The Wretched of the Earth

Fanon lays bare the day to day interactions of the oppressed and the oppressor,
reveiling the tragic symptoms and by-products of colonialism, such as the
belief that violence must be met with violence to liberate a nation. The
mindset of the oppressed and the culture of an oppressed people is written very
plain, universal language (thanks in some part, no doubt, to the translator)
and there are themes and ideas in this book that ring true today because of
this style of writing.

Fanon writes about the need for having a "national culture" and the promotion
of national identity in order to provide a cohesion to people exiting
colonialism into the more covertly cruel world of free markets, total
independence and possibly neo-colonialism (such as what goes on in a lot of the
poorer Asian, African and South American countries today with sweatshops,
plantations and diamond mining). This idea that a national unity and recognized
common interest is not an option, it's totally necessary, if a group of people
wants to truly take power for themselves can be applied to all types of groups
today: gay people, the impoverished, the political Left, those in occupied
countries, religious minorities worldwide, etc.
So why would I only give the book 3 stars? I feel that while a lot of the
philosophy in the book is timeless, it takes lot of wading through dated
accounts of 1960s African politics, Fanon's psychiatric conclusions (one-fifth
of the book is devoted to this) and some mediocre round-about philosophizing.
The back of the edition I read claimed that "The Wretched of the Earth" had
surpassed other books of the era about colonialism and become more than just a
historically interesting artifact. By the last page however, I got the same
feeling I did when I finished "The Rights of Man" by Paine a year earlier for a
university assignment; there's simply no need to go through so much irrelevant
text to get to the core of the argument, which could be found in some of the
author's essay complilations
instead.

Those reviews that castigate Fanon for "glorifying violence" ought to be ignored. Fanon is writing, among other things, a phenomenology of anti-colonialism. It is meant neither as a recommendation nor a condemnation but as a description of the objective truth of a historical condition. That is, for Fanon reverse racist violent nationalism is a stage in the emergence of a political consiciousness that will eventually overcome and, indeed, renounce its own beginnings. What is remarkable is that people at present are so manifestly incapable of reading a dialctical unfolding such as this. The violence of the Algerian War had already largely taken place at the time of Fanon's writing and, let it be recalled, it was primarily the murder of Algerians by the French, for whom African imperialism is still a profitable if somewhat unsavory business.
While Fanon tracks the stages in the evolution of a radical anti-capitalist consciousness in the underdeveloped world, there is no question of his endorsing or advocating violence. One has only to read the final chapter on the psychological effects on both the colonizer and the colonized to see that Fanon is acutely aware of the brutality for all concerned of the Algerian War, even or, indeed, especially, for the oppressors themselves. There is certainly no question of his endorsing the indiscriminate horrors committed that were committed by the FLN against their oppressors.
The other thing, of course, that the petulant, anti-intellectual, ahistorical reactionaries who have shared their opinions here conveniently ignore is the violence inherent in the settler colonialism Fanon was addressing. As for the comparison with India, it is indeed illuminating, and one might profitably develop Fanon into a critique of the post-colonial India elite. After all, the real thrust of the book is its attempt to push anti-imperialism in a genuinely democratic direction, insofar as this was even possible for a largely peasant agricultural society caught within a much larger capitalist cosmos. At any rate, contra one reviewer, in the much-vaunted democracy of India, were peasants substantially liberated by the Indian National Congress from their indebtedness and from coercive labor practices? For his part, Fanon is not content with such liberal eye-wash as the talk of "Indian democracy" achieved through non-violence. In stark contrast to many other romantic commentators, he is keenly aware that there is nothing save radical democratic organized politics that can prevent post-colonial societies from a descent into poverty, despair, and the reactionary resurgence of "leadership" and virulently post-traditional "ethnicities" and "religiosities" though, in the face of the further defeat of the radical left in the West, most likely there is nothing to prevent the implosion of the Third World and the exhaustion (and extermination) of progressive energies there. Pages 95ff. in which Fanon discusses the terrible brutality of the very attempt to create industrialism in a country such as Algeria, and the awful irony of "independence" from the wealth of the colonizer are powerful and utterly ignored by most "radicals" who refuse to see that the resources already exist for the world to enjoy both opulence and sustainability.
Another thing - Fanon is inconceivable without Marxism. It informs his every argument, even if his point is only to criticize actually existing Marxisms. Therefore, the claim that "Fanon is great, except for the Marxist bit" is absurd and puerile. The real problem is that that entire intellectual language and with it the vast majority of the history of 20th century social hope is being actively forgotten. The nuances of so much of Fanon lies in the way he handles, refashions, and pushes up against the limits of the Marxian legacy as it came to him. (The idea that Fanon is a "genius" and that there are none else like him is similarly an indication of a tragic social and political amnesia, and this is not meant to detract in the slightest from the incredible achievement that is both this work and youthful masterwork "Black Skins, White Masks").
Finally, to uncritically drag Fanon into the American context, as some other reviewers want to do, is, it seems to me, potentially extremely misleading. Far more so than "Black Skins," "Wretched" is a book of its time and place. Certainly, any comparison with Malcolm X, who was no leftist and certainly no Marxist, is hopelessly misguided. Never mind the fact that Fanon's project of a liberated Algeria can scarcely be compared with the project of black American radical activists. American blacks were not colonized but forcibly transported and enslaved. More importantly, American blacks live within the heart of capitalism and Fanon's recommendation to the New World descendents of slaves would never be so crackpot as a separatist black nationalism.
There are many good grounds for criticizing Fanon, but since few reviewers seem capable of even approaching those matters, a more basic commentary seemed necessary.

Fanon asserts that violence is necessary for colonized and opressed people to achieve liberation. Have none of the readers of this book ever heard of Gandhi or Martin Luther King? Not only can national liberation be achieved without violence, but India has proven itself to one of the more stable and democratic of the former colonial possessions. Further, violence is often if not always quite counterproductive. LBJ's civil rights program stalled after the Watts riots, and Seale, Newton, and the other Panthers were some of the best allies the right wing of America ever had. George Wallace and his kinder, gentler protege Ronald Reagan owe a lot of their political success to them and like minded groups. In much the same way the rise of the Israeli far right can be linked to Palestinian suicide bombers and other attacks on civilians. Of course these are facts and Fanon is theory and never the twain shall meet.
Fanon isn't even that good when considered from a theory angle. His admirers can ramble on about dialectics all they want (a word I'd wager none of them could define), but from what I can tell Fanon's grip on Marx is shaky at best and his understanding of Hegel laughable. Particularly egregious is his moronic take on the master-slave dialectic. The whole point for the slave is recognition as an equal, which Hegel readily saw could not be achieved through violence, as did King and Ghandi, though they might never have slogged through the PhG. Their tactic of nonviolent resistance is much more effective in getting the "masters" to recognize the subjugated as equals than is indiscriminate murder (and yes Fanon does advocate that), a tactic which only reenforces the rulers' self-serving belief that their subjects are subhuman savages in need of education and civilization.
On a final note if I had I not had to read it myself I would not believe anything this poorly thought out and morally disgusting could be taught at a respectible university. This tripe helps me see why the right holds the academy in contempt, but why more progressives don't take ivory tower sages who'd run screaming at a paper cut to task for preaching bloodshed and mayhem is beyond me.

Most powerful and relevant book on the earth - read it, re read it and recommend it. It will change your outlook on the African continent or help you to see something not studied before about colonialism.

A great backdrop for a perspective on colonialism. This book in some cases can be applied to many cultural issues today.