|
This text was originally delivered on February 20, 1970 as part of the Eduardo
Mondlane (1) Memorial Lecture Series at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, under the
auspices of The Program of Eastern African Studies. It was translated from the French by
Maureen Webster. When Goebbels, the brain behind Nazi propaganda, heard
culture being discussed, he brought out his revolver. That shows that the Nazis, who were
and are the most tragic expression of imperialism and of its thirst for domination--even
if they were all degenerates like Hitler, had a clear idea of the value of culture as a
factor of resistance to foreign domination. History teaches us that, in certain circumstances, it is very easy for the foreigner to
impose his domination on a people. But it also teaches us that, whatever may be the
material aspects of this domination, it can be maintained only by the permanent, organized
repression of the cultural life of the people concerned. Implantation of foreign
domination can be assured definitively only by physical liquidation of a significant part
of the dominated population. In fact, to take up arms to dominate a people is, above all, to take up arms to
destroy, or at least to neutralize, to paralyze, its cultural life. For, with a strong
indigenous cultural life, foreign domination cannot be sure of its perpetuation. At any
moment, depending on internal and external factors determining the evolution of the
society in question, cultural resistance (indestructible) may take on new forms
(political, economic, armed) in order fully to contest foreign domination. The ideal for foreign domination, whether imperialist or not, would be to choose: The first hypothesis implies genocide of the indigenous population and creates a void
which empties foreign domination of its content and its object: the dominated people. The
second hypothesis has not, until now, been confirmed by history. The broad experience of
mankind allows us to postulate that it has no practical viability: it is not possible to
harmonize the economic and political domination of a people, whatever may be the degree of
their social development, with the preservation of their cultural personality. In order to escape this choice--which may be called the dilemma of cultural
resistance--imperialist colonial domination has tried to create theories which, in fact,
are only gross formulations of racism, and which, in practice, are translated into a
permanent state of siege of the indigenous populations on the basis of racist dictatorship
(or democracy). This, for example, is the case with the so-called theory of progressive assimilation of
native populations, which turns out to be only a more or less violent attempt to deny the
culture of the people in question. The utter failure of this "theory,"
implemented in practice by several colonial powers, including Portugal, is the most
obvious proof of its lack of viability, if not of its inhuman character. It attains the
highest degree of absurdity in the Portuguese case, where Salazar affirmed that Africa
does not exist. This is also the case with the so-called theory of apartheid, created, applied and
developed on the basis of the economic and political domination of the people of Southern
Africa by a racist minority, with all the outrageous crimes against humanity which that
involves. The practice of apartheid takes the form of unrestrained exploitation of the
labor force of the African masses, incarcerated and repressed in the largest concentration
camp mankind has ever known. These practical examples give a measure of the drama of foreign imperialist domination
as it confronts the cultural reality of the dominated people. They also suggest the
strong, dependent and reciprocal relationships existing between the cultural situation and
the economic (and political) situation in the behavior of human societies. In fact,
culture is always in the life of a society (open or closed), the more or less conscious
result of the economic and political activities of that society, the more or less dynamic
expression of the kinds of relationships which prevail in that society, on the one hand
between man (considered individually or collectively) and nature, and, on the other hand,
among individuals, groups of individuals, social strata or classes. The value of culture as an element of resistance to foreign domination lies in the fact
that culture is the vigorous manifestation on the ideological or idealist plane of the
physical and historical reality of the society that is dominated or to be dominated.
Culture is simultaneously the fruit of a people’s history and a determinant of
history, by the positive or negative influence which it exerts on the evolution of
relationships between man and his environment, among men or groups of men within a
society, as well as among different societies. Ignorance of this fact may explain the
failure of several attempts at foreign domination--as well as the failure of some
international liberation movements. Let us examine the nature of national liberation. We shall consider this historical
phenomenon in its contemporary context, that is, national liberation in opposition to
imperialist domination. The latter is, as we know, distinct both in form and in content
from preceding types of foreign domination (tribal, military-aristocratic, feudal, and
capitalist domination in time free competition era). The principal characteristic, common to every kind of imperialist domination, is the
negation of the historical process of the dominated people by means of violently usurping
the free operation of the process of development of the productive forces. Now, in any
given society, the level of development of the productive forces and the system for social
utilization of these forces (the ownership system) determine the mode of production. In
our opinion, the mode of production whose contradictions are manifested with more or less
intensity through the class struggle, is the principal factor in the history of any human
group, the level of the productive forces being the true and permanent driving power of
history. For every society, for every group of people, considered as an evolving entity, the
level of the productive forces indicates the stage of development of the society and of
each of its components in relation to nature, its capacity to act or to react consciously
in relation to nature. It indicates and conditions the type of material relationships
(expressed objectively or subjectively) which exists among the various elements or groups
constituting the society in question. Relationships and types of relationships between man
and nature, between man and his environment. Relationships and type of relationships among
the individual or collective components of a society. To speak of these is to speak of
history, but it is also to speak of culture. Whatever may be the ideological or idealistic characteristics of cultural expression,
culture is an essential element of the history of a people. Culture is, perhaps, the
product of this history just as the flower is the product of a plant. Like history, or
because it is history, culture has as its material base the level of the productive forces
and the mode of production. Culture plunges its roots into the physical reality of the
environmental humus in which it develops, and it reflects the organic nature of the
society, which may be more or less influenced by external factors. History allows us to
know the nature and extent of the imbalance and conflicts (economic, political and social)
which characterize the evolution of a society; culture allows us to know the dynamic
syntheses which have been developed and established by social conscience to resolve these
conflicts at each stage of its evolution, in the search for survival and progress. Just as happens with the flower in a plant, in culture there lies the capacity (or the
responsibility) for forming and fertilizing the seedling which will assure the continuity
of history, at the same time assuring the prospects for evolution and progress of the
society in question. Thus it is understood that imperialist domination by denying the
historical development of the dominated people, necessarily also denies their cultural
development. It is also understood why imperialist domination, like all other foreign
domination for its own security, requires cultural oppression and the attempt at direct or
indirect liquidation of the essential elements of the culture of the dominated people. The study of the history of national liberation struggles shows that generally these
struggles are preceded by an increase in expression of culture, consolidated progressively
into a successful or unsuccessful attempt to affirm the cultural personality of the
dominated people, as a means of negating the oppressor culture. Whatever may be the
conditions of a people's political and social factors in practicing this domination, it is
generally within the culture that we find the seed of opposition, which leads to the
structuring and development of the liberation movement. In our opinion, the foundation for national liberation rests in the inalienable right
of every people to have their own history whatever formulations may be adopted at the
level of international law. The objective of national liberation, is therefore, to reclaim
the right, usurped by imperialist domination, namely: the liberation of the process of
development of national productive forces. Therefore, national liberation takes place
when, and only when, national productive forces are completely free of all kinds of
foreign domination. The liberation of productive forces and consequently the ability to
determine the mode of production most appropriate to the evolution of the liberated
people, necessarily opens up new prospects for the cultural development of the society in
question, by returning to that society all its capacity to create progress. A people who free themselves from foreign domination will be free culturally only if,
without complexes and without underestimating the importance of positive accretions from
the oppressor and other cultures, they return to the upward paths of their own culture,
which is nourished by the living reality of its environment, and which negates both
harmful influences and any kind of subjection to foreign culture. Thus, it may be seen
that if imperialist domination has the vital need to practice cultural oppression,
national liberation is necessarily an act of culture. On the basis of what has just been said, we may consider the national liberation
movement as the organized political expression of the culture of the people who are
undertaking the struggle. For this reason, those who lead the movement must have a clear
idea of the value of the culture in the framework of the struggle and must have a thorough
knowledge of the people's culture, whatever may be their level of economic development. In our time it is common to affirm that all peoples have a culture. The time is past
when, in an effort to perpetuate the domination of a people, culture was considered an
attribute of privileged peoples or nations, and when, out of either ignorance or malice,
culture was confused with technical power, if not with skin color or the shape of one's
eyes. The liberation movement, as representative and defender of the culture of the
people, must be conscious of the fact that, whatever may be the material conditions of the
society it represents, the society is the bearer and creator of culture. The liberation
movement must furthermore embody the mass character, the popular character of the
culture--which is not and never could be the privilege of one or of some sectors of the
society. In the thorough analysis of social structure which every liberation movement should be
capable of making in relation to the imperative of the struggle, the cultural
characteristics of each group in society have a place of prime importance. For, while the
culture has a mass character, it is not uniform, it is not equally developed in all
sectors of society. The attitude of each social group toward the liberation struggle is
dictated by its social group toward the liberation struggle is dictated by its economic
interests, but is also influenced profoundly by its culture. It may even be admitted that
these differences in cultural level explain differences in behavior toward the liberation
movement on the part of individuals who belong to the same socio-economic group. It is at
the point that culture reaches its full significance for each individual: understanding
and integration in to his environment, identification with fundamental problems and
aspirations of the society, acceptance of the possibility of change in the direction of
progress. In the specific conditions of our country--and we would say, of Africa--the horizontal
and vertical distribution of levels of culture is somewhat complex. In fact, from villages
to towns, from one ethnic group to another, from one age group to another, from the
peasant to the workman or to the indigenous intellectual who is more or less assimilated,
and, as we have said, even from individual to individual within the same social group, the
quantitative and qualitative level of culture varies significantly. It is of prime
importance for the liberation movement to take these facts into consideration. In societies with a horizontal social structure, such as the Balante, for example, the
distribution of cultural levels is more or less uniform, variations being linked uniquely
to characteristics of individuals or of age groups. On the other hand, in societies with a
vertical structure, such as the Fula, there are important variations from the top to the
bottom of the social pyramid. These differences in social structure illustrate once more
the close relationship between culture and economy, and also explain differences in the
general or sectoral behavior of these two ethnic groups in relation to the liberation
movement. It is true that the multiplicity of social and ethnic groups complicates the effort to
determine the role of culture in the liberation movement. But it is vital not to lose
sight of the decisive importance of the liberation struggle, even when class structure is
to appear to be in embryonic stages of development. The experience of colonial domination shows that, in the effort to perpetuate
exploitation, the colonizers not only creates a system to repress the cultural life of the
colonized people; he also provokes and develops the cultural alienation of a part of the
population, either by so-called assimilation of indigenous people, or by creating a social
gap between the indigenous elites and the popular masses. As a result of this process of
dividing or of deepening the divisions in the society, it happens that a considerable part
of the population, notably the urban or peasant petite bourgeoisie, assimilates the
colonizer's mentality, considers itself culturally superior to its own people and ignores
or looks down upon their cultural values. This situation, characteristic of the majority
of colonized intellectuals, is consolidated by increases in the social privileges of the
assimilated or alienated group with direct implications for the behavior of individuals in
this group in relation to the liberation movement. A reconversion of minds--of mental
set--is thus indispensable to the true integration of people into the liberation movement.
Such reconversion--re-Africanization, in our case--may take place before the struggle, but
it is completed only during the course of the struggle, through daily contact with the
popular masses in the communion of sacrifice required by the struggle. However, we must take into account the fact that, faced with the prospect of political
independence, the ambition and opportunism from which the liberation movement generally
suffers may bring into the struggle unconverted individuals. The latter, on the basis of
their level of schooling, their scientific or technical knowledge, but without losing any
of their social class biases, may attain the highest positions in the liberation movement.
Vigilance is thus indispensable on the cultural as well as the political plane. For, in
the liberation movement as elsewhere, all that glitters is not necessarily gold: political
leaders--even the most famous--may be culturally alienated people. But the social class
characteristics of the culture are even more discernible in the behavior of privileged
groups in rural areas, especially in the case of ethnic groups with a vertical social
structure, where, nevertheless, assimilation or cultural alienation influences are
non-existent or practically non-existent. This is the case, for example, with the Fula
ruling class. Under colonial domination, the political authority of this class
(traditional chiefs, noble families, religious leaders) is purely nominal, and the popular
masses know that true authority lies with an is acted upon by colonial administrators.
However, the ruling class preserves in essence its basic cultural authority over the
masses and this has very important political implications. Recognizing this reality, the colonizer who represses or inhibits significant cultural
activity on the part of the masses at the base of the social pyramid, strengthens and
protects the prestige and the cultural influence of the ruling class at the summit. The
colonizer installs chiefs who support him and who are to some degree accepted by the
masses; he gives these chiefs material privileges such as education for their eldest
children, creates chiefdoms where they did not exist before, develops cordial relations
with religious leaders, builds mosques, organizes journeys to Mecca, etc. And above all,
by means of the repressive organs of colonial administration, he guarantees economic and
social privileges to the ruling class in their relations with the masses. All this does
not make it impossible that, among these ruling classes, there may be individuals or
groups of individuals who join the liberation movement, although less frequently than in
the case of the assimilated "petite bourgeoisie." Several traditional and
religious leaders join the struggle at the very beginning or during its development,
making an enthusiastic contribution to the cause of liberation. But here again vigilance is indispensable: preserving deep down the cultural prejudices
of their class, individuals in this category generally see in the liberation movement the
only valid means, using the sacrifices of the masses, to eliminate colonial oppression of
their own class and to re-establish in this way their complete political and cultural
domination of the people. In the general framework of contesting colonial imperialist domination and in the
actual situation to which we refer, among the oppressor's most loyal allies are found some
high officials and intellectuals of the liberal professions, assimilated people, and also
a significant number of representatives of the ruling class from rural areas. This fact
gives some measure of the influence (positive or negative) of culture and cultural
prejudices in the problem of political choice when one is confronted with the liberation
movement. It also illustrates the limits of this influence and the supremacy of the class
factor in the behavior of the different social groups. The high official or the
assimilated intellectual, characterized by total cultural alienation, identifies himself
by political choice with the traditional or religious leader who has experienced no
significant foreign cultural influences. For these two categories of people place above all principles our demands of a cultural
nature--and against the aspirations of the people--their own economic and social
privileges, their own class interests. That is a truth which the liberation movement
cannot afford to ignore without risking betrayal of the economic, political, social and
cultural objectives of the struggle. Without minimizing the positive contribution which privileged classes may bring to the
struggle, the liberation movement must, on the cultural level just as on the political
level, base its action in popular culture, whatever may be the diversity of levels of
cultures in the country. The cultural combat against colonial domination--the first phase
of the liberation movement--can be planned efficiently only on the basis of the culture of
the rural and urban working masses, including the nationalist (revolutionary) "petite
bourgeoisie" who have been re-Africanized or who are ready for cultural reconversion.
Whatever may be the complexity of this basic cultural panorama, the liberation movement
must be capable of distinguishing within it the essential from the secondary, the positive
from the negative, the progressive from the reactionary in order to characterize the
master line which defines progressively a national culture. In order for culture to play the important role which falls to it in the framework of
the liberation movement, the movement must be able to preserve the positive cultural
values of every well defined social group, of every category, and to achieve the
confluence of these values in the service of the struggle, giving it a new dimension--the
national dimension. Confronted with such a necessity, the liberation struggle is, above
all, a struggle both for the preservation and survival of the cultural values of the
people and for the harmonization and development of these values within a national
framework. PAGE 48 3RD PARAGRAPH ENDNOTES: Amilcar Cabral Architect and undispited leader of the PAIGC & the national
liberation movement in Guinea-Bissau. In the early 1950s, Cabral was employed as an Agronomist. Using this position, he
went to every village in the entire country and from this direct observation, he came up
with an analysis and strategy for the national liberation movement. With others, he
founded the PAIGC in 1956, and in 1963 their full-blown military campaign to overthrown
Portuguese colonialism began. Within two years they had extensive liberated zones where
effectively they were in power. In 1971 Cabral argued for the creation of the National
People's Assembly, which was created in 1972 and based on popular vote in the liberated
territories. In January 1973, just months before the victory of the national liberation
struggle, Cabral was assassinated with the help of Portuguese agents operating within the
PAIGC. |
