Interview with Olivier Lecour Grandmaison, historian, author of Coloniser, exterminer. Sur la guerre et l’État colonial and L’Empire des hygiénistes. Vivre aux colonies, published by Fayard[1].
As a historian, you have long campaigned against the symbols that glorify in our urban landscapes the “great figures” of French slave and colonial history. Why do you think this struggle is both necessary and relevant?
It is odd, to say the least, that a certain number of great figures of slavery and colonisation are part of the so-called Republican Pantheon and that they have been integrated into the Republican “grand national novel”, as they say.
More precisely, in the context of the republican re-construction following the loss of Alsace and Lorraine and the Paris Commune, it is not surprising that they were included given that the founders and leaders of the Third Republic of all stripes and the administrative and intellectual elites all considered it essential to rebuild a united national body that was proud of France in order to overcome this double trauma. For a long time, the latter was synonymous with a possible and terrible national decadence that would reduce the country to the rank of a small and perfectly secondary European power. Hence the writing and dissemination, via schools among other things, of an edifying history populated by heroes who were supposed to speak of France’s eternal greatness. The same applies to certain monuments and street names, boulevards and/or avenues.
See the article “Mémoire de l’esclavage : ” Débaptisons les collèges et les lycées Colbert ! (Le Monde, 17 September 2017)
To continue today to celebrate these figures (Colbert, Bugeaud, Faidherbe, to name but a few), who embody the negation of all republican ideals because of the crimes against humanity and war crimes they committed, defended and justified, is a permanent insult to the motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” as well as to the memory of their victims and to that of their descendants, many of whom reside in metropolitan France and overseas. Moreover, on the one hand, it is a question of unacceptable symbolic violence that is still inflicted on them and, on the other hand, of undignified discrimination in memory and commemoration, which is added to all those suffered by racialised minorities in this country.
What obstacles do you face in this struggle? Why is it so difficult to make your voice heard and to push the authorities to take concrete action?
Most likely because it touches on idols that are still considered indispensable to the national-republican mythology. To which is added the fact that France’s slavery and colonial past is a terrible revelation, in the photographic sense of the word, and what we discover is obviously not to the glory of this country, its prestigious leaders and the positions defended by the parties of the right and the left.
Some people say that monuments to Bugeaud, Faidherbe and others should not be removed, but that they should simply be added with ‘explanatory notes’ and/or moved to less ‘exposed’ locations. What do you think of this option?
From my point of view, it is not contradictory. It seems to me that we can and should demand the removal of their statues, as was done in the United States, and, if we don’t win the case, demand that historical notes recall what happened to their actions. This is nothing more and nothing less than a demand to replace a mythology that is odious and hurtful to many with the real story of what happened at the time.
Is this an exaggerated demand? No, it’s not. Because it is a question of re-establishing facts that have been forgotten or deliberately concealed by the proponents of the great French “national story” who are wading in ideology despite their alleged love for Clio. In truth, it is not history that they love, but tales for children and adults, and a police conception of the relationship with the past, which must bend to their partiality as well as to their partisan and/or political options. This is a terrible regression, under the guise of audacity and the fight against ‘single-mindedness’ and what they call ‘repentance’, which takes us back to the historiographical errors of Mallet and Isaac. Revolution? Reaction and reactionary.
How would you react as a history teacher if you were assigned to a lycée named after ‘Faidherbe’?
I will begin by giving a lecture on colonisation and the role that Faidherbe played in it, recalling that this colonisation was the subject of very strong criticism from the start. I am thinking in particular of the parliamentary debates in the summer of 1885 during which Clemenceau and Fr. Passy distinguished themselves with remarkable speeches. Having done this, I would ask the headmaster to ensure that the school’s website includes all the elements relating to Faidherbe’s career. The same goes for the commemorative plaque, if there is one.
[1] See in particular his article: “Bugeaud: executioner of the Algerian ‘natives’ and enemy of the Republic” (Mediapart, 4 September 2017)