The Human Fanon-inom

“Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from underdeveloped peoples. The ports of Holland, the docks of Bordeaux and Liverpool were specialized in the Negro slave trade, and owe their renown to millions of deported slaves. So when we hear the head of a European state declare with his hand on his heart that he must come to the aid of the poor underdeveloped peoples, we do not tremble with gratitude. Quite the contrary; we say to ourselves: “It’s just reparation which will be paid to us.”
-Frantz Fanon

I believed Appadurai’s claim that violence (or at least awareness of it) increased in the 1990s during the “high time of globalization;” however, it is clear that under colonialism there was a significant amount of violence across cultural, political, religious, and state boundaries. In Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Europe, the process of globalization was one that created difference and bred hostilities.
The process of colonization and then decolonization were violent and bloody. There were genocides in Africa against full tribes and countries of people torn apart during the “scramble for Africa.” Additionally, there was more violence and terror under the rule of these European colonizers. And countries, like Algeria, faced massacres and terrorist attacks throughout the process of decolonization. All of this violence occurred before the 1990s. I think this means that Melissa was absolutely right for making the comments she did in class when she opposed the perspective of Appaduari. The Fanon reading makes it clear how the process of globalization started way before the 1990s as did the violence that Appadurai claims accompanied it. I’m glad Melissa stood up to the Appadurai reading and showed us not to take it as the whole truth.

Overall, this reading was a little over my head. The themes discussed and the writing style were hard for me to follow and even harder for me to grasp before having the class discussion. This question of what it means to be human and the processes of dehumanization, oppression, and exploitation are interesting and I think that they draw on my experiences in classes outside of the world of ICS. They touch upon my studies in Paris about France and Africa, how the French invaded, how they ruled, how they left, and how the people of these countries interact in the modern world (think the conflict of Algerian identity and Franco-Algerian relations, a subject I explored for my final project last semester in ICS). It was a truly unique opportunity for me, an American to learn about Africa from a French perspective because I have so many other conceptions of what happened (and what constitutes history) in Africa. An example of this was how all of the French students knew about the Fachoda incident and I never even heard of it. When it comes to stories of imperialism, Africa, and colonization, perspective and national origin plays an important role.

Fanon also makes me think about the different processes of dehumanization enacted by the Nazis upon the Jews and other victims during the Holocaust. I just read Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz and an important distinction that he makes in the book is that to be human is two things: to have the will to resist, and to help others in your same position. This idea of humanity as a process of helping others is a stark juxtaposition to the violence that Fanon advocates to have humanity advance. Regardless, the question of dehumanization has been important throughout history and is something that I think our generation does not address like past ones, because we have a different concept of human rights and international politics. We have been raised in a world which appears to have a defined conception of what it means to be human and which has a strict list of features which define human rights: the universal declaration human rights (something which we studied at length). My country project during ICS 125 also revealed that these issues of human rights and the reporting of them are absorbed in issues of tradition and international legacy. More complicated than I initially thought.

It also struck me that Izzi brought in an original copy of the book by Fanon that was one of her parents. It must have been a completely different talk about this book when it was first published. The people reading it witnessed the conflicts that Fanon talks about. They saw the tail end of decolonization. How do they think about humans and the provocative stance that Fanon takes throughout his piece? Maybe I’ll ask my mom.

There are two types of authors we have read so far this semester. Those who are very angry and frustrated about the changing and intermingling of cultures like Ugresic. And the ones who are more optimistic about the changes that can happen and the improvements that can be made, like Berreby. Fanon, who wrote many years ago, is one of the former. He is angry and frustrated throughout his piece and attempts to justify the violent acts which are committed against colonizers who are painted in negative light as oppressors, repressors, and exploiters of the people being colonized. I wonder if those being oppressed today would express this same advocacy of violence to become human again, has our logic as humans taught us that two wrongs don’t make a right….