The writings of  Sartre and Fanon both seem to represent what they thought of as truths at the time. They both appear to think that the only thing that can come is a violent conflict between the settlers and the colonized. I assume that Fanon's book was not merely written in order to advocate violent revolution, but to look into the suffering of the colonized, and the effects of the settlers on the colonized. However, the reading for today focus's primarily on violent action. It seems that violence could easily be used to throw off the colonizers, and Fanon argues toward that. Sartre does not make an argument promoting violence but talks about the inevitable violent revolution. I would argue that violent revolution is not the only way that this sort of revolution could take place. The use of peaceful nonviolent resistance has worked in multiple revolutions. For example, in fighting against British colonialism in India, as well as fighting against apartheid in South Africa. Although in these cases various groups advocated different methods, violent or nonviolent, nonviolent strategies were proven to be effective at least in some cases. There could be cases in which violence is necessary, or at least the most efficient means of throwing off an oppressor. Moreover, the idea of a violent revolution seems like it would effectively galvanize large sections of the oppressed, as maybe it rightly should. The atrocities committed against the colonized seem like they may be deserving of great retribution. Maybe the method's used against the colonized should be used against the colonizer. 

An interesting point made both in the preface by Sartre and in Fanon's writing is that revolution would lead to socialism. For example, Sartre writes, "Here, then, is man even now established in new traditions, the future children of a horrible present; here then we see him legitimized by a law which will be born or is born each day under fire: once the last settler is killed, shipped home or assimilated, the minority breed disappears, to be replaced by socialism." Mostly I would like to look at the idea of the system being replaced by socialism. This idea is one that I think is based on Fanon, and possibly Sartre's, intellectual frameworks. Fanon's consistent references to the bourgeoisie may highlight an active interest in Marxism. Of course Fanon and Sartre have every right to argue for Marxism. However, I don't believe that this is accurate, nor do I think socialism has become the favored system of former colonies. Given that this book was written in 1961 a look at our post or neo-colonial world is of course going to highlight where a theorist may have been wrong. However, I am curious about why these authors would think that socialism would become the next system. I would bet more on a revert to the systems of the colonized before the were colonized, or maybe to a blend of this with influence from the systems of their colonial masters. Surely, some would argue for socialism, and revolution is something the Marxist loves, and the populace is oppressed as the proletariat is. Still this does not mean that socialist ideas are widespread in oppressed populations. Anyone else have a good reason for why they think socialism will be next? Aside from it possibly being the view they subscribe to.