Blog 3: Sukarno and Cabral

Cabral : "..Thus one sees that if imperialist domination necessarily practices cultural oppression, national liberation is necessarily an act of culture".

Sukarno: "We are often told,'colonialism is dead.' Let us not be deceived or even soothed by that."

In these two statements, we see the similarities in Cabral and Sukarno as they both appear wary of the effects of the colonizer that remain, regardless of the formal end of colonial rule in their countries. Independence in theory has been granted to Guinea-Bissau and Indonesia, but we see these leaders struggle with the remnants of colonial rule, not only tangible remnants but ones that seep into the lived experiences of people. This points towards how the colonizer privileges their ways of knowing and understanding over native ways of knowing and understanding, establishing in effect a regime of epistemological violence.

Both Sukarno and Cabral are aware of the damage the cultural domination of the colonizer has inflicted upon indigenous cultural values, sense of identity, belonging as well their feelings of intellectual and economic freedom. Cabral and Sukarno are also in agreement of the importance of preventing rise of exclusionary ideologies as a response to marginalization or exploitation. We see this in Sukarno's speech where he emphasizes that unity lies in common experience and desires, not for example the color of your skin. We also see this in Cabral's speech where he emphasizes upon the importance of liberation movements taking on a strictly popular character. They are both determined to not let the ills of racism and exclusionary politics characterize the new reality the seek to create.

However, beyond this shared colonial experience that connects the two, Cabral and Sukarno differ a great deal as Cabral sees moving forward from colonial domination as a cultural mission of reclaiming indigenous ways of life; "..a reconversion of minds-of mentalities, becomes indispensable to their integration with the national movement." Sukarno however, does not believe in such an individualistic, country specific approach and instead emphasizes on what the newly decolonized countries have in common as a unit instead of highlighting their distinctive cultures. He sees the Third World Liberation lying in a brotherhood of nations who are cognizant of their limits and conscious of their interdependence.

We can see these differences between Cabral and Sukarno and their different reactions to the experience of colonization. Sukarno wants to divert the energies of people towards moving forward from a past he acknowledges is traumatic and filled with hardship and grief but Cabral is more vocal about the suffering and humiliation people had to go through. He is bent on revealing the lack of inhumanity of the Portuguese colonizers whose intention to destroy local cultural and pride was such that there was an assertion by Salazar that Africa does not exist.

Hence, two leaders who are historically situated at the same time period, undergoing the same challenging process of decolonization do have some common sentiments that unite them. However, beyond that, Sukarno and Cabral have drawn their own interpretations of the effects of the experience of colonization and developed their own ways of collectively coping as new nations. The nascent states then take different routes where one emphasizes strength through unity and cooperation and bonding on an experience of domination, while the latter wants a reconfiguration of society along its own cultural values and standards as a necessary requisite for a meaningful independence.