The negritude movement was a political and artistic movement, which developed in France and in the French-speaking parts of the world in the 1930’s, criticising racial discrimination and the exploitation of the African continent, and promoting African art and cultural expression as well as a common African identity and heritage.  This study examines how some values reflected in the early literature of the negritude movement are manifested in four picture books written in the 2010’s by the Central African author Adrienne Yabouza. The study concentrates specifically on three values: the close relationship between Africans and nature, the idealization of the black woman and the attitude towards aggressions and war, and searches to understand if, and in what way, the values have changed since the days of the negritude. It also aims at analysing the possible significance of any changes, or lack thereof. The theoretical framework is based on postcolonial theory, and particularly the context of enunciation of the francophone literature from the former French colonies. Regarding the closeness to the nature and the idealization of the black woman, the study concludes that the values reflected in the books of Yabouza are very similar to those manifested in the early works of the negritude. It is suggested that this might be due to the fact that the literary field to which the books belong is strongly anchored in the West. This leads to a lack of a critical discussion about this kind of literature in Africa, something that prevents the literature from following the cultural development of the continent. Concerning the attitude towards aggressions and war, the study notes a difference between the values conveyed by the negritude and those manifested in the examined picture books. This is certainly partly explained by the fact that the picture books are written for children while the works of the negritude are supposed to be read by adults. But the study also suggests that while a critical literary discussion is largely absent in Africa, a dialogue about war and violence is much more present, something that may have contributed to the evolution of the values manifested in the work of Yabouza.

Depuis les attaques du 11 septembre 2001 contre New York et Washington, D.C. le terme de « terrorisme » a pris une place prépondérante dans le discours politique américain. Profondément péjoratif et s’accompagnant indéfectiblement d’une forte condamnation morale, il a été utilisé afin d’expliquer et justifier le recours à la force armée dans de multiples régions de monde et l’imposition de limites aux libertés civiles des citoyens américains, et ce malgré l’absence de définition claire de ce concept au niveau américain comme au niveau international. Le discours américain sur le terrorisme fit son apparition sur la scène politique durant la dernière décennie de la Guerre froide, l’Union Soviétique et ses alliés « totalitaires » étant décrits par Ronald Reagan comme recourant au « terroriste international » afin d’assouvir leurs velléités hégémoniques et de mener une véritable guerre contre l’ensemble du monde civilisé, d’abord en Amérique centrale puis, de plus en plus souvent, au Moyen-Orient. Le président américain, s’exprimant dans un contexte d’énonciation protégé, n’eut jamais à proposer de définition explicite de ce terme. Les débats devant le Congrès, l’Assemblée Générale et le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies révèlent eux par contre que ce concept était à l’époque fortement contesté au sein du pouvoir américain tout comme au niveau international, et que les représentants du gouvernement américain défendirent non pas un mais de multiples discours très différents les uns des autres et adaptés aux contextes d’énonciation propre à chacun de ces forums. Grâce à cette compartimentation rendue possible par l’absence d’une définition claire et acceptée par tous du « terrorisme », mais aussi au rôle joué par les experts et les médias, le discours américain put ainsi s’imposer malgré ses contradictions flagrantes, et après l’interlude des années 1990, faire son retour triomphant après le 11 septembre 2001. / Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 against New York and Washington, D.C., the term of « terrorism » took a dominating place in the American political speech. Deeply pejorative and always accompanied by a strong moral judgment, it has been used to explain and justify the use of force in several regions around the world and curbs on the civil liberties of American citizens, all in spite of the absence of a clear definition of this concept at the American as well as at the international level. The American discourse on terrorism made its appearance on the political scene during the last decade of the Cold war, the Soviet Union and its « totalitarian » allies being described by Ronald Reagan as resorting to « international terrorism » in order to fulfill their hegemonic goals and as waging a war against the whole civilized world, initially in Central America and then, more and more often, in the Middle East.The American president, expressing himself in a protected context, never had to put forth an explicit definition of the term. However, the debates in Congress, at the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations reveal that this concept was strongly disputed at the time both within the American government and at the international level, and that the representatives of the American government defended not one but multiple and very different discourses, each adapted to its specific context of enunciation. Through this process of compartmentalization, made possible by the absence of a clear and widely-accepted definition of « terrorism » but also by the role played by experts and the media, the American discourse was able to impose itself on the political scene in spite of its internal contradictions and, after the interlude of the 1990s, to complete its triumphant comeback after September 11, 2001.