For the people of the Third World, nationhood in the twentieth century frequently demands the solution of a dual complexity: on the one hand, a search for an identity long suppressed by colonialism; and on the other hand, an effort to come to terms with the problems engendered by often violent entry into modernity. The challenge presented by this quest for self-identity and self-determination is at once paradoxical and parallel. Under foreign domination the colonized is denied his past, his real history; in addition he is forbidden any role in the making of his future. No wonder then that modern revolutionary movements stress the necessity for recovering the colonized's indigenous background — his roots — as a necessary corollary to independence and the eradication of colonialism.
In a sense the student of history also shares in the problem. Particularly is this true of students in North African history for in the pursuit of knowledge about the Maghrib's past and present, where does one turn historiographically? For purposes of organization only, three prospective “schools” of historical analysis are considered here: colonialist, nationalist, and Western. In suggesting these three “schools,” I make no attempt to be inclusive; many other variations are possible. The model used here is presented simply as a guide to complement the discussion which follows.
The aspiring historian may first seek truth in history as written by the colonialist. In most instances, however, this will prove inadequate because the colonizer usually relegates the pre-colonial past to obscurity; history under dynamic colonialism or protectionism is inevitably seen as forever enlightened whereas independence is chaotic and despotic, if the colonizer bothers to write about the reborn nation at all.
