The Prompt: Is Fanon right to think that acts of violence against the colonizer help to restore the spiritual health and dignity of the colonized? Critically evaluate Fanon’s claim; in doing so, be sure to explain Fanon’s psychological assumptions and be sure to consider alternative view(s) of human nature from our readings in class (such as Gandhi) 

​

Amidst the lasting institutional injustice, codified racism, exploitation of resources and depravity of colonialism, lies a much deeper infringement of human values, a breach of the human spirit. Fanon recognizes that inequality is not only a tangible systematic injustice that affects material distribution and must be remedied, but it also carries with it a metaphysical dimension that inflicts the colonized for generations to come. The build-up of inequality, discrimination, and exploitation creates individuals that internalize their prescribed position in society. To be capable of actualizing our potential is a privilege we rarely give a second thought, but for those living under tyranny, to attempt to actualize their freedoms and capacities is to request permission to do so. This paper will evaluate Fanon’s claim on the restoration of spiritual health and dignity of the colonized through acts of violence, given that the infringement on the autonomy and identity in the colonial subjects' psychological frameworks merits such an act. 

​

Before understanding the impact of colonizers on their colonized, we must first recognize the role of states in metaphysical frameworks. Wolff argued that states are “no more than a servant to the people as a whole” (22), and while this is usually a characteristic of democratic governments, it does highlight an important normative characteristic of states, their allegiance to the people that grant it legitimacy in the first place. The transition from a state of nature to a civil state occurs when the population renounces its autonomy to the state. This renouncement of autonomy can only conscionably occur however, with justification, or at the very least when the civil state is a more attractable option than the state of nature. Colonization represents an infringement on this fundamental notion in the formation of states, that of consent and conscionable justification. In 1943 India suffered the Bengal Famine under british colonial rule. The British Empire deprived India from a significant portion of its grain in order to aid in its war efforts, and refused to accept food relief from Canada and Australia. Colonial rule hides behind the guise of governance and expects obedience from a population that by all rights would prosper in a state of nature more than within the grip of colonial rule. If civil disobedience is a threat of reversion to a state of nature against an unjust state, violence against the colonizer must be a reappropriation of autonomy. This appropriation of autonomy holds a psychological dimension which Fanon defends.  
   
Acts of violence against the colonizer would help to restore spiritual health through the acquisition of autonomy that has been forcibly misallocated to an unjust state. In the 1960s South Africa, a country with a colonial legacy and ruled by a white minority was responsible for the Sharpeville massacre of 69 unarmed African protesters and 200 wounded. The militarization against the colonizer occured only when no other choice could be found but violent resistance. Fanon argues that “Colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat,” and thus when an unjust state actively seeks to repress its constituents, violence may be the only defensible option. While that may be, the question of the cathartic nature of violence which Fanon advocates for remains. 

​

Whilst civil disobedience against morally unjust laws and treatment is important for the mental health of individuals, the use of violence seems counterintuitive in its reappropriation of control. Fanon argues that in order to restore one’s humanity one must go against it. Gandhi’s notion of “Ahmisa” is grounded in the need for non-violence in the face of decolonization and a population’s quest towards spiritual restoration. If the purpose of the colonized is to restore their humanity, how can that be achieved through an act that seems so contrary to the humanity they seek? Fanon makes two crucial psychological assumptions, the notion that people would not give up their power easily or voluntarily and that violence against the oppressor constitutes a sense of equality in our psychological frameworks. While the first assumption is intuitive, the second draws some questions. Violence against the colonizer may be aimed at revenge for the harm inflicted, and thus posit further renouncement of autonomy to a colonizer who now dictates our actions. The motivation behind the violence seems important in its effects on our psychological framework. Whether the violence is aimed at revenge or whether its purpose is defensive and cathartic, is a question that varies between individual psychological frameworks. Our roles as academics or even the role of leaders of such movements is to prescribe a normative stance while acknowledging the variability in outcomes. 

​

Moreover, a history of colonial violence, whether reciprocated or not, often leaves legacies of rampant violence. In countries like Algeria or Kenya, the use of violence against colonial regimes has presented violence as a legitimate expression of systematic frustration. Sartre describes the process of colonial revolution as “man recreating himself” however, at what point does man no longer feel the need to recreate himself. Nation Building is an important feature of post-colonial statehood, along with the amassing of centralized political power and the acquisition of a monopoly over the legitimate use of force (Webber). When violence has been presented as a legitimate means to overthrow a state which has absorbed the autonomy of its constituents forcibly, what of the population who are opposed to the political party in charge? Could they not also make a case for the forced acquisition of power from a previous regime? On the other hand this conjecture seems to subside when the replacing government is a democracy. In contrast, India adopted a non-violent form of civil disobedience, and those non-violent legacies persist today, and yet India democratized as soon as it gained independence. 

Fanon further emphasizes the need to reject the entirety of European ideals projected onto the state, given that Europeans and most of the western world have built themselves on the pillage of exploitation of countries that have been colonized. I add however, that this projection of european ideals represents a second dimension of psychological repression, that of the loss of identity. The enforcement of European ideologies and values onto the population through the disturbance of societal norms and the codification of these values into laws presents a halt in the natural progression of the now colonized culture. When the British Empire colonized India it codified customs of gender inequality into law, specifically laws restricting women’s rights to land ownership as well as the introduced customary marriage laws granting male elders legal authority over women. Dramatic cultural shifts represent shocks to the system, as well as hault a very crucial aspect of our psyche, the continuation of identity. When an individual has to question who he is due to circumstances that have forced him to do so, one also questions the power we hold over ourselves. To be powerless over ourselves is to be robbed of our humanity, and what merits violence if not to fight for the very thing that machinates our lives.

​

In conclusion, Fanon regards violence as having the power to heal. Whereby the path that destroys an individual is their path back. It is important to note that the crux of the argument isn’t about violence being necessary to overthrow the colonizer and gain tangible and observable independence, but rather denotes the self-actualizing effect violence has on colonized people in regaining metaphysical independence. In order to preserve one’s perception of autonomy and identity, violence is a necessary means. 

​

Some Leftover Notes

 

 

Fanon suggests that violence “frees the native from his inferiority complex”

​

 

 

When entering the realm of self-worth,  . Violence is not meant to signify vengeance, rather the cathartic value of it is that it purges the colonized of the aggression they have been holding internally. So what i wanna say is… The same way the colonizers diverted the colonized and stripped them of their humanity, treating them like animals and dehumanizing them, it's important for the colonized to respond with violence as well in order for their psyches to understand that they are equal, they are the same. It is not just the colonized who can use violence because they are in fact superior, but rather the colonized could do the same. In this way, their self-worth and self-respect is restored, and the scars on their psyche removed, because they then get to equate themselves with the colonizers as two people with the same heartbeat, same autonomy, same everything, just different coloured skin and just bc they have different coloured skin doesn’t mean that they’re better. It's not for vengeance, this doesn’t stem out of wanting revenge for being exploited and discriminated against, but rather as somewhat of → its not u it's me type thing

​

 

It is important to acknowledge the god-complex colonizers project onto their colonized. 

​

 

Fanon is right to think that acts of violence against the colonizer would help to restore the spiritual health and dignity of the colonized because ... , however this would just be a moment of glory

​

Violence in the context of colonization differs from other contexts. In reference to colonization violence against the colonizer for the colonized to restore the spiritual health and dignity that was lost during the colonial era. 

​

This paper will argue that Fanon is correct in his assumption that violence is needed to restore the humanity of the colonized due to

 In the context of colonialism, there exists a division between the colonized and the colonizers within the nation. The settlers’ town is well-fed, clean, and consists of strong infrastructure, whilst the native’s live in an impoverished, oppressed, weakly infrastructured side of town.

In this way, not only does Fanon think acts of violence are necessary, but he emphasizes the need to reject the entirety of European ideals projected onto the state, given that Europeans and most of the western world have built themselves on the pillage of exploitation of countries that have been colonized.

This build up of inequality, discrimination, and exploitation creates an individual that internalizes their violence onto their psyche. 

The settlers’ are not held accountable for the natives, nor… (they don’t exactly care whether or not they are hurt, they only care about building their own economies by exploiting other countries resources, and so they won’t give it up so easily, especially given the fact that they have the upper hand

Psychological assumption

The grounds of which Fanon’s argument is built is on his view that people would not give up their power easily or voluntarily
violence as expressing equality

“Colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat,” 

Counters
→ What stops a nation that gained their independence through violence to not persist in that exact way. In all cases other than revolution, violence and war are metastasizing cancers for the living world.