Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) is a leading thinker of postcolonialism. Malcolm X, Che Guevara and Steve Biko read him. Fanon is best known for two of his books, “Black Skin, White Masks” (1952), about internalized racism, and “The Wretched of the Earth” (1961), about casting off colonialism.
Fanon, like Che Guevara and Malcolm X, was born in the 1920s and died young in the 1960s. And like them he fought and wrote against white power, which has ruled much of the world, at first directly through colonial empires in the 1800s and early 1900s, and then through its control of world banking, trade, television, education and so on.
For Fanon, gaining physical independence – kicking the white rulers out of your country – was only the first step. Because whites did more than simply rule – they also spread their language and thought and way of life. So even if you kick the white man out of your country, he is still in your head telling you that you are not as good as he is, that you are not whole, that there is something wrong with you, that you must become more like him. The colonized mind.
Fanon was born on the Caribbean island of Martinique, then a colony of the French empire. He grew up in a well-to-do family and received a French education. At 17, during the middle of the Second World War, he ran away from home and sailed across the sea to fight against Hitler with the French Resistance.
He fought in North Africa and later France itself. They would not let him cross into Germany – because he was black. They wanted to make it seem like only white soldiers won the war. And, even though he had fought for France, its white women would not dance with him – because he was black.
He won a scholarship and studied medicine and psychiatry in France. In 1953 he became the head of the largest psychiatric hospital in Algeria, which was then ruled by France.
At the hospital he saw how the white French doctors looked down the Arabs and would not give them proper care. He also found that helping one patient at a time was like trying to empty the sea with a spoon. Their “disease” was not anything he learned at school: it was colonialism.
And so, being the good doctor that he was, Fanon joined the FLN to fight against the French. He later edited its newspaper and talked to African leaders on its behalf.
Fanon did not live long enough to see the FLN win in the end. But while he laid on his deathbed in Bethesda, Maryland, dying of leukemia, he wrote his last book, “The Wretched of the Earth”, by speaking into a tape recorder. He said that since colonialism was built and maintained by violence then only by violence could it be destroyed. And violence not by the middle-class, which is too brainwashed by their masters, but by the poor.
He died at age 36.
See also:
- Frantz Fanon: Black Skin, White Masks
- domestic violence – raise your hand if you noticed the parallels with colonialism
- Malcolm X
- All blacks are racist
- Black France
- The Arab world
Franz Fanon is a flawed black civil rights leader, you want to know why, if you have read “Black skins White masks” you will know that his opinion of black women is horrendous, really offensive.
His theory of the colonialised mind is based on his own psychology, and his white woman worship, he liked white women but they rejected him and then he called black women little better than whores if they were in interracial relationships. often when you are in a third world country and you become involved with foreigners (who just happen to be white) it may be for economic reasons, the same thing happens in south east asia today… does not make people prostitutes, sex tourism is not new or unique to black woman and the fact that Franz Fanon paints it to be so is just horrific…..
Rant over.
I hate the man, he had no understanding of his fellow black woman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intriguing piece, Abagond. And interesting additional information from lifeisannoying.
Abagond, have you had a chance to read any of Fanon’s books? Lifeisannoying, would you recommend reading Fanon’s books?
Hope you’re well, Abagond.
LikeLike
@ temple- I read a little of Black face white mask and lifeisannoying is right on the money about Fanon. I would still advise you to read the book for yourself thought.
LikeLike
CN
Thanks for the suggestion.
LikeLike
I heard that Fanon hates black women too, but I would still like to read “Black Skin, White Masks” for myself. From what I understand Martinique was a snake pit of colourism, Fanon himself being on the lighter-skinned end of things. Hating black women is a bad sign, but I am thinking that even so he has some interesting things to say about racism, that is not just going to mouth the white supremacist line.
LikeLike
Black Skin, White Masks is probably one of the best books ever written about the psychological connections between race and sex.
Now, Fanon was a freudian psychologist long before he became a revolutionary and the book was his rejected doctoral thesis – rejected because his thesis committee didn’t believe that anything “useful” could be said regarding race and sex.
Fanon doesn’t use his own mind as a model for the book, though he does draw most of his examples from Martinique and French Africa. As a Freudian, he’s interested in discussing the pathology of race in sex and, given this, every group he discusses comes off looking poorly. He’s discussing how race can warp people’s sexual attitudes, so that’s to be expected. The person who is offended by his comments about black women thus completely misses Fanon’s point: when he talks about black women, he’s not describing black women per se, he’s describing sexual-racial pathologies which commonly affect black women.
WSBM shouldn’t be read as Fanon’s treatise on black women: it’s his treatise on racially-linked sexual pathologies and which of these are typical for black women, white women, black men and white men.
The book is complex. One needs a grounding in freudian theory (not much of one, but at least an understanding of where Fanon’s coming from) and the history of French imperialism in order for it to make sense. It also rewards repeated re-readings. I am thus very skeptical that any useful sense could be made of it by someone who just “read a little of it”.
It is a difficult book for Americans to read on a couple of grounds.
First of all, Fanon investigates the pathologies of interracial desire in a very uncomfortable way, drawing on case studies and literature. It’s difficult thing for anyone to read, because he breaks down the racism behind the most typical interracial sexual fantasies – fantasies which most people have probably toyed with at one time or another.
Secondly, Fanon is basing his experience on a society (Martinique) with a long tradition of recognizing the racially mixed as an intermediate category between black and white. Without some prior grounding in how miscegenist racist systems work, the average american reader is liable to be offended by terms such as “mulato” and Fanon’s analysis of “whitening mania”.
As a white guy married to a black woman, I can say that reading WSBM helped me a lot as it helped me analyze potential pathologies in my own desire. Knowing Fanon’s analysis, I now wince everytime I hear an American (black or white) describe black and mulata Brazilian women as “naturally sexy” supergirls. Fanon really helps one see where that particular myth is coming from and it ain’t pretty.
LikeLike
Interesting remarks on “Black Skin, White Masks”! Thank you. I never thought of Fanon as offering dating advice.
LikeLike
One of his least popular works but I think is very good is
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VScQZGMsox0C&dq=Toward+the+african+Revolution+Frantz+Fanon&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=gq8qG9BeEn&sig=HWwAghRsqAQ0mJ4M8e3jN6OZQSw&hl=en&ei=6UpSS_CaGoXu0gTm89GqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Definitely a great mind since he spoke of the importance of violence and alluded to the possibility of the Black bourgeoise selling out the masses pre-empting political thought and actions
Without being arrogant here, there are a number of misconceptions like he was a civil right leader
LikeLike
Fanon died at a most unlikely time, place and circumstances. On 6 December 1961, he died in Bethesda, Maryland at the early age of 36. Some scholars consider it a ‘mysterious death’ since the CIA had brought the relutant but desperately ailing Fanon to the U.S. for treatment of leukemia.
The CIA also, according to Geismar had left Fanon in a hotel for 8 days without the treatment he urgently needed, forcing him to hire his own private nurse”
And further
Irene Gendzier in “Frantz Fanon: A Critical Study” comments on Fanon’s CIA connection as follows:
The general allegation that Fanon died in the arms of the CIA has never been entirely cleared up. It is possible, given the attitude of the United States government towards the Algerian situation in 1961, that the American Embassy in Tunis did offer help, and that a CIA agent was present to carry out details.
But to say this only serves to raise more questions about the interest of the CIA in Fanon. . . . Dr. David Haywood, the doctor in direct charge of Fanon’s case. . . is quoted as remembering “the daily, downright brotherly visits of Fanon’s CIA case officer, who also had the task of bringing to the hospital Fanon’s wife and six-year-old son. Except for doctors and nurses, his wife, his son, and his case officer were, in fact, Fanon’s sole companions while his life ebbed away” . . ..
Fanon’s body was brought back to Tunisia on the request of the FLN [Front de Liberation Nationale] and buried some miles inside Algerian territory, not far from Ghardimaou. Sources close to Fanon maintain that the present Algerian government refuses to move the body because the area in which it is buried is still dangerous due to the presence of mines.
For this reason it also continues to prohibit access to it. The body was accompanied back to Tunis by the CIA case officer, Ollie Iselin, who participated in the funeral ceremonies and had his photograph taken by a “Jeune Afrique” photographer, along with the others present.
…Fanon’s relationship with Ollie Iselin is troubling”
LikeLike
Hi abagond,
I am interested to know where you got this picture of Frantz Fanon and who holds the rights on it? I would like to post this picture on a corporate website (Radio Canada International’s website) and I need to make sure it is free of rights or that I am authorized to use it. Can you help me please?
Thank you.
LikeLike
I got it from here:
http://www.psychoanalysis.cz/psysocmediaC.html
LikeLike
Fanon’s work is very fascinating, and he offers us some really thoughtful insights on the psychological and economic violence of racism and colonialism. There is much feminist criticism for and against Fanon’s treatment of women, specifically in Black Skin, White Masks (BSWM). I happen to be on the side of the criticism that says that his discussion of women is opprobrious, but not for the reasons commonly identified by academic and lay readers. Certainly his discussion of Mayotte Capecia is done in the context of interracial desiring and pathology, but the problem comes when Fanon links Capecia’s behavior to all women, not just his subject at hand. He looks at similar behavior among black men, but where is is sympathetic to them and offers explanations, he’s scathing and dismissive in his assessment of Capecia. When he does come to a the place in the text where he accounts for how and why these pathologies exist (chapter called the Negro and psychopathology) Fanon writes that he knows nothing about black women, although he had sisters, he writes of black women he went to school with, and he has a mother–to say the least. Not to mention that he was quite comfortable writing about black women, e.g capecia, through her book and work of literature she herself did not write.
Nevertheless, if you want to offer a substantial and provable critique of Fanon’s gender bias, you have to connect his dismissal of women to his argument on the regeneration of black masculinity. Further, that regeneration of black masculinity is intimately tied to his opposition to the Hegelian dialectic, his theory of violence, and his reclamation of the nation as the space of belong and identification for the black/postcolonial subject. Essentially, unearthing gender in Fanon’s work goes well beyond his treatment of Capecia and definitely beyond BSWM. And for those who argue that he redeems himself through his discussion of Algerian women in his second book, A dying colonialism, I offer the same connection between violence, nationalism, and masculinity as a rejoinder.
His work is worth reading because, if nothing else, it offers a black male perspective on colonialism and racism, but his work, in my humble opinion, should be read alongside feminist criticism and should not be taken as a universal perspective.
To the poster above: Fanon was not a Freudian psychoanalyst, he was a psychiatrist. As Abagond pointed out and this is recorded in David Macey’s (regarded as the best) biography of Fanon, BSWM was his thesis, which means he was not yet practicing. Fanon’s use of Freud is cursory and is as good as any grad student’s who’s taken a couple classes or done some personal reading.
LikeLike
“Freudian psychologist” was the term used, actually, and I meant that in terms of his general academic and professional field, not in terms of his practice.
BSWM was supposed to have been his thesis, but his committee rejected it. He submitted it after he’d done his residency, IIRC, so I’m not sure that we can dismiss it as a purely theoretical piece based on reading alone.
As for Fanon being more or less dismissive of Capecia, I think a lot of that has to do with one’s own preferences when one reads him. I don’t have a “dismissive-o-meter”, so it’s hard for me to take an objective reading of that sort of thing. Certainly he is dismissive, but I’d argue that the “Man of Color” doesn’t get off lightly in chapter 3. He calls Veneuse an introvert, a beggar, a neurotic and claims that he suffers from a Cinderella Complex.
Futhermore, Fanon is quite clear that he does not intend his critique of either Capecia or Vaneuse to be a critique of black men or women in general. In fact, he writes these two chapters to show what he considers to be a BAD reading of why certain black men and women fetishicize white lovers. He’s not holding Capecia and Vaneuse up as “typical blacks” but as “typical neurotics”.
As to Franz’ connection of masculinity, violence and the nation into a regenerative project for black masculinty, I agree with you whole-heartedly. It shows to me how the division between the modernist left and right was not so complete as people presume. The whole corporativist ideal of a manly nation which seeks to prove itself through violence was very much present in Fanon and attracted many would-be male revolutionaries.
LikeLike
With regard to:
To the poster above: Fanon was not a Freudian psychoanalyst, he was a psychiatrist. As Abagond pointed out and this is recorded in David Macey’s (regarded as the best) biography of Fanon, BSWM was his thesis, which means he was not yet practicing. Fanon’s use of Freud is cursory and is as good as any grad student’s who’s taken a couple classes or done some personal reading.
Just a few points whereby I felt the need to comment upon
1. Psychoanalysis which essentially is Freud’s theory is what was to be the backbone of psychiatry. This is why in the 1950s psychiatrists were using Freudian ideas to understand the human mind
2. As for Macey’s book I would not recommend it. And that he is against the concept of ‘revolutionary violence’, as proposed by Fanon, for the victims of oppression may somewhat help to understand his euro-centred and somewhat ‘conservative’ perspective
3. BSWM was his doctoral thesis and not (under-) grad, as suggested
Some of the thoughts regarding Fanon on this blog, is very worrying methinks.
Again………………..Such is life!
LikeLike
“In fact, Macey seems vaguely annoyed by the way Fanon is read now, and takes what could be an interesting pop at “post-colonial theorists”,
Dr Fanon Prescribes freedom
Book Review of:
Frantz Fanon: a life by David Macey (Granta, £25, 640pp)
By Deborah Levy, Saturday, 18 November 2000
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/dr-fanon-prescribes-freedom-625828.html
LikeLike
Let me quote CRASS to you, J:
It all looks very easy
This revolution game
But when you start to really play
Thinks won’t be quite the same
You’re intellectual theories
On how it’s going to be
Just don’t take into account
The true reality
Because the truth of what you’re saying
As you sit there sipping beer
Is pain and death and suffering
But of course, you wouldn’t care!
LikeLike
Who is Crass?
LikeLike
I looked up I think ‘crass’ I think I will stick with Fanon’s analysis of ‘violence’
LikeLike
Should read
I looked it up, I think it is ‘crass’. I think I will stick with Fanon’s analysis of violence
I should have added ‘cheers’ for the song nonetheless.
LikeLike
CRASS is – or was – a Britsh anarcho-punk rock band from the 1980s.
LikeLike
Is this the one.
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=bty2DCJOoFs&feature=related
LikeLike
Yes.
So what about those people who don’t wnat your new restrictions?
Those who disagree with you and have their own convictions?
You say they’ve got it wrong because they don’t agree with you
So when the revolution comes, you’ll have to run them through.
LikeLike
Its just a song…
I would have to sit down and have a dialogue with Crass.
However, I believe Fanon is totally correct in this respect, what he suggests with regard to ‘revolutionary violence’.
And if we look at Algeria, it is through a process of ‘armed resistance’ that helped to overthrow the French therein..
Finally I believe this is perhaps the key reasons why Fanon is a ‘pariah’ among many in the Western world, even though at the same time they ‘applaude’, him because due to his insightful mind with regar dto the ‘colonised’ and the ‘coloniser’
LikeLike
Yeah, and Algeria’s just paradise right now, isn’t it?
It`s not revolution CRASS is crying out against, J, but “ends justify the means” ideology, especially when enunciated by people who’ll come nowhere near the mess themselves.
LikeLike
Cheers Thad
For an explanation of the song.
So are you suggesting that you prefer the ‘philosophy of non-violence’??
LikeLike
Not necessarily.
I’m just very, very leary of people who sip beer while blithely suggesting that all our problems can be solved if we just rachet up enough courage to kill the Right Sorts of People.
LikeLike
Cheers
But this is what Fanon suggested and participated in at the same time. So in this respect he was revolutionary to the cause.
I am sure you know this. However, I do not understand the Crass song vis-a-vis Fanon (because it does not apply to him, or perhap it does, I do not know)?? Or is it in fact a reference to me, or perhaps even something else??
LikeLike
How many people have YOU seen die violent deaths, J? I mean personally?
LikeLike
Cheers!!
To answer your question none in a protest and/or revolution.
However, if this is a chatboard and we are discussing Fanon and his ideas. Then I can be for or against his ideas irrespective of whether I am a peace activist and seen no deaths, or a peace activist that have seen a thousand deaths, or vice versa as a radical.
I do not understand the point, because whether you fight the ‘revolution’ ‘peacefully’ or through ‘resistance’. The one thing for sure is that there will be ‘deaths’ – that is unavoidable.
LikeLike
So I will assume the song was directed at me. However, the song still does not give us any insight into Fanon’s theory of ‘political violence’.
Especially as Fanon was a revolutionist vis-a-vis- a pop group making money.
In this context the song then becomes its own parody vis-a-vis Fanon
LikeLike
My question wasn’t specific to protest and revolutions, J: I asked about violent deaths. In front of your eyes, J.
How many?
LikeLike
It is a personal question to me, which I do not wish to discuss with some one on the internet whose ‘intent’
has been questionable.
LikeLike
So that I have chosen not to answer your question.
Can we bring this round full circle.
What light does this song shed on Fanon’s theory on ‘violence’, if any??
LikeLike
The Journal of Pan African Studies has published a special issue (vol.4, no.7) on Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) edited by Kurt B. Young (University of Central Florida) featuring an editorial and 10 articles. The issue can be read at: http://www.jpanafrican.com/currentissue.htm.
LikeLike
that “Crass” song doesn’t sound anarcho-punk so much as simplistically liberal. Like they took a cue from the Beatles “say you want a revolution” or whatever. Before you start asking people about how many violent deaths they’ve seen, maybe you should answer this question: how many violent deaths have you seen at the hands of the State? Similarly, how many lives have you seen ruined by the colonization of minds? Exactly what do we stand to lose with violent resistance – or rather, what do YOU stand to lose, and/or what do the violently oppressed stand to lose?
Finally, regarding Fanon, maybe a line should be drawn between his factual observations and the things he calls for. It’s just a sad fact that Imperial powers will kill people who threaten their hold on their colonies, whether that threat is peaceful or not.
As for the current state of Algeria, it seems like you know better than to entertain the conceit that colonialism comes to an end when colonial powers are officially, politically kicked out. No one can seriously say that the US and some European powers still have significant, undue influence over African nations.
LikeLike
Additionally, why don’t I go ahead and answer your question about violent deaths as well: I have seen exactly 0 (zero) violent deaths. I am a privileged American living in a privileged town, and I certainly sip my share of beer.
As such, it would be complete and utter BS for me to tell the oppressed (or anyone) that violent resistance is wrong, having never experienced anything like the kind of oppression Fanon writes about. Where, exactly, is the burden of proof? Are you going to show your Crass lyrics to, say, a Palestinian resistance fighter? Are you even going to talk about abstract “good” and “evil” to such a person?
LikeLike
Sorry, *no one can seriously say that the US and some European powers *don’t* still have significant, undue influence over African nations.
LikeLike
I’m sure Fanon had interesting things to say – we would need a fairly complete knowledge of the human mind in order to fathom some of his ideas. Maybe this nearly complete knowledge will be available in our lifetime.
He made somed link between racial prejudice, and sexuality. I would have thought a plainer link was between race and inequality. If we institutionalise inequality, as capitalism seems to do, then this going to be mirrored in endless ways with other binary features as metaphors for inequality.
LikeLike
“domestic violence – raise your hand if you noticed the parallels with colonialism”
In college we read a book by a Moroccan woman called “Year of the Elephant” that parallels the challenges of Morocco’s independence with a woman’s struggles to become independent after her husband divorces her without notice. It’s worth reading.
LikeLike
Colonialism was a positive good. Decolonization has led to nothing but suffering for my volk.
LikeLike
That’s a GOOD THING. Your volk are just living the way nature meant them to now that they are no longer subsidized by theft of Black labor. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM4BE14pAgo)
LikeLike
You want to hurt us, just to hear us screaming your name. Don’t want to touch you, but you’re under our skins.
LikeLike