ALBERT CAMUS
ALGERIA (1958)
Born
into poverty among the French Algerian population, the novelist, essayist, and
moralist Albert Camus (1913-1960) explored in his writings the problems of the
alienation of the individual and the way that values such as truth, moderation,
and justice can be preserved. In post‑World
War II Europe, Camus gained fame for his writings, earning the 1957 Nobel Prize
for literature. Critical of the
injustices that were institutionalized by French policies in Algeria, Camus
also believed that a French Algeria was not simply a colonial fiction. In the excerpt from Algeria below, Camus
defends the idea of French Algeria by responding to the claims of Algerian
nationalists.
If
the Arab claim, such as it is expressed today, was entirely legitimate, Algeria
probably would be autonomous now, with the consent of French opinion. However, ...the Arab claim remains
equivocal. This ambiguity, and the
confused reactions that it arouses in our governments and in the country,
explains the ambiguity of the French reaction, the omissions and the
uncertainties with which it protects itself.
The first thing to do is to clarify this claim to try to define clearly
an agreeable response.
A. What is legitimate in the Arab claim?
It
is right, and all the French know it, to denounce and refuse:
1.
Colonialism
and its abuses, which are already established.
2.
The
repeated lie of assimilation, always proposed but never realized....
3.
The
evident injustice of the distribution of agricultural lands and of the
distributions of revenues....
4.
The
psychological suffering: an attitude often scornful or detached among many
French, which produces among the Arabs (by a series of stupid measures) a
humiliation complex that is at the center of the present drama....
B. What is illegitimate in the Arab claim?
The
desire to rediscover a dignified and free life, the total loss of confidence in
any political solution guaranteed by France, and also the romanticism
characteristic of very young rebels who lack a political culture have led
certain combatants and their military leaders to reclaim national
independence. No matter how well
disposed to the Arab claim, one must recognize nevertheless that with regard to
Algeria, national independence is a formula of pure passion. There has never yet been an Algerian
nation. Jews, Turks, Greeks, Italians,
and Berbers would have as much right to reclaim the direction of this virtual
nation. Actually, the Arabs themselves
do not form Algeria alone. The
importance and the antiquity of the French settlement [in Algeria], in
particular, suffice to create a problem that is incomparable with anything else
in history. The French of Algeria also
are, in the strong sense of the term, indigenous. It must be added that a purely Arab Algeria would not be able to
accede to the economic independence without which political independence is
only an alluring illusion....
The
Arabs, at least, are able to call on their sentiment of attachment not to a
nation but to a sort of Muslim empire, spiritual or temporal. Spiritually this empire exists, its cement
and its doctrine being Islam. But a
Christian empire also exists, at least as important, but no one intends to introduce
it into temporal history. For the
moment, the Arab empire does not exist historically but only in the writings of
Colonel Nasser, [1] and it could materialize only by the worldwide upheavals
that would signify the soon-to-come third world war. It is necessary to consider the claim of Algerian national
independence in part as one of the manifestations of this new Arab imperialism,
which Egypt, overestimating its strength, asserts to lead and which, for the
moment, Russia uses for some goals of its anti-Western strategy. That this claim is unreal does not hinder
its strategic use‑well to the contrary.
The
Russian strategy, which can be read on all the maps of the globe, consists of
calling for the status quo in Europe‑this is to say the recognition of
Russia's own colonial system‑and stirring up the Middle East and Africa
to encircle Europe by the south. The
happiness and liberty of the Arab people have little to do with this
affair.... Russia simply makes use of
these dreams of empire to serve its own designs. In any case one must attribute to this nationalist and imperialist
claim, in the precise sense of the word, the unacceptable aspects of the Arab
rebellion and principally the systematic murder of French and Arab civilians,
killed without discrimination solely for being French or friends of the French.
We
thus find ourselves before an ambiguous claim that we can approve in its source
and some of its formulations but that we cannot accept in any manner in certain
of its developments. The error of the
French government since the beginning of these events was of never distinguishing
anything and consequently of never speaking clearly. This permitted all the skepticism and overbidding among the Arab
masses. The result was to reinforce on
both sides the extremist and nationalist factions.
The
only chance of making progress on this problem is, thus, today as yesterday,
choosing clear language....
Then
the French government must make known clearly:
1.
That
it is prepared to render all justice to the Arab people of Algeria and to
liberate them from the colonial system.
2.
That
it will cede nothing on the rights of the French of Algeria.
3.
That
it cannot accept that this justice, which it will consent to render, signifies
for the French nation the prelude to a sort of historic death and, for the
West, the risk of an encirclement that would lead to the Kadarization [2] of
Europe and the isolation of America ....
[T]hat she refuses, in particular, to serve the dream of an Arab empire
at the expense of herself, of the European people of Algeria, and, finally, of
world peace.
1. Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970), president of
Egypt (1956-1970), who called for pan-Arab unity.
2. Janos Kadar (1912-1989), Hungarian communist
who led the Hungarian government under Soviet auspices after the Soviet Union
invaded Hungary in 1956 and suppressed a popular revolt.
QUESTIONS
FOR DISCUSSION
1. On what basis does Camus deny Algerian
nationhood? How does Camus sever the
link between nationhood and political liberties and forms of injustice?
2. What criticisms of French policies in Algeria
does Camus make? How does his proposed
declaration for the French government address those abuses?
3. How does Camus's argument against Algerian
independence compare to other justifications for European colonial dominance we
have encountered this semester?
4. How does Camus use Cold War tensions in his argument?