|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 China's Selective Memory（zt＋部分翻译) |
 |
kaka111
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
俺的英语很糟糕，这里的英语好的人很多，之所以翻译一下不是服务这里的网友而是另有原因，顺便供人批评也好。
原文联接：
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61708-2005Apr17.html
China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has made clear that it doesn't think Japan is deserving of similar status.
中国作为联合国常任理事国反对日本获得同样的地位。
You might wonder why not. After all, Japan is one of the world's largest contributors of foreign aid and most generous backers of the United Nations, a successful democracy for more than a half-century, with a powerhouse economy and a constitution that forbids aggression.
人们可能会奇怪：为什么呢？ 毕竟，日本是世界上最大的对外援助国、最慷慨的联合国支持者、一个超过50年的成功民主实体、拥有发电站般具有拉动力的强劲经济并且不再参与侵略。
But here's the problem, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao explained last week: "Japan needs to face up to history squarely." After another weekend of anti-Japanese protests and riots in China, China's foreign minister yesterday amplified that "the main problem now is that the Japanese government has done a series of things that have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people . . . especially in its treatment of history."
问题在于，中国总理温家宝上周声明：“日本需要正视历史”。在一个带有暴力的反日示威周末之后，中国外长表示：“主要的问题是日本政府作了一系列的事情伤害了中国人民的感情...尤其是在对待历史的问题上。”
Truth in history is an interesting standard for great-power status. One intriguing response would be for Japan to embrace it and suggest politely that, if China wants to keep its Security Council seat, it ought to do the same.
对于是否够格强权国家，是否忠实于历史是个有趣的标准。日本人可以有礼貌的建议，既然中国想要保持自己的常任理事国地位，理应也这么做。
There's no doubt, as Premier Wen implied, that some Japanese have a hard time admitting the terrible things their troops did in China, Korea and other occupied Asian countries before and during World War II. Apologies sometimes seem to be mumbled, and textbooks sometimes minimize past crimes.
这一段是讲日本对于二战反省不够，有些教材淡化罪行。
Recently, for example, Japan's education ministry approved a textbook that refers to the 1937 Nanjing Massacre as an "incident" during which "many" Chinese were killed, though some estimates of civilian deaths run as high as 300,000. News of these textbooks helped spark the anti-Japanese riots in Chinese cities.
这一段是具体讲教材有哪些问题。（这两段的内容，中国很熟悉，故偷懒）
But put the issue in some perspective: Many textbooks receive ministry approval in Tokyo, and no school is forced to use any particular one. Issues of war guilt or innocence, and of proper historiography, are debated endlessly and openly in Japanese newspapers, magazines and universities. Some Japanese demonstrate against politicians who won't go to Yasukuni Shrine -- where Japan's war dead, including some who were judged war criminals, are honored -- while other Japanese demonstrate against politicians who do go.
这一段说日本的教材很多，不止一种，而且学校可以自由选择。日本的报纸、杂志、大学对于这些问题可以自由讨论。对于惨拜靖国神社（战争死难者纪念，其中包括二战战犯），日本人有的要求政治家参拜，有的反对。
Compare this to the situation in Premier Wen's China. There is only one acceptable version of history, at least at any given time; history often changes, but only when the Communist Party decides to change it.
对比之下，在任何同一时刻，中国只有一个版本的历史教材。然而，这个教材的内容却随着G产D的心意在改变。
For example, according to a report by Howard W. French in the New York Times last December, many textbooks don't mention that anyone died at what the outside world knows as the 1989 massacre of student demonstrators near Tiananmen Square. One 1998 text notes only that "the Central Committee took action in time and restored calm." Anyone who challenges the official fiction is subject to harsh punishment, including beatings, house arrest or imprisonment.
比如说，关于89年的事件中国的教材几乎从来不提。只有1998年的一本提到“中央采取行动平息事态”。敢于挑战官方说法的人统统受到严惩。
And if the 300,000 victims of the Nanjing Massacre are slighted in some Japanese textbooks, what of the 30 million Chinese who died in famines created by Mao Zedong's lunatic Great Leap Forward between 1958 and 1962? No mention in Chinese texts; didn't happen.
如果说死难30万人的南京大屠杀被日本教材淡化了，导致中国饿死3千万人的毛泽东的疯狂大跃进又怎么说？从来没有教材提过，从来没有。
Well, you might say, how a nation treats its internal history is less relevant to its qualifications for the Security Council than whether it teaches its children honestly about its wars with other nations. A dubious proposition, but no matter; as the Times found in its review of textbooks, Chinese children do not learn of their nation's invasion of Tibet (1950) or aggression against Vietnam (1979). And they are taught that Japan was defeated in World War II by Chinese Communist guerrillas; Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima and Midway don't figure in.
当然，你可以说，一个国家如何处理内部的历史与之是否够格当常任理事国的关系不如它如何就对外战争教育儿童重要。这个说法值得怀疑，但是没关系，我们就照这个标准来。中国的儿童从来就没有被教育过，中国50年对西藏的非法占领以及中国1979年侵略越南。而且，中国儿童被告知，是GCD游击队打败了日本法西斯，珍珠港偷袭，硫磺岛战役，中途岛战役却没有被算进来。
"Facing up to history squarely" isn't easy for any country. Americans don't agree on how to remember the Confederacy. Russia can't yet admit to Soviet depredations in the Baltic republics. And, yes, Japan too often sees itself purely as a victim of World War II.
“正视历史”对于任何国家都容易做到。 美国人不知道如何记住联盟（个人猜测是指南北战争中的南方Confederacy，北方的叫Union ）。俄国人记不住苏维埃对于波罗的海诸共和国的掠夺。日本也经常把自己看作单纯的二战受害国。
But in countries that permit open debate, historical interpretations can be constantly challenged, revised, maybe brought closer to the truth. In dictatorships that use history as one more tool to maintain power, there's no such hope.
但是，在允许自由讨论的国家，对于历史的各种描绘解释都会受到质疑和修订，就可能会更加的接近真相。而在专制国家，历史只是又一个维护统治的的工具。不会有这种希望。
China's Communists used to find it useful to vilify Russia in their history texts. These days, for reasons of China's aspirations to lead Asia, Japan makes a more convenient villain. Next year might be America's turn. The reasons may be complex, but none of them has much to do with facing history squarely.
中国G产D曾经发现批判苏联很管用（维护统治）。这段时间，为了当亚洲的领导，日本成为一个好用的坏人。 也许明年就轮到美国了。也许是为了某个复杂的原因，但绝对无助于“正视历史”。
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
