It is Fanon’s belief that decolonization cannot end without the use of violence; that a simple gentleman’s agreement cannot ensure that decolonization actually occurs. This fact is because colonialism is entrenched within violence; the colonists took over land by violent means which means it must be taken back in the very same way. During colonialism there are two separate worlds: the colonized and the colonists. Fanon describes the colonists and colonized as two different “species” defined by race. The colonists are “the other”, whites from a different land that come to the land of the indigenous and colonize them. Each “species” is wildly different and unequal. They are purposely segregated with the colonists receiving better living conditions and the colonized are oppressed. The colonized are so oppressed that they would give anything to switch to the life of a colonist; they are envious of this life. Not only this but, the colonized are seen as “a burden” that the colonists must take on, to the colonists, they have no values or ethics and their culture and traditions are “evil”. The proposed answer to the colonized idiocy and evil is Christianity. To ensure that the oppressed stay as such the colonists take any act of resistance to colonization of these peoples as unreasonable and in need of further intervention. This book is shocking for its jarring ideas but honestly not as appealing to me as one may think. To be frank, it is not a new concept in this day in age that “decolonialism requires violence” because today there is just so much conflict around the world that is due to century old conflict. Compared to many of the other texts that I read for this course it is truly mild to what some of the other author’s proclaim. We are used to violence and seeing it in our daily lives. What does that say about our current state of life that a statement such as this is just slightly surprising?