All colonized peoples have the right to defend themselves
Interview of Mireille Fanon by Paula Huenchumil Jerez (11/17/2024)
Consider becoming a paid subscriber. I will donate all proceeds to Gaza.
In what way has your father, Frantz Fanon’s, legacy influenced your perspective on social justice and the strategies you employ in your work?
First of all, good afternoon. I would say that I don’t take it as part of my father’s inheritance; I consider it as the legacy of the figure of Frantz Fanon, which is something different, because Frantz Fanon had an enormous influence on many people.
From a very young age, I participated in activism, and the issue of racism arose for me while being in a predominantly white environment. I wondered: who was really racist? At 15, I read “Black Skin, White Masks.” I must say that at first I didn’t understand much, but later I reread it, since many people highlighted its importance, while I was working on legal matters. Many spoke to me about Fanon’s work, as a commitment and reflection, and even as an effort in mental health treatment. Upon rereading it, I discovered new perspectives and reflections that allowed me to advance, deepen, and go further.
That is Fanon’s legacy. Later, I read his other texts, and when we work on issues such as land, self-determination, or the political sovereignty of states, Fanon’s writings in “Sociology of a Revolution” (1959) and “The Wretched of the Earth” (1961) are key. In particular, chapter three addresses how some colonized countries continue to imitate the model of the colonizer. Countries may have become independent, but they have not rid themselves of the systems that colonized them.
This reproduction of the colonial model is problematic for the people. The structure remains, and for the Algerian people, who invested so much energy and strength in the liberation of their country, finding themselves with an elite that reproduces the model that colonized them represents a betrayal. Several African countries understand that their peoples continue to be sacrificed.
As for justice for the people, all the work remains to be done... and one can reflect on what he proposed after his experience as a psychiatrist, activist, and writer. At first with his work “Black Skin, White Masks” (1952), and then, after actively participating in the liberation struggle of the Algerian people, even becoming their representative and ambassador in different African countries. What is particular, and is still questioned today, is precisely his ability to be a thinker in action. I would say that is quite rare; that reflection he produced and from which he never separated, which was given to him by his profession as a psychiatrist, but which also guided him in his commitment and in the way he thought about the world.
That post-independence colonial structure is also seen in Africa. Africans, even with different tendencies, say: “There is such a plural way of seeing oneself as Pan-African that the word ‘pan’ loses its meaning.” To the point that Pan-Africanism resembles a form of liberalism, which is quite serious; or, on the other hand, a romanticized vision of Pan-Africanism. However, Fanon had a fairly precise perspective on Pan-Africanism, among other things, working for the emergence of African unity, which has not yet been achieved to this day. It remains pending and is part of that legacy.
We have the formerly colonized in a European, or in any case Western, model of governance, which also responds to the wishes of Westerners: “Copy our model, which is better, and thus we continue to impose a colonial form of power.” “And you transmit our knowledge because it will make you much more democratic.” This is a colonial form of knowledge, without ever questioning the culture of those states, or the reflections they may have had on what law is, philosophy, or that their culture has been shaped by colonialism; that is also what Fanon urges us to do.
You have mentioned the existence of a paradigm dating back to 1492. What are its contemporary manifestations, and how do they impact us?
Colonization is something that continues with its contemporary manifestations. We have been taught that the ‘great explorations’ were a flourishing period, etc., because it was the beginning of capitalism, and capitalism is fundamentally based on the dehumanization of part of humanity. We cannot fight against capitalism without fighting against racism.
Western countries that promote Eurocentric modernity are racist, because this modernity is based on racism and intellectual elitism, which denies the existence of other cultures. From the moment you deny the existence of other cultures, you are a racist country. And unfortunately, the left is also responsible for not having taken this issue seriously, for fighting against capitalism without fighting against racism... The situation in Palestine is not only physical, but also symbolic and intellectual. The media says that Palestinians are monsters, but every colonized people has the right to defend itself. So, when the media tells us that Palestinians are monsters, they are legitimizing violence. And this is not a symmetrical conflict: on one side is a well-armed state and, on the other, a people.
That is, there is a disproportion in Israel’s reaction, which approaches genocide. What they are trying to do is delegitimize and dismantle international law so that it becomes completely ineffective and unusable.
In that sense, how do you assess the role of the media in the representation and visibility of oppressed peoples today?
If we start from October 7, we have heard that Palestinians are considered ‘monsters’, while we should remember that all colonized peoples have the right to defend themselves; there is even a declaration that establishes this. Fighting against the system of colonization implies resisting the colonizer. Therefore, when the media insist on presenting Palestinians as ‘monsters’ who should be eradicated, they support a narrative that justifies their elimination under the false pretext of self-defense.
This situation presents a clear inequality: on one side, a state; on the other, a people. We are not on the same level. It is an occupied people; it is as if an army invaded its own territory. Meanwhile, the Israeli army is heavily armed, and the Palestinians do not have the same resources. The protagonists should not be treated at the same level. The disproportionality in the response is evident, and, according to international law, Israel should only defend itself if attacked by another state. The statutes are very clear in this regard.
Moreover, Israel does not have the right to respond in the way it does, using disproportionate and unrealistic means. Currently, the Palestinians only have access to limited weapons, while even Arab countries have begun to normalize their relations with Israel. To understand the magnitude of this disparity, just look at how much money the United States has sent for Israeli military assistance: billions of dollars in supplies and additional deliveries of military equipment, something that makes the Palestinian disadvantage clear.
Israel, a state that occupies the territory of a people whose existence as a nation has been historically denied, responds with massive attacks that have left between 40,000 and 42,000 dead Palestinians. This reaction is not only disproportionate, but is aimed at physically eliminating Palestinian society. Since the first and second intifadas, this elimination has intensified, and each act of Palestinian resistance is used as justification to demonize them and present them as ‘terrorists’ in the eyes of the West. Here, the law of vengeance prevails, but in an unsustainable proportion of 1,000 Israelis to more than 40,000 Palestinians.
The fact that Israel can respond so brutally and disproportionately threatens to dismantle international law, making it ineffective. The promise of politicians, including leaders like Trump, is to impose a form of international law that would be in a prolonged coma, in which only the law of the jungle and the supremacy of the strongest would prevail. This creates complicity in dehumanization and injustice, as those who wield military power impose and dominate. Thus, peoples who demand justice become increasingly oppressed.
This scenario should deeply concern us, as it will have consequences for states that call themselves ‘democratic’, but in reality violate fundamental rights. We are facing an ‘authoritarian democracy’, and we must pay attention to what is happening in Palestine. Not only are they physically killing the Palestinian people but also destroying their intellectual and symbolic rights. The tragedy of Palestine is something much deeper.
After your visit to Mapuche prisoners in the context of your human rights mission, what reflections did the situation of the Mapuche people in Chile leave you with?
I have not yet managed to organize my thoughts and the information I obtained on my visit to the south, but I can say that in the case of the Mapuche, it has something to do with what Fanon says about culture: the imposition of the culture of the white or the colonizer on a culture that comes from an ancestral legacy, which has a connection with the land, with spirituality. However, in our colonial states, as they currently exist, the connection with the land does not exist, and in this case, it is centered on productivity through the agricultural technique of monoculture.
The victim of the occupation of their land becomes a criminal, so there is a criminalization of the Mapuche who are turned into terrorists, and that should be questioned in the name of the law. So, it made me reflect that colonization and the liberal capitalist system have made us lose that importance of rootedness, which is manifested through belonging to the land, for example.
And so, in general terms, there is a manifest denial of rights, a double standard in justice. There are also contradictions between courts, there is biased justice. There are many cases of arbitrary detention, even people who have been tried and convicted, most of the time there are no witnesses, there is no evidence, or the evidence is fabricated or arranged, or with protected witnesses.
Well, I would say that it is an overwhelming observation against the State of Chile in what it is doing with the Mapuche people; they seem to me like the Palestinians here. I say this because I see many similarities in the colonization process. I am not saying that there is a genocide happening right now, but with the creation of the State, there is a will to forcibly integrate this people into the Chilean nation.
The Spanish Crown could not defeat them and had to reach treaties with the Mapuche People, but since the creation of the State of Chile, which is a colonial creation, the territories were acquired by the settlers through blood, crime, and theft. These are crimes and have never been paid for. That is why it is very important to go back to that time, because otherwise it is not understood why there is this type of criminalization against the people.
Finally, how do you see relations of racism in France?
It is important to speak out against racism in France; there is much to say about Afro-phonia or, rather, about negrophobia. The term ‘racist’ has become a somewhat generic concept, but there is indeed racism against immigrants and also different laws that seek to further toughen the situation of migrants. We are in a racist country. The way Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Réunion are treated is racist; in fact, there is racism at all levels in France.
We must not fool ourselves, we must not listen passively; in Western countries that present themselves as part of what we call ‘Euro-modernity’, racism is evident. This thinking of modernity is based on racism and intellectual elitism, which uses a white frame of reference that denies the existence of other cultures. From the moment you deny the existence of other cultures, of other philosophical approaches, of other ways of thinking about the world and doing justice, you become a racist country. Unfortunately, I cannot say that this is unknown; in fact, the left is also completely responsible for not having taken this issue seriously.
As I mentioned earlier, you cannot fight capitalism without fighting racism and, vice versa, the right work is not being done. This leads us to situations like ours, and in the future, we will have the far right in power. If we go back a bit, we find that François Mitterrand, whom everyone adores, was also partly responsible. Hollande and the Socialist Party, the Communist Party are also responsible. I believe that at this moment we are forced to consider history; we cannot fight against dominations, against the paradigm of the oppressors, without questioning everything. We must go back historically to the origins of this oppression that we live today and that the people experience.