Blog 3 - 20020247
Does Cabral's view on culture and national liberation align with Sukarno's ideas on Third World culture/liberation?
Cabral’s view on culture and national liberation in the post-colonial context can be best described as a strong counterforce to the colonial narrative. Essentially, culture and national identity for the post-colonial societies should come as a direct response to the colonial identities imposed on them. But where does this response come from? To Cabral, the culture or identity of the peoples of Africa specifically existed since before the imposition of colonial powers. That is to say, that the African peoples were not just another part of the Colonial Empire with very defined characteristics and personality traits. They did not exist primarily as sources of labor for the new world that the Colonial Powers looked to build but were the culmination of a centuries long quest for self-determination. Their cultures were powerful and had evolved as dynamic units meant to unite the people of Africa. That central unity and identity existed even before colonialism came in to divide them based on looks, or race, or practices (look no further than the Belgians presence in Rwanda for example, where they essentially reinforced the division between the Hutus and the Tutsis).
In comparison Sukarno’s ideas on Third World culture and liberation seem to emphasize the need to come up with a new identity, one that comes from the shared experience of colonialism.
“We are of many different nations, we are of many different social backgrounds and cultural patterns. Our ways of life are different. Our national characters, or colours or motifs - call it what you will - are different. Our racial stock is different, and even the colour of our skin is different. But what does that matter? Mankind is united or divided by considerations other than these. Conflict comes not from variety of skins, nor from variety of religion, but from variety of desires.“
The variety of desires he refers to here make it clear that the intention of the colonial powers was to make the Third World submit to them and that was their desire. For the Post-Colonial, newly emerging nations that Sukarno addresses at Bandung the new desire should be the pursuit of a new identity, one that recognizes that despite their differences, they should work together for the common goal of uplifting all those affected by colonialism and racism. The colonized nations face similar economic problems and social concerns, even if the exact issue might vary for example religious divisions in particular communities or sectarian divides in others, sometimes they may also be along racial lines. But more or less, despite the varying groups of people, their suffering under colonial powers have left them in a similar state of ‘underdevelopment’. The best way to deal with colonialism then would be, to flip the colonial influences on their head.
The arguments are similar in their calls for unity and serve as a rallying cry against colonialism. But they differ in their individual approaches to the question of identity. For Cabral, the identity has always existed and there is a need to go back to it. For Sukarno, the identities were eroded by the effects of colonialism and are very difficult to discern at this point in time. It is best to collectively unite as a global south and come up with a new identity to counter the divisions created by the Colonial identities.
Comments