We are in LUMS. The year is 2070. The best culture has won. Everyone speaks English, wears Gucci belts and blazers, carries apple mac books, and eats chicken sandwiches. There is harmony in everything. All the disciplines are the same. History is the history of the Culture. Literature are the stories of the Culture. Everything is from the lens of the Culture. SDSB trains you to be resourceful to the economy. The engineering school focuses on maximizing the utility of human body through science. Our motto is earnest creation of labor for the world’s market and economy. For the global good. It is only through standardized quality, technological advancement, and specialized labor that the doors of development and progress can be opened.
The Pakistan I was born was entrenched in chaos and anarchy. Angry men took to the streets, burnt tyres, destroyed automobiles and chanted slogans in the name of national liberation. The speeches that were aired on television comprised of sentiments that aimed to protect the Pakistani culture which, according to the men, was being replaced by the Western culture. I remember my first day of school. It was recess time. I was sitting in a circle with my class fellows, and eating lunch. Our teacher was called to the principal’s office. When she came back, she had an expression of frustration and weariness on her face. She grabbed us by our arms, and took us to the basement. We stayed there till dark. She told us that bad men were outside so as long as people stayed inside, they were safe. That day, a fear settled in. I grew up praying that the men would disappear from Earth. Why did they want to burn shops and hurt people? What did they want to preserve? Their idea of food and those weird clothes? What they frequently called “pakistaaniyat”? Why did they hurl abuses at English medium schools, western attire (my attire), office jobs and recreational life? Why did they warn the country to reject Western ideas or we would lose our freedom as a nation?
These questions remain unanswered till today. In what they rejected, I saw success. All successful men of the past that I studied about in school dressed up in pant suit, wore oxford boots, and carried laptop bags with them. My rich friends’ fathers also wore the same clothes, spoke the same language, and lived the same lifestyle. The country’s Prime Minister, President, and ministers were the same. These men lived a life of happiness, luxury and ease. They were always on a vacation in Europe or the States, ate European cuisine, played soccer and golf, and listened to American pop music. Young boys wanted to grow up to be just like them.
Standing in the PDC counter queue, I know what I will be having for dinner. There is no unnecessary city wars about food; about how the Kashmiri chaye isn’t authentic, or how the biryani tastes like pulao because Lahoris can’t differentiate between the two. I will watch a soccer match at the Student Lounge after dinner. There is no hustling due to a loud and charged crowd of students for a Karachi Kings versus Lahore Qalandars match. On the weekend, LUMS will host a rising singer with a British accent for a concert which I will attend. No one bats an eye about why Coke Studio’s renditions continue to destroy classic music, or how tabla and raag should be taught in schools. Everything is standardized. All people agree with each other. There are no arguments. No one feels the need to dress a certain way, or eat a certain cuisine, or speak a certain language for the purpose of identity, culture, or resistance. None of it matters, because everyone is the same. The world is a simple and harmonious place to live in.
As someone belonging to Guinea-Bissau, a Portuguese colony, Cabrals entire argument circulates around the importance of culture in the national liberation of Africa. He particularly stresses on the importance of the African culture and defuncts any misconceptions about the richness of it. According to him, the link between colonialism and culture of the colonised is particularly important for “the greater the differences between the culture of the oppressed people and that of the oppressor, the more possible such a victory becomes.” Cabral premises this argument on the basis of the African example and how their dense culture created an easier path for the Europeans to dominate, thus alluding to the in-depth African colonial crisis.
The question however, of Cabrals main argument, still remains. Does the highest form of imperialism really come from cultural domination, and how can this be reverted?
According to Cabral, culture is the main steering force in colonial and post-colonial societies. In the former, the coloniser “not only creates a whole system of repression of the cultural life of the people colonised, but also arouses and develops the cultural alienation of a section of the populace either by the so-called assimilation of the indigenous people or by the creation of a social abyss between an indigenous elite and the popular masses.” In case of the latter, Cabral suggests the colonised people to rid themselves of the western influence (in case of Africa) through a certain set of rules. “The liberation movement must base its program on profound knowledge of the culture of the people, and it must be able to appreciate the elements of this culture, giving to each its due weight, and also, appreciate the various aspects levels it has reached in each social category.”
Colonialism, now almost a benign term, has caused great tumult across the world, and hence, the question of decolonisation remains pertinent and ever-integral to the given debate. While from most places, colonisers have physically withdrawn leaving behind a lasting post-colonial influence, some parts of the world still suffer where its native people are continuously struggling in a call for decolonisation- all in an effort to rid themselves of the occupier, at least physically. The case of Palestine and Israel is one example.
This piece will be focused on looking at the Palestinian Liberation Struggle in light of what Cabral said years ago, and shall aim to see if it is still relevant or not.
The anachronistic debate of the creation of Israel remains at the heart of the given conflict, however for this piece it may be convenient to elude that the Israelis occupied the Palestinian land in early 1900s and since then, the natives have been struggling to reclaim their territories. After three Arab-Israeli wars and two dreadful intifadas, Palestinians still remain devoid of their homeland.
Cabral may argue that this dominance is mainly rooted in the polarised cultures of the two communities for the farther they are to each other, the easier it is to dominate. And if we look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this may well be true. Since Jews did not belong to one homogenous nation, they brought with them different cultures and traditions of different countries. The Ashkenazi Jews brought with them German and Western European tastes, while the Sephardics brought forward Spanish and North African ideas. Similarly the Mizrachis came from areas like Iraq and Yemen, bringing their culture. Eventually they all settled down in what we now know as Israel, and developed a new, seemigly homogenous, culture of what was to define an Israeli. For the most part, they lacked one coherent culture and hence, most possibly, their religious practices started overlapping with their cultural ones. The kippah (a Jewish cap) became the sign of an Israeli, while they also started incorporating “hummus and falafel” in their cuisines and claiming it to be purely Israeli.
This settler colonialism raised staggering questions of how this new culture was even being formed. However in the early years, the main focus, as Frantz Fanon puts it, was on decolonising through violence- an attempt that has clearly not worked so far.
If one needs to make sense of how deeply entrenched this Israeli settler colonialism still is, Cabral is unarguably the best at giving us a rational and relevant argument. It can be seen how the Israelis came in as different groups and ethnicities, took over the land, knit picked from the Palestinian culture and eventually formed their own brand of it in the new land. Many years have passed by and the Palestinians after having exhausted most systems of violence have now resorted to something more interesting – something Cabral seems to have suggested years ago. They are now, quite literally, using their Arab culture to wage a war against Israel in an effort to nationally liberate and decolonise themselves.
The Palestinians, now more than ever, are raising voices on things that seemingly don’t matter in such a long lasting and dreadful conflict. They are starting to call out the Israelis on the culture they have apparently stolen from the Arab land, and in effect, proving the point of Palestines existence as something that dates way before Israel itself. An example of this is something as simple as the whole idea of “hummus and falafel” being at the heart of Israeli cuisine.
Another example of Palestinians trying to gain national liberation is through their cultural dance “Dabkeh”. The dance, over the years, has become a prominent symbol of the struggle and even more so, the Palestinian identity. The dance has not only been performed in the bruised war zones of Gaza Strip as a symbol of the Palestinian spirit, but also across the world in different academic campuses, where the Arabs unite in a common cause for Palestine and send out messages of an impending national liberation. The dance, which was previously seen as a mere art form, is also now seen as a threat to Israelis and their identity and a way to further to Palestinian interest.
Lastly and most importantly, stands the Palestinian keffiyeh. The scarf, a seemingly plain piece of cloth, has now come to represent and embody the Palestinian nationalist struggle as a whole. It is worn by Palestinians and those who stand in solidarity with it, all across the world, and is celebrated as a symbol of pride that Palestine brings to them. A recent controversy cropped up by the American chain “Urban Outfitters” reasserts its power. The clothing line started selling the keffiyeh in stores across the US, calling it an “anti-war scarf”, and soon Jewish people rose up against its sale, eventually leading to the chain removing it. This incident in particular, reaffirms Cabrals argument on how central culture is in waging a war against the coloniser, and how impactful it can be. The keffiyah is now a common sight across the Gaza Strip into the worlds biggest airport and famous coffee shops. This suggests that while some maybe fighting an on-ground war in Palestine and Israel itself, this culture representation and struggle has made the cause a lot more common to those who are far and alien to it. Moreover, this also seems to internationalise the conflict and in effect, puts more pressure on Israel as though there is a new Yasser Arafat being born with every new keffiyah being worn.
Farah Abdel Jawad, a Palestinian carrying out a pro-Palestinian protest in the United States while wearing her keffiyah.
After reading Nkrumah and Nyerere’s stirring works, one
finds Cabral’s piece slightly less accessible. While his musings on culture and
its relevance are evocatively conveyed, but one can’t help noticing that his audience
is more exclusive than that of the other two leaders. He clearly distinguishes
between the two types of culture in prevalent in Africa. One is the African
culture itself and stresses its importance for national liberation by asserting
that ‘as with the flower in a plant, it
is in culture that you find the capacity (or responsibility) for the production
and the fertilizing of the seed which ensures the continuity of history’.
The second culture he alludes to is the one exported by the colonizers (the
Portuguese in his country’s case) and portrayed as one that is either
threatened by the natives or imposed upon the naïve elite. One notices that it
is these elites seem to be the targeted audience of Cabral’s paper. Rather than
addressing the children of Africa as a whole, like the previously mentioned
leaders did, Cabral talks to these men with black skin and white masks and
seems to be entrusting them with the responsibility to relieve Africa of her
pain.
It first becomes evident that this exposition is not meant
for a smaller audience after Cabral alludes to the two cultures that exist but
does not go into descriptions of either of these cultures. Rather he focuses on
‘culture’ itself and attempts to theorize it as both a driver of history and a
significant threat to a foreign invader and sums these two up by saying that ‘it is therefore seen that imperialist domination
being the negation of the true historical process of the oppressed people, it
must necessarily be the negation of its cultural processes’. He is aware that his readers are more
interested in cause and effect relationships rather than long descriptive
pieces about a culture they view as ‘primitive’. In fact, after distinguishing
between these types he talks about the native elite and hoe the colonizer ‘also arouses and develops the cultural
alienation of a section of the populace either by the so-called assimilation of
the indigenous people or by the creation of a social abyss between an
indigenous elite and the popular mass’. He out rightly says that these
people are not fit to lead liberation movements because of the cognitive divide
that exists between them and the natives, a claim that is bound to incite them.
This provocative claim begs the question; who is fit to lead freedom movements? He talks about how there are
developments to be made as far as African culture is concerned and that
mobilization is a trying task for them. Although it is absurd to suggest that
the colonizers organize liberation movements he does make sense when he talks
about the colonizers being able to exploit economic needs and local leaders
thirst for power. The fact that these desires exist within people from Portugal
as well as Africa means that they cannot be brushed under the carpet and it
makes more sense for people to acknowledge their existence and deal
accordingly. Technically, even the idea of national liberation is a western inspired
concept. Should it be abandoned on these grounds?
Cabral makes sure not to end on a bleak note. He proposes
that the leaders already chosen are the ones fit to rule because they have some
understanding of and appreciation for western logic, which is important if new
states are going to be members of the international arena. They will be able to
integrate with the indigenous population they are leading and learn about the
culture they were always taught to neglect. He maintains that culture is
essentially the driving force behind national liberation movements but it needs
to be fine-tuned where required as ‘culture,
like history is necessarily a dynamic, moving phenomenon’, and that these
particular natives may successfully do so. He doesn’t evoke a timeless past or
fantasize about Pan Africanism but he does give a certain (very capable)
segment of society hope that they can lead their nations and be forces of benevolence
for their country. Of course it is problematic to assume that only certain
people are capable of being leaders but one begins to think of how much this
really matters. Apart from making no suggestion to keep reproducing a single
class worthy of leadership, Cabral seems to be telling the people of liberation
movements that they have made a step in the right direction by choosing these
men as leaders and tells these leaders that they should use their privilege to
harness good and should aspire to be noble leaders.
One of the major tools European colonisers used to develop
and sustain their authority in Africa was the bifurcation of society into the
‘culturally superior’ elite and the ‘culturally inferior’ masses. Cabral
identifies the roots behind this division, and highlights the significance of
overcoming it for any liberation movement to be successful. In this piece, I
will be commenting on the importance of the “reconversion
of minds”, which Cabral also calls “re-africanisation”,
for a liberation movement, and whether or not this reconversion was permanent
or only existed for the purposes of independence.
Cabral points out that one of the major reasons colonizers
were able to dominate such a large number of people for such a long time was
the “creation of a social abyss between
an indigenous elite and the popular masses”. Mainly in urban (but
sometimes, also peasant) settings, this occurred when the petite bourgeoisie “assimilates the mentality of the coloniser,
considering themselves culturally superior to the people they belong to”.
The “colonized intellectuals”, as
Cabral refers to them, then had no motive to drive out the coloniser since they
felt no threat to what they now considered their own culture. In rural areas,
the coloniser “assures the political and
social privileges of the ruling class over the popular masses by means of the
repressive machinery of colonial administration”. By doing so, they were
able to heavily influence (perhaps even control) the elite group of society
with “cultural authority” over the
popular masses, therefore explaining why some European states were able to
maintain control over their colonies despite never having no more than a few
thousand of their own people there.
However large the apparent differences between the
assimilated elite and the popular masses may have seemed, “non-converted individuals…armed with their learning, their scientific
or technical knowledge, and without losing their class prejudices, could ascend
to the highest ranks of the liberation movement”. It is important to note,
however, their motives behind this involvement. Theses “non-converted people” considered this “the only viable means of succeeding in eliminating colonial oppression
of their own class and re-establishing the same complete political and cultural
domination over the people-and in the process exploiting to their own
advantage, the sacrifices of the people”. Therefore, the intentions behind
such individuals’ contribution towards the liberation movement were usually not
pure. This becomes evident at the time independence is achieved, when the
people who were previously victim to colonial dominance become victims to
dominance at the hands of their African rulers.
For Cabral, any liberation movement should aim for “a 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”. In order to do this, the
division between the elite and the popular masses, created (or widened) by
colonial powers, needs to be shattered. To say that this single national
cultural force still exists today would be inaccurate. Despite having gained
‘flag sovereignty’ decades before, many African nations continue to display
signs of the cultural divisions brought about and enlarged by their colonists.
Rwanda, for example, despite having officially gained independence in 1962,
continued to display signs of huge cultural division between the Tutsis and the
Hutus, which culminated in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. More recently,
scholars have highlighted how African elites and their contribution towards
neo-colonialism have carried on the persecution of the popular masses.
Therefore, if the dreams of Cabral, and many others like him, are to be
achieved, there is still a need for the reconversion of minds, for re-africanisation, and for the
convergence of different social cultures into a single united one.
Cabral in his piece on national liberation and its contextual link with culture presents a realistic outlook of the manipulative rule the foreign oppressors had imposed on the indigenous colonized populations since time.
What rather intrigues me however is the theoretical accuracy of Cabral’s apt description of the situational development that implicates itself in terms of the establishment of the colonizers rule, the subsequent rise of the national movement, its manipulation by the ‘petite bourgeoisie’ and the eventual unfavorable and oppressive result of this struggled liberation.
According to Cabral’s view, the ‘petite bourgeoisie’ is, in essence, the perfectly crafted byproduct of the assimilation of the culture of the colonizer and the colonized. Cabral believes that the colonizers manifest their rule in the indigenous colonized populations by consciously constructing this new ruling class that appears to be favorable to the masses but in actuality is a scapegoat to maintaining a pseudo-cultural rule. In other words, the colonizer assimilates himself in the culture of the oppressed masses by appointing friendly rulers who suffice the demands of the masses in all cultural domains.
Cabral then integrates the continuation of oppression even after the colonizer leaves by the hands of the petite bourgeoisie itself through a culturally manipulated form of national liberation. This small established class of intellectual elites, who themselves are culturally intertwined through absorption of the multiplicity of cultures that has previously remained in society, assume a leadership role in the liberation movement which is widely accepted by the village world or the peasantry. They turn the liberation movement into their favor to reestablish the same oppressive rule in a new outlook that is devoid of the replenishment of the culture for which the oppressed masses fought. In essence, these leaders rid the system of the complexities they alone face as a class and subsequently superimpose this oppressive form of mod-national liberation on the nation as a whole. The validity of this theoretical explanation can be judged by the fact that although this explanation is derived from the case of decolonization of Africa, it perfectly manifests itself on the British Raj and the eventual liberation of the subcontinent.
For the longest time, the British had established their rule in the subcontinent through puppet bodies that gave the people a false perception of shared power in the form of masqueraded bodies, for example, the princely states. Similarly, soon after the indigenous peoples of the subcontinent started to gain consciousness, they created puppet bodies such as the Congress which created a false form of shared governance in the eyes of the masses. Bodies such as Congress and Muslim League were in actuality coalitions of these very intellectual elites (the petite bourgeoisie) who interpretably, divided the subcontinent into two nations as a means of their personal idealistic struggles.
A specific perspective, in the context of Pakistan, to view the partition can be one of liberation for Muslims from the tyrannical rule of the British and the Hindus; however, the rich are still rich, the poor are still poor, and the minute petite bourgeoisie is more or less the same entity that still rules a country filled with underprivileged/oppressed masses.
In his essay ‘National Liberation and Culture’, Cabral places culture at the heart of Imperial domination but also considers it the key to the idea of national liberation. In Cabral’s view, cultural domination was essential to the imperialist’s mission since culture is the means of opposition to foreign domination. However, if repression of the native culture is what allowed the colonizers to take over, the recognition and reshaping of the native culture is what will allow national liberation.
Culture has its base in the means of production. It is rooted in material reality and is open to influence by exterior factors. Therefore, it is dynamic and constantly changing to adapt to historical circumstances and so for Cabral there is no notion of a pure, untainted, perfect African past/culture from pre-colonial times and the idea of harkening back to such a past/culture is a futile exercise. Rather, the current culture, rooted in the current material reality needs to be understood and redirected to serve as the basis for a nationalist struggle. Imperialist domination was actually a negation of the true historical process and therefore was the negation of the organic cultural process. By rejecting and standing against foreign rule which had hindered the organic process, national liberation movements were essentially acts of cultural resistance.
European cultural domination created a local elite alienated from the masses. They sought to become ‘civilized’, following and idealizing the colonizer’s ways and learning to look down upon the native culture and attempting to break away from it. This assimilated group of elites, leaders, rulers, intellectuals, professionals etc. served their European masters and would place their own class interests above everything else. Cabral recognized this and so explained that national liberation should be based on a profound understanding of all the various levels and elements of culture with the aim of bringing about a convergence of the various levels of culture. For this to happen, a reconversion of the mentalities of the assimilated elites was necessary in order to integrate them within the national struggle along with the integration of the leaders with the masses. The masses needed to break away from ethnic and social boundaries and progressively integrate with the larger national principles, rejecting principles and rituals not compatible with the rational national character of the struggle. Such a convergence was necessary to the formation of a national cultural force which would ultimately become the foundation of the armed struggle towards national liberation.
Liberation, characterized by democracy, popular participation, mass education etc., would then serve as a builder of culture with the objectives of developing a national culture grounded in the history of the nationalist struggle, raising political consciousness, developing patriotism, the spirit of progress through science and ultimately integration with the modern world. Therefore, culture is central to Cabral’s argument since it is the key to understanding European domination but also the key to national liberation and ultimately a progressive future.
“We shall see that the armed struggle is not only a cultural fact, but also a builder of culture.”
Hypothetically
speaking, there are two ways, according to Cabral, that a foreign or imperial
power can exert its dominance and establish its rule over a population. The
first is to practically liquidate that population entirely, thereby eliminating
any possibility of cultural resistance. The second is to neutralize the
dominated peoples’ culture, by integrating economic and political domination into
the existing framework of society, allowing both culture and foreign rule to
exist together. The latter of these two scenarios has never, in the history of foreign
domination, been observed to occur; the conclusion of this being, as Cabral
sees it, the complete incompatibility between culture and foreign domination. For
as long as a cultural life is allowed to be practiced, even if only within a
section of the populace, foreign rule cannot be sure of its continuation. It is
from culture that the struggle for national liberation is born. Men and women
of culture are hence ‘soldiers for freedom’, and culture is thus the weapon of
the dominated.
Cabral defines culture as the manifestation of the material and historical reality of a society, encompassing both the history of its people, as well as the history of the relationships between man and nature and between groups of men within a society. Cultural resistance is interpreted by most to be a rejection of the modern ideas introduced by foreign powers, and a desire to return to an idealized pre-colonial past. The same ideas are expressed by Gandhi in Hind Swaraj, and by Nyerere in his Essays on Socialism. However, Cabral sees liberation by cultural resistance in a more complex way. He believes that an essential part of liberation through culture is self-reflection. An absolute return to the past, without the liquidation of those ideas that hinder social progress, and without acknowledging the value and importance of certain aspects of modern thought, is the mark of a liberation movement that is doomed to fail. As Cabral very aptly puts it, ‘A nation which frees itself from foreign rule will only be culturally free if, …without underestimating the importance of positive contributions from the oppressors’ culture and of other cultures, it recaptures the commanding heights of its own culture… and equally rejects the harmful influences which any kind of subjection to foreign cultures involves.’
In a way, Cabral’s ideas on cultural liberation constitute a middle ground between Gandhi’s yearning for the traditional past and Kwame Nkrumah’s ambitions for assimilating modern technology and social progress. He argues that the war of liberation demands the efficient handling of modern technology and tools of war, an erasure of the remnants of tribal mentality, and the rejection of those social rules, such as nepotism, gerontocracy and the treatment of women as second-class citizens, which hinder the struggle. Cabral essentially saw progress and the development of culture as a vital part of the liberation struggle. In listing the objectives that every national liberation movement should seek to pursue, Cabral mentions the ‘development of a scientific culture, technical and technological, compatible with the demands of progress’ as one of them. The national liberation struggle is thus an act of enriching history and integrating the liberating society into the ever-changing ever-evolving modern world.
Cabral chose to end his speech by commemorating Eduardo Mondlane, the founding President of the Mozambican Liberation Front who was assassinated only a year prior to the delivery of this speech. Mondlane’s political activism is the manifestation of the ideas of cultural progress and liberation that Cabral presents in his speech. Praising him as being, most importantly, a ‘man of culture’, he further specifies, ‘Culture, not only that acquired in the course of his personal life… but principally amidst his people during the struggle for the liberation of his people.’
While culture is the mobilizing force behind all liberation movements; being the single collective agent, although variant among the different class groups within society, by which a population can unite itself, it is also at the same time, the direct product of the liberation movement. Progress, as Cabral sees it, is an essential product of the liberation struggle and if it is not achieved, the struggle will have ‘failed in its goals, and the people will have missed a chance to make progress in the general framework of history.’ He saw it as the responsibility of the people to nurture this development of culture- much like a mother is responsible for the nurturing of a child- in order for them to achieve real freedom. That is the ultimate goal of the liberation struggle.
Cabral argued that the repression of culture of the indigenous is what allowed for the sustenance of foreign rulers. The colonisers attempted to create the binary of the civilised and the barbarians and justified what Cabral referred to as racist dictatorship. They did so by pointing to cultural practices like sati in India or female genital mutilation in the colony in order to legitimise their superiority. Ironically, it is the coloniser that reified the tribes in Africa and communal or caste divisions in India.
Cabral recognized culture as the foundation of national liberation movements to overthrow foreign rulers. However, he warned against blind acceptance and glorification of cultures. It is his acknowledgment of the weaknesses of culture that is significant. While it is important to find pride in one’s culture it is equally as important to remain cognizant of how a single national culture’ that the national liberation movement is based on may repress other coexisting cultures. However, for the colonised to reclaim their culture and be proud of it has a disparate meaning than the colonisers pride in their culture. Colonialism created a deprivation that needed to be overcome and that required an assertion of African culture.
Cabral rightfully elaborated that culture is not a static or singular entity. He emphasised on the differential manifestation of culture according to economic and political situations, stressing on how culture is not isolated from society or nature but rather a product of social relations and tied to the means of production too.
There is an assimilation of culture where the local elite align themselves with the coloniser in return for certain privileges. Another means of doing this was the way local languages were undermined and the language of instruction in schools became English. Assimilation, thus becomes a tool to destroy local cultures and establish the superiority of the colonisers culture as the only legitimate mode of being. The complexes that the elite adopt in these positions of power become ingrained and linger about in post colonial societies.
This elite realigned itself with local culture as the overthrow of foreign rule became certain as the religious and intellectual elite have their own vested interests in joining and supporting national liberation movements. Previously, having discussed with their own cultures in attempts to assimilate with the colonisers, their opportunism is rooted in guarding their material privilege and selfishness. Although,few leaders like Gandhi did exist who did not attempt to assimilate with the colonisers, and protested through symbolic means like wearing the dhoti and carrying the charkha.
Cabral argues that the results of liberation struggle mean freedom for the people as they develop scientific culture, national culture and a universal culture and thus is at par with the rest of the modern world. There are other promises of the freedom struggle but many of them fail to materialise. As a result of being colonised, they have to develop other modes of being which are not theirs. Underlying Cabral’s speech, there is a view of progress and time, that is reflected through his use of in his analogy of plants and flowers growing from the soil to explain progress. The colonised world has gained freedom but in many ways they have not had the choice of growing differently or at their own pace. It is always perceived as a failure because the benchmark of progress is the coloniser. The way the culture of the colonised is depicted ‘under western eyes’ is still viewed as being backward, barbaric, and the resistance to such dominant discourses continues.
While speaking of national liberation, Cabral uses culture
to explore how ideas such as freedom, oppression and dominance can be sought
and manipulated. He examines the power
structures in place in colonial rule, both between the colonizers and colonized
and within the natives and what part culture can play to either enforce or
dismantle these relationships.
Cabral describes culture as something fluid that can be
altered or controlled. According to him,
the success of colonial powers depends on their ability to either crush the
culture of their native subjects, or manipulate it to their use. He views the local
culture as an extremely important force, as it is the driving factor behind the
movements that seek to oppose and overthrow the foreign rulers. The culture is
what unites and motivated the people, providing them the strength and
inclination to stand up against colonial rule, which is why it must be
disassembled as much as possible to ensure a successful reign. It can be
manipulated to control the local population as well, such as the example given
by Cabral of how Europeans ruled through chiefs and royals, using their already
existing influence in their societies. Thus, Cabral defines the local cultures
as weapons of both the oppressors and the oppressed.
Cabral also emphasizes on the importance of culture in terms
of how it contributes to the society. He defines a dual relationship between
the history and culture of the area, that is the past of the people of a particular
region is what shapes the culture. The culture provides a lens through which we
can view the past conflicts of our society, the struggles that have taken place
and how they have been overcome. It shows the evolution of the society. To know
and understand the culture of another region makes it easier to control, which
is why Cabral states that there is a greater chance of success in ruling over
people with a similar culture. Cabral speaks of it as one of the most important
tools in the struggle between dominance and freedom.
Sembene addresses himself to memory- the proposition, that is in line with post colonial discourse, evokes a sense of crisis, a crisis of the self, which has been attributed to the epistemic conquest that has been imperialism- to highlight, respectively, the systemic erosion of inherited modes of being, and what is fundamentally an ‘export of identity’ (Said). His starting point is the self, which, through his unique characterization of individuals argues against the colonial affliction of ‘depersonalization’. It is a marked attempt to rewrite the Senegalese in a different voice, distant from the conception of the African as a child and more in tune with the self-aware citizen who demands justice, because they can.
The personification of each character functions to represent them, whatever side of the strike they are on, as an active and therefore not a passive force. Sembene indiscriminately ascribes everyone: men, women and children, a sense of responsibility to themselves. The decision to step back from the production line is a conscious choice to endure the pain and humiliation of hunger; it is not just a gesture that intends to achieve greater benefits nor is it a call for peace, rather it is a demand that the white man see them for what they truly are, equal.
Through their suffering, the text communicates the complexity of their persons. While the men of Bamako, Thies and Dakar desert the factories, they reacquaint themselves with a life they were forced to forget. ‘Performing saber duels, abandoning themselves to the rhythms of Bambara dances and elaborately decorating themselves’, these men undergo a new kind of oppression, a new kind of loss. Not only do they yearn what they were denied but they also begin to mourn what they have denied for themselves, the machine. Here Sembene is alluding to a blindness, one that rendered invisible a force hitherto only detectable by the smoke from the savanna.
The station became a site of remembrance, a point from which they felt a possibility for a better life, to become better men. The deployment of the machine as their instrument of rebirth represents these individuals as the remarkable opposite of cogs in a machine. Through it they saw new beginnings because it ‘knows neither a language nor a race.’ They saw themselves as capable of fighting against what was predicted for them and the strike was only the beginning of it. Pushing themselves on the thought of ‘just one more month of hunger and the machines will be ours’, Sembene’s portrayal of self sacrifice through the strike is representative of a human spirit that is typically foreign to the imagined African body, and yet, here it is completely in sync with its host. Their ability to take what the white man likely intended as a means to reduce them to a mere function in a larger process of utility maximization, and deconstruct it into a device of hope and salvation speaks to the memory of the Senegalese as force to be reckoned with.
As they wait for the smoke of the savanna to rise above the trees, the distant sound of the train fades out the rumbling of their empty stomachs and …
“For a moment, the passage of the locomotive would calm the torment in their hearts, because their fellowship with the machine was deep and strong; stronger than the barriers which separated them from their employers, stronger even than the obstacle which until now had been insurmountable- the color of their skin.”
Decoloniality and Decolonization 