The award-winning 1966 film, The Battle of Algiers depicts the struggle between natives (the Algerians) and the colonizer (France) during a revolutionary fight for independence. After viewing this film, it is evident that the reasons for revolution and extreme violence on the part of the Algerians were fueled by the thoughts and ideology of Frantz Fanon, a notorious Algerian psychiatrist who promoted and accepted terrorist violence as a valid means of achieving group goals. Although the extreme violence in this film may be seen as aggressive and unnecessary by some, it is evident that the National Liberation Front (FLN) and its supporters believed that terrorism was their last chance for independence from France after 130 years of colonization …show more content…
and occupation. Certain groups, including the FLN, as well as other groups who were inspired by Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961) justify their extreme use of violence through three overarching justifications and goals including: (1) promoting self-respect; (2) realizing political independence; and (3) creating a new humanity. As Fanon wrote, “between the oppressor and the oppressed, everything can be solved by force” (Cronin 53). It is evident through the example of the FLN and Algeria that extreme violence can be effective in achieving these goals if the violence is strategically and intentionally planned, controlled, and guided. The first justification that Fanon gives for terrorism is that it promotes individual self-respect (Sonnleitner 289).
Fanon argues that in promoting self-respect, extreme violence also destroys the myths of inferiority that many natives have emblazoned in their minds and hearts. According to Fanon, people under colonial rule develop inferiority complexes because they are viewed by settlers as “a sort of quintessence of evil”, as opposed to real people with human rights (Cronin 48). For example, shortly after the FLN placed and detonated the first of many bombs, the French settlers were screaming from their balconies at an Arab man, saying that all Arabs should be executed in order for peace to be established. These individuals accepted an overarching stereotype of all Arabs and Algerians based upon the select few who were involved with the FLN. Additionally, these acts of terrorism are justified by groups like the FLN as acts that release tension and aggression that have built up over many years. In the Algerian case, the natives had built up anger toward the French and the French army for 130 years before they began to revolt and successfully call for independence. Before these acts of terrorism began, these individuals did not have an outlet to release their anger towards their colonizer. Furthermore, this terrorism is a tool for the Algerians to work toward independence and to take control of their own lives, which had been controlled by the French for so …show more content…
long. The second justification for extreme violence is perhaps the most obvious and common among those who decide to engage in revolutionary terrorism: realizing political independence (Sonnleitner 292). During the film, the voice of the FLN and the Algerian people repeated many times that their main goal and their only possible bargaining chip with the French was the right to self-determination. According to Fanon, extreme acts of political violence communicate effectively to the colonial oppressor that the natives have the power and size in order to do some real damage to the colonial power if they are not granted the rights of self-determination and equality. Moreover, revolutionary acts of terror against a colonial government attempts to “clear the foundation on which a new order may be built” (Sonnleitner 294). In The Battle of Algiers, the leaders of the FLN believed that they needed to gain independence from France because they had personally assumed the responsibility for the physical well-being of the Algerian people and felt as though the French forces presented an imminent threat through their inhumane and brutal torture of the Algerian people. The supporters of the FLN believed that if the terrorist acts led to the French granting Algeria its independence that a better, more peaceful society and government, could take its place and provide a safe haven of equality and human rights. As Fanon wrote, “The well-known principle that all men are equal will be illustrated in the colonies from the moment that the native claims that he is the equal of the settler” (51). In the minds of the Algerians and FLN, the action of “claiming as equal” to settlers can only be effectively done through terrorism and violence. Not only does this extreme violence and terrorism have the goal of providing a new foundation for government and order, but it also creates a “new humanity” through building national identity, promoting national culture, and providing for a process of perpetual renewal (Sonnleitner 298). Shortly after the first FLN bombing in the film, Jaffar tells Ali, “It is hard to start a revolution. It is even harder to sustain it.” It is evident that Jaffar meant that the FLN needed the Algerian people to rally around their actions in order to ultimately gain independence and provide for a better world for all loyal Algerians. After the first bomb was detonated in an area with many French noncombatant settlers, it was clear that the French armed forces would be in full force-and-effect, plotting to end the revolt as well as the lives of FLN members once and for all. It was crucial for the FLN to gain popularity and support at that time, and that support translated into a true sense of nationalism and togetherness amongst oppressed natives. The FLN, as well as individuals like Fanon, persuaded the Algiers that the end (liberation and equality) would justify the means (constant and brutal violence, some which targeted French civilians). In addition to learning how groups justify this extreme political violence, it is also important to discern whether or not this violence is effective.
In The Wretched of the Earth (1961), Fanon makes it clear that extreme violence effectively or ineffectively, based on the planning and strategy behind the attacks. Fanon believed that terrorism can be effective in the fight for independence if (1) communication through terrorist activity is “controlled and guided”; (2) the violence is intentionally planned; and (3) the leaders of the group educate the masses on how to tactically do away with the old power and order so that a new foundation for government can be built. Perhaps the most important requirement for the success of these three for Fanon is the strategic and intentional planning of attacks and defense mechanisms to counter-attacks before they are actually needed. He writes, “total brutality … if not immediately combatted, invariably leads to the defeat of the movement within a few weeks” (Sonnleitner 293). This fact also reinforces Jaffar’s point of how it is more difficult to sustain a revolution than to start one. In the case of Algeria in the film, each violent act was planned beforehand and methods of defense were put in place by FLN leaders like Jaffar. However, in the film, the first time that the FLN fails to plan ahead on defense and predict the next move of the French armed forces, the French are able to spy and gain information that ultimately led to the
capture of Jaffar and death of Ali. The revolutionary members and supporters of the FLN and Algerian independence would agree that “This narrow world, strewn with prohibitions, can only be called into question by absolute violence” (Sonnleitner 288). The oppression and brutality that the Algerians faced on a daily basis for over a century coerced them to turn to extreme political violence as an outlet for the anger and feelings of inferiority that they developed over time under the control of the French. However, the justifications for this type of terrorism extend much further than simply a method to express anger. This extreme political violence allowed Algerians to regain their self-respect, realize their political liberation as the independent country of Algeria on July 2, 1962, and create a new, more supportive and equal humanity. Fanon has a valid point that is supported by the example of Algeria as well as other revolutionary fights for independence when he writes, “We have seen that it is the intuition of the colonized masses that their liberation must, and can only be achieved by force” (Cronin 53).
The film Casablanca centers on an American man by the name of Rick Blaine who flees a German-occupied France during World War II to a city in Morocco by the name of Casablanca. (Casablanca, 1942) This city is a territory of France at the time and is out of full German jurisdiction due to this status. (Casablanca, 1942) Many citizens of German-occupied countries in Europe sought refuge here due to the lack of control Germany had on other countries’ territories early in the war. The general intent of refugees in Casablanca was to flee to even further countries such as The United States of America, which they could not achieve in their home, occupied countries. As the film’s plot develops, the viewer is introduced to refugees very important to the freedom-fighting movement France, and we learn that Rick originated in New York, U.S.A.
It is 1957 and the Algerian war is at its prime as the FLN fight against an elite troop of ruthless French paratroopers. The Battle of Algiers is a portion of the Algerian war which was fought in order for Algeria to gain independence from France. The film starts off with the torturing of an old man to gain information on where the last of the freedom fighters, Ali Pointe is hiding. A large segment of the film is shot in flashbacks focusing on the past of Ali Pointe. Pointe was a ruffian with theft and drugs on his record; he joined the militants to assist in getting rid of the problems in Algeria associated with the French. With the flashbacks the film tells the struggles of the insurgents and the persistence of the French to end the war. It shows the transformation of the insurgency into a full out revolution. When the flashbacks ends and it is now present time Ali Pointe, along with the rest of the FLN leaders captured are beheaded. Through this, the FLN reciprocate and the insurgency becomes a full on national revolution with growth in numbers and support. The film ends with Algeria gaining the independence it strived for in 1962. The film is important in understanding asymmetric conflicts because despite being the weaker side, Algeria had proved itself to be much stronger than the French and had its newfound independence to show for it.
Algeria had revolted against the French colonies many times, but did not succeed with overthrowing them. Under the French rule
Liberty, equality, and freedom are all essential parts to avoiding anarchy and maintaining tranquility even through the most treacherous of times. The Reign of Terror is well known as the eighteen month long French Revolution (1793-1794). In this period of time, a chief executive, Maximilien Robespierre, and a new French government executed gigantic numbers of people they thought to be enemies of the revolution, inside and outside of the country. The question is: were these acts of the new French government justified? Not only are the acts that occurred in the Reign of Terror not justified, they were barbaric and inhumane.
In his book Twelve Who Ruled, Palmer eloquently writes this narrative, "weaving the biographies of the twelve into the history of their time," and provides a coherent and convincing explanation of the terror. The book is not only educational for someone interested in the time period when these twelve men ruled the nation of France, but it is also enjoyable from the perspective of a person reading the book solely for interest in revolutions and how they affect the people who are involved in them. The book deals with a brief period of time during the French Revolution, namely the year of terror. The book ventures to interpret the foundations and rationale for the terror and Palmer illustrates his speculations on the subject through gracious, flowing writing.
In this essay I shall try to find whether the Terror was inherent from the French revolutions outset or was it the product of exceptional circumstances. The French revolution is the dividing line between the Ancien Regime and the modern world. After France the hierarchy that societies of the time had been founded on began to change and they began to sweep away the intricate political structures of absolute monarchy, but however to achieve this was the Terror absolutely necessary? And was it planned/ or was it just the extraordinary circumstances, which the French had lead themselves into once they had deposed of Louis the sixteenth. Whatever way it is looked at, the political ideology of the rest of the world was going to change after the French revolution. The conflicting ideology's of the French revolution from socialism to nationalism would now be mainstream words and spearhead many political parties in years to come. The French revolution had been in high hopes that a peaceful transition could be made from absolutist to parliamentary monarchy, but what went wrong? Surely the terror could not have been in their minds at this time? Surely it was not inherent from the start.
Clearly, the UN definition being more general as any act of terror, it is found that revolutionary groups adopt the use of categorical terrorism because it is commonly cheaper than selective terrorism. Further, Goodwin argues that categorical terrorism is employed for the purpose of attacking and threatening what he calls “complicitous civilians.” Complicitous civilians are defined as (1) civilians who often benefit from state actions that the revolutionaries oppose, (2) those that support the state, (3) or civilians who have the ability to influence the state. The primary directive of categorical terrorism is to provoke complicitous civilians from further supporting the state. By applying intense...
Even though, the French Revolution saw the Terror as a sign to create peace and restore a new France, it was not justified because the extremities of the internal and external threats spun out of control and the methods of the period were over the top. As the Reign of Terror in France grew and invoked fear, the internal threats became more radical and deadly. The French Revolution began in 1789 as an attempt to create a new and fair government. (Doc A) As year four of freedom lurched, the thirst for power in Maximilien Robespierre stirred and the hunger for more blood provoked him, urging him to create the Reign of Terror.
The beginning of colonization also marks the beginning of decolonization. From the day the colonists start exploiting the colonized people and belittling the colonized people for the colonists' self-aggrandizement, the colonized ones have been prepared to use violence at any moment to end the colonists' exploitation (Fanon, 3).Decolonization is violent, there is a necessity for violence. This is a point that is repeated again and again throughout The Battle of Algiers and The Wretched of the Earth. Here, the focus will be on The Battle of Algiers to discuss the violence of
In 1830, a ruler of Tunis, Husain II Bey, signed a treaty with the French. This treaty “abolished the monopoly on produce, prohibited acts of piracy, confirmed previous trade treaties, made France most favored, and allowed European consuls to try all cases involving Europeans.” (Beck) Due to this treaty being signed, Husain II Bey “refused to allow the Ottoman official Tahir Pasha to land in Tunis to challenge the French blockade of Algeria.” (Beck). By preventing the Ottoman leaders from occupying a strategic location, the French were able to steal control of Algeria. Another method by which the French imperialists were able to invade and take control of Algeria was through warfare and military supremacy. The native Algerians were only equipped with, "hunting rifles, shotguns, and home made bombs," when facing the French imperialists, where the French imperialists had more modern weapons due to industrialisation.(Algerian war: 1954 to 1962) In order to take power away from the Turkish in Algeria, 37,000 members of the French army invaded the west of Algeria in June of 1830, and fought against the Turkish. The Turkish surrendered on July 4th of 1830, and the French invaded Algeria the following day. (Lutsky) However, “this success brings France only a small region round Algiers.” (History of Algeria) French imperialists were still threatened by
The 1950s was not a particularly good decade for France. The Fourth Republic, which had been established in the aftermath of the Second World War, remained unstable and lurched from crisis to crisis. Between 1946 and 1954, there had been a war in French Indo-China, between a nationalist force under Ho Chi Minh and the French. The war was long and bitter and towards the end, the French suffered the ignominy of losing the major fortress of Dien Bien Phu to the guerrillas on 7 May 1954. An armistice was sought with Ho Chi Minh, and the nations of North and South Vietnam emerged from the ashes of the colony. It is entirely likely that the success of the guerrillas influenced the Algerian insurrectionists, the National Liberation Front(FLN), in tactics and in the idea that the time was ripe to strike. It is clear that the FLN employed similar methods to those developed by the nationalists under Ho Chi Minh.1
Frantz Fanon grew up in a well off family in French colonial Martinique. He was schooled in France and became a psychiatrist. After volunteering for the free French army during the Second World War, Fanon spent a number of years in the French colony of Algeria before and during the revolution (Zaidi). Because of his life and education, Fanon had a unique perspective to criticize and deconstruct colonialism and decolonization. Using a Marxist lens, he theorized that because colonies were created and maintained in violence, that a colony could only decolonize through violence. He saw violence as the best means to throw off the false consciousness of colonialism and envisioned a brotherhood or comradeship of free and equal people. It is Fanon’s similarity with Martin Luther King, Jr. that is most interesting. In the Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King makes many of the same arguments as Fanon, but proposes a better solution revolving around justice. Fanon’s obsession with violence it at the centre of his argument, however non-violent direct action, according to King, would be a better way to achieve freedom and equality because ultimately unjust action does not bring about justice.
Similar actions were taken by the FLN in their campaign of violence against the population. Due to the FLN's nationalist approach they began a campaign of us verses them in regards to the French with no concept of neutrality on the matter and any Muslim who collaborated with the French would be murdered to bring allegiance and obedience aimed at cleansing and purifying the city of Algiers.1 The strategy was to remove all social and political parasites that made up any competing forces in light of La Pegre, a similar organization who worked under the French secret police as informants, so in order to covert more members and remove the threat they waged a war of intimidation.2 The FLN began its violence against the French settlers in Algeria
A complete study of 1968 and its legacies in Europe can not solely deal with events that occurred on the continent. 1968 was, in fact, a “global phenomenon”; with ideas perpetrated in Europe reaching as far as Mexico, China, and India, but to name a few . The beginning of this mutualistic relationship between “New Left” groups on different continents (which spawned the revolutionary feeling which would result in the events of 1968), can be seen in Frantz Fanon’s text The Wretched of the Earth; most importantly with regards to the growth of Third Worldism and its inevitable impact on the West. The first chapter of his book Concerning Violence, on display here in the “Third World” section of the exhibition, became a sort of revolutionary handbook for the people of post-colonial Africa (particularly the countries of Algeria and Kenya) and across the world.
The “Battle of Algiers” film focuses first on the sufferings of the Algerians segregated in the Kasbah, their poverty and their frustration. It then shows their warfare tactic of bomb attacks on the heart of the city in all its horror, the blood, the randomness of their victims. Finally, the arrival of special French troopers under the operational control of Lieutenant-Colonel Mathieu (inspired by general Massu) provoked an escalation of violence, torture and hate that culminated in the battle of the Kasbah, where the FLN momentarily lost before later winning the war and making Algeria an independent country.