Complicity and Indifference: Racism in Morocco

[A sign hanging in a Casablanca apartment building that reads, \"It is strictly forbidden to rent to Africans.\" Image from Facebook. [A sign hanging in a Casablanca apartment building that reads, \"It is strictly forbidden to rent to Africans.\" Image from Facebook.

Complicity and Indifference: Racism in Morocco

By : Samia Errazzouki

“It is strictly forbidden to rent apartments to Africans,” read a sign in a Casablanca apartment building. France 24’s citizen media section, “Les Observateurs,” initially picked up the story of the signs in the apartment building. They were then later reported on independent Moroccan media. The report accompanying images of the sign gives an account of a student from Cote d’Ivoire who experienced a forced eviction from her apartment building in 2012. Detailing her experience under the pseudonym Nafissa, she describes the process, which neighbors instigated and police carried out: “Our landlord tried to support us but after facing pressure from others, he gave up and asked us to leave, which we refused to do. On 1 January 2013, the police came and asked us to leave. We told them that we know our rights so they did not enter the apartment. We were then taken to the police. A policeman slapped my friend. We still do not know on what legal basis the police acted.”

This incident is just one of many that black African migrants must face in Morocco. And while it was only this past July that members of parliament addressed the urgency of drafting an anti-racism law, the history of racism and treatment towards black Africans stems back centuries ago to the slave trade, which Morocco was heavily involved in. Chouki El Hamel raises points about the history of what he describes as "Black Morocco.” While there are nuances with regard to the treatment black Moroccans versus black non-Moroccan Africans must face, the state`s complicity in perpetuating such deep-seeded racism is important to note. The state`s complicity spans from carrying out racist policies, such as the police forcibly evicting the tenants of an apartment, to racist depictions of black Moroccans and non-Moroccan Africans on state media. There is a perverse logic in the sign mentioned above simply using the term "African" to refer to black non-Moroccan Africans, despite the obvious fact that Moroccans are Africans by virtue of the country`s geographical location. In conversation, many Moroccans refer to Africa and Africans as if they themselves were removed from it, often using Africa and Africans to refer to sub-Saharan Africa and sub-Saharan Africans. Yet, when the prevalence of racism in Morocco is brought up as a point, the dominant narrative argues that it is not "widespread," suggesting, for example, that because segregation is not institutionalized in public spaces, then racism does not exist. This liberal view of racial politics dismisses the placement of privilege and the pervasiveness of embedded misperceptions towards both black Moroccans and black non-Moroccan Africans. Such a view carries dangerous consequences for those who are on the receiving end of this treatment that has gone virtually unaddressed up until recently.

Firstly, it is important to make a distinction between black Moroccans and black Africans migrating from other countries. This distinction is not an attempt to gloss over black Moroccans as a racial group, such as Arab black Moroccans and Amazigh black Moroccans. Establishing this nuance prevents a historical rupture that would otherwise consider black Moroccans as non-indigenous while also factoring in the varying contexts and conditions black African migrants face. A surface and obvious reaction would argue that Moroccans are Africans, and that a nominal categorization that suggests the separation of the two identities is exclusive. However, the racial politics that shape the treatment and perception of black Moroccans and black African migrants carry different factors that should be considered within their own contexts. Such a framework will also reveal that there is an overlap of power relations and narratives. The best indication of that overlap is in Chouki El Hamel’s seminal work, Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam. El Hamel breaks down dominant perceptions of Morocco’s history of slavery and the attitudes that developed from its involvement in the global slave trade. He explains: “Blacks in Morocco have been marginalized for centuries, with the dominant Moroccan culture defining this marginalized group as ‘Abid (slaves), Haratin (a problematic term that generally meant freed black people or formerly enslaved black persons), Sudan (black Africans), Gnawa (black West Africans), Sahrawa (from the Saharan region), and other terms which make reference to the fact that they were black and/or descendants from slaves.” The revelation of this historical reference will not come as a surprise to speakers of darija, as some of these terms are still used in today’s colloquial dialect to refer to black Moroccans, irrespective of their ethnic origins, and most usually by light-skinned Moroccans.

It becomes evident, then, that a historical presence of a racial hierarchy imposed a certain narrative and influenced etymology. More importantly, this was a process that some version of a centralized authority upheld, whether it was a sultan’s palace or today’s modern state in Morocco. For example, state media has also played a role in its use as a medium for propagating racist views towards black Moroccans. An example is comedienne Hanane Fadili’s sketch imitating a black Marrekchi woman by the name of Lalla Tamou, as a guest on the popular cooking show hosted by Choumicha. The sketch is based off a real episode and became one of her most popular clips, clocking in over six hundred thousand views on Youtube. In her imitation of Lalla Tamou, as a light-skinned Moroccan, Hanane Fadili resorts to the use of blackface in her characterization. The episode was aired on Moroccan state media, a heavily centralized channel that operates within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Communication. Mustapha El Khalfi, current minister of communication, faced a question pertaining to race and state media in Morocco during a town hall meeting in the Washington, D.C. metro area with the local Moroccan community. During the April 2012 meeting, an attendee asked El Khalfi about the low representation of black Moroccans in state media, whether as hosts, anchors, or actors in movies and sitcoms. He argued there was “no strategy” for deliberately excluding black Moroccans, and that the law “does not forbid” black Moroccans from their involvement in state media. Still, even during the month of Ramadan, the annual height of sitcoms, movies, and other entertainment shows on state media, black Moroccans remain largely unrepresented. El Khalfi’s response was buried in a familiar liberal discourse that disregarded the nature of racial politics and its history in Morocco.


[A clip from Hanane Fadili`s sketch where she used blackface that was aired on Moroccan state media.]

The state’s distribution of power and privilege along racial lines comes into play in more pervasive ways, as is the case with the ongoing territorial dispute over the Western Sahara. The racialization of the Sahrawi population has served the state’s narrative in sustaining its policies towards the territory. As Chouki El Hamel mentioned, the ethnic term “Sahrawi” has historically been used to characterize black Moroccans, regardless of their self-identified ethnicity. This racialization of the Sahrawi population, which carries exclusionary connotations, has had adverse effects on the state narrative toward the Western Sahara as a territory “originally part of Morocco.” The constant distinction of the Sahrawi hassaniya dialect, Sahrawi traditional dress, and Sahrawi traditions, among other distinctions, as inherently Sahrawi has placed the state in a position whereby the cooptation and appropriation of these references has been necessary to hold onto claims of the territory. This cooptation and appropriation is demonstrated through entertainment on state media, the placement of Sahrawis in positions of power as token voices, and even the exotification of Sahrawi women through representations in the media. Yet the racialization of the Sahrawi population has also benefited the state in other ways, allowing it to tout a certain narrative toward the Sahrawi population in support of independence and self-determination, especially when that racialization imposes a hierarchy. In such instances, it becomes easier to dismiss those in favor of independence as an “other,” as the Polisario Front is often characterized in state narratives. The racialization, under these circumstances, involves the resignification of the term Sahrawi to denote both race and ethnicity, instead of just the latter.

Beyond racism and exclusion in state media, the Moroccan state has existed as a protective shield, providing a space for the deplorable treatment and policies towards black African migrants. Such measures are most obvious on the local police level, as was the case in an incident last year that drew widespread attention and outrage. On 29 October 2012, Eric William, a Cameroonian citizen, was arrested in Rabat after attending the trial of Camara Laye, former president and coordinator of the Council of Sub-Saharan Migrants in Morocco. Eric William was given no reason for the cause of his arrest, was thrown into a van with other arrested black African migrants, was beaten and subjected to racist insults, then transported to Oujda, a city on the Moroccan-Algerian border. Upon arrival, after being deprived of food and water, police grouped Eric William and the others who were arrested, led them toward the border where the group was met with warning shots coming from the Algerian border. They then dispersed back toward Oujda, where locals provided them with food and water. The case was detailed in an open letter to the European Union signed by a number of Moroccan civil society groups, human rights organizations, writers, activists, and scholars.

Eric William’s case revealed a disturbing migration policy at the center of the relationship between Morocco and the European Union, where Morocco plays border police for Europe. Morocco’s position in this relationship pays to the tune of tens of millions of euros that are used toward “border control projects” in Morocco. Such projects presumably include the gross mistreatment of black African migrants—a point the United Nations special rapporteur, Juan Mendez, raised: “I urge the authorities to take all necessary measures to prevent further violence and to investigate reports of violence against sub-Saharan migrants.” Earlier this year, March 2013, Doctors Without Borders also produced a damning report entitled “Violence, Vulnerability and Migration: Trapped at the Gates of Europe.” The report stated:

The majority of sub-Saharan migrants in Morocco are forced to live in and the wide-spread institutional and criminal violence that they are exposed to continue to be the main factors influencing medical and psychological needs. [Doctors Without Borders] teams have repeatedly highlighted and denounced this situation, yet violence remains a daily reality for the majority of sub-Saharan migrants in Morocco. In fact, as this report demonstrates, the period since December 2011 has seen a sharp increase in abuse, degrading treatment and violence against sub-Saharan migrants by Moroccan and Spanish security forces.

There have been both numerous and recent accounts of the mistreatment toward black African migrants carried out by Moroccan citizens as well, not just security forces. One anonymous student on a grant to study in Morocco from Guinea recounted his experiences:

Often, when I’m just walking down the street, people will call me a ‘dirty black man’ or call me a slave. Young Moroccans have physically assaulted me on several occasions, for no reason, and passers-by who saw this didn’t lift a finger to help me. All my friends are black and they have all had similar experiences.

Such treatment is only further enforced through media as well, the worst of which hit newspaper stands only last year under the guise of an “investigative report” published on the weekly, Maroc Hebdo. The cover displayed a zoomed-in image of a black male with the title “The Black Peril.” The magazine faced no legal suit or reaction from the Ministry of Communication over the racist and xenophobic nature of the cover, title, and article.

\"\"
[Image of the racist Maroc Hebdo cover displaying the image of a black male with the title "The Black Peril."]

Such varying degrees of treatment indicate an embedded racialization that is based on the categorical distinction between black Moroccans and black African migrants. This racialization carries xenophobic elements in which socioeconomics plays a significant role. The widespread perception that black African migrants are involved in drug dealing, human trafficking, and prostitution is tied to the fact that many of the migrants in Morocco are in search of economic opportunity. This pursuit sometimes places Morocco as a transit country, with future intentions of going to Europe. Yet the cyclical racialization places many black African migrants in a trap where sound opportunities become less available due to the perception employers have based on stereotypes on their race, forcing many into unconventional pursuits of income, often times through illegal means.

It was only 15 July 2013 that Moroccan parliament, for the first time, raised the issue of racism on the floor. The royalist Party of Authenticity and Modernity (PAM), a party started by a childhood friend of the king, proposed a measure that would punish “racist acts” with a prison sentence spanning between three months to a year and/or a fine between ten thousand to one hundred thousand dirhams. On the surface, it appears to be a goodwill measure that has drawn support from several human rights organizations. However, the issue of racism toward black Moroccans and black African migrants risks being used as a measure of political opportunism and a smokescreen, a process familiar to the powerful actors of the Moroccan regime. There are certainly no shortages of praised measures that have come out of such windows of political opportunities from Morocco’s parliament; however, they have failed to see the judge’s gavel. The contents of such an “anti-racism” law remain in question, mainly such as how racism will be defined. More importantly, those at the receiving end of the racist treatment are mostly socioeconomically disenfranchised; begging the question of the accessibility of a legal process for those without access to the resources to do so. In an authoritarian context, where the legal system remains heavily centralized instead of independent, and where verdicts are carried out under the name of the king, such a measure is unlikely to yield any change.

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Quick Thoughts: Samia Errazzouki on Morocco and Western Sahara

      Quick Thoughts: Samia Errazzouki on Morocco and Western Sahara

      On 10 December 2020, the United States announced that Morocco and Israel had reached an agreement to normalize their relations, which was followed on 22 December by a joint Moroccan-Israeli declaration confirming the specifics of their upgraded relationship. Simultaneously, Washington recognized Morocco’s internationally-rejected claim of sovereignty over Western Sahara. The latter initiative came as the ceasefire in Western Sahara between Morocco and the Polisario Front, in force since 1991, collapsed into renewed hostilities. Mouin Rabbani, editor of Quick Thoughts and Jadaliyya Co-Editor, interviewed Samia Errazzouki, Jadaliyya Co-Editor and former Morocco-based journalist, to get a better understanding of the context and implications of these developments.

    • A Crackdown on the Press is Demolishing What’s Left of Morocco’s Liberal Reputation

      A Crackdown on the Press is Demolishing What’s Left of Morocco’s Liberal Reputation

      Morocco has long enjoyed a reputation as one of the most progressive countries in the Arabic-speaking world. When protests swept the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, many observers spoke of the “Moroccan exception” and the “Moroccan model,” citing a series of apparently liberalizing reforms made by the king.

    • حياة بلقاسم شابة تجسد مستقبل المغرب قُتلت في قارب الهجرة

      حياة بلقاسم شابة تجسد مستقبل المغرب قُتلت في قارب الهجرة

      اسمها حياة بلقاسم، من مواليد تطوان شمال المغرب، كانت تستعد لبداية سنتها الثانية في كلية الحقوق. وعلى غرار الملايين من المغاربة فقد فقدت الأمل في أي مستقبل مشرق في بلادها، ولهذا اتخذت القرار الصعب بأن تعبر البحر الأبيض المتوسط بحثا عن حياة أفضل في أوروبا.

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?