Following World War II many colonial powers lost their footing in their colonies across the globe. The nations who lost the most were France and Britain. After WWII many of the nations realized their abilities and resources were spread way too thin and as result they had two options. Option one, they exit the country much like the British did in the Middle East. The second option, practiced by the French, was to fight by any means to keep the territory.
The French tried desperately to keep their territories under the French flag without conflict. First they tried a phycological approach to the situation by influence[ing] on the physique and health of the nation. A chain of equivalences is at work here; the prevailing logic runs some-thing like this: if the woman is clean, the family is clean” and there for the nation is clean (27). They saw woman as the target to their tactics because the woman played a key role in the nations moral fiber. To do this, a French journalist who studied in America used the consumership of America to persuade her audience.
Using the magazines to influence the woman, the French tried vigerously push their ideals of cleanliness and beauty of France to their colonies in hopes that the native woman would want to assimilate to France’s ideas. if successful the natives would see themselves as one with the French and want to remain part of their colony. According to the movie we watched, the French didn’t care about religion but rather their political nature. They saw any resistance to the French presence as an act of communism.
Their goal was to assimilate their colonies, known as the French Union, so they could be French citizens. However “in the end, the 1946 Constitution proclaimed that inhabitants of all these entities would now have the ‘qualities’ of French citizens” but that did not always happen. For example in the Algerian War there was many notions leading to becoming French citizens able to fight for what they wanted. Since freedom was what they wanted however, their citizenship was postponed.
When France’s initial tactics failed they turned to a more militaristic tactic. For example, in Indochina when they were unable to control the native population to preserve their rubber plantations they turned to a militaristic view. In the film there was mention of Dien Bien Phu which was the largest military failure for the French during their campaign that caused them to give up their colony. The French continued to fight in places closer to home to keep control of their colonies. Colonies are desirable because they produce a monopoly on goods that are not native to their lands, therefore they can produce products at a lower cost or sell them at a higher price benefiting their economy.
In one of the prevalent examples of conflicts to keep a French colony French, the streets of Algeria became a battle ground. The FLN (The National Liberation Front) fought back against the French presence. Eventually, despite the conflict ending, Algeria gained their independence. These countries apart of the French Union were supposed to be assimilated into French citizens yet weren’t, they also didn’t receive the same treatment as French citizens. Many of those questioned by the French were tortured or even killed. The fight took place all across Algeria, not just the city. The war was brutal with death to many innocent people.
So this begs me to ask, while apart of the French Union and supposedly receiving the same rights as French citizens yet are not treated the same; do they (members of the French Union) have the right to revolt? Does this mean that the French Flag doesn’t equate to French rights?
I think you did a really good job explaining that while conflict occurred between France and it’s colonies, the French did try and prevent them from happening but overall most of their ideas had to turn more cruel and immediate. I also think that it is important to understand that a lot of terror did happen between a lot of Europe and the colonies that they still held. I think you did a really good job with your blog.
Really great layout of and points in your post! I think you brought up an intriguing question: does the French flag equate French rights? If you follow the actions of the French (denying a proposal for independence on behalf of Algeria), it can be illustrated that this could be a true statement.
I like this sentence a lot: “These countries apart of the French Union were supposed to be assimilated into French citizens yet weren’t, they also didn’t receive the same treatment as French citizens.”
I feel like a really important point to bring up in the failed assimilation of the colonial holdings of France is that the people did not want to be assimilated. Leopold Senghor, the first president of Senegal, “made it clear that he wanted [Senegal] to be about political and civil equality, not about conformity to a French way of life” (Cooper, 207). Not only was France hesitant on fully assimilating the people and giving them equal rights, but the people also were not too keen on giving up their culture. In my opinion, it seems like a lose-lose situation.
I thought your blog was very good; it was very organized and you gave a lot of good background information about the conflict between Algeria and France. I agree that the French flag does not equate to French rights. The flag is just a symbol and placeholder for the French empire to use to claim their territory. Also from the readings we can clearly see that the flag did not give the Algerians the same rights as the French. Since the Algerians were not given the same rights as the French that were promised to them I think that is was fair for them to revolt against French authority. The United States revolted against the British when we were still colonies of Britain because of the unfair taxes and no representation in Parliament, so I don’t see why it would not be okay for the Algerians to revolt.