Assimilation and Direct Rule in

Assimilation and Direct Rule in Africa The French approach of having a Direct Rule grasp over Africa was very different to that of the British indirect manner of colonization. This Direct Rule was represented by a centralized federalist administration, administered by a governor general from French West Africa that was centered in Senegal. Only in St. Louis were a few individual Africans permitted to participate in this government. Outside of St. Louis, Africans were subjects rather than citizens.

The French insisted on maintaining exclusive rule over its colonies, and this situation exists, to a certain extent still today, as evidenced with the decision of the African island of Mayotte to remain under French jurisdiction. On the other hand, however, the French colonial administration was flexible in its control, changing its policies and system to reflect changing times and circumstances with Africa and France.

Its manner was evidenced by a fourfold approach called Assimilation, Association, Differentiation and Paternalism which Thomas Hodgkin (in Rodney, 1990) labeled "carthesianism." It was in this manner that the French achieved "a measure of uniformity in the pattern of institutions introduced into 'Afrique noire'"(p.39). Although, certainly still containing some of the more brutal and callous elements of colonization (such as forced labor), the French were far better in their treatment of their subjects than were other European colonizers such as, notoriously, the Germans or the Portuguese.

Nonetheless, many of the aspects of this Direct Rule were still, indubiously, heartless. Senegal was the first colony where French Direct Rule occurred and from there its model spread to other new French West African colonies (Gunther, 1955). French colonial exploitation was merciless. An example is the poor state of Guinea where it was recorded that "France obtained one billion (old) francs or about 5.6 million dollars in foreign exchange, based on the sale of bauxite, coffee and bananas" (Rodney, 1990).

Forced labor and imprisonment (oftentimes unjustified and both in order to expand French aims) were common. Inconsiderate of the indigenous locals and of their feelings, French mercenary, Bob Denard, for instance, spent much of his life, supported by the French government, in overthrowing African governments and in causing turmoil in the area. French self-interests sublimated all else and crushed African esteem and African way of life in the process. Self-centered, egoistic, intolerant, and bigoted, the French heartlessly subjected Africa to its rule, foisting its culture of assimilation in the meantime.

West African Assimilation has not always been the objective of France. Skeptical that the African people would ever become 'suitable" French citizens, and anxious at the potential expense of introducing such a system so complex and broad in its approach, the concept of Assimilation was only introduced later, pushed, to a great extent, by African individuals themselves (Crowder, 1991: 77). Assimilation was achieved by the African nation adopting French ways as superior to their own and endeavoring to become as much French as possible.

Frantz Fanon (1990) called this group of "assimilees" the "benis oui" or the "yes men" who regarded Paris as their home, adopted French food, French dress, Christianity as their religion, French culture and history as their tradition, and tried to be "more French than French" in an attempt to.