Argyrios Sakorafas

War Stories. Myth, Memory and Trauma in the Twentieth Century

Session 5: Session 5: Remembering and Forgetting

How do societies react to violent events? How to victims and perpetrators solidify their
position during and after such events? These are some of the main issues found in the two
following readings, with main focus to the colonial atrocities and their interpretation in
British Kenya during the 50’s and French Algeria during the colonial rule.

Caroline Elkins in her book Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya entangles with
the British colonial rule in the region. Already in the preface, the author explains the origins
and the process of her research, which is much related to the main argument of the book: in
her attempt to find sources regarding the Mau Mau detention camps, Caroline Elkins
discovered that most of the sources regarding the negative aspect of these camps and in
general the negative aspect of the British colonial rule in Kenya were destroyed whereas
plenty of more positive, bureaucratic or insignificant documents were accessible. Indeed,
the numbers of imprisoned, maltreated or murdered Kenyans were on purpose altered,
which led her to research the British authority in the region.

Chapter 9 is associated with the political and social reactions against the atrocities
committed by the British in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising in the 50’s as well as the
official governmental response to the revelations. In general, the Labour Party, which was
the opposition, mainly through Barbara Castle, was constantly expressing its dissatisfaction
towards the crimes committed against the local population, obviously for political reasons
too. In order to intensify their pressure, the Labours took advantage of major events which
took place. The resignation of Colonel Young after his disagreement with the governor of
Kenya, Baring, who was trying to cover up the inhuman treatment of the people of Kenya,
the reports coming from missionary societies, the leaks from officers serving in Kenya and
the cases of Eileen Fletcher and Captain Philip Meldon created huge debate in the British
politics and press. The government, mainly through Lennox-Boyd, continuously denied all
these allegations, accusing these persons for lying and tried to alter the image of these
persons, describing them as unreliable. The detailed reports about tortured and imprisoned
Kenyan women and children were met with fake reports and statements of ignorance.

Why did Britain, though, deny the reality in such an absolute way? According to Elkins, it was
based to their imperial image. British citizens were considering themselves different from
France or Germany, they considered themselves as “good” and superior colonizers, in
comparison with the violent ones. Moreover, since the early stages of the uprising, the Mau
Mau were described by the press and the officers as savages, uncivilized, brutal and
cannibals. For them, this was a fight of Western civilization and Christianity against “godless
savages”. The British could accept their bloody actions or evacuate Kenya as losers of a war,
as it would destroy their colonial image and their civilizing mission.

Raphaelle Branche and Jim House, in Silences on state violence during the Algerian War of
Independence: France and Algeria, 1962-2007, attempt to analyze two major issues of
French-Algerian history, both connected to violence and the French colonial rule in Algeria:
the tortures committed by the French soldiers against Algerian people during the Algerian
War of Independence and the massacre of Algerian protestors in Paris during the
demonstration of 17 October 1961.

To begin with, the French oppression in colonial Algeria generally tried to be forgotten or
better, hidden by the French government and in fact many French citizens were unaware of
these actions. The French government justified the tortures as part of the “logic of war”,
providing in addition amnesty to the soldiers involved. The Algerian side, though, mainly for
political reasons, also kept a subtle stance regarding the atrocities. The goal of both
countries was to establish good relations and the amnesty and oblivion seemed as an honest
compromise towards that direction.

The tortures issue would only come in the spotlight of the French routine with the numerous
press articles, films and veteran memoirs after 2000. Algeria on the contrary, focused on its
internal problems in the 90’s and the disputable role of certain officers in France or in FLN
preferred to keep a policy of silence.

The events of 17 October 1961, thus, were and are still much more discussed and
investigated, especially in France. Until the 1980’s, the French society, problematized with
its political issues was not interested in the massacre whereas the Algerian victims were
unwilling to talk about the events and they embraced a policy of “move on”, a strategic
silence. Since the 80’s though, the initiatives coming from left-wing groups, activists and
descendants of the victims reopened the October 1961 case. Testimonies, documentaries,
films, memorial ceremonies and plaques (for example in Paris) and trials (such as Papon’s
trial, accused for being responsible for the massacre) informed the French and Algerian
younger people about their past and tried to make the victims-perpetrators talk about it.
Despite, thus, the public discussion, many victims (keeping the “move on” strategy) or
French police offers who participated in the massacre are still unwilling to talk regarding the
event. Nevertheless, the historical works and campaigning groups around the violent event
have revealed various aspects of it, in comparison with the torture question, which has been
rather deliberately ignored by the public memory.

To conclude, what it is interesting to observe is that these policies of denying the truth, the
policies of not acknowledging the atrocities in the colonies were and still are in a certain
degree, not only governmental strategies but they were much accepted by the society too,
creating the myth of innocence. In fact, people turned their look on purpose away from the
reality - and this can be said for both the victims and perpetrators.