Ophelia's Journal.

Ophelia · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:31 am Post subject:

The Algerian war (1954-1962).

It's interesting to note that for the French government this was not a war but "events". The people called it a war (la Guerre d'Algérie).
Only in 1998 was the term "war" acknowledged by a vote in Parliament, and later by a speech by President Chirac in 1999.
Thus the war of independednce for the Algerians also got official recognition.

The conflict in Algeria involved guerilla warfare with the Army, but also massacres of civilians and terrorist actions by the FLN (Front de Libération National) within the main cities, aimed at the European populations.
Both sides used exactions and torture, but the French Republic was the party that had signed the 1951 Geneva Convention. The reason this became known was that we still had conscription at the time and that young conscripts, though they were sometimes themselves under the threat of torture from their superiors, refused to obey orders they knew to be illegal.

In the case of the Battle of Algiers for example, Genneral Massu was instructed to use "whatever methods were necessary to restore order in the city".

In the early 1960's, the numbers of people who settled in France (whose population was less than 50 million inhabitants then) were:

- 1.6 million Europeans from Algeria, Marocco and Tunisia called Pieds-Noirs ("black feet").
As France had been settling Algeria since 1830, many of those Pieds Noirs had been born in Algeria and knew no other land.
They felt they had lost everything and were very bitter.

- about 90.000 pro-French Arabs, who had for example fought in the French Army, the main groups being the Harkis.
Their story is a tragic one: most of the promises that France had made to them before Independence were reneged . Many were not even offered the passage to France they had been promised, although it was known that this would be their death warrant-- supporters of the FLN cut the throats all those they considered to be traitors.

Those two groups had to go to France for political reasons.

Immigration for economic reason had begun before the Independence of Algeria-- indeed it was not emigration since Algreria was part of France-- populations could move as they wanted.

Ophelia · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: The end of the algerian war

The end of the Algerian war.

As I sift through documents things are getting more and more complex-- it's not unlike the complexity of Northern Ireland, with the added ending of an exodus back home for the settlers; in both cases, it started with war and settlement of the winners.

As I read I found that I couldn' find, or then understand, the info I was looking for, about immigration, because this required an understanding of the also intricate situation brought about by the 1962 Evian Agreements between France and Algeria.

My assumption was that, since the Pieds Noirs had come back to France, leaving everything behind them, things must have ended badly, and the Algerian government must have kicked them out. It's the sort of thing you expect aftert a six-year independence war.

But then, why did so many Algerians emigrate to France, in 1962, 1963, and every year after that until 1974? 500,000 Algerians came in 1973, and similar numbers the following years (Note: they were just men. In 1974, this type of immigration was officially no longer allowed, and the next step was that the men's families joined them.)

To me it's the same as imagining massive immigration for economic reasons from the UK to what became the US during the Independence War, and the year which followed Independence.

I wondered also if General de Gaulle, who was then the President of France, had not made a mistake (I can't tell about Algerian leaders) and not realized that simultaneous movements of both types of population to the same place might be a time bomb?

This was not a unilateral decision by General de Gaulle: the populations of France and Algeria were both asked to ratify the Evian Agreements by referendum, and in both cases 90 % of the voters said "Yes".

This 90 % figure in France denotes how the serious the situation was and how relieved people felt at the end of the fighting.
For other referendums, French people have a knack of voting 49 % in favour, 51 % against-- (or the other way round), 53 % is considered a landslide.

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:08 am Post subject:

The Evian Agreements were the result of intense negociations over the years, and they show that neither side had anticipated what happened once they had been signed.
As far as populations were concerned, the French government obtained an agreement that the Europeans would not be harmed after Independence, and the Algerians obtained that the right for Algerians to move to France freely would remain.
As I din't know about the original Evian Agreements, I could never understand why immigrants from Algeria had such a different status. If the status makes the news at all, it's just mentioned in passing, with no historical reference or explanations, so I imagine it must be confusing for a lot of people-- for different reasons.

The Pieds Noirs were not made welcome in France.

Note: the name "Pieds Noirs" seems to have been created during the exodus by French people from Metropolitan France. It seems a little pejorative, but then the Pieds Noirs themselves used it to refer to their group.

What I had guessed about the reasons people resented them was correct, but incomplete.

- Just as with the Arab immigrants, they represented colonization, and people did not want to be reminded of that past .

The process which was going to give birth to the EU, starting with France and Germany, had already started.
The future was with Europe, not Africa.

- People thought the Pieds Noirs were responsible for the Algerian war dragging for so long, as indeed some of them were.
The Pieds Noirs had not wanted to compromise, and some of them had fought in the OAS (Organisation Armée Secrète), their terrorist organization which fought for the status quo. Others had not joined the fighters, but had supported their actions.

Some people looked down on them for being partly African-- "pied Noir" suggests that even though they were white (inter-mingling of the races would have been unthinkable--, their history made them less white than others.

Lastly, one thing I had not expected: The Pieds Noirs were Meditarraneans, some being originally from Spain and Italy.
As such, they were "southerners", and not as respectable as northern Europeans.
The divide between Southern Europe and northern Europe was still important then. Indcidentally, the devide also runs through individual countries like france and Italy.

It's not easy for an outsider to understand the history of the Pieds Noirs and cast aside their reponsnibility to see things from their point of view.
In this I am helped by the fact that I am looking now, as opposed to three years ago for example.

In 2007, people commemorated the end of the Algrian war, and on that occasion articles and books were written.
For the Pieds Noirs themselves, who were now retired, the past was no longer so painful that they could not talk about it.
One problem is also that their accounts tend to be nostalgic, and the country they left behind is often remembered as if from a dream, in which the harsh aspects of reality are blurred or have disappeared.
Also for the rest of the country, it's not really a taboo topi; though after 50 years, no longer taboo also means many people have almost forgotten about it, and the younger generations never heard about it at all.

I was very glad to find out that FR3 TV channel had produced a thre-hour documentary about the Pieds Noirs in 2007 and that the DVD was available.
I'm going to watch it, the reviews of the film are very positive and I think it's just the sort of document that I, and others, need to see.

So, the Algerian authorities did not kick out the Pieds Noirs or confiscate their lands in 1962, but the problem was violence. There had been violence before, and throughout the period when the Agreement was being negociated the OAS intensified their attacks, and the Pieds Noirs thought there would be retaliations against them as a result if they stayed in Algeria after the declaration of Independence (from what I read there was real basis for this fear).

The Algerian authorities did not want the settlers to leave, as they were essential to the economy-- when they did leave, the economy almost came to a standstill.
As a result, many Algerian nationals lost their jobs, and they went to France.

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:14 am Post subject:

It is hard to find information about what first generation Algerian immigrants felt and experienced.
Many of them were illiterate. They worked hard, were discreet, and often met harsh treatment, at work or in life.

Penelope · Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:47 am Post subject:

That is what I find hard....

We have books well-written, as in HD. by middle class educated people - the majority of the population were illiterate....it would be so interesting to hear what they (the proletariat) have to say....

But they could not read or write....so we must glean (glene??) what we can.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject:

The first generation of Algerian immigrants, and clashes.

Those immigrants just went about their business, but as I wrote earlier, they were resented-- one reason I think I haven't mentioned yet is that some of them had fought against the French during the Algerian war. It was not known how many of the immigrants had taken part in the fighting, probably a minority, but all were suspected.

Those passionate negative feelings somtimes led to actual killings of immigrants from the Maghreb, the killings being called "ratonnades".
The worst one, which is comparatively well documented, took place in Paris in 1961.
I remember having a short discussion with a BT member, perhaps Mr P, about the idea that Nazi crimes were due mostly to the organization the Nazis created, and the indiciduals who perpetrated those crimes did not kill again later because they no longer had an incentive to do so.
This is certainly mostly true, but in the case of the infamous Maurice Papon in France, the same man who organized the sending of Jews to the Drancy camp went on with his career as an official. In the 1960's, he was the Prefet of Paris and led a "ratonnade" during which the cadavers of the immigrants were thrown into the River Seine.
Some people are just evil and are also very good at getting jobs with high responsibilities. As long as the situation offers no opportunities they seem to be respecting the law but when things turn ugly-- as in Paris at the height of the Algerian war-- they take charge. How he could continue in public life so far I do not know (yet!) but he was eventually tried in the 1990's.

It is very difficult -- once more, and this is infuriating-- to find out how many immigrants were killed after 1962 in such "ratonnade " attacks, which lasted until 1976.
My impression is that they were sporadic, not involving totals in their hundreds for example
One of the heartening things is that I sometimes find documents written by ordinary citizens who find, like me, that the press*and books don't say what they need, and then go about writing their own articles. Some of them are very helpful.

(* The press, for example Le Monde, express good opinions about racism but are very short on facts and analysis.)

Killings in the South of France (where most of the Pieds Noirs had settled):

The document below is the result of the research (in French) of one of those citizens. It's about events in Marseilles in 1973.
It's particularly interesting starting with part III.

http://s.huet.free.fr/kairos/doxai/mas73.htm

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject:

Housing: First buildings were made, with a room per man, since the immigrants were all men.

Those who were most hardly dealt with were the Harkis (who had fought in the Frenvh Army against Algeria). They did not get the jobs or pensions they had been promised .

Then the high rise buildings were built in suburbs outside the towns where land was cheap. They were not meant to last, and the immigrants also meant to go back home.
But as the years passed the economic and political situation in Algeria kept deteriorating, and it became clear that finding a job in Algeria was, for most of them, an impossible dream.

Also, from the beginning, the Harkis lived in the same banlieues and buildings as the other immigrants from Algeria, and this created serious tensions.

Ophelia · Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:37 am Post subject:

I've seen half of the documentary by Gilles Perz "Pieds Noirs".

One thing which is said and the pictures show is that they were people of modest means, simple folks.

One of the interviewees says that history leaves very little space for the losers, and this is what happened to them.

There is an interview of Albert Camus's daughter-- he was a Pied Noir, and she says his life in Algeria is related in his book "Le Premier Homme"
(The First Man).

Another interviewee explains about one little-known activity of the terrorist organization OAS. Her job was to collect information about the cars of the Pieds Noirs who wanted to leave Algeria. Those people were considered to be traitors, and the OAS blew up their cars.

From what I've read so far it's difficult to understand exactly what General de Gaulle was trying to do.
After Word War II France had several governments in the 4th Republic (1946-1958).
They do not seem to have been very competent, and when they saw that they could not bring a solution to the Algerian problem they asked General de Galle to return (he had been writing his Memoirs in this house at Colombey les deux Eglises).

I've read two interpreatations so far:

1- De Gaulle first thought Algeria could remain French, and then events made him change his mind. This would explain the very surprising things he said in a speech at Algiers in 1958.

2- De Gaulle knew from the start that Algeria would be independent, but he felt he needed to buy time because so many minds were closed to this idea.

What he told the Pieds Noirs in Algiers was "Je vous ai compris!" (I understand you) and " Vive l'Algérie Française (Long live French Algeria).

Nobody would think about it twice if a politician said something like this nowadays, but in those days, the words of the hero of the Resistance carried weight, and people believed him, and hoped-- when they should have been preparing their repatriation.

Later when it became clear that he wanted to negociate Independence those people felt betrayed.

The Canadians among our readers may remember that de Gaulle did something similar when he made a speech on a visit to Quebec in July 1967 and told an extatic crowd "Vive le Québec libre!"-- free Québec--.

When I watch those pictures they make no sense to me. Neither the General nor the French people wanted to actually help people in Quebec become independent.
He was not the sort of man who said things lightly, and I wonder what he meant. Perhaps he was just thinking in terms of the development of French language and culture. Perhaps he just wanted to help put Quebec on the map-- which is what happened. Anyway, after this, the Canadian authorities shortened his tour of the country.

To return to Algeria, "Vive l'Algérie Française" it was in 1958, at least for a few months.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:26 am Post subject:

I've watched the second half of the Pieds Noirs documentary, and this is hard to take.

One woman explained that she and other young people had gone to Bab El Oued, a district of Algers, because the adults had told them to bring food to the OAS fighters and (strangely, with hindsight) no one had expected any harm could come to them. People were bewildered as the French army (those young conscipts I mentioned before) opened fire on the young people.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject:

In the 1970's and the 1980's racist and discriminatory behaviour was increasingly felt to be unacceptable, and we discovered then that we did not have adequate laws to prosecute such behaviour.

I had a look at the laws that were passed during those two decades, about all those things that are taken for granted now, and I was amazed to see that the list of things that were forbidden was so long: so those were all all the things that people had been doing openly and that required new laws. It was now forbidden to refuse to sell something, or to rent to a member of another ethnic group on grounds of ethnic belonging.
It sounds obvious, but I guess I believed those were laws that had been passed and needed in the States only.

Some anti-racist organizations were created, the main ones being LICRA, SOS-Racisme, Ligue des Droits de l'Homme, MRAP.
They did some very good work, and the situation improved over the years.

The point of view of some critics is that nothing has changed, and people are as racist as ever, but this is not the way I see it.

One of the changes that was hardest to bring about was the crazy behaviour of discotheque owners. For as long as I can remember, they've been accused of refusing access to non-whites on such a variety of grounds that it was very difficult to prove that they were discriminating on the basis of race.
Many have stopped doing so, but for those that remain I have seen on the site of SOS-Racisme that they have an elaborate procedure with advice on what to do:

The couples should go in groups of three, two white couples and one coloured couple.
They all come with hidden recording devices. The white couple goes in first, the black couple is refused, and the third couple is a witness to the refusal.
Then SOS-Racisme presses charges, showing that the argument used against the second couple "We only take club members on Saturday nights, come back on a Friday..." was not used for the first couple.

From what I read, this is an organization that is doing things right and getting results.

Another example we hear a lot about at the moment is the case of racist insults being hurled at non-whites football players by some football fans during a match.

Here it is obvious that the problem is being solved: they now have procedures that stipulate that the referree has to stop the match, the abusive football fan is taken to the police station, and the club will press charges against him.

People may conclude that "nothing has changed" but this is not the way I see it.
The fans will learn -- in my opinion they 're unlikely to learn to be better people, they'll just insult the players on non-racial grounds.
However, we cannot expect too much at this stage.

About ten years ago the government had an awareness raising campaign about discrimination at work which was very well made because it did not try to preach, and the actors were excellent in the types they represented.

It showed a third-generation immigrant from the Maghreb who was bored at work answering the phone for a wine company.
one day, the seller who normally delivered the wine was unavailable and the man in the story took it upon himself to deliver the wine.
As he was about to get into the truck, the foreman told him that there was no way he was going to make this delivery, that the company had delivered wine to customers for over 100 years, the wines were called Leblanc wines and the customers did not want them delivered by an Arab!

The actor who played the immigrant is actually famous, and I wondered how he felt playing such a sensitive part when he was a descendent of an immigrant himself.
I found out that he was not: Roschdy Zem is a Maroccan actor who often plays the part of an immigrant in French films (for example "Ma Petite Entreprise").

In this story, like the chicken and the egg, it's difficult to be sure who is the racist: the company owner, or the customer?

I've heard similar tales about restaurants: young people worked as waiters if they were white, and otherwise worked in the kitchen, on the grounds that customers didn't want to see an Arab or black waiter.

My answer to "the customer doesn't want..." is: why don't they try us?

I've tried to think whether people would leave the shop and not buy a washing machine because of the race of the seller, and I really can't see this happening, it just doesn't play out.
And if somebody was annoyed, this would be made up by other customers who would think the shop was doing things right.

For example, about two years ago our main TV channel, TF1, introduced the first black anchorman ever on the evening news (or any other news). The comments I heard was why hadn't this happened earlier.

Ophelia · Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:55 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:50 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:56 am Post subject:

With the waves of immigration starting in the 1960's, there was a tendency in France to become entrenched in positions of refusal. The expressions "invasion" or "colonization in reverse" were often used.
The French did not understand or accept the terms of the Evian Agreements concerning free emigration to France, and felt victimized by them.

For the Algerians, these terms were meant to reddress the wrongs of colonization, and as such what France was doing was not enough.

So we had two positions which could not be reconciled, all the more so as the underlying principles were not understood, and much less expressed or explained.
So, resentment kept building up on both sides.

On the French side, the old idea that this particular group of immigrants could not be assimilated into French culture cropped up again.
Similar ideas had been used in the 19th century about Italian and Polish immigrants. They were Catholics, but in those days people said that the fact that they held masses in Polish showed that they could not and did not want to become members of French society.

The new immigrants are Muslims, and I think Chirac's and Sarkozy's governments, among others, underestimated the importance of one of the central tenets in our society: religion is private, you practise your religion discreetly.
Many French Muslims do just that (usually second and third or fourth generation immigrants).

For others, things that seperate them very visibly form the rest of society is wearing the veil (sometimes third generation girls whose mothers do not wear the veil), praying wherever you happen to be , even public places, if it is prayer time, and polygamy.

I remember many years ago that someone from India told me that in his country, polygamy was forbidden, except for Muslims. Religions are very important in India, and that seemed like a sensible law for them.
I actually thought we had a similar law, but when I enquired recently, I found out that no, indeed polygamy is forbiddden in France, and that there had been many recent laws to that effect.

How we end up having a society with laws against polygamy but polygamists being tolerated is confusing, as a principle and in practical applications.

This is one of the things which I think increase resentment: I had to look hard to get this information, and it's still not very clear. What can it look like to the man in the street?

I hear that there is talk of changing the law against polygamy in Canada.

I don't like all those exceptions that mean that a law is never enforced; the damage that is done is not enormous, but it does reinforce the idea in people's minds that the system makes no sense and some people are above the law.

I don't worry too much about polygamy, first because it concerns (this is with a guess of how many illegal immigrants may be concerned) about 180,000 people (men, women and children in families with one husband and two or three wives), and mostly because, as far as I know, the phenomenon stops with the first generation.

I read many years ago that polygamy in muslim societies was allowed if

a- the first wife agree to the husband's second marriage --I wonder how many ever do voice an opinion--

b- the husband could support two families.

This is the problem in France, first generation immigrants are often poor, and the statistic average for such families are about 18 people living in a flat made for six people and supported by child welfare benefits.

The French authorities can prevent the second marrige from taking place in France, but that's about it.
Now what they do is they take a compromise step: the second wife must live in a separate flat. What I've read is that it leads to some absurd situatuations in which she is then told that she must get a divorce in order to have access to this flat.
What I've read doesn't make it clear how well or badly this works out.
_________________

Ophelia


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT