叛国罪:对邦德尔兹沃特船长的审判和定居者自我欺骗的政治

IF 0.1 Q3 HISTORY
Robert Gordon
{"title":"叛国罪:对邦德尔兹沃特船长的审判和定居者自我欺骗的政治","authors":"Robert Gordon","doi":"10.54146/newcontree/2022/89/04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper concerns official “truth-seeking” about the Bondelzwarts Rebellion and its brutal suppression in 1922 by the South African administration in its newly-mandated territory of South West Africa. These events generated a number of official accounts, namely the administrator’s report, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent debates in the South African parliament and the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. These inquisitorial modes of truth-seeking are contrasted with the adversarial juridical mode in the treason trial resulting from the Bondelzwarts Rebellion, all of which share a common core, a particularistic, explanatory framework of describing individual motives and actions, thereby tracing a chain of events that led to collective violence. Like other commissions investigating “racial violence” in this era, they argued that while “inferior races” might be causally implicated, such violence reflected the failure of individual colonial officials to convince the “natives” of the benefits of colonialism. Remarkably, the judgement in the Treason Trial is ignored in these official debates at establishing the “truth”. It is striking how key government players denied the emerging consensus of what occurred. Tavris and Aronson’s work on essentialism and cognitive dissonance is applied to understand this situation, suggesting the importance of self-delusion for understanding the workings of colonialism.","PeriodicalId":52000,"journal":{"name":"New Contree","volume":"s1-7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High Treason: The trial of the Bondelzwarts kaptein and the politics of settler self-delusion\",\"authors\":\"Robert Gordon\",\"doi\":\"10.54146/newcontree/2022/89/04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper concerns official “truth-seeking” about the Bondelzwarts Rebellion and its brutal suppression in 1922 by the South African administration in its newly-mandated territory of South West Africa. These events generated a number of official accounts, namely the administrator’s report, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent debates in the South African parliament and the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. These inquisitorial modes of truth-seeking are contrasted with the adversarial juridical mode in the treason trial resulting from the Bondelzwarts Rebellion, all of which share a common core, a particularistic, explanatory framework of describing individual motives and actions, thereby tracing a chain of events that led to collective violence. Like other commissions investigating “racial violence” in this era, they argued that while “inferior races” might be causally implicated, such violence reflected the failure of individual colonial officials to convince the “natives” of the benefits of colonialism. Remarkably, the judgement in the Treason Trial is ignored in these official debates at establishing the “truth”. It is striking how key government players denied the emerging consensus of what occurred. Tavris and Aronson’s work on essentialism and cognitive dissonance is applied to understand this situation, suggesting the importance of self-delusion for understanding the workings of colonialism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Contree\",\"volume\":\"s1-7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Contree\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54146/newcontree/2022/89/04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Contree","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54146/newcontree/2022/89/04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文关注的是1922年南非政府在其新委任的西南非洲领土上对邦德兹沃茨叛乱及其残酷镇压的官方“寻求真相”。这些事件产生了一些官方报道,即行政长官的报告、调查委员会的报告以及随后在南非议会和国际联盟常设任务委员会的辩论。这些寻求真相的审问模式与邦德兹沃茨叛乱导致的叛国罪审判中的对抗性司法模式形成对比,所有这些模式都有一个共同的核心,一个描述个人动机和行为的特殊的解释性框架,从而追踪导致集体暴力的一系列事件。就像这个时代其他调查“种族暴力”的委员会一样,他们认为,虽然“劣等种族”可能有因果关系,但这种暴力反映了个别殖民官员未能让“当地人”相信殖民主义的好处。值得注意的是,在这些确立“真相”的官方辩论中,叛国罪审判的判决被忽视了。令人惊讶的是,关键的政府官员否认了人们对所发生事情的共识。Tavris和Aronson关于本质主义和认知失调的研究被用于理解这种情况,表明自我欺骗对于理解殖民主义的运作的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
High Treason: The trial of the Bondelzwarts kaptein and the politics of settler self-delusion
This paper concerns official “truth-seeking” about the Bondelzwarts Rebellion and its brutal suppression in 1922 by the South African administration in its newly-mandated territory of South West Africa. These events generated a number of official accounts, namely the administrator’s report, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent debates in the South African parliament and the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. These inquisitorial modes of truth-seeking are contrasted with the adversarial juridical mode in the treason trial resulting from the Bondelzwarts Rebellion, all of which share a common core, a particularistic, explanatory framework of describing individual motives and actions, thereby tracing a chain of events that led to collective violence. Like other commissions investigating “racial violence” in this era, they argued that while “inferior races” might be causally implicated, such violence reflected the failure of individual colonial officials to convince the “natives” of the benefits of colonialism. Remarkably, the judgement in the Treason Trial is ignored in these official debates at establishing the “truth”. It is striking how key government players denied the emerging consensus of what occurred. Tavris and Aronson’s work on essentialism and cognitive dissonance is applied to understand this situation, suggesting the importance of self-delusion for understanding the workings 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
New Contree
New Contree HISTORY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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