Analysis

As can be seen through these experiences and memories, there are two broad narratives concerning the conflict which can be generally separated between the perception of the conflict of those local to the region and those who arrived at a later point in their lives. 

It can be seen that the men who have grown up on the Casamance, whether they are Jola’s or not, have a different attitude towards the conflict compared to the men who moved to the region at a later point in their lives. Personal ways to discuss the conflict might differ depending on the person. Evans (2021) mentions that many of the people who were displaced during the conflict are reluctant to talk about their displacement to urban areas such as Ziguinchor or the conflict itself. This reluctance can be explained due to the fact that people have moved on in their lives since their displacement from their villages, leaving the younger generations to initiate the return process to the villages of their families.

However, as Evans (2014) also says, some youths are reluctant to return to their family’s villages and leaving behind the urban life and its amenities. This example can also apply to Bassirou and his family, with Bassirou saying that it was not his role to talk about his family’s experiences because he hasn’t lived through them and preferring to leave the region in order to go to Dakar or abroad as he considers his chances better over there compared to staying in the Casamance. The idea that Bassirou does not feel like he should talk about the conflict but that he refers to his aunt instead, who experienced the conflict before he was born, is an interesting observation. This may be explained through the work of Eichelsheim, Berckmoes, Holá, Rutayisire & Richters (2019), whose work aimed to explore how the legacies of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and its aftermath have been transmitted to the next generation within Rwandan families through the concept of “silencing”. Many Rwandan mothers who participated in this research were hesitant to share their experiences during the genocide and its aftermath. This hesitance primarily originated through the concerns that it would keep the past alive and that these women have moved on from the events themselves, saying that the genocide and its aftermath are history (Eichelsheim, et al., 2019). Although I unfortunately did not get the opportunity to ask Bassirou’s aunt about this, a similar attitude might exist among the older generation. This can be further reinforced with Bassirou’s comments that there are, allegedly, still active or former rebels living in the neighbourhood as well and waiting to avoid bringing up past events. 

This silence about the conflict can also be seen through the work of de Bruijn & Both (2018), using the concept of duress through the normalisation of hardship and constrained agency. In their work, de Bruijn & Both (2018) illustrate how chronic hardships, such as everyday violence and oppression but most notably in this case, the memory of past violence, can lead to its integration into everday life of an individual and contribute to the determination of an individual’s everyday life. It is possible that this manifests itself through constrained agency in the form of self-censorship, as people keep their experiences for themselves to avoid bringing up the past (de Bruijn & Both, 2018). This would refer back to the work of Eichelsheim, et al., (2019), where people prefer to stay silent in order to avoid keeping the past alive. 

During the conversations with Limane and his companions, Landing and Filal, it was interesting to see that the three men almost made a joke out of the current state of the conflict, often laughing while discussing it or referring to the rebels as nothing more than bandits at this point. This is also an interesting point that Vigh (2008) encountered in his research, in which it is argued that the young adults in Bissau “normalise” the crisis in which they find themselves and that the crisis becomes their frame of action. It should be said that this normalisation is not the same as indifference, as many do not agree with the way that things are and realise that things need to change in order for their own lives to improve.

Others, such as Chérif and Ibrahim, who see the conflict more as a struggle throughout history and who support the idea of an independent Casamance to a certain extent, still distance themselves from the current actions of the MFDC, having a stronger emphasis on a dialogue between the parties involved in the conflict. This struggle throughout history is also an interesting example of de Bruin & Both’s (2018) notion of durée and can be further explained by looking at the region’s history. Additionally, one of the mototaxi/”Jakarta” drivers, Filal, said that the generation to which his friends and himself belong have been raised by their parents and community as Senegalese citizens and consciously not as Casamançais. This can also break cycles of violence and explains why such a strong emphasis is put on putting the conflict to an end through dialogue instead of violence. As Berckmoes, de Jong & Reis (2017) demonstrated based on their research among parents and their children in Burundi, a country which has experienced cyclical violence as well, that positive caregiving to a child can help to break cycles of violence. An interesting observation in this study is that during adolescence, corporal discipline is no longer seen as effective between a caregiver and a child and intergenerational dialogue is expected in order to solve conflict. Although in the scope of the research of Berckmoes et al (2017), this observation focused more on inter-personal conflict, I would argue that this type of positive caregiving and educating, such as raising their children by telling them that they are Senegalese and not Casamançais, also helps to perceive the conflict differently by knowing that repeating cycles of violence will not resolve the ongoing struggles and preferring to use dialogue instead in the case of the Casamance. It is clear that these men do not see the fight for an independent Casamance as their fight and prefer to look forward, letting the conflict fall to the background of their daily lives and thus making it a “normality”.

However, in contrast to this normalisation, others such as Limane think that the conflict is still ongoing in a more articificial way that favours the parties fighting in it. This can be seen from two sides, first that having an artificial conflict may appear as a somewhat absurd concept, which can be seen as the opposite of normalisation or on the contrary, it can be seen as a great example of  normalisation as people do not know how to bring it to an end or might even profit from keeping it ongoing.

This normality is two-fold, first in the way that the Casamance crisis is “normal” and thus falls more into the background of the lives of these young men. This can be seen in the way that many of the participants refer to the conflict as an event that was started by the generations before them and that they do not associate themselves with it. This is a “normal” state as these individuals have been born into it. However, “normality” also has a qualitative application according to Vigh (2008), which also applies to the individuals in this research. Vigh (2008) argues that “normality” can also refer to how things should be or how we like them to be. This idea of normality also applies to the men in Ziguinchor, as all of them have their own specific ideas on how to end the crisis. Most think that they are being marginalised by the government of Senegal and think that through dialogue and development, there could be an end to the hostilities. These are their ideas of achieving a state of non-conflict “normality” in the region for lasting peace.

The concept of duress as explored by de Bruijn & Both (2018) can also be applied by how these men perceive the conflict, using the second concept explained in their article, the normalisation of hardships. In their article, de Bruijn & Both (2018) argue that hardships such as oppression, the memories of previous violence, the threat of war or everyday violence can lead to the internalisation of these, often chronic, hardships, and making them fall more towards the background of everyday life. In the case of Ziguinchor and the people interviewed for this research, this can be seen in the somewhat dismissive attitude of some of the participants, laughing the conflict away but still feeling like they are being treated unfairly by the Senegalese government.