Violence In The Wretched Of The Earth

Can violence ever be justified? This is always a thorny question. During the peaceful era, the answer seems to be rather straightforward— in order to achieve the social harmony, no violence should be justified. However, when the situation complicates, it seems to be reckless to give such a simple reply. After reading Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth and watching the Battle of Algiers, I think, in the colonial context, it is justifiable for the colonized to use violence in pursuit of liberty for three reasons: first the colonial government is illegitimate from the very beginning of its establishment; second, the colonial government deprives the natives of their natural resources and violates both their natural and civil rights; third, …show more content…
In most cases, the colonizers just arbitrarily declare their “legitimacy” to govern the colony and maintain this “legitimacy” through the use of military terror, just as Frantz Fanon depicted in the Wretched of the Earth “[the colonized and the colonizer’s ] first confrontation is colored by violence and their cohabitation … continued at the point of the bayonet and under cannon fire”(Fanon, 2). The natives never get the chance to make any decision. They are forced and beaten into submission. In the case of Algeria, the French used similar method. It declared Algeria as its colony by stationing it’s troop in Sidi Ferruch and continued its governance by constantly garrisoning the colony (Tom cooper). During the governance of the French, there was no general will, for the governor decided to dismiss the native’s idea from the very beginning. Consequently, for the colonized people, the so called government is just a fake authority for two reasons: A. it is not formed by the native through a social compact, but by the foreigners through military forces, and B, it is maintained also by military terror. On the other hand, because the natives is so familiar with the idea of military power, they also become aggressive and more tend to use violence to solve problem. Hence, if we stand on the colonized people and the outsiders' perspectives, the natives indeed have the right to overthrow the government. However, from the colonizers' perspectives, "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end" (Mill, 8). The colonizers seem to regards their illegitimate government as warranted, and thus they are unwilling to just let the natives take over their governance. This irresolvable divergence between the colonized people and the colonizers worsens the situation-- it forebodes the