Postcolonial terrorist The example of Nelson Mandela
Postcolonial terrorist The example of Nelson Mandela
复制标题
后殖民恐怖分子 纳尔逊·曼德拉的例子
DOI：
10.1080/13534640500331666
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
Boehmer E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boehmer E
2005年7月发生在伦敦和埃及的事件--以及早些时候发生在纽约和巴厘岛的事件，以及几乎持续不断的发生在巴厘岛的事件--重新将后殖民主义的注意力集中在政治暴力的性质和理由上。对于后殖民主义批评家来说，这个焦点变得特别尖锐，因为历史上列宁主义者、托洛茨基主义者以及后来的狂热主义者对革命和先锋恐怖作为解放的理解占据了主导地位。[1]事实上，特别是自从法农的有影响力的《大地的苦难》（1961）出版以来，恐怖或恐怖主义的煽动，被一些后殖民批评家视为反殖民条件所固有的。[2]遵循一条至少在最初试图质疑这种假设的路线，本文探讨了后殖民革命思想和历史如何增加和校准我们对当代宗教和政治引发的现状破坏（威胁和实际）现象的理解，通常被称为恐怖。后殖民主义的视角是否会鼓励我们打开恐怖主义更微妙的历史和/或叙事维度，使我们能够描绘诊断手段-目的过程，对空间和时间的竞争要求，以及关键代理人（肇事者，支持者，金融支持者）的动机和角色？例如，它是否允许我们在特定的环境和特定的时间里将所谓的恐怖定义为对身份和现代性，或者对“纯洁”和自由的对立渴望的冲突？
Events in London and Egypt in July 2005–as well as earlier in New York and Bali, and almost continuously in Iraq–have refocused postcolonial attention on the nature of and justifications for political violence. For postcolonial critics this focus has become particularly sharp because of the pre-eminence which has historically been given to Leninist, Trotskyist, and subsequently, Fanonist understandings of revolutionary and vanguardist terror as liberatory. 1 Indeed, especially since the publication of Fanon’s influential The Wretched of the Earth (1961) which crucially urged an intensification of anti-colonial struggle beyond the Gandhian passive resistance of 1920–50, terror, or terroristic agitation, has been seen by a number of postcolonial critics as inherent to the anti-colonial condition. 2Following a line which seeks at least initially to interrogate such an assumption, this essay asks how postcolonial revolutionary thinking and history might add to and calibrate our understanding of the contemporary phenomenon of religious-and politically-inspired destruction of the status quo (threatened and actual), often named terror. Might a postcolonial perspective encourage us to fold open more nuanced historical and/or narrative dimensions of terror–dimensions that would allow us to plot diagnostic means-end processes, competing claims to space and time, and the motivations and roles of key agents (perpetrators, supporters, financial backers)? Might it, for example, allow us to configure what is called terror as–in certain contexts and at certain times–a conflict over rival aspirations to identity and modernity, or to ‘purity’and freedom?