The Francophone Curse
Many African writers, thinkers and scholars have expressed their concerns about the development of Francophonie as a dangerous step towards a smart re-colonizing process of postcolonial Africa. Some have condemned Senghor and the negritude movement for their submissive allegiance to France. In his book La Malédiction africaine (Münster, Hamburg, London: LIT, 2000) Ambroise Kom gives out some serious reflections.
He first quotes a speech by former minister of Cooperation Bernard Debré concerned with the outcome of the globalization process: « nous [les Français] resterons quant à nous coupés de nos racines africaines […] incapables alors d’être une puissance écoutée » (Kom 2000: 8) [we (French) will remain cut from our African roots… unable therefore to be a power that is heard] The fact that a French minister sincerely claims any African roots of French people is cynically demagogical and denotes a sense of possession of Africa by France. Since France has a sacred mission to ensure her influence over this part of the world, Francophonie’s unveiled aim is to provide this dominance. It is obvious that the first beneficiary of francophonie is France and not her linguistic, political and cultural partners. The present Francophonie, though initiated by Africans, is a tool for France to challenge the Anglophone Commonwealth by ensuring her imperialistic power over her former colonies and other French speaking countries. The ambiguity of its purposes is so that Francophonie seems to be more an ideological mechanism than a real cooperation.
There is a kind of rebellious and skeptical sentiment in the mind of some Francophone intellectuals as they realize the dupe games going on behind the scene. The discrepancy between speech and reality causes the intellectuals to call into question the background and the purpose of Francophonie. The serious statement and accusation stated by Moindjie “French kills our languages” is nothing but the direct consequence and result of the French assimilation philosophy and policy. France is so voracious that after slavery and colonialism, destroying the languages of her counterparts allows her to replace them by French language. Nevertheless a kind of resistance takes place at various levels. It is time to rethink the whole Francophonie process, not from the official base but from an intellectual perspective. Francophonie becomes suspicious because France retrieves, by so doing, in one hand what has been lost from the other hand. Dismantling the other’s culture and replace it in term length by the French one, so can be expressed the motto of Francophonie.
Observing the failure of African intelligentsia and political leadership to face the condition of hostages in which Africa has been put by its links to France, Kom brings into question the relevance of Francophonie itself: “… on peut se demander si les Africains ont véritablement jamais mesuré à leur juste valeur les enjeux de la rencontre avec l’Occident. Avons-nous vraiment maîtrisé la grammaire de la pensée impériale?” (Kom 2000: 7) [… one can ask if Africans have indeed ever measured to their full extend what is at stake in the encounter with the West. Have we really mastered the grammar of the imperial thought?]
It appears to Kom that Africa has naively put its destiny in the hands of the colonial master and their heirs through Francophonie: “Pour Debré et ses acolytes, nous n’avons jamais été que des otages. Comment donc expliquer qu’un otage qui a pu se soustraire à l’emprise de son ravisseur se retourne pour ainsi dire lui confier son avenir?” (7) [For Debré and his acolytes, we have always been hostages. How can one explain that a hostage who has been able to escape his kidnapper’s influence returns, so to say, to trust him his future?] In other words the question is to evaluate the move towards Francophonie initiated by Senghor, Diori and Bourguiba since it as about the fate of some hundred millions Africans.
To Kom’s eyes sticking to Francophonie is a suicide for Africans so that he can logically title his work: The Francophone curse. It means to allow France decide for Africa at all important levels. He vigorously condemns the founding contribution of Africans to the creation of Francophonie more or less as an act of self-mutilation: « Que ce soient des Africains qui prennent l’initiative de défendre la communauté francophone contre les assauts de l’anglophonie ne peut que consacrer l’éclatant succès de l’idéologie coloniale » (Kom 112). [The fact that it is Africans to initiate to defend the francophone community against the assaults of anglophonie can only consecrate the tremendous success of the colonial ideology]
(Excerpt from a presentation at the Cave Hill Philosophy Symposium, November 18, 2011)
Many African writers, thinkers and scholars have expressed their concerns about the development of Francophonie as a dangerous step towards a smart re-colonizing process of postcolonial Africa. Some have condemned Senghor and the negritude movement for their submissive allegiance to France. In his book La Malédiction africaine (Münster, Hamburg, London: LIT, 2000) Ambroise Kom gives out some serious reflections.
He first quotes a speech by former minister of Cooperation Bernard Debré concerned with the outcome of the globalization process: « nous [les Français] resterons quant à nous coupés de nos racines africaines […] incapables alors d’être une puissance écoutée » (Kom 2000: 8) [we (French) will remain cut from our African roots… unable therefore to be a power that is heard] The fact that a French minister sincerely claims any African roots of French people is cynically demagogical and denotes a sense of possession of Africa by France. Since France has a sacred mission to ensure her influence over this part of the world, Francophonie’s unveiled aim is to provide this dominance. It is obvious that the first beneficiary of francophonie is France and not her linguistic, political and cultural partners. The present Francophonie, though initiated by Africans, is a tool for France to challenge the Anglophone Commonwealth by ensuring her imperialistic power over her former colonies and other French speaking countries. The ambiguity of its purposes is so that Francophonie seems to be more an ideological mechanism than a real cooperation.
There is a kind of rebellious and skeptical sentiment in the mind of some Francophone intellectuals as they realize the dupe games going on behind the scene. The discrepancy between speech and reality causes the intellectuals to call into question the background and the purpose of Francophonie. The serious statement and accusation stated by Moindjie “French kills our languages” is nothing but the direct consequence and result of the French assimilation philosophy and policy. France is so voracious that after slavery and colonialism, destroying the languages of her counterparts allows her to replace them by French language. Nevertheless a kind of resistance takes place at various levels. It is time to rethink the whole Francophonie process, not from the official base but from an intellectual perspective. Francophonie becomes suspicious because France retrieves, by so doing, in one hand what has been lost from the other hand. Dismantling the other’s culture and replace it in term length by the French one, so can be expressed the motto of Francophonie.
Observing the failure of African intelligentsia and political leadership to face the condition of hostages in which Africa has been put by its links to France, Kom brings into question the relevance of Francophonie itself: “… on peut se demander si les Africains ont véritablement jamais mesuré à leur juste valeur les enjeux de la rencontre avec l’Occident. Avons-nous vraiment maîtrisé la grammaire de la pensée impériale?” (Kom 2000: 7) [… one can ask if Africans have indeed ever measured to their full extend what is at stake in the encounter with the West. Have we really mastered the grammar of the imperial thought?]
It appears to Kom that Africa has naively put its destiny in the hands of the colonial master and their heirs through Francophonie: “Pour Debré et ses acolytes, nous n’avons jamais été que des otages. Comment donc expliquer qu’un otage qui a pu se soustraire à l’emprise de son ravisseur se retourne pour ainsi dire lui confier son avenir?” (7) [For Debré and his acolytes, we have always been hostages. How can one explain that a hostage who has been able to escape his kidnapper’s influence returns, so to say, to trust him his future?] In other words the question is to evaluate the move towards Francophonie initiated by Senghor, Diori and Bourguiba since it as about the fate of some hundred millions Africans.
To Kom’s eyes sticking to Francophonie is a suicide for Africans so that he can logically title his work: The Francophone curse. It means to allow France decide for Africa at all important levels. He vigorously condemns the founding contribution of Africans to the creation of Francophonie more or less as an act of self-mutilation: « Que ce soient des Africains qui prennent l’initiative de défendre la communauté francophone contre les assauts de l’anglophonie ne peut que consacrer l’éclatant succès de l’idéologie coloniale » (Kom 112). [The fact that it is Africans to initiate to defend the francophone community against the assaults of anglophonie can only consecrate the tremendous success of the colonial ideology]
(Excerpt from a presentation at the Cave Hill Philosophy Symposium, November 18, 2011)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire