This blog is in response to the thinking task activity assigned by Megha Ma'am.
Introduction:
In his 1961 book The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon examines how colonialism deeply affects the minds and lives of colonized people and their nations. Fanon’s insights have been significant for movements such as civil rights, Black consciousness, anti-colonial struggles, and mental health reform. This book is celebrated as a critical guide for activists and revolutionaries, exploring colonialism’s dehumanizing effects, the role of violence in fighting oppression, and the psychological scars of colonization. Its ideas continue to influence anti-racism and anti-colonial movements, especially with renewed interest after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. Now, let's dive into some key questions related to Fanon's arguments.
1) What is the role of violence in colonialism with reference to the wretched of Earth?
In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon makes a powerful point about violence in colonialism. He’s not just talking about the physical violence we might imagine in wars; he’s talking about the way colonialism operates at every level by crushing people’s spirits and identities, stripping away their humanity. He starts by making it clear that colonial rule is built on force, control, and a refusal to treat the colonized as equals. Fanon doesn’t sugarcoat it when he says, “colonialism is not a thinking machine, nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence”.
What he means here is that colonialism doesn’t try to negotiate or meet halfway. It’s a system designed to oppress. According to Fanon, colonialists never see the colonized as real people with thoughts, feelings, and rights. They keep control through violence, intimidation, and power.
“You are making us into monstrosities; your humanism claims we are at one with the rest of humanity but your racist methods set us apart.”
Sartre exposes how colonialists preach values like equality and brotherhood, yet they treat the colonized as objects, “monstrosities,” who exist only to be exploited. This hypocrisy makes it clear why Fanon believes that only force can undo what force created. He writes, “no gentleness can efface the marks of violence; only violence itself can destroy them”.
Fanon believes that for the colonized, using violence isn’t just about physical resistance, it’s about reclaiming their self-worth and humanity. His line “to destroy the colonial world means nothing less than demolishing the colonist's sector, burying it deep within the earth or banishing it from the territory” sums up his idea of a complete break. The colonized don’t just want to change the rules they want to destroy the entire system of control so they can build a new society on their own terms.
He points out that while violence is needed to end colonialism, it’s also risky. He warns that if power isn’t shared fairly, post-colonial societies could fall into “neocolonialism,” where native elites continue to exploit the masses just as the colonizers did.
Interestingly Fanon describes how different groups respond to the idea of violent resistance. He says that nationalist groups like the working class and small business owners are often hesitant to embrace a full revolution. Because they’re a bit more comfortable, they would rather focus on improving their wages and conditions. But Fanon believes the real revolutionary force is in the peasants or “lumpenproletariat”, who have little to lose. For them guerrilla tactics “sabotage, attacks, and disruptive actions” are practical because they directly hurt the colonial economy, making it costly and unsustainable for colonizers .
So we can say that Fanon argues that colonialism is a “two-way street” of violence. It’s not just a one-sided oppression; it’s a violent relationship between oppressor and oppressed that forces the colonized to use resistance as self-defense. He calls it a “murderous and decisive confrontation between the two protagonists” because, for him, there’s no other way to truly break free from the cycle of dehumanization. While Fanon knows that this struggle has its own dangers, he also believes that without it, colonialism will just keep finding new ways to exploit.
2) What Does Manichaeism Mean in a Colonial Context?
Answer:
Manichaeism, a term originally tied to an ancient dualistic religion, takes on a distinct meaning in colonial discourse, especially in Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. In the colonial context, Manichaeism represents the sharp, binary division that colonizers impose upon the world, categorizing societies and people into rigid "good" versus "evil" stereotypes. In his analysis of colonialism’s psychological effects, Fanon uses the concept of Manichaeism to critique how colonial power dynamics create an artificial, morally charged opposition between colonizer and colonized. Below is a detailed exploration of the term within the context of Fanon’s work.
Historical and Philosophical Background of Manichaeism
Manichaeism was originally a religious philosophy founded by the prophet Mani in the 3rd century AD, promoting a dualistic worldview. This worldview sees existence as a struggle between two opposing forces: good and evil, light and darkness. This metaphysical dichotomy between two absolutes was influential across many cultures and later provided a framework for interpreting various forms of moral, social, and ideological oppositions.
In colonial studies, the term "Manichaean" is repurposed to describe the extreme and often violent divisions created by colonialism. Instead of a metaphysical battle between light and dark, colonial Manichaeism refers to how colonizers frame themselves as superior, advanced, and civilized while portraying the colonized as inferior, barbaric, and primitive.
Manichaeism in the Colonial Context:
In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist and anti-colonial theorist from Martinique, explores how colonial rule enforces Manichaean divisions to uphold its power. Fanon writes from the perspective of a colonized person, describing how colonial powers impose absolute distinctions between colonizer and colonized to justify their domination. This process serves not only to dehumanize the colonized but also to absolve the colonizer of guilt, as they view their actions as part of a "civilizing mission."
Colonial Manichaeism creates a world in which “the settler is the absolute beginning” and “the colonized are nothing.” Through this lens, Fanon describes how colonial powers systematically strip the colonized of their culture, identity, and humanity. The colonized are perceived as irredeemably “evil” and incapable of attaining the same level of morality or sophistication as the colonizer, which justifies extreme repression and exploitation.
3) How Does Decolonization Fit into Global Capitalism?
Even after gaining political independence, many former colonies found themselves still economically dependent on former colonial powers, a concept often referred to as “neocolonialism.” In this system, newly independent countries continue to rely on their former colonizers—or other wealthy nations—for economic support and survival. Global organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) encourage these nations to open up their economies, creating conditions that benefit the broader system of global capitalism, sometimes more than the countries themselves.
The Role of Large Corporations:
Multinational corporations from developed nations frequently enter post-colonial countries, taking advantage of their abundant natural resources and low-cost labor. This setup enables wealthier countries to maintain their prosperity by keeping raw materials cheap and manufactured goods expensive. As a result, post-colonial economies often end up as suppliers of raw materials or low-cost manufacturing hubs rather than fully developed, diversified economies. This reinforces economic dependence, limiting the growth potential of post-colonial nations within the global system.
The Cold War and Its Influence:
Decolonization largely took place during the Cold War era, a time when tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union influenced global politics. Many newly independent countries found themselves pressured to align with one side or the other. Some nations, hoping to break free from capitalist exploitation and avoid dependency, turned toward socialist models. They believed socialism might offer a path toward true independence, as it emphasized self-sufficiency and state-controlled resources, which could counterbalance the pressures of global capitalism.
Neocolonialism and Economic Influence:
Through trade deals and loans, wealthy countries and international financial institutions are able to shape the economic policies of post-colonial nations. These policies often focus on promoting privatization (the transfer of public assets to private owners) and free markets. While this approach benefits global capitalism by integrating these nations into the world market, it often leaves post-colonial countries at a disadvantage. They remain reliant on wealthier countries, serving the needs of those economies rather than fostering self-sufficiency.
In many ways, decolonization didn’t fully free former colonies from external control but transformed their dependency into a more economic one, fitting them into a global capitalist structure. Wealthier nations and international institutions maintain influence over these countries' economic policies, keeping them tethered to the global economy in ways that often benefit the powerful. This dynamic shows how decolonization, despite its promise of independence, led many nations into a new form of economic dependence that supports global capitalism.
So we can say that, decolonization ended direct colonial rule, but it didn’t completely free former colonies. Many of these countries became economically dependent on powerful nations within a global capitalist system. Wealthy countries and international organizations continue to influence their economies through trade, loans, and investment, keeping them tied to the needs of richer economies. So, while these nations gained political independence, they were still drawn into a system where they supply resources and labor to support global capitalism. This shows that decolonization often meant a shift from political to economic control, leaving many post-colonial countries still dependent.
Conclusion:
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon argues that violence is not only a means of oppression under colonial rule but also a necessary tool for liberation. He examines the complex role of violence in both gaining freedom and in maintaining colonial control. Manichaeism, meanwhile, enforces a harsh division between colonizers and the colonized, reinforcing the idea of the colonized as “lesser.” Lastly, even with decolonization, post-colonial nations often remain economically tied to global capitalism, making it challenging to achieve full independence.
Thank you so much for visiting ð
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
%20(1).jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
