Violence is the first means and the last resort to pacify a people, and thus is something we need to continue to consider after the gunfire has ended.

Violence is used to suppress a people in a most blatantly crude way. We can historicize and contextualize it. We can analyze the Algerian situation, its history and so forth, and question whether that is anything like the situation we face today. But, this is only one way to understand why violence becomes so important.

Manicheanism is like a vacuum, it is an either or situation that curtails or destroys the development of liberatory thought.

Political change does not really lead to any fundamental change for most of the people, indeed because politics (even if it calls itself democratic) is elitist and barred to most people, so it is necessary to look to new movements outside of "politics."

The revolts themselves open up something very new. One has to be aware, or listen, or open one's mind to what are the new beginnings.

The only way that we can prove the relevance of Fanon in a certain way outside of some academic circles is to ask, do people involved in social struggles engage with Fanonian concepts and find something relevant for them, even if they have never heard of Fanon because Fanon is implicitly in the struggles?

Fifty years is the long time to think about a thinker's relevance or to think of the relevance of their work to a contemporary period.