I thought that one of the most satisfying parts of Fanon’s argument was his essential call for reparations at the end of this section. He admits that decolonized countries will be poor countries—they lack infrastructure, as well as doctors, engineers, and administrators, all while European countries enjoy great wealth. Here Fanon writes, “This European opulence is literally a scandal for it was build on the backs of slaves, and owes its very existence to the soil and subsoil of the underdeveloped world. Europe’s well-being and progress were build with the sweat and corpses of blacks, Arabs, Indians, and Asians.” Indeed, colonialist resource extraction and capital accumulation created unprecedented wealth in Europe. Fanon writes that a colonist will threaten a colony with a “return to the Dark Ages” if they sever ties with the colonist. But decolonization is “important because it is desired, clamored for, and demanded,” and Fanon believes that, on a descriptive level, any decolonization a success. The struggle is worth the effort, even if this “return to the Dark Ages” is real. After decolonization, then, an autarkic regime is established in the decolonized country and the impoverished people must undergo a regime of austerity. Fanon calls for a “redistribution of wealth,” and goes on to write, “Colonialism and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn their flag and their police force from our territories.”
This passage reminded me of the Haitian Revolution, as did a lot of Fanon’s argument. He often describes the colonized as “slaves,” but probably not literal ones, as he was writing in 1961. (This is not to say modern slavery, or human trafficking, does not exist.) I’ve never been comfortable with slavery as a metaphor, as I feel it erases people who were actually enslaved. Still, the word reminded me of the Haitian Revolution because it was the first and only successful decolonial slave uprising. And it was certainly violent. Both Haitian fighters and the French army engaged in violent action. But the violence that many people remember best was the 1804 massacre of the remaining white French colonists by the black population of Haiti. I think this is the type of violence that Fanon is talking about, although it occurred after most of the Haitian Revolution. Haitians were subject to extreme and prolonged violence under colonization, mostly characterized by enslavement. Fanon might see the 1804 massacre as an example of justified and “impulsive violence” in response to this. He writes, “The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world...this same violence will be vindicated and appropriated when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.”
This passage reminded me of the Haitian Revolution, as did a lot of Fanon’s argument. He often describes the colonized as “slaves,” but probably not literal ones, as he was writing in 1961. (This is not to say modern slavery, or human trafficking, does not exist.) I’ve never been comfortable with slavery as a metaphor, as I feel it erases people who were actually enslaved. Still, the word reminded me of the Haitian Revolution because it was the first and only successful decolonial slave uprising. And it was certainly violent. Both Haitian fighters and the French army engaged in violent action. But the violence that many people remember best was the 1804 massacre of the remaining white French colonists by the black population of Haiti. I think this is the type of violence that Fanon is talking about, although it occurred after most of the Haitian Revolution. Haitians were subject to extreme and prolonged violence under colonization, mostly characterized by enslavement. Fanon might see the 1804 massacre as an example of justified and “impulsive violence” in response to this. He writes, “The violence which governed the ordering of the colonial world...this same violence will be vindicated and appropriated when, taking history into their own hands, the colonized swarm into the forbidden cities.”
But the main point I meant to bring up here was that Haiti turned into an autarkic regime after decolonization, like Fanon described. (I’m sure he studied Haiti, even if I don’t remember him mentioning it in this section.) Although the Haitian Declaration of Independence calls for violence and criticizes the oppressive French state, it does not actually call for democracy. It actually says that the authors will “swear to blindly obey the laws issued by” Jean-Jacques Dessalines. It’s also true that Haiti’s economy was decimated after the revolution—it went from being one of the richest countries to the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. There has not yet been a redistribution of wealth to Haiti, or even an acknowledgement of France’s colonial “debt” to the country, as Fanon puts it. The French government actually demanded an impossibly large sum of money from Haiti compensate them after the revolution for their loss of men and for their loss of a profitable slave colony. In exchange, France would acknowledge them as a sovereign republic and resume trading with the impoverished country. Haiti agreed, but the debt crippled the island nation’s economy. They paid the modern equivalent of $21 billion to France. Clearly, this did not go as Fanon would have liked.
I agree with the similarities Ana has pointed out between Fanon's argument and it's real life implication in the Haitian revolution. I also agree that Fanon probably studied the Haitian revolution at some point, and it contributed to his ideas. Some of his ideas seems dramatic and like unlikely courses of action; like the mass killings or massacres of people, an autokratic government, and the redistribution of wealth. I wonder if he doesn't precisely point out the Haitian revolution in this section so that he does not hurt his argument or logic.
ReplyDelete