Violence Against Colonizers, Research Paper Example

Two opposing sides necessarily form the colonial experience: the colonial power and those living under colonial rule. Throughout history, such a relationship has traditional degenerated into violence and hostility. In the book Season of Migration to the North and the film The Battle of Algiers accounts of the colonial relationship are offered from two different perspectives. The Battle of Algiers provides a view of the war between the Algerian occupiers and the French colonialists. It concentrates on the horror of armed conflict and an account of how relationships function under violent conflict. In Season of Migration to the North, one could say that there is a certain personal and intellectual violence that lies at the heart of the story. In the novel, tensions arise from the cultural legacy of colonial life and the question of what exactly constitutes the relationship between Africa and Europe. In the following essay, we shall examine both of these works of art to describe how anti-colonial violence is portrayed. In particular, our thesis will state that in Season of Migration to the North there is a focus on a subjective violence against colonizers, which means that the battlefield central to the book is primarily intellectual and psychology and is therefore located internally in the characters. In The Battle of Algiers there is a traditional war-like approach to violence against colonializers, in which the Algerian people can be understood as representing an armed resistance for freedom. Both pieces of art, however, take note of how the phenomenon of colonialism has produced violence. In support of our thesis, we shall use various points from Saree Makdisi’s article “The Empire Renarrated: Season of Migration to the North”, in which he discusses some of the key points of tension in the paradigm of colonialism.

In Tayeb Salih’s Season of Migration to the North the author examines the colonial experiences of Sudan. Particularly, Sudan’s experience with colonialism is a product of Sudan being under British rule beginning in 1899. The book focuses on members of the Sudanese intelligentsia. Mustafa Sa’eed and the narrator have lived under British rule, and seem to represent characters that have been shaped intellectually, psychologically and subjectively by the British. These two characters signify a certain intellectual violence that is promoted by an importance given to British education and the British way of life. The narrator of the novel has been educated in Britain: While coming from a poor background, he has nevertheless gone to Europe to study. These experiences have a crucial formative experience on the narrator. When the narrator returns to Sudan, it appears that his British education was not only an educational experience, but was moreover a social experience, one that forms how the narrator behaves in social situations and changing his viewpoints on others. Particularly, the narrator assumes the belief in a certain superiority of British culture to Sudanese culture. For example, in a conversation with Mustafa, the narrator says, “’What an extraordinary thing!’ I said, deliberately speaking in English.” (Salih, 15) The character Mustafa responds to the narrator, pointing out his usage of English: “He looked at me in astonishment and said, ‘What?’ When I repeated the phrase he laughed and said, ‘Has your long stay in England made you forget Arabic or do you reckon we’ve become anglicized?’” (Salih, 15) The dialogue between the narrator and Mustafa represents how colonialism can also function on a social and intellectual level. The narrator deliberately chooses to talk in English, which suggests that he believes there is a certain superiority inherent to the English culture. His education abroad has given him the sense that his own Sudanese culture is of less value when compared to British culture. Mustafa’s response to the narrator is no less significance in demonstrating this point. Mustafa is surprised that the narrator responds in English – he is overcome with laughter. He wants to attribute the narrator’s response in English to his education overseas, however this is really a rhetorical question. Mustafa wants to suggest that there has been an “Anglicization” of the Sudanese people. What is crucial to this passage however is that it demonstrates that colonialism is not merely a physical violence, implying the take- over of land. Rather, it can also be an intellectual violence, which changes people’s social norms, subjective behavior and social outlook – which causes them to become lost. In Saree Makdisi’s article, he makes a similar observation regarding colonialism. “The tendency that I am calling here Arab “modernism” contests the political as well as the narrative strategies hitherto put into practice in the Arab…it stakes it claims both in opposition to the West as well as to the various Arab states as they actually exist.” (Makdisi, 86) While Makdisi emphasizes that the opposition to colonialism is not only an opposition to the West, but also to the Arab world, what we would like to draw from this quote is the notion of a greater loss of identity present in Makdisi’s quote that is at the heart of the colonial experience. Individuals become existentially lost in this situation, as demonstrated by the characters in the novel, who seem tormented by their experiences as Arabs in relation to the West. These experiences are psychological, social and intellectual torments.

The film The Battle of Algiers refrains from portraying colonialism according to a psychological, social and intellectual approach. Rather, the main objective of the film is to depict a physical violence against colonialism in terms of rebellion. Furthermore, the film shows the unrelenting nature of resistance against colonialism. Some of the most memorable scenes of the film involve women planting bombs in cafes and young children killing French soldiers.  Such depictions by the director Gillo Pontecarvo demonstrate how the war against colonialism can be a total war. The total war concept implies that war is not only restricted to battles between opposing military forces. Rather, total war involves the participation of an entire populace against an occupying presence. Such scenes from the film indicate a mass movement within the Algerian population to see their country freed from French rule. The desire to be free from colonialism extends into every aspect of the Algerian community, as all members of this community participate in the armed struggle against France. Furthermore, the violence that is portrayed in the film demonstrates the extent to which the Algerian populace will go to realize their liberation. In essence, the time for diplomacy and theoretical deliberation has passed, and what is required is a violent resistance against colonialism. This can be understood as a moment of self-preservation by the populace, in their existential decision to fight an armed conflict against colonialism. The brutality of the war is found on both sides, such as the French torture of Algerian freedom fighters. From this scene, one can understand how such violence perpetuates violence. The torture of these freedom fighters will only strengthen the resolve of the Algerian population against the colonialists. The film essentially portrays the struggle against colonialism as an existential struggle, one that relates to the very existence of a people. Violence is portrayed here as necessary for a population to survive and colonialism is therefore portrayed as a deathly phenomenon. As Makdisi notes, such struggles can be viewed as a growing Arabic national consciousness that “culminated in the movements of Arab nationalism.” (Makdisi, 806) Thus, violence against the colonialists in The Battle of Algiers is a violence that is employed to secure identity. It is a violence used to assert an individual and national existence against colonial repression.

This clear-cut violent conflict in The Battle of Algiers contrasts with the more psychological terror of Season of Migration to the North. In the novel, there is a certain ambiguity regarding colonialism, as the colonial imprints are visible on the psyches of the characters. Colonialism here creates a certain sense of lostness and a lack of values and understanding of tradition. The author suggests that there is a sense of degeneracy that arises alongside colonialism, as traditional wisdom is loss, replaced by what is believed to be a superior Western and British viewpoint on life. While there is violence in the novel, this violence can be seen rather as symptomatic of the psychological traumas created by colonialization, as opposed to a direct war of resistance and liberation as in The Battle of Algiers. For example, murder and suicide are present in the village: “Her father, Mahmoud, almost killed himself with weeping that night….For no reason your uncle Abdul Karim quarreled with Bakri.” (129) These descriptions suggest a Sudan that has lost its identity, a Sudan that has gone mad according to the influence of the colonial presence. This loss of identity is central to the book in the relationship between Mustafa and the narrator, as essentially the narrator realizes that he is Mustafa, that their identities are the same. Describing Mustafa’s library, the author writes: “Not a single Arabic book. A graveyard. A mausoleum. An insane idea. A prison. A huge joke.” (138) The loss of Arabic identity and the decision for a library largely made up of foreign works shows the violent replacement of Arabic identity with British identity. The violence against the colonialists in the novel is therefore not only a physical violence, but suggests an intellectual violence. There must be a psychological war waged against colonialism, and it is precisely this psychological war that is to be won. In Mustafa, the narrator sees his own self, his own loss of identity, substituted by a colonial British identity. Therefore, the violence against Mustafa must be primarily understood as the narrator’s violence against himself and furthermore a form of rebellion against the British.

Both Season of Migration to the North and The Battle of Algiers present vivid images of how colonialism can negatively impact a population. In this way, they show that the loss of identity and the struggle for liberty is at the heart of anti-colonial movements. However, the two works of art differ in how they portray this violence. In The Battle of Algiers the viewers witness an armed conflict, one of extraordinary violence. This is simply a war, however a war that is total in its scope, showing the importance of freedom for all segments of the population. The violence caused by colonialism and the violence against colonialism in Season of Migration to the North offers a much more complex picture of the colonial experience. Here, colonialism is portrayed psychologically, subjectively, and socially. Colonialism causes shifts in meanings and values, it is a violence rendered against the soul. Characters become indistinguishable from themselves as they are corrupted by foreign influences. This is a more personal violence, which suggests individual struggles as opposed to the national struggle of The Battle of Algiers. Nonetheless, both works demonstrate the negativity of colonialism and the culture of violence that it creates.

Works Cited

Makdisi, Saree S. “The Empire Renarrated: Season of Migration to the North and the Reinvention of the Present”, In Critical Inquiry 18, Summer 1992, pp. 804-820.

Salih, Tayeb. Season of Migration to the North. Oxford, UK: Harcourt, 1969.

Pontecorvo, Gillo, dir. The Battle of Algiers. Rizzoli Film, 1966.