The “Métissage” syndrome
- By The Rambler
- Published 14th March, 2008
In a rather interesting interview with Week-End Scope last week, Percy Yip Tong declares that he doesn't believe in “unity in diversity” but in “unity in reality.”
Such a statement no doubt sounds pleasant, even sweet, to the innocent ear. It's also poetical to some extent. But the author of the statement wants the concept of “unity in diversity” to be opposite to “unity in reality.” In other words, unity in diversity cannot be unity in reality, according to him.
However, given the setup of the Mauritian society, unity in reality can only come through unity in diversity. And this has worked up to now, in spite of the sustained efforts of some to divide the population in so many fragments for their own selfish benefits.
We cannot simply wake up one fine morning and obliterate the fact that the Mauritian population is made up of descendants of people coming from diverse origins across
the globe, from France to China on the other end of the earth, and that these people practise the four important religions of the world.
“Métissage” is a fine word indeed, but it has its limits. How can the religions be made to mix and become one? Even if people adhere to more more than one religion, the religions will still keep their distinct features.
“Métissage” cannot come by eliminating all religions or languages in favour of one. We are all privileged to be born here and we are “condemned” to live here together and coexist. And then, don't people adhering to the same faith and speaking the same language ever fight against each other? Naturally, it is inevitable, in a country like Mauritius, for some form of “métissage” to take place. But it cannot be forced upon, but allowed to develop on its own, in its own pace. Mixed marriages are on the increase and it's a good sign and augurs well. But one cannot impose mixed marriages, can one?
Such a statement no doubt sounds pleasant, even sweet, to the innocent ear. It's also poetical to some extent. But the author of the statement wants the concept of “unity in diversity” to be opposite to “unity in reality.” In other words, unity in diversity cannot be unity in reality, according to him.
However, given the setup of the Mauritian society, unity in reality can only come through unity in diversity. And this has worked up to now, in spite of the sustained efforts of some to divide the population in so many fragments for their own selfish benefits.
We cannot simply wake up one fine morning and obliterate the fact that the Mauritian population is made up of descendants of people coming from diverse origins across
“Métissage” is a fine word indeed, but it has its limits. How can the religions be made to mix and become one? Even if people adhere to more more than one religion, the religions will still keep their distinct features.
“Métissage” cannot come by eliminating all religions or languages in favour of one. We are all privileged to be born here and we are “condemned” to live here together and coexist. And then, don't people adhering to the same faith and speaking the same language ever fight against each other? Naturally, it is inevitable, in a country like Mauritius, for some form of “métissage” to take place. But it cannot be forced upon, but allowed to develop on its own, in its own pace. Mixed marriages are on the increase and it's a good sign and augurs well. But one cannot impose mixed marriages, can one?
