Reviving the Amazigh (Berber) Identity in Tunisia: because we are all Amazigh

Walk in the streets of Tunis, in the streets of Monastir or Bizerte, and listen to the people: people talk in Arabic, mostly, some in French and if tourists are around, in German, Italian or English. And unlike in the streets of Algeria or Morocco, you will never hear anybody talking in Tamazight (berber language). You might then conclude that unlike Algeria or Morocco, Tunisia is a pure Arab country. You’d be wrong.

Now walk nearby the mountains (Sidi Abdel Rahman mount, for example), wander in the small villages hardly reached by the hectic life of cities, walk in the cities a bit far from the centralized power, in Gasserine, in Tataouine, walk and watch the elder ladies: some wear thistypical square-patterned cloths kept tied by silver ornamental pins (‘Kholla’), and have around their necks ‘Rihanna’ (long chain made of big round silver rings as links) with ‘Khomssa’ pendants (Hand of Fatima), some even have tribal facial tattoos,  and all of them, when they talk, use words slightly different from those used in the big towns.  They don’t say ‘Ana’ (I, me), they say ‘Yeney’, the ‘Q’ is pronounced ‘G’. It seems Arabic but at least 30-40% of the words are not Arabic. What are they? They are Amazigh.

Go to the weddings, you will see the ancestral Berber costumes, the Berber jewellery (such as the ‘Kholkhal’, massive anklets), the music played strangely seems the same as in Kabilya or Northern Atlas. Amazigh, again. And if you are not yet convinced look out for Tunisia’s History: from Hannibal to Ibn Khaldoun, from Carthago to Djerba, the Amazigh presence is everywhere.

Tunisia has a strong Amazigh heritage. Systematical genetical survey show that 98% of the Tunisian population is of Amazigh origin. Every part of the culture and traditions show that we are in an Amazigh country, at the only striking difference that here, almost nobody talks Tamazight: but then why did the language almost disappear while all the rest stayed quite unchanged?As if the Imazighen where everywhere in Tunisia, only that they are mute.

Like in Algeria, Morocco and Libya, Tamazight was the native language of this country that our ancestors where calling ‘Ifriqya‘ (does it remember you something? Yes, from that word comes ‘Africa’). Like in these other countries, Arabic arrived in Ifriqya together with Islam: but unlike people sometimes say, it was not a massive invasion of Arab populations. Arab population that settled in Tunisia were never more than 2-3%. Arabic and Islam integrated the culture of Tunisia and became part of every Tunisian’s life and identity (after all, Tunisia is an Arabic name, given by Arabs that, when they arrived in Ifriqya found its inhabitants so generous and with such a strong sense of hospitality that they called this land the land that ‘twannass‘, meaning the land where you feel like surrounded by your family/friends), but Tamazight and Amazigh culture stayed also a vital part of this identity, and would not disappear. So to say, Tunisians are Amazigh people, that throughout History constituted a mixed Amazigh-Arab-Islamic identity. Arab-Islamic culture is vital to understand Tunisian identity, but so is Amazigh culture. They are like two sides of the same coin. A peaceful Tunisian would be a person accepting the both sides if their culture and the impregnation of Islam on these both sides.

Amazigh language began to almost disappear from Tunis only in the two last centuries, when the French domination, like in other parts of North Africa, needed a way to constitute populations in nations and blocks rather than in tribes, because it was easier to handle: imposing an uniform identity and language was the easiest way to break regionalism and build nationalism. Amazigh was banned, and Arabic and French were imposed, nomad tribes were forced to settle. After independance, the dictatorial regimes, following the French example to impose its law over the countries, continued the same path and criminalized the use of Tamazight, while leading a huge ‘arabization’ campaign through schools, administration, etc. The unluck of Tunisia compared to Morocco, Algeria and Libya, is that in this small country without big geographical relief, where most of the population was already living in towns near the sea, and with much fewer nomads, the cultural genocide worked much better than in the neighbouring countries. Indeed, one can say that big part of the preservation of the Amazigh culture in Algeria, Morocco and Libya is due to the difficult access to the mountains of Kabilya, Atlas and Nefoussa. And the job began by the French was finished by Bourguiba, certainly the most ‘francophile’ of all Arab dictators, and consolided by Ben Ali brutal dictatorship. Bourguiba and Gaddafi could certainly be ‘awarded’ as the biggest mass eliminators of Amazigh culture; after all didn’t they try shortly in 1973-1974 to form a Tunisian-Libyan Union called ‘Arab Islamic Republic’ (ironic, isn’t it, to refer to Islam for a man like Bourguiba that was not even observing Ramadan and wanted to force Tunisians to follow his example?).

The denial of Amazigh identity of Tunisia policy is so harsh that there isn’t even official statistics of the remaining number of Tamazight speakers in Tunisia: we talk sometimes about less than 100’000 people, sometimes less than 10’000. But the worst part of it certainly arrived through schools: ideological versions of History tought to children make it possible that in an Amazigh country, if you ask to the definition of the word ‘Amazigh‘, many are unable to give it, and many hear that word for the first time. A real national drama, if you consider socio-linguistic studies that show that about 60% of the Tunisian population had within the four preceding  generations Amazigh locutors in their family. If nothing is done now, Tamazight will simply disappear from Tunisia.

The New Tunisia, free from dictatorship is still looking for putting the right words on the aspirations of Tunisians: the new constitution has to be written. Preliminary drafts show that Tunisia is defined as a country of “Arab identity”. It would be a big mistake to not include the Amazigh Identity in the Constitution and not recognize Tamazight as an official language together with Arabic. Since the end of Ben Ali regime, we see a whole new activism in Tunisia of young Tunisian Amazigh, that want to follow the Moroccan example, where Tamazight entered in the constitution. Associations begin to form and to protest. Social networks are used as a platform to coordinate actions. Tunisia needs to revive its Amazigh culture. Tunisia needs to recognize what it is: a mixed Amazigh-Arab-Islamic identity.

European journalists think its an Arab Spring, but inside of it, there is a strong Amazigh flavour. After all, didn’t the Tunisian revolution start in Sidi Bouzid, a town named after a local saint, a purely Amazigh tradition?

Comparing Obama’s speech on the Middle-East with his Cairo Speech

The communication with the Arab and/or Muslim World looks like being a conundrum for the Western World. The way George W. Bush adressed some issues related to the Arabs/Muslims is maybe the perfect example on what to not say to them. Obama speeches were always clean of the obvious mistakes of his predecessors and this 2011 speech on the Middle-East was even cleaner. The 2009 Cairo speech was actually so brillantly written that it really raised hopes in the Middle-East for a change. But alas, from 2009 to 2011, these high expectations were disappointed, not only because of Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also because of the attitude towards the Arab dictators facing street protests: the support to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt came too late, only when it was clear to the US that they can dump their dear allies (Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gaddafi,…) because they were already almost toppled.

Thus, it is in this mindframe of scepticism that most of us, Arabs, listened to this Middle-East Speech. We kind of all had our “checklist”: some were waiting how Obama will mention Bahrain, some others how is he to address about Israel and Palestine, etc. None of us was really waiting for anything interesting and special to be said, most of us were just looking for a renewed confirmation of a new form of the good old hypocrisy: same old routine, only covered with more elegant words than his predecessors would have used.

What I was personnally interested in was in fact the difference between the Cairo speech of 2009 and this speech of 2011 on Middle-East, not in terms of the content itself, but in terms of the form, the strategy of communication. Although the latter was pronounced from the White House, it is quite obvious that it was prepared with the intention to address to the Arab World. The decision to not hold this speech in front of an Arab audiance in an Arab country proves there is a hesitation to face directly Arabs, as there is no certainty on the welcoming it would have had (after all Clinton was boycotted in Egypt by youth and hooted by Tunisians to the point she had to cancell her speach in Tunis). As the changes go in the North African and Middle Eastern region, the”West” adapts its communication.They are totally aware the Arab revolutions were the occasion of multiple  failures in communication and decisions, and that this caused a great damage on the trust the Arab and Muslim World have on them. Not only they want to restore that trust (surprisingly they seem to think that regaining it needs only to adapt the way of speaking, instead of admitting it needs a complete change of policy, what will apparently never happen), but also they are in high need of understanding the new Arab references.

The main differences between the two speeches are:

1. The Storytelling: in Obama 2009 speech, there were very few of the “storytelling” US rethoric is normally full of (emphazing arguments with an example of a person’s life story), besides the very brief mention to his own story linking him to Africa, while in the 2011 Speech, many mentions were done: Rosa Parks, Muhammad Bouazizi, Wael Ghonim (indirectly, by mentionning his position at Google), some Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas starting a peace NGO. The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions certainly made realize to Obama, Clinton and their team how important will be now the ordinary people of the Arab World. Instead of talking about elites, refering to great places or figures of History, the ‘normal’ people (including women) that achieved great things with almost nothing were mentioned. The storytelling, that ensured Ronald Reagan with a great popularity in his country as a president and was so to say the standard of communication of George W. Bush (and Nicolas Sarkozy), is a very classical technique to reach the very general audiances: (over)simplifying in talking with images instead of building a consistant chain of arguments.
2. Erasing American references: only with the “told stories” one can see that they refer all but one (Rosa Parks) to Arabs. But the shift goes beyond this. In 2009 speech, there was a point about stressing on the fact that Islam was part of American History, about the fight for civic rights of African Americans, about the Cold War, etc, while in 2011 speech the direct references to American History are completely erased (except for the reference to the American Revolution where Patriots refused to pay taxes to a king). Even the cited locations were chosen to fit to the Arab perspective (Cairo, Benghazi, Sanaa). In two words, we are moving here from speeches where we talk about “American values to export” to speeches where we talk about “universal values”, that happen to be shared by America as well as by other parts of the world, worth fighting for, although America didn’t create these values. US want to give a more “modest” image of themselves, they don’t  anymore commit the mistake to pretend they are  bringing democracy/peace/hope as global leader (although Hillary Clinton in the few words preceding Obama speech expressed her views about the need of an American strong “leadership”). On the contrary they emphazise on the fact that these values are wanted and activelly won by the Arabs themselves. Americans want now to endorse the more “neutral” role (in surface only of course) of those who will just propose help (economical, G20, technological, etc) and let free the Arabs to decide if they want that help or not (of course it is just a very hypocrit way of presenting things).
3. Avoiding religious references: of course, 2009 was technically a speech to the Muslim World, while 2011 is a speech on the Middle-East, but no one will deny how much entangled are Middle-East and Islam. 2009 was not only refering to Al-Azhar, the Quran or Obama’s own Christianity, it was also speaking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of Jews and Shoah, Muslims and Christians. In the 2011 speech, he prefered to talk Israel-Palestine in terms of frontiers, security and official mutual recognition, Bahrain in terms of Iranian strategic political interest, and Arab revolutions in general in mentionning freedom, economy, technology, information. The only explicit references were made were the “region that was the birthplace of three world religions” and the Muslim/Copt violence in Egypt and the offered solution to take the Iraqi “multi-ethnic multi-sectarian democracy” as an example (what a strange idea by the way to take this as an example). In erasing the reference to religion and particularely to Islam, it is quite clear that the United States want to enter in a new phase of their relation with Arabs where they can close the Islamism/extremism/Al-Qaeda chapter. In a way, by saying that Al-Qaeda was against democracy, that it lost its revelancy in the region, that more has been done in six months of civil unrest  than in decades by terrorists, but also by not referring to the recent choice  of a new head for Al-Qaeda and denying the Ossama Ben Laden’s posthume message praising Arab revolutions, US call for having the right to “move to something else”: US wants to make known that they want to make politics, business (a lot of business in fact), partnerships; they don’t want anymore to be seen as the oppressor of Muslims around the World. As if there was any chance that Arabs could forget the military support of Israel anyway (clearly mentionned in the 2011 speech).
4. Adopting Arabic rethoric: the only concession done to arabic language in 2009 speech was the opening “Salam Aleikom“. In 2011, there is a will to “speak the way Arabs speak”. Some linguistic specifities of the Arabic language are adopted. For example, the repetition of terms, very classic in arabic, but avoided as much as possible in english is clear in a sentence like “Square by square, town by town, country by country” (unfortunately for Obama, his advisors do not seem to have noticed the similarity that each Arab will notice with Gaddafi murderous speech “Zenga zenga, bit bit, dar dar“, meaning “street by street, house by house, room by room“). Another flagrant example is the sentence (actually the answer to the non-asked question) where he says: “Bin Laden was no martyr“, the word martyr being extremely often used not only in Islamic lexical field, but also in general Arab’s (for example, the people killed on Tahrir Square, regardless of their religion, are referred as martyrs by Egyptians), while it is totally absent from previous American official speeches. Adapting arabic rethoric is a way of looking “more familiar”, or “more comprehensive”.

I see the 2011 speech on the Middle-East as being a “grammatical contortion”: US diplomacy makes moves that are unnatural to them, not because they are taking a new orientation with us, Arabs, but because they think that if they want to continue to pursue the goals they always pursued in the region (oil, Israel and capitalism), they just have to make it a bit more subtly. With this Obama speech we officially entered in the era where the United States understand Arabs are not just parameters to adjust and fine tune, but a whole part of the world with 400 million people with real personal expectations and real intention to be sovereign. Let’s be clear: that’s only plastic surgery. If there was any real consideration to Arab aspirations, a word would have been adressed to the aspirations of the people living in the most repressive country of the region governed by a medieval feodal system, Saudi Arabia, and more firm positions would have been taken to condemn what happens in Syria and Bahrain.

Mimmicking our way of building sentences and arguments and using our own references is not enough and will never be; in fact it is even almost a bad idea from an American perspective for it makes it even easier for us  to detect where exactly there is hypocrisy,emptiness or offense. It is as if President Obama tried to cook for us a couscous or any other Arab dish and really thought we won’t be able to make the difference with our own cooking. The thing is, sadly for Americans and luckily for Arabs, very, very few of us were fooled by this new way of addressing us.

When humor is a weapon against racism

I was in the bus, looking through the window, wandering from one thought to the other. At one of the bus stops, climbed in a group of teenagers, 3 girls and 2 boys. Like all teenagers, noisy and careless about being noisy – most of people here in Switzerland consider this as being misbehaved, and from the angry looks they gave them one could easily say that they were highly bothered. As for me, this ‘annoyance’ is always most welcome to me, as I consider noisy teenagers perfectly embodying life; it is the only period of life where one have an organic reason to be stupid and in the same time to be enugh aware of things to make sharp observations. Should I mention also that they were obviously Arabs, given the mix of some Arab words in their french talk and that were Muslims given the veils the girls where trying to wear – they looked quite unexperienced to it though – and the qamiss the boys were wearing? It might be by experience or maybe am I paranoid but I think I could say that the other people in the bus were not looking at “noisy teenagers” but at “noisy Muslims”.

As their loud conversation was ongoing – they were mostly talking about the celebration they were going to attend in the mosque – one of the girl said a joke, half in arabic half in french (this girl was quite witty in fact), her friends couldn’t help to laugh – so did I. One of her mates told her “look even the Madam is laughing at you“. “I was laughing at the joke. And if the jokes are going on like this all day long, I wonder how funny must be school.“, did I reply. We all went laughing, and then started talking. They apparently wanted to talk about school; proud to list all the jokes and tricks they did to the teachers and other students. As I learnt they were living in France (the scene was taking place in a bus in Geneva, which is next to the French border), in an area I know a bit.

One of the little stories they told me was about one of their teachers that apparently was punishing them everytime she was hearing an arabic word in class. The problem is that her allergy to any mention to a foreign language was even extended to their private conversations during break; it seemed also she never missed any occasion to emphasize on the fact that French rules only have effect on their lives. As a consequence, the young teenagers – that were after all like so many of us here, born in Europe from Arab migrant parents, and do not want any of the two parts that constitute their identity and culture denied – began to “outbid” about their Arabic identity. One of the boys explained me that for the yearly class picture, they took Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian flags they waved just at the moment of the picture. When the teacher received the picture, she told to the class “We are in France here, it is shameful that none of you took a French flag“. The boy replied “La France aux Français Madame” (“France for the French people”, according to a famous moto of the Front National, the french right-wing party). She dismissed him, and before leaving class he told her “A demain, Inshallah“.

The witty girl then told me that they were going to re-shoot the class picture, as asked by the teacher for it was too unacceptable to have those foreign flags on it. I asked them: “And how do you feel about it?“. The other boy just told me “We won’t have the flags, but we will be scowling on the picture.“. To that they all went laughing – again so did I.

Their bus stop arrived are they noisily left the bus – a relief to all other passengers for sure – waving at me “Salam Alikoum Madame“. And while I was seeing them crossing the street through the window, I was thinking: we all understood that it would be helpless to complain to the principal – after all there is certainly something in the highschool rules and regulations against waving foreign flags or speaking foreign languages at school – and sometimes racism takes so subtle forms that only the targeted person can get it deep meaning (the teacher would easily dismiss all allegations, if she was asked), that still the best way to resist is symbolic: using humor, for sometimes a joke can be a weapon against hatred.

What educated people should learn from uneducated people

Education is the key. For everything: development, peace, health, freedom, democracy, human rights, end of racism and discrimination, global awareness, etc. It is with this leitmotiv that most of parents of arab/african migrants to Europe crossed the Mediterranean Sea: to offer to their children the oppprtunity to live in a stable environment where an education of high value is given. Studies show that the difference in education level between migrants and their children is bigger than for natives. Other studies show also that the migrant parents tend to be even more pushy with their daughters than with their sons to accomplish a grade in higher education.

Good news? Yes awesome news, but one little bad point, though. I started to notice a long ago that in general (of course this is not a general statement) that if I look around me for people like me, sons and daughters of migrant arab parents, that the higher the education level of parents is, especially the mother, the lower is the ability of their children to speak in arabic. To be more accurate, I came to the statement that this was particularely true for two categories of migrants: those coming from maghrebi coutries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) and from Lebanon. One big exception though: it is false mainly for Syrians, for every Syrian born in Europe I’ve met, they were all speaking perfectly arabic. To illustrate my point, I remember this video I’ve seen long ago of the son of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri talking in front of the Lebanese Parliament, reading from a paper his speech written in arabic, with such a hesitant, with so many mistakes that the video was widely spread among Arabs. It seemed so incredible to see the son of such a famous businessman and politician, long depicted as a figure of success in the Arab world, owning even arabic speaking medias, having difficulty and making mistakes.

So the question is: why among the Arab diaspora in Europe the more (in general) moroccan/algerian/tunisian/lebanese parents are educated, the less children are able to speak arabic (not even mentionning writing)? For those who don’t live the diaspora from inside, it has to be pointed out that arabic inside arab communities in Europe is almost exclusively transmitted to children by parents, the small number of arabic courses for children being far from having the capacity of welcoming everybody (and do not even exist in every city). Anyway arabic courses do not help children to really speak arabic, I mean the arabic they would be able to speak with their family and friends, since fus’ha (classical standard arabic) is mostly used for writing; the speaking requires knowledge of local dialectical arabic (including berber languages even if of course strictly saying they are different from arabic) that can’t be transmitted by any other mean than listening and speaking on a regular basis.

It seems to be a total contradiction to imagine that a less educated father and/or a less educated mother are more likely to teach their children arabic. Actually, if you carefully analyze the situation it is not: the four country I mentionned, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Lebanon, have in common a very high tendency to value french culture. In these countries, intellectual elites tend to speak french, even when they are not together with a foreigner not speaking arabic. When you think of it, it is very absurd to be arabic native speaker born in an arabic country, going to school and losing a little bit touch with arabic (for example sciences are tought in french in high schools in Tunisia, lebanese authors like Khalil Gibran or Andrée Cheddid wrote in english or french instead of arabic), meeting your significant other and getting married, migrating to Europe and having kids (not necesseraly in that order) and… forget to speak arabic with them.On the contrary, so many of us, sons and daughters of migrant parents with lower schooling level remember speaking one language at school (english, french, german) and coming back home switching instantly to arabic. (For my case,  for example, my father being egyptian and my mother tunisian, I was trained to switch instantly not only between french and arabic but also between dialectal egyptian and tunisian.)

Is it because they have been themselves to school that they are more keen to rely on school to ensure fully the linguistic education? Or maybe because education paradigms in their native countries have succeeded in implementing the idea that arabic was not so useful after all compared to something as prestigious and succesful as english or french, and that it is not a big loss that their children didn’t learn it? Or because less educated parents are less fluent in other languages than arabic, “forcing” children to keep talking in arabic with them if they want to communicate? Or because less graduated parents equals to less takening careers or a more “traditionnal type” family, then more free time dedicated to children? Certainly a mix of all these different reasons.

Anyway, this appeals to an interesting conlusion: there is certainly something educated people should learn from less educated people. They should give a bigger attention to what they transmit to their child. Parents transmit education, values, but when they are migrants they transmit also culture and language. They are the essential and sometimes the unique link for their children with their country of origin. If they want their children to “feel at home” back there, there is no other option: they cannot chose the easy path. It is twice as difficult, but worth it.