Blog 3: Sukarno and Cabral
Blog 3: Sukarno and Cabral
After reading both the assigned texts, one can conclude that both Sukarno and Cabral are more or less overlapping in the main points that they highlight. However, at the same time, I also believe that they both touch upon different aspects of the same problem. Both of them address the need to end the era of colonialism but whereas Sukarno emphasizes on unity between African and Asian nations against the colonial masters, Cabral highlights the important of culture and history in bringing about social change and that being the root cause of national liberation.
Sukarno's speech is enriched with references about strengthening ties between the countries which are part of the Conference. He believes in unity and togetherness and how both of these combined can prove to be the greatest resistance to the colonial masters. Expanding on this notion, Sukarno emphasizes on the importance of understanding the cultures, religions and politics of these nations so that when they understand each other well, it would be easier for them to act. In addition to this, Sukarno believes that peace and harmony can only prevail in the world once these nations (part of the conference he is addressing) capitalize on their core strengths and work together to eradicate the environment of discrimination and racism.
On the other hand, Cabral's entire piece is heavily geared towards the importance of culture in the colonial era. Cabral talks about how culture can be be perceived as the driving factor behind national liberation. This can be understood in terms of the actions of the colonial masters because according to Cabral, when colonizers invade a country, they often undermine or neglect the true understandings of the culture of the country they have colonized (Africa in this example). They not only develop but also internalize ethnocentrism and sooner or later they develop a great degree of superiority complex. This superiority complex trickles down in the petite bourgeoisie as well. But what eventually leads to national liberation is the desire of the natives and the local people to return back to their culture and to reinstate the importance of their culture. What makes this easier is the fact that the culture of the oppressed and that of the oppressor are different in nature and this gap between the two makes it easier for the oppressed to engage in a liberation movement because it gives them the final push to fight for their culture and end the rule of tyranny propagated by those who not only undermine but also demean the culture of the natives (Africans in this case).
So, I believe that whereby Cabral's entire focus is on the importance of culture and history in bringing about a movement of national liberation, Sukarno's perspective lies in the collective strength of the oppressed nations against the oppressed. So, overall, both are talking about resistance against the colonizers. Sukarno whereby in his speech does touch upon aspects of the importance of culture, Cabral's entire focus on the other hand is solely on culture and how we need to view it in terms of how it is impacted by colonization and then ultimately how it is the driving force against resisting the same colonial masters.
After reading both the assigned texts, one can conclude that both Sukarno and Cabral are more or less overlapping in the main points that they highlight. However, at the same time, I also believe that they both touch upon different aspects of the same problem. Both of them address the need to end the era of colonialism but whereas Sukarno emphasizes on unity between African and Asian nations against the colonial masters, Cabral highlights the important of culture and history in bringing about social change and that being the root cause of national liberation.
Sukarno's speech is enriched with references about strengthening ties between the countries which are part of the Conference. He believes in unity and togetherness and how both of these combined can prove to be the greatest resistance to the colonial masters. Expanding on this notion, Sukarno emphasizes on the importance of understanding the cultures, religions and politics of these nations so that when they understand each other well, it would be easier for them to act. In addition to this, Sukarno believes that peace and harmony can only prevail in the world once these nations (part of the conference he is addressing) capitalize on their core strengths and work together to eradicate the environment of discrimination and racism.
On the other hand, Cabral's entire piece is heavily geared towards the importance of culture in the colonial era. Cabral talks about how culture can be be perceived as the driving factor behind national liberation. This can be understood in terms of the actions of the colonial masters because according to Cabral, when colonizers invade a country, they often undermine or neglect the true understandings of the culture of the country they have colonized (Africa in this example). They not only develop but also internalize ethnocentrism and sooner or later they develop a great degree of superiority complex. This superiority complex trickles down in the petite bourgeoisie as well. But what eventually leads to national liberation is the desire of the natives and the local people to return back to their culture and to reinstate the importance of their culture. What makes this easier is the fact that the culture of the oppressed and that of the oppressor are different in nature and this gap between the two makes it easier for the oppressed to engage in a liberation movement because it gives them the final push to fight for their culture and end the rule of tyranny propagated by those who not only undermine but also demean the culture of the natives (Africans in this case).
So, I believe that whereby Cabral's entire focus is on the importance of culture and history in bringing about a movement of national liberation, Sukarno's perspective lies in the collective strength of the oppressed nations against the oppressed. So, overall, both are talking about resistance against the colonizers. Sukarno whereby in his speech does touch upon aspects of the importance of culture, Cabral's entire focus on the other hand is solely on culture and how we need to view it in terms of how it is impacted by colonization and then ultimately how it is the driving force against resisting the same colonial masters.
Comments