Postcolonialism and Frantz Fanon

I was writing a paper this morning (and last night) and I realized that even though I was typing what I knew to be a sound argument through my thesis, my personal beliefs were against it!

My argument was that Frantz Fanon was justified in his remarks in the section "On Violence", in his book Wretched of the Earth. My conclusion was that even though he was bed-ridden and dying a horrible and painful end via Leukemia, he had still suffered greatly during his life in the face of racism and prejudice, all the while fighting and bleeding for a country that repeatedly turned it's back on him and other non-whites.

I have a deep personal attitude concerning racism, but suffice to say I am against malignant bigotry. However, when it comes to colonialism I strongly believe, as in many other subjects relevant to the concept, that Darwinism is an integral part of all things. Only the fittest survive, and those with bigger guns and better armor generally are more fit to survive. This does not mean I condone in any way the slave trade or the ill treatment of POWs. I simply see where Fanon is coming from when he claims that the only legitimately appropriate reaction to impending colonizing is the eradication (by violence or removal) of said colonizers. The colonizers come with the intention of subjugating natives and stripmining the land of resources or maintaining a strategic position (as in the cases of Sierra Leone and perhaps Hawaii, respectively). What else can one do except fight to the death for one's freedom and home? For without freedom, are we not slaves to those who have taken it?