Intersectioanlity is being subject to a multiplicity of oppressions due to belonging to a certain race, gender, and sexual orientation and so on, which pushes people further into marginalization. It is when different identities layer over each other to create unique levels and modes of discrimination. This concept is heavily reliant of identity politics, which can be negative or positive. However, before debating that it is vital to understand the main thing which makes intersectionality productive.

As Crenshaw states in her paper as well as in her TED Talk is that intersectionality in its elementary sense allows the victims and affected people to name the problem. When she explains the cases such as DeGraffenreid vs. General Motors, she explains that the women struggled to name the problem that they were facing as so it was treated as there was no problem at all. This became the basis of the dismissal of the discrimination they said they had faced. Intersectionality then becomes productive in that it gives a term to the problem which is the first step to solving the issue. It expands the terms of comprehending oppression that does not fit into the conventional way of thinking. It takes into account the experiences of different groups and how various discriminations come together to marginalise them.

Intersectional politics, then definitely becomes productive by allowing the oppressed to express their marginalisation and the cause behind it. This leads to the process of enacting policies that help take them out of that oppression. The term brings such subjugation into the conventional understanding of oppression. It does bring with it the possibility of creating more binaries, of supporting essentialism but intersectional politics is necessary to shed light on unique experiences.

Further thinking about the productivity of intersectionality, it is necessary to have an insight into how identity is thought about. When identity is thought of as Judith Butler explains it to be: constructed, discursive and fluid, then identity politics becomes liberating in that it empowers. This form of identity politics causes intersectionality to be productive, one step further than just naming the problem. It causes a sense of ‘uniformity not unanimity.’ On the contrary, when identity is taken for granted and is reduced to essence through the view that identities are fixed and natural, the identity politics becomes divisive. This causes intersectionality to become restrictive. Identity politics in this way surrenders to the power structures that have produced these identities rather than giving the possibility to question those processes.

Is intersectional politics then productive? Yes, because it names the problem. However, the extent to which that productivity is taken is dependent upon whether identity is used to create a solidarity which includes diversity and liberates or whether identity is appropriated to exacerbate the differences.

Listening to all the songs in the playlist, immediately took me back to the speech ‘Unfulfilled Dreams’ by MLK. Every song talks of a struggle, whether it names it or not. The emotions that the songs evoke immediately make one think of the change that they strive towards. From the oldest songs such as ‘Strange Fruit ’and ‘Old man River’ to the point of ‘This is America’ and ‘We are here’ one sees the lasting struggle. Sam Cooke’s ‘A Change is Gonna Come’ walks you through the labour of this struggle. Even towards the end of the songs, even after questioning himself, he talks about how he will still carry on because the change is gonna come. This reminds one of MLK when he says that even throughout the reality that the dream might be left unfulfilled you go on. On the other hand the song ‘Old Man River’ talks about a person’s weariness in this long striving which compares it to the Mississippi river that it seems to continue. It continues till the present.

This is true as the struggle is still relevant, the content of the struggle might change but it is still there as shown by the songs of ‘This is America’ which focuses on gun violence and the reality of being black in the United States. Numerous other songs refer to racial profiling and one can understand the historical importance of black representation in the movies like ‘Black Panther’

This struggle has grown beyond that of the civil rights movement or for what MLK or Malcolm X stood for, this struggle is the one of freedom and peace that is defined by Ella baker in her speech. Ella baker explains how peace is not the absence of struggle but the presence of justice and a struggle for freedom that encompasses the whole mankind and so gives her reason as to why those were not the last stages of the struggle. In ‘We Are Here’ Alicia keys mentions Baghdad and Gaza as well, which shows that this effort for rights is not limited on terms of race or colour or nationality. It’s a horizontal solidarity which exists in Ella Baker’s definition of Freedom.

Hence, each of the songs and the artists take the unfulfilled dreams of the previous generation, build up on it and move forward in creating the ‘temple’ that Martin Luther King Jr. talks about, so that one day the change will come.

Negritude for Senghor, at first glance and through a basic understanding may seem to show itself as one which limits diversity and is always bogged down in the identity and uniqueness of the ‘African Personality’ that is inherently superior to the ‘White Personality’. It even seems as though Senghor is establishing a Dysonian victory over the Apollonian logic of the European world. His talk about the dichotomy of order and rhythm elevates the importance of ‘essence’ over ‘existence’ thereby, being in a stark contrast of Sartre’s concept of existentialism that ‘existence precedes essence,’ hence, the charge against Negritude of being ‘narcissistic’ and ‘an anti-racist racialism.’

However, approaching Senghor through Fanon and applying Fanon’s frustration of either typified as being this or that, of his race preceding him in how the world perceives him, Senghor has found his salvation in Negritude. Senghor is using the tools allowed to him by the European world in their talk of racial pride and logic and realism and is forced to immerse himself in the glory of being African and Black, even if it comes at the cost of dividing the world again in binaries, as that is one of the few options left available for him.

Nevertheless, Senghor does not negate Universalism; he time and again mentions ‘contribution to the humanism of the twentieth century.’ He mentions, ‘the living, throbbing unity of the universe…’ which showcases that he does not exactly see a world which is compartmentalised or one that needs to be, he goes to the extreme of particularism in order to showcase the reality of racism, but he comes back to the universal in the end.

Under the section of dialogue, Senghor discusses reciprocity, a reciprocity which is again understandable more effectively through Fanon where he says, “There is no Negro mission, no white burden,” there is only “demanding human behaviour from the other.” Hence, this reciprocity and dialogue displays itself in Senghor as well when he uses words such as ‘harmony’ in explaining a ‘Civilisation of the Universal’ one which is rooted in interdependence. Thus, delving deeper into Senghor’s conception of Negritude, one comes across universalism numerous times, even the smallest details in his choice of words such as single reality, life forces and wanting to knit a society together.

In the end, Negritude for Senghor is a conception of life whereby man, “transcends the contradictions of the elements and works towards making the life forces complementary to one another, in himself first of all, as Man, but also in the whole of human society.”

The history of colonialism and imperialism is plagued with conceptions of other-ization and elements of identification on the basis of ‘Us vs. Them.’ For the civilized, there is a need for the barbaric subject that legitimizes and gives substance to its civilization. The way that these competing forces are identified and defined is in relation to each other. Likewise, the first world woman needs the third world woman subject in order to distinguish herself as the ‘liberated’ western counterpart. This can be used to argue that First World Feminism can be seen as neo-imperialist in how it showcases the Third World Women.

Mohanty uses various examples of feminist literature that looks upon the third world women as a homogenous group, stripping it of any cultural, religious, economic or social context, which needs to be liberated. This has the trap of ‘freezing’ the women collectively as objects which only exist in relation to a counterpart, whether that counterpart is men or the first world women. They do not exist on their own terms with their own contexts of history and culture.  They are always the victims in the power relations with men and the only way they can escape is through their ‘westernization’ and ‘liberation’ something that has to be given to them even if it is against their will, just as the colonized native was to be civilized against its will. This ‘liberalization’ is not context specific but is a blanket effort for all third world women whether they’re from Africa, they’re Muslim, or Arab or even Vietnamese. This is eloquently put by Mohanty, “that Western feminism appropriate and “colonize” the fundamental complexities and conflicts which characterize the lives of women of different classes, religions, cultures, races and castes in these countries.”

Mohanty further explains that this discourse, ‘colonial’ in its nature “that sets up its own authorial subjects as the implicit referent, i.e., the yardstick by which to encode and represent cultural Others. It is in this move that power is exercised in discourse.” Hence, this discourse creates a dichotomy of power between the first world woman and the third world woman whereby both exist in relation to the other where the third world woman exists to validate the first world woman’s freedom and liberation. Thus, through Western Feminism, the first world woman represents herself in a black and white way, and expresses herself via the situation of the third world woman. If she is educated then the other is not, if she does not cover herself, then the other is veiled, if she has control of her own sexuality then the other does not.

Hence, first world feminism, through the power of its discourse has created an imperialist power over the third world woman. Sisterhood, as the feminism puts it, is not solely dependent upon biological similarities, “Beyond sisterhood there is still racism, colonialism and imperialism,” Mohanty.

Cabral’s speech talks about culture in the context of National Liberation Movements and how culture is an important element to be used against colonisation. Cabral can be thought of as a centre point in the spectrum of thought ranging from Nkrumah to Nyerere.  With Nyerere completely defying any effect of colonisation and advocating the possibility of going back to a glorified past such as like Gandhi whereas Nkrumah promotes modernity but Cabral has a nuanced view of how to work with modernity and culture against the colonisers. His speech is a sort of prescription for Liberation Movements as it directs on how to resist against culture domination by imperialists but he recognises that reconciling different sorts of cultures horizontally and vertically in a society is difficult and directs on how one should do that.

Cabral highlights the evolution of cultural and calls it, “fruit of a people’s history and a determinant of history.” He expands upon how colonisation interrupts the natural historical development of culture of a society and its intricate relationships. He also recognises and warns against the fact that something that looks cultural on the outside is not truly cultural but can be a misappropriation of culture as in the case of Mobutu. This is how colonisers have created cultural alienation and have created an abyss between the elites and the native masses which makes it difficult for the population to relate to the elites even when they are advocating for liberation as the common denominator of culture is missing. Thus, In order to use culture to the population’s advantage it is imperative to understand the different vertical and horizontal arrays of culture present on the scale of socio-economic differences. The Liberation movement has to reconcile these differences and then carve out a new evolved version of culture that is common among the population and that acts as a unifying force between the elites and the native masses and drives the liberation movement.

Isn’t Cabral through this prescription of ‘creating’ a new culture supporting cultural domination by the centre on the periphery? He recognises that populations can have vertical and horizontal differences in culture and hence to define a ‘national culture’ is to take the positive and progressive aspects from all different elements and construct them into one. Thus, the creation of a ‘national culture’ will then render all the other cultures as secondary and might even interrupt the development of those cultures individually?

Dada’s account of his educational stay in the USSR was a trans-formative experience in his life, one which ad the effect of ‘breaking him away from the old world’ and immersed him into a utopia which he could have only dreamed of before. Hence, is title of the chapter signifies the difference that he saw between the US and USSR. Inspired by the Soviet realism posters that were a form of media propaganda of the USSR, Dada’s account can be taken as a direct commentary on these posters and shows how he believed it to be true and how he followed in his life in the USSR.

In this poster, one sees a wide array of people from all races and colours coming together under the picture of Stalin who himself is a symbol of communism, this shows the world population equally marching towards the success of communism around the world and creating a global environment which is free and accepting of all innate differences.

Dada’s experience in the USSR gives words to this poster as he repeatedly mentions all foreigners exemplified there and his ability to form bonds with different people, bonds that he would always remember.

These ideas of unity and freedom further tie in with what Sukarno states in his Bandung speech many years later, albeit his lack of support for communism. He mentions the need to unite despite all differences and rise up against the colonisers in order to create a voice for them.

Another interesting fact about the poster is the Chinese flag right behind the one of Soviet Union, which goes along with the fact that the Chinese comrades present in Dada’s university had a separate cell for matters of education and military training and the communist belief that once china is taken over by communism then it would definitely be on its way to global reach.

These ideals and efforts towards a Utopian setting are seen to come alive and be materialised in Dada’s life in The Soviet Union which leads him to believe that there is truth to the poster and that this freedom can be attained.