Colonial Architecture and Urbanism in Africa

Intertwined and Contested Histories

Fassil Demissie, Fassil Demissie

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781351950534
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Planificación de ciudades y desarrollo urbano

Colonial architecture and urbanism carved its way through space: ordering and classifying the built environment, while projecting the authority of European powers across Africa in the name of science and progress. The built urban fabric left by colonial powers attests to its lingering impacts in shaping the present and the future trajectory of postcolonial cities in Africa. Colonial Architecture and Urbanism explores the intersection between architecture and urbanism as discursive cultural projects in Africa. Like other colonial institutions such as the courts, police, prisons, and schools, that were crucial in establishing and maintaining political domination, colonial architecture and urbanism played s pivotal role in shaping the spatial and social structures of African cities during the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, it is the cultural destination of colonial architecture and urbanism and the connection between them and colonialism that the volume seeks to critically address. The contributions drawn from different interdisciplinary fields map the historical processes of colonial architecture and urbanism and bring into sharp focus the dynamic conditions in which colonial states, officials, architects, planners, medical doctors and missionaries mutually constructed a hierarchical and exclusionary built environment that served the wider colonial project in Africa.

PART I

Archaeology of Colonial Architecture and Urbanism

Chapter 1

French Territoriality and Urbanism: General Lyautey and Architect Prost in Morocco (1912–1925)

Hassan Radoine

Introduction

The French urban and architectural legacy remains strikingly prominent in Morocco and has withstood both rapid change and local tradition. Yet it is neither rooted nor fully immersed in the Moroccan urban and social fabric. This French urban experience is unique and deserves to be examined in order to gain some lessons from it. A simple glance at a major Moroccan city plan designates two main urban patterns: the colonial that forms the Ville Nouvelle, which became, in most cases, the centre of the whole urban agglomeration of Moroccan cities; and the médina,¹ the historic native city, confined within its walls. The colonial white concrete high-elevated buildings, which follow a radial and geometrical street design, contrast with the médina’s reddish-backed bricks walls of compacted and overlapped buildings linked via twisted alleys and thoroughfares. These patterns reflect an urban duality that has its own melody.

To grasp the French interventionist policy in Morocco and demonstrate the French use of urban planning and architecture as a tool of pacification, key cultural and political elements during the French Protectorate period must be examined in order to develop a theoretical framework for this current chapter. Obviously, it is difficult to cover all details related to the subject presented, but some of the critical points will be raised.

The structure of this chapter is as follows. The first part will describe the manner by which Morocco fell under the French Protectorate and its peculiarities. Compared with occurrences in other neighbouring French colonies, these peculiarities show that there was an unquestioned change in French colonial policies in Morocco. An emphasis will be placed on the first resident general in Morocco, Louis-Hubert Lyautey, the so-called man of culture and conservation. The second part is an examination of the colonial urban planning and territorial management and how these were significant in controlling and overseeing the Moroccan land and cities. The third part deals with the conservation of Moroccan monuments and sites as a political alibi. The soundness of French conservation programmes will be argued.

French Intrusion into Morocco

Although its neighbours had been colonized or been under control for decades, Morocco remained an intriguing subject for colonizing powers at the beginning of the twentieth century. France had occupied Algeria since 1830 and controlled Tunisia since 1881. The Moroccan autonomy had diplomatic and military connections with European powers from the twelfth century. These colonizing powers from Europe were interested in Morocco because geographically it was a strategic location, and competed to gain patronage to exploit this country, close to Europe but mysterious (Rivet 1988: 19).² Though English mercenaries had been entrenched in the Royal Moroccan court since the fifteenth century, France and Spain were given the right of control – not “protectorate” – over Morocco in the Algeciras conference in which 14 states, including the United States, participated (Brace 1964: 39).³ A growing rivalry between France and Germany about Morocco led William II of Germany to resolve in 1905 to bolster the Moroccan will to resist French penetration. Visiting Tangier, he made a series of declarations in which he referred to the Sultan as an “independent sovereign” and he suggested that no reforms be accepted (ibid.).⁴ While the French threat was imminent, the court was unstable after the death of Sultan Mulāy Hasan⁵ who left as his successor a 14-year-old son, Mulāy ‘Abd al-‘Azīz. After several French military interventions, specifically, one in Oujda in the Morocco Algerian boundaries and another in Casablanca, France then reached a treaty of protectorate over Morocco in 1912 in Fez. The German rivalry with France was solved by ceding French territory in the Congo to Germany. The French were given a free hand in Morocco.

The treaty of Fez, signed 30 March 1912, granted France a protectorate from Sultan Mulāy ‘Abd al-Hafīd The following November, Spain and France defined the limits of the Spanish zone in the north of Morocco (ibid.: 40).⁶ Meanwhile, it is noteworthy to mention that the protectorate treaty was but a vehicle for the real colonization and exploitation plan that France had undertaken in Morocco:

The treaty of Fez was a rather ill-defined outline of indirect rule, promising to respect religion and the sultan but putting only very vague limits on French policy. It was for French officials to decide the nature and place of reforms. Lyautey’s ideas of spreading French influence through cooperative local officials, which he had elaborated on the Algerian frontier a decade before, fitted nicely with these ideas about colonial rule. (Pennell 2000: 171)

The whole policy, undertaken in Morocco by French officials, was to be shaped in the light of previous errors and experiences, particularly in Algeria. Marshal Louis-Hubert Lyautey, assigned as the first Resident General of France in Morocco, used avant garde methods to gain confidence and to rule Morocco from within rather than to pursue military destruction and expensive machinery. In one of his speeches at Lyon he stated the following:

Just remember that in Morocco there exists a number of persons of rank who, until just six years ago, were Ambassadors of independent Morocco to Saint Petersburg, London, Berlin, Madrid, and Paris, accompanied by their secretaries and attachés, cultured men who dealt as equals with European statesmen, who are skilled politicians and diplomats; nothing similar exists in either Algeria or Tunisia. (Scham 1970: 29)

Several factors helped to change the colonial mind from ideas of military pacification and domination to that of a laboratory used for exploring new ideas. Certainly, the period between the two world wars had much influence on policies in colonies. These colonies were a potential homeland for a large number of European families fleeing the wars and looking to settle down elsewhere (Dugard 1918: 75).⁷ They also provided France with mercenary armies who fought to defend its territories. As Moshe Gershovish puts it: “On 14 August 1844 French and Moroccan armies collided at the battle of Isly, which marked the beginning of Morocco’s incorporation within the rising orbit of European imperialism. A hundred years later French and Moroccan soldiers fought side by side for the liberation of France” (Gershovich 2000: Preface).⁸ Luckily, the Moroccan protectorate was obtained by France near the end of the colonization movement. Lyautey understood the delicacy of the period. Instead of relying on power he tried to win the sympathy of the native:

Despite many imperfections and many modifications still to be made in our methods of colonial policy, there is nevertheless one thing we have achieved: that is the knowledge of how to win the sympathy of the native. We do have vis-à-vis him that arrogance, that aloofness which he in fact least forgives … we have often been behind other colonial countries in the machinery and equipment built up in our colonies and in putting them into operation, but, despite everything, these races have remained faithful to us, for they have always felt that our heart is with them, and have therefore never felt an arrogance, coldness, and scorn between us. The results of this policy were the steady backing we received from them during the war, and which we shall find tomorrow. (Scham: 41)

Louis-Hubert-Gonzalve Lyautey

Louis-Hubert-Gonzalve Lyautey became the subject of long studies and field research for many scholars who have tried to understand the stature of a new colonization figure who became an architect of New France abroad. Lyautey was a man who believed, as Maurois pointed out, “a colony should be administrated for itself, not for metropolitan France”, and that it would thereby “becomes a source of strength for France only by its own prosperity”⁹ (ibid.: 17).

Lyautey was born in Nancy on 17 November 1854. Laurence de Grimoult de Villemote, his mother, came from an aristocratic family, being the daughter of a viscount from Normandy and nobleman from Loraine. His father was a civil engineer. “From his mother’s family he inherited his interest in the fine arts, and from his father’s, a longing for a life of action and duty. Both families bequeathed to Hubert Lyautey royalist sympathies …”¹⁰ (ibid.: 3).

In addition, Lyautey’s personality was deeply influenced by his peer and governor general at Indochina, M. de Lanessan. While Lyautey was deported¹¹ (ibid.: 6) from France to his colony, de Lanessan taught Lyautey about the mistakes of colonizing policies:

He arrived at Saigon in November, 1894, where he met the Governor General of Indochina, M. de Lanessan … Lanessan gave Lyautey some advice on colonial administration that was to prove invaluable in later years: “In every country there is a social framework. The great error of the Europeans who come as conquerors is to destroy these frameworks. The country so deprived falls into anarchy. One must govern with the mandarin, and not against him. The European, not being superior in numbers, cannot take his place, but only supervise. Therefore, it is in every society a leadership class, born to direct the affairs of the people, without which one is powerless. Use that class in our best interests”. (Ibid.: 7)

Lyautey did not reach Morocco as a normal official, but he had been sent by the French war ministry from France as a chosen one. It was his achievements in previous colonies and in particular in the Algerian–Moroccan boundaries that marked him as a leader who had the ability to manage difficult situations and conflicts. This trait had led him to the privileged position of expanding what he started. Thus, autonomy of decision-making was one of his advantages while resident general of Morocco. The large number of official letters, published after his death and written to his French superiors, indicates that he knew how to manoeuvre the French military officials.

When considering Lyautey a “hero” of France, one must remember that his last days in the service of France were not entirely honourable. He was always an autonomous person difficult to control by the French military body. His struggle to get relieved from the supreme command of Morocco proved the French military dislike of his policies. On his arrival to Marseilles, leaving Morocco forever, “no senior officials, military or civilian, were on hand to get him. In fact, he had been obliged to return to France on a small commercial ship, rather than on a French naval vessel, and it was only the British who, in his honor, provided him with an escort of two destroyers through the straits of Gibraltar” (ibid.: 47).¹²

This is not an apology for Lyautey. Rather, it is just a reminder to scholars who have studied the French policy in Morocco as a French phenomenon without giving much attention to individuals who shaped those policies and who had unquestionably hard moments in shaping their own destiny. Janet Abu-Lughod, Gwendolyn Wright and Paul Rabinow studied French colonial enterprise in depth, but neglected biographies of individuals who shaped a positive French image. Lyautey is one example.

The impact of French intervention on its colonies was dramatic and the postcolonial consequences are still to be resolved. Yet, it is important to elucidate the fact that the colonized countries cannot live eternally on the rubble of the past in which, perhaps, the colony was ready to be colonized. The nagging question, which ought to be answered, is why colonized countries did not retrieve their previous lifestyle, but blindly and arrogantly followed the colonizing system, which applied its remaining orientations wilfully. Today, the issue is not indeed to make tales of a past that is part of our heritage, which is not obvious to deny or conceal. Rather, it is relevant to draw lessons from that past and move on to the future. No alternatives or remedies are given when handling the French period in Morocco. It means that colonial “actors” had trained their own local “actors” to play by their own rules without even questioning their inherited legacy. Seemingly, part of the current Moroccan elite considers France as a second homeland while living amidst total chaos, protected under their shell made by France since the protectorate.

Hence, it is not only France that should be blamed when dealing with such issues, but also the native elite that is, perhaps, not ready to gain its autonomy even after decades of independence. By application of developmental principles, which succeeded elsewhere with conservation and improvement of local potentials, Morocco might generate its own true autonomy. Nevertheless, John Waterbury gives detailed information about the morphology of this elite and its incapability of pursuing the general country welfare. It is centred on its own fortune, and it is an anachronism from the past. “The contours of the [Moroccan] elite correspond fairly closely to the privileged Moroccan minority that benefited from advanced educations under the Protectorate”¹³ (...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Colonial Architecture and Urbanism in Africa: An Introduction
• PART I: ARCHAEOLOGY OF COLONIAL ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM
• PART II: COLONIAL DISCIPLINARY INSTITUTIONS
• PART III: COLONIAL MODERNITIES
• Index