Thoughts about geopolitic analyses

Last year in my geopolitics lessons we had to study the presentation of the publishing of the book of Marc-Antoine Pérouse de Montclos called « L’Afrique nouvelle frontière du djihad ? » (Africa djihad’s new border).

While taking notes I came accross some points that irritated me. First the author made an anacronism with the decolonialize movement of the Mourides in Senegal and ISIS now. Well, how could you compare the different movements, at two different time, with two completely different impacts. ISIS gone worldwide known when the Mourides fought for their lands within Senegal and the countries around.

According to the thesis of Pérouse de Montclos, the rise of the extremists in Africa is due to the lack of the african government inside their counrtries, corruption, miseducation systems… I agree on this point, but isn’t just one side of the coin? What about europeans governments responsaility? In the 90s europeans government such as Danemark, Sweden or France were welcoming different types of immigration for construction and so on. The people stayed and had kids. Nowadays it seems that history is repeated itself in Europe with the rise of nationalism. And it seems that those kids are not welcomed anymore. I’m not here to make a trial, I just want to analyse the rise of extremism in Africa by the involvement and the responsability of europeans government as well.

When you blame immigrants to be the responsable of unemployement, or observe the rise of neo-nazi factions chasing blacks and people of colour. Ignoring the consequences of colonialism and slavery. It end up with a lot of rage on both side.

I believe history is the key for better understanding of all societies, tolerance, and mutual comprehension.

Last little irritation why foreigners terms has to be re-writting in french, it is necessary to write Al-Shabab, Chebab ? That is just a nerd point.