Fanon doesn't argue that decolonisation must end via the use of violence because it's his preferred position, he argues that violence is the only viable option left to the colonised in their struggle for liberation due to the colonisers intentionally closing off all other avenues to the colonised.
Violence is a legitimate form of resistance to colonization and oppression. Mandela launched an armed struggle that was legitimate, and ended it once those goals were accomplished.
Because no liberal at the time had an issue with Mandela’s methods of armed struggle.
Fanon seems to inspire something very different.
Once again, liberals love every revolution against oppressors, except for the current ones.
I think there’s a desperate need for a lot of them to justify their existence by making 21st century American life seem equally as oppressive as actual colonial regimes (Foucault is helpful in this regard).
My 19 year old cousin has been posting Fanon quotes in between "Glory to the Martyrs" of dead Hamas and Hezbollah fighters.
She has always been political, but reproductive rights and BLM were the main issues and with way less frequentcy. She has gone so far down the "violence is justified if you are oppressed" rabbit hole that I wouldn't even know where to start to get her de radicalized. Calling for the US and Israel to "fall" from Madison off campus student housing with no idea how much death and darkness that would be.
Tirthankar Roy is the closest you'll get to an Anti-Fanon
Yeah dude, famously non evil thing to do, try and find the easiest and simplest way to discredit one of the most important anticolonial figures in literary canon.