Physical Address
Indirizzo: Via Mario Greco 60, Buttigliera Alta, 10090, Torino, Italy
One evening in October 1961, the Seine was stained with the blood of Algerian emigrants who had come to peacefully demonstrate for dignity and independence. Sixty-four years later, the nation still pays tribute to the memory of these martyrs who fell under colonial repression in Paris. Their shadows cross the national memory, recalling exile, loyalty and the price of combat.
Dedicated as National Emigration Day, October 17 remains an essential landmark in the collective consciousness and a milestone in the war of liberation. On the occasion of this commemoration, the historian Fouad Soufi evokes, for Young Independentthe historical and symbolic significance of this date. Between history and memory, he returns to the place of emigrants in the national story, the obstacles of research in the face of inaccessible archives and the role of the State in the transmission of this heritage to new generations.
The Young Independent : Sixty-four years after the October 17, 1961 massacre of Algerian emigrants in Paris, how do you perceive the place this tragic episode occupies today in national memory, and in what way does its transmission fit into the historical consciousness of new generations?
Fouad Sufi : This question invokes, voluntarily or not, at the same time the academic history of an event, its coverage by the national story and its inscription in the national memory and that of emigration. I remind you, for all practical purposes, that it was by a legislative decree that in 1993 a list of national days was established, including that of emigration to commemorate the massacre of Algerians during a peaceful demonstration in Paris on October 17, 1961.
Therefore, in 1993, the State included this event on the list of major events of the war of liberation that must be commemorated. But first? The FLN party, its mass organizations as it was called then, but also the written press, radio and especially television, have perpetuated the memory of this tragic day since 1963.
So, the generations who did not experience it were able to know what happened on October 17, 1961. I would add that unfortunately, the other demonstrations, particularly those of women, took place in other cities in France, but we do not always mention them. This is the difference between the work of memory and that of history.
In fact, we must understand that the specificity of this event is that it did not take place in Algeria but in France. Also, those who can form these memory-bearing groups do not necessarily have the media power that those who work on local memory have here. This is not the least complexity of the history of our war of national liberation
Finally, there is the law of life which means that generations succeed one another inexorably, living memories die out and the transmission of what marked that day of October 17, 1961 and the days that followed passes through another channel, that of history, but not only.
Indeed, and as a general rule, national memory is constructed through novels, films, plays, and even poems and songs. Historians, who are more cautious, know the requirement of the critical method. But it turns out that our historians trained since the 1980s have, in relation to this event, an essential problem which is their relationship to language. The archives of the French Federation and the archives of the French institutions involved in this massacre are in French. Furthermore, to consult these archives, you have to go to France with all the related inconveniences.
So, to transmit the memory of this event, we must return to the press, and always make the commemoration of this date an action in the construction of our national identity. But if there must be historical awareness among new generations, we must publish the works of historians, open the archives located in our country and provide our historians with real funding for their travel to archive services abroad. We can also proceed to the acquisition, by the National Archives, of archives relating to Algeria and preserved abroad, whatever the medium. This was done in the 1970s but at the time archivists came from history departments.
In your opinion, to what extent has this commemoration contributed to promoting the role of emigrants in the national liberation struggle and to strengthening their recognition in official history?
Is there an official history? Wouldn’t this be a story that wants to be national? This story presents itself as a kind of victim story. But isn’t that legitimate? We cannot forget that this date was marked by the violence of police repression. Colonial violence in all areas of political, economic, social and cultural life is at the origin of everything. Therefore, promoting the role of emigrants in the knowledge of our history is necessary and the measures taken by the authorities of our country since 1963 to commemorate this date must be highlighted.
Family stories, testimonies from former emigrants and oral memory remain essential sources. How can the historian combine these lived memories with the scientific demands of historical research?
What defines the historian’s profession, in addition to the relationship with time and space, are the sources that he learns to use. You mentioned some of them, the best known and probably the easiest to exploit. But there are others, less traditional, which have been integrated as new sources for research. I must point out that the memory of the actors did not appear as a source until the end of the 20th century.e century to compensate, very often, for the absence or impossibility of access to state archives. The various technologies have produced other sources such as films, sound recordings, photographs and, today, everything related to computerization in the functioning of a State and in social relations. Everything is archived and everything is susceptible to archival work and everything is used to write history whatever the theme. Not only can the historian do it but he must do it. This is therefore not specific to this tragic event.
Public authorities and memory institutions are increasing initiatives around October 17, 1961. What other approaches could contribute to deepening historical research and the pedagogy of memory?
In my humble opinion, we must encourage the publication of theses in the social and human sciences, and in particular in history. We must increase the number of history reviews and not confuse the work of historians with the memories of the actors who constitute so many sources for the writing of history but who are not history. I don’t see any other way, other than the novel, the film, etc.
On the other hand, the sine qua non condition for the deepening of historical research is the opening of archives at home and the acquisition, on any material medium, of archives abroad, which of course concern our past. It would be interesting to obtain copies of Jean-Luc Einaudi’s written and audio archives. It is of course a national mission that only a national institution can or must carry out. Once acquired by the National Archives, these archives must be made available to citizens in general and to historians and other academics in particular.
Finally, how would you define the duty of memory towards the emigrant martyrs of October 17, 1961 and how can this duty be transmitted to young people, beyond commemorative ceremonies, as a living national heritage?
The question is quite complex. My first reaction is to say that the duty to remember is the responsibility of the State and its institutions, just like the right to history. The Mujahideen Ministry exercises this duty. Of course, it receives a substantial budget each year. He knows how to take charge, among other things, of this day. Therefore, there cannot be any particular problem except the making available to the public of this mass of documents (books and films) that the Research Center possesses. But since it is a question of defining this duty of memory towards the emigrants, I allow myself to take up an old idea, today buried in the memory of certain officials, and which consisted of setting up an Institute of Memory of the War of National Liberation, totally and solely devoted to the period 1er November 1954 – July 5, 1962. But that’s another story.