Blog 3- Sukarno and Cabral

Sukarno's speech details thoroughly his take on decolonisation and imperialism, and he mentions repeatedly that colonialism has not ended with the physical removal of a foreign entity. He focuses much on the other ways that colonialism still exists and dominates, and deeply resonates with the fact that the way to fight this imperialism is through the very diversity embodied by all Asian-Africans. He is addressing the Bandung Conference, and is talking of how the one thing that unites everyone there is the very fact that they are different.

He speaks of how "We are united, for instance, by a common detestation of colonialism in whatever form it appears. We are united by a common detestation of racialism. And we are united by a common determination to preserve and stabilise peace in the world". For Sukarno, one thing most essential is that everyone present at the conference and previously colonised was different, and it is exactly this difference of theirs which was targeted. It is this difference that was taken advantage of, and this difference that was made out to be something 'dirty'. Colonisation and imperialism was a mechanism that was predicated on the belief that one individual is superior to another, and this superiority comes from the belief that difference was unwanted. It is thus that he claims that through this very difference, the 'Third World' is now to fight back against those that made them "passive" and those that condemned them to the worst of conditions for so long. Sukarno's speech seems to hint that the very thing that was used against them during colonialism will now be used against the colonisers in their further fight for freedom

Sukarno does not explicitly mention culture or the ways in which it plays into the context of the Third-World but it is not difficult to infer that culture is one of the factors that underlie several of the claims he makes about fighting for independence and taking back what was once theirs. This is where we can tie in with Cabral, and see the similarity in how both of these men view culture, but also where they may have disagreed.

Cabral clearly mentions the significance of culture, and speaks of how without dominating the culture of a place and people, colonialism cannot be possible, and that it is "an essential element in the history of a people". By claiming so, he affirms that colonialism and total domination would be impossible without the domination of a culture since it is in this where the history of people lies-the very history that is erased and transformed during the process of colonialism.  It is also in culture that he sees resistance and the struggle for liberation-as when he writes "it is generally in culture that the seed of protest, leading to the emergence and development of the liberation movement, is found". However, the difference between what he and Sukarno speak of is that Cabral realises that culture cannot and is not homogenous. He is cognisant of the fact that culture is ever-changing, a "dynamic, moving phenomenon". He is also fully aware that one must take into account the disadvantages of accepting culture blindly, not taking into account the damage it can do.

It seems that Cabral would not be entirely convinced with the idea of a culture meant to invert dominant structures because in that there is no change, no liberation. He would not agree with the fact that the only way to liberate oneself if to invert these cultures, and the culture of domination. For him, it is also significant to know that it is not important in knowing what culture belongs to who as long as there is a mutual agreement that all cultures are born from humankind, but to see what will help a culture in liberating, and what will help a culture survive after the process of colonialism.
Sukarno and Cabral therefore agree on the significance of culture and that it is to be used for liberation, but maybe not in the ways that it is to be used.