Study Guide for The Wretched of the Earth (1961) by Frantz Fanon
1. In the Introduction, John-Paul Satre states that the purpose of the book is to teach
the subjected (i.e., colonized people) to beat the subjectors (i.e., colonialists) at their
own game (pp. 10, 24). Does the book in fact do this?
2. Satre says the rebels’ weapon is proof of his humanity (p. 22). Is this merely
rhetorical justification for violence or is there truth to his statement?
3. Satre says, “once the last settler is killed, shipped home, or assimilated, the minority
breed disappears, to be replaced by socialism” (p. 23). Is Satre being realistic or naïve?
4. Is violence necessary, as Fanon declares, in the decolonization process (p. 35)? Do
they go hand-in-hand? Fanon also states that decolonization is a program of complete
disorder (p. 36), but does the British experience with decolonization contradict Fanon?
5. Is decolonization also the putting into practice the words: “The last shall be first and
the first last” (p. 37)? As exploitative and dehumanizing as colonization often was and
is, is a reversal of roles any more justifiable? Why is violence so important for Fanon (p.
37)?
6. To what extent are violence, decolonization, and revolution man recreating himself
(p. 36), or is this mere justification for these activities?
7. Why is Fanon so hostile to Christianity (p. 42)?
8. Why is it a prerequisite for revolution or revolt for colonized people to realize that the
skin of their oppressor is not of any more value than their own (p. 45)?
9. What does Fanon mean when he says that to the colonized people the symbols of
social order—the police, waving flags, etc.—are at one and the same time inhibitory and
stimulating (p. 53)?
10. Do you agree with Fanon that the peasants are the most revolutionary class (p. 61)?
What about the working class (see pp. 108-09)?
11. Is colonialism, as Fanon believes, violence in its natural state? And will colonialism
yield only when confronted with greater violence (p. 61)? Why is Fanon opposed to
non-violence and compromise (pp. 61-62)? Is violence the intuition of oppressed
peoples that their liberation must and can be achieved only by force (p. 73)?
12. Do you agree that a colonized people really can’t lose in a battle for their freedom
(p. 74)?
13. Do you agree with the explanation that just as the oppressor uses force on the
grounds that that is all the oppressed understands, so does the oppressed use force
and violence on the same grounds (p. 84)? And does freedom come to the oppressed
through violence (p. 86)?
14. Fanon argues that violence unifies the people; it is a cleansing force that makes
colonized people fearless and restores their self-respect (p. 94). Is this too simple, a
mere justification for violence?
15. According to Fanon, the mission of the Third (i.e., Underdeveloped) World is to
rehabilitate humankind (p. 106). How does this sound a half-century after Fanon wrote
it.
16. What do you think Fanon means when he writes, “African unity takes off the mask
[i.e., of colonialism] and crumbles into regionalism inside the hollow shell of nationality
itself” (p. 159)?
17. Why is Fanon so hostile to the national bourgeoisie (pp. 159-60, 164-65, 174-76)?
18. Is there a contradiction when Fanon earlier writes of the masses as being the only
true revolutionary class and then later (p. 169) refers to them as being incapable of
appreciating the long way they have come? Is he being an intellectual snob?
19. What is the value of the “mental disorder” case studies?
20. In his conclusion, Fanon urges Africans not to imitate Europe (pp. 313-14). What do
you think he means by this? Because Europeans have been so violent in their dealings
with colonial people, is Fanon therefore—indirectly, perhaps unconsciously—offering an
argument for nonviolence?
21. It was Fanon’s hope that the Third World would start a new history for humankind
(pp. 315-16). How does that hope look today?