Violence Is The Fundamental Factor That Defines The Meaning And Practice Of Colonization

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

Mankind has long accepted violence as a fair means to achieve equality. In human history, the most thorough changes are brought in by the most radical overthrow of the old structure, knocking down the walls that separated the silent majority from the minority, sweeping aside the commands of the oppressors, tearing down the chains of oppression that once trapped them away from their inherent rights of freedom, in an effort to achieve justice for themselves and their countries. Revolutions in particular illustrated that the groups that desire reform but are willing to compromise for stability, take longer to implement changes, while the groups that are more devoted to revolutionary change and are often unafraid to use violence, could implement

Aggression – ‘the export of violence’ – played a central role in the rise of the West. Military and naval superiority rather than better resources, greater moral rectitude, irresistible commercial acumen underpinned western expansion. This same aggression was on display during the American Civil War. Both the North and South were fighting for their version of democracy in the Civil War. Lincoln optimized this in his closing line of the Gettysburg Address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Several battles for both sides added to the attrition efforts and almost achieved a decisive victory but fell short. America felt the effects of battles on the home front and the political twisting that came with a war threatening our own land and well-being at home in a manner that wouldn’t be felt again for another 136 years. Even in the labels placed by the opposing sides, The "War of Northern Aggression" and “The "War of Southern Aggression", conversely, the ideal of aggression throughout the war was evident. The American Civil War revolved around the idea of saving the democracy through a decisive battle and political victory that would attrite the other side into submission; these ideals are rooted in an aggressive military tradition.

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 comparison of violence to nonviolence highlights Chavez’s argument that nonviolence is the only way to achieve positive results. Chavez characterizes violence as a temporary solution in which “people suffer.” This description of violence as a last resort that results out of frustration is in stark contrast to Chavez’s characterization of nonviolence. Nonviolence stems from oppression. It is exercised as a form of self-determination

With the passing of decades, humanity has been mentioning more and more the presence of violence in our daily lives. We see it online, news, social media, it is absolutely taking over a great fragment of our lives. But is this violence aspect of humanity a recent thing? If we take a look back to earlier human civilization, there has always been a violent essence in the way we think and act. The main focus of this essay is to discuss, and compare 12 Years a Slave by Solomon Northup to The Things They carried by Tim O’Brien.

“Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers”(Article). Cesar Chavez states this in his persuasive article fighting for nonviolent resistance rather than violence. There is a wrong and a right way to deal with people or laws one is against and that is what Chavez tries to convey in this article. He uses different strategies to try to convince the readers that violence is not acceptable, and there are better ways to handle anger.

In order to discuss the modes of violence inherent in any symbolic order, a discussion of violence must precede its effects. It is easy to observe what I will call ‘subjective’ violence; however, doing so taints an ‘objective’ assessment. By subjective violence, I mean acts that we can describe as breaking the status quo or utterly unacceptable; spewing a spit ball, punching a friend, engaging in armed conflict, and so on. Objective violence is the status quo, or systemic acts maintaining the existing order; profit schemes enabling the last recession, government institutions that motivate resistance, etc. For the sake of brevity, I only wish to note that I am conceptualizing the notion of violence in an operative sense, as, I believe, it is the only way to provide an effective critique of

The use of violent resistance by subaltern groups is the most common form of resistance when we think about revolution and change. This form of resistance occurs when elite power structures are attacked by the marginalized in society. In particular, the violent resistance movement led by Maria Lopez in chapter 3 highlights the brutality that is caused by violent revolutions. This resistance movement used any means necessary to eradicate any people or symbols of the Spanish. This subaltern group used murder, torture, and control as a means to achieve social change. Furthermore, the authors point out the

This essay has two different levels of colonized people: the prisoners and the condemned. Orwell

words, if decolonization is a process in which " 'The last [native] shall be first and the first [settler] last, ' this will only come to pass after a murderous and decisive struggle between two protagonists" (37). In these contexts, Fanon argues clearly that all of oppressions represented by colonialism and imperialism are violent in nature and must be destroyed only by greater violence:

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

Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon explores the roles of violence, class, and political organization in the process of decolonization. Within a Marxist framework, Fanon theorizes and prophesizes the successes and failures of independence movements within colonized nations. He exalts the proletariat as a revolutionary class that is first to realize the necessity of violence in the removal of colonial regimes. Yet the accomplishment and disappointments of the proletariat are at the hand of men. Fanon neglects women in terms of the proletariat’s wishes and efforts. In spite of this exclusion, Fanon nonetheless develops a theory that could apply to the proletariat as a whole, women included. For although Fanon failed to acknowledge women’s

Written by Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth is an analysis of the psychology of the colonized and their path to liberation. In the book, Fanon analyzes the psychological effect of colonization has on the psyche of a nation as well as its broader suggestions for building a movement for decolonization. Fanon argues that violence in a controlled decolonization situation is okay and it serves in the creation of a national identity in a post-colonial state. He is saying that it is perfectly acceptable for a nation to use violence, if they need to, in order to gain their independence.

Although Fanon states that violence will always be a part of the decolonisation process, I do not believe that we should associate and include violence when standing up for what we believe in, as this may infringe on peoples human rights if one does not feel safe in a certain situation where violence is a prominent