__________________________________________________
Call for Papers
Theme: Massacres and Repression in the Colonial World
Subtitle: Archives and Fiction as a Source for Historiography or
Official Discourse?
Type: International Interdisciplinary Conference
Institution: Université de Bretagne Sud
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Location: Lorient (France)
Date: 27.–29.11.2014
Deadline: 1.2.2014
__________________________________________________
Abstract
December 1, 2014 commemorates the 70th anniversary of the "Massacre of
Thiaroye", discussed in detail below. Over the course of this
conference's transdisciplinary sessions, Thiaroye will be used as a
point of reference in identifying and discussing a number of
scientific and ethical issues. The theme for this conference is the
"colonial massacre" (as defined below) – which includes Thiaroye.
Selected papers will address one or more of the following topics:
(1) Historians and methodology, particularly in relation to source
material
(2) Knowledge of the past: historical fiction and historiography
(3) Historians and social "commitment" versus expected professional
"objectivity"
Context
On December 1, 1944 in Thiaroye (near Dakar), 35 former prisoners of
war (POWs) were murdered, 35 wounded, and 34 sentenced to one to ten
years of prison. These colonial soldiers had staged a mutiny and
refused to follow orders issued by the commanding officers of the
colonial troops. Having left their country to fight for France, these
soldiers were made POWs by the Germans in June 1940. Returning to
Africa after four long years of captivity in occupied France, the
military and colonial administration suddenly considered these
soldiers a threat to France's imperial power, whose foundations had
been profoundly shaken by the war. Official reports provide key
insights to the colonial power's perception of the reasons for the
mutiny. According to the administration, German nationalist
propaganda was one cause of the rebellion, as it denigrated the
French army and its commanding officers. Contact with the French
resistance and French Forces of the Interior is also cited in the
reports as another reason for the trouble with infantrymen who "were
not morally, intellectually, and socially capable of understanding
the grandeur, beauty and necessity of this movement [the
Resistance]." According to military sources, contact with French
women, and especially war godmothers, contributed to the sustained
deterioration of the soldiers' general outlook; these sources also
indicate that the military also began to suspect the source of the
soldiers' income. In the reports, the soldiers' financial claims are
presented as unsubstantiated. The official history of the massacre is
derived from these archived reports, and maintains that a military
response was necessary given the danger these men represented.
Several novels, plays, films, and pieces of music were inspired by
the events at Thiaroye. This cultural material necessarily uses a
certain degree of artistic license, but it is also endowed with the
power to re-write reality. For example, although these colonial POWs
were held in occupied France, fiction has generally preferred to cite
Germany as the location of their captivity. The "French overseas
territories and World War II" exhibition created a direct link
between Thiaroye and former POWs' anger upon returning from German
camps to find that they were only able to exchange half of their
German marks. Historical discourse aimed at the general public has
therefore been influenced by the fictional re-writing of history,
which has in turn been amplified by rumor. Breaking point was not the
result of a bad currency exchange, nor even of a lower exchange rate
between French francs and CFA francs, as was erroneously depicted in
Sembène Ousmane's film, Camp de Thiaroye. The fundamental cause of
the revolt lay in the deliberate refusal by highest military
authorities stationed in Dakar to comply with back pay regulations
from which these former POWs should have benefited. Curiously, this
major claim does not explicitly appear in the reports.
The traumatic event of Thiaroye remained cloaked in silence: not a
single French newspaper covered it at the time. The massacre only
aroused the interest of historians at a later date when, at the end
of the 1970s, Canadian Myron J. Echenberg began analyzing it as a key
factor in the African people's struggle to wrest a dignity for
themselves, which they had been denied by the colonial system .
Although further research has been carried out on the subject, it has
failed to query and call into question archive content as well as the
veracity of official reports. Following the disappearance of
circulars that would have made it possible to understand the
soldiers' justifications for their claims, in-depth research
involving a thorough sorting, cross-checking, and gathering of expert
opinions made it possible to contradict the official historical
record which absolved the army from all responsibility. Evidence has
come to light showing the spoliation of former POWs claims, as well
as a truncated approach to drafting reports. These encourage us to
consider the implications and ramifications of a collective blindness
as practiced by a number of historians, as well as most high-level
civil and military authorities. Political authorities, represented by
French President François Hollande, have just added another layer of
complexity to the relationship between the researcher and his or her
source material by calling for an unconventional use of these
archives: "Give Senegal all of France's archives on this issue to be
exhibited at the Thiaroye memorial." Was this simply an unfortunate
mistake - these archives are not transferrable – or was it instead a
way of discharging France from its responsibility by instead putting
the burden of uncovering this massacre onto Senegal?
This conference will focus on what Jacques Sémelin defined as
"colonial massacres", which are usually a collective act that destroys
non-combatants: men, women, children, or unarmed soldiers. Political
authorities order these repressions, and their aim is to prevent
protests or mass uprisings through the use of restrictions or
violence. In the colonial context, there is an additional objective
to dominate and subjugate the civilian population through violence.
We are particularly interested in gruesome repressions that are
linked to independence movements, as well as the process required in
order to officially recognize these events as "massacres".
Comparative studies that consider different colonial regimes will
make it possible to broaden our analysis of these historical facts
that have long been concealed behind a wall of silence, yet which are
clearly etched in the memories of the victimized people.
Not every massacre constitutes a "genocide", and given that the term
elicits quite substantial controversy, the notion of "genocide" is not
addressed in this call for papers.
Thematic I: Manufacturing history
Gruesome events were often committed with full impunity and
legitimized by the authorities in power, the records of which are
consigned to the archives. Here it will be a matter of questioning
the content of archived sources, as well as their reliability. Is the
veracity of an archived document self-evident? What is the position
of historians and archivists in relation to documents in the search
for truth (neutrality, objectivity, responsibility, sincerity, etc.)?
What balance of power between historiography and official discourse
can be achieved, and what actions accelerate scientific evolution and
awareness?
Thematic II: Historiography and historical fiction
Literature, film, and graphic novels are often inspired by acts of
oppression and the struggles for emancipation. What is literature
trying to achieve when it uses a past reality? What can literature or
film achieve that is beyond the reach of historiography? How can a
novelist's work contribute to that of the historian? Also, historical
fiction often contains errors, a pretext which certain critics and
political figures use to radically discredit authors. How should we
react to historical errors? However appalling they may be, are errors
always condemnable? Can errors be explained by a given
socio-political context, or the knowledge available at a given time?
Is it possible to interpret errors,particularly using the structure
of the work, or inter-textual analysis? Also, how does fiction
influence a collective memory as well as historiographic discourse.
It would be a matter of assessing the porosity or permeability of
these different methods of understanding the past.
Thematic III: The historian's commitment and political authorities
Researchers are invited to submit papers on the role of historians and
archivists in relation to requests for rehabilitation, reparations,
and justice, as well as on the frequent silence and lack of response
from political authorities in terms of condemnable abuses. For
example, financial compensation for the Mau Mau in Kenya who were
victims of atrocities committed during British colonization, is a
direct result of historian David M. Anderson's research and arduous
struggle for justice. Socio-political commitment and a sustained
questioning of mainstream political and media discourse are often
considered incompatible with an historian's real, legitimate work. As
soon as the scientific information available makes it possible to
re-write colonial history, which is often disturbing for political
and military authorities, why is it considered taboo to reveal such
new discoveries through the media or other information outlets, and
to immediately suspect scientific failure? What is the role of the
historian when confronted with State lies and compromised principles?
It is a matter of questioning an historian's personal courage,
determination, and responsibility, and to outline the boundaries for
these concepts.
The new perspective that emerges from research on colonial massacres
will make it possible to reflect on historiographic practices and
perhaps reconcile different methodological and ethical approaches
that are the key aspects of an historian's vocation.
Although our conference concentrates on massacres perpetrated by
European empires in the 19th and 20th Centuries, we will consider
other papers that would contribute to the debate.
Submission requirements
Proposals must be e-mailed and received by February 1, 2014 at the
latest. Please send an abstract (maximum of 2000 characters) as well
as a title and short curriculum vitae to both Armelle Mabon and
Sabrina Parent.
Candidates will be notified in early March 2014.
Proposals in English must be submitted to Sabrina Parent.
Organizing Committee
- Armelle Mabon, Université de Bretagne Sud
- Sabrina Parent, F.R.S.-FNRS / Université Libre de Bruxelles
(Philixte, Mondes modernes et contemporains)
- Martin Mourre, EHESS/Université de Montréal
- Xavier Luffin, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Scientific Committee
- Idrissou Alioum, Université de Yaoundé
- Raphaëlle Branche, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne
- Charles Forsdick, University of Liverpool
- Frédéric Garan, Université de la Réunion
- Pieter Lagrou, Université Libre de Bruxelles
- Xavier Luffin, Université Libre de Bruxelles
- Armelle Mabon, Université de Bretagne Sud
- Véronique Mercier, Archives départementales du Lot
- Martin Mourre, EHESS/Université de Montréal
- David Murphy, University of Stirling
- Pap Ndiaye, Sciences Po Paris
- Nicolas Offenstadt, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne
- Sabrina Parent, Université Libre de Bruxelles
- Jacques Sémelin, CERI (CNRS-Sciences Po)
- Ibrahima Thioub, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar
Contact:
Armelle Mabon
Email: armelle.ma...@univ-ubs.fr
Sabrina Parent
Email: sabrina.par...@ulb.ac.be
__________________________________________________
InterPhil List Administration:
http://interphil.polylog.org
Intercultural Philosophy Calendar:
http://cal.polylog.org
__________________________________________________
