During the conference organized by Degrowth in Île-de-France at the town hall of the 8nd arrondissement (Paris) on June 2019, XNUMX on the theme “Demography, migration and decline: taboo subjects?”, a heated debate had started following the presentation " Immigration, ecology and degrowth " during which a participant expressed a point of view that he transcribed, at our request, below. An interview followed, a few months later.
Texts published on the Lieux Communs website in June 2020.
« I would like to contribute to the discussion as the son of sub-Saharan immigrants to enrich today's debate. Many native French people do not realize it, but when you are from Africa or Asia, social pressure is very strong, even when you live in France. We reason as a community that shares the minimum with the indigenous population. Tribalism is very present among us, and reflexes from our continent of origin (nepotism, corruption, behavior on the edge of legality, etc.) resurface sooner or later. The continental tribalism that drives us does not give us a very developed social conscience. The principle of degrowth is foreign to most of us, and involvement in social struggles concerns us very little. We know very little about the different struggles that built modern Europe, such as the revolution of 1848, the Commune of 1871 or the Spanish anarchist experiences of 1936. The Third Worldism that permeates the thinking of many people on the left will come up against the wall of centuries-old cultural reflexes.
Very few people of sub-Saharan origin will tell you this to your face: animism that is accompanied by human sacrifices concerns all families. It can be one person or a few, but it is present in the background of our interactions with the outside world. It is also very difficult to be a differentiated individual in our communities. From what I have experienced, only Westerners have elevated the individual to the pinnacle, and this leads to the emergence of emancipated people. By emancipation, I mean the process by which a person leaves behind their deleterious cultural conditioning (systematic nepotism, community omerta, scarification, etc.) in order to recognize themselves as unique and capable of developing interests and commitments on their own. Once this person is emancipated, they can move towards a community of destiny bringing together other emancipated people, in which each person will fulfill their role knowingly, and not blindly like fusional communities. I am emancipated, so I speak from experience.
I am also telling you all this so that we stop angelizing those of non-European origin. Perversion exists just as much among people of African origin as among others. I want to give you the example of the LDNA (Black African Defense League, yes, it exists). Its members clearly say that France is their spoils of war! They want to colonize you and rule the country, whether you like it or not. We must differentiate between the immigrations of the end of the nineteenth century and those of the second half of the twentieth century. A Polish immigrant cannot be treated in the same way as an Algerian immigrant. I am telling you this because in the Algerian anthem, there is a verse (the third) that calls France to account. So tell yourself that every time a French person of Algerian origin sings the Algerian anthem, he is threatening France when he sings the third verse. The lyrics are in Arabic, but that's what it says. [1].
In order for degrowth to make its way among populations of non-European origin, you will have to stop being ashamed of yourselves. Be proud of your European heritage, and let your own identity shine through as indigenous people. It is then that immigrants of non-European origin and their descendants will respect you and some will join you in your struggles. »
The following comments were collected in September 2019:
LC: This intervention that you made at the Rencontres des décroissants in June 2019 is out of the ordinary, both in its content and because it came from a descendant of immigrants, Africans at that. Before discussing it in more detail, could you introduce yourself a little, for example through your personal journey?
Love : It is true that before continuing the discussion it is necessary to get an idea of the person who expressed these remarks.
I am the son of immigrants of sub-Saharan origin, born in the late 80s in the Île-de-France region. My background is in science and I attended preparatory classes for the grandes écoles. Hard sciences were always my main interest at that time. I received an ordinary education in Republican France, and as far back as I can remember, I was not at all concerned about the origins of my classmates, whether European or non-European. The sharing of a common identity (the one claimed by the French Republic) was not in doubt in my eyes during my childhood. I now understand with hindsight that our generation was a trial run to create descendants of immigrants torn between Europe and their continent of origin.
To be clear, my studies allowed me to emancipate myself, because I did not experience community confinement. The process of republican assimilation worked in my case, and my parents contributed to it by speaking only French within the family home. I learned the hyphen (the language of my ancestors) of my own free will as an adult. But I insist: French is my mother tongue. I am a Christian of the Lutheran Protestant faith (yes, I am not an atheist) and this has its importance in terms of the extra-community links that I have been able to establish as an adult.
Do you mean that the multiple links you had woven during your youth in the "republican crucible" did not survive communitarianism? At what point did you feel this return of "origins" in the public sphere?
In fact, these links remained, but communitarianism modified them. The common cultural referents remained those of the consumer society, but the question of our own identity distanced us somewhat. An observation was increasingly creeping in: " There is us and them "If I can give a concrete example, I remember in primary school a day when we visited an exhibition on slavery, and something cracked in me that very day. My aversion to native French people was almost never expressed verbally, but it was latent. However, I want to say that I have always had a European tropism, because my friendly relations were mainly with those of European origin, and the Latin classes I took in secondary school rooted me in the beauty of ancient languages.
Given my age, the return to "origins" was felt very strongly during the riots of 2005. And to top it all off, there were mass arrests in the town right next to mine (the town where rapper Nick Conrad lives) [2]). For my part, I have never experienced racism, yet there was a diffuse tendency towards victimization. And in this kind of case, you lock yourself into differentialist considerations, even if they are based on fictions: we are culturally and linguistically distant from African-Americans, but we identify with their situation as descendants of slaves.
Could you describe from the inside, based on your experience, this communitarianism, its mentality, its manifestations, its driving forces, as we now see it becoming widespread?
Of course, we must first remember that this communitarianism is dermal, and that skin color is considered an aspect of our identity. One of the most powerful drivers of this communitarianism is the inferiority complex with regard to White(I insist on this word, the term "native Europeans" is never used). Every person feels more comfortable in a territory when they rub shoulders with their peers, that is a fact. We thus form links with the first person who speaks our language or who is physically close to us. This tendency is exacerbated among many people of sub-Saharan origin, and the formation of sub-Saharan diasporas occurs systematically. This is the chronology that Paul Collier dealt with in his latest book "Exodus" [3]. Because the process of diaspora emergence is rapid, we create people with a deeply divided identity. These people, because they are a minority, will build an identity through celebrities who are genetically similar to them. I can no longer count the number of times we focus on Serena and Venus Williams in tennis, Usain Bolt, Donovan Bailey, Carl Lewis, Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Christiane Taubira or Pelé. You should know that during the 2002 World Cup, Senegal's victory over France and its run to the quarter-finals made us crazy with joy; only teams of African origin find favor for French people of African origin when they face a European team where there are only white people in the team. The inferiority complex that I introduced is also fueled by resentment. We have no idea of the identity backbone that is formed by the slave trade (mainly that carried out by Europeans, that of Arab-Muslims is very little reported) and European colonization among Sub-Saharans. The successful series "Roots", the film "The Color Purple" are permanent cultural references. Nietzsche had described this resentment very well.
Their discourse is that we are here to succeed in a country of whites and to co-opt our peers so that our visibility increases. The Turkish, Pakistani, and Tamil communities in France do not reason differently from us, even if they are more discreet. The non-exhaustive manifestations of this communitarianism are the creation of community media (the television channels Trace Urban, BBLACK), a blind tribalism when a person of sub-Saharan origin is stopped by the police, a specialization in tertiary professions, a tendency to put on a pedestal blacks who exercise prestigious activities exercised in the vast majority by whites (we were interested in figure skating only because Surya Bonali did it).
Many members of the sub-Saharan community (I hate to generalize) draw their strength from victimization. This is how community support can be established and pawns are advanced to make France a country similar to those of the Anglo-Saxons. From what I have noticed, the links formed with whites and Asians are mostly superficial. We bond with them because it is necessary to do so. There are few common cultural references, apart from those of the consumer society, as I said previously.
The extreme example of this mixture of resentment, inferiority complex, victimization and blind co-optation is Rokhaya Diallo. She is a caricature of a woman because her reactions are predictable and she has no subtlety in her approach. colonizer (I emphasize this word). The fragmentation of France into communities is a transitional stage of her project. She wants blacks to take power and put whites in a political minority. For those who don't know, she wrote a column in the bimonthly magazine Koï (aimed at French people of East Asian origin) where victimization oozed from each of her sentences, she wanted to arouse resentment among East Asians so that they would join her fight [4]. The inclusive writing format of this column gives an idea of the ravages of the intersectionality of struggles. Football player Kilian Mbappé grew up in this community confinement where role models mainly come from the world of entertainment. One of the strategies implemented by communitarians is to put representatives in high places who will convey polarizing messages. This is made increasingly easy because many of the native French are subject to communitarian dictates, and the more we submit to this type of injunction, the more the enemy will want to submit. People like Danièle Obono, Leonora Miano (who said that population replacement will happen), Rokhaya Diallo, Christiane Taubira, Samia Ghali, Morsay, Bassem Braiki only understand force. It is not with convolutions that we fight against this kind of person.
For you, there is therefore a real desire to split. But, deep down, on what basis? Ethnic, religiousproven, ideological, political? ... You talk about alliance with Asians, and there are many links between the communitarians you cite and the Islamist fringes. All this seems very heterogeneous, without even mentioning "inclusive writing" which has very little to do with the cultures of origin...
I explained that communitarization was based on skin color. The bases are therefore mainly ideological and political. But to discuss national issues, diasporas are of course formed in accordance with the country to which one belongs. Let's say that to obtain increased visibility in Western countries and fight against "racism", only skin color matters. But to form pressure groups abroad against African heads of state, the country is the common denominator.
So you are right in saying that it is a potpourri of demands. When you think about it, it is very little organized as for other communities (Chinese, Turkish, etc.). Given that prominent personalities are seen as role models (Christiane Taubira, Rost, Hapsatou Sy, Omar Sy, etc.), we let these people speak a lot in our name. I will repeat: celebrities embody in some way the collective thought of Sub-Saharans. Independence of mind is difficult to express, because the spirit of community predominates over any public expression.
There are indeed many connections between sub-Saharan organizations and Islamic organizations. It is the union of the "wretched of the earth" in a way. There are exceptions, in particular with the Sub-Saharans of evangelical Protestant confession who embrace the fundamentalist discourse of North America. They will not hesitate to criticize Islam and to distance themselves from those who are not of their confession. Stephen Smith highlighted this very well in his latest book "The Rush to Europe" [5].
From what I have read, only Rokhaya Diallo systematically uses inclusive writing. By having an overview of sub-Saharan communitarianism, we find many inconsistencies and improbable links. I do not see how people who are not atheists (atheism does not exist in sub-Saharan Africa) and conservative in morals (I am one of them) can converge with leftist associations, unless it is to infiltrate their ranks.
From what I know, alliances with Asian organizations have only been attempted by Rokhaya Diallo. Asian communities are really acting in their corner, and this should worry Europeans. The city of Vancouver in Canada is now a city held by the Chinese. The occupation of tobacco shops by Chinese is also taking place in Switzerland. Confucius Institutes have recently opened in Switzerland. In short, Western countries are a hunting ground for the community and hegemonic aims of several communities. The community to which I belong but from which I have emancipated myself will insist on systemic racism, the lack of diversity in the media or will repeat the old refrains about colonization and slavery. It should be known that, even more than Europeans, Sub-Saharans operate on the founding narrative of African identity through more or less false narratives. This surely has a link with the socialization of griots on the continent (which I did not experience, but which I encounter by proxy) which helps to unite the collective.
I will repeat it, but interested blog visitors should read Stephen Smith's latest book. To get an idea of the intercommunity conflicts that are being exported to the European continent, I recommend the song " Blokkk Identity » which has Médine and Youssoupha as interpreters [6].
…who are finally reconciled by the invocation of Mohammed and the hatred of the “ sausage-wine "! Here, it is really the Islamization of black Africa that continues on the European continent by claiming to be a factor of pacification in the face of inter-ethnic clashes. But you spoke of the "founding stories" of the sub-Saharan community, which today include colonization, slavery, and "racism": for you, does this intersect with a lived reality or is it just a lever for guilt and demands?
As for racism, for many this is an experience. A significant proportion of sub-Saharan people prefer Anglo-Saxon countries, because in these countries one is considered according to one's competence, while the obligation to embrace cultural codes in France is increasingly frowned upon. In addition, there are prejudices in the administrative strata due to origin that persist according to the testimonies I have heard. This is manifested by condescension and even contempt on the part of administrative staff. In addition, at a high level of qualification, there is a refusal to hire people from diverse backgrounds. I say this because I have heard it several times from people with different backgrounds. The reasons for this glass ceiling are unknown to me, but I know that this ceiling is cracked (you only have to look at the media figures of our time to notice the change).
As for colonization, you should know that Françafrique has been instilled in us for a long time, and that there are still French agents of influence in the French-speaking countries of Africa. We all know that our leaders are corrupt to the core and that they rob the people, but resentment towards the metropolis remains tenacious regarding its colonizing actions. The frequent words are: 'They stole our wealth, and now they are buying it from us at a discount!!', 'The CFA franc is a marker of French neocolonialism', 'The French government installs and consolidates presidents who are loyal to it'. To me, there is some truth in all this. The problem is that it does not move us forward, especially if we think of the Chinese project of the string of pearls. [7]There remains a collective political naivety among sub-Saharans, and this can only change when geopolitical realities shatter personal demands.
I will return to a point that I raised concerning slavery. In Africa, we very easily adhere to moving stories, whether the facts reported are supported or not. Slavery is a centuries-old historical fact that mobilizes imaginations in a very strong way. We notice this immediately on the island of Gorée (even if I have never been there). Historians have demolished this place of memory, but the 'community of destiny' that was formed through slavery maintains the myth. This 'community of destiny' is, as I said, chromatodermic. There is a very strong identification with African-Americans among Sub-Saharans. For example, the marriage of the son of the English royal family Harry to Meghan, an African-American, caused a lot of talk in our family circles. The main consequence of this identification is the construction of an identity backbone of which slavery constitutes the heart. The blackmail of slavery that the French are subjected to is a way for many Sub-Saharans to make a place for themselves in the History of France and to torpedo the 'National Novel'. There is, I recognize without problem, a process of self-mystification that has been at work. Indeed, African ethnic groups reduced each other to slavery. It is therefore ridiculous that so many Sub-Saharans claim to be descendants of slaves. But the basic message conveyed by the CRAN (Representative Council of Black Associations) and other victim organizations is this: 'Consider our suffering! France is responsible for it and it will be necessary to take it into account.' It's low-ceiling, and I recognize that it's immature. They want to exist, and slavery allows them to do so. I have emerged from this community framework, and I say without flinching that I have little in common with African-Americans. I have not suffered racism and my ethnic group dealt with one of the biggest slave traders in West Africa (the Brazilian Francisco de Souza). My ethnic group made its place after emigration and there is no shame in that. The binary logic in which many Sub-Saharans are locked is incapacitating and a Rost or a Christiane Taubira are to be pitied.
It is not clear how to respond to such attitudes, which are also found in societies that have no colonial past, such as Sweden or Switzerland… And it seems that any concession made is, deep down, just an admission of “white” guilt. It is a sort of vicious circle where narcissistic guilt on the one hand and victim conspiracy theories on the other feed on each other. How would it be possible in these conditions to create a community, in one way or another? What do you think all this could lead to, what type of society are we entering?
It is very difficult to answer the first question you asked. It is very likely that famous people of sub-Saharan origin will have to come out of the woodwork to convey speeches that go against political correctness. Given the importance of successful models among sub-Saharans, this is a possible solution for me. As always, the problem could come from some who will insult these people from "Bounty" [8] in order to discredit them. Another solution could be the proliferation of books written by Africans to put things right, like Ernest Tigori [9] did. Let me be clear on this point: the restoration of somewhat normal relations can only be the work of people of sub-Saharan origin. However, we must face the obvious, which is that we will not be able to form a community with all those of sub-Saharan origin. Some are too lobotomized to go back. I am not a fan of media infiltration, but conveying a mobilizing thought through the media that sub-Saharans favor could help. These are of course only vague proposals on my part; work in this direction has not even begun yet. It may also be that economic and ecological imperatives unite the population behind a common goal.
As for your second question, we are moving towards an Anglo-Saxon society. The undermining work has been well underway with all the community magazines (Amina, Koï, Gazellemag) and the victim entrepreneurs. The communitarization will not be ethnic in my opinion, it should be chromatoderm. I doubt that Peul or Hmong enclaves will be created in Seine Saint-Denis. This is where France will differ from the United Kingdom, since in London itself, you have Bangladeshi, Nigerian or Indian neighborhoods. I make a distinction with the Chinese or the Turks, who are really communities constituted with defined hegemonic objectives. There will of course be more inter-community conflicts, and the native French will be a community like any other. Another difference with Anglo-Saxon countries is that the native French have for the most part no community awareness, it will therefore be difficult for them to form a united front against other communities. We saw it with the rape cases in Telford, Rochdale and Rotherham. [10].
We absolutely have to talk about Afro-European mixed-race people, because they are constantly torn between the two continents. Africans want them for themselves, since most of them are not considered white. The consequence is that the native French will lose more and more ground demographically. The only mixed-race people who will be able to declare themselves on the French side are those with significant strength of character, because they will have to break the community bond. I say this because there are concrete examples of Barack Obama, Colin Kaepernick or Dominique Sopo. The case I am going to discuss comes from Sweden, but it is enlightening on the tension that many mixed-race people are experiencing. The American David Cole had met the actress Fransesca Quartey who is Ghanaian-Swedish and this actress clearly said that she wants to make Sweden unrecognizable by African immigration. I hate to do bazaar psychology, but like everyone else, mixed-race people want to rub shoulders with people who are like them. These are therefore multicultural societies that many are calling for. They will thus be melted into the undifferentiated mass of cosmopolitan cities. The Japanese-American mixed race Melody Yoko Reilly is in this movement of destructuring.
You describe a " deleterious cultural conditioning ", an anthropological type of determinism that is maintained in foreign lands and is now rationalizing itself, and going on the offensive. How can we maintain in this context perspectives of emancipation, the emergence of autonomous individuals capable of distancing themselves from the traditional, family, religious, etc. legacies that the Western historical movements carried?
This question that you ask is a real headache that the emancipated will have to tackle quickly. It is necessary to emphasize the fact that we are talking aboutpeople, because in my opinion, this emancipation cannot be a mass movement. Too many people have tried to change the worldview of entire populations with the dire consequences that we know (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...).
It is through continuous debates that people will be able to define what they want as a society. We live in ideological silos where we cannot even agree on what happens in real life. Most people no longer talk to each other, and they cannot think about what conditions them. A first job is to identify people who know that something is wrong, a second job is to confront them with the current problems. I know that my approach is elitist, but I have been too confronted with the leveling of thought by empty and superficial discussions. One thing that may shock you must be said: I have become an apostate of equality. Only equality in rights matters to me, a natural hierarchy is necessary for me, because our gifts and personal abilities necessarily differ. Some people have the intellectual capacity to question themselves, others do not. I believe that the elitism of Athenian democracy is not a historical accident. One must have the intelligence and the adequate vision to contribute constructively to the assemblies. A didactic approach will have to be taken to make citizens face up to their responsibilities.
The prospects for emancipation can only be maintained if a common culture is shared. However, we live in culturally Balkanized societies. It is perhaps because Ukraine is not so Balkanized that the Maidan revolt was able to take place. I know the discourse of Ukrainian nationalists, and the refusal of corruption is anchored among them. They are against oligarchies and defend the empowerment of the people. One can disagree ideologically with them, but one cannot deny them a fierce will to thwart Russian imperialism. I am making this detour via Ukraine because it is one of the countries that suffered the most in the 20th century.
The cultural dimension must be addressed without embellishment. We must debunk all myths that have no conformity with reality. As a Christian, I have been immersed in a significant number of myths, but I know how to put into perspective what I have been taught and what I have believed in (a mystical experience led me to do so). I tend to be skeptical and to send beliefs packing, because only the facts matter. It is then the treatment given to these facts that should determine political differences. For example, an anti-speciesist must clearly state that the world as it is horrifies him and that he wants to change it, a racist must clearly state that he places race above all else. I have given up an irenic vision, so I consider that there will be everything in future societies, because man is driven mainly by his solipsisms. Understanding the philosophical currents that make up the French state as it is will allow us to do the necessary cleaning. As far as I am concerned, I understood that the French state is messianic in its essence. The absolutism of the Ancien Régime took the form of monarchism, which is the system of the Fifth Republic. Republicanism is an extreme secularization of France, the "eldest daughter of the Church". The colonization of the 19th century is an international evangelization of republican principles. If we want large-scale emancipation, we will have to focus on preserving or destroying the republican myth. No question should be avoided. In this way, the inhabitants will be able to position themselves to embody in their daily lives the project that will prevail. If they do not like it, they should leave the territory or be excluded by force. This condition is perhaps too extreme, but a people aware of themselves does not allow internal enemies or potential traitors. There is no shortage of fifth columns in our territory, so dealing with them is a burning issue.
We must therefore ask ourselves the question of the ethnic homogeneity/heterogeneity of the people that will emerge. As you have noticed, inter-ethnic tensions are exacerbated, including when the native French are not concerned. I think that there should be a tiny number of foreigners within the communities, because if they are overwhelmed by the majority, they will adopt the cultural codes and emancipate themselves from their culture of origin. Multiculturalism is no longer in my political software. My elitism leads me to defend the exemplarity of the people so that the culture is embraced by the foreigner. An authentic incarnation of the principles by the emancipated will guarantee a cultural base, this is what we see in Bhutan or in certain parts of the United States with non-emancipated inhabitants.
Let's talk about the religious question now. I can clearly see the advantages of secularism in France, but we must not forget that this system can disappear because everything that has a beginning has an end. Secularism can be problematic because it creates duplicity among people whose culture is too far removed from the secular one. Discriminating factors will be necessary to deal with citizens in the period of political transition (I accept the word "discrimination" because everyone discriminates). I despise the theocratic principle because it is imposed by force and is totally contrary to the emancipation that you and I defend. The inner reform of each person must take place because autonomy comes at this price. Know that I read "Twelve Proofs of the Inexistence of God" by Sébastien Faure and that they seemed very relevant to me. We need to know whether we want a people strong in their certainties because they will have questioned everything that can be, or whether we need to convey mobilizing myths. I have a little idea of what you favor, but we must not forget that communism is an atheist religion that is just as dogmatic as revealed religions. Atheists must not forget that they can have disabling biases and that intolerance can affect them. Since I have a sense of humor, I could recommend reading philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ladislav Klima, Albert Carraco (for mentally strong people), Emil Cioran or Douglas Harding. All of this remains a set of proposals, but I believe that we must anchor people in the continent where they live. I like Amadou Hampâté Ba, but it is not the European substrate, and then Western philosophers have for a good part of them cleared the ground for the search for truth. A solid scientific training is an effective way to elevate emancipated people and give them the keys to solve concrete problems. The more I answer you, the more I realize that I defend an alternative close to La Republic from Plato.
There are many things on which we will disagree and quite a few questions that would merit major discussions... But in any case we agree on the observations that you draw.
