In this podcast episode, we delve into the life and influence of Aimé Césaire, a pioneering intellectual from Martinique who played a pivotal role in the Negritude movement. This movement aimed to reclaim the cultural identity and values of Africans. We explore Césaire's political journey, which led to Martinique's decolonisation through departmentalisation, his critique of French imperialism, and his impact on other significant movements.
We grapple with the history of revolutionary movements, the enduring effects of colonialism on cultural identity, and the relevance of Afrocentric literature in today's society. We also examine the challenges faced by the Black Panthers, the history of segregation in the United States, and the influence of information and misinformation in our current climate. Challenging established narratives we examine the lasting impact of colonialism, the power dynamics that mould African culture, and the significance of embracing and highlighting our cultural identity.
Host:
Fungai Mutsiwa
Instagram: @ blackfor30
Co-host:
Sean Solole
BlackFor30 is a place for your voice to be heard. DM us your thoughts and questions @blackfor30 or via email at admin@blackfor30.com.
In this podcast episode, we delve into the life and influence of Aimé Césaire, a pioneering intellectual from Martinique who played a pivotal role in the Negritude movement. This movement aimed to reclaim the cultural identity and values of Africans. We explore Césaire's political journey, which led to Martinique's decolonisation through departmentalisation, his critique of French imperialism, and his impact on other significant movements.
We grapple with the history of revolutionary movements, the enduring effects of colonialism on cultural identity, and the relevance of Afrocentric literature in today's society. We also examine the challenges faced by the Black Panthers, the history of segregation in the United States, and the influence of information and misinformation in our current climate. Challenging established narratives we examine the lasting impact of colonialism, the power dynamics that mould African culture, and the significance of embracing and highlighting our cultural identity.
Host:
Fungai Mutsiwa
Instagram: @ blackfor30
Co-host:
Sean Solole
BlackFor30 is a place for your voice to be heard. DM us your thoughts and questions @blackfor30 or via email at admin@blackfor30.com.
Thank you for pressing play before we get into the show. As usual, just give those 15 seconds just to settle down if you're coming from work or whatever you've been doing, just so you can. I guess we can all focus before we get into this conversation and the 15 seconds starts now. Welcome to this movement of consciousness that is Black for 30. So tonight we're trying out a I mean, I say try now, but really we've kind of decided on this being a thing Black and Time which is basically a history series. So the idea will be to deep dive into certain figures within Black history who were influential or impactful for whatever reason. So basically like a buyer.
Speaker 1:So today's the first one, and we're talking about Aimee Césaire, who was an intellectual, politician, an activist, originally from Martinique, and he died at the age of 1994, I think it was. So his work, to a degree, was contradictory. Right, on one hand, as a poet, an author, he was instrumental in as far as the revolutionary movement called Negritude, and this movement basically helped unite French speaking intellectuals across the Caribbean and also some from the continent, and this is around the 1930s. And then, on the other hand, he followed a political path which led Martinique to go through decolonization by what they called Departmentalization, so basically where Martinique would remain a French colony to be integrated and afforded certain rights and privileges as French citizens. So he stood against the arrogance and paternalistic nature of the French in at least the French imperialists, in assuming cultural superiority. But he also advocated for the assimilation of Martinikians into French structures. So we'll talk about who he was through his work. And to do that we got none other than the co-host himself.
Speaker 2:So hello everybody, good to be back again. And let's get into Isim Gisim. He's like a very interesting, I guess, character in terms of how stinging his critique was, I guess, of that French colonial culture and yet he then, you know, is obviously fighting for acceptance in French culture. It's a bit of a. It's a bit of an interesting, I guess, contradiction there, because when you look at you know Japan-Africanist movements or any other sort of Black liberation movement and the main thing is it's us or else right. But for him he was very skating of, like the French structure In Mosey's work called the book that he wrote the Native.
Speaker 1:The Memoir of the Irish. Return to the Native Land?
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, so he I mean, it was this collection, basically he wrote it almost in like poem form, right, and he attacks every bit of French culture, the bourgeoisie, that you know the entire thing from top to bottom, with such cleverness, right. He even compares colonialism to Nazism, which I think was, I guess, well not compares it too. He pretty much is saying that French, like basically any sort of colonial structure, is or Nazism is, you know, a byproduct of these colonial ideals. It's similar.
Speaker 2:They've just yeah, you've just been preaching the same thing about, you know, white power, white superiority. It had to come to a head somehow, I think. So someone just took that idea and ran with it and became a little overzealous. So the problem was he then did it to other Europeans. That's when they had the issue. That's basically what he was. What he was saying.
Speaker 1:And you know the. So initially when, when I started reading up on him, right, I didn't understand it, like in the sense I to to what you mentioned before, right, because most people you'd find there either or right, whereas he was in the middle. But equally though, as I was learning more about his works in the different avenues, I did get to appreciate and at least understand from his perspective why he was sort of, you know, playing on both sides right. So I guess, to give a bit of context to people in as far as, because obviously his biggest piece of work is the, the Negritude movement, right, which also is inspired by his collection of poems that would turn to, to my native land, right, so that so the, the, the Negritude name in itself came from the, the book. I think it was in one of his actual poems that where he, he sort of coined that term, right, and he was like an anti. The book itself is like an anti-colonial movement, sorry, negritude is it's an anti-colonial movement, right, and he founded it together with Leo Paul Sengor, yeah, yeah, and then, but the three main characters is, so there's him and then there's Leon Damos and then there's Leo Paul Sengor, I think, right, and the movement began amongst the French-speaking African and Caribbean writers, and they essentially intended to protest French colonial rule and reclaim the cultural identity and values of Africans.
Speaker 1:Right, um, part of the movement was actually influenced by the Harlem Renaissance, which which, when you look at history, you kind of see.
Speaker 1:That's how a lot of these movements are, right, one is birthed because of another, and one of the key things I do appreciate about the movement is how he didn't want to overly theorize it. So, above all, for him it was about the, the black consciousness, right, and because around then, at least in the caribbeans, black blacks had developed this inferiority complex. So you know, they were continually having to search for their identity, to understand who they are and and try to go back to their cultural roots, so to speak. So, so you know, how is it that we memorialize all of these events? Right and respectfully so? Um, yet, categorically, most have never actually achieved their goals, right, like they seem to all come and go, which makes me question, like I've late, specifically, what are we missing? Because we've had so many, so many revolutions across the years and in different locations, right, by black people. Some have been successful, um, to a degree, and others haven't, but ultimately, all have been trying to achieve the same thing.
Speaker 2:Yet here we still are, in 2023 well, look at it, I don't think that, um, some of these are trying to achieve the same thing. I think there's a very clear difference between the negritude movement of of Césaire and, and let's say, the pan-African movement, pan-africanist movement of Marcus Carvey.
Speaker 2:For one, they both came from the Caribbean, right, but one came from a French colony, the other one from a British colony. Um, and that like just off of studying Césaire's life. It doesn't seem like at any point in time he was ever or one he never visited.
Speaker 2:Africa, which is an interesting, I guess, tidbit in and of itself, or in the very least he never had a meaningful visit there, if he did in fact go. I haven't read anything that is suggested out otherwise, but it doesn't seem like he was partial to any sort of movement and or mentioned any other sort of African leaders or any sort of influences outside of the Francophile countries. Right, like he's, his movement is. It's it's it's a soft movement, I think I can call it. He's very much a respectful, like he's an intellect. He's not a, he's not revolutionary. I think he was just more of trying to get his feelings out about where he grew up.
Speaker 2:So obviously in Martinique. You know, looking the way you're looking, I don't think he or any sort of um black people in that area got the same sort of treatment as, let's say, north Africans did, or or any of the of the people in those Francophile countries, your Mali's, your Guineas and so on. I think that experience is vastly different, because Césaire's rebellion, if you want to call it that more or less, is just an attack on society he's not upset at. You know how the French have treated other black people elsewhere. He never really talks about that, he just talks about French society and how it affects him and he's growing up and how black people where he's from are treated. It seems very localized. I feel like that's why he didn't really do much outside of good France to get an education, to come back to Martinique and just sort of lead this little soft movement um, um.
Speaker 1:So I agree with you and I see where you're coming from. So, like the, I guess maybe what's that's, it's a reframe that, like Pan-Africanism, is more of a I guess global, so to speak, right, whereas his to what you're saying is more localized. What I was questioning is that, whether it's something that's localized or something that's as global as Pan-Africanism. Neither of them have, I have achieved what they set out to, because the overarching goal for either right, for, for, for Césaire, would have been for the freedom of black people in the, those French islands, right, the French colonies, yeah, which was never really achieved. Um, and then you look at Pan-Africanism is the same thing. You look at the, um, well, the, I guess the, the Harlem Renaissance would be slightly different, because I, you can say you did to to some degree, right your black dancers, yeah so for me.
Speaker 1:So for me, what? What just makes me curious? Right, he's like obviously I do understand that there's external factors and internal factors that account for where we are today, right, and so my interest is not necessarily the external factors, because I think those are commonly known, right, and, and we tend to discuss those a lot. What makes me curious is, as black people where are, like, where are we failing to, to the point where we keep having, you know, different movements, different revolutionary movements and cultural shifts come through, but then none that ever truly deliver on on the ultimate goal?
Speaker 1:For me, I think it's something to do with leadership, like, I think that we've had, and still have, great leaders in different spaces, right, um, yeah, however, I don't believe that it trickles down to the lowest denominator, because look look at Panthers, for example. Right, panthers had the same thing, where the Panthers was dope as fuck, but once they took out the leaders, it, it fell apart because a lot of people didn't quite understand the, the, the long-term goal, um, of what Panthers was about, right, and it made it easy to dismantle. And I think if you look across history and you look at the different movements that have happened as well, it's almost like a similar pattern and even if it's not a movement and it's just a country, right, because if you look at you know how, you know we've had, just to name a few, you know sankara, we, we've had, I don't know, tonggogara, like this, there's just been so many people, right, but then it just drops off and then there's no one else to pick it up.
Speaker 1:But you know the common denominator about all those people that you just described is. That's also a good point.
Speaker 2:Look, that's the simple explanation that what you do is you cut the head of the snake and you know if someone is influential as that can be killed.
Speaker 2:The people at the bottom are like well, what about me? That's, that's a no-brainer, right. It's a very good and quick way to show people that this is what happens to you when you're inspired to something. Now, the issue here is that most of these movements are very much in the infancy. Right, the Panthers was still new, like they, you know, bobby seal, fred Hampton they were young. They were in the early 20s yeah, if not anywhere between 18 to 21,. That's, that's how old they were. And of course, they only drummed up the support of the younger kids, because the black Panthers was basically what Malcolm X wanted, but from everyone else it was just the younger children, or the younger generation, had gotten sick of the mistreatment, so they grew up, you know, in segregation and things like that. And Um, they at that time they wanted to.
Speaker 1:What did you say?
Speaker 2:Brother, I'm dying, I still have like a sword Ah yeah, and it's been dragging on unnecessarily and it's fucking with me, but I was like If I didn't do it now, I'll fucking want to do it for a while. So so there might be a few of these interruptions Anyway.
Speaker 1:Where was I? I said no, I lost my train, so it's all right, it's all right, hang on, I'll get it back. Can I say what we have was the black Panthers and how you know what the Panthers was was basically what Malcolm would have wanted.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what he was after. Yeah, yeah, all right, good, good to go, yeah, all right. So what we had was this group of just. It was basically there were almost like rebelling teenagers, but obviously you know the fundamental reasons, you know our fire and why, far and away you know deeper and more important, I guess, if you look at it from that perspective. So they were basically like enough enough.
Speaker 2:But Again, the best way to kill something else is in, is in its infancy, right before he takes hold. So if at some point the Panthers could have galvanized the old and the young, they would have had quite the movement. But that's what you see with every other movement. Malcolm X was murdered for the same thing. Just before you gain traction, you stop him in his tracks.
Speaker 2:What we're coming up against is a very organized social machine that was just feeding off of hundreds of years of just the same ideology. Now that is a lot to want to undo, because If you start it from day one and then you convince everyone or the majority, obviously that that's you know. White supremacy is the thing. It's going to be a very hard thing to undo later on and they will do anything in their power to keep it going. So look at the institutions, look at the policing, look at, you know, the schools. The disparity is there because it was there from the start. They never hit it.
Speaker 2:So the issue is, what you're trying to do is undo things that were taught to your grandparents, your great grandparents, and so on and so forth, depending where you are. So if you're in america, you know that's 400 years of generations that have just been beaten down, right. So it's very hard to gain traction there because you have to undo a lot of the systematic also, the systematic, you know, beat down that they received, on top of the fact that they're still doing it now. And you know, you, you, you were never Taught these things growing up, right. So this is our generation. Now I'm trying to change that and I feel like this is another movement. You know, in and of itself that's taking hold, but it's more of an awareness kind of right, so it's evolving because each version that they try to kill off, then you have to get smarter and change right.
Speaker 2:And I feel like this day and age, what separates those movements from this or from today's movements is the spread of information. Back then you had to drum up a lot of support by going to all countries and do all this. That's if you wanted to, but you had to write something, you had to speak somewhere. Nowadays you can just share off your phone and that information is disseminated to millions of people instantly. So what we have now again the power of information, but also the power of misinformation. So the problem now that we're having is that it's easy. It's another angle for infiltration, same as before, because if you look at things like the black lives matter movement that had traction until so, things started to to fester like they're being sponsored by, you know, your George Soros, who's a billionaire white man um, it's been, you know, infiltrated by the police, the FBI, things like that. So there's a lot of Institutional things that will always try to undermine, no matter how hard we attempt so, going back to martin egan and the French um, or France, rather.
Speaker 1:So, one of the themes that I saw Around that period that he really Is tackling right, is how the French policies were obviously promoting Assimilation of these plantation colonies. So, at the same time, you, you have black people who were involved in world wars and they were dying for cause that was not theirs, yeah, whilst being mistreated On that same battlefield, you know, yeah. So on paper, the policies were based on equality, of course, however, they were always there, was always this assumed superiority in in how they then actualized, actualized these policies, right? So what I'd like for a six four is the, the, I guess, the key tenets of the movement, the negligent movement itself.
Speaker 1:Um, you know, one of the first things I picked up being how they were obviously challenging the, the notion that the western culture is superior to to african culture, right. So, yeah, the french's justification To to colonize black people was disbelief, that to help us to have to invade and displace our culture only so we can assimilate into theirs. So, naturally, you know, people have a tendency to like. This is just a human um trait, right. We naturally have this tendency to to make comparisons Good versus bad right versus wrong right. Um, and in our case, instead of judging ourselves against, you know a previous version of ourselves, we obviously we tend to compare ourselves Against other races, and obviously it's so because of history, right?
Speaker 1:yeah so that made me want to look into those two concepts of inferiority and superiority complex, which I found really. I found really interesting. Um, it's. You know the dynamic really focuses on Um, firstly, it's, it's fallible like and it's yes because when you think of the superiority complex, right start with that um, and just to Provide a baseline, um, I'll Define it in, at least as far as I understand it right Superiority complex being when someone acts better than others and that's to overcompensate or escape their own feelings of insecurity, insecurity so to feel superior.
Speaker 1:Requires that me as an individual, um, uh, I what it requires, that the individual believes that they are inferior, right, yeah, so it's this false perception of dominance, almost because it's all in the head. Well, I mean, obviously there is the element where there are systems that then build around it, of course, to reinforce that, but it starts from the head right and then, yeah, when you then look at how inferiority complex is defined, right, it's when a person feels inadequacy, right, whether real or imagined, and they have this poor opinion of themselves, right? So, essentially, there's Signs of inferiority have to do with low self-esteem, they have to do with this tendency to Overanalyze compliments and criticisms.
Speaker 1:They, there's this Persistent way of looking for validation and praise from others. So, taking all of that into account, when considering Black culture as you know it, how would you explain the inferiority complex, at least how you the inferiority complex like, at least how you see it in the culture?
Speaker 2:Well, the best example, I guess, of the inferiority, inferiority complex being, I guess, displayed is in the is in the education system of many countries and also in in the laws of many of these countries. We'll start off in France as the perfect example. So that whole idea of colonialism has not died off, and I think we all know this. It's just shifted, they've now changed it. Now it's called foreign policy, correct. So you have, instead of having a governor of a province in Africa or in the Caribbean or whatever, but you have now what's called ambassadors. The titles just changed, but the role is essentially are the same, right? So In 2007 If I know 2005, sorry the French government passed what was Leave, the controversial law.
Speaker 2:I mean, when you hear it it's, you know just how stupid this sounds. But Essentially it was called the French law of colonialism. Nicholas Sarkozy, who then went on to become the French president, I think in 2008 or 2009, somewhere there, his party, the UMP, was the one who introduced this, or they championed this law, and basically the law just Was preaching or was actually setting into the curriculums of high school students the idea that French colonialism had its positiveness and it has its positive sides. So they were like we don't want to talk about the horrible stuff we've done. Start teaching the kids that there was some good to Said colonialism.
Speaker 2:Much to the agreement of no one. So Publicly, once it writes, look publicly. There was a lot of outcry. So what it was was was in response to Algeria and the deteriorating relationship that they were having at that time with Algeria. Um so, when colonialism ended, back in the 60s, you know, when Algeria gained its independence, there was somewhere in the region of something like a half a million people of a specific ethnic group who you know, just like pretty much almost everyone in in Africa had Been chosen essentially by the colonial power to be there.
Speaker 2:Um, what would you? How would you describe it? Um, you know the, the, the equivalent of a house negro. But you know, as a whole group, kind of like the, the Tutsis in in Rwanda, how they were favored. They were seen more favorably by the French because of the, you know lighter skin tone. You know the sharper features, always deemed attractive. You know, to European standards for black people, almost like puppets in a way.
Speaker 2:Hmm, exactly, so you know the intelligence of this system was to you. You can't be the face Of your own system, because then you are the direct enemy. So you put someone who looks slightly like them but is appealing to you. So then that way you have a buffer between you and the oppressed right, so you treat these people slightly better and they will do whatever for you, um, while you treat the rest of them like crap. And then you know, basically, when you, when you leave, or when things are no longer tenable in that system, you can leave cleanly.
Speaker 2:Um, and then they are forced to fight amongst themselves. Well, you know, obviously the real perpetrator runs away Right, which they've done across many countries the English, the, the Germans, the Belgians they've all done so. You reap the rewards of, you know, the natural resources and so on. You beat this population into Submission and then, when you're done, you leave them to fight amongst themselves, which is evident to literally across, almost across, almost everywhere in Africa. You just pick two groups against each other. They won't realize that the main problem is you and you get to enjoy the rewards. Right? So the French law was basically just them saying and this is in 2005. Them saying look, we're just not going to focus on the negative stuff anymore. We think of telling our kids that you know, we were monsters for over 200 years or whatever, however long it was. Let's change that and that's how some of the people were trying to to.
Speaker 1:That's as simple as it was for some people.
Speaker 2:That was the best explanation that they wanted to give you, because who cares at this stage? So these sorts of systems you start off. You have to teach, you have to teach the next generation that we were not wrong. We were just taming the savages. They were fighting amongst themselves. They were, you know, unhappy and they needed civilization. We came and gave them civilization. We turned them towards technology and god or whatever else have you, just pretty much discounting the entire culture and existence for thousands of years prior.
Speaker 2:So, essentially To me, that's how I see I am good to go, so that's how I see that System being upheld, that's how True To me that's it's best best play of yeah, if you do it for so long and you do it so well and with such drastic results you know punishment and so on and so forth you will be able to raise a whole generation of subservient people who think that they are not worthy, and we some of the byproducts of that, because our grandparents grew up in that system. That's basically saying you are not where you are, this you are that, and you know.
Speaker 1:So that then, from the way I see it, right because that narrative hasn't changed and I frankly doubt it will change if we wait for other people to change that narrative and so I think it then puts this emphasis on us to create and believe in our own value, self-value, self-worth, and to establish our own boundaries in terms of shit that we're willing to put up with and take, because I find that a lot of times we make ourselves, we'll make ourselves, smaller, so we don't offend, so we make others feel, so we don't make others feel uncomfortable by just being ourselves, you know, and we spend so much more time trying to derive our value, our meaning, from how other people perceive us. So do you think it's fair to say that? And along the way we have and I get, if we have right burdened ourselves with the fragility and guilt of others and made it our problem, you know, like I get, that it has existed. The question today, right, I feel, should then be what are we gonna do about it?
Speaker 2:We have to get out of this victim mentality. That's the first thing, because whenever in a successful abusive relationship someone has to believe that they are not worthy of the other person, correct, you have to believe that you have to be, and that's usually you being told or you being shown that without me you are nothing, right. So, according to history books or whatever, white people brought us civilization at least that was their rationalization of things right, they brought us civilization. They brought us God, as if we didn't have our own concept of religion, and so on, because that would be ridiculous. They brought us tools, and so on and so forth the list is endless.
Speaker 2:Any sort of justification, but you just need the victim to believe that you are correct and the rest is history, as you said. So we first need to get out of this victim mentality, and I feel like this we are probably the generation now who is growing up with not so much the constraints of colonialism but more or less the fact that we have been able to be gifted the opportunity to live overseas, where we can sort of expand our knowledge and meet different people and get a bigger idea of what not just our black experience?
Speaker 2:yeah, exactly. So we've been able to travel to a few places, we've been able to meet new people and talk about things, so you share ideas with black, white, asian, everything else in between right, and that helps build a sense of who you are, because then the possibilities are endless for you. And the fact that it keeps coming back to this liberation, I guess, of sorts, is, I guess, your way of saying that you understand that there's a lot of inequality in the world, and the best way to start addressing that is obviously by first being aware of self, being aware of culture, embracing it and showing that, no matter where I go and who says, what I am, who I am, not by choice, but now by dint of the fact that, if you want to make it about that, I will proudly show who I am. Unashamedly so right, because sometimes and I was having this conversation earlier with someone else, whereas I was saying that, you know, maybe 15 years ago I would not necessarily be having these sorts of conversations, right, because that was not a frame of mind that I was in, but the order that you get, and if you are a person who's aware and choose not to bury your head in the sand. What you then come to see is that people out there will try and sort of force their race upon you and also your own too, you know, with racist taunts and racist jokes and ignorant questions and things like that.
Speaker 2:And if you are someone who is, you know a more like who goes more inwards. You know who searches for answers about yourself. You know you regularly have these self-analyses. You then start to question a lot of things. You start to wonder why it is that people are so concerned with race. Why is it such a driving factor when we have zero choice about it? So over time it's something that I've sort of come to be, I guess, in this position where not only I'm aware of who I am, but where I'm, of where I am and where I've come from and how these things your location in your skin color affect literally your whole life. You know, if you choose to let it or if, depending on which side of the spectrum you are, these things do affect your life. Right?
Speaker 2:If you look at the indigenous people here in Australia, how you know something like being recognized in the constitution has taken, how many years, and still now the government won't even sack up and just put it in there, because that's how easy it is to change the law.
Speaker 2:They're asking the country to weigh in on something that has nothing to do with us, except indigenous Australians, and yet we have to put that to a referendum.
Speaker 2:They're just trying to pass the buck onto someone else, right, but some of us are aware enough to see that they're trying to turn what should be, or what is, you know, a very critical point for a specific group's, I guess, existence or, you know, their future going forward, considering the atrocities that have been committed, and you're now basically saying we'll leave it to the group to decide, whereas the people concerned, basically I told them no, you have to wait for the other ones to say yes or no, we recognize you. So there is a lot that needs to be done, I guess, in terms of getting out of that victim mentality, and asking for a seat at the table is not enough. It does not work Because it comes at their speed, not yours. Now you're negotiating for your rights, but basic human rights do not need to be negotiated, according to the World Health Organization, the UN sorry right, you shouldn't have to negotiate basic human rights.
Speaker 1:This is something that should be available freely to everyone, but that's on paper, as you can see, and so, yeah, sorry you know, like you know as you're saying, that right, that which for me again reinforces how we should look at life from an Afrocentric point of view.
Speaker 1:Because when you do and I guess a big part of me is speaking from personal experience right now, because when you do it shifts the way you begin to understand how the world is set up and it changes how you then navigate the world as well. Because there's a difference between us talking about equality and you know to what you're saying people being entitled to their rights and what actually goes down on the ground. And history repeatedly tells us, and so does present day, that those two are misaligned. Right, and which leads us into, like the second part of what the Negritude movement was really pushing for. Right, because they were emphasizing, above all, the value and pride of African traditions and people, asserting their Africaness, so to speak. You know, because, according to Cézar right, western imperialism was responsible for the inferiority of black people.
Speaker 2:And.
Speaker 1:I know you usually use that quote where you say you know peer pressure. So tradition is peer pressure from day people, right, which I understand, where you know, obviously, where you're coming from, because some traditions are antiquated right. In the same breath, I see the value in some of those traditions, though. They help orient us to our culture and they're each in turn then reinforces our identity and who we are. So I believe that our cultural identity appears to weaken with each generation as we fail to preserve some of those core traditions, right. So I'm not implying that we become conservative and stay rooted in old traditions. Speaking mainly to African diaspora here, I wonder, like, how can we build from our own cultural heritage to adapt to the modern world? But like, what does that look like for you?
Speaker 2:Well, I think the main thing is just to recognize, obviously, society is ever-evolving. Now, the issue here is that, with the Pan-Africanist movement, the Negritude movement, these are all, I guess they're things that are sort of specific to certain people, right? So Cézé was talking a lot about this whole idea of African ideas, showcasing who you are being proud of that, but again it lacks the depth that would have carried, I guess, a movement proper, considering the fact that, again, he never really visited Africa or publicized a want or a need to ever do so. So I think that's where that disconnect is, because if you look at any other sort of liberation, or black liberation or Africanist, afrocentric movement, they all say the same thing we need to go back to the motherland, we need to, and the main proponents have all been to the motherland at some point.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's something that they're all sharing. In common is that they've all been there and yet they've been able to gain traction. Because what you're doing is you're trying to unite the Africans who are in Africa versus the rest, the diaspora, the ones who are overseas by choice or by not. So that's what they're trying to do is trying to unite those ideologies and say, look, we are after one and the same thing. It just so happens to be some of us who are overseas and are being mistreated, and generally, for the most part, africans were happy to get behind the movement, but what you find is that there's generally little to no reciprocation going the other way, because those African hyphen whatever American, australian, european, wherever you are living the laws made by the same people who are causing the strife over in Africa. So again, the liberation struggle was the same, same opponents, just different location.
Speaker 2:But the ideology was there. Césaire never really quite wanted to push that, and that's where that movement sort of likes and going forward. I guess that sort of seclusion doesn't really help you, because it's not a very well known movement outside of the whole Franco-File culture or that Afro-Franco intellectual circle. You know what I mean. It's not something that is widely spoken, and part and parcel, I think, is also due to the fact that, like most of these African or Afrocentric movements, they were also very much left leaning in that.
Speaker 2:So now we are being put onto a political spectrum again which is created by who? By the same oppressors, the colonizers. These are the same sort of spectrums that have nothing to do with Africans at large, you know, in Africa in general, because we never had to worry about those things. This is a system made by white people for white people, and then, in the search for black liberation, we have now been impending into this white system yet again. Right, césaire was a very. He was very much in his early days influenced by the Marxist teachings, right, so he was very much a big fan of the Soviet Union. Just more white people. Now, the only difference is with those white people is that they were never outwardly imperial in terms of colonizing Africa. Right, that's one thing they can be like. Hey, we never did that, okay.
Speaker 2:But let's not say that that doesn't mean that none of those people were racist, because, again, communists had their own ideals that they wanted to push. That's why the Soviets helped a lot of African countries during their liberation struggles, and so did the Chinese, but again it was because they wanted to just spread their ideology. For them their ideology mattered more than race right, but at the end of the day, for them it was you are taking our system and you're going to push it amongst your people.
Speaker 1:So that's where you find that sort of comparison and I guess that highlights the importance where, of course, we can look at, you know, marxism and so many other ideologies and then figure out how to cater to our context, our African context, right and the same. So in the sense that all these different ideologies, right, have their goods and beds and that works with any ideology right.
Speaker 1:So, the idea is not for us to take something that's applicable in the Western society context and try to plug that into the African context, because they will not fit, because we are different people, right? It's kind of similar to how Asura I think it was the president of Uganda, I think and he he was challenging the French president, I believe so around the LGBTIQ movement, right, and he was just basically saying we have two different cultures, so how can you come and tell us what's right and what's wrong when our definitions of what's right and what's wrong are really different? So this is not to say that I believe that people should be persecuted because of their choices, their sexuality, right, or whether it's an issue to do with their gender. I don't think people should be persecuted or discriminated, vilified, whatever the case is, because of that. However, at the same time, I think he does raise a really valid point in as far as that goes.
Speaker 1:So the third thing I want us to touch on on the negative movement before we start to talk about some of his books, right? More specifically, one book I'd love for us to touch on he works around trying to get intellectuals and artists to start to push out Afrocentric literature, to bring about the mental freedom of the people from Martinique and all the other French plantations that we're around right. So Damos was one of the people who, I guess he was more right versus left, using your explanation earlier when you're saying how César was a little bit more softer in his approach, whereas Damos, I guess, would have been almost on the other side of that, because he believed that writers and storytellers should be aware of their duties to the people to elevate the image of blackness, to denounce this notion of reconciling, to assimilate with other cultures.
Speaker 1:That's where he was at right. So do you see a way to promote African literature and drive artists from purely being a source of entertainment but also being this conduit to inform the masses?
Speaker 2:For me, I think, and I feel like you agree but our artists are more than just entertainers. I think we are able to separate those ones who are there purely for entertainment and those who are there to actually pass on a message. We're generally able to discern where one person is talking about something that you agree with and someone is just there for the pageant, right. So I feel like we are at a stage where we have enough of those people. What we need to do is then elevate those people and say this is the message that we have, but we have to agree on said message. That is first and foremost.
Speaker 2:I think, across every question that we've discussed today, the underlying message is that we all need to be one in terms of what the goal should be. There should be a step one, then a step two, then a step three. Right. But until that's the case, we will not really get far, because what we'll be doing is fragmenting ourselves. That's the issue is that these movements they sort of cater to different groups, large or small Negritude, cater to your Francophile Caribbean colonies, right. Pan-africanism tries to sort of skip all of that and it attempts to bridge a larger collection of black people.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's a bit more. I think. When you look at all these black movements, that is probably the more universal out of everything. So Pan-Africanism is at the base of most of these movements. But then the issue then becomes what about those that do not want to return to Africa or that feel there's no connection? How do you then get those people on board, or what?
Speaker 2:is it that they're after that we are after, which is black liberation. So if we start to look at it from that perspective, rather than you have this message and it disagrees with my message, because part B states this and your part B states that that's where the issue lies. The experience for one is not the experience for the other, but what we do have is this commonality, which is blackness, yeah, like that's if we start to sort of limit that to like.
Speaker 2:If we start sort of limiting it to that being the main message, I feel like we can all have our own system because, again, we are allowed to disagree, but that should not get in the way of the message being put across. Once we get to that point, that movement then becomes a bit that it gains more traction and it's a lot harder to derail because essentially we all understand the fact that we have this same underlying message and anything else that comes is for later. We're not all going to agree on the same thing, because that's impossible. But what we should agree on is at least we are after this one thing and then from there we'll decide okay, if you want to go do this, then you separate and go with it and then you start to fragment. But until then, once until we have that cohesive movement, we'll always be, I guess, just left wondering of what could have been on certain movements.
Speaker 1:And I don't necessarily see it as we should all come by and move back to Africa. Yeah, that is your decision to make. I think. For me, it's the idea that, especially when you look at African Americans, they don't have a home, and when I say home I mean in the cultural context, and by that they obviously have the American culture that they did adopt. But if we look at the, I guess, before that right.
Speaker 1:Before the transatlantic context yes, so they were African first before they became Americans. So of course, for me it's that idea about let's we have a commonplace which is the continent. Let's fix that you don't have to live there, but by fixing it, you have a base and it also changes how the rest of the world treats us, because the thing is, unfortunately people will.
Speaker 1:For a really long time, I believe people will still see in color Right and until that changes, right, we have to adapt to what the present date is basically giving to us, and for us that means that we should come together towards developing Africa, and then we can talk about what that looks like, because the experience of Caribbean to someone who's black, european, to American, are all different, so it's not to dismiss them, but then it's to what you're saying there is a shared or common goal, right, yeah, and so let's move on to, like, talk about his actual work, like some of his books, right, like, because he was, he was a poet and author, right?
Speaker 1:So he wrote the book the Tragedy of King Christoph I think it's Christoph the which was about the Haitian Revolution right in 1791, which I'm really keen to learn more about because, you know, that's not well known, but it was really interesting because obviously that was the one of the first times noted where the French were defeated by black people, and that was led by was that too soft, or am I my vagone head?
Speaker 1:I think it's Henry Christoph. I think Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah, as far as Haitian history, I am ashamed to say that I am familiar with Tucson at the moment, and Haitian history is something that I'm aiming to wanting to pronounce that better, so I need to find out what's you know. Is it Haitian still, or is it pronounced something else? But, as far as my understanding of Haitian culture at the moment, I am limited to Tucson. He is quite an admirable figure, though, and that's what we definitely need to explore in later on.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, bro, yeah.
Speaker 2:So you need to, I guess, for myself and others listening just a bit of a background, I guess, on this, on Christoph, was it on?
Speaker 1:Henry Christoph yeah, henry Christoph yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:And the other book that he wrote as well, césaire, right, this again another one I'd love to read. So it's called a season in the Congo, and so this one, he focuses on the last few months of Patrice Lumumba's life, so yeah, which was obviously marked by the, you know, the secession of the Katanga, and you also get to. He talks about the Belgians influence, together with the British, you know, forming companies to mine copper within that region, you know, and obviously, how the company then influenced political affairs and that's typical of most, you know most, regions in Africa. Right, it was a company that came, but then, yeah, yeah, exactly. And then the other, the other one he wrote, or this was, these were actually like journals or like publications, right, so like this magazine where he used to bring together different black authors, almost like a newsletter, which I thought was really cool. But the book I'd love for us to talk about is Discourse on Colonialism Really dope book.
Speaker 1:And so he's essentially you know, to give everyone context right he's essentially arguing that colonialism was not, and had never been, a benevolent exercise or movement with the goal to improve our lives. Instead, it was this expedition entirely for Europe's self interest and to expand their economies.
Speaker 2:Yeah right.
Speaker 1:So within that book he talks about, you know, an interesting condition, which is the progressive dehumanization, so this process, you know, by which individuals or groups are gradually stripped of their human qualities or rights. So it's like this gradual erosion of dignity and recognition of your inherent worth, and you know, obviously, that then leads to the denial of our basic rights, exclusion from society and acts of violence or genocide because we're not seen as humans. So, acknowledging that the African and European cultures are different, how can we definitively define someone's inherent value right? Which that's my first question, because if our value systems are clearly different, how can you then tell me that I'm inferior to you? How can you then tell me that I am not civilized when your God is not my?
Speaker 2:God.
Speaker 1:Well, that's where the problem lies, why should? You be doing that?
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's the place, like that's, I think also that, or that is the main problem here, is that somehow certain groups are able to convince themselves that that's an acceptable reason, purely because either one it's, you know whatever's driving you is either they search for some sort of you know financial reward, or if you are like some of the simple minded folk you genuinely have been and you believe like you've been told and you believe that these people are inferior and they deserve to be, I guess, civilized, you know, and that's more for the, for the zealots, because outside of that, to be honest with you, that whole system screams of mental illness.
Speaker 2:To me, it's just, it's just ridiculous how you can base a whole system off of complete nonsense. By the way, you don't know these people, you've never met them. You know very little about their society and culture, except for what you can translate and also make sense of. Basically, you're seeing just these things and you've just made an assessment just off the top of your head and said no, because they're semi-naked and they don't write they're. Therefore, I mean, you know they're not intelligent. So if someone really needs a reason to do something, they will create one, and then the easy part is convincing yourself that you need to do. The hard part is finding that reason, but once you do everything after that is a smooth saving.
Speaker 1:It's like ignorance breeds fear, you know, and people then they react off that because and that's one of the things when people obviously say we were uncivilized, you know, because, for example, they had guns and all of these other fancy stuff and or they had these military tactics, or whatever the case may be. But people also forget that they came to us right. So the imperialists landed on our continent and we never had any intention of anything else outside of trade, because we had always been trading with people from different parts of the world. We had Arabs, we had, you know, we had Persians. People would come to Africa for trade, so that was never a foreign thing, way before colonization happened. So, yeah, they were just the first lot that decided to come and they had ill intent, ill intent.
Speaker 2:Yes, yes.
Speaker 1:You were talking about the comparison to Nazismalia right, which is what Sinsaia does in his book and I that part of the book I quite enjoyed.
Speaker 2:It's interesting, isn't it? Yeah?
Speaker 1:because the thing is, it's, it is a similar model, right, so he questions and this is for the audience, right? So he questions whether Hitler was hated because of his crimes alone or because those crimes were committed against Europeans. Because those are two different things. Exactly Before, europeans were victims of Nazism. You know they were accomplices to a similar way of thinking right, which is colonialism.
Speaker 1:Yeah so they chose to legitimize and absolve colonialism, because then it was strictly reserved for Africans, or and and also, I guess in part also it benefited the European societies, because the economy is boomed because of that, exactly. So the the thing for me that really irks me to the core is this moral relativism and justification of humanity, where we apply one lens and for a particular group of people, but then that changes for a particular group of people, right? Yeah, because we care about things that mean something to us and ignore those that don't affect us. Exactly. So we could talk about other races in terms of why they don't give a shit about the things you know that we go through or the pains that we go through, but that's always you know. That's for another time. What I'm curious about is for us, as black people, what else is preoccupying our thoughts and efforts? For us? Because if you're saying that, for me to want to change something, right, I need to give a shit about it.
Speaker 1:Essentially because it's affecting me either directly or indirectly. But then when you, when you look at the, the current landscape, I question you know, even let's take the Australian context right I don't believe there's a black consciousness, so to speak. There's, it is there, but especially in comparison to other regions, it's almost next to nonexistent.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:So, which then makes me wonder so what are we so busy doing that we can't see these things that we should clearly and obviously care about?
Speaker 2:Well, here, the difference is that we don't have much to struggle about. You see, it's an it's yeah for us to do what we're doing. That's an active choice to be able to search for these things, because what we're understanding is that our experience is not limited to us. We are able to look and say look, it's. Being black is something that affects everyone on this planet, doesn't matter where you are. We are the effect of colonialism, racism, racism, so on and so forth. There's so many things that have put us in the places that we are now, whether it's, you know, recently or historically right.
Speaker 2:So the black experience is one that's unique because, for the most part where you are, for you know certain people was not because you, your ancestors, had a choice there. They were taken from A and taken to B and then had to learn or basically either had the culture beaten out of them or create a new culture right. So when you fast forward to now, the, it's not necessarily that it's a distraction, but here in Australia we just there's nothing to be struggling for because society as a whole is sort of what is trying to move away from this whole race thing. The issue with Australia is that they're doing that badly because they're not consulting the main people who were the victims of it here. But they did such and it's a poor choice of words but they did such a great job in almost destroying a single group of people that the remnants are still reeling from so much institutional just rape is the term that I would use, I think, because the indigenous people were the victims of the war and the people who were the victims of the war were the victims of the war, and the indigenous people of Australia, of places like Canada, they you know America they were just absolutely brutalized. If you look at any of those countries that are first nations people the first nations suffered greatly in Mexico. There's indigenous people in Mexico all the way through South America, right from top to bottom, and they were the victims of the war. So there's indigenous people in Mexico all the way through South America, right from top to bottom. Those people suffered similar fate to the indigenous here and it's just comprehensive just how badly they were mistreated, that they're still reeling from those things. They haven't even gotten a foothold, whereas with black people in certain places we have gotten our independence, so to speak.
Speaker 2:But the interference now comes in. You know the form of diplomacy, or you know covert operations, depending on how you're looking at things. You know with things like political assassinations and funding. You know the opposition like it's just change tactic, but those are real life distractions, as one might call them, because what it is is this political power that is nowhere near the region is actively conspiring to create and destabilize. You know countries, regions, the whole continent, essentially, just so that we stop from actually being organized because we are the richest continent. If we actually had to say now we distributed those resources, economies put topple in the western world, wouldn't they? So it's beneficial for them to be able to create destabilization, and until we are smart enough to see that we will always be stuck in this rut. These are all those distractions that you were talking about. They come in many forms.
Speaker 1:And it was interesting when you use the word brutes, right, because I remember watching this documentary. I don't know if you've watched it. Exterminate the brutes, no no it's such a good documentary and it basically depicts when the indigenous people of America, when they were being brutalized by white settlers you know and it's. What was ironic about it for me, even from the title, is that they would obviously the white settlers would obviously call the indigenous Americans brutes, yep by doing brutal things the irony, isn't it?
Speaker 1:literally by definition the irony, you've come to where I live and call me a brute, yeah, and then you brutalize me and I'm still the brute yeah that makes sense right yeah, and also one of the things you mentioned, right, it's that level of complacency, right, bringing it back to the Australian context where, because we have good jobs, we have a roof of our heads, we don't have to worry about whether the bread's going to be in the kitchen or not right so we have all the basics covered.
Speaker 1:So, because we do, it's so easy to become complacent, it's so easy to forget that the reason we're here is not because we chose to, but because we had to. Yes, right, and it may not be us directly, but our parents or our parents parents, right, and this?
Speaker 1:is not to say that I'm ungrateful of what Australia's offered me. I'm definitely grateful. I mean to be here, and speaking right now is because I am here in Australia yes, sydney to be exact. However, that in no way should make me lose focus or lose sight of the true reason as to why I'm here that's right and that's.
Speaker 2:I think we're too busy, you know, worrying about inflation and when you know, when it comes to money, the black experience will take it back seat. Oh yes, so there's just. The distractions have just expanded, I guess, recently, when you look at the pandemic and so on and so forth. There's just so many other things that will just take front and set up, because, you know this was during the black lives matter movement.
Speaker 2:Right, the pandemic magically just came in and put a stop to all these protests. So you know, there's things like that where you great game traction and then something happens. You can't kill a leader now because it's. These movements are not leaderless, but they're a lot more spread out.
Speaker 2:I thought you're gonna say because of social distancing well, they made us do that, which you know only made it. I guess it just sort of cemented it a little bit longer. But that would have been quite the joke then, because you know the protests were happening, they were tearing apart, you know, cities and they were now government free zones and places like America. It was crazy, but it was just something else that just sort of took the steam away from those movements and now, you know, protests are rare because, you know, again, people are still recovering and so on and so forth.
Speaker 2:But unless you know, you're whiting, you storm the capital, in which case you're called a patriot. But you know, when you're on a talk about racial equality, then now you're a thug and you're destroying property. So, and it's all about perception too. So, yeah, there is these distractions that are happening, and until we just sort of say enough, enough, I think we're just gonna keep going round and round, and that's the thing right, because life doesn't stop.
Speaker 1:So today it's COVID, tomorrow is something else right?
Speaker 2:so it's aliens apparently this week, so yeah, so there's always something right.
Speaker 1:So it really is up to us, in terms of how much we really care, to want to move that needle on the dial. So you know, to kind of wrap up his bio, I'd love to talk a bit about aim as the politician right.
Speaker 1:So he founded the, the, the martin Eakin progressive party, which is back in 1938, or no, no, no, can't be 38, no way no, you're sitting in France from yeah, yeah, yeah, so the party's ideology is I'm not sure if that's changed now, but at least then when he started, it was rooted in the pursuit of greater autonomy for martin Eakin within the French Republic. Right, that whole departmentalization. So it's not full independence and self governance, but an integration into French society. Yeah, and the justification that he used may have been due to and so this is me kind of drawing an inference based off the pieces of information from different sources that I was reading right, that he was concerned about economic security because he, although he understood that black people or martin Eakin's needed to be free of the French, he didn't believe that Martin Eakin itself was equipped institutionally to be able to survive. Right, right, so you still wanted to be a part of the EU.
Speaker 1:And then the second piece to it was, how you know, there was the argument that integration over independence would raise living standards without some of the complications that come with, you know, building a nation. Yeah, because you know so, while France saw departmentalization as an opportunity to democratize colonial political structures. That's kind of how I saw it, right, because for, for, for César, and what he wanted for martin Eakin's and what the French wanted were two different things, and it almost for me, it almost felt as if he was playing into their hands, so to speak. So what do you think? What do you think about that?
Speaker 2:I guess, like as the political ideologies of his party, considering that to what we said at the beginning of the conversation, right, they seem to contradict the ideas of his other work yeah, look, like I said before, it seems like he was a soft revolutionary and I guess, if you're a colonial power and this is your opponent, I'd be happy, as far, to be honest with me, because basically all he worked to do was to tear down that class system that he was born into. So his father was a tax inspector and his mother was, I think, a school teacher or something like that. I'm not too sure, but he was only allowed to experience certain things of martin Eakin society at the time, right so, and him being an intelligent person, it means that, because of the of who he was as a person, whose parents were, he was limited in his life choices and I think that's what's burned or that's what's put his decision to do the whole departmentalization.
Speaker 2:And I feel like for him I guess maybe growing up over there they probably didn't experience as much racism as I'd say other, you know, colonies would have experienced right. So, and again this is me inferring this, given how most of his criticisms were aimed at society rather than at French people, at French people's racism in general, which is what other people were talking about. They will directly speak about you say this, this and this because I'm black and you limit me because I'm black. He was more of saying I just want to be able to live in martin Eakin without having to justify my class or because my race is limited, limited me to this. I just want to be able to be treated like any other regular season citizen of martin Eakin.
Speaker 2:So this may sound a bit patronizing, but it seems like his ambitions were quite small. If, if, I guess, if we're trying to put it into certain things, because his world view was very much France and martin Eakin. So there is this I guess his was more coming from a need to be accepted into that society. He didn't want to change it too much. Just treat me as you would anyone else, and I'm happy and I feel like that I guess aided in his movement not going as far as he would have wanted to, or at the very least, I guess if that was his intent, he certainly succeeded. But I feel as though he was a very it's almost seems as though his ideology was lazy at times.
Speaker 1:I feel like lazy would be harsh. Yeah, I get what you're coming from. Like it does a line from Matt Miller, can't remember, and he says something along the lines of you know, sometimes for us to rebuild we have to scorch the earth. Yeah, right. So, yes, that his approach was one alternative, right, and I guess the more revolutionary Malcolm X kind of approach would have been Fuck him, we're just going to start from scratch, right, whereas I think is, especially when he then raises a point about you know that, economic security, and that's that really made sense for me in the sense of, okay, cool, so he still wanted to be part of the EU because he still wanted to maintain the same standards of living that they had been accustomed to. Yeah, at the same time it's like well, you will, at least you know. History tells us this you will never really acquire self determination or autonomy If you are still tethered to your colonize.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so that's what for me. To me again it seems harsh, but yeah, lazy does definitely come across, because it sounds like he was just like look, I just want enough to be able to still live comfortably without ruffling feathers. So treat me equally, but just just don't take away the support. Essentially. So it just sounds like he just wanted to keep his nice little plot of land. You know, just so that the masters are like you know, you're doing a good job, you're not ruffling any feathers, but just, you know, here's your little stipend, we'll look after you still.
Speaker 1:You know, yeah, like you know, I generally do hope this at least strikes some curiosity for other people to read more about this dude. And definitely and you know usually what happens when you, when you read about these figures in in our history, you also find that you know they're influenced by other people as well. So you get to come across other people who are, you know, as interesting, as great, and it just, you know, pushes in our knowledge in this space, which I think we all can do with, because you know we obviously can, or at least a lot of us can, agree that what we were taught was quite lacking. So, yeah, that being said, thanks again for dropping in. This has been a really dope convo and, as always, stay blunt.
Speaker 2:Peace.