One’s identity V.s National Identity; but let’s just dream everything is ok so far…..
(Photo : Eric Feferberg / AFP)
« Black, Blanc, Beur » is the France I grew up in through out the 1980s and early 1990s. In the north East of Paris, at a time when being of Malian descents; my brothers and I were by excellence the minorities in the block, things looked much simpler, with lots of hope awaiting us in a near future, at least, this what I imagined. Time has passed and today the roles seem to have been reversed. No individual born from Malian parents can today pretend to be part of the ethnic minority group of any of the blocs of the nineteenth district of Paris. I still remember the day when my blackness was first revealed to me through one of the rare, long and still sincere historical explanation given to me by my Mum. The incessant bullying my brother and I were experiencing during our first years in primary school had finally urged me to inquiry, and ask my progenitors for the reason for such treatment inflicted to us at school and in the bloc. My Mum’s speech on that day was my first history lesson. It linked and mixed family history with the interesting History of Humanity. It was thus that I learnt that unlike a single and simple fruit that had just fallen from a tree; I was of noble and important lineage. This somehow explained the bulling I experienced from both whites and other ethnic minorities. I was different and despised for my singularity. This early experience build up my personality, it made of me a strong boy, who would physically respond to any form of injustice, which ironically and progressively by the way made me a violent boy and a leader with a strong personality. It was thus that very early in my childhood, I opted for complete pride of what made me different. Black of West African descents with four eyes – cause I used to wear thick glasses- with a strong Muslim consciousness was my identity, my only trademarks.
In front of exclusion and discrimination many other youngsters of ethnic minorities’ origins were after me to come to the same conclusion and state of mind of self esteem and pride. Exposure of one’s difference in front of the feeling of exclusion and despise for such differences, here is how many individual identities were often built and constructed among the youngsters of immigrant descents in France. These new identities adopted and valued by the younger generation have eventually become part of the French cultural landscape today.
However according to the last news these are disturbing facts for the present government. Eric Besson the French minister of integration and immigration has recently decided to open a debate on French national identity. If the idea sounds fine, the statement of an UMP militant last summer casts doubt on the real objective of the government through such issue. In an UMP meeting last August, a lady was indeed heard uttering the following words when speaking of Amine, another UMP militant of northern African origins: -He is a good French -He is like us; he drinks alcohol, and eats pork.
An accurate analysis of this very statement reveals according to Houria Bouteldja from the “the Indigènes de la République” movement what the French institutions really mean through their new debate on French national identity. But as she says national identity must not be “decreed” by the state or government but “observed” as it real is.
http://www.agoravox.tv/article.php3?id_article=24187
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Moustafa – thank you for your moving article about your personal experiences. In Britain there has been an on-going debate about ’shared values’, which I think is similar to that you are having about national identity.
A former Home Secretary stated that « …our country is not built on hatred. It is built on shared values – tolerance, compassion and a respect for democracy and the rule of law. At heart, it is about fair rules and a fair say for everyone. The threat we face is significant. But our most profound response is to have the confidence in people of all faiths and backgrounds to stand up for our shared values. »
There is no problem with this statement but the issue is that ’shared values’ should emerge through dialogue and agreement, and cannot be imposed top-down. Professor Tariq Modood made a good point when he wrote, « the idea that there has to be a schedule of ‘non-negotiable’ value statements to which every citizen is expected to sign up is not in the spirit of an open, plural citizenship. »
Maybe in France, there needs to be a similar challenging voice.
I would like to add a point to Moustafa’s article. The French actor François Cluzet pointed out the hypocrisy of the debate on national identity when he referred to the imprisonment of the Franco-Palestinian Salah Hamouri. Salah is a French citizen. His « crime » was only to speak up against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. And yet, according to Cluzet, no one in the French government has made any effort to defend this French citizen who is imprisoned abroad. So much for « national identity ».
You can see Mr. Cluzet’s courageous statement on national TV by clicking on this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhhM2mzrlcA
(I went to see the new film starring Fraçois Cluzet, l’Origine, and found it to be a brilliant film.)
Hey! This is a bloody interesting subject. One my newly wife and I give a lot of thoughts to. Indeed, we are French but leave in the UK. We belong to the category « other white backgrounds » in any equal opportunities forms we fill for the government. But we also leave in a Muslim neighborhood, surrounded by women wearing burka and people trying to find some kind of identity in their host country.
The choice of the French government to identify a single French culture (or identity as they call it) is somehow revolting in a multi-ethnic country. But I don’t think that a country should aim at becoming multi-cultural, as in England. The facts talk by themselves: each neighborhood in Manchester correspond to a community: Indian, Chinese, Pakistani, Jewish… These communities don’t mix: they don’t have to because their own culture is fully respected. As a consequence, English speakers are difficult to find in some Pakistani villages for example. The communities don’t speak the same language: they don’t have to because governmental organisations have to provide translators in order to facilitate their integration in England. The communities don’t understand each others: while the British stereotype includes numerous one-night stands and binge drinking, more conservative cultures prohibit sex outside marriage and alcohol.
As a consequence of this multi-culture English society, many first and second generation immigrants feel threaten by the British culture. On the other side, many English people feel that there culture is now lost and that foreigners are leading the country (which is certainly true to a certain extend). Tensions are currently growing between communities, and these tensions are greatly reinforced by the economic crisis.
My point of view is that the citizens of a country should have a ground of shared culture. Education should also be imposed by the government, and people not willing to learn from/about other communities should simply be expelled. This might mean their death back home, but if people prefer death to trying to understand other people and cultures… than they should not bother leaving their home country in the first place! The common culture might not been reduced to religious believes, but it should include a common language and some common values: respect of education for all including women, respect of other human beings including people with Malian backgrounds, respect of ground security rules (no aggression of others even if they are 13 consenting girls in LA, no behavior that could be harmful to other citizens…), willingness to acknowledge mistakes and accept consequences for them (even a few years later when the girl is no longer 13), willingness to learn from others and adapt behaviors to their needs.
That lady expressed her opinion, and this is only one opinion. People seem very quick at drawing conclusions based on one opinion only. What is one voice compared to the voices of 65 millions of inhabitants in France? And how did this opinion become known to us? Via the media? Can someone really believe everything the French media say nowadays? Have people heard of manipulation by the media by any chance?
Anyway… I am French and have been in England for 5 years now. In France the debate on national identity is only starting but England is well ahead of that. Here communities (like the Chinese, the Pakistanese, The Iranese…) live in ghettos, which means that each community live and stay in one neighbourhood and apply the rules of their own country, regardless of the country in which they currently live. If I talk about the Pakistani community, that I know the best, it means that they don’t speak English but Urdu on a daily basis, educate their children in a Pakistani way, do their shopping like in Pakistan, follow their religion as if they were in their country and so on. I can understand that it can seem ideal to some of you who don’t know what the real consequences of this are.
Well, here are a few: Pakistani women have no education (they couldn’t go to school in their country) and don’t learn English here . They can’t make appointments, can’t answer a phone call in English, can’t talk to the teachers of their children, can’t help their children with homework and certainly could no apply for jobs if they wanted to, as they can’t even read job adverts. They totally rely on their husbands, who work 24/7 to bring money home so they can’t really help them. They are stuck. How about when something happens to the husband, and they are are left on their own? You can then imagine how many Pakistanis women don’t work and therefore rely on the government for benefits?
They, or their family, choose to come to England but refuse to learn the language and follow the rules of the country. Why then should they receive so many benefits from the government? And yes they don’t see why they should make the efforts to speak English so why do they expect an interpreter when they go to an interview? You can indeed be proud of your origins, I am proud to be French, but I believe that when you go to another country you have to adapt. Adapting doesn’t mean losing your values, it simply means adapting your life so that you get the best of the country that is welcoming you and you bring something to it. When I see people coming here and act exactly as if they were still in Pakistan regardless of the English way of life and rules, I’m asking myself: why should they be welcomed? What do they bring to the country? Do they make any efforts to adapt or do they just come here on a selfish basis? Many are here because they are threatened in their countries, but if countries like England offer to welcome them, they should be thankful. Not build a new Pakistan here.
Very interesting to hear that Gilles and Sulvia find it difficult to get the real meaning of the issue.
I am not sure that the newly arrived are trying to find an identity as it is said by Gilles. they are just what they are and cannot change it. Did both of you change your identity or get a new one when you first came to the UK? Those trying to get themselves an identity in the UK are may be those born in the country. Saying that multiculturalism is not a good thing for a country means that pluralism is not good and that dictatorship,and totalitarism which can be reflected in all the spheres of a society are the best options. I know now why the Europeans had Napoleon and Hitler, some kind of nostalgia seems to be still existing in the heart and understanding of some Europeans.
If that is the case through Sylvia and Gilles I do understand the FRench mentality a bit better.
It is funny to hear someone saying that people « do not have to mix because their culture is respected ». Said like this we can understand that we should not respect their culture so that they mix more. Lack of respect of other cultures and civilisation is not that the core of genuine racism?
Instead of fighting against the different cultures I think we should fight for a better understanding of each culture, and sort out the problems of soical cohesion.
Can uniformity be regarded as a success on racism and intolerence?
I have got doubts.
Also, it is very important to make the difference between the newly arrived and those who were born in France and are mostly of African or North-African descents. In Britain those born in the country have no problem of education, or education, and that is true for both men and women.
When the FRench authorities use the term « Identité Nationale » they are more focussing on those who were born in the country which means those of a different colour but who have been FRench for many generations.
My last point is this one: It is difficult indeed to seperate culture, state and religion in the UK, since it is not a secular country. The Queen is at the head of the state but also at the head of the Church of England. This is one of the things that makes us different from the French. It is important to analyse all this when dealing with what is happening in the UK.
In Britain at the moment we are more working to bridge the gap and not trying to criminalise a certain religion or culture; very different from what is happeneing in the rest of Europe.
And to tell you the truth, this is why we are so proud of not totally being European
Mike,
This is interesting to see how quick you are at calling me a racist! This shows how closed you are to other opinions and to debate, which is supposed to be the aim of the forum. You should therefore ask yourself the question whether you should be there or not.
Dear Mike,
You call me a racist and compare me to Hitler and Napoleon? You will be very happy to hear that I told Moustafa his grand-father was not a human being, but an animal!!! How shocking is that? The fact is that my grand-parents were taught black men were no more than animals. Which shows you how wrong education can be.
Regarding the obscure history of Europe, I have to admit that it has been made of a lot of wars and abuse of foreigners. But I would not be so sure to claim that this is a feature of Europe only. Do I need to remind you that African tribes became experts in capturing slaves and selling them to Europeans? And what about all the so-called « Democratic republics » (e.g. of the Congo) and ethnic wars in Africa? What does that make of you as a « not totally European »?
Regarding the education of second-generation immigrants, I live in a Muslim neighbourhood – you will be surprised of that, surely!- in Manchester. No later than last week, 5 people linked to Al Quaida were arrested there. I used to work in Bradford, where the terrorists who organised the London bombing lived. These, and others, were all born in England. how can you say that education did not fail them?
Besides, you misunderstand me about identity. I don’t want people to forget their identities when they come to the UK or France. As you ask me, when I arrived in England I didn’t forget my identity because for me identity is synonymous with my personal values. But they should adapt their behaviour to their new country. When I came to England, I did not expect people to learn my language or to adapt to my way of life. Instead, I adapted myself to the English society. This is how I managed to find a good job and to meet non-French friends.
The second thing I did was trying to know about the English culture so that I could communicate with people around me and integrate (or assimilate, whatever!). I don’t respect people who don’t make the effort to learn the language and to learn about their new country. I think this is dangerous and disrespectful of other citizens. But I would be very happy to learn from immigrants as well. How can I do this if they refuse to communicate with me? How can I accept them if they refuse to communicate with me?
Leave your response!
Recents
Méta
AnOpEneye calendar
Comments
Tags
EMail
Ratings
AnOpenEye archiaves
Cathegories
Blogroll
Most Commented
Most Viewed