Le Masque De Kamel Daoud: Quand La Nationalité Française Change La Plume

“The Imaginary War: what to do with France in Algeria?” is a work by Kamel Daoud, an Algerian writer and former journalist who, in this book, seems more concerned with French concerns than those of his own people. Daoud addresses issues related to the French colonial legacy in Algeria, historical memory, and tensions between the two countries, but he does so by downplaying the suffering of the past and asking why Algerians should not simply "move to something else.” Through this work, Daoud seems to adopt a posture which criticizes Algerians more for their attachment to their memory than those historically responsible for colonial suffering . He suggests that the relationship between France and Algeria is complex, of course, but he seems to suggest that it is the Algerians who are responsible for keeping this “imaginary war” alive . However, for many Algerians, this war is neither imaginary nor relegated to the past; it is a constant reminder of the pain and injustices suffered. Daoud, with his sharp pen, seems more inclined to ask questions that please a certain audience in France than to defend the memory and aspirations of his own people. He questions how history continues to influence Algerian politics and culture, but does not seem to understand that for many Algerians, this influence is a necessary reminder to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. “The Imaginary War: what to do with France in Algeria?” gives the impression that Daoud has lost sight of the realities experienced by Algerians on a daily basis and seems more concerned with the way France is perceived. As an Algerian, it is difficult to read this book without wondering who Daoud really rides for, and whether his new French nationality has influenced his vision of things, even his speech. This book may seem to many as an attempt to redefine Algerian identity according to external standards and expectations, rather than starting from Algerian realities and aspirations themselves. In "The Imaginary War: What to do with France in Algeria?", Kamel Daoud explores themes that he believes still define modern Algerian society, but he does so in a way that seems to ignore the complexity of our reality. It begins by recalling the crushing weight of the colonial past, highlighting how the legacy of French colonization has left an indelible imprint on Algerian identity, influencing our perception not only of France but also of our own history and national identity. . However, by downplaying this imprint as a mere fixation, he underestimates the depth of the traumas which, like the scars of an old wound, continue to haunt our collective consciousness. Daoud also accuses the Algerian regime of manipulating this historical memory to legitimize its power, saying that authorities are exploiting the fight against colonization to divert attention from internal problems like corruption and social injustice. But this reasoning ignores the reality experienced by millions of Algerians for whom the memory of the war of independence is not a tool of manipulation, but an essential part of their identity, as is often said, "we do not forget the wounds of the soul.” Daoud then evokes nostalgia and resentment towards France, describing these feelings as ambiguous, mixing fascination and bitterness. However, many Algerians today no longer live in the shadow of France; they embrace a globalized world, focusing on their future rather than painful memories. Finally, in discussing the quest for modernity and identity tensions, Daoud seems to reduce our aspiration for modernity to a simple duality between rejection and imitation of French influence, ignoring that for Algerians, this quest is much more nuanced. Our modernity, nourished by our traditions and open to the world, reflects our ability to evolve without forget where we come from. As an old Algerian proverb says, “The roots are deep, but the branches reach towards the sky.” Post-independence generations, far from being prisoners of the past, want to build a future that recognizes the sacrifices of their ancestors while embracing universal aspirations. In short, Daoud, by adopting this perspective, seems further removed from the Algerian reality than he believes, failing to recognize that Algeria is a nation that looks resolutely forward, aware of its history but not captive to it. this one. In “The Imaginary War: What to do with France in Algeria?”, Kamel Daoud does not just question current Franco-Algerian relations; he also attacks monuments of Algerian collective memory, such as the film “The Battle of Algiers”. This masterpiece, created by Gillo Pontecorvo in 1966, is celebrated around the world for its powerful testimony to the struggle for Algerian independence. However, Daoud critiques this film from several angles, which raises questions about his own view of history. First, Daoud criticizes the film for an excessive simplification of historical reality. According to him, "The Battle of Algiers" presents a Manichean dichotomy between heroic Algerians and French oppressors, ignoring the internal complexities of the Algerian independence movement. It is true that this binary vision can minimize the diversity of opinions and strategies among Algerians themselves, as the proverb says, "You only see clearly with the heart, the essential is invisible to the eyes." Second, Daoud criticizes what he perceives as a glorification of violence. He believes that the film legitimizes the use of violence as a method of resistance without sufficiently questioning its consequences on Algerian society. This glorification could fuel a culture of violence in other contexts, raising ethical and pragmatic questions about the use of violence as a tool of liberation. As they say, “Violence begets violence,” and it is important to think about the repercussions of such depictions. Third, he accuses the film of mythologizing the armed struggle, thereby contributing to a heroic vision of the FLN while marginalizing other forms of resistance. By glorifying the FLN fighters, “The Battle of Algiers” participates in an official history that could simplify the complexities of the struggle for independence. This leaves aside the contributions of other actors and the more nuanced realities of the resistance period, reminiscent of the proverb, "The truth is often hidden in the details." Fourth, Daoud laments that the film ignores the post-independence challenges that Algeria faced. By not mentioning internal struggles, political repression and economic disillusionment, "The Battle of Algiers" creates an illusion of seamless liberation, which does not reflect the complex reality of the post-colonial period. As the saying goes, "Just because you cut your chains doesn't mean you're free," and it is crucial to recognize the difficulties that followed independence. Finally, Daoud accuses the film of having been exploited for ideological purposes, not only in Algeria but also throughout the world. By inspiring liberation movements and revolutionary groups, “The Battle of Algiers” can divert attention from pragmatic questions related to the use of violence. He criticizes the use of film as a propaganda tool, pointing out that this romantic vision of revolution can obscure the real challenges faced by societies seeking change. Thus, while recognizing the power and impact of "The Battle of Algiers", Kamel Daoud invites us to a more nuanced reflection on the way in which history is represented and used. He pleads for a critical reading that takes into account the multiple dimensions of Algerian history, suggesting that collective memory must be examined with an awareness of the complex realities that underpin our national narratives. Ultimately, as an Algerian proverb says, "The past is a mirror in which we look to better move forward," but it is essential not to let this mirror distort the truth. I take the liberty of responding to you as an Algerian concerned by the way in which you criticize "The Battle of Algiers". You talk about simplification and glorification of violence, but perhaps you forget that this film is first and foremost a testimony to our struggle for freedom, a reflection of the sacrifices made by those who risked their lives for independence . The historical reality is complex, of course, but this film helped to shine a light on oppression and resistance with a power that touched the entire world. You talk about glorification, but how is this less problematic than reducing our collective memory to a simple caricature of victimization? You criticize mythologizing, but perhaps these “myths” are precisely stories of courage that deserve our respect and not our derision. Ultimately, “The Battle of Algiers” remains a symbol of our resistance, a mirror of our history which, despite its imperfections, continues to inspire and remind us of our dignity in the face of oppression. Your criticism that the Algerian government uses the memory of the war of independence as a “memorial rent” is not only reductive but also ill-informed. First of all, your definition of “ memory rent” seems to ignore the complex reality of collective memory. The memory of the Revolutionary War is an integral part of our national identity, a remembrance of the enormous sacrifices made by our ancestors. The promotion of this memory is not simply a political maneuver, but an act of respect and recognition towards those who fought for our freedom. As an Algerian proverb says, “He who forgets his past is condemned to relive it.” When it comes to the political use of history, it is crucial to understand that claims about the colonial past are not just strategies to distract from contemporary issues, but a way for us to keep a history alive who shapes us. Your suggestion that the Algerian government is using this memory to avoid facing current challenges seems to neglect the fact that these challenges are also recognized and faced by civil society . As the saying goes, “Today’s problems cannot erase yesterday’s.” Furthermore, your criticism of the monopoly of official history is simplistic. The official history is not the only narrative in Algeria; it coexists with many other testimonies and perspectives. The diversity of experiences and voices is always present in public debate, even if heroic stories are highlighted. Reducing the historical narrative to a one-dimensional version does not do justice to the richness of our collective stories. As for the relationship with France, the "memorial rent" is not the only one responsible for the tensions. The complexity of this relationship is also shaped by geopolitical issues and contemporary realities. Reducing these tensions to a simple matter of historical memory is an oversimplification. As they say, “The path to forgiveness is paved with understanding.” Finally, I agree on the need for reevaluation and openness to a more inclusive history. However, this does not mean that we should erase or minimize the memory of the War for Independence. On the contrary, it is possible to build a future where we respect our past while responding to modern challenges. “We cannot move forward by forgetting where we came from.” In conclusion, historical memory is a pillar of our identity and a reflection of our dignity. The “memorial rent” that you denounce is, for us, an integral part of our history and our struggle for justice. We must move forward by honoring our past while working together for a better future. Your analysis of Algeria as being prisoner of its "memorial rent" seems to ignore the dynamic and resilient reality of the country. Modern Algeria is indeed much more than a nation stuck in memories of the colonial past. It is distinguished by active diplomacy with various world powers such as China, Russia, and the United States, thus illustrating a desire to fully integrate into the global economy while diversifying its alliances. Algerian youth, ever more connected and innovative, are focused on the future and engaged in initiatives that promote progress, far from the shadows of the past. Algeria is undertaking ambitious economic reforms to diversify its sources of income and build a sustainable economy , while carrying out political reforms favored by the Hirak movement, which demonstrates a desire for justice and transparency. Culturally, Algeria uses its rich heritage to inspire new artistic creations and promote international exchanges. Far from being a burden, the memory of the struggle for independence is a source of strength that guides the country towards more equitable and inclusive development. By actively participating in global dialogue and hosting international events, Algeria proves its openness to new ideas and its integration into global issues. Thus, Algeria is a country which does not allow itself to be locked into the past, but which integrates it with pride to build a prosperous and diversified future. It is essential to recognize this complexity and value contemporary efforts rather than limiting ourselves to a one-dimensional vision. Kamel Daoud, reading your book "The Imaginary War: What to do with France in Algeria?", I can't help but wonder : who are you really riding for? Who serves this speech which seems more in line with the positions of a certain French elite than with the concerns of the Algerian people? You present yourself as an Algerian writer, but the ideas you develop lead us to believe that you have chosen to position yourself on the side of those who, in France, seek to rewrite our history and minimize the suffering of our people. So, tell us frankly, are you French or Algerian? Has the granting of French nationality, literary recognition in France, and invitations to Parisian television sets changed your outlook on your own country? Have these favors pushed you to change your speech, or even your jacket? You, who grew up in Algeria, who certainly heard the stories of the war of independence, how can you today talk about 'memorial rent' as if it were a simple strategy of political manipulation? For us, the memory of colonization and the struggle for independence is not an income, it is a painful and founding reality of our identity. A 'real' Algerian, as you probably like to say, would never detach themselves from the suffering of their people to adopt a discourse that seeks to relativize or obscure the atrocities of colonialism. A 'real' Algerian would never lend his voice to those who would like to reduce our history to a simple matter of propaganda. So, tell us, Kamel Daoud, what does your new nationality commit you to? What interests are you serving by making this divisive speech? Because we, Algerians, are convinced that our history is a strength, not a weakness, and that it is not by ignoring or minimizing it that we will build a better future. Do you understand that? If you liked this video, don't forget to give a thumbs up, comment, share and why not subscribe to encourage us to produce more content. Thank you, see you soon!