Can someone check that I put these words in the right spot of where they need to go? Please correct me if I'm wrong! :)
In the 1950s in Europe, to BROACH such a controversial subject as the Algerian separatist movement in a public forum was assured to immediately EVOKE rage from partisans on both sides of the issue. This was the case when the French-Algerian novelist, philosopher , and journalist Albert Camus was in Stockholm to receive his Nobel prize for literature in 1957. In earlier interviews the very ASSERTION Camus had attempted to PROMULGATE his view on the separatists' ploy of attacking civilians and public transportation. A poor paraphrase of his ACKNOWLEDGE in a major newspaper article said that he could not see how an attack on his family members on a public tram could be equal to justice; it was misconstrued to CONVEY that he had no sympathies with the separatists. By the time Camus was able to INDICATE his true statement and intentions, The damage to his position had been done. He repeatedly INVOKED a non violent resolution to the conflict through his speaking and writing but was continually challenged to ARTICULATE That he had taken sides in the conflict by those who ATTRIBUTED the newspaper article as their proof. Since the newspaper ELICITED the misconstructes statement to Camus it fueled the tensions, something Camus certainly did not wish to happen.