If by "text", you mean existing research studies and literatures, then post-colonial identity, including the relationship between personal and cultural identity are in a constant and perennial iteration and reification. Postcolonial studies, we have to concede, assume and hi-light the struggles that are deep seated in the psyche of the ex-colonised. So, their "postcolonial desire" (Cf. Young) is one tainted with differentiation and for greater advantage (see the kind of economy and politics that ex-colonised countries manifest).

However, if what you mean by "text" is literary text, then the post-colonial identity, with its relationship between personal and cultural identity is "humanistically hopeful". See the bitter, but subtly romanticistic tendencies of the ending sentences of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "Cien años de soledad" or even Ninotchka Rosca's "State of War". Postcolonial literatures collectively and categorically believe that the postcolonial self is able to transcend its colonial past, even if that postcolonial self is not able to articulate its dilemmas or false lemmas. For all its worth, poscolonialism in literary texts hopes and encourages, even if the self is in its grim and murky, ambivalent present state of affairs. To this effect, postcolonial literatures utilise and even "weaponsise" ANY available faculty or tool for creativity and criticism in order to subvert and abrogate the lags of colonial order, and at least, be able to express the reality---no matter how remote---that the ex-colonised self DOES have that "nativistic" liberty with all the "unalienable" rights and inherent dignity of being human (which, of course will have ramifications to the lingo of religion and knowledge, and their subsequent questions of grounding and need for explanation). See the works of Homi Bhabha, Franz Fanon, and Ashcroft (et al.) for further references.

About which text you are talking?

My position on this has been the effects of colonialism on the colonising countries themselves, but for your question Alvin Servan has written an excellent answer that can be expanded upon.

Nevertheless, colonialism is thousands of years old and its past appearances have been ignored. If colonialism is the alteration of existing cultures into the culture of the conquering group, reshaping identity, then this indeed goes back a considerable distance and perhaps reopens the debate.

Try to read "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Spivak discusses the lack of an account of the Sati practice, leading her to reflect on whether the subaltern can even speak. Spivak writes about the process, the focus on the Eurocentric Subject as they disavow the problem of representation; and by invoking the Subject of Europe, these intellectuals constitute the subaltern Other of Europe as anonymous and mute. Reading Edward Said should help critics like you understanding this topic. All the best!

In addition, I suggest the following readings

Mohanty, Chandra 1988 Under Western Eyes; Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. Feminist Review. No. 30 Autumn 1988 61-88.

Fraser, Nancy. 1995 Recognition or Redistribution? A Critical Reading of Iris Young's Justice and the Politics of Difference. Journal of Political Philosophy 3 (2): 166-180.

Brah, Avtar. 1996 Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London. Routledge

Banerji, Himani. 2000 The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Gender. Toronto. Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.

Many postcolonial scholars (cf. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, Frantz Fanon, Aimé Césaire . . .) claim that under (post-)colonial conditions, "cultural identities" are at least partly determined by colonial power-relations (for instance through racializations, devaluations of Indigenous knowledges, economic disparities). Personal identities of (former) colonizers and colonized are influenced by these power-relations. This is reflected upon in texts, but in different manners. In Culture and Imperialism, Said, for instance, claims that British writers are displaying feelings of superiority, while it is also possible for (post-)colonizalized writers and readers to question Western hegemony through "counterpuntual" writing and reading.

That the post-colonial subject is not a homogeneous category and therefore giving a totalitarian identity to the subject(s)of the de-colonised nation-state, without considering their 'location' and 'positionality' is problematic. And since it does not take into account question of 'intersectionality' (as identity markers), and spaces of 'liminality' where hybrid identities are formed, such homogenized totalitarian identities are only imaginary one.

I think Said's Orientalism & Bhabha's The Location of Culture would provide the best reply to your inquiry Tara Khaled . Best of luck!