Tonight I first saw snow visit our neighborhood. It's nothing to write home about (only an inch), but as snow has decided to elude these parts, I must commemorate it. Where hast thou been, fine crystal playground? My unprepared feet stumbled and slipped on an icy sewer door on my route home. No match for gravity, I could only laugh at myself, elated at the prospect of a true winter week.
I was returning from my guerrilla warfare class, where we watched the film The Battle of Algiers.
This film narrates the uprising of the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria in the 50's and early 60's. The most interesting part of the story, besides the balanced portrayal of French paratrooper and terrorist perspectives, is the way women were used to carry out terrorist activities for the FLN. From hiding guns underneath burqas, to disguising themselves as French women (haircuts, hair and face coloring, modern dress), to carrying bombs in large handbags and conveniently leaving them in popular French civilian hangouts - it's clear women were indispensible to the Algerian revolution, even if it meant compromising strict religious practices. I don't condone these women's actions, of course, but it's hard not to admire their cunning techniques. Children, too, were "heroes," acting as secret messengers, ganging up on incompetent or disloyal members of the FLN, and encouraging the Arabs via loudspeaker about the fortune of the rebellion.
If you haven't seen the film, do. Philip Jenkins wrote an article about it (unfortunately I can't find the url), arguing that The Battle of Algiers is a must-see for anyone who wants to understand or even...ahem...form policy within the Muslim world. It also elucidates the workings of a terrorist-led revolution and the measures taken to suppress it, measures that ultimately failed. Lessons from one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century bear timely relevance to the issues we're dealing with now. Pay heed, says Jenkins; I concur.
I remember in our Developing World Class we compared the Algerian revolution to the Indian one, and compared French colonialism to British colonialism. The British did want the Indians to assimilate to some extent, but they did not entirely impose their culture (they just wanted to keep the locals in their proper place as their servants, learning English, etc). The French basically wanted a tropical place for their aristocrats to take holidays in and thus wanted to make Algeria "truly French." They gave no thought whatsoever to the native culture. While there was a lot of blood spilt in the creation of Pakistan, it doesn't compare to what happened in Algeria. I am certain that the different approaches by the two governments were a factor in this disparity (but I also wonder about the presence of terrorists in Algeria v. India?) We've come a long way from old-school French and British colonialism, but people tend to have long memories so we do have to be careful with how we form policy in light of history.
Having said that, I also think you have to be careful when you try to take "lessons" from the past and directly apply them to the here and now, as a general principle.
I wouldn't argue that we apply these "lessons" directly to the present situation in Iraq, Lebanon, etc....particularly since these countries are so different from Algeria. However, where their memories are long, ours tend to be short. The story of the battle of Algiers deals more with terrorism and guerrilla warfare than how to set up a government; guerrilla warfare can be decontextualized to some extent and addressed on a general level. But I agree that you have to be careful.
Snow here, too. And the Canadians are blaming me for it! (Sarah, so you brought your Denver weather with you, eh?) This I find to be extraordinarily ironic. But I don't complain about snow.