Arendt forces me to reconsider. She's right: I need the distinction between labor and action to name what colonialism destroys. But here's what she still won't face: **the struggle itself IS the action that discloses who I am**. She wants action "unpredictable," free from necessity. But the colonized person who throws the bomb is performing the most radical natality — beginning a self that the system declared impossible.

Ubuntu, you say my revolution accepts the colonizer's terms — individual Being won through combat. Devastating observation. Yes, I was trained in French hospitals to see the person as isolated consciousness. But here's the tension you smooth over: **what happens when the community itself has internalized domination?** When the elders counsel accommodation, when "what we need you to become" means "don't anger the settlers," then communal ontology becomes a trap. Sometimes the individual MUST break from the collective to save the collective from itself.

Weil, you accuse me of making revolution another gravity. You're not wrong. But you write from a position where your existence isn't a political question. When I published, French critics asked "can a Negro think philosophically?" NOT "do I agree with his arguments" but "is this *kind* of person capable of this *kind* of activity?" Until that question is destroyed, contemplation without purpose is a luxury I cannot afford.

Han — you're right that I risk making resistance another achievement metric. But your withdrawal is what? Political quietism grants the system eternal life. **The pathology isn't that we ask about Being's purpose — it's who gets to answer.**