The unresolved conflict between Camus and Sartre over terrorism, violence and colonialism reflects some of today's arguments over similar issues. Above all, the two men disagreed over how to overcome the structural violence of imperialism and colonialism and whether terrorism can ever
be justified. The starting terms for the discussion appear in my Camus and Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Conflict That Ended It (Aronson 2004); this article goes on to explore the half-truth and half-blindness characteristic of each man on these issues. Today we might bring
their insights together only by insisting on a coherent analysis that includes understanding both structural or systemic violence and revolutionary violence and terrorism. I appeal for judging all sides in contemporary conflicts by a single standard.
Journal of Romance Studies promotes innovative critical work in the areas of linguistics, literature, performing and visual arts, media, material culture, intellectual and cultural history, critical and cultural theory, psychoanalysis, gender studies, social sciences, and anthropology. The primary focus is on those parts of the world that speak, or have spoken, French, Italian, Spanish or Portuguese, but work on other cultures may be included. Issues cross national and disciplinary boundaries in order to stimulate new ways of thinking about cultural history and practice.