“茅茅木桶的渣滓”:永久流放和后期殖民地肯尼亚的重建,1954–61

IF 0.6 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Social History Pub Date : 2023-05-26 DOI:10.1093/jsh/shad018
Niels Boender
{"title":"“茅茅木桶的渣滓”:永久流放和后期殖民地肯尼亚的重建,1954–61","authors":"Niels Boender","doi":"10.1093/jsh/shad018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article seeks to illustrate the emergence and significance of permanent exile in the latter years of British rule in Kenya. Drawing on concepts of the “state of exception” in the imperial context, the analysis places Kenyan policy into a longer history of penal practice. Exile as a mode of punishment was a permanent fixture in the repertoire of the British Empire as a method of controlling rebellious subjects. In Kenya, it was a tool to ostracize “troublemakers” from their home community, stabilizing the body politic in fractious moments. However, during the State of Emergency declared against the anti-colonial Mau Mau movement, the legal and spatial production of spaces of exception, settlements in the far-flung corners of the colony, reached its apotheosis. Drawing on long histories of colonial banishment, and specific legal precedents shrouded in liberal language, administrators hoped to make Kenya safe for a loyalist ascendancy by excising the “irreconcilables.” Critically, permanent exile was deemed necessary for a section of the population “infected” with Mau Mau ideology. In large exile settlements, rebellious subjects were expected to be remade into pacified workers. Colonial correspondence, as well as the petitions of the displaced, reveal the production of exile during these years as well as its misdiagnosis of the various imaginations of the exiled. “Settlers,” at exile camps like Hola, retained an autonomous vision of “land and freedom,” refusing their forced migration, and eventually precipitating the collapse of the scheme.","PeriodicalId":47169,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“The Dregs of the Mau Mau Barrel”: Permanent Exile and the Remaking of Late Colonial Kenya, 1954–61\",\"authors\":\"Niels Boender\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jsh/shad018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article seeks to illustrate the emergence and significance of permanent exile in the latter years of British rule in Kenya. Drawing on concepts of the “state of exception” in the imperial context, the analysis places Kenyan policy into a longer history of penal practice. Exile as a mode of punishment was a permanent fixture in the repertoire of the British Empire as a method of controlling rebellious subjects. In Kenya, it was a tool to ostracize “troublemakers” from their home community, stabilizing the body politic in fractious moments. However, during the State of Emergency declared against the anti-colonial Mau Mau movement, the legal and spatial production of spaces of exception, settlements in the far-flung corners of the colony, reached its apotheosis. Drawing on long histories of colonial banishment, and specific legal precedents shrouded in liberal language, administrators hoped to make Kenya safe for a loyalist ascendancy by excising the “irreconcilables.” Critically, permanent exile was deemed necessary for a section of the population “infected” with Mau Mau ideology. In large exile settlements, rebellious subjects were expected to be remade into pacified workers. Colonial correspondence, as well as the petitions of the displaced, reveal the production of exile during these years as well as its misdiagnosis of the various imaginations of the exiled. “Settlers,” at exile camps like Hola, retained an autonomous vision of “land and freedom,” refusing their forced migration, and eventually precipitating the collapse of the scheme.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social History\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shad018\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shad018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章试图说明在英国统治肯尼亚的后期,永久流亡的出现和意义。利用帝国背景下的“例外状态”概念,分析将肯尼亚的政策置于更长的刑罚实践历史中。流放作为一种惩罚方式,是大英帝国控制反叛臣民的一种永久固定手段。在肯尼亚,这是一种将“麻烦制造者”从他们的家乡社区驱逐出去的工具,在动荡的时刻稳定国家。然而,在宣布对反殖民主义的茅茅运动实行紧急状态期间,在殖民地偏远角落建立例外空间的法律和空间生产达到了顶峰。利用殖民流放的悠久历史,以及被自由主义语言掩盖的具体法律先例,管理者希望通过剔除“不可调和者”,让忠诚派在肯尼亚占据优势地位。至关重要的是,对于“感染”茅茅意识形态的一部分人来说,永久流放被认为是必要的。在大规模的流放地,反叛的臣民被改造成平定的工人。殖民地的信件,以及流离失所者的请愿书,揭示了这些年来流亡的产生,以及对流亡的各种想象的误诊。在Hola等流亡营地的“定居者”保留了“土地和自由”的自主愿景,拒绝被迫迁移,最终促成了该计划的崩溃。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“The Dregs of the Mau Mau Barrel”: Permanent Exile and the Remaking of Late Colonial Kenya, 1954–61
This article seeks to illustrate the emergence and significance of permanent exile in the latter years of British rule in Kenya. Drawing on concepts of the “state of exception” in the imperial context, the analysis places Kenyan policy into a longer history of penal practice. Exile as a mode of punishment was a permanent fixture in the repertoire of the British Empire as a method of controlling rebellious subjects. In Kenya, it was a tool to ostracize “troublemakers” from their home community, stabilizing the body politic in fractious moments. However, during the State of Emergency declared against the anti-colonial Mau Mau movement, the legal and spatial production of spaces of exception, settlements in the far-flung corners of the colony, reached its apotheosis. Drawing on long histories of colonial banishment, and specific legal precedents shrouded in liberal language, administrators hoped to make Kenya safe for a loyalist ascendancy by excising the “irreconcilables.” Critically, permanent exile was deemed necessary for a section of the population “infected” with Mau Mau ideology. In large exile settlements, rebellious subjects were expected to be remade into pacified workers. Colonial correspondence, as well as the petitions of the displaced, reveal the production of exile during these years as well as its misdiagnosis of the various imaginations of the exiled. “Settlers,” at exile camps like Hola, retained an autonomous vision of “land and freedom,” refusing their forced migration, and eventually precipitating the collapse of the scheme.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social History was founded over 30 years ago, and has served as one of the leading outlets for work in this growing research field since its inception. The Journal publishes articles in social history from all areas and periods, and has played an important role in integrating work in Latin American, African, Asian and Russian history with sociohistorical analysis in Western Europe and the United States.
期刊最新文献
“Longing and Hope and Sadness and Anger”: Disentangling the Social and the Human Meanings of Agency, Agency of Meaning: On Synthesis and Entanglement Agency, Politics, and the “Impossible Domestic”: A Response to Walter Johnson’s “On Agency” On the Agency of Environmental History Is Agency a Useful Historical Concept?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1