The Crucial Role Of Violence In Africa

From 1914 to the present, one of the most powerful trends of the postwar era was the importance of the developing world and their desire for independence. Nationalism was an important factor in the growing independence movements in Sub- Saharan Africa. Regardless of political changes, social conflict and tensions remained a problem. Tensions between Europeans and Africans, which had been a problem since the Europeans’ arrival and social unrest in communities didn’t change.

The history of humanity is written in blood. Even as violence as a whole is decreasing, acts of extreme violence continue to be perpetrated. To be clear, this essay is not about individuals violent and cold at their core. Such people are readily understood within the image of a lone, antisocial killer set apart from humanity by their very lacking of it. This essay is about violence conducted on a scale that can only be enabled by the participation of people who, under normal circumstances, would not act violent. The puzzle of how and why genocides, apartheid, state brutality, torture, and mob killings are perpetrated by ordinary people points to psychosocial mechanisms as their cause. Ordinarily non-violent people commit extreme violence

The Europeans used violence as a tool in the initial colonization of Africa, in the World Wars against their own African soldiers and against other European countries, and in attempts to quell African independence movements (Laumann). Africans participated in the violence of many wars in the 1900’s and in freedom movements. Fidel Castro, a Cuban hero of the revolution, is a good example of colonial African violence to gain independence from Europe. He provided African nations with “Cuban military, technical, and medical assistance” as well as made contact with various “leaders of guerilla movements” (Laumann 71). Nelson Mandela is another revolutionary hero who helped free South Africa with the help of Fidel Castro. This is the primary difference in the moral argument of violence in colonial Africa, the World Wars era and the independence of African nation states. European countries implemented violence for the sake of control and power. They created a hierarchy system and placed themselves at the top while using violence to keep everyone else in line. The African soldiers, though some were volunteers, were forced into violence by the European powers. Later, they were forced to violence by the need to defend their homeland from the unjust colonization. Mandela was referred to as a terrorist in his time due to his violent tactics. Since the reasoning behind the violence on each side stems

The first section of the book was about violence. I thought this was one of the most interesting sections in the entire book. When you think about colonization in general, the average person would not think about pure violence. They would more or less just think about a powerful country coming into a less powerful country and that’s that. But as we have even talked about in class, that is not the case. Then when we think about decolonization, one would think that the colonizers just decided their job was done and they leave, with the country now free and independent. But again, that is not the case. This section gives us a new perspective on both of those subjects and how violence plays a huge part. Fanon says that since violence was what started the colonization process, violence is the only option to be decolonized. It is not the colonizers that need to be violent this time, he says, the people of that country’s only way to be free of them and have any chance of a better country is to have a full on revolution. After you wrap your

Frantz Fanon, in his book The Wretched of the Earth, seeks to define violence and its justification in the context of colonialism. To understand Fanon’s justification for violence, it is necessary to learn how Fanon defines violence. Fanon’s definitions of violence range from psychological to historical to cultural, eventually leading the colonized to redirect this violence to the colonizer as a cleansing ritual.

The thesis essentially implies that certain parts of the world, mainly the Global South, “are populated by irrationally violent and uncivilized peoples” (Bau 2010, 23). The ‘New Barbarism’ thesis is exemplified in Robert Kaplan’s “The Coming Anarchy.” Contrastingly, Paul Richards’ Fighting for the Rainforest sought to undermine the arguments behind both “The Coming Anarchy” and the ‘New Barbarism’ thesis. The dominant representations of conflicts in Africa are found through Western media coverage, which have simplified and distorted complex situations by reducing the cause of conflicts to ethnic antagonisms. “Mainstream media often report African wars in terms of a reversion to an earlier state of development” (Ellis 2003, 39). In doing so, conflicts in Africa, such as those in Rwanda and Sudan, are presented under the false premise of conforming to ‘New Barbarism,’ leading to international actors addressing the wrong problems or simply loosing hope in Africa altogether

While analyzing the North Africa conflict, a combination of service capabilities would be required to achieve the desired end state of deterring and if necessary, the defeat of Algerian guerilla aggression to prevent regional and global destabilization. Taking into account the current military landscape that exists today, a joint task force (JTF) would be the ideal military response of the United States and collation partner’s while utilizing the regional military assets. Intelligence suggests guerilla forces are capable of a full scale offensive into Morocco in less than 36 hour notice, bringing the factors of time, force and space into consideration.

Frantz Fanon argues the decolonization must always be a violent phenomenon because resisting a colonizing power using only politics will not work. Europeans justified colonization by treating it as gods work. They believed that god wanted then to occupy all lands and spread the word of god to savages of darker skin color. Fanon joined the Algerian Nationalist Movement when the Algeria was being colonized be the French. Many examples of violence written of in The Wretched of the Earth were taken from the struggle for independence in Algeria. Also the writing is sympathetic towards colonized natives. Fanon claims decolonization causes violent actions from both settlers and natives and creates intolerant

During this time, he wrote extensively explaining why the FLN had to be violent in its methods against the colonial regime. Wretched, however, was written in 1961, shortly before the end of the war in Algeria. This time, in what was to be his last book Fanon was not writing for the Algerians, but for the “Third World leaders engaged in processes of decolonization worldwide” (Kuby 64). From all these observations, it occurs to me that Fanon does not give an account of violence as a tool for these “These World leaders,” to liberate their people. Wretched of the Earth is a warning, not a tool; a warning of the damages which result from an ideology that views violence as the only way to restore one’s identity and

For Fanon, therefore, colonialism is fundamentally a violent situation since "the stage is set in motion between two kinds of interests--the interest of the colonizer and the interest of the colonized" (Gordon 77). As a result,

In Frantz Fanon’s text “Concerning Violence” he establishes his response to colonization and decolonization to be the simple act of violence against the oppressor. I find that Fanon’s reasoning’s for using the sole practice of violence to directly reflect his past experiences. Fanon was affected directly and indirectly by experiencing the Fascist and Colonial violence as an African man and also witnessing the atrocities of his peers while growing up in Martinique. He also witnessed the atrocities of WWII when he fought against Nazi Germany and during the Algerian War as Algerians tried to gain independence from France. His only answer to the dehumanizing violent atrocities was to fight back with extreme violence to regain freedom from the world’s

In "The Wretched Of The Earth" by Frantz Fanon, he is inspecting the colonized world from the standpoint of the colonized. He is evidently inquiring about the ideas of colonialism, and if violence ought to be implemented in order to remove colonialism. He questions the natives and their westernized though, if colonized areas should be implementing western ideas or build a new set of values of their own. Fanon also is calling for a refusing of European humanism, believing violence is the essential way for division. His beliefs on violence, stem from the natural conflict that occurs amongst the colonized and the colonizer. He

A. Adu Boahen's African Perspectives on Colonialism neatly classifies African responses to European colonialism during both phases of invasion and occupation during the 19th century with precise labels according to their nature or time period. However, the reactions can also be loosely grouped into two diametric characterizations: peaceful and violent. Although creating this dichotomy seems a gross generalization and oversimplification of the colonial African experience, it more importantly allows for a different perspective- one that exposes the overwhelming success of the typically peaceful or pacifist reaction in contrast to the little gain and large losses of the violent response.

Oppression and injustice have wrecked havoc on humankind for all of recorded history, and the methods people have used to battle these have varied greatly. Whether it be through world wars or marches through city streets, the attempt to achieve social change has been long and perpetual, persistent and challenging. When people’s lives are threatened, they may feel the need to act violently while others argue that non-violence is the only way to bring about lasting change. Non-violence is the preferable method of achieving social change, but violence is justifiable while it is preceded by nonviolent means, is meant to protect the security or way of life of a group, and has reasonable targets that affect opposers.

Violence is inescapable when considering political agenda. In the words of Fanon, “National liberation, national reawakening, restoration of the nation to the people or Commonwealth, whatever the name used, whatever the latest expression, decolonization is always a violent event” (1). According to Fanon, violence is the fundamental factor that defines the meaning and practice of colonisation. In Fanon’s chapter “On Violence”, he writes predominately about the centrality of violence in resisting colonial rule. However, violence is not limited to playing a significant role in just colonisation. Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto encompasses ideas of violence in social revolution and communism. In Marx’s theory, Marx writes of a