"The Dregs of the Mau Mau Barrel": Permanent Exile and the Remaking of Late Colonial Kenya, 1954-61
"The Dregs of the Mau Mau Barrel": Permanent Exile and the Remaking of Late Colonial Kenya, 1954-61
复制标题
《Mau Mau 桶的渣滓》：永久流放和晚期殖民地肯尼亚的重建，1954-61
DOI：
10.1093/jsh/shad018
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Boender N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boender N
本文旨在说明永久流亡的出现和意义，在英国统治肯尼亚的最后几年。借鉴帝国背景下的“例外状态”概念，分析将肯尼亚政策置于更长的刑事实践历史中。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手段。在肯尼亚，这是一种将“麻烦制造者”驱逐出其家乡社区的工具，在难以驾驭的时刻稳定了政治体。然而，在针对反殖民主义的茅茅运动宣布的紧急状态期间，在殖民地偏远角落建立的例外空间、定居点的法律的和空间生产达到了顶峰。凭借殖民流放的悠久历史，以及笼罩在自由主义语言中的特定法律的先例，管理者希望通过消除“不可调和的矛盾”，使肯尼亚安全地成为效忠者的优势。重要的是，对于一部分“感染”茅茅意识形态的人来说，永久性的纺织品被认为是必要的。在大型流亡定居点，叛乱的臣民预计将被改造成安抚的工人。殖民地的书信往来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者各种想象力的错误诊断。在像霍拉这样的流放营中，“定居者”保留了“土地和自由”的自主愿景，拒绝被迫迁移，最终加速了计划的崩溃。
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,permanentexile 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.