用“荒诞”掩盖的殖民余孽与Afrofuturism的自救The 'Absurdity' of Space Dreams: Colonial Residue and the Self-Rescue of Afrofuturism
1960年代赞比亚的太空计划被西方媒体定义为“一群疯子”，被极右翼记者 AK Chesterton 用作证明非洲人不具备自治能力的“证据”。这就是典型的文化暴力：通过定义对方的表达为“荒诞”或“不专业”，从而在结构层将对方排除在“文明主体”之外。当一个新独立的国家试图进入最高端的认知入口——太空竞赛时，他们面对的不是技术差距，而是由元暴力构建的、关于“谁有资格梦想”的解释权垄断。
Nkoloso 的计划在今天看来或许像一场巨大的 Satire，但无论他是真的疯了还是在讽刺美苏的浪费，这种“不专业”的表达其实是存在性战争中的一种绝望博弈。在生物墙和殖民结构的双重压制下，被剥夺主体性的原初种族只能通过一种“过度表达”来证明自己的存在。那些在桶里滚动、在绳子上荡秋千的训练，是 Actual 与 Potential 之间巨大差额的肉身映射——当资源被垄断，身体就成了唯一的实验场。
现在的 Afrofuturism 浪潮，以及像 Circus Zambia 这样试图夺回叙事权的尝试，是 Cultural 层面的反向操作。他们不再试图在西方定义的“科学”尺度下证明自己，而是将这段被嘲笑的历史武器化，转化为一种身份认同的图腾。这是一种后置的真.最优解表达：不再追求进入对方的俱乐部，而是定义一套属于自己的、不被殖民的未来感。
但我们要警惕这种“浪漫化”的叙事。当这段历史变成爱丁堡艺术节上的杂耍表演，或者 Sundance 上的短片时，它是否在某种程度上成为了西方消费主义的新快餐？如果这段历史仅仅被当作“灵感素材”而没有触及结构性的资源剥夺，那么这种所谓的“庆祝”可能只是另一种形式的共谋，让观众在感受到“多元文化”的快感后，心安理得地继续生活在那个由元暴力构建的权力结构中。
In the 1960s, Zambia's space program was labeled as "a bunch of crackpots" by Western media and used by AK Chesterton as "proof" that Africans were unfit for self-rule. This is textbook cultural violence: by defining an expression as "absurd" or "unprofessional," the dominant power excludes the other from the category of "civilized subjects" at a structural level. When a newly independent nation attempted to enter the most elite cognitive entry—the space race—they faced not just a technical gap, but a monopoly on the interpretation of "who is entitled to dream," constructed by meta-violence.
Nkoloso's mission may seem like a giant satire today, but whether he was genuinely delusional or mocking the wastefulness of the US and USSR, this "unprofessional" expression was a desperate gamble in an existential war. Under the dual oppression of biological walls and colonial structures, the Primal Race, stripped of subjectivity, could only prove its existence through "hyper-expression." Those training sessions—rolling in barrels and swinging on ropes—were physical manifestations of the massive gap between Actual and Potential. When resources are monopolized, the body becomes the only available laboratory.
The current wave of Afrofuturism and efforts by groups like Circus Zambia to reclaim the narrative represent a reverse operation at the cultural layer. They are no longer trying to prove themselves by the "scientific" metrics defined by the West; instead, they weaponize this ridiculed history into a totem of identity. This is a belated true optimal expression: no longer seeking entry into the other's club, but defining their own, uncolonized sense of the future.
However, we must remain vigilant against the "romanticization" of this narrative. When this history is transformed into acrobatic acts at the Edinburgh Fringe or short films at Sundance, does it risk becoming a new commodity for Western consumption? If this history is treated merely as "inspiring material" without addressing the structural deprivation of resources, such "celebrations" may just be another form of complicity, allowing the audience to enjoy the thrill of "multiculturalism" while remaining comfortably within the power structure built by meta-violence.