2010
DOI: 10.1080/17449855.2010.482382
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards a critique of colonial violence: Fanon, Gandhi and the restoration of agency

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…31 For instance, Fanon saw the anti-colonial violence of the colonized as a means of self-affirmation, and therefore intrinsic to the making of the new human. Gandhi, on the other hand, saw non-violence as a mode of inventing the new human (Srivastava 2010). Others, such as Paul Gilroy (2000Gilroy ( , 2004, have sought a 'planetary humanism' by drawing upon Black thinkers such as W.E.B.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…31 For instance, Fanon saw the anti-colonial violence of the colonized as a means of self-affirmation, and therefore intrinsic to the making of the new human. Gandhi, on the other hand, saw non-violence as a mode of inventing the new human (Srivastava 2010). Others, such as Paul Gilroy (2000Gilroy ( , 2004, have sought a 'planetary humanism' by drawing upon Black thinkers such as W.E.B.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is a split that speaks of a tension among a people who agree on the need for freedom but disagree on the means. Srivastava (2010) describes this tension as the 'competing ethics of resistance' (P. 303). She adds, 'violence and nonviolence as responses to colonization are seen to be profoundly linked to the contrasting realities of decolonization' (Srivastava, 2010, p.303).…”
Section: Rationalization Of Violence In the Attackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rezaul Haque notes, the novel’s named characters who are allowed to speak through dialogue are disproportionately Brahmin, and the only Muslim representatives allowed in this national narrative are portrayed as antagonists and imperial collaborators (2011: 11). However, this does not negate the fact that the narration largely takes place in the first person plural, and the collective narration of events in Kanthapura becomes “progressively more inclusive”, as Neelam Srivastava argues (2010: 312).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The boundaries of this “we” become progressively more inclusive as barriers between “untouchables”, lower castes and higher castes of the village are broken down, and by the end of the novel the village is as one. (2010: 312)…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%