On November 1, 1954, the Algerian War began. It officially ended on March 18, 1962. Seventy years later, the story remains passionate and passionate between its actors, its heirs and its commentators. Memories of the Algerian War always seem to be a source of conflict and hurt. Decryption with Sébastien Ledoux, historian, specialist in memory issues and author with Paul Max Morin of Macron’s Algeria, the impasses of a memory policypublished by PUF.
RFI: Today, we left “ oblivion » but we are now in a “ war of memories “. What does that mean?
Sébastien Ledoux: I object a little to this term of “ war of memories ”, insofar as for me it is about “ memory conflicts “. There are memory conflicts, but I find that the term “ war », which has quite a history, since we have been talking about it for 30 years, is inappropriate. These are more differences of opinion than a war. War is always an enemy facing oneself that must be reduced, physically eliminated. We are not there, fortunately, with memory. The starting postulate is this. I don’t use that term for myself. The period of forgetting is the same, it also needs to be re-evaluated, since from the 1960s, there were still many expressions of memory from certain groups, both in cinema, in literature. So we must put this diagram of “ we would have emerged from oblivion and then there would be the war of memories “.
Let’s say that there has been a politicization of this subject since the 2000s which are ” the memories of the Algerian war “. And therefore divisions which take place with, indeed, memory activists who claim different memories: the memory of the returnees, the memory of the harkis, the memory of the Algerians and then the memory of the conscripts. And in fact, you have memory activists who claim to represent these groups. Here too, we must qualify. Researchers have been working on these memory groups for around twenty years now. We realize that there are still, despite everything, representations or opinions on the Algerian war which seem more nuanced and more diverse even within the groups. It’s important.
But, knowing that, we have had these questions since the 1990s which have arisen in the French public debate on the question of recognition, the question of reparations, the question of the recognition of certain days, for example, October 17the question of reparations owed precisely to certain people, to men who experienced war. We therefore tend to emphasize this. Now, I think that we should not, precisely, reduce the memories of the Algerian war to just that: a conflicting image. There are expressions of memory, literature which is now very important, comics, cinema which have taken up this subject, and not necessarily in conflicting terms. We must therefore also remember that there are expressions of memory which escape a memory conflict.
How to reconcile the memories of the harkis, the pieds noirs, the soldiers, etc.? In other words, why are the actors and heirs of the Algerian war still unable to agree on this story?
I don’t know if there is an intention to reconcile these memories. This intention is political, I will not take it up on my own. There are different experiences of the Algerian War, very contrasting experiences between each, with individuals who today live on French territory, or their descendants. We must try to come to terms with these different experiences, without necessarily with the aim of reconciliation.
Also readHarki, pied-noir, Franco-Algerian: heartbreaking memories of the Evian Accords
Reconciliation is an illusion?
There are two things: there is both the illusory aspect, that is to say that there is also something irreconcilable there. We must take into account this dimension of irreconcilability. There are indeed experiences that cannot be transformed into reconciliation because they are too contrasting. So already, I’m questioning this question. And then because it is a political imposition now, that is to say that politics for around fifteen years, the policies of the memory of the Algerian war, are made precisely in this imposition or in all case in this injunction to reconciliation. I am not sure that this is the right axis insofar as once again, you have memorial expressions which are diverse, which are plural, which are sometimes contrasting, even antagonistic.
But they are also linked to very contrasting experiences. I don’t know if there is anything to do, but in any case, there is something to live with, that is to say, to live with these diverse and varied memories and not necessarily systematically with an intention, in a desire for reconciliation. You have to hear this polyphony. Because there is an obvious polyphonic dimension within French society on this issue. We must therefore perhaps hear these different voices, even if they are not always reconcilable.
Fractured and rival memories. Since the end of the war, there has been no common narrative. Is this story a unique case in this respect?
There are a lot of memory conflicts in different societies. Above all, we must not believe that France is an exception. In Spain, memories are irreconcilable today between the memory, the memories, of Franco and his supporters, and then the memory of the missing republicans, it is really very important. You have memories that are indeed very diverse and very contrasting in their colonial dimension. Spain celebrated its national day on October 12, a national day linked to the discovery of America. The Mexican authorities refused to celebrate and participate in this celebration, precisely because, for them, this day represents the start of an occupation, the start of violence, etc.
In many countries, in fact, we are faced with memory conflicts. We find memories which are conflicting either with descendants, or with direct living witnesses, or with descendants and which in fact carry different representations of the past within the same country.
Also read“Red All Saints’ Day”: this night which pushed Algeria into insurrection
How is this memory treated on the other side of the Mediterranean in Algeria?
At the level of memory “ official “, we are in a memory that is still pro-independence, since the party which was ultimately victorious at independence has taken over the official narrative: a war of independence as a victorious war. A story that will have difficulty accurately counting dissonant voices. Obviously, I am thinking of the Messalists, those who fought at one point for independence, but against the FLN. There is a fight within the Algerian separatists between two currents. This, in fact, is not recognized. And then there is obviously the question of harkis, swept aside for a very long time.
There are some small adjustments, but the official memory is still very unambiguous, and it does not take into account the different voices, the different experiences of the Algerian war with the Harki Algerians who still live there or their descendants who still live in this silence in Algeria. There is also the question of apologies where we see the politicization, there too, on the Algerian side which will regularly ultimately demand accountability from the French Republic. There is very little development on this.
Does the Stora report, which aims to reconcile “ memories of colonization and the Algerian war » can put an end to the conflict of memories?
THE Stora report is conceived through different proposals which ultimately achieved very little. This is the policy of small steps, recognized by Benjamin Stora himself. These are small actions rather than some kind of big, general, global action to solve the problem. A strategy of small steps, but which got a little bogged down.
He mentioned a Franco-Algerian commission, which was set up. But it largely depends on Algerian power and diplomatic relations between France and Algeria. So there is a doubt about this possibility of the report being able to advance this question to the extent that you have a whole part, a whole section, of the “ solving different problems » which depends on Algerian power.
And then at the same time, things were done in the 2000s and will perhaps continue to be done outside of the Stora report, the recognition of October 17 for example. A bill has been tabled in the National Assembly, which must take its course, we will see. Let’s say that we can question this relationship in this possibility of clearing the accounts, if I may say so, between France and Algeria.
They say that memories are not history. Should we dissociate History from memories?
We must dissociate History and memory, we must not necessarily oppose them. You actually have memories which are a direct experience by individuals of such and such historical facts, and therefore with this individual integration of a story with its individual part, with its subjective part, with its family part etc. They must be dissociated and at the same time, sometimes, they meet. I think of everything that was done in terms of testimonies, because the witnesses were also able to contribute to the knowledge of History.
So we don’t necessarily have to oppose them either. Witnesses as individual memories can be a source of historical knowledge and we saw this particularly for the Algerian War, but also for the Second World War. We must not have a single vision, only political, in the sense of politicization of memory. You have memories, memorial expressions, I am thinking once again of cinema, of literature, which sometimes advance historical knowledge.
There is therefore an intermingling, it is more subtle than a strict opposition. These are dissociations, but which can also contribute to each other. In fact, a whole dialectic between History and memory can be played out.
Also readAlgerian War: vivid memories (1/2)