Recently, I finished reading La Guadeloupe d'en-France by Robert Valérius (1). Its a book I picked up at the bookstore in Basseterre, after having asked the bookseller to recommend me something about life and culture in Guadeloupe. The book is actually far more limited in scope, analyzing specifically Guadeloupe's relationship with France, and only from mid-1940's to present. At 153 pages, there simply isn't enough pages for Valérius to discuss or analyze thoroughly; still, for someone who knows nothing about the relationship between Guadeloupe and France, this is probably all I can handle right now.
Valérius describes what is essentially a torrid love-affair between Guadeloupe and France. His book begins with the law of 1946, which transforms Guadeloupe the colony into Guadeloupe the département, making it a 'state' of France. Guadeloupeans looked upon the change in statute with hope and pride. There was hope that the new relationship with France would vastly improve living standards through economic and social intervention. And there was pride to fully assimilate as French and to become French citizens.
Problems arose when the law of 1946 does not meet the expectations of Guadeloupeans. Guadeloupeans, had, perhaps, set themselves up for disappointment. Valérius writes, "Guadeloupeans were forced to recognize that the law of 1946 had not, with a wave of the magic wand, transformed a underdeveloped country into a developed country" (2) But, part of that disappointment stemmed from the uneven application of the law. Ten years after departmentalization, considerable differences persisted between the rights of and the services due a French métropole citizen and a Guadeloupean. Additionally, neither the economic aid, nor the increase in demand for Guadeloupean exports was ever realized. Finally, Guadeloupeans lost considerable control over their own affairs in becoming a département by ceding power to the Prefecture.
This leads to the popular support amongst Guadeloupeans for a review of the law of 1946. In turn, these discussions eventually demand justification for Guadeloupe's very relationship with France. Several groups and movements arise, each supporting similar and/or opposing goals. Certain groups wanted simply the full and complete application of the law of 1946. Others wanted an altogether different statute for Guadeloupe. Still others wanted independence.
Valérius then launches into an analysis of why the second two groups fail to transform Guadeloupe into a sub-entity other than département, or as a nation. Indeed, to read his analysis is to understand that these movements were doomed to failure. I won't repeat all his arguments here, but they are largely related to the identity of Guadeloupe, and that that identity - past, present, and future - rejects an existence untethered to France.
I would make a few critiques of the book: The book could probably be improved by more rigorous editing. The organization and chaptering of the book are not readily apparent, and at times the same ideas seem to make appearances - however brief - whenever they please. Valérius also sprinkles his text liberally with abbreviations of various political groups; most go undiscussed, so seems like the sort of filler students use to pad word count. Valérius also seems to be writing specifically for a Guadeloupean audience. (This may be intentional.) At times, the events of such-and-such date, nor the consequences of such-and-such event are not made explicit. This can leave the reader a bit bewildered.
Nevertheless, the topic is fascinating. To know the history behind the relationship between Guadeloupe and France is to understand local society, culture and politics at a much deeper level.
For example, chlordecone was a pesticide heavily used on banana plantations in the French Antilles. The scandal is that, despite being banned for use in the US in 1976, the chemical was not banned in France until 1990. In addition, banana growers here requested and received a derogation and were allowed to continue using the substance for three more years. Chlordecone is carcinogenic and believed to be the cause of high cancer and infertility rate in Guadeloupe. Of course, this was about money. Without chlordecone, banana growers would have faced huge increases in production costs. Bananas produced here were already facing stiff competition from bananas produced in Africa, where labor costs were far lower. Did France turn a blind eye to the health of its overseas citizens simply for money? The answer is not so simple. France was faced with an increasingly popular independence movement (complete with extremist and violent groups) which drew its power from general dissatisfaction with decreasing living standards. Had France followed the United States in banning chlordecone, the economy of Guadeloupe - which was at the time almost completely dependent on banana production - would have suffered a serious blow. This may have tipped the scale and given the independence movement what it needed to lead a successful campaign.
Obviously, the story ends with Guadeloupe and France together, living happily ever after. Or not. Valérius ends with what is essentially a list of social and political challenges that face Guadeloupe. Most seem entirely unrelated to France. It would seem then, that Valérius is making the argument that perhaps France was, and also is, not the problem.
Believe it or not, the book made great beach reading. I am hoping to find similar books.
(1)
Valérius, Robert. La Guadeloupe d'en-France. Pointe-à-Pitre: Éditions Jasor, 2005.
ISBN 2-912594-51-0
(2) "Les Guadeloupéens étaient forcés de reconnaître que la loi de 1946 n'avait pas transformé, d'un coup de baguette magique, un pay sous-développé en pays développé" p29
No comments:
Post a Comment