What about discrimination in Congo?

All this legislation was obviously discriminatory, since it concerned only the indigenous population: whites had to finance their security and social protection individually, either themselves or through their employers. It was considered that their level of income allowed them to do so. The nature of their duties was also deemed incompatible with any limitation on the duration of their work, and with the prevention of the risks to which they found themselves exposed: the latter were considered, along with other inconveniences – family, health, etc. – to be inherent to expatriation. A fictitious bonus was supposed to cover these risks: it was equal to the difference between the remuneration of a colonial worker and that of a similarly qualified worker in France.

Other discriminations resulted from differences in legal systems. The Blacks were governed by their ancient unwritten customary law, applied by wise men who had preserved the tradition and all the flexibility of interpretation that was given free rein in the “palabre”. Custom had, however, been purged of its most severe practices, considered cruel: for example, the application of the “chicote”, often blamed on the colonial system, but which was in fact a pre-colonial customary punishment, was gradually limited to eight strokes, then abolished in 1958. Whites, on the other hand, were subject to the rigors of written law, inspired by Belgian law.

Protecting the interests of the indigenous people was at the heart of the land tenure system: in principle, their land could only be occupied by them, and any “vacant land” had to be subject to a special investigation procedure to ensure that “indigenous” rights would not be violated in the present or in the future, and to what extent compensation had to be paid. For example, the felling of a single tree in the equatorial forest could entitle the nearest indigenous community to financial compensation. An extensive body of legislation, known as the “indigenous protection law”, safeguarded the other rights of the natives, based on their customs or on “human rights”, which had been enforced in the Belgian Congo long before it was by the United Nations. Added to this, especially after the 40-45 war, was social legislation modelled on European models (working hours, health and safety at work, pension scheme, family allowances), aimed above all at workers from extra-customary backgrounds.

In terms of discrimination against blacks, the most visible in the cities was obviously the separation of “cities” – European on one side, black on the other – and places of relaxation and pleasure: bars, restaurants, cinemas and so on. It did not result from legal provisions that would have instituted a kind of apartheid, but simply from the fact that the European settlements had originally been established, and then developed, alongside and on the bangs of the native villages. Would it have been necessary, in order to prevent future accusations, for them to settle shamelessly in the middle of the indigenous habitat? The profound difference in lifestyles perpetuated the de facto situation from the outset, and police practices aimed at maintaining order and securing both sides in their respective environments institutionalized it to some extent. Significantly, when mixing was encouraged, it was short-lived: blacks and whites soon got back into the habit of mingling only in the workplace; in the evening, everyone went home to their familiar surroundings. This is still often the case today, so many decades after independence.