This is an angry book, and rightly so. First published in 1961 during the war in Algeria with France seeking to maintain the country as a colony, Frantz Fanon sets out a manifesto for anti colonial movements the world over. More than a historical document this has relevance today for wherever a country is dominated by another. In the postmodern world, this isn't often by direct colonialism, but Fanon's book remains interesting regardless. More emotionally affecting is the final section which sets out the psychiatric disorders he encountered (Fanon was a psychiatrist) during the Algerian war, both among the Algerians and the European settlers and police. For a description of the brutalising impact of colonialism on the colonisers themselves this is a powerful accompaniment to Heart of Darkness.

Very much worth ready, even now 60 years later.

Should be required reading for anyone in a colonial country. My mind will never go back to the shape it was before Fanon.

I'm really not a philosophy person. I wish I were. I liked the psychology stuff at the end.

Fanon on the nationalist bourgeois who has his eye on the main chance after liberation: "His honesty, which is his soul's true bent, crumbles away little by little." His soul's true bent! That's so brilliant (of Fanon). Any cynic could imagine a rat bastard who never meant a word of it. Fanon has an eye for the tragic instead.

That's hardly a review of the whole book, though.

This is an important continuation of his earlier work and I am still digesting it. I have been meaning to read this book ever since Said discussed Fanon's theory at length in Culture and Imperialism. More than anything, Fanon's book shows that the process of decolonization structurally and psychologically is far from over. I was chilled by the similarity between the way French psychologists spoke of Algerians and the way Arabs and Muslims were discussed in public American discourse post September 11th as analyzed by Sarah Ahmed and Jasbir Puar sans the crazy claims about different brain configuration but in similarly essentializing and 'othering' language. I wonder what Fanon would say today about his concept of 'nation.' Though he suggests new states find their own way, adopting a nation-state approach is following a European model, although perhaps he means the word 'nation' in a very different way than I assume. Of course, the nation-state as an autonomous entity is a fiction because it developed during the age of empire and colonization, which seriously problematizes the idea of autonomy or self-containment of the concept of France if the modern version of it never existed without oppressed and exploited appendages. The nation-state is relatively young historically, and as Anderson shows, the modern concept fully developed in the Americas before Europe though the French Revolution influenced every subsequent revolution. Fanon imagined that the building of nationalism could lead to international cooperation-that's unique. The chapter most relevant to critical postcolonial literary studies is 'On National Culture' especially pp. 150-170. He is very quotable in 'The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness. Here are my favorites:

In his revolution, "We were able to convey to the masses that work is not a physical exercise or the working of certain muscles, but that one works more with one's brain and one's heart than with muscles and sweat' (133). Yes, this does seem really naive, but I like the part about working with your heart.

'Nobody has a monopoly on truth, neither the leader nor the militant. The search for truth in local situations is the responsibility of the community' (139).

'There are no clean hands, no innocent bystanders. We are all in the process of dirtying our hands in the quagmire of our soil and the terrifying void of our minds' (140).

Anyway, Edward Said interprets Fanon best, in my opinion, but this edition includes an essay by Homi Bhabha, the preface from Sartre, and a note by the translator - all really useful in their own right. I read them after I read Fanon's text. Bhabha shows its relevance and he offers an alternative reading of it to Sartre and Arendt who was critical of it. Sartre has a slightly simplistic interpretation of the work and attempts to show the metropole the psychological implications of decolonization and fits violence and death into his philosophy. He is understandably furious with the actions of the French government in Algeria and the average French person's disconnection from it in the late 1950's. What he says holds good for any of us remaining part of a nation that acts in a way that we abhor-even protest is futile in avoiding complicity. Sartre's best line is "Terror has left Africa to settle here" (lxi) An interesting continuation of Sartre's prediction that both the metropole and the colony will be decolonized after the revolution is Derrida's 'Structure, Sign, and Play in the Human Sciences.' In it, Derrida states that decolonization created a huge shift in our understanding of reality. The note on translation is an intriguing reflection on a few of the most difficult words to deal with in the text. I was also fascinated with Philcox explaining how listening to Fanon speak helped him with the translation.