and privileges?
2- Fanon discusses the type of intellectuals that can exist within the colonist’s groups and colonized groups. In terms of colonized intellectuals, Fanon believes they were taught by their masters to assert themselves and harmless self-criticism. However, Fanon then goes on to state that when colonized intellectuals interact with colonist intellectuals they become unable to “engage in dialogue…and is literally disarmed by their good faith and integrity” (Fanon 1963). This contradiction is quite complexing. Does Fanon believe that colonized subjects asserting themselves involves appearing empty-minded and incompetent to their colonist superiors? Furthermore, does Fanon think that the colonized view the colonists that have continuously oppressed, subordinated, and marginalized them as having amazing “faith and integrity”?
1. Fanon says that from a colonizer’s point of view “the native is declares impervious to ethics, representing not only the absence of values but also the negation of values. He is, dare we say it, the enemy of values. In other words, absolute evil” (pg. 6). In what way does this compare the the American perception of Native People? Do we still hold these ideas left over from the colonial days?
2. Fanon incorporates a sense of humor and remains relatively informal throughout his work saying thinks like “Zombies, believe me, are more terrifying than colonists” (pg. 19). Given the serious nature of the topics he discusses, what purpose does his tone serve? Does it make light of the issues? Or does it make the discussion more accessible?
1. Fanon states that the Church in the colonies was a white man’s Church, monopolized as a foreigners’ place of worship. The Church, then, does not call the colonized to the ways of God, but rather to the ways and practices of the white man or master. This intrigues me as it expounds a prominent sector of control in colonial society – specifically, ecclesial control – that might be mistakenly regarded as a benign actor. Not only did the Church project certain Euro-American values/constructs, but Fanon suggests it was also an alluring trap that only further subverted the colonized to Western civilization. To this end, how did the idea of the Church/religion serve as a white man’s conduit for authority and, thus, perpetuate the Christianizing/civilizing mission of colonialism?
2. Fanon notes that the independence won by previously colonized peoples endows the population with certain rectifications regarding morality and dignity; however, Fanon is not remiss in remarking that in no way do the gifts of independence bestow on them the ability to erect a society, define a scheme of values, and exert agency. This remark by Fanon astutely articulates the difficulty of the transition from the violence of decolonization to a prosperous, independent nation. What are the mechanisms – legal, social, or economic – through which the previously colonized may begin to exert agency, and cultivate a national identity? Similarly, how may the previously colonized diminish the residue of colonial control that does not necessarily disappear, but rather appears in subtler forms, post-independence?
1. Fanon presents in his book the notion that violence must end violence so to speak. To clarify, he argues that the only way to truly decolonize a current colonized area is through the rebellion of the native population. Thus, why do you think humans, in a variety of examples, resort to violence as a means of rebellion? Humans are capable of peaceful compromise (whether or not it is fair is not the question). Although, this capacity for negotiation is well documented, it is so rarely seen. So why does the human species resort to violence as the universal language?
2. Throughout the text Fanon argues that despite the colonist’s best efforts, they remain unable to appease the native population. That, despite the recurrent display of power of the colonists, the native populations continue to rebel when they realize the injustice of their situation. Fanon proposes that it is because, the so-called warning signs by the colonist government actually stimulate the native population. So, why would a symbol of superior power be a stimulant for the oppressed group?
3. Another recurrent them expressed by Fanon is his belief that all colonized areas will inevitably result in a rebellion. Therefore, with the knowledge that practically every piece of land on Earth has been colonized at one point of another; is Earth, and the human species, destined to spend an eternity in conflict? Or is world peace attainable?
1) Why does Fanon dichotomize man as either “colonized” or “colonizers.” Is there literary and contextual significance to simplifying humanity based on colonization? He also alludes to colonization creating a “thing” that becomes man via the process of colonization. What is this “thing” and what would Fanon argue is “humanness” in the context of this “thing.”
2) In class, Professor Stone mentioned Fanon’s political and social standings akin to socialism/communism. Fanon argues that the decolonization process will be “murderous and (a) decisive struggle between the two protagonists” (37). Karl Marx’s writes that the working class will only achieve a successful coup over the rich via extremely violent means. Is Fanon invoking violence in the colonized against the colonizers because of Marx’s influences or what other possible reason would Fanon argue violence is the most viable option for decolonization?
3) Keeping question number 2 in mind, Fanon draws an analogy between capitalism and colonization. The colonies have become a market while the colonial population is the customer; also, the colonizer’s decisions are greatly impacted by business interests. Why does Fanon draw a systematic relationship between capitalism and colonization, and what purpose does this parallelism achieve in his overall message?
1. Regardless of whether or not you personally agree with Fanon’s ideas, do you think that they are applicable to all (or at least most) colonial contexts? In a country like the United States, where the indigenous population is not the majority population, does Fanon’s argument make any sense? Considering that this book had a lot of influence on the Black Power movement in the U.S., how are these characters of colonizer and colonized malleable? Could this argument even be applied to gender issues?
2. Since we are studying specifically colonial law or law in the context of a colony, are there are any existing laws that would justify Fanon’s claims, even broadly? If not, what weaknesses in modern law are emphasized by Fanon’s writing? What weaknesses in his writing are emphasized by its incompatibility with law?
1. Fanon states, “The colonized man is an envious man.” (5) and at the same time asserts that the colonial world consists of different “species” of natives. How can Fanon make such a broad generalization and in the same breath discuss the different qualities of “species” of natives?
2. How does Fanon reconcile the relationship between DDT and Manichaeism? What does this relationship have to do with Christianity?
1. In Chapter 1, “On Violence,” Fanon introduces the colonial world as one that is divided into the colonist and the colonized. These identities are created by the colonist in order to assert his own superiority. The colonist maintains this hierarchy through violence by police and soldiers, and in turn, it is only through violence that the colonized can re-assert their own humanity. Does decolonization necessarily have to be a violent process of overthrowing a colonial government? How does a violent method of decolonization impact economic dependency of African countries on their previous colonial powers?
2. As Fanon discusses, the colonized may form a number of political organizations. The colonized elites in urban areas—intellectuals and owners of businesses—may form political parties, but these tend to ignore the needs and desires of the colonized in rural areas, where the majority of the colonized population actually lives. Similarly, the colonized workers in cities may unionize and stage strikes in order to improve their working conditions, but this, too, is limited and does not include the rural masses. To Fanon, negotiation is no substitute for surrender, and does not bring about effective decolonization. Does violence provide a more effective method to gain independence and if so, does this particular approach to attaining independence impact future relations between the two nations?
1) Fanon discusses the role of violence in decolonization efforts at length. Toward the end of Concerning Violence, he notes that “At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self respect” (74). How might the opposite be true? Is it possible that violence is the only path through which the native can reassert his identity? Are there historical examples to demonstrate this?
2) Fanon spends a great deal of time discussing what he calls “the native intellectual” (36). Indeed, he even goes so far as to state that they are, in effect, part of “the colonist bourgeois” (36). Does intellectualism preclude an individual from having the capacity to resist in a meaningful way, as Fanon suggests? Have they been irrevocably tainted by the Western traditions so often seeped into an “intellectual” education, or is there potential for progress?
3) Once the colonized — specifically the masses — have come to internalize their inferior position within society, Fanon asserts that “What they demand is not the settler’s position or status, but the settler’s place” (47). This suggests a cycle of violence: one in which the colonized take on the position of the colonized. What might the consequences of this be, and what might this phenomenon mean for the establishment of legitimate government in the former colony in question?
1. Fanon compares the relationship between colonialism, capitalism, and socialism/communism in “On Violence”. Many scholars have noted that capitalism and colonialism and slavery have always relied upon each other, using the military as a means of continuing this connection as capitalism’s “military strategy has everything to lose if national conflicts were to break out” (39). Fanon also brings up the distinctly American example of order maintenance to further the role of capitalism, but are there any distinct American examples that we can see post-Cold War? Is capitalism still as intertwined with maintaining colonialism?
2. As Fanon describes the liberation struggle, he points to a crucial phase. When “a group of indigenous union leaders decides to create a national labor movement” (74), this crucial phase begins, while the distinction between the economic situation of the capital and the rural masses remains. While the leaders inevitably reach the coup d’etat stage, do you think the institution of a new regime with new leaders and slightly different economic policies is truly a revolution or just a continuation or the current political situation? Why?
1. How does the responsibility and agency of the colonized facilitate the transition to decolonization? and how does that transition reflect a potential change within the colonized?
2. Was the use of force really the only “language they [the colonized] understood” (Fanon 42)? How does Fanon complicate this generalization in his writing?
1. The narrator states that “the end is very near to those who are having a good time in Africa.” Is Fanon discussing the dangers of those living in Africa who fear the colonial rule or those living in Africa suffering under the neocolonial governments that are still implementing their colonial authority?
2. In class, we questioned whether the colonized can break free from their colonial restraints without the use of violence. Fanon grapples with this notion and creates a relationship between culture and combat. Fanon argues that culture is created through the desire to fight against the colonizers and hence, becomes intertwined with combat. To what extent to you agree with this relationship?
1. Throughout the chapter “On Violence”, Fanon describes the multiple iterations and variations of colonial violence perpetrated and perpetuated among subjects and between subject and colonizer, noting particularly in this latter case that “their first confrontation was colored by violence and their cohabitation—or rather the exploitation of the colonized by the colonizer—continued at the point of the bayonet and under cannon fire.” Then, later, Fanon establishes that “the colonial world is a compartmentalized world”, later adding that it is indeed a “world divided in two.” Given the prevalence and, often, silencing of mixed-race individuals in colonized societies—those individuals that transcend such compartmentalization and often come into being through acts of violence themselves—what place do they take in Fanon’s vision of a split society? What role do such individuals occupy in the violent spaces of colonized society, given they tend to be product of both colonizer and colonized, oppressor and oppressed, and—typically—white and black?
2. Fanon establishes the belief in terrifying myths and spirits within colonized society as a form of agency. The “malevolent spirits”, “snake men”, “six-legged dogs”, and “zombies” all serve to instill fear among the populations of the colonized, and it is this fear, Fanon argues, that turns this world of the unconscious and magic into undeniable reality and renders the fear of the colonizer meek in comparison: “Zombies, believe me, are more terrifying than colonists.” How does this sense of agency, of “civil status” and “identification” that is established through such beliefs and fears contrast with the legal definitions and perceptions of such terms (agency, civil status, identification) upheld by the colonized? Does this sense of agency ultimately matter when held against a legal framework that tends to disregard their subjects’ religious and cultural beliefs as mere voodoo?
How do you think that Fanon’s background as a doctor (specifically a psychiatrist) affected the development of his views? (Or did it at all?)
One criticism of Fanon is the accusation that his work is overly focused on Africa, and that his views on decolonization do not apply as well to other places like Latin America, Asia or the Caribbean. Do you think this is the case? If it is the case, does that diminish the value of his work?
As Jean-Paul Sartre alluded to in his preface, who do you think is the target audience of this work? Are you a member of that target audience? Does it matter if you are? Would that change how you view Fanon and his arguments?
1. How might decolonization fit into the larger global capitalist picture? How does decolonization affect our societies today?
2. Fanon’s ideology on violence contradict the principle of non-violence by: ex. Martin Luther King. Why does Fanon suggest that violence is the inevitable tool for social change?
What role should imperial, European, and/or “first world” nations have in correcting the wrongs inflicted on post-colonial nations? Where is the line between giving a nation autonomy and leaving its people to suffer without resources or infrastructure? (re: p61-62)
Can a capitalist economic system provide the basis for equitable post-colonial societies, or will the existence of private property always rely on systems of exploitation akin to those of colonialism?