Kathleen, your restating the point reminds me that Sartre plays with the notion of “native” as what was and is no longer except in some internalized pairing with the notion of “elite”. As well the adjective survives in a plural rendering to describe a locus of resistence. Sartre writes in the preface just after he passage containing the “all of us” phrase: “While there was a native population somewhere this imposture was not shown up; in the notion of the human race we found an abstract assumption of universality which served as cover for the most realistic practices. On the other side of the ocean there was a race of less-than-humans who, thanks to us, might reach our status a thousand years hence, perhaps; in short, we mistook the elite for the genus. Today, the native populations reveal their true nature, and at the same time our exclusive ‚Äòclub’ reveals its weakness — that it’s neither more nor less than a minority.”
Such thinking, when applied to the analysis of the phrase “they hate us” leads to two options: stressing the minority aspect of “us” or addressing the constructedness of “they”. Either approach attempts to demystify a projection.
Fanon’s work, like Sartre’s, plays with and works the line between what is imagined and the actual, a line that is crucial for agency which operates between a perception of what is and what might be.
The zone of reading as a native may be inaccessible yet reading as a colonized people depends upon the inaccessibility of the zone of the native. The inaccessibility of the zone of the native depends all too much on the ubiquitous discourses of the colonizers.
If there is no going back, can there be a moving forward? Perhaps. Lately the term “indigineous” is occupying some of the place once occupied by “native”. See for example Candice Hopkins _Making Things Our Own: The Indigenous Aesthetic in Digital Storytelling_ [Horizon Issue 17 http://www.horizonzero.ca/textsite/tell.php?is=17&file=4&tlang=0 ] I would venture to state that in the 21st century in emerging contexts “indigenous” is present-minded and action-focused and “native” partakes of a grand narrative of the fall. “Indigenous” seems to occupy a place that is interstitial between “native” and “colonized” in Fanon’s discourse — it’s on the other side of the native-colonizer-colonized triangle — not as a term in some ongoing dialectic but as one of the corners of a semiotic square that enable alter-native stories and hence practices.
To borrow from Trinh T. Minh-ha’s title [Native, Woman, Other], there is in reading Fanon the ghost of the other everywhere: Native-Colonizer-Colonized-Other.