Bryan Kehler 18 August 2021

LOL @ "Sartre's fearless condemnation of state sanctioned violence..."

It only took him like 5 years to weigh the pros and cons before he "fearlessly" denounced tyranny of the Soviet Union. Camus did so as soon as word of the gulags got out.

Also, it takes a pretty willful misreading of Camus' statement about choosing his mother to arrive at: "I would defend my mother before Justice."
I believe the original quote was: "People are now planting bombs in the tramways of Algiers. My mother might be on one of those tramways. If that is justice, then I prefer my mother." Which I think ought to speak for itself.

To simplify Camus' and Sartre's views as being either pro- or anti-colonizer, I think, does a great disservice to these complex figures who lived and wrote with far more nuance. But if snappy soundbites are what you are after, perhaps the most appropriate one is where Camus simply says that he is on the side of Life.

Maciej Kaluza 18 August 2020

Thank You for that comment Valerie! I guess this must be the fault of my ebook edition then. I'm glad it is in the text!

Valerie Ceriano 17 August 2020

Just for the record, the footnote regarding Lidice does appear in English in the Vintage edition of "The Rebel" (p.185, Vintage International,1991, trans. Anthony Bower).

Maciej Kałuża 14 August 2020

In "The Rebel", when Camus mentioned the destruction of Czech village Lidice, he made a footnote, which is not in the English text of "The Rebel": "Il est frappant de noter que des atrocités qui peuvent rappeler ces excès ont été commises aux colonies (Indes, 1857 ; Algérie, 1945, etc.) par des nations européennes qui obéissaient en réalité au même préjugé irrationnel de supériorité raciale"

So, he did in fact compare the "repressions" in Algeria in 1945 to the nazi crimes in the occupied Czech republic. Following the Malagasy uprising, he wrote, concerning The French are doing the same thing, for which they condemned the Germans. (Camus at Comabt, p. 291).

So, in conclusion, I'd say no, he was not as much in opposition to Sartre. He is sometimes forced into an opposite side, several times by Sartre, many times by Sartre scholars, but it usually results from selective or arbitrary reading. His position was much more ambiguous. As, in truth was Sartre's.