The Wretched of the Earth review

The Wretched of the Earth review

On violence is a section of Fanon’s book “The Wretched of the Earth.” On violence, Fanon expresses his view on decolonization by colonizers. Throughout the work, he argues that decolonization can only happen through force. For decolonization to occur, it is a must for the colonized to replace the colonists, and this is through violence. Fanon uses the phrase, “the first shall be last” to express the change.

Colonialism divides a country into two different worlds with different needs, which Fanon calls “Manichean world.” The colonists make the colonized believe that their culture, ethics, and religion are wicked and evil, and initiating foreign culture and religion, which they tell the colonized all these evils can be answered by the foreign culture and religion, which is Christianity. However, the central theme of the religion is not to come to God but rather to instill that oppression is a part of life. The colonists are the whites from a foreign country, and they want to continue to oppress the colonized so that they continue to obtain free or cheap labor. On the other hand, the colonized or the native people want to regain their freedom so that they stay with lifestyle. Fanon adds that colonists and colonized live in two different areas. The whites can access education, food, good shelter, and security, which are not enjoyed by the colonized. Due to these factors, the two groups are always in endless disagreements fueling violence.

During the colonial period, the only way the colonized can express their pains is through political parties, meetings, and representation by the colonized elites. This is because their liberty is suppressed. Fanon states that every man has that muscles to express their aggressiveness through violence, but for the colonized, the only way they can show such it is in dreams. Though the primary goal of the political parties is to present the colonized, they are also after legislative powers to enable the colonized elites to compete with the colonists. The peasants, who are the majority, do not want the competition but to take the position of the colonists. This, in turn, leads to violence within the colonized class.

During colonization, the colonized start to resist the colonist’s rules. This threatens the colonists, and they have to react. At first, the colonists use non-violent means to contain the colonized. They use the colonized intellectuals to reach a joint agreement, Fanon referring to it as gentleman’s agreement. However, the native scholars support decolonization, which takes the colonists to take violence as an alternative to containing the colonized. The police or military working for the colonists use force to try to stop violent colonized. At this point, the colonized have a single mentality, only violence can ensure decolonization, and thus they don’t retreat, forcing the whites to give them liberty.

After acquiring liberty, the colonized intellectuals rush to take high positions that were left by the colonists like administrators and experts. The colonized intellectuals behave the same way as the colonists were behaving, and continue with colonization which Fanon describes it as neo-colonization. Also, the colonized intellectuals, who are now the ruling, invite the colonists to live in the same country. However, the whites understand that the “last have eventually come first,” they leave the country to go back to their own. In his concluding remarks, Fanon states that it is only through violence that the colonized achieve decolonization, because the colonization and was achieved and run through violence.

Gandhi expressed his views on violence and the struggle for decolonization through his book “Hind Swaraj” also known as “Indian Home Rule.” Gandhi meets a reader of his book, who believes violence is the best way to acquire decolonization. Gandhi reasons to the reader that non-violent models can be used to achieve decolonization. He argues that force will only have more negative impacts on the Indians, and it may leave India an ungodly place. Mostly, Gandhi focuses his argument on the protection of Indian culture.

Gandhi begins by explaining the meaning of civilization according to him. He explains that civilization is all about culture. Though Indians may look uncivilized when looked at the perspective of the colonist’s culture, they are civilized when they are following their ancestral culture. According to Gandhi, colonization is the act of moral and conduct of a culture. He argues that the areas in India where the civilization is yet to reach, they are still performing well. He supports this by submitting that the Indians who have not been civilized are not yet enslaved.

When the reader tells Gandhi challenges Gandhi that though violence will lead to deaths of approximately a quarter a million Indians but eventually liberate the land of India, Gandhi has a different opinion. First, Gandhi explains that India is a holy land, and it should not be freed through human blood. He believes that India was a patriot and peaceful nation, and it should not seize that.

Gandhi argues that it is not necessary for any means for decolonization. He argues that there are many ways to do so. To explain this, he uses an example posed by the reader. He states that there are various ways to express it without violence. He first raises the issue of the armed whites. The whites are well armed with gunpowder, while Indians are ill-armed. In this case, he explains the best way is to keep quit rather than resist, because you may end up being the victim. Further, he states that violence will only lead to the suffering of the whole of India, even the non-resisting Indians. He says that violent supporters should not claim that fighting is for the goodwill of all Indians. Arguing, Gandhi states that not all Indians support violence means, and many would advocate for peaceful methods.

The last chapter Gandhi supports Passive resistance. He states that it is not necessary to use violence to resist English by refusing to follow their laws and directions. The colonists mainly impose regulations that tend to oppress Indians. They also force Indians to incorporate their civilized culture into England. Gandhi asks what will happen if Indians boycott the colonists. First, Gandhi discusses ignoring the colonists’ culture and goods. He urges Indians to stop adopting the white culture and instead focus on the “uncivilized” Indian culture. Likewise, they should maintain their ancestor’s religion and ignore Christianity, the foreign religion. He argues that by diverting the focus from the foreign beliefs, goods, and culture, it will hit the colonists negatively because they are not appreciated, which will contribute to their retreat, and move to their country or start colonization elsewhere they are appreciated.

I believe both Fanon and Gandhi had reasonable arguments on why it is or not necessary for the use of violence for decolonization. Historically, most liberties was achieved through violence, and this is a factor that may contribute to many people believing in force to achieve decolonization. Both of them are associated with different effects on the economy and social structure, and thus, people have different opinions on the same.

I believe liberty or decolonization can only be achieved through violence. History supports it, and in most instances, most countries got their independence through force. For example, America gained decolonization from the British through a revolution. Similarly, most African countries got their independence through violence, where they had to attack the colonists. Engaging in violence indicates that either you are ready to die or achieve liberty. It is better to die for another person or future generation to enjoy the fruits of freedom. For instance, here in the U.S, many famous people violated and died, but we eventually had the liberty that we enjoy today.

The use of non-violent strategies for decolonization seems to be illogical. First, these are two different groups which have different goals to achieve. What the colonists want is free labour while the colonized want liberty. As a result, it is hard for the two parties to come into a common understanding about decolonization. The colonists would not give it a consideration because at the end they will be the losers if they allow negotiations. Also, non-violent methods provide colonists with a competitive advantage. Being silent or boycotting does not disallow them from abusing the colonized, but they will even oppress you more to ensure that you are more submissive.

I agree with Fanon that only violence can be fought with violence. Violent threatens the colonists, and they are assured that the violence will negatively impact them. When they are heavily hit, they may opt for negotiations with the colonized, forcing them to change the policies contributing to colonization. Violence is associated with uncountable deaths by the forces protecting the colonists. However, killings are also present when non-violent means are used through mistreatment. Also, with non-violent means, the colonized will only achieve their liberty through a voluntary decision by the colonists, and it may come after many years. The colonists will only give you freedom if they exhaust the resources in your land. In conclusion, I believe violence has been successful in many countries for decolonization.