I got started on August 1 with a copy of the physical book. I am skipping all the intros and contextual information for now and starting with page 1 with On Violence. There is a lot of obvious power in his words and it is very affecting. I find it hard to read more than 20 pages at a time.

Fanon clearly and passionately describes the colonial dichotomy and in his view the only way to deal with it. He approaches violence in this early phase of the book as endemic to the system, in its visual reminders of borders with barracks or the colonial officer so since the colonized is a product this system there is no alternative for them.

Right off the bat I highlighted one paragraph that I want to revisit as I complete the book and the psychology of the colonized later on. I think this is universal and so obvious when it is described. One only needs to look at American and Israeli descriptions to see this manifesting again as if on a historical loop:

"Challenging the colonial world is not a rational confrontation of viewpoints. It is not a discourse on the universal, but the impassioned claim by the colonized that their world is fundamentally different. The colonial world is a Manichaean world. The colonist is not content with physically limiting the space of the colonized, i.e., with the help of his agents of law and order. As if to illustrate the totalitarian nature of colonial exploitation, the colonist turns the colonized into a kind of quintessence of evil. Colonized society is not merely portrayed as a society without values. The colonist is not content with stating that the colonized world has lost its values or worse never possessed any. The “native” is declared 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. A corrosive element, destroying everything within his reach, a corrupting element, distorting everything which involves aesthetics or morals, an agent of malevolent powers, an unconscious and incurable instrument of blind forces. "

  • Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth p. 6
  • arcane potato (she/they)@vegantheoryclub.orgMEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    Another one, lol

    spoiler

    Their plan is to make the first move, to turn the liberation movement to the right and disarm the people: Quick, let’s decolonize. Let’s decolonize the Congo before it turns into another Algeria. Let’s vote a blueprint for Africa, let’s create the Communauté for Africa, let’s modernize it but for God’s sake let’s decolonize, let’s decolonize. They decolonize at such a pace that they force independence on Houphouét- Boigny. In answer to the strategy of a Dien Bien Phu defined by the colonized, the colonizer replies with the strategy of containment—respecting the sovereignty of nations.

    I wonder how this could play out in north america?

    In the war in Algeria, for example, the most liberal-minded French reporters make constant use of ambiguous epithets to portray our struggle. When we reproach them for it, they reply in all sincerity they are being objective.

    This is another good reminder that the colonizer cannot understand the colonized so easily. To do so, the colonizer needs to accept their world view isn’t default or inherently correct.

    In 1945 the 45,000 dead at Sétif could go unnoticed; in 1947 the 90,000 dead in Madagascar were written off in a few lines in the press; in 1952 the 200,000 victims of repression in Kenya were met with relative indifference— because the international contradictions were not sufficiently clear-cut. … A greater threat, as far as imperialism is concerned, is that socialist propaganda might infiltrate the masses and contaminate them. It is already a serious risk during the conflict’s cold period; but what would happen to the colony rotted by bloody guerrilla warfare in the event of a real war?

    I found this interesting. When is violence actually violence to the colonialist? When it impacts their money.

    When a colonialist country, embarrassed by a colony’s demand for independence, proclaims with the nationalist leaders in mind: “If you want independence, take it and return to the Dark Ages,” the newly independent people nod their approval and take up the challenge. And what we actually see is the colonizer withdrawing his capital and technicians and encircling the young nation with an apparatus of economic pressure

    Even though these are “non violent” actions, they are in fact violent.