征服者南非宪政的演变。扬-斯穆特说得对吗?乌布恩图的回应

IF 0.7 0 PHILOSOPHY
Phronimon Pub Date : 2024-02-20 DOI:10.25159/2413-3086/14922
M. Ramose
{"title":"征服者南非宪政的演变。扬-斯穆特说得对吗?乌布恩图的回应","authors":"M. Ramose","doi":"10.25159/2413-3086/14922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Diphetogo tseo di tlisitsego boipuso mafatsheng a Afrika gase tsa fetola nyenyefatso ya bothopja le bokgoba bjo bo gapeleditsweng ke mafatshe a Bodikela bja mose wa mawatle. Sebakwa ke sona se taodisong ye. Re ema ka la gore magoro kamoka a bophelo a tshwanetse go mothofatswa, botho ebe bjona motheo wa phedisano magereng ga batho kamoka “Afrika-borwa” le lefatsheng ka bophara. Moono wo o tshwanetse go ba karolo ya mananego kamoka a thuto go tloga thutong ya motheo go fihlela thutong tje phagamego.\nThe ethically unjustified violence of Western colonisation continues in the economic and epistemic spheres in Africa, despite the reluctant concession by the Western coloniser to political independence. The constitutional histories of politically independent Africa are mainly the reaffirmation of the imposed domestication of the legal paradigm of the Western colonial conqueror. This is constitutionalism. With particular reference to conqueror South Africa, I take the “Union of South Africa” as the commencement of constitutionalism. General Smuts, later Prime Minister, was among three Afrikaner Generals engaged in the founding and the development of the “Union of South Africa.” He is selected here for his claim that the White colonial conquerors from Western Europe are endowed with superior intelligence. This can be used to continue the subjugation of indigenous conquered peoples into an indefinitely long future. This article challenges this claim because it is ethically untenable and fundamentally at odds with constitution-ness underlying the ubu-ntu legal paradigm. Given the evolution of constitutionalism in conqueror South Africa until the constitution of 1996, was Smuts right in his claim? In addition to the ethical indefensibility of this claim, it is argued further that the “epistemic decolonial turn” overlooks “decolonisation” as argued by Africans, and disregards humanisation—mothofatso—as the fundamental counter to the dehumanisation project of colonialism.","PeriodicalId":42048,"journal":{"name":"Phronimon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evolution of Constitutionalism in Conqueror South Africa. Was Jan Smuts Right? An Ubu-ntu Response\",\"authors\":\"M. Ramose\",\"doi\":\"10.25159/2413-3086/14922\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Diphetogo tseo di tlisitsego boipuso mafatsheng a Afrika gase tsa fetola nyenyefatso ya bothopja le bokgoba bjo bo gapeleditsweng ke mafatshe a Bodikela bja mose wa mawatle. Sebakwa ke sona se taodisong ye. Re ema ka la gore magoro kamoka a bophelo a tshwanetse go mothofatswa, botho ebe bjona motheo wa phedisano magereng ga batho kamoka “Afrika-borwa” le lefatsheng ka bophara. Moono wo o tshwanetse go ba karolo ya mananego kamoka a thuto go tloga thutong ya motheo go fihlela thutong tje phagamego.\\nThe ethically unjustified violence of Western colonisation continues in the economic and epistemic spheres in Africa, despite the reluctant concession by the Western coloniser to political independence. The constitutional histories of politically independent Africa are mainly the reaffirmation of the imposed domestication of the legal paradigm of the Western colonial conqueror. This is constitutionalism. With particular reference to conqueror South Africa, I take the “Union of South Africa” as the commencement of constitutionalism. General Smuts, later Prime Minister, was among three Afrikaner Generals engaged in the founding and the development of the “Union of South Africa.” He is selected here for his claim that the White colonial conquerors from Western Europe are endowed with superior intelligence. This can be used to continue the subjugation of indigenous conquered peoples into an indefinitely long future. This article challenges this claim because it is ethically untenable and fundamentally at odds with constitution-ness underlying the ubu-ntu legal paradigm. Given the evolution of constitutionalism in conqueror South Africa until the constitution of 1996, was Smuts right in his claim? In addition to the ethical indefensibility of this claim, it is argued further that the “epistemic decolonial turn” overlooks “decolonisation” as argued by Africans, and disregards humanisation—mothofatso—as the fundamental counter to the dehumanisation project of colonialism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Phronimon\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Phronimon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25159/2413-3086/14922\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phronimon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2413-3086/14922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Diphetogo tseo di tlisitsego boipuso mafatsheng a Afrika gase tsa fetola nyenyefatso ya bothopja le bokgoba bjo bo gapeleditsweng ke mafatshe a Bodikela bja mose wa mawatle.Sebakwa ke sona se taodisong ye.Re ema ka la gore magoro kamoka a bophelo a tshwanetse go mothofatswa, botho ebe bjona motheo wa phedisano magereng ga batho kamoka "Afrika-borwa" le lefatsheng ka bophara.Moono wo o tshwanetse go ba karolo ya mananego kamoka a thuto go tloga thutong ya motheo go fihlela thutong tje phagamego.政治独立的非洲的宪政史主要是对西方殖民征服者强加的法律范式的国内化的重申。这就是立宪主义。具体到征服者南非,我认为 "南非联邦 "是宪政的开端。斯穆特将军,后来的总理,是参与创建和发展 "南非联盟 "的三位阿非利加将军之一。他之所以被选中,是因为他声称来自西欧的白人殖民征服者拥有超群的智慧。这可以用来在无限长的未来继续征服被征服的原住民。本文对这一主张提出质疑,因为它在伦理上站不住脚,而且从根本上违背了乌布恩图法律范式所依据的宪政性。鉴于征服者南非直到 1996 年宪法之前的宪政演变,斯穆特的主张是否正确?除了在伦理上站不住脚之外,本文还进一步论证了 "认识论上的非殖民化转向 "忽视了非洲人所主张的 "非殖民化",无视人性化--Mothofatso--作为对殖民主义非人性化项目的根本性反击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Evolution of Constitutionalism in Conqueror South Africa. Was Jan Smuts Right? An Ubu-ntu Response
Diphetogo tseo di tlisitsego boipuso mafatsheng a Afrika gase tsa fetola nyenyefatso ya bothopja le bokgoba bjo bo gapeleditsweng ke mafatshe a Bodikela bja mose wa mawatle. Sebakwa ke sona se taodisong ye. Re ema ka la gore magoro kamoka a bophelo a tshwanetse go mothofatswa, botho ebe bjona motheo wa phedisano magereng ga batho kamoka “Afrika-borwa” le lefatsheng ka bophara. Moono wo o tshwanetse go ba karolo ya mananego kamoka a thuto go tloga thutong ya motheo go fihlela thutong tje phagamego. The ethically unjustified violence of Western colonisation continues in the economic and epistemic spheres in Africa, despite the reluctant concession by the Western coloniser to political independence. The constitutional histories of politically independent Africa are mainly the reaffirmation of the imposed domestication of the legal paradigm of the Western colonial conqueror. This is constitutionalism. With particular reference to conqueror South Africa, I take the “Union of South Africa” as the commencement of constitutionalism. General Smuts, later Prime Minister, was among three Afrikaner Generals engaged in the founding and the development of the “Union of South Africa.” He is selected here for his claim that the White colonial conquerors from Western Europe are endowed with superior intelligence. This can be used to continue the subjugation of indigenous conquered peoples into an indefinitely long future. This article challenges this claim because it is ethically untenable and fundamentally at odds with constitution-ness underlying the ubu-ntu legal paradigm. Given the evolution of constitutionalism in conqueror South Africa until the constitution of 1996, was Smuts right in his claim? In addition to the ethical indefensibility of this claim, it is argued further that the “epistemic decolonial turn” overlooks “decolonisation” as argued by Africans, and disregards humanisation—mothofatso—as the fundamental counter to the dehumanisation project of colonialism.
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
Phronimon
Phronimon PHILOSOPHY-
自引率
25.00%
发文量
5
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信