To speak of diversity or not

Both Sukarno and Cabral speak as if they are at the cusp of a great struggle; the possibility of breaking away from colonial control is nigh and what's important is the question of how they're going to approach the inevitable struggle against Western powers.

For Cabral, imperial domination is best understood by the fact that it is not just economic control and domination by a foreign power, it also involves domination of a country’s culture. Culture, to him, is not a set of values and beliefs but rather it is a result of (and hence, indicative of) “economic and political activities, the more or less dynamic expression of the relationships prevailing in that society. On one hand between man (considered individually or collectively) and nature, and on the other hand, between individuals”. In addition, he argues that culture is able to have a positive effect on the world around it “determines history through the positive or negative influence it exerts on the evolution of the interaction between man and his surroundings”. Hence, culture for him becomes a force so strong that colonial powers had no choice but to either reduce its power by creating divisions among indigenous peoples or destroying them entirely.

Most importantly, for Cabral, culture is a force that must specifically be mobilized in order to create “convergence of the levels of culture of the various social categories which can be deployed for the struggle, and to transform them into a single national cultural force which acts as the basis and the foundation of the armed struggle”

“Our national characters, or colors or motifs - call it what you will - are different”

Sukarno also mentions culture in his speech, but he conceptualizes it as a possible obstacle to the overall unity important to the fight against colonialism. “But what harm is in diversity, when there is unity in desire? This Conference is not to oppose each other, it” His speech only mentions culture in the context of avoiding the divisions that it could create. The divergence between Cabral and Sukarno is not in that Cabral does not recognize the dangers of multiple culture either, he does it to some extent - “The important thing also is not to waste time in some rather byzantine discussion on which African cultural values are specific or non-specific to Africa” - it is in how they imagine the path forward.

Both Cabral and Sukarno agree that the struggle against the colonialists involves both powers to some sort of consensus when it comes to their culture. Sukarno, for example, says that you need to “live and let live”. At first glance, Cabral’s suggestion seems similar – he too suggests a common ground between the different African cultures. Yet, there is a subtle difference between Sukarno and Cabral’s principles for struggle.

Cabral clearly states that imperial domination is not complete if there is a cultural force that is opposing it, hence there needs to be a cultural force present. However, this has to be a singular cultural force that is a composite of all the other cultural forces (“transform them into a single national cultural force which acts as the basis and the foundation of the armed struggle”). Hence, he says there needs to be a convergence and a selection between “secondary and primary’ cultural characteristics. Sukarno is completely different in that he avoids the possibility of a cultural confrontation completely - “to impress on the world that it is possible to live together, meet together, speak to each other, without losing one's individual identity”.

Ultimately, Sukarno and Cabral both start at the same point – unity because of cultural oppression – but they end on completely different notes – with Cabral seeking to forge a brand new singular cultural identity and Sukarno deliberately avoiding any sort of cultural convergence.