French Black President in the 60's

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Monnerville
Gaston Monnerville was president of the French Senate for 11 years from 1958.
That means he was to take the role of president in case the president was incapacitated.
He was black.
If de Gaulle gets killed or injured in one of the many attacks on him, France would have a black acting president.

What would the consequences be, internally and internationally?
For a few years, France still had African colonies and the US was still segregated
 
In a thread on this subject last year, I wrote (about him becoming Acting President in 1968): "I honestly don't think it would have much effect. He would only be president very briefly, and his presidency would have little long-term consequence in France, and practically none at all on racial attitudes in the US."

Someone wrote: "And i would like a Monnerville visit to the US to see the reaction of the south :p" My reply:

"The reaction would be for the most part "who cares?" Black heads of state visiting the US and being received at the White House were hardly a novelty by 1968, anyway, and most Americans did not take France very seriously as a world power. There was a vague impression in the US that European countries were more liberal on matters of race than Americans, but this impression had very little effect on Americans' own racial attitudes.

"Once again, the impact of a short-lived presidency of a black man in France would be zero in the US, except for some brief, and soon-forgotten, curiosity. Though I could see some people arguing here that the young Barack Obama was first inspired to seek the presidency when as a boy he heard about Monnerville's, and might never have run for POTUS without this inspiration. :p"

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-what-consequences-on-western-culture.414959/
 
Interesting! I do think it might have more cultural effects on France as it would prove the full integration of the former colonies and would be an example of the importance of black populations in France, like Aymé Césaire or Senghor but at a larger scale.
Even for a few months, France, being basically a republican monarchy, especially in the Vth Republic, France would have been embodied by a black man
 
In a thread on this subject last year, I wrote (about him becoming Acting President in 1968): "I honestly don't think it would have much effect. He would only be president very briefly, and his presidency would have little long-term consequence in France, and practically none at all on racial attitudes in the US."

Someone wrote: "And i would like a Monnerville visit to the US to see the reaction of the south :p" My reply:

"The reaction would be for the most part "who cares?" Black heads of state visiting the US and being received at the White House were hardly a novelty by 1968, anyway, and most Americans did not take France very seriously as a world power. There was a vague impression in the US that European countries were more liberal on matters of race than Americans, but this impression had very little effect on Americans' own racial attitudes.

"Once again, the impact of a short-lived presidency of a black man in France would be zero in the US, except for some brief, and soon-forgotten, curiosity. Though I could see some people arguing here that the young Barack Obama was first inspired to seek the presidency when as a boy he heard about Monnerville's, and might never have run for POTUS without this inspiration. :p"

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-what-consequences-on-western-culture.414959/

"Yeah, sure it's easy for the frogs to like Monnerville, when he's pretty much the only ****** any of them will have to see, and most of them will never even be in walking distance of him."

Would be the attitude of most reactionary white Americans, based on similar statements I've heard attempting to shrug off European tolerance for racial minorities.
 
"Yeah, sure it's easy for the frogs to like Monnerville, when he's pretty much the only ****** any of them will have to see, and most of them will never even be in walking distance of him."

Would be the attitude of most reactionary white Americans, based on similar statements I've heard attempting to shrug off European tolerance for racial minorities.
It'd probably be that for the common folks (just like it still unfortunately is in France), but maybe it will have an effect on the elites?
Would they treat him the same? Could he run a campaign and then be legitimately elected President in France? That'd be big. Just the fact we'd have a legitimate black candidate (something I don't remember happening in my living memory) would be big
Last election candidates didn't exactly scream diversity
 
As covered above, impact on the USA: zero.

Impact for France: it depends how his mandate goes. If it turns out to be memorable (for a good reason) he could have a lasting positive effect, such as encouraging more non-white minorities to run for office (and get the white majority to trust them) undermining systemic racism. If he does well, maybe today he would be known as the "the French Martin Luther King".

If he doesn't... as a comparison, I'm convinced Edith Cresson's terrible run as Prime Minister in 1991 set back women's chances to finally break the glass ceiling in politics by a few notches.
 
As covered above, impact on the USA: zero.

Impact for France: it depends how his mandate goes. If it turns out to be memorable (for a good reason) he could have a lasting positive effect, such as encouraging more non-white minorities to run for office (and get the white majority to trust them) undermining systemic racism. If he does well, maybe today he would be known as the "the French Martin Luther King".

If he doesn't... as a comparison, I'm convinced Edith Cresson's terrible run as Prime Minister in 1991 set back women's chances to finally break the glass ceiling in politics by a few notches.
The systemic xenophobia in France is less aimed at its black population and more at the North African one, and mostly developped after the first oil crisis, when the economy could not follow on the previous trend as a lot of North African immigrated for jobs and suddenly competed against the native population for less available work.

Overall, I think there would be little effect outside a symbol that would be used and re-used all over the place. Unless, and it’s almost ASB, he managed somehow to convince various colonies to not vote for independance in the early Sixties, allowing the French Community to survive and become some sort of Commonwealth equivalent. But as I wrote, it’d be borderline ASB given the situation then.
 
The systemic xenophobia in France is less aimed at its black population and more at the North African one, and mostly developped after the first oil crisis, when the economy could not follow on the previous trend as a lot of North African immigrated for jobs and suddenly competed against the native population for less available work.
I have to fully disagree here. I would think racism against Arabs comes from colonisation and the Algerian war. Many people in France have bad memories from this.
There's also the fact Arabs were seen as more "evolved" and so, very dangerous and devious in colonial times compared to other populations.
 
I have to fully disagree here. I would think racism against Arabs comes from colonisation and the Algerian war. Many people in France have bad memories from this.
There's also the fact Arabs were seen as more "evolved" and so, very dangerous and devious in colonial times compared to other populations.
The memories of the Algeria War live for sometime. The job competition and the economic issues last a lot longer. We’ve got much worse wars than the Algeria one.
 
The memories of the Algeria War live for sometime. The job competition and the economic issues last a lot longer. We’ve got much worse wars than the Algeria one.
I don't think we have any wars where the French army routinely tortures people and where French civilians are routinely targeted for abduction and bombings.
The Algerian War was the last war in which French civilians were on the front line.
 
I don't think we have any wars where the French army routinely tortures people and where French civilians are routinely targeted for abduction and bombings.
The Algerian War was the last war in which French civilians were on the front line.
Do you have any idea what the Résistance did during the War? It was fucked up, and seriously so. Less La Grande Vadrouille and more L’Armée des Ombres. The Algeria War wasn’t that much worse than what we did and suffered in 40-44. Yet we got over it.
 
Do you have any idea what the Résistance did during the War? It was fucked up, and seriously so. Less La Grande Vadrouille and more L’Armée des Ombres. The Algeria War wasn’t that much worse than what we did and suffered in 40-44. Yet we got over it.
Yeah but WWII was 15 years before the Algerian War and the Algerian War was 15 years before the Oil Crisis.
So racism against Arabs is probably not linked to Oil Crisis, as per original point.

And currently, we do not have any war where French civilians are the front line. The Algerian War was traumatic for all involved as that was the last war like that.

Also, do not see the link between WWII and Arab racism. Both wars were radically different.

I would say the Algerian War was worse. In that War, torture was the official line, the decision of the sovereign state. That is different from résistants fighting the occupiers. Those situations are different, by scale if anything else
 
Yeah but WWII was 15 years before the Algerian War and the Algerian War was 15 years before the Oil Crisis.
So racism against Arabs is probably not linked to Oil Crisis, as per original point.

And currently, we do not have any war where French civilians are the front line. The Algerian War was traumatic for all involved as that was the last war like that.

Also, do not see the link between WWII and Arab racism. Both wars were radically different.

I would say the Algerian War was worse. In that War, torture was the official line, the decision of the sovereign state. That is different from résistants fighting the occupiers. Those situations are different, by scale if anything else
The Oil Crisis led to the end of the Trente Glorieuses, during which numerous Arabs immigrated to France for work because there was more jobs openings than French people, and they stayed there because the economic situation was really good. When the Oil Crisis happened, there was a paradigm shift with a lot less jobs, a lot less growth, the medium-term issues of the French immigration program starting to appear, and all these foreigners suddenly competing for these rare jobs while being themselves fucked over and in increasingly bad neighbourhoods.

My point was that the racism was not caused by the horrors of one war or another, or we’d hate the Germans even more, a lot, lot more. Sure, it is for some people, like the original Le Pen fans, but for most of it, it was economic. Because of a socio-economic crisis that put the Arabs in a position to be perceived as invaders rather than partners as they initially were. Combine that with an initial immigration system that was based on jobs rather than full immigration, leading to much less social integration than other immigration waves, and you get the jackpot, so to say.

Most people in France who have issues with Arabs will tell you that they are taking their jobs, that they are trying to replace the French. Not anything about the Algeria War. Noone really cares about it anymore outside people who were in it. Even part of my family that had to get the hell out of dodge as they were living in Oran doesn’t really care now.
 
Well... If by '60s, you allow 1860s, you could have Alexandre Dumas go into politics instead of, or in addition to writing.
Theoretically, his dad (a Napoleonic general) might have ended up on top somehow, but that would require changes, like him living longer, and no Orléanist restoration.
;)
 
My point was that the racism was not caused by the horrors of one war or another, or we’d hate the Germans even more, a lot, lot more. Sure, it is for some people, like the original Le Pen fans, but for most of it, it was economic. Because of a socio-economic crisis that put the Arabs in a position to be perceived as invaders rather than partners as they initially were. Combine that with an initial immigration system that was based on jobs rather than full immigration, leading to much less social integration than other immigration waves, and you get the jackpot, so to say.
Fair enough, you're right too. I'd say one feeds off the other but I can live with your interpretation ;)

Most people in France who have issues with Arabs will tell you that they are taking their jobs, that they are trying to replace the French. Not anything about the Algeria War. Noone really cares about it anymore outside people who were in it. Even part of my family that had to get the hell out of dodge as they were living in Oran doesn’t really care now.
Funny enough, I have one grandmother who lived in Paris and she's quite ferociously racist and another one who had to leave Algiers and she's only a little racist. Then there's the whole racism against pieds-noirs but that's a whole other can of worm.

We have strayed from the subject though
 
Fair enough, you're right too. I'd say one feeds off the other but I can live with your interpretation ;)


Funny enough, I have one grandmother who lived in Paris and she's quite ferociously racist and another one who had to leave Algiers and she's only a little racist. Then there's the whole racism against pieds-noirs but that's a whole other can of worm.

We have strayed from the subject though
In a way, I think we’re deeply into the subject. Understanding the specificities of xenophobia in France is a core for that thread. The thing our US friends in the discussion need to understand is that xenophobia and racism is much more cultural-based than melanin-based, with an institutional refusal of the very concept of race and identity politics. It does not remove racism and xenophobia but pushes it to other parameters. A obvious example would be the Roma situation: they face strong problems, much, much moreso than Black or Arab people in France even though they are European, and this is because people consider their culture generally incompatible with the French culture. On the other hand, the saying ‘l’Arabe du coin’, the neighbourhood Arab, usually designates a friendly Arabic-descent guy who holds a small grocery store or a bakery, a bar, who isn’t going to face much problems with anyone outside complete assholes.
 
First off, sorry it took me forever to answer, been under the weather and wanted time to ponder.
A obvious example would be the Roma situation: they face strong problems, much, much moreso than Black or Arab people in France even though they are European, and this is because people consider their culture generally incompatible with the French culture

The thing our US friends in the discussion need to understand is that xenophobia and racism is much more cultural-based than melanin-based, with an institutional refusal of the very concept of race and identity politics.
Let's hope it stays that way and doesn't cross the Atlantic more than it has already. You make a very good point, on international platforms, things tend to get "polluted" by the US view on race and culture.
Now, France is quite particular even for Western Europe as it takes a very strong approach to integration. It's not integration through tolerance but integration through conformity, as the laws about the veil in public buildings show. Talking to Irish people, it is very very hard to explain that the State actively does not recognise any religion/culture and that if you take part in the State, you should act as if you have none.

Now, while you have a good point about the economic pressures tied to immigration, I think it is linked to previous stereotypes. The resurgence of those stereotype might be linked to the pressures, but the existence of the stereotypes predates the pressures.
For example, Roma take the existing prejudices against romanichels, while Arabs and Blacks tend to get the colonial stereotypes.
On the other hands, there are not many stereotypes against Eastern Europeans. It might be because the pressure is lesser or because there was no pre-existing stereotypes against them, or not as strong anyway.

An article in French about the colonial stereotypes:
http://africultures.com/de-lesclavage-au-colonialisme-limage-du-noir-reduite-a-son-corps-4467/

I'm thinking that a Black President would show a counter example to that picture. Whenever someone goes on about race inferiority or anything like that, you could point out to a Black President. Now, of course it might be more fuel for the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theorists but there'll always be assholes...
 
Let's hope it stays that way and doesn't cross the Atlantic more than it has already. You make a very good point, on international platforms, things tend to get "polluted" by the US view on race and culture.
Now, France is quite particular even for Western Europe as it takes a very strong approach to integration. It's not integration through tolerance but integration through conformity, as the laws about the veil in public buildings show. Talking to Irish people, it is very very hard to explain that the State actively does not recognise any religion/culture and that if you take part in the State, you should act as if you have none.
I believe a good argument to explain them why we have this very specific position towards the place of religion in politics and publics life is to describe the Religion Wars. In the 17th and 18th centuries, we got more than two millions dead, which convinced whoever was in charge, be they kings, emperors, presidents or prime ministers, that religion should stay a matter of private life.
Now, while you have a good point about the economic pressures tied to immigration, I think it is linked to previous stereotypes. The resurgence of those stereotype might be linked to the pressures, but the existence of the stereotypes predates the pressures.
For example, Roma take the existing prejudices against romanichels, while Arabs and Blacks tend to get the colonial stereotypes.
The interesting thing is that the Roma tend to be prejudiced against culturally more than ethnically: I doubt you and me could see a Roma in the street and recognize them as such unless they act stereotypically Roma with the whole nomadic culture that shows a... limited... respect to the laws of the land. In a darkly amusing thing, I learned from family in the police that the "refugees" yelling in Arabic in the Parisian subway to get money are actually Roma dressing as stereotypical Arabs rather than actual refugees, fuelling even more the tensions.
I'm thinking that a Black President would show a counter example to that picture. Whenever someone goes on about race inferiority or anything like that, you could point out to a Black President. Now, of course it might be more fuel for the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theorists but there'll always be assholes...
Yep. For them I point towards early 20th century articles in the US explaining how the Irish would replace the "true murikans" and turn the US papist.
 
I believe a good argument to explain them why we have this very specific position towards the place of religion in politics and publics life is to describe the Religion Wars. In the 17th and 18th centuries, we got more than two millions dead, which convinced whoever was in charge, be they kings, emperors, presidents or prime ministers, that religion should stay a matter of private life.
I'm not sure there, Louis XIV did use religion quite heavily, and even Napoleon III made much of his diplomatic decisions based, outwardly at least, on defense of the Catholics (Cochinchine and the Levant)
It's really during the IIIrd Republic that France became that fiercely secular, building on earlier Revolutionary tradition.

That fierce separation of Church and State is pretty much just a French thing
 
I'm not sure there, Louis XIV did use religion quite heavily, and even Napoleon III made much of his diplomatic decisions based, outwardly at least, on defense of the Catholics (Cochinchine and the Levant)
He used religion, but keeping a tight control over it. The concept of Gallican Church is pretty telling, being "We obey to the Pope's every order as long as he doesn't give any.", with the idea of the French Church being French first and Church second.

Remember the early particle physics experiments of Avignon with the generation and stabilisation of the famed anti-Pope particle or the numerous high-energy containments of the Pope one by the Frogs.
 
Top