This approach is revealing in itself. Rather than engaging with sources, archives, historical evidence, and continuity, Lugan prefers to shift the discussion onto psychological and ideological terrain. The issue is no longer the validity of an argument, but the supposed motives of the person advancing it. Such a method may be convenient in polemics, but it remains intellectually weak, as it avoids the central question: does Algeria possess a historical depth that predates French colonization?
A Logic of Erasure Rather Than Inquiry
The fundamental problem is that, in order to argue that Algeria is merely a creation of French colonialism, Lugan must engage in a systematic process of historical subtraction. He excludes ancient peoples, downplays medieval kingdoms, marginalizes intellectual and urban centers, dismisses local dynasties, reduces Ottoman suzerainty to outright colonial domination, and then presents the resulting void as evidence for his thesis.
In doing so, he does not move from evidence to conclusion; rather, he begins with a conclusion and selectively arranges the evidence around it. This is not the method of a historian working through sources, but that of a narrative seeking to deprive Algeria of its accumulated historical depth so that it may appear to have been born only in 1830.
A Striking Double Standard
The contradiction becomes evident when Morocco is concerned. Lugan readily accepts the notion of a long Moroccan historical continuity stretching from the Idrisids through the Almoravids, Almohads, Marinids, Saadians, and Alaouites, despite the ruptures, conflicts, and transformations that occurred between them.
Yet when Algeria is concerned, every discontinuity becomes proof of nonexistence, every form of political allegiance is portrayed as colonial dependence, and every historical complexity becomes grounds for denying the existence of the whole.
If the same criteria were applied to Morocco, significant portions of Moroccan historical continuity would also be called into question. The issue, therefore, is not historical methodology itself, but the selective manner in which it is applied.
Ancient North African Peoples and Historical Continuity
When Algerian historians refer to the ancient Libyans, Numidians, Moors, or Gaetulians, they are not claiming that these peoples possessed a modern Algerian national identity. The issue concerns cultural, human, and civilizational continuity across North African history.
From Herodotus to Sallust, Strabo, and Pliny the Elder, ancient authors were not describing modern nation-states. They were documenting societies, peoples, kingdoms, territories, and networks that constitute the historical foundations of North Africa.
To deny Algeria the right to draw upon this historical depth while allowing other nations to invoke their own ancient pasts is not an effort to prevent historical anachronism; it is an exercise in selective memory.
Masinissa, Juba II, and Borders That Did Not Yet Exist
The kingdoms of Masinissa and Juba II extended across territories far larger than the borders of present-day Algeria or Morocco. If crossing contemporary boundaries were enough to invalidate historical claims, then much of the ancient history of modern nations would have to be discarded.
A serious historical approach recognizes that these entities belong to a shared North African heritage, while also acknowledging that the central Maghreb—historically corresponding to Algeria—was one of their principal political centers.
The Regency of Algiers: A Political Power, Not a Historical Void
The Regency of Algiers remains one of the strongest obstacles to the claim that Algeria did not exist before French colonization.
Prior to 1830, Algiers possessed governmental institutions, military structures, a navy, a fiscal system, a currency, diplomatic relations, and a recognized political authority.
It was not merely a passive province administered directly from Istanbul. It negotiated treaties, received foreign consuls, conducted diplomacy, and managed its affairs with a considerable degree of autonomy.
To reduce it to the status of a mere “Turkish colony” is therefore not a rigorous historical description but a polemical device intended to deny any form of Algerian political continuity before 1830.
France Conquered Algeria; It Did Not Create It
The core flaw in Lugan’s thesis lies in confusing conquest with creation.
France certainly conquered Algeria, reorganized its administration, imposed its laws, exploited its resources, and profoundly transformed its society. But it did not create the Numidians, found Tlemcen, establish Algiers, shape the Sahara’s history, or invent the social institutions that predated colonial rule.
France conquered an existing country; it did not create one from nothing.
Algeria: A Living History That Cannot Be Erased
Algeria’s history is not merely an academic subject. It constitutes a living memory that continues to shape the collective consciousness of the Algerian people.
From the Numidian kingdoms to the medieval states, from popular resistance to the War of Independence, Algeria possesses a continuous historical experience that gives the country its depth and distinctiveness.
For this reason, debates about Algerian history are not solely academic discussions. They touch upon questions of identity, memory, and historical legitimacy.
Conclusion
The assertion that Algeria was born with French colonialism cannot withstand historical scrutiny, nor can it withstand the political, cultural, and civilizational evidence that predates the French conquest by many centuries.
France may have conquered Algeria, but it did not create it. It may have ruled the country, but it did not invent its history.
With its ancient kingdoms, medieval cities, Saharan civilizations, institutions, and collective memory, Algeria existed before colonization, survived after it, and remains an integral part of the long historical continuum of the Maghreb and North Africa.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment