[ Post a Response | Mauritius Message Board ]
We cannot be held responsible for all messages posted on this board as we have no control over entries. If there is any concern regarding any posting(s), please advise mailto:mauritius@cjp.net and we will take appropriate action.
Posted by Biquel de Lagali on 19/12/2007, 10:40 am
58.175.170.104
Speaking to an Indian audience, on a private visit to India, a Mauritian President from a constitutionally apolitical office says that India shares blood relations with Mauritius where Indian culture is still practised. Did I miss something here? Anerood is not speaking out of school, he’s merely stating a self-evident truth and, given his circumstances, would the proverbial ‘reasonable person’ have done any different? I read nothing of his speech that remotely impinged on the contributions of others.
What if an Irish Australian Head of State, on visiting Ireland had said that Australia shared blood relations with Ireland, or that Australia had Irish pubs? Would we honestly have expected him/her to acknowledge all Greek, Chinese, French, Mauritian, Serbs, Croatians, Turkish, Italian, German, and Vietnamese contributions? Methinks not.
By the way, wasn’t that the same Anerood who visited Australia a few years back? I think it was, yes it was, I remember now. Well cravated, protocol-savvy, overawed peepoule in their Sunday best, falling over each other to shake his hand, to bow and to curtsy too. Others even bought special clothes to attend the ‘much-sought-after’ function. Oh yes, I saw the pics and cringed … Speaking of which, oh no, perhaps my friend Gerard was there too? Maybe, maybe even with bow-tie and bells on.
Sot du Coq a L’ane (careful with translation): In the mid-eighties, when I suggested inter alia (pompous word 4 the silly) that Creoles reject imperialists’ tags (names), speak Kreol and wear the traditional African clothing of their ancestors; I was met with stupefying disbelief and derision. Francophiles would not hear of it; they wanted to splinter splinters and make of us watered-down versions of others.
As both Indian and Creole populations in Mauritius shared pretty much the same ruler-ruled relationship during the colonial epoch, why did one culture flourish while the other waned? Simple, apart from a pre-colonial civilization and weight of numbers, among other things, Indians didn’t want to be 1/3 or 4/10 or, even 1/5 of 4/5 European; they aspired to be 100% Indians. Despite coming from different parts of the sub-continent, from different socio political backgrounds, they united under the Indian identity. Accordingly, they fiercely defended their culture, and retained their names, clothing, languages, beliefs, traditions, food habits and even transplanted systems of local governance. As a result, regardless of emigration, their culture blossomed.
Had (good) Creole leaders drawn a line through this phenomenon, then, it follows quite logically, that we should have been welded on to an African identity – years ago. But, no, Le Pont D’Avignon, La Marseillaise and even God Save the Queen took precedence over Sega; the rest as they say is history.
Zordi zour, there is a belated movement afoot to regroup and give Creoles an identity. Bravo to those in the mix; they are doing what others before them couldn’t or wouldn’t do. In the context of local cultural pluralism, it’s a good start. Hopefully, it’ll grow from a national to a pan-national movement. Here, a strong African identity will not only promote unity but give it teeth internationally.
Here Gerard, U can’t say that I haven’t given U a big enough target. Fire away.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
We cannot be held responsible for all messages posted on this board as we have no control over entries. If there is any concern regarding any posting(s), please advise mailto:mauritius@cjp.net and we will take appropriate action.