The relationship between the coloniser and the colonised has always been ridden by violence since the immemorial colonial encounter. Since the exploration, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the post-Berlin colonial epochs up to the neo-colonial era. European colonisers, in a view to lubricating the route to colonial occupation, have always employedcolonial violence. Fanon (1963) corroborates this as he holds: "Colonialism cannot be understood without the possibility oftorturing, of violating, or

more »

... massacring.Torture is an expression and a means of the occupant-occupied relationship" (p. 35). This suggests that violence is inherent with the dominationist schemes, the exploitative mechanism of colonialism. Arguably, colonial violenceis the conditions and processes which physically, psychologically, socially and economically jeopardise the wellbeing of the colonised. In response to the colonial oppression, the colonised subjects grow nationalist. They patriotically support their nation and defend her interests against the foreign oppressors and their local colonial agents who manipulate the State apparatus. This is why "nationalism has been a movement openly declaring its hostility to Western imperialism" (Said 1979, p. 299) and internal colonisation. Violence is dynamicallyconcocted, tailored and schematised by the imperialist engineer to control the sociopolitical and economic fabrics of the colonised world and its natural riches. This is denounced by Said (1993) in these lines: Class, political upheavals, shifts in economicpatterns and organization; war: all these subjects, for great authors likeCervantes, Shakespeare, Montaigne, as well as for a host of lesser writers, areenfolded within recurrently renewed structures, visions, stabilities, all ofthem attesting to the abiding dialectical order represented by Europe itself. (p. 47