The reading traces Gloria Anzaldúa’s experiences of existing entirely intersectionally. She exists in the borderlands of geography, culture and sexuality. She destroys or at least puts into question these categories into which people are forced to fit into. For her, having to be one thing or the other, compartmentalising into specific, “natural” categories and having to choose between very limited options is nothing less than cruelty. It reduces any possibility of other ways of being. Any identity which does not fit into the set categories and binaries is deemed abnormal and even deviant.

If an identity challenges the norm it is subhuman and nonhuman. Those living in these subversive categories (or borderlands) are constantly struggling to find ways to express themselves while also trying to come to terms with their own duality. They have to live every day as ostracised beings who do not belong while simultaneously being shunned and silenced for who they are. These people need to find ways to deal with their identities which punish them but also are their reality.

As part of the borderlands, she provides great insight into what methods they use to cope. One way in which she describes they do so is by creating a new language, Chicano Spanish. It is a means for them to make the borderlands comfortable and familiar. From her own experience, we can see how difficult it is to be living outside the binaries. She loves her culture and tries to embrace it completely but she is also aware of the toxic elements of it. She disassociates from those parts but does not try to immerse herself in the colonial culture. For doing so she is deemed a sellout by many of her own people. They try to silence her. But she breaks that silence. She believes that if going back to one’s own people is not an option because they do not accept your nonbinary identity (be it of any kind) then one must create a new home and try to keep it open to all, which is a beautiful way to encourage people on the borderlands to start anew, to find new beginnings when the familiar closes its doors on them.

Both C. L. R. James and Malcolm were revolutionaries of their time and in many ways similar in their goals. Before them, historical narrative was taken over by the white man. They began the practice of writing histories very different from what was the norm. They rewrote the singular, linear idea that the white man discovered the world and instead talked about how that world already existed and was inhabited by people of its own. The goal was to revise history, to mark different events as important and change where history begins from.

Both their writings analyse the intricacies of revolution and provide a very new take to them. C. L. R. James rejecting to view the Haitian revolution as a mere footnote of the French revolution was beyond revolutionary in his time. It challenges the widely accepted colonial notions. Rejecting the Western view and white supremacy was a remarkable feat. He wanted to allow the Africans to see themselves in a different light for once and to have the ability to create their own identity.

Whenever Malcolm X spoke his speeches also served as an alternative way to look at the world, a new take on history, much like James, through the experiences of the black people. He takes on a very assertive and reactionary approach pointing out political figures and criticising everything he believed to be wrong. He never held back. His speeches had a sense of urgency to invoke resistance within the African American community. He openly recognises the experiences of black people within America as separate from the widespread whitewashed narrative. He wants the Africans to form an identity of their own, separate from the American identity as their experiences diverge from those of the white Americans.

But both writers similarly talk about the creation of “Uncle Toms” who were complacent and never complained. These types of people were made the figureheads of the African community leading to a stagnation o their condition. Both of them wanted desperately to change this situation. They wanted to help the Africans realise their potential and to own up to their glorious pasts, the ones which were not written in the language of the West. They wanted to change who wrote history, how it was written and who deemed what events were of significance.

Negritude is not just another way to trace identity. It is an entirely new way of being, different from the imperialist’s dichotomised view of the world. It is the separation of the colonised from object-hood into personhood. The coloured people become something more than just what the white man defines them as. In a sense, negritude is thus reactionary. It is a rejection of the white man’s gaze.

Critics point out that in an attempt to reaffirm the black identity and package it differently negritude seems to take on racist undertones. Senghor highlights an African rhythm, one which links man back to nature and nature directly to god. He embraces nature as part of man, especially a part of the African man. Being one with nature is said to be an intrinsic part of the African, something which the European lacks. This view is starkly different from the European ideas which separate man from nature and focus on overpowering it instead of harmonizing with it.

Consequently, Senghor’s vision has come to be recognised as particularistic and the entire movement as very narrow. He emphasises going back to the shared African past in order to reaffirm their identity and to find their place in the world today. But questions arise regarding whose past he is referring to. Is he talking only to the Africans who still inhabit the ‘motherland’ or are the African diaspora part of the narrative? He creates a new humanism which is in stark opposition to the image of the European. But by asserting this he brings to mind questions again regarding whether this humanism can be a global humanism and if it isolates the African from the rest of the world. Senghor is creating a new black identity entirely in response and opposition to the white man.
The movement assumes one shared African past for all black people who inhabit the continent, regardless of their country, clan or tribe. For this reason, Fanon sees the movement as essentially playing into the narrative of the European. The colonisers painted over the differences between the African population through their policies and narratives ignoring the rich cultural diversity of the continent. Negritude is criticized for doing much the same.

This notion of the black identity is thus particularistic. In trying to create a new identity it becomes suffocating and stifles the opportunities for the African people. It essentializes the black identity into only one way of being.

But then the question remains as to what do the Africans do? How do they create a place for themselves in an entirely white space? There seems to be no correct way in which they may assert their identities and their personhood which is not prone to criticism. In a world dominated by Europeans and divided between the white and the coloured, it seems impossible to create an identity which is not based on difference. Colonisation has forever left the world to be divided into binaries of the European against the rest of the world. For this reason, Senghor’s contribution and negritude as a whole cannot be criticized too harshly. According to Fanon, the ideal would be to create individual identities not based on caste or race but such an idealistic world is far from reality. In the meanwhile identities based on difference and opposition are all the coloured can resolve to.

Western scholarly discourse is often embedded with the idea of the ‘other’. It is premised around and littered time and again with such binaries. In his essay, The Other Question. Difference, Discrimination and the Discourse of Colonialism, Homi Bhabha writes about the otherisation of the colonial subject through colonial writing and media projections. The expression of the ‘other’ takes a mixed form of fetish and anxiety with regard to the self across imperialist discourse. Mohanty provides a very similar analysis with regard to Western feminist discourse.

Western feminism paints the very broad picture of the colonised or the third world woman with the same brush. Through their writing, the discourse creates one homogenous victim in the name of the colonised woman who is similarly and equally oppressed by the men in their societies under the same pretences regardless of the context. Individual differences do not exist. Thousands of these women are deemed ignorant, illiterate and traditional. They are said to be unaware of their rights, which leads to two ways in which Western feminism is imperialist.

The first way is the definition of the other as primitive. Western feminism defines women in the third world as ignorant and unaware of their rights and potential as human beings. This way of writing leads to two things; it defines the self as the greater, more advanced being and puts the burden of saving the ignorant on the white feminist. If there is no ‘other’ the self also loses meaning. This is a significant characteristic of imperialist writing. Describing the third world as savage, primitive or backward automatically defines the self as more advanced and self-aware. This is what Bhabha also talks about, that such a practice creates a centre or norm against which the other is measured or judge, a standard of humanity which the people in the colony do not meet. And because these women in the colonies do not live a fulfilled life in the colonisers’ terms it becomes the duty of the white feminist to rescue them, to elevate their living standards and to provide them with the rights which have been snatched away from them by the patriarchy. The struggle which the Western women went through a couple of years prior to gain the same rights as men must be fought again, but this time on the behalf of the poor, ignorant third world woman. This is just another branch of the white man’s burden which was the struggle to civilise the uncivilised third world people, but one which is narrowly aimed only at saving the women. The attempt to “save” the third world woman is an entirely superficial one, as was the one to “save” colonised man. The process is never undertaken on the terms of the people being saved. Ideas about what their lives should be like are superimposed. The understanding is that the only correct way to exist is in the way the West exists. All other realities or ways of life are primitive, oppressive or unfulfilling. In a sense, this saving is much more for the sake of the Western feminist’s own peace of mind than for the betterment of the colonised woman (as is the case with all forms of imperialism).

The second way is related to the temporality of the colonised woman. By defining them as traditional, religious and backward Western feminism makes them static, bound to be in the past. The colonised subject is eternally fixed in the past as they have failed to reach the same heights of technological advancement and civilisation as the West. Since they have been unable to realise their full potential on their own, it becomes the responsibility of the Western feminist to “save” them. This is the same logic used by imperialists to invade the colonies and disrupt their way of life.

Thus Western feminism discussing the colonised, helpless third world woman is essentially nothing but another form of imperialism through an ideological discourse.

Cabral’s view of culture is rooted heavily in the means of production of a nation. If simplified the idea is as follows: if you can dominate a nation’s means of production you can destroy their culture which inevitably leads to the domination of the entire people. And this is exactly what colonizers do according Cabral. He believes there are a number of routes the dominating nation can take. They can either annihilate the people entirely so there is no culture left to be threatened by or they can reconcile their economic and political beliefs with the existing culture of the colonised. But neither of these two routes has been taken by the dominating people in an attempt to create a successful colony. The route that is always taken is one of total annihilation and overpowering of the nation’s culture.

But culture for him is not as simple to unfold. It is not only rooted in the economics of a nation but also within its politics and history. It is the fruit that forms through the years of struggle of a nation. It is the outcome of the entire historical process a people go through since the beginning of time. So it’s a twofold phenomenon. It is part of the present of the people rooted in their economic condition just as much as it is a part or product of their past. It is the essence of a nation’s existence.

If a population gives up their own values and beliefs to adopt those of the coloniser then we know that the coloniser has won. The dominators launch an ideological attack on those they want to overpower. The sad reality of the situation, Cabral points out, is that more often than not this strategy works. The great powers of the world had figured out that this course costs them much less than a physical attack would, but in turn costs the dominated every part of their identity. History teaches us that colonisers adopted a policy of ideological domination. They would work on deepening the existing rifts within the society they start to rule while also creating entirely new rifts in the process. The different parts of the nation which helped to move the culture of the country along now start to mistrust one another. There begins to form a sense of hatred for “the other”, while simultaneously an acceptance of intellectual inferiority of one’s own culture brews in their minds. Mostly a specific class starts to adopt Western values and mannerisms in an attempt to mimic their Western lords, to please them and gain favour from them. This idea slowly poisons the mind of people from all strata within the nation. An apt example would be the situation of the subcontinent (the gora complex). This belief still lingers on to this day. At this point the people willingly give up their own culture, let go of their identity to adopt an entirely new one making the job of the coloniser that much easier. The willing acceptance of the superiority of the white man is what led several nations to their doom.

According to Cabral due to the essential place of culture within a nation’s identity it is impossible for any national liberation movement to become successful or even begin without a step back towards the nation’s own roots. Any successful movement requires that the people embrace their culture fully and find guidance within. Culture helps bind people together around one final cause of freedom of their people from the oppression of the Western powers. Nations find cultural symbols and individuals who embody those symbols and values to rally the people around the cause. Many nations use their culture even after they gain liberation to keep individuals interested in the cause of the state and to keep nationalist feelings alive and burning within their hearts. They do it to find a direction to adopt after being given “a fresh start”, which is what Mobutu Sese Seko did exactly. It may not be the best path to adopt or even what Cabral meant when he talked about culture being the backbone of nationalist or liberation movements, but it the route many choose. Thus nationalism without culture is entirely impossible.

A striking characteristic of colonialism was conflict and division based on differences. These referred to variation and diversity among the colonised and the colonisers. The huge disparity between the powerless and powerful essentially did stem from differences such as those in their origins, cultures and even skin colours. But these conflicts were not confined only to this power dynamic but extended to the conflicts among the great powers of the world at the time. As Sukarno points out in his speech, up until that time difference was only seen as a threat. Europe had always used difference in any shape or form as a reason for conflict. But he firmly believed the opposite. He felt this was an idea entrenched in colonialism which had to be left in the past for the global south to be able to progress. He wanted to use the diversity among the Afro-Asian world to their advantage, to use it as a means of solidarity. He saw only strength in solidarity as long as there was unity in desire. What he wanted to offer to the world was a new form of humanism, very different from the European humanism of the day. He wanted to smash the outdated ideas of colonialism and set new standards of equality. This idea we see resonating even in Dada’s travelogue.

When Dada Amir Haider travelled to the Soviet Union he was a young man, disillusioned by the system in the United States and ready to change the world. One can notice from his travelogue that the thing he finds most profound is how the university he is attending has students enrolled from across the globe. He is taken aback by the diversity of the students as well as the instructors and brings attention to it time and time again. Living previously in either colonial or capitalist states the normalcy of several different races working together, residing together and helping each other out is a completely new phenomenon to the young revolutionary. It is clear that the double standards of equality within colonialism have been thrown out of this new system which is based on real equality.

This real equality, he observes, can only be achieved through education. The communist state embraced Lenin’s ideas regarding education as the only way forward:

Our task is to learn, learn and learn.

Lenin in 1918

Glory to the Soviet teacher

Dada internalised these words and took a deep interest in all that he was taught at the university. This idea was inculcated by the state in its citizens. It was made an essential part of their world view. The state, and all who were part of it, saw education as the only path to progress and as the building block to establishing a new world order. This can clearly be seen through the Soviet posters of the time as well. Several examples can be found praising teachers, mentors and in general the pursuit of education.

Attached above are two posters around the time Dada was living in the Soviet Union and could be some of the Soviet propaganda he came across. One depicts Lenin teaching a child while the other glorifies the educators of the country. Seeing Lenin, who was hailed as a hero of the time, involving himself in a child’s education puts the pursuit as a priority in the lives of the people of the USSR. Through other posters education was clearly shown as the path to take or the ride to hop onto for a brighter future, the best route to take in order to leave the old world order behind.

This intense focus on education also ties into the ideas of equality discussed earlier. Dada describes the Soviet educational institutes as accessible to all kinds of people. But this was not the case in the previous order. Education was only for the privileged and places like the university were never open to the general public. These changing state ideologies and values complemented each other transforming the face of the USSR entirely in contrast to its colonial counterparts across the globe.