T. Belman. If Zemmour is a racist then all MAGA people are too. Prefering or preserving one’s culture does not make one a racist. Nor does advocating for a melting pot.
By Alain Policar, THE CONVERSATION October 18, 2021
Éric Zemmour has become a household name in France. Buoyed by repeated appearances on French television news shows, including the conservative channel CNews (often referred to as the French version of Fox News), Zemmour is widely assumed to be considering a run for president in 2022.
A recent poll saw him predicted to reach the second round of voting alongside current president, Emmanuel Macron, out-performing Zemmour’s potential rival on the far-right, Marine Le Pen.
Zemmour has twice been convicted by the French courts for inciting racial hatred. He openly promotes the “Great Replacement” theory – a racist belief, popular on the far-right in Europe, the US and the UK, that white people will soon be “replaced” by non-white, non-European immigrants.
He would have us believe that France’s greatness is built upon its position at the top of a “hierarchy of cultures”. This position turns a blind eye to the horrors of French colonial racism, considering it a necessary price for offering colonised people their moral enlightenment.
Assimilation and separatism
In Zemmour’s view, French life and French values are under threat from Islam. He argues that France is contaminated by “separatism”.
“Separatism” is a loaded term in France. It was once used to describe anti-colonial struggles, particularly those in Algeria and has been the standard accusation thrown at Jewish people since antiquity, and forms the basis of much modern anti-Semitism. But it is also current government policy to root out “separatism” through a new law promoting “respect for the principles of the Republic”.
<A supporter holds a copy of Zemmour’s book, ‘France hasn’t said its last word’ in Toulon, September 17 2021. Nicolas Tucat/AFP
Zemmour is also an ardent supporter of assimilation of migrants to France. His endorsement of assimilation should not be surprising, particularly when we recall that this word was once used to justify the race-based politics evident in the privileges enjoyed by French colonists, which turned them into a quasi-aristocracy; a race apart.
In fact, American historian Tyler Stovall observed that colonists were more inclined to call themselves “white” or “European” than French. He writes:
“It was in the colonies that understandings of the French national idea first became confused with the racial idea of whiteness.”
Yet upholding assimilationism in Zemmour’s view would also imply the non-assimilation of certain groups. He regularly argues, for example, that Islam is not compatible with the Republic – the opposite of assimilationist politics.
This is also an idea with deep roots – it should be remembered that to obtain French citizenship in 1958, Algerian Muslim women were required to remove their headscarves during inauguration ceremonies. What better way to illustrate that you had to stop being a Muslim woman to become a French one?
False universalism
Zemmour’s pronouncements may be incendiary, but through them we can see that the old idea of a French nation defined in racial terms has had a lasting influence on contemporary debate.
One such idea is that of “universalism”, which holds that the national characteristic of being French supersedes any other identity an individual may have. But if immigrants are asked to defer to French traditions based on an assumption that such traditions are inherently universal, universalism becomes not a form of humanism that embraces diversity, but rather a nationalistic symbol.
This is how Achille Mbembe described the concept in a 2005 article:
“Having long upheld the ‘republican model’ as the perfect vehicle for inclusion and the emergence of individuality, we have ultimately turned the Republic into an imaginary institution, and underestimated its original capacity for brutality, discrimination and exclusion.”
A harsh judgement, perhaps, but French history (long before the establishment of the Republic) attests to this racialised dimension. When it uses national identity as the guiding light of the republican cause, universalism has been seriously misled, to the point of forfeiting all substance.
It is worth noting that this version of universalism can appear in other guises, particularly in anti-cosmopolitanism, which slanders society’s incorrigible utopians and blindsided bleeding hearts. This is precisely the tone adopted by Éric Zemmour.
One might even hypothesise that hiding behind this false universalism is a hatred of the universal, exemplified in the famous quote by Joseph de Maistre in his Considerations on France (1796):
“In my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on. I even know, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare I’ve never encountered him.”
In much the same way, Zemmour presents us with a fragmented world that offends his own obsession with purity – his simultaneous hatred of intermingling and a fear of sameness.
Three years ago, my colleague and I wrote an article about Zemmour’s place in the public arena in France, and how we should resist his impoverished, black-and-white vernacular. In light of his recent rise, we must continue to do so. There may still be time to change things.
Translated from the French by Enda Boorman for Fast ForWord
Stridently leftist article which bashes French history . France colonial drive was not more nor less a power grab than the British one . Did Mr Policar strived to dwelve into British rule of India ? Race supremacy was not the engine , only land and ressources appropriation were important . Local elites were adopted and patronized by french colonialists to administer the local tribes , ethnicity was respected as a mean to get cheap labor and to avoid these people to think of themselves as legitimate owners . In Algeria , muslims were not granted french nationality , they remained ” indigénes ” while Jews were granted french nationality very early in 1872 ( décret Crémieux ) . Therefore it was not skin color that set the upgrade of indigenous people to french nationality but cultural proximity . Judaism was recognized by France as close to the christian culture while Islam was set apart . De Gaulle too decided for a total separation of France from Algeria , and set up a national referendum in 1962 where 75% voted for the autodetermination-separation of Algeria from France . This is still he same cultural distance that set apart 15% of France arab-muslim population from the rest of frenchmen . Zemmour has an easy job pointing out this distance which has turned so many times into open defiance and terrorist assaults. Zemmour is stating out loud and clear what a vast silent majority of frenchmen are afraid to say : France is under invasion.
This attack on Zamour is confused, self-contradictory and non-sensical. How is advocating assimilation racist? After all, the “assimilated”individual belongs to a different “race” but then becomes a member of the “nation” along with people of the “original” race. A Muslim woman is being denied the right to be a Muslim because she is asked to take off her head-scarf for a few minutes while being photographed for an ID card? (including the hair in the photo is considered necessary to insure correct identification if the person applies for passport, is stopped for a traffic violation, etc.).
Muslims in “colonial” Algeria always had th right to become full citizens with voting rights, provided they would sign a document permitting a French civil court, rather than a Sharia court, to settle any future divorce request or child custody issue between them and their spouse. The French civil courts gave women more rights and protection in such cases, disallowed poligamy, etc. But the imams preached against this law, and so almost no Muslims were willing to accept full French citizenship? Racist? No. Assimilationist? Only to a small extent. The new French citizen could continue to observe all Islamic laws and pray in mosques even while accepting the authority of French civil law–at least if the imams would permit him to do so.