Please read Sankara’s speeches “Building a New Society,” “Imperialism is the Arsonist of our Forests and Savannas” and “A United Front Against Debt (1987)” and watch the short film Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man (2006). You can find the live streaming link to the film, which is available through the ASU library, on the course website under topic “Week Eight.”
Here is a link to an electronic copy of the book Thomas Sankara Speaks, which includes the three speeches.
Post a short reflection on how the film and Sankara’s speeches may enable us to think about the following questions: What is the essence of neocolonialism, of decolonization, and of anti-imperialist struggle, in Sankara’s view? What can we learn from Sankara’s revolution in terms of building more sustainable, resilient and just societies in response to the current global crisis?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
After listening to and reading speeches by Thomas Sankara and watching the documentary “The Upright Man,” I believe that Sankara’s perspective on decolonization centers most importantly on the aspect of centralized production and consumption, highlighting the labor of the proletariat and the equal rights of individuals to contribute in society. Neocolonialism, as Sankara describes it, stems from economic enforcement of power dynamics, in the form of debt and import/ export inequalities. Neocolonialism is both an internal struggle, as the bourgeoisie who found success during colonialism try to continue their industrial ventures, and an external struggle, as foreign banks from colonial times collect debt repayments. Sankara opens his speech “A United Front Against the Debt” (delivered 1987 to AUOO, Addis Ababa) in an accusing and directed manner, declaring: “Those who lent us the money were those who colonized us. They were the same people who ran our states and our economies.” It is in this speech that he connects the notion of neocolonialism to foreign debt, and connects the inequality of import-heavy economies to a lack of internal production of goods. As part of his governance, he encouraged the consumption of local goods, produced from domestically grown cotton. He comes back to the idea of utilizing domestic labor in his speech on building a new society (published 1983 by the Upper Volta Ministry of Information). Speaking similarly to other Marxist/ communist politicians, he recognizes the value of proletariat labor in building a country. On the proletariat, Sankara says “ To the extent that the revolution can provide them something useful to do, they can become its fervent defenders,” pointing to the role that physical labor has in national wealth, and the role that national programs have in maintaining common welfare. (This rousing of proletariat labor is not without its downfalls, as noted by Fanon (1960), in The Pitfalls of National Consciousness, mentioning how labor can be exploited in the name of national success and through state apparatuses). Sankara can be said to highlight the contributions of a broad society, and was appreciated for the relevance given to women’s rights. He makes a distinct point that “women’s emancipation…Is not a mechanical equality between men and women, acquiring habits recognised as male – drinking, smoking, and wearing pants… The genuine emancipation of women is one that entrusts responsibilities to women, that involves them in productive activity and in the different fights the people face,” (1983). While recognizing the importance of a person based on labor and productivity raises concerns, rates of employment, education, and job security can operate as indicators of welfare in society. It is these indicators that Sankara recognizes, while stressing the importance of being in decision-making fields, in order to support the emancipation of women in Burkina Faso. Sankara continually stands in support of domestic labor and self governance as a way to achieve decolonization, now in generally economic terms, and also as a way to benefit the people, as problems in welfare stem from dependence and subordination to foreign powers.
-David Bass
Throughout the film, Sankara made it clear that neocolonialism was the most destructive part of his country. Neocolonialism to him was the debt that Africa faced, a debt that could not be paid off and in return would continue to give power to western countries. Burkina Faso’s reliance on other countries he said to be counter productive, and made it easy for imperialism to be systemically everywhere. This reliance on other places caused the other countries to benefit where Burkina Faso would lose. Sankara mentions in the film that imperialism is in the rice and beans that they eat because it did not come from their land. Sankara had many goals to begin to decolonize Africa and Burkina Faso, and that started with the local creation of produce and materials. An example of this was the Faso Dan Fani, a type of clothing that was created by local craftsmen, and every Burkinabé resident was asked to wear the locally made clothes instead of ones that were imported from America.
Autonomy was Sankara’s greatest goal to fight against imperialism, and this can be used in the current global crisis as well. Local production and power of one’s own land allows for greater opportunities to grow a strong, local economy. A large fight for Sankara during his time as president was to reforest the land that was quickly becoming a desert, and as seen in the film he planted millions of trees as a way to move against desertification. This was not just an environmental move but a political one as well in order to explain how the environment and politics will always be interrelated. In Sankara’s speech “Imperialism is the Arsonist” he states “We are not against progress, but we do not want progress that is anarchic and criminally neglects the rights of others. We therefore wish to affirm that the battle against the encroachment of the desert is a battle to establish a balance between man, nature, and society. As such it is a political battle above all, and not an act of fate,” (Sankara pg 275). Sankara wishes to better Burkina Faso, but not if it means people lose their rights or the environment is harmed in the process. It is not necessary to follow Sankaras every step, but in today’s climate it is important that every person and ecosystem is considered on the terms of new development.
Brynne Dieterle
After reading the speeches by Thomas Sankara, watching the film about him, learning about his rise to power, what he stood for, what he fought for, and what he valued most, I’m questioning why I’ve only heard his name once or twice before today. A possible reason for this could be the way he died. As described in the film “The Upright Man” Sankara was betrayed by his best friends, caught by surprise, shot, killed, then buried in the middle of the night “like a dog” (46:43). Then, to make matters worse, his best friend ruined his reputation, essentially reverses all of Sankara’s efforts by becoming cooperative and friendly with France again, and destroying any traces of Sankara’s power. This is an absolute injustice. Sankara spent his few years in power absolutely transforming Africa and Burkina Faso in a way that spoke to the whole world.
In Sankaras view, neocolonialism is the root of all issues. In Manichaenistic terms, in terms of good and evil, neocolonialism is evil. As he states clearly in his “Building a New Society” speech, the 23 years of neocolonialsim that his people endured was “paradise for some and hell for the rest” (p. 87 in the book). Paradise for the colonists and the rich, hell for the colonized and the poor. Furthermore, when discussing the debt owed by Burkina Faso at the organization of African Unity Conference in his speech “A united front against the debt”, Sankara blatantly blames neocolonialism for the debt. He states, “this debt has nothing to do with us” (p. 403). Why should the Burkinabe have to pay for a debt they didn’t cause? Why do the French get to ignore a mess they made? Sankara instead asks for support from other countries, as Burkina Faso refuses to pay their colonizers debt. In regards to Sankaras views on decolonization, I interpreted it less as a fervent need for a lack of colonizer presence, but more for a need of a transition of power into the hands of the people. If the people of Burkina Faso had control of their own government, the influence of the colonizers would be insipid. I think that he views revolution as the first step of decolonization, but as he stated in his “Building a new society” speech he gave right after he took power, Sankara states “it is no longer enough to call oneself a revolutionary” (p. 96). By this he means that to truly dethrone the colonizer, the revolutionaries, after seizing control of their government, have to then mend their nation and their laws to fit their ideals. As he describes later in the speech, “The peoples arms, the peoples power, the peoples wealth- it will be the people who manage these” (p. 99). In other words, decolonization takes a new form in democratic centralism. As for Sankaras views on the anti-imperialist struggle, he reiterates throughout his speech that the battle will be long and hard. A large part of Sankaras political campaign was his battle against desertification. Desertification across Burkina Faso was a result of French colonist neglect, however, I think the way Sankara handled this issue when he came to power is an example of how great of a leade rhe truly was. He implemented planting a tree as a way to celebrate and kickstarted the Peoples Development Program which planted 10 million trees in 15 months (as described in his “Imperialism is the arsonist of our forest and savannas speech”). So, even though it was stated in the movie that the Burkinabe people were “seen as a reservoir for cheep labor” before the revolution and imperialism undoubtably left the land and the people with a nasty scar, I saw Sankaras struggle with anti-imperialism as a story of hope. Overall, Sankaras concluding line from all of hsi speeches exemplifies these thoughts best “Our homeland our death: we will win” (in “The Upright Man” this is at 12:32)
I think that we, specifically Western societies, can learn a lot from Sankaras revolution. From reducing the power of public servants and lowering their wages, to public housing programs, to heavily enforcing women’s equality, to supporting the dismantling of neocolonialism on a national level, to expanding roads and rails across the state with zero help from foreign companies, to unabashedly running a country for the people and by the people, there is so much to learn. I think there is less for the American government to learn and more for the American people. A politician should be an advocate for the people that nominated them and Thomas Sankara is an amazing example of this kind of politician. It’s a shame his time in power was cut short. As Sankara was described in the film, we as a society need to learn that a political leader should offer “hope for the whole continent” (21:38) and anything short of that is not enough.
Heather Adamsky
After viewing “The Upright Man” and reading Thomas Sankara’s speeches, for Sankara, political independence alone is not enough and a true independence must confront the economic and cultural systems that keep Africa dependent. Neocolonialism can be defined as the indirect continuation of colonialism through economics and institutions rather than more obvious military force. This interaction is between a developed nation to a developing nation, one that typically is a past colony. For Sankara, neocolonialism in Africa was not neutral, it is a structural violence that works to keep and maintain dependency.
In his 1978 speech “A united front against the debt”, Sankara speaks to the issue of debt as a form of neocolonialism, “one in which the colonialists have transformed themselves into technical… assassins”, where debt becomes a political weapon. Sankara claims that “The roots of the debt go back to the beginning of colonialism. Those who lent us the money were those who colonized us. They were the same people who ran our states and our economies.”, meaning the debt is just an extension of colonial extraction, despite trying to reframe it as simply financial (pg. 375).
To decolonize, Sankara believed in reclaiming the identity of the nation. He believed in the importance of food sovereignty, women’s liberation, and environmental protections of Burkina Faso. One example of decolonization portrayed in the film was the renaming of the country from Upper Volta to Burkina Faso, meaning “The land of upright men”, as a way to reclaim power and sovereignty (1:17).
We can learn a lot from Sankara’s revolution. His emphasis on food self sufficiency, rejecting dependency, women’s rights, and public health all show how Sankara demonstrated the idea that resilience is built from within the communities, not imposed from outside development models.
Ianna Pfeifer
Throughout both his speeches as well as the film, Sankara presents neocolonialism not simply as formal political domination but as a continual subjugation through economic, cultural, and psychological means. Sankara asserts the idea that neocolonialism is maintained through debt, foreign aid, and extractive trade relationships. These factors are all in addition to the overwhelming reliance on former colonial powers and international financial institutions. Throughout “A United Front Against Debt,” he condemns external debt as a tool that chains nations to an ongoing dependency, sacrificing resources that could otherwise fund health, education, and other local development needs. Similarly, throughout “Imperialism is the Arsonist of our Forests and Savannas,” he connects environmental degradation to extractive economies by providing examples of forests and lands being exploited in benefit of the global market.
Decolonization, for Sankara, must be a total restructuring of operating systems, not just political independence. Rather colonized nations must establish self-reliance, cultural dignity, and the systems that prioritize local well-being over foreign profit. In “Building a New Society,” he emphasizes the need for national self-confidence, pride, and the courage to break away from imported models that do not serve local people. True decolonization requires the removal of power imbalances that are preestablished through education, economic policy, and social regulation as much as through formal governance.
Anti-imperialist struggle in Sankara’s eyes is inseparable from grassroots mobilization, and self-sufficiency. The film underscores his ideals as he refuses perks, lives modestly, and voices his beliefs of living for the common good to citizens and leaders alike. Sankara’s leadership was about restructuring everyday life through diverse means such as prioritizing literacy campaigns, rural health clinics, land redistribution, women’s rights, and ecological stewardship. These are not minor reforms, but central to resisting imperialism as they build social foundations from the ground up rather than relying on external charity.
From Sankara’s revolution, there are powerful lessons for today’s crises.The first that comes to mind is the concept that sustainability must be embedded in the political economy. In today’s age sustainability is treated as an add-on. Sankara’s approach to forest and savanna conservation, which is rooted in community stewardship rather than corporate extraction, anticipates and addresses calls for ecological justice. Secondly, resilience comes from self-determination and local self autonomy. Locally controlled food systems, energy systems, and education equips individuals with agency rather than dependency and is key for establishing national resilience.Finally, justice requires ethical leadership that confronts privilege and enacts policies to redistribute power and resources. The film makes clear that Sankara’s values shaped his policies, and that transformative leadership demands integrity as much as strategy.
In sum, Sankara’s works challenge us to see decolonization and anti-imperialism as holistic projects with the issues of economic domination, ecological care, and cultural dignity being interwoven. In a globalized world facing numerous social and environmental issues, his insistence on collective responsibility, local empowerment, and structural change remains a compelling framework for imagining more sustainable, resilient, and just societies.
Merrick Semple