Il a été remarqué et critiqué que les travaux des historiographes sur le colonialisme en France n’étaient pas bien élaborés contrairement au courant postcolonial. Pour ces critiques, ce n’est pas logique puisque la France a été incontestablement un grand empire. Ces dernières années, on constate qu’une nouvelle historiographie, consciente de ces contradictions, voit le jour. Face à ce phenomène, il est nécessaire de présenter, d’analyser quelques historiens tels que Gilles Manceron, Claude Liauzu, ou Françoise Vergès. On doit aussi prendre en compte, de l’autre côté, la position de Denis Lefeuvre et celle de Pierre-André Targuieff pour y mettre une balance. Que disent-ils et sur quoi réflechissent-ils? Comme le fait Gilles Manceron dans Marianne et les colonies, ils veulent démontrer que la république française a été une république coloniale. Une autre argumentation proposée par Claude Liauzu ainsi que par d’autres, c’est que non seulement le colonialisme mais un racisme français ont été consolidés à travers la domination coloniale. Cependant, ils n’estiment pas que le sentiment de “repentance” ni la fusion du totalitarisme avec le colonialisme soient souhaitables pour le savoir et la réflexion postcoloniaux. Pour eux, l’histoire coloniale de France a été criminelle.

It was often noted and criticized that the historical works on colonialism in France has not been much evolved contrary to the postcolonial current. According to the critics, it is not logical because France was incontestabl great empire. In recent years, it seems that an unprecedented historiography is going to be established with consciousness of those contradictions. That phenomenon makes us to present and analyse some historians like Gilles Manceron, Claude Liauzu, or Françoise Vergès. We should consider also Denis Lefeuvre, Pierre-André Taguieff from another camp for a balance. What are they speaking and reflecting on? Like Marianne et les colonies de Gilles Manceron, they want to prove that French Republic has been constantly a colonial republic. Another argument proposed by Claude Liauzu and the others is that through the colonial domination not only the colonialism but also a certain French racism has been consolidated. However, they consider that neither the “repentant” attitude nor the totalitarian way of thought be helpful for the postcolonial recognition. To them, the French colonial history was criminal.

It was often noted and criticized that the historical works on colonialism in France has not been much evolved contrary to the postcolonial current. According to the critics, it is not logical because France was incontestabl great empire. In recent years, it seems that an unprecedented historiography is going to be established with consciousness of those contradictions. That phenomenon makes us to present and analyse some historians like Gilles Manceron, Claude Liauzu, or Françoise Vergès. We should consider also Denis Lefeuvre, Pierre-André Taguieff from another camp for a balance. What are they speaking and reflecting on? Like Marianne et les colonies de Gilles Manceron, they want to prove that French Republic has been constantly a colonial republic. Another argument proposed by Claude Liauzu and the others is that through the colonial domination not only the colonialism but also a certain French racism has been consolidated. However, they consider that neither the “repentant” attitude nor the totalitarian way of thought be helpful for the postcolonial recognition. To them, the French colonial history was criminal.

Colonial Histoire, Colonialism, Racism in France, Gilles Manceron, Claude Liauzu