{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01818181818181818, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030303030303030303, 'mean_word_length': 5.5073891625615765, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The origins of Belgian colonial language policies in the Congo

Abstract The literature on colonial policies in general acknowledges that, for its colonisation of the Congo, Belgium sided with England and Germany in opting for a policy of adaptationism (indirect rule), rather than for assimilationism, which was espoused by France and Portugal in their African possessions. However, the juncture in history at which, the reasons why and the ideological backgrounds against which the Belgian authorities decided on this are not well understood. This contribution traces how, in the decades prior to 1918, Belgians in the Congo combined principles of indirect rule at the level of the political, administrative and judicial organisation of the colony with assimilationist tenets in the domains of language and culture. After World War I this changed dramatically, as the Minister of Colonies, Louis Franck, brought Belgium's indigenous policy fully and irreversibly in line with an encompassing application of adaptationism. This article also shows that adaptationism in the Belgian Congo was never applied to its fullest consequences and implications, but always involved a management of, and active interventions into, the pre-colonial linguistic and cultural diversity it was ostensibly supposed to cherish and defend.