Colonialism, Violence and Emancipation in Frantz Fanon: A Critical Appraisal
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background
of Study
The phenomenon of violence which occurs
in our society almost on daily basis together with the works of some scholars
on colonialism and emancipation was what provoked this research work. My
interest to embark on this work was also captured by the colonization of Africa
and Africa’s struggle for emancipation which was approached from different
dimensions by some African scholars. Some of these African scholars fought for
their independence through dialogue while others got theirs through either
intellectual protest or physical violence. Frantz Fanon among other African
scholars advocated violence for the emancipation of Algeria, hence he advocated
same approach to Africa as a whole. But why would Fanon opt for violence?
The above question can well be answered
if we reflect on how Africans were treated during the era of colonization. The
abolition of slave trade in the nineteenth century ushered in another form of
enslavement of the Africans called colonialism. This was made possible by the
1885 Berlin Conference that brought about the sharing and partitioning of
Africa among some European countries like England, France, Belgium, Portugal,
and Germany. The decision and action of these European countries “…were taken
without any reference to the wishes and aspirations of the people about whom
they took their decision.”1 Africans resisted but the imperialists were able to
subdue them. Africa, however, became the colony of these Western States. The
Africans were considered by the Westerners as having no soul or put in other
words, living tool. They were oppressed, suppressed, marginalized, molested,
discriminated against, treated as savages, and lastly as inanimate objects. The
Africans lost their right, dignity and freedom.
Freedom as a phenomenon is paramount in
every person’s life. When it is denied any person or group of people, there is
the tendency that they would fight back to regain their freedom. To regain this
freedom might take a violent process. Far from regaining freedom through
violence, it could also be argued that violence is a phenomenon which appears
to occur in the society almost on daily basis. John Odey captures it thus, “…every
human society has within its structure some roots of violence which often tend
to polarize the people into two main groups: the oppressors and the
oppressed.” Violence is a phenomenon which naturally occurs in the lives of
some human beings. It can come through psychological or physical means. As
psychological violence, violence may take the form of discrimination on grounds
of race, colour, religion and sex. As physical violence, it may take the form
of brutality, aggression, cruelty and fighting. Adebola Ekanola opines, “A
constant feature of society is violence in its various manifestations. People
appear to be too quick in resorting to violence as a means of achieving desired
ends without exhausting all non-violent alternatives.” Naturally, every human
being would want to fight back when he or she is stroke at or when his or her
right is infringed upon. To this end some see it “…as not only inevitable but
necessary in society,”4 and it is there argument also that, “…social progress
cannot be recorded without violence.”
In the entire globe with particular
reference to Africa and the Middle East, uprisings and violent revolutions are
on the increase. In Africa, violence is experienced in countries like Nigeria,
Liberia, Rwanda, Kenya, Somali and Sudan.
Violence often times arises as a result of ethnic hatred and its
attendant physical clashes, violent revolution for emancipation and political
assassinations. How justified then is violence? Must all fight or conflict be
settled with violence? Are some people more violent than others? Can
nonviolence ever be used to achieve a course? If Gandhi and Martin Luther King
Jnr. used nonviolence to achieve their goal, where lies the justification of
violence? If violence can sometimes be used to achieve a course, is it not wise
to adopt it? In our world and Africa of today is it wise to adopt violence to
settle disputes? How many individuals of today will be willing to pursue a
course through the violent means? Can dialogue be used in settling of conflict
and disputes? If it can, how far can it go?
Dialogue did not interest Fanon neither
did nonviolence tickle his fancy. He instead opted for physical violence and
his main thesis was the struggle against oppression, and colonialism was the
target of this fury. Fanon’s interest was captured by the ugly experience he
had in Algeria. His philosophy of violence began with his experience of
treating wounded Front Liberation Nationale (FLN) rebels which he joined and
later became their journalist. His experience in the army also resulted to his
positing violence as the solution to colonialism.
In the army, he experienced
discrimination of the highest order. There, white French troops were separated
from Black West Indians, who were supposed to be French citizens. Black African
soldiers were also segregated from French troops as were Arab Africans, whom
the French reviled and treated in their own soil like pariahs. Fanon’s
experience in the army came at the time that the French confronted German
fascism. He fought the war as an adolescent with all these experiences fresh in
his mind. The segregation impact indirectly shaped his understanding of
violence. He called this racism, “…the psychiatric disorder of colonialism.”
All these experiences made Fanon to
posit greater violence as a measure to counter violence which is colonialism.
He stated it clearly that, “Colonialism is not a thinking machine, nor a body
endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its natural state, and it
will only yield when confronted with greater violence.” He therefore, called
on all Africans to indulge in decolonization through the violent process since
violence and cruelty are the major features of colonialism. Succinctly put,
Fanon believes that the true liberation of Africa from the colonial domination
must be through violence. The question to ask is; In the present Africa, can
the use of physical violence be used to emancipate ourselves even as we still
experience neocolonialism? Can our arms match the sophisticated arms of our so
called neo-colonizers? How best can we emancipate ourselves in isolation of
violence? This thesis seeks to find the best alternative to violence in the
face of conflicts and disputes.
Colonialism, Violence and Emancipation in Frantz Fanon: A Critical Appraisal
NB: The Complete Thesis is well written and ready to use.