Amilcar Cabral - Identity and Dignity in The National Liberation Struggle
Amilcar Cabral - Identity and Dignity in The National Liberation Struggle
Vol. 19, No. 4, Lesotho, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau (Autumn, 1972), pp. 3947 Published by: Indiana University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4185262 . Accessed: 03/08/2012 15:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Africa Today.
http://www.jstor.org
The peoples' struggle for national liberation and independence from imperialist rule has become a driving force of progress for humanity. It undoubtedlyconstitutes one of the essential characteristics of contemporary history. An objective analysis of imperialism reveals that, with all its strain of prejudice, of pillage, of crime and of destructionof humanand culturalvalues, it was notjust a negative reality. The vast accumulation of capital in half a dozen countries of the northernhemisphere was the result of piracy, of the confiscation of the property of other peoples and of the ruthless exploitationof the workof these peoples, and led to the monopolization of colonies and to the division of the world under imperialist rule. But imperialist capital, constantly seeking to enlarge itself, increased the of the means capacity of man and broughtabouta total transformation of production,thanksto the rapidprogress of science and of techniques of technology.Thisaccentuatedthe poolingof labor and broughtabout the concentration of population. In the colonized countries, where colonizationand war blocked the historical processes of development or changed them radically in the name of progress, imperialist capital imposednew types of relationshipsuponindigenoussociety, making it more complex. It stirred up, fomented, poisoned, or resolved contradictionsand social conflicts. It introduced,togetherwith money and development of internal and external markets, new elements in the economy. It broughtabout the birthpangsof new nationsfrom peoples who were at different stages of historical development. It is not to defend imperialistdominationto recognize that it gave new nations to the world. It revealed new stages of developmentin humansociety and in spite of, or because of, the prejudice, discrimination, and crimes which it occasioned,it contributedto a deeper knowledgeof humanity as an entirety, as a unity in the complex diversity of its development.
Amilcar Cabral is the president of the PAIGC (Partido Africano da Independencia da Guinee e Cabo Verde). This address was delivered at Lincoln University on October 15, 1972, when he received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (honoris causa).
39
Imperialist rule brought about progressive, sometimes abrupt, confrontation between different men and different societies. Imperialist rule demandedand still demands knowledgeof the society it rules and of the historical reality, economic, social and cultural, in which it exists. This knowledgeis necessarily expressed in terms of comparisonwith the dominatingsubjects and with its own historical reality. Such knowledge is a necessity in imperialist rule, which results in the confrontation,mostly violent, between two identities dissimilar in their historical elements and antagonistic in their functions. The search for such knowledgecontributedto a general enrichment of humanandsocial knowledgein spite of the fact that it was onesided, subjective, and very often unjust. In fact, man has never shown as much interest in knowingother men and other societies as during the century of imperialist domination. An unprecedented mass of information,hypothesesand theories has been built up, notablyin the fields of history, ethnology, ethnography,sociology and culture concerning peoples under imperialist domination.The concepts of race, caste, ethnicity, tribe, nation, culture, identity, dignity and many others have commandedincreasing attentionfrom those who studied men and societies described as primitive or evolving. More recently, with the rise of liberationmovements, the need has arisen to analyze these societies in the light of the struggle they are waging and to decide the factors which launch or hold back this struggle. In this context culturehadspecial significance. Anyattempt to clarify the true role of culturein the developmentof an independenceor liberationmovement can contributeto the peoples' struggle against imperialistdomination. Herewe considerparticularlythe problemsof identityand dignity in the context of national liberation. The fact that independence movements are generally marked, even in their early stage, by an upsurge of cultural activity has led to the view that such movements are preceded by a cultural renaissance. Some even suggest that culture is one means of unifying a group, one weapon in the struggle for independence.From the experience of our own struggle and that of the whole of Africa, we consider that there is too limited, even a mistaken, idea of the vital role of culture in the development of the liberation movement. This arises from a false generalizationfrom a real but limited phenomenon foundat a particularlevel in the vertical structure of colonized societies - at the level of the elites of the colonialdiasporaor diasporas.This approachis unwareof, or ignores, the vital element of the problem,the indestructibleculturalresistance of the masses when confrontedwith foreign domination. Certainly imperialist dominationinvolves cultural oppression and attempts, either directly or indirectly, to do away with the most important element of the culture of the subject people. But the people are only able to create and develop the liberationmovementbecause they keep their culture alive despite the continualorganizedrepression of their
40
Amilcar Cabral
cultural life, continuingto resist culturally, even when their political and military resistance is destroyed. It is cultural resistance which at a given moment can take on new forms - political, economic, military - to fight foreign domination. With certain exceptions the period of colonization was not long enough, at least in Africa, for there to be a significant degree of damage to the most importantfacets of the culture and traditionsof the subject people. The colonial experience of Africa, genocide, racial oppression, and apartheid excepted, shows that the only socalled positive solution which the colonial power put forward to repudiate the subject peoples' cultural resistance was assimilation. But the failure to assimilate native populationsis the living proofof the falsehoodof this theoryand of the capacity of subject people to resist. The maximum numberof peopleassimilated in Guineawas .03percent of the total populationand this was after 500 years of civilizing influence and a half a century of "colonial peace." Where the overwhelming majority of the populationare indigenouspeople, the area occupied by the colonial power and the area of cultural influence is usually restricted to coastal strips and a few limited parts in the interior. Outsidethe capital and other urban centers this influence is almost nil. It only leaves its mark at the very top of the colonialsocial pyramid which created colonialism itself, influencing the indigenous petite bourgeoisie, and a very small number of urban workers. The masses in rural areas and the larger section of the urban population, over 99 per cent of the indigenous population, are untouched, or almost untouched, by the culture of the colonialpower. This is partly the result of the obscurantist character of imperialist domination. While despising and suppressing indigenous culture, it takes no interest in promoting culture for the masses who are the pool of manpowerfor forced labor and the main object of exploitation. It is also the result of the effectiveness of the cultural resistance of the people, who, subjected to political domination and colonial exploitation, find their own culture acts as a bulwarkin preserving their identity. Wherethe indigenous society has a vertical structure this defense of their cultural heritage is further strengthened by the colonialpowers'interest in protecting the influenceof the rulingclass, their allies. This argumentimplies that there is not any marked destructionof culture or traditioneither for the masses or for the indigenousruling classes - traditional chiefs, noble families, religious authorities. Repressed, persecuted, humiliated, betrayed by certain social groups who have compromised with the foreign power, culture took refuge in the villages, in the forests, and in the spirit of the victims of domination. Culture survives and through the liberation struggle
41
blossoms forth again. Thus the question of cultural renaissance does not arise and could not arise for the mass of these people for they are the repository of the culture and the only social sector who can preserve and built it up and make history. Thus, in Africa, at least, in discussing culturein the development of the liberation movement a distinction must be made between the masses who preserve their culture and the social groups, assimilated or partially so, who are cut off and culturally alienated. Even though the indigenous elites who emerged during colonizationstill pass on some element of the indigenousculture, yet they live materially and spiritually according to the foreign colonial culture. They identify themselves increasingly with this culture both in social behavior and values. In the course of two or three generations, a social class arises made up of civil servants, people employed in varied branches of the economy, especially commerce, professionalpeople, and a few urban and agricultural landowners. This indigenous petite bourgeoisie, emerging out of foreign dominationand indispensableto the system of colonialexploitation,stands midway between the masses and the local representatives of the foreign ruling class. Despite links with the masses and the traditionalchiefs, they aspire to a way of life similar if not identical to that of the foreign minority. They try to become integrated into this minority, often at the cost of family or ethnic ties and always at great personal cost. Yet despite apparent exceptions they do not succeed in overcoming the barriers thrown up by the system. They are prisonersof the social and cultural contraditionsof their lives. They cannot escape their role as a marginal class. The marginal character of this class both in their own country and in the diasporas in the territoryof the colonialpower is responsiblefor their socio-cultural conflicts played out according to material circumstances and level of acculturation but always on the individual level, never collectively. It is within the framework of this daily drama against the backgroundof the usually violent confrontation between the mass of the people and the ruling colonial class, that a feeling of bitterness, of frustration, is bredanddevelops. At the same time they are becoming more conscious of a need to question their marginal status and rediscover their identity. They turn to the people at the otherextreme of the social cultural conflict, the native masses. The problemof the returnto the sources seems more pressing the greater the isolation, as in the case of Africandiasporasestablishedin the colonial metropoles. It comes as no surprise that Pan-Africanism and Negritude - two pertinent expressions arising mainly from the assumption that all Black Africans have a cultural identity - were proposed outside Black Africa. More recently the Black Americans claim to an African identity is another proof, possibly a rather
42
Amilcar Cabral
desperate one, of the need for a returnto the sources, althoughclearly it is influencedby a new situation - the fact that a great majority of African people are now independent. But, the return to the source cannot in itself be an act of struggle against foreign domination, colonialist or racist. And it no longer necessarily means a return to traditions. It is a denial by the petite bourgeoisieof the pretendedsupremacy of the culture of the dominant power over that of the dominated people. The return to sources is therefore not a voluntary step but the only possible reply to the demand of concrete pressures, historically determined and enforced by the inescapable contradictionsbetween the colonized society and the colonialpower,between the masses of the people exploitedand the in the light of which each foreignexploitativeclasses - a contradiction social structureor indigenousclass must define its position. Whenthe return to the sources goes beyond the individualand is expressed in groupsor movements, the contradictionis transformedinto struggle, movementor secret or overt, and is a preludeto the pre-independence of the strugglefor liberationfrom the foreignyoke. So the returnto the sources is of no historicalimportanceunless it brings not only real involvementin the struggle for independencebut also completeand absoluteidentificationwith the hopes of the mass of the people who contest not only the foreign culturebut also the foreign dominationas a whole. Otherwise,the returnto the sources is nothing more than an attempt to find short-termbenefits, a kind of political opportunism. One must point out that the return to the sources, apparentor real, does not developat one time andin the same way in the heart of the indigenouspetite bourgeoisie.It is a slow process, broken up and uneven, whose development depends on the degree of acculturation of each individual, of the material circumstances of his life, of the forming of his ideas and his experiences as a social being. This unevenness is the basis of the split of the indigenous petit bourgeoisclass into three groups when confrontedwith the liberation movement - a minoritywhich clings to the dominantcolonialistclass and openly opposes the movement to protect its social position, a majority who are hesitant and indecisive and another minority who share in the buildingandleadershipof the liberationmovement. But the latter groupwhichplays a decisive role in the development of the pre-independencemovement does not truly identify with the masses of the people, with their culture and hopes, except through struggle; the scale of this identification depending upon the kind or methods of struggle, on the ideological basis of the movement and on
43
the level of moral and political awareness of each individual. Identification of a section of the indigenous petite bourgeoisie with the mass of the people has an essential prerequisite, that in the face of destructive action by imperialist dominationthe masses retain their identity separate and distinct from that of the colonial power. It is worthwhile,therefore, to decide in what circumstances this retention is possible, why, when, and at what levels of the dominatedsociety is raised the problem of the loss of identity and in consequence it becomes necessary to assert or to reassert, in the framework of the pre-independencemovement, a separate role and distinct identity from that of the colonial power. The identity of an individualor of a particulargroupof people is a bio-sociological factor outside the will of that individual or group, meaningful only when expressed in relation with other individualsor other groups. The dialectical character of identitylies in the fact that it identifies and distinguishes. Identity is not a constant precisely because the biological and sociological factors which define it are in constant change. Identity is always arbitrary and circumstantial, for defining it demands a selecting out more or less strictly of the biological and sociological characteristics of the being in question. In the definitionof identity the sociological factors are more determining than the biological ones. Clearly the identity of which one must take account at a given moment in the growth of a being, individual or collective, is the actual identity and oneness of that being. If it is reached only on the basis of his original biological identity it is incomplete, partial, and false, for it leaves out the decisive influence of social conditionson the content and form of identity. In the formation of individualor collective identity the social conditionis an objective agent arising from the economic, political, social and cultural aspects which are characteristic of the growth and history of the society in question. If one argues that the economic aspect is fundamental,one can assert that identity is an expression of an economic reality. This reality, whatever the geographicalcontext and the past development of the society, is definedby the level of productiveforces, that is to say, the relationship between man and nature, and by the means of production, that is to say, the relationship between man and the classes within this society. But, if one accepts that culture is a dynamic synthesis of the material and spiritual condition of the society and expresses a relationshipboth between man and nature, and between the different classes within society, one can assert that identity is at an individual and collective level and beyondthe economic conditionthe expression of a culture. This is why to recognize the identity of an individualor groupis above all to place that individualor groupin the frameworkof a culture.
44
Amilcar Cabral
The main propof culturein any society is the social structure.One can thereforeconcludethat the possibility of a given groupkeeping or losing its identity in the face of foreign domination depends on the extent of the destructionof its social structureand of the stress of that domination.One must look here at classic colonialism against which movementis contending. Whateverthe stage of the pre-independence historical developmentof the dominated society, the social structure can be subjected to the followingexperiences. First, total destruction mixed with immediate or gradual liquidationof the indigenouspeople and the replacement by a foreign people. Second, partial destruction with the settling of a more or less numerousforeignpopulation. Third, ostensible preservation brought about by the restriction of the indigenous people in geographical areas or special reserves and the massive influx of a foreign population.The fundamentallyhorizontal character of the Africansocial structure due to the profusionof ethnic groups means that cultural resistance and the degree of retention of identity are not uniform. So, even where ethnic groups have broadly succeeded in keeping their identity we observe that the most resistant groups are those which have had the most violent battles with colonial power during the period of effective occupationor those who because of their geographicallocation have had least contact with the foreign presence. Onemust point out that the attitude of the colonial power towards the ethnic groups creates an absolute contradiction.On one hand it must divide or keep divisionsin orderto rule andfor that reason favors separationif not conflict between ethnic groups. On the other hand, to try and keep the permanencyof its dominationit needs to destroy the social structure,cultureand, by implication, identity of these groups. Moreover,it must protect the ruling class of those groups which, like for example the Fula in ourcountry,have given decisive supportto the imperialist power duringcolonial conquest, a policy which favors the preservation of the identity of these groups. There are not usually important changes in respect of culture in the upright shape of the indigenous social pyramid or pyramids, groups or societies in a state. Each level or class keeps its identity linked with that of the group but separate from that of other social classes. Conversely,in the centers where the cultural influence of the colonial power is felt, the problem of identity is more complicated. Whilethe bottomand the top of the social pyramid, that is, the mass of the workingclass and the foreign dominantclass keep their identities, the middle level of this pyramid, that is to say the indigenouspetite bourgeoisie, culturally uprooted, alienated, or more or less assimilated, engage in a sociological battle in search of its identity.
45
When, at the initiative of a minority of the indigenous petite bourgeoisie allied with the indigenous masses the pre-independence movement is launched,the masses have no need to assert or reassert their identity which they have never confused nor would have known how to confusewith that of the colonial power. This need is felt only by the indigenouspetite bourgeoisiewhich finds itself obliged to take up a position in the struggle. However, the reassertion of identity distinct from that of the colonial power, is not achieved by the whole petite bourgeoisie. It is only a minority who do this. Another minority asserts, often in a violent manner, the identity of the foreign dominant class while the silent majority is trappedin indecision. Moreover,even when there is a reassertion of an identity distinct from that of the colonial power, therefore the same as that of the masses, it does not show itself in the same way everywhere. Onepart of the middle class minorityengaged in the pre-independencemovement uses the foreign cultural norms, calling on literature and art to express discovery of its identity rather than to draw on the theme of the hopes and sufferings of the masses. And precisely because they use the language and the speech of the colonialpowerthis minorityonly occasionally manage to influencethe masses, generally illiterate and familiar with other forms of artistic expression. This does not, however, remove the value of the contribution made by this petit bourgeois minority for it can at the same time influence a sector of the uprootedand an importantsector of public opinion in the colonial metropolis, notably the class of intellectuals. The other part of the lower middle class which from the start joins in the pre-independencemovement finds its share in the liberation struggle and integration with the masses the best means of expression of identity distinct from that of the colonial power. That is why identificationwith the masses and reassertion of identitycan be temporaryor definitive, apparentor real, in the light of the daily effort and sacrifice demanded by the struggle itself - a struggle which, while being an organized political expression of a cultureis also of necessity proof not only of identitybut also of dignity. In the process of colonial domination the masses, whatever the characteristic of the social structureof the groupto which they belong, do not stop resisting the colonial power. In the first phase, that of conquestcynically called pacification, they resist gun in hand foreign occupation.In the second phase, that of the golden age of triumphant colonialism, they offer passive resistance, almost silent but replete with many revolts, usually individual and once in a while collective. The revolt is particularlyin the field of work and taxes, even in social contacts with the representative, foreign or indigenous,of the colonial power. In the third phase, that of the liberation struggle, it is the
46
Amilcar Cabral
masses who provide the main strength which employs political or armed resistance to challenge and to destroy foreign domination. Sucha prolongedand varied resistance is possible only because, while keeping their culture and identity, the masses keep intact the sense of theirindividualor collective dignity, despite the horrors,humiliations, and brutalities to which they are often subjected. The assertion or reassertion by the indigenous petite bourgeoisie of i0ontity distant from that of the colonial power does not and could not bi `n about restorationof a sense of dignity to that class alone. In this context, the sense of dignity of the petit bourgeois ciasz dependson the objective moral and social feeling of each individualor his subjective attitudetowardsthe two poles of the colonial conflict between which he is forced to live out the daily drama of colonization. This drama is the more shattering to the extent to which the petite bourgeoisie in fulfilling its role is made to live alongside both the dominatingclass and the masses. Onone side the petite bourgeoisieis the victim of frequentif not daily humiliationby the foreigner and on the other side it is aware of the injustice to which the masses are subjected because of their resistance and spirit of rebellion. Hence arises the apparentparadox of struggle and colonial domination.It is from within the indigenous petite bourgeoisie, a social class which grows from colonialism itself, that arise the first important steps towardmobilizingand organizingthe masses for the struggle against the colonial power. The struggle reflects the grasp of a complete identity,generalizesand consolidatesthe sense of dignity, strengthens the developmentof political conscience, and derives from the culture or cultures of the masses in revolt one of its principalstrengths.
In conclusion,we wouldlike only to tell you that wp aie very glad to be here with you and that we are very honoredby the degree conferred on our people through myself by the University. We have a great task to do yet. Wehaven't finished the liberationof our country, butwe have liberatedmore than two-thirdsof the country. Weare now creating a new life in the countryand we are stronger than ever in this fight. But we have to finish totally with the Portuguese colonial presence in Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde Islands. We have the pleasure to announce that last week we finished the elections in all liberated regions of our country for the creation of our first national popular assembly. Maybe it is a coincidence but a very good coincidence that at this very moment you, our brothers and sisters of LincolnUniversity, decided to concede to our people this great honor which we received here in behalf of our people. Thankyou very much.
47