The post-colonial safety dance: Algerian edition

As of this writing, French President Francois Hollande is concluding a state visit to Algeria to discuss trade and stuff. On the second and final day of the trip Hollande spoke before the Algerian parliament. This was a tense moment, coming with widespread speculation - and some criticism, most pointedly from Algerian political figures - that Hollande would issue nothing like an official apology on France's behalf. This was mainly due to political pressures at home, from French conservatives and Algerian loyalists alike. Oh, and to avoid giving any traction to legal arguments for compensation or reparation.

When the moment came, Hollande did the best version of the post-colonial safety dance I've ever seen. The safety dance (not this one) is my name for what states do as they try to triangulate between sensibly addressing the consequences of their former atrocities and avoiding the still-buzzing trip wires of unreconstructed supremacist politics. We've seen this for years in the US in relation to, well, any number of things, really, but most clearly in relation to Indian policy and chattel slavery. The US finally got around to apologizing for both of these things (see this and this), sort of, but only after many years of equivocation and hesitation. France is early on in this process with Algeria, and given how early it is, What Hollande actually said turned out to be pretty good, relative to how these things can go. What he said: "I'm not here to repent or apologize, but to tell the truth." What is this truth? As DW translated it, that "For 132 years, Algeria was subjected to a brutal and unfair system: colonization." And that it is important to "acknowledge the suffering [colonialism] caused." Then there was a bunch of talk about partnerships for the future, and looking forward rather than backward, and so on. Which is, as I say, about trade and stuff.

Hollande, Sarkozy, and Chirac are the only French presidents to visit autonomous Algeria, and neither of the others came as close to apologizing as the current office-holder. It's a weird dance, splitting hairs between, on the one hand, "acknowledging" that one represents an entity that caused unfair suffering and, on the other hand, apologizing. (Or, better, between apologizing and acknowledging that someone 'was subjected to' suffering that 'a system' caused. Mistakes were made, suffering was caused....) A moral psychologist - that is, a student of the field called 'moral psychology,' not an ethical practitioner of the science of psychology - would make some hay with this. I just want to acknowledge it.

from al-arabiya coverage