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
Things I would like to understand better:
A. I don't really understand the discussion of myths of the colonized as "inhibitions for his aggressiveness". I understand the suggestion that these traditions can make the colonizer seem less all imposing, and that working collectively (as demanded by these myths) have real benefit to the struggle. But beyond that I feel like I am missing something. Can anyone explain? Is this mostly related to Fanon's background as a psychiatrist and what he observed in the course of his work?
He goes on to speak about dance and how it is an outlet but that it is abandoned in during the struggle for liberation and what remains is violence directed towards colonialism.
There is this sentence, and then I feel like the subject changes:
Can anyone explain the conclusion here?
B. I didn't really understand the last few pages of the chapter. Colonized people are owed what was stolen from them. This I understand. But I am not understanding how
Am I not understanding this simply because it did not happen? What did happen instead?
I also understand that the third world did not form autocracies, which Fanon described as another threat.
I don't understand what threat existed that investment and technical aid to former colonies could save the world?