From the beginning of decolonization movements almost a century ago to date, there exist a multiplicity of views on how ideas of culture and national liberation unfolded. Sukarno and Cabral are two important figures of the 20th century who contribute to our understanding of the intertwining of culture and liberation.
While both figures talk about the importance of unity, they do so through their own individualistic lenses. Cabral being a Marxist focuses more on the physical aspects of repression - through economic and political institutions. There is emphasis on how culture is expressed - as a product of economic structures and politics; sustained by material historicity. Taking forwards this linear trajectory, Cabral sees liberation taking place as a result of culture which for him eventually stem from these material notions of economic interest. At a later point in his speech, he emphasizes how colonial powers make subcultures within a culture to turn elite or the bourgeoisie against the common man, alienating one from the other while continuing their rule in perfect harmony. This aspect of Cabral's argument overlaps with Sukarno's views on how the colonizing powers play on the superficial differences that exist within society such as those of race, color, religion, or even political institutions.
Sukarno looks at liberation and the ideas of decolonization from a far more abstract lens. To be liberated is to subordinate everything for the well being of mankind with comes from morals and ethics. Colonialism, is not always or necessarily a physical force - neo colonialism in terms of technological advancement is us being unable to control our own creations. Liberation is a united independence. It is to be free of fear. Eventually, the only thing dividing us is desire. Skin tone and ethnicity and other components of culture are superficial differences that colonisers for centuries used to pit us against each other. The answer to liberation is not material taking up of arms, but a moral violence of nations for peace
While both figures talk about the importance of unity, they do so through their own individualistic lenses. Cabral being a Marxist focuses more on the physical aspects of repression - through economic and political institutions. There is emphasis on how culture is expressed - as a product of economic structures and politics; sustained by material historicity. Taking forwards this linear trajectory, Cabral sees liberation taking place as a result of culture which for him eventually stem from these material notions of economic interest. At a later point in his speech, he emphasizes how colonial powers make subcultures within a culture to turn elite or the bourgeoisie against the common man, alienating one from the other while continuing their rule in perfect harmony. This aspect of Cabral's argument overlaps with Sukarno's views on how the colonizing powers play on the superficial differences that exist within society such as those of race, color, religion, or even political institutions.
Sukarno looks at liberation and the ideas of decolonization from a far more abstract lens. To be liberated is to subordinate everything for the well being of mankind with comes from morals and ethics. Colonialism, is not always or necessarily a physical force - neo colonialism in terms of technological advancement is us being unable to control our own creations. Liberation is a united independence. It is to be free of fear. Eventually, the only thing dividing us is desire. Skin tone and ethnicity and other components of culture are superficial differences that colonisers for centuries used to pit us against each other. The answer to liberation is not material taking up of arms, but a moral violence of nations for peace
Comments