# data[].attributes.headline
Extreme Violence and Terror, Lack of Genocide

# data[].attributes.subject
Extreme Violence and Terror, Lack of Genocide

# data[].attributes.body
After preliminary examination, the French army in the conquest of Algeria in northern Africa, by the current definition of “genocide” given by the United Nations, must be said to have not committed genocidal actions on the native tribes within Algeria. There were many points validated to bring a charge of genocide toward France, including the enfumades of the Ouled Riah tribe and others, and the multiple “razzias” that were performed by French troops, the “razzia” initially being a local military custom of the indigenous population. Also, from primary sources that historians have utilized, the standard of living and activities that the common French foot soldier was thrust into and the information sent back to relatives in the metropole from Algeria show an extreme level of violent activities toward both military and civilian combatants. However, again from the UN’s definition of genocide, there must be intent to physical destroy a group based on nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. If this were pure genocide, there would have been a complete lack of conditioning of the indigenous population to become French, instead there would be complete mass destruction of the physical entities that were all indigenous tribes in Algeria. Some tribes were decimated surely, and yet even by some of the most extreme primary accounts, these exterminations were believed to have been wrought to eventually save more lives than the initial cost, which in times of war or even conquest and empire give little humanity back to the activity itself but do not prove a sense of complete systemic genocide.

# data[].attributes.body
At the heart of this debate is whether or not the French colonizing efforts are considered genocide or not. While some argue that it was in fact not a genocide, but rather a byproduct of imperialism, I disagree. It is important to note that colonizing efforts around the worlds were often massive travesties; however, when you look at Algeria, and the figures from lecture, Algeria lost half of its population in only half a century, this is more than just a mass atrocity, it's a genocide. Furthermore, while Brower argues that there was no "systematic attempt to push Algerians entirely out of the country and take their land," I tend to agree more with Olivier Le Cour Grandmaison (qtd. in Gallois 75). A summary of Grandmaison's publication, Coloniser. Exterminer: Sur la guerre et l’e´tat colonial is offered at the beginning of Gallios's article. Grandmaison argues that French Imperialism had mostly been annihilating in aim because of the forms of rule, killings, and military techniques used against the Algerian people. I tend to agree more with this synopsis, as a result, my preliminary opinion of this matter reflects that.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Bower and Hannoum make good arguments for why the French did not commit genocide, yet acknowledge the violence that France used in conquering its colonial territories. Genocide has widely been defined as systematic violence undertaken against a specific group of people. Yet most historians agree that French genocide against the Algerians took place starting in 1945 (Gallois).  However, as Sessions notes, the French razzia was a campaign targeting the economy, not the Algerian people. Therefore, Bower, Hannoum and Gallois make a factional argument rightly that the violence was not genocidal in its nature, but rather a campaign to sustain the French troops while forcing the enemy to their knees by burning their agricultural economy to the ground.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the French did commit genocide in Algeria. The French forces had intentions to "exterminate" the Algerian population so that they could colonize the land to fit the French cultural ideals. I would consider this to be genocide because of the terrible things that they forced upon the Algerians. Their goal was to wipe out the Algerian population.

# data[].attributes.body
The French conquest of Algeria resulted in undeniable violence and inflicted severe harm on the Algerian people, amounting to a massacre. Notably, the French engaged in racial stereotyping, mainly through the Arab bureaus, and discriminatory views of the Algerians. While Gallois interprets these events as genocide, historians such as Brower and Hannoum counter this view, highlighting the absence of systematic extermination. The core of the debate lies in discerning intent and how we define genocide. While there is no denying the extent of the violence, labeling it as genocide is debated.

# data[].attributes.headline
The French Committed Genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.subject
The French Committed Genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.body
The French deliberately went into Algeria to change their culture and make everything French. In doing so, they killed many of the Algerian population and oppressed the people who were left. They did not care about the Algerian people or culture, only that they did not get in the way of the French, and if they did, they were dealt with. By modern definition, the French committed genocide.

# data[].attributes.headline
The French Committed Genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.subject
The French Committed Genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.body
The French did commit genocide in Algeria. They went onto the land and tried to change the culture, traditions, and ways of living of the indigenous people, tying to implement the French's culture and lifestyle. This led to the killing and genocide of the people of Algeria, and ethnic cleansing of their being. By coming in with the intent of of changing and "getting rid of" a nationality, this is genocide in itself. The action of the French people, committing mass killings and setting fire to their culture makes me believe that this was a conflict that falls into the category of genocide.

# data[].attributes.body
The French certainly committed genocide in Algeria. Coming in with the intent to essentially exterminate the people of Algeria and begin military settlement does not lead to any other belief about the events of this time. France wanted to implement their own ideas and lifestyles in this region, not taking into account the fact that the people of Algeria already had their own culture and ways of life. The French military came into Algeria with the intent of targeting economic resources, and planned to do so regardless of who may "get in their way", so to speak. For these reasons, I do firmly believe that this conflict should be considered a genocide.

# data[].attributes.body
The invasion, conquering, and pacification of Algeria by the French from 1830-1871 was not a genocide. The conquest's intentions were not based on the extermination of all Algerians. While the invasion had multiple human rights violations, war crimes, and other awful things happen, it was not genocide. The French mission was to conquer the country and to put down resistance to French colonization. The French mission was not to eradicate the native populations. That doesn't mean what they did was right or justified, but to label it as genocide is incorrect. The French Conquest of Algeria is another horrible chapter in European Colonialism, with its effects still seen in the present day.

# data[].attributes.body
This wasn't genocide at all. Genocide is defined as "violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Did this invasion get ugly? Perhaps, but the intent specifically was not there. While the French may have been instituting their own morals, it's not like they killed Algerians just because they were Algerian. Thus, it is irrational to call this a genocide strictly on the definition.

# data[].attributes.body
I think a genocide was bound to occur when the French began the conflict. The French went into a region with a defined culture and traditions, and began implementing their norms. This mindset instantly shows that their intent was to essentially replace or indoctrinate the native population, creating an extension of more French citizens. Just this action is in itself is a cultural genocide. The actions of the French forces, from mass killings to indiscriminate fire, lead me to believe the conflict constitutes a genocide.

# data[].attributes.body
Make no mistake about it, this was genocide, and any other argument is frankly abhorrent and incorrect. Mass killings of the people already living there for the sole purpose of imperialism, while also forcing ideologies onto the native people and land is clear cut genocide. This was nothing short of it. Any other take on this is nonsense.

# data[].attributes.body
France did commit genocide in Algeria. Gallois writes in the article, “… the French Deputy Amedee Desjobert noted in 1838, it was commonly believed that ‘the first step towards colonisation was the extermination of indigenous peoples’” (72). The French went in with the intention of killing the indigenous group on the island. They even at times killed masses of people at once. Gallois writes, “… what is generally accepted is that the French empire induced an Algerian demographic catastrophe” (74).

# data[].attributes.headline
The French did not commit genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.subject
The French did not commit genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.body
The evidence of genocide in the French pacification of Algeria is lacking in most aspects. The government in any way did not set policies of extermination of any of the groups living in the area including the Berbers, Arabs, and Jews. The raids that were done were common place at the time as prior to the French coming to the area pirates ruled the land. Brower stated this as his reason "the lack of a national policy and the unsystematic character of violence"(pg 75). Trying to fit modern definitions of genocide to history from hundreds of years ago is never going to look good for anyone involved.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that genocide did occur during the French conquest of Algeria. The very nature of the French people conquering Algeria as a settlers colony and implementing a lifestyle of commercial farming that was incompatible with he lifestyle of the native peoples makes genocide almost inevitable as the invaders only valued the land and not the people on it. This is made even more clear by French strategies such as the razzias, the enfumade show there was intent to exterminate the people living on the land and this was further confirmed by French policy which intentionally excludes Islamic people from French society and forces them out. This is a clear deliberate killing with the intention of destroying the group which is genocide.

# data[].attributes.body
In their conquest of Algeria, the French did commit genocide.  A major factor in this was the fact that Algeria was a settler colony and as mentioned by the articles, imperial conflicts to establish settler colonies already possess potentially genocidal conditions, and I believe it is clear that the conquest and colonization of Algeria fulfilled these conditions. First, the widespread and standardized use of tactics such as the razzia and enfumade wherein no distinction between combatants and civilians were made certainly shifts the needle towards genocide being committed in Algeria. Second, the goal of eradicating or displacing the native Algerians from their land also indicates genocide, which can be seen most damningly in French Deputy Amedee Desjobert's 1838 quote where he asserted that "the first step towards colonization was the extermination of indigenous peoples," (Gallois, 72). These instances demonstrate that genocide was committed by the French in Algeria.

# data[].attributes.body
France took control of Algeria through annihilation, violence, and assimilation. French troops were brought in to start a war, not fight one. They massacred men, women, and children - a clear sign that this was more than simple fighting which would typically only involve men. They utilized razzias to "exterminate" large populations at one time. Jennifer Sessions writes that this "had a purely destructive purpose that contravened existing French conventions of war." (pg. 31). This demonstrates that what happened in Algeria was a level of violence even above wars.

# data[].attributes.headline
The French did not commit genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.subject
The French did not commit genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.body
While France did partake in rather barbaric manners of pacification, evidence that France advanced a policy of extermination of either the non-native Arab or indigenous Berber peoples is lacking. While raiding and terrorizing the tribes was commonplace, the systematic murder or replacement of either Arabs or Berbers lacks any firm evidence, as Gallois provides no such evidence. One might think it would be easy to prove genocide in relation to France's actions towards those they encountered in Algeria, but Gallois provides no such evidence, the closest primary source material provided being the individual accounts of soldiers who, as Gallois pointed out, were spurred on by the treatment of Frenchmen by the locals. Furthermore, there was no major population migration that would indicate a systematic replacement of the locals, with only less than a million Frenchmen settling in Algeria by 1954 (lecture), meanwhile, the Arab and Berber populations grew faster in proportion after the initial population shock. The question is, then, if this was a genocide by the French, intentional or not, why bother with rounding up the populations of tribes following raids and forcibly moving them to other parts of Algeria? Why not just save the expenses and eliminate them where they are?

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the French absolutely committed genocide on the people of Algeria. The French went in to Algeria and used brutal force on the Algerians with the intent to kill them. In the span of 40 years the population declined from 4 million to 2 million. The French forced the Algerians to be removed from their homes. The policies and politics that gave the Muslim Algerians no representation in their own government. I don't think that just because some people don't view it as genocide that doesn't mean that it isn't. There are people that deny the genocides of the Americas, Australia, Armenia, and the Holocaust.

# data[].attributes.headline
The French committed genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.subject
The French committed genocide in Algeria

# data[].attributes.body
France used brutality, discrimination, and assimilation to strip away any national identity that Algerians had. They displaced and oppressed thousands of people and took steps to erase their culture and history, and ultimately made Algeria a province of France. French troops, led by General Bugeaud tortured , massacred, and uprooted hundreds of thousands of people. The type of violence used against Algerians was a very deliberate attempt at the extermination of specifc population of people which resulted in a large loss of life. The tactics used, the goal of the "civilizing mission", and the number of lives lost among this one specific group of people should be considered genocide.