The Politics of Memory, Slavery and Colonialism

This post should have been written on Tuesday, but a few unexpected events rendered it impossible. Hence, while the post is primarily on the twin issues of reparations and colonialism, it will borrow from other conversations that have informed our debates until now. To a considerable degree, I feel like we are making tremendous progress as the issues become clearer. I am therefore grateful for the courage and empathy that have been exuded in each and every single facet of these difficult conversations.

An honest inquiry into the tumultuous events that characterize our pasts is hardly an easy task.  In deed, Friedrich Hegel is perhaps right when he states that , "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". It is for this reason that the greatest tragedy of history is in its tendency to repeat itself. As such, we are not prophets of doom and gloom when we warn that past mistakes are bound to repeat unless society buries the ghosts. Accordingly, the unbearable injustices committed during both slavery and colonialism serve as a powerful indictment on our current society of the need to vigilantly put into action the words, "Never Again!"

To be sure, we cannot be confident that these atrocities will never happen again unless society has the moral courage to examine them. The mass killings in Algeria are just but one bullet-point on a long list of colonial shame. There are credible examples that make us believe so. For instance, by the end of Second World War the whole world, shocked by the extent of Nazi barbarity, had been convinced (perhaps too soon) that genocide would be a historical term. Yet in 1994, the world witnessed mass killings of unbelievable proportion in Rwanda--where this author comes from. The sad reality is that France (a victim of Nazi invasion) was complicit in this horrible atrocity--although denialism continues to pervade much of the contemporary discussions on this matter.

Yet, the victims of atrocities have the right to be heard. Progressive communities have the duty to ensure that the memories of victims are not only protected but also respected. Otherwise, how would we, as society, learn from our past mistakes? If we are truly sorry then we have to be willing to let victims win the "battle of recognition." Otherwise, in my view, society will be left in a dangerous impasse that neither reckons with the past nor inspires a healthy future.

The issue of reparations, I believe, was fairly well articulated. As it seemed, the audience had less of a hard time understanding the rationale for reparation. The resistance remained on the particulars of how reparations would play out. in other words, as one person suggested,  what it would look like "from a practical point of view." Moreover, it is a fair comment to suggest that at times it feels as though the reparation debate is not hinged on reality. In deed, the following two questions might at first appear to be quite legitimate. in societies that still remain deeply racists, how can we even begin to talk of reparations? In societies where people are reluctant to recognize white privilege and where confronting the past remains a taboo, why should reparations be a priority? But, of course, reparations can be a method of confronting both white privilege and of dismantling racism. But at what cost? And wouldn't this create some backlash? But again do we expect such a process to be a "dinner party?" While this sort of change is, of course, nowhere close to a revolution; every social change is naturally bound to provoke a considerable degree of backlash. In fact, no one should expect the process of giving up privilege to go on so smoothly. On a practical perspective, I believe some of the suggestions by the speaker (such as the various ways of approaching reparation) would help minimize the backlash.

The events that unraveled in Algeria make it clear that the reparation of slaves would open a can of worms. Perhaps this is yet another reason behind the "backlash" premise. If we offer reparations to the descendants of African slaves, whose request will we honor next? Again, this is a fair comment and I would want more conversation on why (as I believe) that the fear that others will ask for reparations shouldn't obscure or limit the broader debate. It is possible for society to deal with the merits of each case independently. For instance, Britain is now seriously considering offering Kenya's freedom fighters (Mau Mau) compensation for the torture they endured during Kenya's war of independence. Now I believe they know this might start a "dangerous" precedence, but they are nonetheless willing to consider such issues on a case by case basis. Such is courage!

What happened in Algeria is beyond repugnant. This we learned from the history of a Veteran who fought along the French army in Algeria. The courage of this man is remarkable since he is willing to expose the skeletons in his dark closet . He recognizes this from a self-interested point of view: a search for personal salvation. Nonetheless, considering the lingering "Tyranny of Silence" there is a certain sense in which this man (despite his deeply troubling past) is a hero. I agree that the man was a victim on many levels as well. However, there are a number of questions that must be asked. Are we willing to do away with individual responsibility because people are victims? Is it a marker of privilege that one can commit such monstrous crimes and be able to enjoy impunity? How would the victims have felt about his presentation? I  mention these questions since the confession of the speaker fits the textbook descriptions of what entails war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the answers, I agree, are not anywhere as easy as they might seem. As we very well know, there are many instances in history whereby justice has been sacrificed for some form of peace--if only temporal. To gain sustainable peace though we might need to consider that, "peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice."

Next is the issue of contesting memories. How can these memories be unified in order to create one narrative that would be essential for promoting reconciliation? I honestly don't know whether this is possible. However, I think it is imperative for us to try to create some sort of minimal agreement on what happened. Here, historians are crucial. And why it is true that history is on the side of the strong, the mere fact that we are aware of these contestations means that no one has an exclusive monopoly on memory. We all remember differently hence the need to try to accommodate each other's narrative--as long as the such a process does not aim towards silencing or disparaging the voices of the "weaker" party.

To conclude, how societies deal with their pasts will continue to differ. This is due to the fact that all societies have differing contexts. However, it is quite clear that such conversations are not only necessary but key ingredients of nation building. I hope that both the United States and France will continue to find the moral courage of dealing with these gruesome pasts in a way that gives hope to the victims and their descendants. (Etienne)