Violence and Islam:
The Battle of Algiers

November 9, 2006

In my Islam class on Monday we discussed The Battle of Algiers (1966) directed by Gillo Pontecorvo. It was an unusual class for me because generally my effort is to keep our collective eyes on a text of some kind: what is this author saying, how does this text work. But in this case I was working to engage the class about the historical situation portrayed in the film.. the Algerian War for Independence.

Several students noted in their responses that the film had little to do with Islam.. beyond the obvious fact that one side in the conflict was Muslim. And that was part of the point: here is a violent conflict in which Islam was not the source of violence. The struggle to drive the French out came as a result of nationalist sentiment, not as a religious call to jihad or martyrdom. Even though today one can see the growing incorporation of Islam into these nationalist struggles, that should not let us be fooled into thinking that somehow religion lies at the root of these struggles.

How does religion get involved in an armed struggle? Watching the scenes of The Battle of Algiers in which Algerians are stopped and searched entering the French section of town, one sees how easily Islam (or any religion) can be recruited to a cause. The markers of difference between cultures are accentuated as people are segregated and discriminated against.. and those markers then take on a symbolic importance. The external elements of religion, which previously were taken for granted by many, now appear newly important. Thus Islam enters the fray.. as a package of symbols and ideals which can be made to define an opposing identity.

I was uncertain what students would think about the movie. The parallels between what is happening in Israel and Palestine are so clear. With the FLN bombing civilians, I wondered whether the class would respond negatively to the "terrorism" or follow the even-handed approach of the filmmaker and see shades of gray. To my surprise students did not see the film through the lens of "terrorism".. and focused instead on the fact that the French were in another country. If colonialism is wrong, their thinking seemed to go, then resistance to that colonialism must be legitimate.. even if one disagrees with tactical choices.

The French had been in Algeria since 1830. French children had been born and raised knowing Algeria as home. The novels of Albert Camus are probably the best glimpse into the way this land was experienced. A struggle to kick the French out of Algeria meant expelling the settlers who knew no other land as home. And that was exactly the result.. over a million settlers left Algeria and relocated to France.

Was this the ideal outcome for the struggle? I tend to think not.. Why not imagine an Algeria which allows for the French and Algerians to both have a role in the country? This could only have come after various forms of discrimination were ended.. but eventually it would have developed. The most successful example of this kind of integration must be South Africa, which has kept justice in mind, but, so far as I can see, allowed the opposing cultures to grow side by side. Banishing the French from Algeria was a losing idea.. and, further, it was the idea of a small group of people whose tactics appear to have drawn the broader population into the conflict.

One foundational principle of non-violence must be a willingness to allow for cultural change. Algerian culture would not be the same after colonization, but in that mixture there could be the seeds of something new. But this means making allowance for the impure.. for a national identity which is not ideal, but in flux. That is hard.. I know.. look at our anger and fear when it comes to non-citizen Hispanics simply making a life in the United States. Civilization is about to end!! And imagine how heightened that anger would be if Hispanics were colonizers with power and we the colonized and downtrodden.