Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Concerning Violence
Fanon's notion of violence as essential is really problematic for me. Although I agree on some level that violence is the only tool that completely cleanses the wrongs of the past and completely frees the oppressed from the influence of the oppressor, I do not agree that the influence of the oppressor should necessarily be completely erased. Several prominent non-violent movements come to mind, such as MLK or Ghandi's movement for independence. Although they did not fully cast off the chains of colonialism or racism or oppression, they were able to alter the system in a way that made it possible for them to rise up to the level of the 'colonists'- something that Fanon argues only violence can achieve... I don't think, therefore, that violence is the only tool to alter or change a society's state of existence, although it does seem to be the quickest. It seems quite important to me for the previously oppressed to remember the actions of the oppressor, and if the oppressed cleanses their history of the oppressor with violence, they will not be as wary of what could happen in the future. In addition, I feel that violence causes more problems than it solves, as Fanon himself is quick to admit, when he notes that violence can continue for long after the process of decolonization is completed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was my main problem with Fanon as well. I did not agree with the absolute nature of his arguments.
ReplyDeleteYou said "I feel that violence causes more problems than it solves, as Fanon himself is quick to admit, when he notes that violence can continue for long after the process of decolonization is completed."
Exactly, all one has to do is look at the continent of Africa after decolonization. While many of the problems present there are multifaceted violence has certainly played a major role in places like Somalia and Sudan (and South Sudan).