Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 July 4

= July 4 =

How do French people nowadays feel about France's colonial history in Algeria?
How do French people nowadays feel about France's colonial history in Algeria? Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You do know that it extended directly into France, with the return of the pieds-noirs, the Paris massacre of 1961, etc? It was not one of those wars which takes place in remote geographical locations without much direct impact on the imperial power. AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's definitely a good point. Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (consider the following as anecdotal)
 * Few of them ever cared, being concerned only that their conscripted sons won't be killed/injured in action during the Algerian war (very few were, so, then again, this concern just disappeared at the end of the war). Those who care are still few, and, depending on personal history and political views, may have the following feeling


 * betrayal (descendants of pieds-noirs & harki; nationalists with belief that tens of millions of arab muslims could have been turned into ordinary French the way Sephardi Jews were -- Crémieux Decree)
 * relief of having dumped this [insert derogatory] (this will include people with belief that tens of millions of arab muslims could NOT have been turned into ordinary French)
 * pride for the good work (the good work could be different, and even opposite: pieds-noirs will insist they actually build Algeria out of small retarded slavers pirate holes; communists will be very proud that they have -- if they were actually born, that is-- helped independence)
 * shame or anger (usually in the form "I am so ashamed of what you did --yes, you, despite not even being born at the time, but I know you would--, you deserve that I punch you in the face, you torturer, you terrorist, you racist"). Again, opposing political side will have opposing ideas about what/who deserve shame or anger.
 * concern about current terrorism (some perp are indeed connected to Algeria)
 * resignation, that things of the past must still be coped with
 * oh come on, leave me alone with this shit I have no part in
 * any number of these mixed
 * In any case, this part of French history, just like any history, is more of an ideological tool to push current political views (it is rich enough of good and bad deeds, to select whatever will confirm an activist's bias), that an issue in itself.
 * Basically, you'll have the same "this is awesome we have some many people from Algeria, it bring so much cultural enrichment nb: somehow "Cultural enrichment" redirect to Enrichment culture, this redirect is just nonsense " and "Are you kidding me? those retards/terrorist "chances pour la France" {nb: just search this, I think you'll find the results quite graphic. The expression meant "people France is lucky to have" was coined to support "aliens" {those "aliens" are actually legally French, but you'll get it}, and as been turned upside down by systematic sarcastic usage for each and every misdeed involving them --and there are no lack of such} do not belong here" debate as anywhere else (well, hard to call it a debate, just like anywhere).
 * Gem fr (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, explanation, and analysis, Gem fr! Thank you very much for this! Futurist110 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Futurist110, AnonMoos, and Gem fr, please participate at Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 4 if you have an opinion on the question. Nyttend (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My experience is that the vast majority of those under fourty years old and who's ancestors were not involved are not aware that France has a colonial history in Algeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:19C1:25F5:DC95:6F8 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Whose ancestors were not involved"? That would seem to limit your pool of acquaintance to those who (or whose parents) immigrated to France after 1962. HenryFlower 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the vast majority of French, including political leaders, are not aware that France has a history. There, fixed for you. I mean, France just failed to invite Russia to 75th Anniversary of D-Day, and invited Germany instead, because, you know, Germany was "involved"... Ye, sure it was. I really understand what Orwell meant: I am living it. Gem fr (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That postwar switcheroo was exactly what Orwell was making fun of, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Gem fr (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:19C1:25F5:DC95:6F8 -- the Algerian war almost led to a military coup in France, and did lead to the rewriting of France's constitution and the change from the French Fourth Republic to the French Fifth Republic. It's as important in French history as the Vietnam war is in United States history (though admittedly a decade earlier). AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. It's quite interesting that French emotions were so high about Algeria. Futurist110 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Futurist110, you might want to look at: The Algerian War in the French education system: a case study in the transmission of memory. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll definitely take a look at it! Futurist110 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Iranian tanker went through Gibraltar territorial waters, why?
Today’s news: Looking at maps on google for Gibraltar territorial waters, it looks like the Iranian tanker could easily have avoided Gibraltar and piloted through only Spanish waters. In fact, it looks like they had to go out of their way to go through the Gibraltar waters. Any pundits have made a guess at why they would go into British waters? I assume they had no idea they were going to be stopped, but still, it is quite an interesting path choice, especially after such another very interesting path (by the cape!) —Lgriot (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I could not find out the details, but there is a traffic separation scheme by the International Maritime Organisation in force in the strait of Gibraltar (see - I'm to lazy and uninformed to understand the navigational legalese), which separates east-bound and west-bound traffic into different traffic lanes. I don't know if the east-bound traffic necessarily goes through British territorial waters, but it might. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This source and a few others, I think, say something like this: "... as it paused to take on supplies off Gibraltar overnight." I imagine that supplies may be easier to get from Gibraltar than from other nearby ports. So it might want to sail closer to Gibraltar to facilitate this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a traffic separation scheme in the Straight of Gibraltar. Eastbound traffic usually keeps to the Moroccan side, westbound traffic to the Spanish side. They could have steered through only Moroccan waters. For ships resupplying there are anchorages near Algeciras and Gibraltar. There's nothing strange about going around Cape of Good Hope. According to the above source, this ship was too big/heavily loaded for the Suez Canal. Going around the Cape also allowed them to avoid tolls and with cheap and non-perishable cargo like crude oil you aren't in a hurry anyway (unless it's desperately needed). I don't know how diplomatic relations between Iran/Syria and Egypt/Yemen/Eritrea/Djibouti are right now, but it could be a factor too. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As this was enforcement of EU sanctions, the Spanish could equally well have done the deed instead. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * PiusImpavidus, you say "They could have steered through only Moroccan waters." So this would be to get to the anchorage near Gibraltar? I don't think anyone is disputing that the vessel was boarded in Girbraltarian waters? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If they had not gone to the anchorage, they could have avoided Spanish and Gibraltarian waters. One can go to the anchorage near Algeciras without passing through Gibraltarian waters too, but one cannot reach any of the Gibraltarian anchorages without passing through Spanish waters (as far as Spain is concerned (officially), there are no Gibraltarian waters). With sufficient planning and no unexpected events the ship could have passed through the straight without stopping for resupply, so it seems that they really didn't expect to be boarded (unless they actually wanted to provoke an incident). PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for clarifying. I wonder would there have been any contact between the tanker and the Gibraltar Port Authority? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:PiusImpavidus you can’t avoid Spanish waters if you are entering the Mediterranean via the straight. That is because of Ceuta. Look at maps of the territorial waters in that area. —Lgriot (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed (although Morocco objects) . I didn't know that. Funny. Gem fr (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fuzzy. The UK claims 3NM territorial waters around Gibraltar (not recognised by Spain), Spain and Morocco each claim 12NM (more or less, or to the midpoint in case of overlapping 12-mile-zones), but the claims around the Spanish possessions on the south side of the strait are not recognised by Morocco. The map depends on who made it.
 * UNCLOS defines the concept of transit passage through international straits so narrow that ships cannot stay in international waters. Status of the Strait of Gibraltar as such an international strait may or may not be fully recognised by the states surrounding it. Reading up on this I get the impression that as long as the ship claimed its right of transit passage, it could have passed through unimpeded, but stopping for resupply meant it was no longer in transit. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That last sentence is really interesting, I didn't know about this rule in international straights, thanks! --Lgriot (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably much the same reason the British went out of their way to send a flotilla through the Corfu Channel in 1946: Innocent passage and as an act of brinksmanship. See Corfu Channel incident and Corfu Channel case. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From the above it sounds more like carelessness on the part of the tanker's captain? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your help. So they were resupplying and were unaware of it all. —Lgriot (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be wrong of me to accuse the captain of "carelessness". He was probably sailing the vessel perfectly normally and safely. It's not clear to me if he was culpable in the attempt to subvert EU sanctions. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Following my question here above and your kind replies, I am better able to understand today's news, (this time in the strait of Hormuz...)
 * While reading on this, I found this amazing map. https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-6.4/centery:45.5/zoom:7
 * You can actually see the position of tens of thousands of ships in the world (if not 100s of thousands).
 * There are filters available, but just from the look of it, you can deduct that dark blue are ferries and other passenger ships like cruise liners, amber are fishing, pink are pleasure, green are goods-shipping and red are tankers, and turquoise include ships from various navies (but it seems that color is used by other types as well, like tugs). Just wanted to share as I found it really enlightening, especially, you can "see" the shipping lanes, as there are so many tankers and container ships in those lanes exactly. --Lgriot (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)