Colonialism, Violence and Emancipation in
Frantz Fanon: A Critical Appraisal
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background of the 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.”2 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.”3 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.”7 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.
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Fundamentally speaking, every human
being cherishes his or her freedom and right. When the freedom and right of an
individual is infringed upon, it becomes a problem because such an individual
will fight to regain his freedom and right. The question now is how does one
regain one’s freedom? Through what means can one achieve one’s freedom? Though
it is said that man is a free animal, it does not entail that man’s freedom is
limitless. The limit of one’s freedom lies at the commencement of another’s.
Hence, it is often said that “one’s freedom stops where another person’s
freedom begins.” It is therefore, inhuman for man to enslave or colonize
another. Colonization has in its nature the features of depriving the colonized
their right and freedom. It goes with suppression, domination, subjugation,
exploitation and discrimination. The colonized that resisted the colonizers
were brutally dealt with or silenced. Those who could not put up resistance
died in silence.
The brutal way of suppressing the
colonized takes the form of force, hence, violence. The attitude of the
colonizers towards the Africans made Fanon to posit violence as the solution
for decolonization. Is violence justified then? Some authors or scholars would
argue that injustice, denial of another’s freedom and oppression are the chief
causes of violence. They argue that the man who suffers from injustice often
tends to reply with violence and this is the position of Fanon. Since injustice
breeds violence, can there not be other ways to settle disputes or conflicts
without the use of violence? Must it necessarily be with the use of greater
violence? This research work sets out to tackle the problems posed above.
1.3 PURPOSE OF STUDY
What the Africans suffered in the hands
of the Colonialists were savagery and dehumanization. The freedom of the
Africans was trampled upon and their right snatched away from them. It is an
indisputable fact that man is by nature a free being. Mondin captures it, Man,
beyond intelligence, is also highly free. Freedom is therefore, another title
for his excellence and nobility and represents another great window for looking
into the mystery of man, with a goal to acquiring a more correct, more
complete, more adequate comprehension of him. Stressing further, J. Omoregbe
opines, “man is by nature free; freedom is part of his very nature as a
rational being.”9 This rationality in man makes him to understand as well as to
see justice in the fact that his freedom is limited and that his freedom stops
where another person’s freedom begins. Now when somebody’s freedom is deprived
of him, naturally he would want to regain his freedom. The process to regain
this freedom might lead to violence. This presents injustice as breeding
violence. With the colonization of Africa and the Europeans relationship with
Africa which is exploitative, oppressive and discriminatory, Fanon advocated
for violence to be countered with greater violence. He states, “Their existence
together, that is to say, the exploitation of the natives by the settlers, was
carried on by dint of great array of bayonets and cannon.” This made Fanon to
see colonialism as “violence in its natural state.” Outside Fanon’s notion of
colonialism and his philosophy of violence to counter colonialism, it is also
pertinent to observe that across the globe, different individuals, groups,
religions or countries lust for violence at the least provocation. Some do not
even wait to be provoked before embarking on violence. Some yearn for it and
derive pleasure displaying it.
Thus, from a philosophical point of
view, this work seeks to analyze as well as
appraise the concept of violence as advocated by Fanon with the purpose
of arriving at the conclusion that violence is not the solution to every
crisis, conflict or provocation rather that nonviolence or dialogue could be
used for the actualization of freedom or emancipation.
Colonialism, Violence and Emancipation in Frantz Fanon: A Critical Appraisal
NB: The Complete Masters Project Topics in Philosophy Thesis is well written and ready to use.