Undreamed-of Leftovers

The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon is unfiltered. Every thought has surety, consistently upheld by anger. For Fanon, to discuss decolonization is not to make assumptions or create theories, it is the declaration of very specific claims. In no corner of the book does his voice quiver. It is loud and clear, even without knowing if it is being heard.

It was interesting to me how Fanon while suggesting a hope for a new world and a new man, was also discarding other hopes. In one instance he writes that “there is no such thing as national culture within the context of colonial domination…and there never will be.” These hopes that he is casting away, are ones that do not lead to ones dreams. They are almost like traps, which keep the colonized in a state of passiveness. With statements like these, perhaps Fanon is trying to instill anger in the reader too. The notion that colonial rule did not only take away what one had, but also what one could have had is indeed infuriating. That a culture that could have existed and was robbed of its time, leads to a feeling of helplessness. It is in this feeling that the colonized might find the “violence rippling under the skin” as a sensation becoming deeply pronounced.

This brings one to consider why Fanon even needs to implore one against this kind of hope. Why would the colonized ever look to its oppressor for anything? This is perhaps because the colonized subject is a “man penned in” who tries to escape by “resorting to every means”. It is clear that Fanon finds the “counter violence” of the colonized as the main outcome of decolonization. However, he equally agrees that the colonized “discovers reality and transforms it”. It might be then that once one is within the midst of decolonization, a range of opportunities are opened. Fanon continuously re-iterates regarding the “evil” in the colonist. This is perhaps to emphasize that the re-humanization of the colonized man should not make him forget he was once made in-human. This is most appropriate when he refers to the “colonized bourgeoisie” and their inclination to “compromise”. That among the colonized are people who hold an anger that is not their own but one borrowed from the colonist himself.

The craving for violence in the colonized is not an empty one. It is not a mere reaction, nor a simple response. Most importantly, it does not manifest because one has “run out of patience”. In fact it has “positive, formative features.” This really struck me because this “combat” with colonization is not about the colonizer at all. It is although inspired by the colonist, a violence that puts the colonized at the center. The violence serves as a “perfect mediation” allowing for a healing process. Unlike most anger and rage, this kind is not an isolating one. Through it one is able to express a “truth that protects the natives” and helps them see a world that has been split in two, but nonetheless one in which their “breathing…and heartbeats” can also exist. Fanon then, does not want to “catch up” with anyone. That is not what decolonization means to him. His feelings of hatred towards the European are ones that liberate him, and help others liberate themselves. This too, in their own time and at their own pace. There is courage in this kind of feeling. In his conclusion, there is a part that says “let us stop accusing” the colonist. That is, he wants to move on, to a new “humanity” where anger is not a memory of oppression but a “force” that drives one to see change.