Joacine Katar Moreira was the first deputy elected by Livre to Parliament, leaving the party months later - and spending the rest of the legislature as an independent deputy. She was the first voice to bring to the Assembly of the Republic the discussion on a possible restitution to the former colonies, and was criticized at the time. One of the voices that pointed the finger at her was the leader of Chega, André Ventura, who, following the proposal presented, suggested that the deputy be "returned to her country of origin", Guinea-Bissau. Four years later, the issue of reparations to the former colonies is now back on the table after the President of the Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, spoke of the "looted goods" in the colonial era, indicating that he "would see" how one could "repair the situation". The case has already forced the Government to take a position, and even Marcelo has already spoken out again, saying that the "reparation" has been going on for 50 years.

The President's statements are insufficient - because they cannot be unaccompanied by a national project

What has changed so that, four years later, this theme is back on the table by the voice of the President of the Republic?

The discussion of decolonization/reparation/restitution is inevitable. It comes to the surface, causes a great reaction, then calms down, and then comes to the surface again - causing a new reaction. We will continue like this successively. This is the Portuguese way of reacting to significant changes. Also before April 25, there were insurrectionist attempts to overthrow the old regime, which did not succeed and then it was necessary to insist. For women today to have more space and equality, we have successively gone through mini openings of discussion, of increases, of electoral capacity and then of equality, of the parity law, for example. We do not have this habit of making unique, significant, effective and efficient changes immediately. And this is a discussion that will necessarily have to exist because Portugal was a pioneer in the trafficking of enslaved individuals. Pioneer. All empires have as their origin the territorial conquest, the subjugation of other peoples and cultures. I even accept the argument that slavery is part of human history, but then let's look at it from another perspective, which is the perspective of the international trafficking of enslaved people. This is unique, something specific to colonization - initiated by the Portuguese and which meant the uprooting of millions of individuals from Africa, taken away from their homeland, taken away from their families, treated, more than as objects, as animals. Objectified, tied up, put on ships, in holds and sent to the Americas and also to Europe. Let's look specifically at that. This is not human history, this is the history of Western powers that had a colonial project. Colonialism was not a unique initiative, nor was it a unique project. We are talking about a historical period that began in 1415 with the invasion of Ceuta and ended in 1974. Obviously, there was not a single colonial project there. There were several colonial projects. But it did not start for the reasons we are normally taught, which is that we are going to evangelize other peoples, to bring them something.

How so?

The idea was not to bring something - the idea was to take something away. Colonization begins with what we would now call capitalism. But at that time it was not that yet. We went after resources - gold, spices - with the aim of filling the royal coffers that would protect Portugal territorially from the invasion of other countries. But also that it would give the possibility of making royal marriages with good negotiations, that would keep the Crown intact and that would contribute to the increase of international influence. The idea here was not evangelization. The idea was to obtain the financial and commercial resources necessary for international enrichment.

Did you feel in any way wronged because at the time your initiative was not well received and the reactions to the President of the Republic's suggestion were not so effusive?

I think that at the time it was something that people were not expecting. I want to think that all that absolutely visceral reaction came from a lack of preparation and a lack of knowing how to deal with the subject. But also with the help of the media and the alarmism because they started to give the idea that my goal was to empty national museums. Naturally, it caused widespread indignation. But I was not expecting the isolation that the initiatives would have. But, apparently, they were not proposed in vain.

You started by talking about a kind of cycle. Do you think that the statements of the President of the Republic can break this cycle, so that there can be progress on this issue?

In my view, there are no ideal beginnings. I started this before the President of the Republic. At the time, they gave me the idea that it was not yet time, that it was not that way, that it was not the right time. Even individuals who support reparations. There were several articles in the media, there was discussion, but I am never invited to comment on my initiatives and the discussions that I start. But - for better or worse - a national discussion on restitution is started. Only that my [initiatives] were not specifically about restitution. They were about decolonization. There is a huge confusion there. Something is reparation, something is restitution - and restitution is one of the forms of reparation. There are others. Four years ago we started a national discussion on restitution and on the idea of what is effectively national heritage. Can I claim that works from Angola or Guinea, from specific ethnic groups there, are national heritage? If four years ago my initiatives were rejected by a Parliament that was mainly on the Left, now with the statements of the President everyone also thinks that it is not the ideal time - again it is not the ideal time because we have 50 deputies from the extreme right in Parliament, we have a Right-wing Parliament, a Right-wing Government. But I don't think there are ideal times. Although I also think that the President's statements are insufficient, because they cannot be unaccompanied by a national project.

Should they have been more emphasized?

We cannot decontextualize the ideas and demands for reparations for colonialism - for everything that colonialism implied at the time, but also in relation to the impacts today. They are insufficient because they are not accompanied by a political project, an ideological project, any national and institutional initiative. They are just words. But they are words of recognition of the violence of colonial history and they are words that incite action. At this moment, I find the President's words useful, but they have to be framed in a broad logic of decolonization of the national imaginary, decolonization of culture, of knowledge. And there the history of colonial reparation comes in, including restitution and compensation. It is not with euros that we will advance in terms of civilization.

How could it be?

We need to re-educate ourselves, to have national initiatives, regardless of the diplomatic and institutional relationship with the former colonies. The former colonies can decide to use this compensation to start local reparation initiatives. Compensation is one way of reparation, but it is not the only way and it is an insufficient way. It is also necessary to have other initiatives, namely, to change school textbooks, the institution of rational quotas - which is something that everyone is afraid of - which aim to accelerate equality. We continue in a colonial epic of the heroization of colonial history, that we are a heroic people. "Heroes of the sea, noble people / Brave, immortal nation / Rise again today / The splendor of Portugal!". And the splendor of Portugal is nothing more, nothing less, than the colonial era. We insist on omitting and relativizing all its violence and dehumanization.

Whenever there is talk of possible reparation and possible restitution, people find and see this as an attack on Portuguese identity. They cling to the colonial epic as an argument

Can the way Portuguese history is told be a path to this reparation?

There is nothing easier than changing the vocabulary of textbooks. It is unacceptable that today we continue to look at history, at Africans, at the colonized, using the arguments and concepts of the 15th century. We open the history books and there it is written: "Portugal traded products of enormous value: gold, spices and slaves". Products. This is the perspective of the 15th century. This means something: that the colonial ideology, the colonial project, has not been dismantled. Fascism fell, but we maintain a colonial perspective. Because it is that story that no one wants to put their hands on because it is related to the ideas of national identity. Every time someone talks about another side of colonial history, they talk about slavery, forced labor, they talk about rape, extractivism, eco