The Facts of Social Organization in the Debate over North Africa - Book Report/Review Example

The Facts of Social Organization in the Debate over North Africa: A Review Introduction/Main Premise The means by which the July Monarchy resulted in the French takeover of North Africa has been the subject of great historical debate as it refers to both the constitutionality of such actions and the means by which social order was effected. Throughout the eighteen year period of 1834-1852, there was seemingly countless debates over and conflicting information disseminated related to the early occupation of the North Africans and the hands of the French. Of particular interest was the existing law of the land at the time and how the first few decades of occupation saw a deepening disregard for the definition of law versus a need to maintain social order. Aisenberg issues this thesis as the basis for his expose related a critique over the justification for the French occupation, the response of the North Africans, and the relationship between law, government, and social order. Each Section’s Support for the Central Argument of the Author Aisenberg offers numerous points of support for his argument. In terms of the debate of 1834, for example, convincing evidence is given related to “legislative concerns over the findings of two recent government commissions on the occupation that set the terms of the debate, and especially the prolonged and critical engagement of deputies with the facts of North Africa”1. He relates the reality by which the first commission was actually established back in 1833, but the Minister of War, in an attempt to take away some of the barriers that the military government was encountering. At that time, the very provisional status of the territory was being called into question, and all affected parties seemingly was being given different information related to the legality of the push into North Africa on the part of the French troops. In the end, Aisenberg reports that the commission travel themselves throughout the region only to discover that there was certain a pronounced disparity between the commonly accepted social principles related to the future of the territory and the conditions that were actually present on the ground during the occupation. In essence, it appears that the legal obligation related to the aftermath of the French occupation were not being followed as they were being stated to the government and various sectors of society. To support this claim of a seemingly lawless period of occupation at the hands of the French, the example is given of the military government confiscating property from former Turkish rulers, all with the cooperation of various French speculators that were in North Africa at the time. This openly violated a treaty signed in 1830 that was designed to put an end to various hostilities caused the July Monarchy. That treaty was to have created a more respectful attitude towards private property, yet it appeared that the opposite was the case under French occupation. In the end, the author also points out the French had a poor attitude towards the Muslim people of the region, and they developed an appetite for natural resources that transcended their ability to conform to the law that they had agreed to abide by. The later point was in direct contradiction to existing agreements regarding the protection of the land and ensuring that it would be fertile for future generations. All of these facts, and more, contribute to the premise that the notion of bringing French law and fair treatment to the North African region was nothing more than lip service. There was no substance to the concept. To this end, Aisenberg has provided ample support for this portion of this thesis. Speaking to the issue of poor governance, Aisenberg remarks, “Failing to resolve conflicts about the social capacity of the law raised by the exceptional status of the North African occupation, deputies instead settled on an affirmation of the status quo, which restricted French activity and influence to the accepted borders of the conquered territory comprising Algiers and its environs.”2 Because of this truth, the point is made that this lack of governmental interference gave legitimacy to the military occupation of the region and gave the forces continued authority to exert their will throughout the region. To support this supposition, the author points out that the Governor-General at the time saw the status quo that was existent during the occupation as giving him the freedom he needed to advance the cause of the occupation. This eventually put him at odds with other officials throughout North Africa, further serving to deteriorate any sense of social order in the area. Many deputy ministers declared many components of the occupation as illegal, primarily because it took place without the consent of proper governmental authorities and not approval had been granted. In addition, many made the claim, as Aisenberg agrees with, that the occupation itself was undertaken in an indent way without proper planning and execution. Without tribal support throughout North Africa, primarily because the government was so fractured, the point is made that many pockets of resistance cropped up throughout the region that further served to destabilize social order and create a sense of illegitimacy on the part of the military government. Even the French forces suffered numerous losses during these conflicts, partly from disease and partly from not knowing their surroundings as the tribal forces did. This result in embarrassing instances where the French forces had to retreat from various areas, even during the height of the occupation. Because of this lack of consistency, and the infighting that had taken place throughout North Africa, once again Aisenberg’s claim that the very social order of the region was compromised during the occupation is well grounded and has support. Effectiveness of Primary Source Material Throughout his 30+ page expose, Aisenberg uses a great mix of primary and secondary source material that supports his main thesis. It is difficult to prove the mindset of the individuals who took part in historical events more than a century in the past, yet Aisenberg has taken the historical record and provided a balanced approach to this argument. To prove this point, the author does go to lengths to issue a critique of his own arguments, by providing secondary source material that are counter to his way of thinking. At one point, he remarks that “Among the conflicting proposals for resolving the exceptional status of occupied Algeria, those developed by the deputies Amedee Desjobert and Tocqueville were remarkable for their astute assessment of the situation, informed by crucial formulations of the facts of the occupied territory’s social potential.”3 There is also recent evidence that appears to note that French and North African leaders alike were in direct opposition to inhumane occupation practices and that they worked hard to preserve the moral integrity of the French invasion and their treatment of both North African people and the land in the region. This is in contradiction to Aisenberg’s main premise, and is comes with the weight of some history’s most influential theorists, yet the author still forms a valid argument in that the words of Tocqueville and that actions of others within the government and military were simply far too often contradictory in nature. Social order, in the view of the author, was nonexistent during the French Occupation, and the disorder that resulted created chaos, tribal infighting and battles, and the eventual humiliation of the French forces in terms of being able to not only live up to their word, but to respect of the integrity of the territory that they were occupying. This, obviously, would leave Aisenberg to the conclusion that this premise alone was sufficient cause for the eventual withdrawal of the French from North Africa. Conclusion/Provability of the Thesis Aisenberg’s article appears to be a shining example of historical arguments being based on solid empirical evidence in an age when actual first hand accounts are no longer available. The author takes numerous reliable and valid sources, both from within governmental agencies and historical theory, and weaves them around the supporting thesis. that the occupation was mired in difficulty from the beginning, and lack the moral authority to truly gain any traction. The people of North Africa were not respect, law was not honored, the spirit of signed treaties were violated, and social order disintegrated to the brink of chaos. All of these points were support, and counter arguments were presented. Certainly, there were many on both sides of the occupation that did act with integrity and were desiring to look out for the best interests of the people and the land of the region, but their voices appear to have been muffled by the reality the masses were simply derelict in their obligations to the same. In the end, Aisbernberg’s article provides a critical reflection of this important era in North African history and certainly makes for interest and informative reading. Bibliography Aisenberg, Andrew. “The Facts of Social Organization in the Debate over North Africa.” French Historical Studies 35 no. 2 (2012): 351-380. Read More