War and Imperialism
The broad thematic coverage of “Poland” allows interpreters to relate the song to current political contexts. Their comments confirm that its moral lessons lend much clarity to understanding war and imperialism. Overall, they highlight how the song is a wise criticism of injustice and offers a philosophical resolution to this violence. Focusing on the loss that arises in conflict, Peter Kinene explores the negative consequences of enacting violence at individual and cross-national levels. He affirms the notion that acting ruthlessly begets violence, and engaging in such violence might result in a greater loss than what might have occurred with a more mindful consideration. Kinene relates this to materialism:
People should avoid inciting violence and death over material possessions that are limited to the realm of this earth. Though many toil many hours for those possessions or love them deeply, death eventually and irrevocably separates them. Therefore, killing another human being over such impermanent items makes no sense. People should treasure life above material gains and, whenever possible, avoid the dissolution of friendship or partnership. When either party in a relationship does not feel that the other appreciates him or her equally, they both become resentful and may turn against each other. If it is friends who work alongside one another, they might begin competing and sometimes the tension may erupt into violence. This dynamic exists in many African countries, which may have originally promised to share certain resources or partner up as allies, but soon those promises dissolve when the states become ruthless and attempt to benefit only their people no matter how the process hurts the people of other countries. Once again, though, those countries and their occupants will soon leave the land and other resources over which they might be fighting. People naively believe they are invincible, but “Poland” cautions against pretending to be what one is not.
1Kinene interview, December 16, 2019.Kinene suggests a way of living that prioritizes amicability and reciprocity over attempting to satisfy depravity with material wealth. Rather than focusing on the exact World War II context of the song, Kinene’s commentary draws on its deeper themes to elucidate this philosophical claim.
Jessy Ssendawula amplifies Kinene’s thoughts, emphasizing the need to be careful and considerate in one’s relationships with others. He extends this notion by suggesting ways that governments can attain amicable relations between each other:
The song “Poland” praises the beauty of Poland and the initial friendship that existed among the nations associated with it but cautions that the friendliness of men can devolve into fighting or threats of violence. The song shows that when dialogue fails, conflict and war take the lead and as a result people die and lose property. It cautions leaders to be careful in their relations with leaders of other countries because inconsiderate foreign policy may lead to war with the neighbors. It also encourages dialogue as the most effective and peaceful way of resolving conflicts.
2Ssendawula interview, December 28, 2019.Ssendawula argues that the events of World War II came from a failed attempt to communicate, and he accordingly warns against repeating this mistake. Thus, he reimagines conflict as something that depends on how its actors manage dialogue.
Edward Ssebunnya Kironde offers an additional perspective on the idea of the futility of war by seeing it through the eyes of leaders who hold millions of lives in the balance. As we saw in World War II, the carelessness of leaders resulted in many “indirect” war casualties, as happened to Ugandans because they were subject to the British government. Just as there was little care between the powers that began World War II, the colonial leaders failed to attend to the needs of those whom they colonized, a disinterest that, Kironde charges, ignored the physical, social, and cultural well-being of Ugandans:
Leaders should not involve their countries in war unnecessarily. It is a harsh reality that many engage in war without even knowing why the war started in the first place. Unfortunately, this will continue as long as there are those who take joy in seeing other people’s pain and suffering. Such people incite conflict just so they can sit back and watch the world burn in front of them. Again, leaders should not get involved in wars that they have no backing in or do not understand the causes behind. Yet many feel entitled to engage themselves in almost everything, in any dispute no matter how small. Unless they understand the intentions of a conflict, onlookers should in no way involve themselves. People are loath to heed this advice and tend to follow what others are doing without question. This problem is compounded by the fact that there, sadly, are many who involve themselves in war while holding on to their own ulterior motives. They fight battles that do not belong to them to push their political agendas through, and in the process, others get caught up in the fray. Furthermore, leaders who do not heed the advice of others, particularly of their own people, partly breed the grounds for war. They may shrug off the advice of younger generations due to youth’s inexperience. This is the case in Uganda, where the older leaders who fought during the liberation war constantly discount the ideas of the younger, able-bodied generation. They cannot let go of their power and are not willing to let the younger people begin the process of leading the nation.
3Kironde interview, December 19, 2019.These points recall the quality of dehumanization that infests colonial and neoliberal politics. Such colonial ideation continues to reverberate in current African dictatorial administrations, particularly with the way they sacrifice the well-being of the masses for their own sake, treating them as mere resources to be disposed of and exploited. When people regard others as objects, as pieces of value that they can manipulate, it results in ontological forms of violence that proliferate beyond the more situational violence one might observe between and among individuals. When dictators distance themselves so thoroughly from their people, they succumb to illusions about their diplomatic responsibility, that they can no longer recognize its value. This separation begets ignorance, further begetting violence whereby the pretenses of political strategy have obscured the empathy that leaders might actually prefer to rule with. In this sense, decision-making becomes about resource extraction—the vapid, calculated sense of gain and loss, for bodies of power who obsess about their sovereignty that they render themselves insular.
John Magandaazi Kityo discusses “Poland” by reasoning through the struggles between President Museveni and opposition leaders. He emphasizes the relationship between Museveni and one figure, Colonel Dr. Besigye. The two were once allies, but their relationship has gradually descended into a bitter conflict today. Kityo points to this relationship to argue that failing to resolve one’s baggage and disagreements will result in greater resentment:
Dr. Besigye and President Museveni, though now in total opposition, used to work together in a united front. Those who do not know would never guess that they used to have an amicable relationship, given the intensity with which they attack one another today. Besigye used to be Museveni’s physician, and though many wonder what drove a doctor and a patient to engage one another with such animosity, they realize that the question is a moot point. Knowing each other closely previously has made their rivalry more bitter, to a point where it is futile to implore them to unite. People who are outside the two politicians’ immediate circles might have no effect on helping them to reconcile. The responsibility lies with them alone to try and repair the situation, to recognize that enough is enough. Meanwhile, everyone else must stand back and watch. As the lyric of “Poland” says, “Let them fight also, they will eventually tire.”
4Kityo interview, December 14, 2019.Using the relationship between Museveni and Besigye to make a more encompassing point about relationships, Kityo interprets the meaning of “Poland” as something of a theatrical performance of the two protagonists, as if they are characters on a stage dramatizing their conflict. Seen this way, the song takes on a new quality, becoming intertwined with the people (the audience) who are impacted by these theatrics.