Voici le texte de mon discours à la conférence annuelle de l’Intercollegiate Studies Institute le 7 novembre 2024 (Wilmington, Delaware).

I was invited by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) to talk about the French Empire (1830-1962). Here is the text of my contribution given on Nov 7, 2024 in Wilmington, Delaware.

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I will start by apologizing because my English is rusty.  I have very few opportunities to speak English. Actually, I have been living in Brazil for the past 14 years, so I speak Portuguese 24/7. And I dream (and I swear) in French and Arabic, my mother tongues. As a matter of fact, most Moroccans are kind of bilingual, they feel compelled to speak French, the idiom of the colonizer. As you can see, these biographical details I am giving you are directly related to the history of the French Colonization, a very short phenomenon (over 44 years in Morocco, 50 years in Sub-Saharan Africa, 70 years or more in Vietnam and Algeria) that had lasting consequences. It was a political experimentation that deeply impressed the hearts and minds of the people, to the present day.

The psychological impact of the colonization seems to be reaching its peak today, 70 years or so after the end of the empire! This is especially true in France where the sons and grand-sons of the migrants that came from the former colonies seems to be very concerned, if not traumatized in some cases, by the colonization. This is very weird because they did not live it!

This malaise is used by the Left to play identity politics à la mode de Paris and use the around-10 million muslim population that lives in France as an electoral battalion. From the political point of view, this is a smart move. From the moral one, it is a vile and cynical attitude because the whole idea of French colonization was born at the Left! The most enthusiastic partisans of imperialism in France were Leftists like Jules Ferry, Léon Gambetta and even Clemenceau! It is also a dangerous game because the youngest part of the population is increasingly foreign-born or coming from foreign-parents, which announces a dark future in terms of social cohesion.

This is why a counter-history of French colonization is needed. Not only to set the record right but also to help defuse the identity politics grenade that the progressives and some former colonies have planted in the heart of the Nation.

***

Basically, everything is counter-intuitive in the history of French colonization, starting by its motives. I want to provide 13 points to change your perspective on the history of French colonization.

The Left was the mastermind of the French imperialism. The Colonial Idea was born in the French Left as a very clever way to cement the legitimacy of the new regime it was erecting in France after the disaster of 1871 when Alsace and Lorraine were lost to Prussia. The Third Republic needed a source of pride and glory. As it was impossible to win back the lost territories, at least in the short term, the new regime decided to wage small wars overseas: it was easier to defeat Arab tribes and African peoples that the intimidating Prussian army.

The French monarchist movements opposed this idea and insisted on two courses of action. Some wanted to take revanche immediately or when possible. Others insisted on reassessing what led to the defeat and take time to self-inspect the soul of the Nation (recueillement).

They soon changed their mind and embarked on the imperialist agenda. The main reason of this sudden change is called: fait accompli. In few years, the French army seized huge territories with relatively few efforts. Indochina in the 1870s, Tunisia at the same time, the desert south of Algeria as well as huge parts of Africa from 1880 to 1900, Madagascar around 1890.

The French people never bought the idea, because it had no interest in leaving the country. Contrary to the UK, France had no population surplus to get rid off. Moreover, the French farmer owned his own land. The French domestic economy was advancing through rapid industrialization and needed as many available workers as possible. The French proletariat wanted to stay in France rather than settle in Algeria. Consequently, the bulk of the settlers in some regions of Algeria came from Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy.

Besides Algeria and some limited territories, the conquest was a softball game for several reasons. First of all, France was a world-class power gifted with exceptional human beings, whether in the military or in the civil administration. Don’t forget that between 1861 and 1867, France tried and almost got close to installing a client regime in Mexico, just south of the USA!  The French army was able to learn from its errors. It quickly renounced extreme violence and adopted a moderate approach, which stressed slow territorial gains in exchange for low casualties and small expenses.

In most cases, the South conquered the South! Believe or not, the bulk of the invading troops was made of warriors recruited locally (in the very country to be colonized) or in another colony. In most cases, only the senior officials were white. The invasion of Morocco was executed by Moroccan soldiers and sometimes Senegalese soldiers, managed by Algerian and Tunisian NCOs. In Morocco, several tribes handed themselves to the French army, not by lack of courage, but convinced that the time came to punish their long-lasting enemies and gain prestige. They gave their best men to the army of invasion. The same occurred in sub-Saharan Africa were the slaves joined the French army almost immediately and helped her defeat their former masters.

The military behaved themselves better than the civil authorities. In most cases, they were less brutal than the civil administrators and the elected authorities. One of the reasons for their moderation was their understanding that abuse of power will trigger a new war. Also, they were more progressive than the civilian authorities in so many aspects, such as religion. Islam was more protected within the French army than in the street.

No master plan nor political and administrative road map were designed prior to the invasion.  After the easy conquest came the doctrinal vacuum. France had no idea how to govern its new possessions. No long-term plan, no strategy to extract resources and send them to the metropolis, no big idea on how to create value from the colonies. A Colonial School aimed at training high-ranking administrators was established in 1895, several years after the start of the expansion. It trained only 50 cadres per year.

French colonies were poor, except Vietnam. No gold, no diamonds, no vibrant consumer markets: the French empire had no Botswana, South Africa or India. In Vietnam, the culture of the rubber tree (hevea) allowed for a partial bonanza that reverberated also in the production of rice and coal. However, Paris refused to encourage the industrialization of its colony, which prevented its emergence.

Few resources were allocated to the colonies, both on the administrative side and the humanitarian side. As a result, the French presence was sporadic in most colonies. You could live an entire life without coming across a French soldier or policeman. In Cameroun at the peak of the colonization in 1945, less than 5000 white men were present. The health of the natives, their education, their living conditions were neglected almost all time. Things changed after World War II but it was too late: communism and the spirit of emancipation were already spreading in the hearts and the spirits of the people.

No predatory capitalism. French Capitalism ignored the colonies from the first day to the last one. It preferred investments in Russia, America and Continental Europe. Besides Vietnam, it saw no juicy opportunity in the empire, unless it received heavy subsidies from the authorities. Indeed, the roots of the French imperialism are less economic than politic. Greed was not the key driver, instead consolation was the key motivation.

After an initial “inflammatory” phase, there were no resistance to the French rule. Instead, the local elites chose to live with the new system and sometimes actively collaborated with it. The master case of this collaboration was Morocco, and probably Senegal, Tunisia and Indochina.  The conquest of Morocco and its subsequent colonial governance were a joint French- Moroccan effort, where the French Republic helped a flickering monarchy to rejuvenate.

Decolonization was rather easy. And rather a piece of cake in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa.  Overall, the French let the colonies go and were not kicked out except in 2 very painful instances: Vietnam and Algeria.  The French abandoned the colonies in order to focus their resources and talents on building European unity.

Most African new authorities wanted more France than less France after independence! The rulers signed willingly defence agreements to have French paratroopers defend them against their population. They joined also a common monetary area ruled by France.

The end of French rule was the real starting point of French mass influence. The use of the French idiom spread well away from the top-classes due to the expansion of alphabetization (often sponsored by France itself). The new authorities often emulated the French institutions while building the new State (even in revolutionary Algeria where the army is a replica of the French army). Actually, the post-independence era was the optimum era for the French interests: it let the native rulers bang their heads against the hardest issues, such as sanitation and poverty. France focused on defence contracts, infrastructure and natural resources deals. Besides Vietnam, no former colony stopped using the French language nor cut the ties with Paris.

***

Today, it is the turn of France to be influenced by its former colonies. Through mass immigration, new settlers coming from yesterday’s possessions are imposing a new order in the metropolis. Almost no shots were fired: however day-to-day violence is increasingly common. This is not surprising because in every colonial move, the newcomers always clash in a certain way with the natives. Colonization is about inequality. And the rise of immigration-made crime in France is the synonym of a new inequality imposed to the French people today. The inversion of the tides of history are truly dizzying.