Were the anti-colonial and feminist movements mutually exclusive?

Historiography often involves the study of movements, and how they have evolved throughout time. Sometimes these socio-political movements share common causes and ideas, yet they are rarely directly compared to one another. This research paper looks at the anti-colonial and feminist movement, contrasting one to the other. They share certain frameworks, such as hierarchy and oppression, and often have prominent spokespersons for their causes. Through comparing the two movements, I aim to reach a greater understanding about how socio-political movements affect one another, and whether it is feasible to claim that they are or are not mutually exclusive.

In the 1960s, the feminist movement entered its second-wave. The second-wave is now considered representative of hegemonic feminism because it was primarily focused on sexism as the ultimate oppression. Also, it was mainly led by white women, oblivious to the experiences of women of colour and non-American people.[1] However, this essay will continue to look at feminism into the 1990s, where Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality began to diversify the movement.[2] The theory criticised previous feminist approaches and recognised that identities – beyond gender – play an important role in people’s experiences. There are hierarchical structures in race, class, and education; not solely gender. Intersectionality continues to pave the way to more progressive feminism. Simultaneously, the 1960s saw numerous colonies gain independence. This included Algeria, Nigeria and Jamaica. As is the case with Algeria, independence often came at a cost. In this case, it was human casualties. Decolonisation in the 1960s to 1990s is important, as it was characterised ‘by the inequality of North and South, the emergence of Third Worldism and the pluralism of international politics’.[3] Decolonisation and feminism alike, are also arguably seen as part of a global, wider scale challenge to the hierarchies of the international system.

Throughout this paper, certain themes occur in both the feminist and anti-colonial movements. These themes are intersectionality, nationalism, racism and violence. To answer the question and address whether the movements are in fact mutually exclusive, the essay will structure each argument around the three themes. Intersectionality will be discussed first. Crenshaw’s theory is the core of this, but this essay addresses wider issues that the initial theory might not. Secondly, the essay will discuss nationalism, which plays a vital role in both movements. Not all anti-colonial movements were typically nationalist, and nor was the retrospective feminist movement. However, nationalism was an underlying theme in independence from colonial powers, and to some extent from the wider picture of hierarchy. Thirdly, racism is key to mention. Although it links to intersectionality, it holds primacy when discussing imperialism – a system based on racial superiority – and feminism – where white issues were the primary issues considered until the 1990s. Violence is the last theme this paper will discuss. Violence has been a debated aspect of most socio-political movements: the feminist and anti-colonial movements especially. Discussing violent means enables us to explore whether the movements fed into each other’s ideas and purposes. This paper will specifically draw on important figures, such as Angela Davis, and the experience in specific countries (Egypt, Ireland, India and Algeria). This is because this paper aims to create a broad understanding of the movements, and those who played the most pivotal roles. They also are evident of how different social justice movements often incorporated causes and ideas from other similar movements. Overall, this paper will conclude that the movements are interrelated. As intersectionality points out: all fights for equality and social justice are interconnected, regardless of where and what the struggle relates to. Systems of oppression, including imperialism, patriarchy and racism, are not mutually exclusive. Ever since these systems have existed, they have operated in numerous terrains, and have interlocked with other systems of oppression.

Intersectionality is broadly understood as the ways in which characteristics and various forms of identities (race, religion, class etcetera) intersect, and therefore shape an individual’s experiences.[4] Regarding the feminist movement in particular, intersectionality is obviously crucial. However, intersectionality plays a key role when discussing both the feminist and anti-colonial movements: it forged a connection between various transnational systems of oppression. Salem mentioned this particularly when speaking about Angela Davis by saying that the American political activist was able to locate ‘gender oppression within the same structures, namely capitalism and imperialism’.[5] Arguably, intersectionality forged solidarity with oppressed people around the world, whether it be against imperial powers or gender hierarchies. This is evident when in 1972 Somali women protested the release of Angela Davis.[6] Additionally, Salem also recognised this solidarity between Angela Davis and Egyptian feminists. Clearly, there were ‘connections with the experiences of women in other parts of the world’.[7]

However, it is plausible that these transnational connections, united over oppression, also encompassed people who were facing differing forms of subjugation. Angela Davis, alongside other intersectional feminists, built upon the concept that all women are oppressed by men. They furthered this notion by arguing that women are dominated in a variety of different ways. For example, the oppression of women differs from the oppression of colonised women.[8] With this in mind, gender is only one reason, or factor, that impacts how and why someone is oppressed. In this regard, the oppression of colonised people by imperial powers is in some ways intersectional. Gender, class, religion, education and race all played a role in imperial dominance over so much of the world. This is evident with British colonies in Europe (for example, Ireland), Asia (for example, India and Singapore) and Africa (South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, for example, and presence in Egypt) and parts of South America. This shows that the subjugation of nations took place regardless of the peoples’ social identities. This is similar in the way that patriarchy reinforces the subordination of women, regardless of their race, religion and class: all men are privileged vis-á-vis women.

Even though the movements intersect and share numerous similarities, it is arguable that this is the case whilst underlying sexist opinions of the period. This is evident in anti-colonial movements in Egypt, where Russell Pasha spoke about women’s involvement in the uprising condescendingly.[9] Even when women participated in political movements, especially those beyond feminism, they were always seen within the domain of being a woman. Levine reasserted this concerning Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1966 landmark film.[10]Women were constantly in the background of male participation. Furthermore, even when women were participating in the socio-political movements, their roles were often highly gendered, in the case of the Front de Libération Nationale (henceforth, FLN), their roles included nursing and preparing food, fund-raising, purchasing and distributing weapons, running safe houses and ‘from time to time, depositing bombs’.[11] As Levine phrased it, ‘women were scarce as well as restricted in what they could do, although not necessarily for want of trying’.[12] The opinion of women was clearly extremely gendered and discriminatory. The intersection of identities is extremely important, as often the way women were treated was based around various identities (social class, religion etcetera). Cumann na mBan, a female republican military group in Ireland, was formed to challenge the tensions between feminism and Irish nationalism.[13] Thus showing the importance of intersecting identities. Apart from the rare occurrence where all of society rose up together, as was the case in Egypt.[14] Most of the time, gender was a large reason for the oppression and subordination of women in both the anti-colonial and feminist movements.

Patil slightly opposed the viewpoint that unifies these transcontinental struggles. She noted that the context is extremely specific and ought to be given primacy.[15] This paper agrees that it is extremely valid and important to focus on individual experiences and contexts. Crenshaw’s theory offered to move away from dominant feminist narratives that primarily focused on white middle-class American women. There is logic in approaching decolonisation and imperialism on a case-by-case basis. Not all experiences of imperialism were the same. However, for the purpose of this paper, looking at the movements broadly is more important. It is clear that intersectionality has footholds in both the feminist and anti-colonial movements. Key figures, including Angela Davis, combined their drive for social justice in their fight for gender equality and their fight against colonial oppressors.

It has been shown that feminist movements and anti-colonial activism around the world were in many moments, enmeshed. The common trait of oppression in the two movements enabled people around the world to unify under their common cause for socio-political justice – whether this is through independence or equal rights. ‘Categories of race, ethnicity, sexuality, culture, and gender not only intersect but are mutually constituted, formed, and transformed within transnational power-laded processes’, such as colonialism.[16]

Nationalism played a key role in both the feminist and anti-colonial movements from 1960 to the 1990s. Nationalism is understood as the reaffirmation of ‘the unity of the collective and give[s] the concept of nationhood greater immediacy’.[17] Salem argued that it was ‘instrumental in creating solidarities between, and beyond feminist movements’.[18] Nationalism often tied into both movements, as is evident in 1971 when Bernadette Devlin, an Irish political activist, was photographed with a Free Angela campaign badge.[19] The struggle of oppressed groups, either from imperial powers or fighting for gender equality, became a struggle that was felt worldwide. It is arguable, however, that nationalism was not always at the forefront of independence movements. Hudis recognised that this is evident in the case of Algeria, who sought independence from France and finally achieved it in 1962.[20] Even before independence, there was widespread debate about the autonomy that Algeria wanted. This is partly to do with the fact that Algeria was seen as an extension of France: ‘Algeria was in the unique position of being considered an integral part of France by virtually every political tendency in the country’.[21] Frantz Fanon theorised that in order for Algeria to gain independence, a violent uprising was necessary. Violence was seen as a cleansing force.[22] To begin with, Algeria wanted to seek autonomy within France, thus giving Algerians more decision-making powers and equal status, but still reaping the benefits of being involved with France. However, in the eyes of French colonial powers, Algeria and its inhabitants would never be viewed as equal vis-à-vis French citizens. It was only with the rise of anti-colonial movements – particularly the FLN - and French imperial violence from 1954 to 1962, that nationalism became embedded within the struggle for independence.

Similarly, feminist movements in the mid to late twentieth century consistently became entwined with nationalism. Various key figures and political organisations identified and fought for nationalist causes, such as W.E.B Du Bois and ‘the three major all-India women’s organisations’ (WIA, AIWC and NCWI), simultaneously promoted feminist agendas.[23] Female leadership was abundant in both anti-colonial and feminist movements. Yet, as Sinha noted, women’s involvement has often been overshadowed by their male counterparts.[24] This is the case more prominently in anti-colonial movements. It is arguable that women were fighting for their place in society, whilst fighting for equality at the same time. This is evident with the civil rights activist W.E.B Du Bois, who has been heralded as a prominent advocate for women’s studies. However, Guy-Sheftall also noted that black men ‘subscribed to the notion that women are the weaker sex they must be protected by their men from the evils of the world’.[25] Du Bois was unable to ‘incorporate black women into his sphere of intellectual equality’.[26] Although Du Bois is from an earlier period than this paper is focused on, it still shows that nationalism and the feminist values were often of lesser importance to male aspirations. However, Baron theorised that Egypt was a woman - as did Mayo portray India as Mother India, but this was criticised.[27] It is arguable that women being likened to nationalist causes is symbolically representative of the struggles women endure. Although striking, this representation is notable in the fact that colonial powers stripped many colonies of their cultures, whilst women have been raped of their freedoms and prevented equality. The resilience of nations who sought independence, and of women pursuing equality, fits with (stereotypically) female attributes of resilience and strength. In this way, it is plausible that nationalism and the feminist movement liken to one another. Moreover, Arab nationalism was promoted by various feminist groups in the region. The Egyptian Feminist Union, founded in 1923 by Huda Sha’arawi, is particularly representative of this association. The organisation framed women’s issues within an Arab-nationalist context.[28] These issues included marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody, all part of the personal status laws that ‘impinged directly on women’s status in the family’.[29] However, nationalism within the feminist movement also had to struggle with feminism as an international movement. Women had ‘articulate[d] a vision of international feminism that both challenged and affirmed loyalty to male nationalists’.[30] It has been made clear that feminist movements in the anti-colonial world forged deep connections with nationalism, in the same way that independence movements often incorporated nationalist outlook. Through nationalism, it was shown that the feminist and anti-colonial movements shared similar struggles, challenges and objectives. In this regard, it has been proposed that the movements are not considered mutually exclusive.

Thirdly, the discussion of the theme of racism transcends into both the anti-colonial and feminist movements. In many ways racism is linked to intersectionality, in that intersectionality recognises that race is a factor that contributes to the experience of an individual. Racism could be arguably tied to both movements, but is more obviously most prevalent in anti-colonial history: a history which is built upon racist practises and beliefs. Fanon argued that the most prominent and foremost factor that divides the world is ‘what species, what race one belongs to’.[31]

Relating to the feminist movement in particular, and the wider issue of gender and women, racism is very apparent. Salem noted this in direct relation to colonial oppression, where African and Middle Eastern women were simultaneously portrayed as over-sexualised and sexually oppressed. ‘Whiteness is associated with virginity and innocence, and blackness with promiscuity, oversexualization, and lack of morality’. [32] Similarly, Fanon reaffirmed this viewpoint but relating more specifically to the Algerian context, where blackness equated to wrongness.[33] This dichotomy enabled further justification of imperial colonisation and oppression, as white European colonists viewed themselves as saviours. Ironically, the effect was completely the opposite; instead enforcing strict gendered and patriarchal structures on diverse societies. This is highlighted by Levine when discussing Fanon’s work, where the worthiness of societies was directly compared to their manliness: ‘The French and British both distinguished among their colonised subjects, seeing some races as more manly than others’.[34] It has been shown here that the hierarchy within colonial societies, was gendered and racist. However, it also shows that across the world, race and worth were experienced differently.

In the feminist movement particularly, race has been divisive. Enke has even argued that ‘race and struggles over racist hierarchies shaped feminism itself’.[35] This relates back to intersectionality, as an understanding about the interrelatedness of identities (including race, class, sexuality etcetera) is central to current feminist thought. It is arguable that the context in which this narrative became prominent is critical. There was a shift in the historiographic approach to feminism, where the focus shifted away from middle-class white women, and towards a more intersectional angle. Enke reiterated this, albeit slightly differently, by noting that the origins of feminism are in the southern civil rights movement.[36] The experience of being a woman differs whether you are a woman of colour or a white woman. Furthermore, as Salem eloquently described, race also has a massive impact on how other people portray certain female issues. For example, ‘in England the discussion centers on the role of women in politics, whereas in Egypt it is always about women and sex’.[37] Similar to the colonial focus on women, as in need of rescuing from black male incapability, contemporary feminism still associates women of colour within a sexualised framework. Clearly, context is crucial for understanding why and when experiences of race impacts the experience of being a woman. It can be seen here, that both anti-colonial and feminist movements continue to use race as a means to create division in each respective movement. This racial division often has a gendered dynamic to it too.

Through a shared experience of racism in both the anti-colonial and feminist movements, it has been argued that the movements are mutually exclusive. Instead, the power relations that are at play in both of these movements, which is specifically noticeable through race, bind the two movements together more tightly. Both movements suggest both an internal and external battle with racism. This is clear with the projection of earlier feminism being described as hegemonic, often excluding the women of colour and their experiences. Imperialism also reinforced gender hierarchies, and within gender also racial hierarchies. It did so by portraying women of colour as over-sexualised and simultaneously desperate. Fanon described a similar classification of black man as not a man.[38] Ultimately, the connection between the anti-colonial and feminist movement is emphasised through the common theme of racism.

Finally, the feminist movement and anti-colonial movement both have a shared experience of the use of violence to pursue their political means. Violence has been debated throughout various movements and across decades. Fanon even believed that violence many not only refer to the physical side but also included humiliation, degradation, erasure and silencing. In the colonised world, violence was extended through laws. These laws protected law-makers – those who held the power. The helplessness and vulnerability of the colonised subjects, through their oppression and exploitation by imperial dominance, led to physical violence being understood as the perfect means of mediation. ‘The colonized man liberates himself through violence’.[39] Arendt affirmed this by saying that ‘violence can destroy power’.[40] Physical violence was not a rare tactic used by those fighting for independence. These tactics were also used by Irish nationalist rebels, who had a propensity for violence.[41] ‘The IRA had killed over a thousand people, including nearly six hundred security force members, during the 1970s. They continued to average over fifty murders a year throughout the 1980s’.[42] The Irish Republican Army (IRA) even received arms from Libya, a British colony that gained independence in 1951. Through this, the transnational unity of anti-colonial movements is visible, and violence was a prominent way of unifying the cause. It is arguable that all forms of violence (physical and psychological) were committed against colonised populations, but anti-colonial movements frequently utilised physical violence against their oppressors.

This similarity in the use of violence is not dissimilar in other movements, such as Marxism. Marxism identified violence ‘as a midwife of history whereby emerging higher social demands overthrow outdated and reactionary social systems’.[43] These same oppressive structures exist for the feminist and anti-colonial movements of which they are trying to confront. Fanon argued that violence would be able to remove the ‘rotten social system’.[44] This rotten social system was based around the fact it was foreign and therefore could not serve the needs of the native populations. Violence is a means of re-balancing and recreating society, absent from colonial structures. ‘The only remedy is that the colonized masses take up arms against their overlords in order to recreate themselves as men’.[45] Although this is extremely gendered, it is clear that the use of violence was portrayed by some political actors and theorists as a means of purifying people from decades of colonial oppression.

However, in the anti-colonial movement, Fanon was one of few who actively endorsed the use of violence. There were significant arguments throughout anti-colonial and feminist movements that supported non-violent methods. Some anti-colonists, most notably Gandhi in India, argued that by partaking in non-violent activism, activists had superior morality over their violent oppressors. Severe political morality underpinned Gandhi’s entire non-violent action.[46] This was based around his idea that the means are everything, rather than the end. Therefore, achieving a positive outcome through violence tainted the result itself. Although Gandhi was killed before the time period this paper focuses on, the principles and ideas of his argument are representative of the non-violent side of the debate. However, as has already been shown, non-violence was not adopted by all anti-colonial movements. Furthermore, many groups that once supported violence, such as the IRA, often announced ends to their armed campaigns and pursued their goals through political means instead.[47] It is evident here, that the use of non-violence in the anti-colonial movement is prominent, and worthy of attention – although it has not attracted as much scholarly attention as violent uprisings. Nevertheless, the tactics are representative of how anti-colonial movements challenged and confronted their colonised oppressors, and the belief system surrounding dependency and inferiority.[48]

Similar patterns of violence and non-violence could be seen in the feminist movement. Although it is arguable that these patterns differ significantly from the anti-colonial movement. There was a similar recognition, particularly among radical feminists in the 1960s, as ‘freeing women from the imposition of so-called “male values”, and creating an alternative culture based around “female values”’.[49] The premise of radical feminism was to reject male hegemony in all areas of social, economic and political life. For feminists, violence was rarely used as a tool for achieving these means because violence was seen as a very masculine trait. Male violence was seen as ‘weapons for enforcing male dominance’.[50] Similar to Fanon, feminists in the latter half of the twentieth century did not view violence as inherently physical. It also included the representation of women, pressure to conform and perceived attitudes of women.

It has been demonstrated that the argument surrounding violence, whether it be adopted or not, was prevalent in both the feminist and anti-colonial movements – although the latter more blatantly. The argument around violence was shaped by the necessity and aspiration to remove and detangle hegemonic structures (colonialism and male supremacy). For some, such as Fanon, violence was a means of cleansing an oppressed population. Whereas Gandhi argued that violence merely reduced the morality of the movement. For Gandhi, the means did not outweigh the outcome. Either way, violence inextricably linked the feminist and anti-colonial movements of the period between 1960 and the late 1990s.

In conclusion, this paper has sought to show that the ‘hierarchies of power are at the heart of colonial rule’, and also foundational in the feminist movement.[51] Intersectionality, racism, nationalism and violence all explored the argument that demonstrated the intertwining nature of the feminist and anti-colonial movements.

Intersectionality amplified the experience of differing identities within the movements, particularly that of gender, social class and race. In some regards, being an anti-colonial activist and a woman implied you were a feminist. There was a notable number of women that were part of the feminist movement, whilst simultaneously fighting for independence in colonies. This was made clear using Egypt, Ireland and Algeria as evidence. However, within the anti-colonial movement particularly, women were frequently subservient to men and often undertook highly gendered roles. This was made evident in Algeria with the FLN, where women were often in charge of food preparation and fund-raising. In the IRA women were more integrated into the violence, but the creation of a female-based military organisation, Cumann na mBan, was seen as central in making this possible. It was therefore argued that being a woman significantly impacted the experience of women partaking in struggles for independence.

Discussing nationalism highlighted the gendered dynamic of the causes. Mother India and Egypt as a woman represented this. This paper offered reasons behind the striking resemblance of nationalism and womanhood, in that women and colonies were simultaneously oppressed and exploited. W.E.B Du Bois, Bernadette Devlin, Huda Sha’arawi and Angela Davis were used as clear examples of the unification and inter-relation of the feminist and anti-colonial movements, specifically referring to nationalism. ‘Familiarity with social movement struggles across the globe was commonplace.’[52]

Lastly, racism and violence were used to show the correlating resemblance of morality and hierarchy to both the feminist and anti-colonial movements. Gandhian principle of moral superiority, aligned with the hierarchical structures that had been enforced upon colonised nations. This hierarchy paved the way to adopting violence versus non-violence, in both movements. It was a means of challenging that ‘inferior creatures must serve superior ones’, and thus the whole premise of colonialism.[53] Fanon’s belief that violence was the only means to cleanse an oppressed population was used, in contrast to the feminist movement, where violence was connected to male dominance and a means of control. Regardless of this, violence was clearly debated about in both the movements, showing us a deeper interconnection between the two. Violence and racism represent an important division in both the feminist and anti-colonial movements.[54]

Ultimately, this paper has highlighted the multiple similarities and complex connectedness between the feminist movement and anti-colonial movement from the 1960s to late 1990s. It has been shown throughout that viewing these powerful, multi-faceted, socio-political movements as mutually exclusive would be a mistake. Instead, these movements resemble similar attitudes and shifts, face similar problems and issues, and thus show historians the ways in which socio-political movements are transnational and simultaneously interrelated.

[1] Becky Thompson, ‘Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology of Second Wave Feminism’ in No Permanent Waves: Recasting Histories of U.S. Feminism, ed. Nancy A. Hewitt (London, 2010), p. 39. [2] Kimberle Crenshaw, ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (1991), p. 1243. [3] Martin Evans, ‘New Perspectives on Algerian Independence’, The Journal of African History 46, no. 3 (2005), p. 538. [4] K. Crenshaw, ‘Mapping the Margins’ (1991), p. 1244. [5] Sara Salem, ‘On transnational feminist solidarity: the case of Angela Davis in Egypt’, the London School of Economics and Political Science (2018a), p. 1. [6] https://twitter.com/Nanjala1/status/822924961543233536 [7] S. Salem, ‘Transnational feminist solidarity’ (2018a), p. 3. [8] S. Salem, ‘Transnational feminist solidarity’ (2018a), p.4. [9] Huda Sha’arawi, Harem Years: The Memoirs of an Egyptian Feminist (1879-1924) (New York, 1986), p. 116. [10] Philippa Levine, ‘Gendering Decolonisation’, Histoire@Politique 2, no. 11 (2010), p. 1. [11] Maria Lazreg, The Eloquence of Silence: Algerian Women in Question (New York, 2019), p. 121. [12] P. Levine, ‘Gendering Decolonisation’ (2010), p. 3. [13] Theresa O’Keefe, “Mother Ireland, Get Off Our Backs’: Republican Feminist Resistance in the North of Ireland’, in The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Theories of Social Movements, ed. Bosi Lorenzo and De Fazio Gianluca (Amsterdam, 2017), p. 168. [14] H. Sha’arawi, Harem Years (New York, 1986), p. 119. [15] Vrushali Patil, ‘From Patriarchy to Intersectionality: A Transnational Feminist Assessment of How Far We've Really Come’, Signs 38, no. 4 (2013), p. 853. [16] V. Patil, ‘From Patriarchy to Intersectionality’ (2013), p. 848. [17] Beth Baron, Egypt as a Woman: Nationalism, Gender, and Politics (London, 2005), p. 57. [18] Sara Salem, ‘Intersectionality and Its Discontents: Intersectionality as Traveling Theory’, European Journal of Women’s Studies 25, no. 4 (2018b), p. 411. [19] https://credo.library.umass.edu/view/full/muph057-b004-sl068-i039 [20] Peter Hudis, Frantz Fanon: Philosopher of the Barricades (London, 2015), p. 72. [21] P. Hudis, Frantz Fanon (2015), p. 70. [22] Susan Slyomovics, ‘Algeria’, in Dispatches from the Arab Spring: Understanding the New Middle East, ed. Amar Paul and Prashad Vijay (Minneapolis, 2013), p. 122. [23] Mrinalini Sinha, ‘Refashioning Mother India: Feminism and Nationalism in Late-Colonial India’, Feminist Studies 26, no. 3 (2000), p. 623-24. [24] M. Sinha, ‘Refashioning Mother India’ (2000), p. 624. [25] Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Daughters of Sorrow: Attitudes Toward Black Women, 1880-1920 (New York, 1990), p. 161. [26] Hazel Carby, Race Men (Cambridge, 1998) p. 10. [27] B. Baron, Egypt as a Woman (2005), p. 57; Mayo, 1927; M. Sinha, ‘Refashioning Mother India’ (2000), p. 623. [28] Charlotte Weber, ‘Between Nationalism and Feminism: The Eastern Women's Congresses of 1930 and 1932’, Journal of Middle East Women's Studies 4, no. 1 (2008), p. 84. [29] C. Weber, ‘Between Nationalism and Feminism’ (2008), p. 84. [30] C. Weber, ‘Between Nationalism and Feminism’ (2008), p. 85. [31] Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, trans. the French and Richard Philcox (New York, 2004), p. 5. [32] S. Salem, ‘Transnational feminist solidarity’ (2018a), p. 11-12. [33] Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Richard Philcox (New York, 2008). [34] P. Levine, ‘Gendering Decolonisation’ (2010), p. 11. [35] Anne Enke, ‘Troubling Feminism, Troubling Race’, Reviews in American History 34, no. 4 (2006), p. 544. [36] A. Enke, ‘Troubling Feminism, Troubling Race’ (2006), p. 545. [37] S. Salem, ‘Transnational feminist solidarity’ (2018a), p. 19. [38] F. Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (2008), p. 10. [39] F. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (2004), p. 44. [40] Hannah Arendt, On Violence (New York, 1970), p. 56. [41] Andrew Sanders, Inside the IRA: Dissident Republicans and the War for Legitimacy (Edinburgh, 2011), p. 130. [42] A. Sanders, Inside the IRA: Dissident Republicans and the War for Legitimacy (Edinburgh, 2011), p. 137. [43] Messay Kebede, ‘The Rehabilitation of Violence and the Violence of Rehabilitation: Fanon and Colonialism’, Journal of Black Studies 31, no. 5 (2001), p. 539. [44] M. Kebede, ‘The Rehabilitation of Violence’ (2001), p. 539. [45] Abiola Irele, The African Experience in Literature and Ideology (London, 1981), p. 140. [46] Karuna Mantena, ‘Another Realism: The Politics of Gandhian Nonviolence’, The American Political Science Review 106, no. 2 (2012), p. 457. [47] Sajal Nag, ‘Six Women and the IRA’, Economic and Political Weekly 41, no. 8 (2006), p. 699. [48] M. Kebede, ‘The Rehabilitation of Violence’ (2001), p. 549. [49] Ellen Willis, Ellen, ‘Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism’, Social Text, no. 9/10 (1984), p. 91. [50] E. Willis, ‘Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism’ (1984), p. 112. [51] P. Levine, ‘Gendering Decolonisation’ (2010), p. 1. [52] T. O’Keefe, ‘Mother Ireland’ (2017), p. 172. [53] M. Kebede, ‘The Rehabilitation of Violence’ (2001), p. 549. [54] S. Salem, ‘Transnational feminist solidarity’ (2018a), p. 21.

#RadicalFeminism #AntiColonialism