“It is no longer a question of deciphering step by step a destiny already written in heaven, but of writing the present as a story that future centuries will be able to read”writes Alice Zeniter in her novel The Art of Losing, which traces the epic of a family of harkis during the Algerian war. Sixty years after the signing of the Evian Accords on March 18, 1962, which proclaimed a ceasefire and paved the way for Algeria’s independence in July, the actors in this war and their descendants continue to divided over this painful story.
What are the traces and effects of the memories of colonization and the Algerian war on French society? What status should be given to everyone’s memories? How to write a common narrative? Franceinfo interviewed historian Benjamin Stora, author of a report on the memory of colonization and the war in Algeria. He is also the author of France-Algeria, painful passions (2021, Albin Michel).
Franceinfo: In France, how many people are affected by the war in Algeria today?
Benjamin Stora: Among those who lived through the Algerian war, there is the most important group, that of conscripts from the contingent. More than one and a half million soldiers were sent from France to Algeria. Then there were a million Europeans from Algeria, the pied-noirs. During the war, there were already 400,000 Algerian immigrants in mainland France, to which must be added 500,000 other Algerians who came after independence. In 1962, there were thus in France approximately 3.5 million people born in Algeria or who had lived there.
We must of course add the large group of harkis (Muslim auxiliaries of the French army) and their children, that is to say approximately 200,000 people, then all the mixed people, the opponents, those who built their political party during the war, the “suitcase carriers” (activists supporting the National Liberation Front). With the descendants, it is estimated that there are between 6 and 7 million people affected today in France by the war.
At the independence of Algeria, what was the attitude of France vis-à-vis the actors of this war?
Very quickly, we had to turn the page on this war for various reasons. France was emerging from several decades of conflict, the Second World War, the war in Indochina, then the war in Algeria. There was a very clear will of an immense majority of the population to know peace. Even if the Algerian war, which has long been called “the events”, “the nameless war”, seemed distant from mainland France, France was living in a situation of anguish, war anxiety, and it there was a great desire to be forgotten.
Then the 1960s marked the beginning of the Trente Glorieuses, there was a desire for consumption and travel. France wants to enter economic modernity. General de Gaulle wants to redirect France’s geopolitical weight towards European construction and the Paris-Bonn axis (Germany). For the political leaders, there is a disinterest vis-à-vis all the populations of the South, witnesses of an era which represents the old days, the time of the Empire, of colonization.
In your work Gangrene and Oblivionyou explain how the State organized this oversight…
There was a will of the State to erase this history. Many amnesty measures were introduced in 1962. The first appeared in the Evian Accords, where it was decided that those responsible for abuses committed during the war could not be judged. Then there is the law of 1968 which grants criminal amnesty to militants of French Algeria and the OAS, and which allows them to return to France.
In 1974, under Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, laws erased all convictions pronounced during or after the Algerian war. In 1982, François Mitterrand reinstated the main putschist generals in the French army, with ranks, pensions and decorations.
“There has never been a trial over the Algerian war in France. No one has been prosecuted.”
Benjamin Storaat franceinfo
At the time, oblivion was also desired by French society. People who lived through the war had an “interest” in forgetting, there was a desire to overcome mourning and hardship. There was no opposition to these amnesty laws, no demands. The demand for the repeal of these texts will come later with the memorial awakening of children and grandchildren in the 2000s.
What has been the evolution of the discourse of French presidents on this subject?
For General de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and even François Mitterrand, the speech was very simple. He focused on the economic partnership with Algeria, a country that remained very important, particularly with the exploitation of gas and oil in the Sahara. There have also been agreements on migration management between the two countries.
In the early 2000s, the discourse changed with Jacques Chirac. In 2005, the French ambassador to Algeria, Hubert Colin de Verdière, condemns for the first time the massacres of Sétif, Guelma and Kherrata [répressions sanglantes survenues le 8 mai 1945, en Algérie, pendant des manifestations indépendantistes]. In 2008, in Constantine, Nicolas Sarkozy condemns the colonial system. In 2012, in Algiers, François Hollande recognizes the suffering inflicted by colonization. These speeches are gestures of recognition of history, they condemn colonialism, but without naming specific acts.
Does Emmanuel Macron mark a break?
Unlike his predecessors, Emmanuel Macron names people and places. He recognizes the assassination of Maurice Audin [mathématicien communiste militant de l’indépendance de l’Algérie] by the French colonial system, the assassination of Ali Boumendjel, lawyer and nationalist militant. He recognizes the shooting in the rue d’Isly on March 26, 1962 against the Europeans, the massacre of Algerians in Paris on October 17, 1961, the abandonment of the harkis…
/2022/03/15/php8rvBBM.jpg)
There is a change of tonality brought about by concrete things. This makes it possible to advance in a practical way in the knowledge of history, it is an important change. Since submitting my report [sur “les mémoires de la colonisation et de la guerre d’Algérie”] in January 2021, there were more concrete acts than in sixty years. These gestures are a response to citizen movements, associations of children of immigrants, harkis, returnees, pied-noirs, who have fought for years to have these events and personalities recognized.
“These recognitions make it possible to name things. As Albert Camus said: ‘Misnaming things is adding to the misfortune of the world’.”
Benjamin Storaat franceinfo
There was also the wider opening of the archives, the result of a memorial battle waged by historians for a very long time. Of course, there is still a lot to do. In my report, I also proposed to look into the nuclear tests carried out in Algeria and their effects. I propose to improve the maintenance of European cemeteries in Algeria, to write a guide to those who disappeared during the war.
What is the state of suffering of people who lived through the war and their descendants? You speak of “communitarization of memories” and “victim competition”.
Since the end of the war, there has not been a strong and common discourse on the war, but amnesty laws, which have caused strong resentment. Each group made an identity from a character, a date, but there was no common story. Fractures exist even within these groups.
Today, we have certainly come out of oblivion, but only to fall into a kind of “war of memories” which took place in disorder and in the withdrawal of identity. I also read this situation as the weakening of citizen battles that benefit a particular group. We are now more used to being in the status of victim than combatant.
“Each group wants its truth to be recognized exclusively to the detriment of the others. The great danger is not to find bridges, to separate memories.”
Benjamin Storaat franceinfo
These bridges must be rebuilt. “Memories divide, history unites”, as the historian Pierre Nora says.
How is this memory treated in Algeria?
This memory of the war is rooted in a very long time, more than 130 years, from the beginning of colonization in 1830 until 1962. The war of independence is called “revolution” there. Memory is anti-colonial, it is characterized by the dispossession of borders, massacres, abuses, population displacements. Unlike France, there is no positive aspect, it is a painful memory.
After the war, different memories confronted each other. There were on the one hand those who were the pioneers of Algerian nationalism – Messali Hadj, Ferhat Abbas – and on the other those who started the war – Mohamed Boudiaf, Krim Belkacem – and who did not have their place after independence and were excluded from the political scene. Algeria must reclaim the work of the founding fathers of the war and of Algerian nationalism.
It must also see how it situates French memory in its history, find a place for the Europeans of Algeria, the native Jews (in the sense of the time) separated from the Muslims by the Crémieux decree. It’s a very difficult job, traces of which have begun to appear in the demands of the Hirak movement.
Algeria places the question of the excuse as a prerequisite for any discussion with France. What do you think ?
I am not against the principle of the excuse, but in general it is used as an ideological argument which concretely prevents progress. All the great speeches of condemnation or apologies that we have seen in other wars have not made it possible to settle the legacy of the past. The Japanese made a lot of excuses to the Chinese, to the Koreans, after the Second World War, the Americans to the Vietnamese after the Vietnam War. This did not prevent the memories from bleeding, the demands from continuing to be expressed.
“I’m more for practical work than moral condemnation.”
Benjamin Storaat franceinfo
There are people who can only exist by holding this posture. Staying in the conflict keeps them alive, on both sides of the Mediterranean. For me, we must move forward with concrete actions. In particular, I proposed the construction of a museum of the history of France and Algeria in Montpellier to centralize in one place the knowledge of this war.
In France, some refuse to look this colonial past in the face and put forward the theme of “repentance”. What do you think ?
It is an ideological discourse, made and carried by part of the French political class. No one has ever asked for repentance, but an acknowledgment of what happened. We must get out of this trap with concrete measures, such as those I propose in my report.
What do you think of the repair questions?
Repair is necessary, but first we need to know who we are talking about. How many people have disappeared? How many have been affected by the nuclear tests in the Sahara? Reparations must be based on well-argued facts. Another form of reparation could be the lesson of the Algerian war. Education began to take this history into account twenty years ago. We must now focus more on colonization.