Did Frantz Fanon have many intellectual adherents to his philosophy of violence? It seems that after the glorious victory steeped in non-violence by Gandhi in India and South Africa in his lifetime, it would have made his justification for violence just an urge for revenge.

Colonialization seems to divide colonists into a variety of factions. The first division is those who favor the presence of the colonial power and those who oppose it. A second division occurs among the opponents. Some opponents advocate violent and others nonviolent means to rid the colony of the oppressive regime. Fanon's opposition could have been taken as an urge for revenge by both of the other factions--opponents advocating nonviolence and those who favored the regime. He served as a spokesperson for the third faction in different colonial settings--those who advocated violent overthrow of the colonial regime.