【2020-09-14】
既然割命割到他老人家头上了,今天就多说几句,休谟最令人惊奇的地方是,他太早熟了,而且超前时代也太多了,他10岁或12岁上爱丁堡大学(当时上大学年龄一般是14岁),一头扎进书堆,他说从教授那里根本听不到书上没有的东西,看书就行了,所以最后也没毕业。
休谟25岁开始写《人性论》,28岁完成,这迄今仍被认为是他最重要的著作,包含了他几乎所有重要的哲学思想(依我看唯一没包含的是《自然宗教对话录》中的那些),可是此书出版后得到反应却十分冷淡,他失望之余反省了(more...)
【2020-09-14】
既然割命割到他老人家头上了,今天就多说几句,休谟最令人惊奇的地方是,他太早熟了,而且超前时代也太多了,他10岁或12岁上爱丁堡大学(当时上大学年龄一般是14岁),一头扎进书堆,他说从教授那里根本听不到书上没有的东西,看书就行了,所以最后也没毕业。
休谟25岁开始写《人性论》,28岁完成,这迄今仍被认为是他最重要的著作,包含了他几乎所有重要的哲学思想(依我看唯一没包含的是《自然宗教对话录》中的那些),可是此书出版后得到反应却十分冷淡,他失望之余反省了(more...)
【2020-09-08】
斯文赫定游记给我印象较深的几个点,随便记一下:
1)除了其他,语言天赋是他成功的很大帮助,
2)当时欧洲对他可能获取的地理知识的需求极为旺盛,既有列强出于军政外交考虑的需求,也有知识界和大众的需求,所以(A)他的考察报告出版商抢着要,而且篇幅巨大,每次动辄十几卷,(B)很容易获得赞助和支持,而且都来自列强最高层,(C)每次回去都被各国地理学会请去巡回演讲,从这些可以看出驱动其冒险事业的激励所在,
3)所以他的旅行一次比一次财力雄厚(其中很大笔资助来自大财主诺贝尔),名气也一次比一次大,后几(more...)
【2020-07-29】
1812-15年的英美战争好像完全是因为通信速度太慢才打起来的,当时英国以枢密院令(Orders in Council)对法国实施禁运,阻止中立国商船前往法国港口,激怒了美国,可是,就在美国宣战前几天,英国外交部已经通知国会准备暂停执行枢密院令,一周后,枢密院令被正式撤销,问题是,在当时的通信条件下,这一信息无法及时传达给美国人。
而同时,美国的宣战决定41天后才传到伦敦,英国闻讯后,起初只采取了一些较克制的措施,不想把事情闹大,另一方面,撤销枢密院令的消息向西走的更慢,50天后才传到麦迪逊耳朵里,但此时,他已不愿收手,因为他知道此时伦敦已得到宣战的消息,而他不知道伦敦的反应会是什么,故而不想放弃先手优势。
The British made thei(more...)
The British made their greatest concession to the United States in June 1812. On 16 June 1812, two days before the United States declaration of war, Lord Castlereagh, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs announced in Parliament that the Order in Council would be suspended.[2]
On the very day that the Minister took his formal leave from the United States[clarification needed], 23 June 1812, a new British Government headed by Lord Liverpool provisionally repealed the Order in Council.[3]
Forty-one days after the United States Congress declared war, the news reached London on 29 July 1812. Two days later, the Ministry ordered its first counter-measures. It forbade British ships to sail except in convoys, and restrained American ships in British ports. The Orders in Council had been repealed on 23 June 1812, but the ministers did not intend to take additional measures until they could learn the American reaction. Word of the repeal of the Orders did not reach President James Madison until 12 August 1812, some fifty days later. Even then he refused to halt hostilities because he did not know how Britain had reacted to the declaration of war.[4]
我在一篇旧文中也曾讲过,1879年的祖鲁战争也是因为通信迟缓才打起来的,殖民部根本不想打,可是以当时的通信节奏,殖民部无法从伦敦有效的指挥驻地长官的行动,更有趣的是,这一状况其实很快就要改变了,当时电报线已经铺到德班,只是还没铺到开普敦。【2020-07-12】
遗传证据显示,波利尼西亚人在前哥伦布时代曾多次造访美洲海岸,Cochran大叔问道:是什么吸引他们去那儿的?他猜大概是某种贸易机会,然后他考虑了波利尼西亚人有什么可以拿出来卖的,最后想到了猪,可是问题来了,猪很容易在美洲繁殖,要是真有贸易,为啥西班牙人没在那儿看到猪?考古学家也没挖到猪骨头?大叔的解释是:卖的一定是公猪。
我对大叔的这个想法不太感冒,考虑到波利尼西亚人曾经征服了那么多极其遥远的岛屿,或许根本不需要为他们的远航寻找特别理由,当人口压力升高,冲突加剧,就会一批批的往外探索,寻找新领地,这已经成了他们的惯常做法。
不过,虽然我不同意他的观点,大叔帖子里有一段话还是非常精彩的,值得单独分享:
标签:
But they had pigs, and the Amerindians did not. Imagine that sharp Polynesians traded pigs for various valuata ( cornmeal, manioc, sweet potatoes, chocolate, maybe decorative metal objects) .
Male pigs. The Polynesians, being a bit more sophisticated than contemporary Ivy League graduates, understood that generating piglets requires both boars and sows. Actual, biological, males and females: identification is not enough.
@罂粟花上宝塔山:即使公猪为什么考古学家也没有发现猪骨头,难道也被熬汤吃次奥肚子里了 @whigzhou: 动物骨骼变成化石并被挖到的几率很小,所以零星贸易没留下化石记录并不奇怪,但规模化种群也没留下化石记录就有点说明问题了,大数定律 【2020-07-15】 @黄章晋ster:波利尼西亚人跨越南太平洋至少要要花三个月,如果随船还装有猪的话,大概率装运的是猪的遗体,而不会是活猪。 @钮钴禄_铁哥: 信风自东往西,波利尼西亚人朝美洲是逆风,不知如何驶往? @whigzhou: 夏威夷人若先往北再折向东,便是顺风,即当年马尼拉-Acapulco航线的最后一段 @whigzhou: 大帆船从马尼拉到Acapulco需要4个月,从夏威夷出发应该不需要三个月那么久 @whigzhou: 首先,我觉得Cochran大叔公猪贸易的说法很不认真,不值得我为他辩护,其次,逆风和航程过久的反对理由依我看不成立,除了我已经说明的两点,更重要的是:波利尼西亚远航者在出发之前是不知道自己要去那里的,船上带活猪而不是带猪肉的理由是为了在新定居点饲养,而不只是储备粮或贸易品。 @whigzhou: 当你离开世代居住的那个岛屿,开始一次极不可能找到归途的远航,去探索你全然无知的遥远海域时,你船上装的东西不可能是为贸易而准备的,而只能是为途中生存和在新定居点开始新生活而准备的,贸易只是其偶遇副产品。【2018-03-10】
@whigzhou: A)食物获取技术进步->提高单位面积土地的食物获取量->降低游动性,B)交通技术进步->扩大当天往返距离;A+B->提升每天返回单一营地的可行性->达到某个临界点:定居->提升对土地作长期投资的激励->提升延迟满足禀赋->加深对环境的改造->作物驯化->固定资产形成->goto A和B->进入正反馈循环……定居农业起源的大致脉络,所有元素他们都注意到了,但(more...)
【2017-05-02】
@whigzhou: 铁取代青铜可能从两方面削弱了对长距离贸易的需求:1)铁矿分布广泛,2)青铜的两种主原料铜和锡很少共存一地,而冶铁只须一种矿物。这一削弱,加上铁器的廉价易得,或许部分解释了青铜文明在地中海世界的崩溃,因为铁器普及让旧精英阶层对矿产地和贸易路线的控制变得一文不值,也不再能独占武器优势。
@太文公_96861: 廉价技术普及进而贵族精英阶层遭受打击。步兵取代骑士好像也这样。是不是伴随着政治平民化(more...)
《群居的艺术》新书发布座谈会(6月16日)之后,《南方周末》记者石岩先生向我提出了一组问题,并且很慷慨的允许我略过我不想回答的,所以我就略过了其中两个。
1,书的三部分结构很有意思,它让我推测你写作的过程和思考的过程可能是相反的:你是身在一个秩序解耦的大型社会,再去反推秩序是怎么建立起来的,脚手架是怎么拆除的,是不是?
答:实际上,我所经历的顺序是3-1-2,首先,对现代大型社会和市场体系,我自然有着直接而真切的认识,早些年专注于经济领域的写作时,也曾着力写过许多市场带给我们的种种好处,然后,当我读到邓巴的理论时,被他的深刻见解所打动,意识到这是观察早期人类社会的一条重要线索,也和我的已有知识相容,接着,一个困惑就很自然的冒了出来:如何看待现代大社会与传统小社会的强烈反差?这促使我去关注那些曾被我熟视无睹、却默默支撑着现代社会的制度和文化元素,最终,循着这条线索,我发现我对文化与社会的许多认识被串了起来,结果便是这本书。
2,三部分的关系:第一部分是战争史,是暴力建立秩序的过程;第二部分是“软实力”,是暴力之外的共同体的构成因素;第三部分是第一二部分的反过程,就像结构主义和解构主义一样,是不是这样?
答:我选择略过这个问题。
3,书的三部分可以看到你的知识谱系,第三部分让人想起你做过程序员,大学学的是经济管理,大概大学时代对西方思想史、政治经济学有特别的兴趣;第一部分让人觉得你大概对人类学特别感兴趣;第二部分兼有人类学和世界史的背景。这些专业知识跟你的人生经历有什么关联?
答:历史和人类学是我的长期兴趣,这是两个有很多素材和故事却没多少理论的学科,对历史的兴趣在小孩子当中大概是很普遍的,但传统或主流的历史著作有个问题,就是它们很大程度上是浮于表面的政治史,很少能告诉你古人究竟是怎么过日子的,生活在古代社会究竟是怎样一种体验,这就很难满足我的好奇心,年鉴学派也只是稍(more...)
【2017-02-14】
这两份书单的质量非常高,其中不少是我打过五星的,估计其余的也不错,打算通读:
The 25 most stimulating economic history books since 2000
Big History and “Deep Determinants” (published since 2000)
封侯拜爵的神仙们
辉格
2016年12月11日
中国民间信仰以其神仙繁多而著称,宋代仅湖州一地的寺观祠庙里供奉的神祗,有史料可查者即有92个,扣除名号重复者,还有50多个,粗略估算,全国各地的神祗数量大约介于乡镇数和村庄数之间,看来古代中国人『积极造神,见神即拜』的名声并非虚浪。
如此多神仙得到敬拜,还要归功于神仙来源的多样化,和大众在神仙制造方式上的创造性;早期神祗来源大致和其他文化相仿,比如司掌某种自然力的自然神,或者被认定为某一族群共同祖先的始祖神,然而自中古以降,一种新型神祗开始大量涌现。
这些新神都是不久前还生活于人世的真实人物,因某种显赫成就或奇特经历而被认为拥有神力;认定神力的入门标准很低——担任过高官,参加过某次战役,遭受过冤屈,或者离奇死亡——总之,任何在大众眼里有点特别的地方(more...)
Can Islam Be Reformed? History and human nature say yes.
伊斯兰教能够被改革吗?历史和人的本性告诉我们:能。
作者:Daniel Pipes @ 2013-07-08
译者:Tankman
校对:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny)
来源:http://www.danielpipes.org/13033/can-islam-be-reformed
Commentary requested an internet supplement for this article and I chose the key passage on the Medieval Synthesis from my 1983 book, In the Path of God; Islam and Political Power. To read it, click here.
《评论》杂志要求我为这篇文章补充些互联网材料。我选择了我1983年出版的关于中世纪整合的书中关键的一段。该书名为《在神的道路上:伊斯兰和政治权力》。阅读点这里。
Islam currently represents a backward, aggressive, and violent force. Must it remain this way, or can it be reformed and become moderate, modern, and good-neighborly? Can Islamic authorities formulate an understanding of their religion that grants full rights to women and non-Muslims as well as freedom of conscience to Muslims, that accepts the basic principles of modern finance and jurisprudence, and that does not seek to impose Sharia law or establish a caliphate?
伊斯兰目前代表了一种倒退,激进和暴力的力量。它只能保持这种状态吗?或是能被改革,变得更加温和,现代且与邻为善呢?伊斯兰权威们能让他们的宗教给予妇女和非穆斯林完全的权利,并给穆斯林信仰自由,接受现代金融和司法的基本原则,而且不寻求强制实施伊斯兰教法或者建立哈里发国吗?
A growing body of analysts believe that no, the Muslim faith cannot do these things, that these features are inherent to Islam and immutably part of its makeup. Asked if she agrees with my formulation that “radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution,” the writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali replied, “He’s wrong. Sorry about that.” She and I stand in the same trench, fighting for the same goals and against the same opponents, but we disagree on this vital point.
越来越多的分析家认为不会,穆斯林信仰不能够做这些事情,这些特征内化在伊斯兰当中,成为其不可变结构的一部分。作家Ayaan Hirsi Ali【译注:一位索马里裔荷兰籍女权分子、无神论者、作家及政治人物,以批评伊斯兰教、反对割礼及女性生殖器切割而知名】一书的作者被问到是否同意我的说法“激进伊斯兰是问题,温和伊斯兰是解药”时,她说:“他是错的。对这点我感到遗憾。”她和我站在同一战壕,追求同一目标,和相同的敌人战斗,但是我们在这一要点上存在分歧。
My argument has two parts. First, the essentialist position of many analysts is wrong; and second, a reformed Islam can emerge.
我的论述有两部分。第一,很多分析家的本质主义立场是错误的;第二,革新的伊斯兰可以涌现 。
Arguing Against Essentialism
对本质主义的驳斥
To state that Islam can never change is to assert that the Koran and Hadith, which constitute the religion’s core, must always be understood in the same way. But to articulate this position is to reveal its error, for nothing human abides forever. Everything, including the reading of sacred texts, changes over time. Everything has a history. And everything has a future that will be unlike its past.
声称伊斯兰不可被改变,则意味着可兰经和圣训只能以同一种方式被理解,而这两者构成了该宗教的内核。但是这个论断显示了自身的谬误,因为人类不可能永远不变的遵循某个事情。一切,包括对圣典的解读,随着时间改变。一切事物都有自身的历史。一切事物都有一个与过去不同的未来。
Only by failing to account for human nature and by ignoring more than a millennium of actual changes in the Koran’s interpretation can one claim that the Koran has been understood identically over time. Changes have applied in such matters as jihad, slavery, usury, the principle of “no compulsion in religion,” and the role of women. Moreover, the many important interpreters of Islam over the past 1,400 years—ash-Shafi’i, al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiya, Rumi, Shah Waliullah, and Ruhollah Khomeini come to mind—disagreed deeply among themselves about the content of the message of Islam.
只有不考虑人类本性,无视长达千年对可兰经阐释的变迁,一个人才能够宣称对可兰经的理解始终一成不变。 很多事都曾改变,像圣战,奴隶,高利贷,“宗教的非(more...)
——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——
The Misogynist Origins of American Labor Law
美国劳动法的仇女起源
作者:Jeffrey Tucker @ 2016-02-17
译者:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值)
校对:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅)
来源:FEE,https://fee.org/articles/government-s-war-on-women-1900-1920/
Many now credit government for past progress in gender equality, mostly because of late 20th-century legislation that appeared to benefit women in the workplace. This is a distorted view. Few know that government at all levels actually sought to prevent that progress.
如今许多人把过去在性别平等上的进步归功于政府,主要是因为二十世纪后期的立法看似让职业女性受益。然而这个观点与现实不符。鲜为人知的是,各个层级的政府都曾企图阻挠这种进步。
A century ago, just as markets were attracting women to professional life, government regulation in the United States specifically targeted women to restrict their professional choices. The regulations were designed to drive them out of offices and factories and back into their homes — for their own good and the good of their families, their communities, and the future of the race.
一个世纪前,正当市场吸引女性进入职场之际,美国的政府管制刻意将女性作为目标人群,限制她们的职业选择。这些管制措施的目的是把女性从办公室和工厂驱赶回家中——为了女性和她们家庭、社区,以及民族的未来。
The new controls — the first round of a century of interventions in the free labor market — were designed to curb the sweeping changes in economics and demographics that were taking place due to material advances in the last quarter of the 19th century. The regulations limited women’s choices so they would stop making what elites considered the wrong decisions.
这些新的控制措施——是整整一个世纪对自由劳动力市场的干涉浪潮的第一波——意在阻止由于十九世纪最后二十五年物质进步所带来的经济和人口统计上的巨大变化。管制措施限制了女性的选择,这样她们就无法做出当时社会精英眼中的“错误”决定。
The real story, which is only beginning to emerge within the academic literature, is striking. It upends prevailing narratives about the relationship between government and women’s rights. Many cornerstones of the early welfare and regulatory state were designed to hobble women’s personal liberty and economic advancement. They were not progressive but reactionary, an attempt to turn back the clock.
Women’s Work Is Not New
女性工作不是什么新鲜事
It was the freedom and opportunity realized in the latter period of the 19th century that changed everything for women workers, opening up new lines of employment.
The growth of industrial capitalism meant that women could leave the farm and move to the city. They could choose to leave home without having married — and even stay in the workforce as married women. They enjoyed more choice in education and professional life than ever before.
New clerical jobs, unknown a century earlier, were everywhere to be had. Women’s wages were rising quickly, by an impressive 16 percent from 1890 through 1920. Nor were women working at “exploitative” wages. A Rand corporation 标签:
Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women. 应该限制雇用已婚女性,在任何情形下,都应该禁止雇用处于分娩期前后的女性,禁止雇用期应该相当长。我们应该仿效英格兰,限制儿童、十八岁以下的年轻人和女性的工作时长。这种限制利于社会健康发展。……应该禁止女性和不满十八岁者上夜班,尤其应该禁止女性从事那些损害女性生理机体的工作。If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics — using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. 如果书中所谓的“女性生理机体”听着别扭,请记住那一代知识分子相信优生学——即使用国家的力量来制定生产模范种族的计划,因此他们将女性主要看成生育者,而非拥有选择权利的个人。 For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market. 对于任何相信政府有责任对人类生育做规划的人(当时大多数知识分子确实相信)来说,女性的角色至关重要。女性不能被允许做自己想做的事,去她们想去的地方,或过她们自己想要的生活。这就是当时一代人通常的思维模式,而正是这种思维模式让美国政府对劳动力市场进行前所未有的法律限制。 The Supreme Court Weighs In 最高法院的介入 Consider the Supreme Court case of Muller v. Oregon, which considered state legislation on maximum working hours and decided in favor of the state. Oregon was hardly unusual; it was typical of the 20 states that had already passed such laws directed at women’s freedom to choose employment. From the text of Colorado’s law passed in 1903: “No woman” shall “work or labor for a greater number than eight hours in the twenty-four hour day … where such labor, work, or occupation by its nature, requires the woman to stand or be upon her feet.” 看一下Muller诉俄勒冈州这个最高法院案例,最高法院认可对最大工作小时数的州立法,并做了对州政府有利的判决。俄勒冈州并非特别,它只是已经通过此类针对女性选择工作自由的法律的二十个州的典型。在1903年通过的科罗拉多州的法律这样写道:“没有女性”应该“在一天的24小时中进行8小时以上的工作或劳动……这里指的是需要女性站立完成的工作、劳动或职业。” The decision in Muller v. Oregon, then, ratified such laws all over the country. Today, this case is widely considered the foundation of progressive labor law. What’s not well known is that the brief that settled the case was a remarkable piece of pseudoscience that argued for the inferiority of women and hence their need for special protections from the demands of commercial enterprise. That brief was filed by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis. 于是,最高法院对Muller诉俄勒冈州案的判决正式批准了全国范围内此类法律。今天,该诉讼被普遍认为是进步主义劳动法的基础。而不为人所周知的是,终结该诉讼的那份简报是一篇令人称奇的伪科学文章,该简报论述了女性的劣势,认为女性需要特殊的保护使她们免受商业公司侵害。这份简报正是后来成为最高法院法官的Louis Brandeis提交的。 The Weird and Awful “Brandeis Brief” 奇怪又糟糕的“Brandeis简报” The “Brandeis Brief” argued that the law had to stop the massive influx of women into the workplace because women have “special susceptibility to fatigue and disease,” because female blood has more water in it than men’s blood. Their blood composition also accounts for why women have less focus, energy, and strength generally, according to the brief. “Brandeis简报”认为法律必须制止大量女性流入劳动力大军,因为女性“特别容易疲劳和生病”,原因是与男性相比,女性血液中含有更高比例的水分。按照这份简报的说法,女性的血液成分比例也解释了为何女性通常在注意力、精力和体力上逊于男性。。 “Physicians are agreed that women are fundamentally weaker than men in all that makes for endurance: in muscular strength, in nervous energy, in the powers of persistent attention and application.” “医生们认同女性在一切和耐力有关的方面从根本上弱于男性的观点:这些方面包括肌肉力量,神经系统的能量,持续保持注意力和坚持的能力。” Moreover, “In strength as well as in rapidity and precision of movement women are inferior to men. This is not a conclusion that has ever been contested.” 此外,“不仅在力量上,在速度和动作的精确度上,女性都劣于男性。这一结论从未受到过质疑。” Long hours are “more disastrous to the health of women than to men,” the brief explained. Government therefore needed to regulate work hours for the “health, safety, morals, and general welfare of women.” 长时间工作“对女性健康的损害要大于对男性,”该简报这样解释道。因此政府需要为了“女性的健康、安全、道德,以及生活幸福”对工作时长进行管制。 Restrictions on work hours were therefore essential. “It is of great hygienic importance on account of the more delicate physical organization of woman,” the brief said, “and will contribute much toward the better care of children and the maintenance of a regular family life.” 因此限制工作时间就至关重要。“考虑到女性生理组织更脆弱,(限制工作时间长度)在卫生上具有重大意义”,该简报这样写道,“这对关爱儿童和维持正常家庭生活都非常有益。” This brief is also notable for being the first to combine science, however bogus, and public policy in an appeal to the Supreme Court. 这份简报另一个闻名于世的原因,是它首次在向最高法院的上诉中将科学——尽管是冒牌货——与公共政策结合在一起。 Florence Kelley’s Dream of Nonworking Women Florence Kelley的女性不工作梦想 One might suspect that the entire effort was a male-driven one to stop female progress, but that’s not the case. A leader in the campaign for such labor interventions was writer and activist Florence Kelley. Modern progressives celebrate her activism for maximum work hours, the 10-hour workday, minimum wages, and children’s rights. Indeed, she is considered a great hero by the sanitized version of history that progressives tell each other. 现在可能有人会怀疑这整个事情都是男性驱使的,意在阻止女性进步,但事实并非如此。支持政府介入劳动力市场的运动的一位领导者Florence Kelley是一名作家兼激进分子。现代进步主义者颂扬了她在最大工作时长、十小时工作制、最低工资和儿童权益上的激进主义。没错,在进步主义者相互传颂的历史洁本中,她是一位伟大的英雄。 Before we cheer her accomplishments, however, we should look at Kelley’s driving motivation. Writing in the American Journal of Sociology, she explained that she wanted a minimum wage as a wage floor to stop manufacturing plants and retail outlets from employing women for less than they could otherwise employ men. 但在为她的成就欢呼之前,我们应该看看Kelley的动机。在发表于《美国社会学杂志》的文章上,她解释道,她支持最低工资标准是因为最低工资相当于工资门槛,可以不让工厂和零售商店以低于男性工资的标准雇佣女性。 Retail stores, she wrote, tend to “minimize the employment of men, substituting them for women, girls, and boys, employed largely at less than living wages.” It was precisely such competition from women and children that Kelley intended to stop, so that men could earn higher wages and women could return to traditional roles. 她写道,零售商店倾向于“将雇佣的男性数量最小化,取而代之的是以低于基本生活工资的薪酬雇佣女性,女孩和男孩。”Kelley希望制止的正是这些来自于女性和儿童的就业竞争,这样男性就可以赚更多工资,而女性则可以回归她们的传统角色。 In her book Some Ethical Gains through Legislation (1905), Kelley said that long working hours had to be ended for women because commercial life was introducing “vice” into communities (“vice” for this generation was the preferred euphemism for every manner of sexual sin). Worse, women were choosing commercial life over home “on their own initiative.” 在出版于1905年的《一些通过立法获得的伦理好处》一书中,Kelley认为女性长时间工作必须被阻止,因为商业化生活正在将“恶习”带入社区(那一代人更喜欢用“恶习”这一委婉说法来指代任何与性相关的罪孽 )。而更糟的是,女性在商业化生活和家庭二者间选择了前者,完全是“自己主动的”。 Kelley considered it necessary to restrict women’s rights for their own “health and morality,” she said, and also to boost men’s wages so women would stay home under the care of their mothers, fathers, suitors, and husbands. Kelley认为有必要为了女性的“健康和道德”限制女性权利。在书中她写道,限制女性权利也是为了推动男性工资的增长,从而使得女性可以留在家中受她们的父母、求婚者和丈夫们的照顾。 Moreover, to make such work illegal would make “righteous living” more practical for women. If they stopped being rewarded in wages, they would return to domestic life. Kelley even regretted the invention of electricity because it allowed women to work late at factories, when they should be at home reading to children by firelight. 此外,将女性长时间工作定为非法会使得“正直的生活”对女性来说更为实际可行。如果女性不再受工资回报的奖励,她们就会回归家庭生活。Kelley甚至还为电的发明感到遗憾,因为是电让女性可以夜晚在工厂工作,而此时她们本应在家中的炉火旁给孩子们讲故事。 In Kelley’s view, the ideal role of women with children is not to enter commercial life at all: “Family life in the home is sapped in its foundation when mothers of young children work for wages.” It’s an opinion with which some may still sympathize, but should such an opinion be imposed on working families by coercive legislation? For this paragon of progressive social reform, it was clear that lawmakers had to force women back into the home. 在Kelley看来,女性面对孩子的理想角色是完全不进入商业化生活:“当小孩的母亲们为工资工作时,家庭生活的基础被削弱了。”现在有些人依然支持这样的观点,但这样的观点应该通过强制性立法被强加于双职工家庭吗?按照这种进步主义社会改革的范式,立法者必须强迫女性回家。 Florence Kelley and the movement she represented sought to disemploy women and get everyone back to a premodern form of domestic living. She wanted not more rights for women but fewer. The workplace was properly for men, who were to get paid high wages sufficient for the whole family. That was the basis for her support of a range of legislation to drive women out of the workforce and put an end to the new range of options available to them, options that many women were happy to choose. Florence Kelley与她代表的运动,追求的是女性不被雇佣以及所有人都回归现代之前的家庭生活。她要的不是女性拥有更多权利,而是更少。工作场所适合男性,因为他们在那里能获得高薪酬,足够养活全家人。就是基于这样的理念,她支持通过广泛的立法将女性从工作场所驱逐出去,使女性不再有一系列新的选项——很多女性乐于选择的选项。 Fear the Women of East Prussia 对东普鲁士女性的恐惧 All this scholarship and activism is one thing, but what about the popular press? 这些学术研究和激进主义是一回事,那大众传媒又怎么样呢? Professor Edward A. Ross, author of Sin and Society, spoke out in the New York Times on May 3, 1908. In an article titled “The Price Woman Pays to Industrial Progress,” Ross warned that America’s “fine feminine form” was endangered by commercial society. Edward A. Ross教授是《罪与社会》一书的作者。他在1908年3月3日纽约时报上一篇题为《女性为产业进步所付出的代价》文章中警告了“精致的女性气质”正在被商业化社会所危害。 If women were permitted to work, an evolutionary selection process would govern their reproduction to the detriment of the human race. The graceful women who would otherwise bear beautiful children would be pushed out of the gene pool and replaced by “squat, splay-footed, wide-backed, flat-breasted, broad-faced, short-necked — a type that lacks every grace that we associate with women.” 如果允许女性工作,进化选择过程会主宰她们的生育,危害人类。本来会生养漂亮孩子的优雅女性会被挤出基因池,取而代之的将是“矮胖、八字脚、宽背、平胸、脸蛋平庸、脖子短的女性——这种类型的女性在任何方面都不能让我们把女性优雅与之相联系。” Ross’s example: “the women of East Prussia,” who “bear a child in the morning” and “are out in the field in the afternoon.” Ross举的例子是“东普鲁士女人”,她们“在早晨刚生完孩子”,“下午就下地”。 The professor explained that women who had worked in factories would not make suitable bearers of children. “Think of the discouraging situation of the young man who after he has been married two or three years finds he has a wife who at the age of 28 or 30 has collapsed, become a miserable invalid, suffering aches and pains all the time.” Why, she might find herself “unable to keep the home attractive.” And all of this “because of just a few extra dollars added to the profits of the employer or a few extra dollars saved to the consumer.” 该教授解释说,在工厂工作的女性不会是合适的生养者。“试想一下这样令人沮丧的情况:一个年轻男人在和他妻子结婚两三年后发现她在28或30岁的年纪垮掉了,终日一身病痛。”这样的妻子可能会发现自己“无法把家里弄得漂亮”。而这一切“仅仅是为了让雇主多赚几美元,或是让消费者多省几美元”。 Because of the dangerous combination of employment and natural selection, Ross contended, the government had to extend a hand to help these women by limiting working hours and establishing a high bar to enter the workforce: minimum wages. 由于雇佣劳动和自然选择的危险结合,Ross主张政府必须通过限制工作时长,并对进入劳动力市场设置高门槛——即最低工资——向女性伸出援手。 Only through such enlightened interventions could government save women from the workplace, so that they could return to the maternal duties of rearing “girls who have the qualities of fineness — grace and charm.” 政府只有通过这样高明的干预才能将女性从工作场所中拯救出来,这样女性才能回归母亲的角色,抚养“具有优雅和美丽这些优秀特质的女孩”。 Is This Satire? 讽刺否? If this reads like satire, sadly it is not. Nor were such views unusual in a generation of ruling-class intellectuals, politicians, and activists that embraced eugenics and rejected capitalism as too random, too chaotic, too liberating. Their plan was to reestablish and entrench by law the family and marital structure they believed in, which absolutely precluded a generation of women making individual choices over their own lives. Every trend panicked the eugenic generation. They fretted about the falling birth rate among those who should be reproducing and the rising birth rate among those who shouldn’t be. They worried about morals, about competition, about health, about culture. Most of all, they regretted the change that a dynamic economy was bringing about. 所有的时代趋向都让相信优生学的一代人恐慌。他们担心本应生养的群体的生育率在下降,而那些本不应生育的群体的生育率却在上升。他们忧虑于道德、竞争、健康和文化。所有问题中他们最担心的是充满活力的经济即将带来的改变。 Thus, from 1900 through 1920, a period that set the stage for a century of interventions in the labor market, hundreds of laws stifling women were passed in every state and at the federal level, too. None dared call it misogyny, but this is real history, however rarely it is told. 因此,1900至1920年间,政府为干预劳动力市场打好了舞台,这种干预持续了一个世纪。数以百计窒息女性的法律在所有州以及联邦层面上通过。没人敢称之为厌女,但这是真实的历史,尽管很少被说起。 Feminists against Regulation 对抗管控的女权主义 Laws that disemployed thousands of women nationwide led to vast protests. The Equal Opportunity League, an early feminist organization in New York, lobbied the state legislature to repeal the bans on work. And it received quite the press coverage. 使全国范围内成千上万的女性失去工作的法律导致了大范围的抗议。机会平等联盟是一个位于纽约的早期女权组织,它游说州立法机构废除对女性工作的禁令,得到了相当多的媒体报道。 “So-called ‘welfare’ legislation is not asked for or wanted by real working women,” the league said. “These ‘welfare’ bills are drafted by self-styled social uplifters who assert that working women do not know enough to protect themselves.” “所谓的“福利”立法不是真正在工作的女性要求或内心想要的,”该联盟如是说。“这些“福利”法案由自封的社会提升者起草,他们认为工作的女性不知如何保护自己。” “Are women people? Women are no longer the wards of the State and a law that is unconstitutional for a man voter is equally unconstitutional for a woman voter.” “女性也是人吧?女性不再是州政府的被监护人,对男性投票人来说违宪的法律对女性投票人来说一样违宪。” “Working at night is not more injurious than working in the daytime,” the league argued. “Many women prefer to work at night because the wage is higher, opportunities for advancement greater, and women with children can enjoy being with their child after school hours in the day time.” “在晚上工作不比在白天工作更有害”,该联盟这样认为。“许多女性喜欢在晚上工作是因为工资更高,升职的机会更大,而且有孩子的女性可以在白天孩子放学后和孩子在一起。” In fact, the phrase “equal pay for equal work” was not created to mandate higher wages for women. It was a league slogan invoked to argue against laws that made it “a crime to employ women even five minutes after the eight-hour day.” The phrase emerged as a preferred slogan to protest in favor of free markets, not against them. 事实上,“同工同酬”这一警句的出现并非为了强制提高女性工资。它是联盟的一句口号,用来反对那些认定“8小时工作时间之外即使多雇佣女性5分钟也是犯罪”的法律。这一广受欢迎警句的是作为亲市场而非反对自由市场的口号而提出的。 The Equal Opportunity League also passionately opposed the minimum wage law. Such laws, it argued, “while purporting to be for [women’s] benefit, would really be a serious handicap to them in competing with men workers for desirable positions.” 平等机会联盟也积极地反对最低工资法。联盟认为这样的法律“尽管本意是为了照顾(女性)利益,实质上却让女性在与男性工人竞争好职位时受到严重妨碍”。 In short, the conclusion of the League is that these proposed bills and laws, ostensibly intended to protect and shield the woman worker, will, if permitted to stand, unquestionably work her industrial ruin and throw her back into the slough of drudgery out of which she is just emerging after centuries of painful, laborious effort to better her condition. ("Women’s Work Limited by Law," New York Times, January 18, 1920) 简单来说,联盟的结论是这些提议中的法案和法律表面上意在保护女性工人,实际上一旦通过则毫无疑问会毁坏女性的职业生涯,将女性赶回家务重活的泥沼。而女性在经历数个世纪痛苦艰难的努力后才刚刚脱离这一泥沼而改善了自己的状况。(《女性的工作被法律所限》,《纽约时报》1920年1月18日。) Restriction Becomes Liberation? 限制变成了解放? The fairy tale version of history says that during the 20th century, government freed women to become newly empowered in the workplace. The reality is exactly the opposite. Just as the market was granting women more choices, government swept in to limit them in the name of health, purity, family values, and social uplift. Such laws and regulations are still around today, though they have been recharacterized in a completely different way. As Orwell might say, somewhere along the way, restriction became liberation. 历史的童话版本说,在20世纪政府给予了女性自由,让女性在工作场所拥有了权利。真相恰好相反。市场给予女性更多的选择,而政府却插手进来以健康、纯洁、家庭价值观和社会地位提升等名义限制女性的选择。这类法律和法规在今天仍然存在,虽然它们以完全不同的方式被重新描绘。正如奥威尔所说,在通往动物庄园路途中,不知从何处起,限制变成了解放。 (Author’s note: I’m grateful to Thomas Leonard’s Illiberal Reformers for providing the footnotes I followed to write this piece. Also, much more rethinking of Progressive Era politics and its impact on the family is discussed in Steven Horwitz’s Hayek’s Modern Family, newly published by Palgrave.) (作者附言:非常感激Thomas Leonard的《非自由的改革者》,循着该书提供的脚注,我写下了此文。另外,对进步时代的政治及其对家庭之影响的更多再思考,在Steven Horwitz所著的由Palgrave最新出版的《哈耶克的现代家庭》一书中有更多讨论。) (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。
——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——
BOOK REVIEW: ALBION’S SEED
书评:《阿尔比恩的的种子》
作者:SCOTT ALEXANDER @ 2016-04-27
译者:Tankman
校对:沈沉(@沈沉-Henrysheen)
来源:http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/
I.
Albion’s Seed by David Fischer is a history professor’s nine-hundred-page treatise on patterns of early immigration to the Eastern United States. It’s not light reading and not the sort of thing I would normally pick up. I read it anyway on the advice of people who kept telling me it explains everything about America. And it sort of does.
《阿尔比恩的种子》是历史学教授David Fischer 所作的九百页专著【校注:阿尔比恩,英国旧称,据说典出海神之子阿尔比恩在岛上立国的神话】。该书讨论了美国东部地区的早期移民的模式。阅读此书并不轻松,而且一般我也不会挑选这种书来读。但不管如何,我读完了。这是因为有人向我推荐此书,他们不断告诉我它能解释关于美国的一切。而某种程度上,此书做到了这点。
In school, we tend to think of the original American colonists as “Englishmen”, a maximally non-diverse group who form the background for all of the diversity and ethnic conflict to come later. Fischer’s thesis is the opposite. Different parts of the country were settled by very different groups of Englishmen with different regional backgrounds, religions, social classes, and philosophies. The colonization process essentially extracted a single stratum of English society, isolated it from all the others, and then plunked it down on its own somewhere in the Eastern US.
在学校,我们倾向于把初代北美殖民者看作是“英国人”,这是一个最不多元化的群体,并且构成了后来所有的多元性和种族冲突的背景。Fischer的论述则与此相反。这个国家的不同地区被非常不同的英国人群体开拓。这些群体有着不同的地区背景,宗教,社会阶级和哲学。殖民化过程其实是提取了英国社会的某个单一阶层,令其与其他阶层隔绝,而后在美国东部的某个地方打上该群体深深的烙印。
I used to play Alpha Centauri, a computer game about the colonization of its namesake star system. One of the dynamics that made it so interesting was its backstory, where a Puerto Rican survivalist, an African plutocrat, and other colorful characters organized their own colonial expeditions and competed to seize territory and resources. You got to explore not only the settlement of a new world, but the settlement of a new world by societies dominated by extreme founder effects.
我曾玩过电脑游戏《南门二》。这游戏是关于与游戏同名的星系的殖民活动的。游戏如此有趣的一个因素是其故事背景:一个波多黎各生存狂,一个非洲财阀,以及其他有色人种角色组织了他们自己的殖民探险,相互竞争,来占领领土和资源。你能探索的,不单单只是对新世界拓殖,而且是那种受极端奠基者效应支配的社会对新世界的拓殖。
What kind of weird pathologies and wonderful innovations do you get when a group of overly romantic Scottish environmentalists is allowed to develop on its own trajectory free of all non-overly-romantic-Scottish-environmentalist influences? Albion’s Seed argues that this is basically the process that formed several early US states.
当一群过度浪漫的苏格兰环保主义者被允许自由发展,不受其他群体影响时,你能得到什么样怪异的社会失序或是伟大创新呢?《阿尔比恩的种子》认为这基本上是早期美国的某几个州形成的过程。
Fischer describes four of these migrations: the Puritans to New England in the 1620s, the Cavaliers to Virginia in the 1640s, the Quakers to Pennsylvania in the 1670s, and the Borderers to Appalachia in the 1700s.
Fischer描述了这些移民中的四种:在1620年代来到新英格兰地区的清教徒,在1640年代来到弗吉尼亚的“骑士党”,在1670年代来到宾夕法尼亚的贵格会,以及1700年代来到阿巴拉契亚山地的边民【校注:指英格兰和苏格兰交界地区的人】。
II.
A: The Puritans
A:清教徒
I hear about these people every Thanksgiving, then never think about them again for the next 364 days. They were a Calvinist sect that dissented against the Church of England and followed their own brand of dour, industrious, fun-hating Christianity.
我在每个感恩节都听说过这群人,而后在接下来的364天,就再也没有想起过他们。他们是一个加尔文宗派,对英国国教会持异议,而且遵从他们特有的严厉,勤奋,厌恶享乐的基督教伦理。
Most of them were from East Anglia, the part of England just northeast of London. They came to America partly because they felt persecuted, but mostly because they thought England was full of sin and they were at risk of absorbing the sin by osmosis if they didn’t get away quick and build something better. They really liked “city on a hill” metaphors.
他们中的大多数,来自东英吉利,是位于伦敦东北方向的一个地区。他们来到美国,部分是因为他们感到被迫害,但是大部分原因是他们觉得英国充满了罪恶,如果不尽快离开并且构建更好的生活,他们就面临被罪恶渗透的风险。他们真是非常喜爱“山巅之城”这个比喻。
I knew about the Mayflower, I knew about the black hats and silly shoes, I even knew about the time Squanto threatened to release a bioweapon buried under Plymouth Rock that would bring about the apocalypse. But I didn’t know that the Puritan migration to America was basically a eugenicist’s wet dream.
我知道五月花,我知道清教徒的黑帽和有些滑稽的皮鞋,我甚至知道印第安领袖Squanto曾威胁释放普利茅斯岩石之下那能够带来末日灾难的生物武器。但是我不知道清教徒移民美国基本上是个优生学的春梦。
Much like eg Unitarians today, the Puritans were a religious group that drew disproportionately from the most educated and education-obsessed parts of the English populace. Literacy among immigrants to Massachusetts was twice as high as the English average, and in an age when the vast majority of Europeans were farmers most immigrants to Massachusetts were skilled craftsmen or scholars. And the Puritan “homeland” of East Anglia was a an unusually intellectual place, with strong influences from Dutch and Continental trade; historian Havelock Ellis finds that it “accounts for a much larger proportion of literary, scientific, and intellectual achievement than any other part of England.”
清教徒这个宗教团体很像今天的唯一神教派,其成员中很多是受过最好教育、最痴迷于教育的英国民众。来到马萨诸塞的移民,其拥有读写能力的比例,是英国平均水平的两倍;在一个大部分欧洲人还是农夫的时代,大部分马萨诸塞的移民是熟练技工或学者。而清教徒在东英吉利的“故土”则是个文教很发达的地方,受到荷兰和大陆贸易的强烈影响;历史学家Havelock Ellis发现,“相比英国的其他任何地区,该地很大程度上以文艺,科学和知识成就著称。”
Furthermore, only the best Puritans were allowed to go to Massachusetts; Fischer writes that “it may have been the only English colony that required some of its immigrants to submit letters of recommendation” and that “those who did not fit in were banished to other colonies and sent back to England”. Puritan “headhunters” went back to England to recruit “godly men” and “honest men” who “must not be of the poorer sort”.
而且,只有最好的清教徒,才能被允许来到马萨诸塞;Fischer写道,“这也许是唯一要求部分移民出具推荐信的英国殖民地”,而且“不适合该地的移民,则被放逐到其他殖民地,或是送回英国。”清教徒“猎头”回到英国去招募“虔敬的人”和“诚实的人”,这些人“绝对不能是阶层较低的那一类”。
INTERESTING PURITAN FACTS:
关于清教徒的一些有趣事实:
1. Sir Harry Vane, who was “briefly governor of Massachusetts at the age of 24”, “was so rigorous in his Puritanism that he believed only the thrice-born to be truly saved”.
Harry Vane先生“在24岁时曾短期担任马萨诸塞殖民地的长官”。“他践行清教徒伦理十分严格,以至于相信只有第三次重生的人才能够得救”。
2. The great seal of the Massachusetts Bay Company “featured an Indian with arms beckoning, and five English words flowing from his mouth: ‘Come over and help us’”
马萨诸塞湾公司的大印上刻着“一个印第安人在招手,从他嘴里喊出五个词:‘来帮助我们’”。
3. Northern New Jersey was settled by Puritans who named their town after the “New Ark Of The Covenant” – modern Newark.
新泽西北部的清教徒开拓者把他们的镇起名为“新约柜”————即如今的纽瓦克
4. Massachusetts clergy were very powerful; Fischer records the story of a traveller asking a man “Are you the parson who serves here?” only to be corrected “I am, sir, the parson who ruleshere.”
马萨诸塞的牧师有很大权力;Fischer记录了一个故事:一个旅行者问一个男人“您(more...)
这是2012年总统大选在郡层面的投票模式的地图。蓝色区域在南方精确地分布在大量非裔美国人聚居的所谓“黑带”上。在中西部的蓝色基本上是大城市。除了这些,选民主党的人只有新英格兰人(支持度很高!)和宾州德拉威尔河谷地区。
In fact, you can easily see the distinction between the Delaware Valley settled by Quakers in the east, and the backcountry area settled by Borderers in the west. Even the book’s footnote about how a few Borderers settled in the mountains of New Hampshire is associated with a few spots of red in the mountains of New Hampshire ruining an otherwise near-perfect Democratic sweep of the north.
事实上,你能一眼看出,贵格会开拓的东部德拉威尔河谷和边民开拓的西部区域之间的区别。即便是书中脚注提到的少量边民移居新罕布尔州群山也能对应图中新罕布尔州群山中的几个红点,如果不是这几个红点,民主党在北方就拥有了完美的全胜。
One anomaly in this story is a kind of linear distribution of blue across southern Michigan, too big to be explained solely by the blacks of Detroit. But a quick look at Wikipedia’s History of Michigan finds:
这个故事中的一个异常就是在南密歇根存在一种线性分布的蓝色,面积太大,不能仅用底特律的黑人来解释。但是快速浏览维基百科上密歇根的历史条目就会发现:
In the 1820s and 1830s migrants from New England began moving to what is now Michigan in large numbers (though there was a trickle of New England settlers who arrived before this date). These were “Yankee” settlers, that is to say they were descended from the English Puritans who settled New England during the colonial era….Due to the prevalence of New Englanders and New England transplants from upstate New York, Michigan was very culturally contiguous with early New England culture for much of its early history…The amount with which the New England Yankee population predominated made Michigan unique among frontier states in the antebellum period. Due to this heritage Michigan was on the forefront of the antislavery crusade and reforms during the 1840s and 1850s.
在1820年代到1830年代,来自新英格兰的移民大量移居到今日的密歇根(虽然有少量新英格兰开拓者在之前就移居此地)。这些是“扬基”开拓者,这意味着他们是在殖民地时期住在新英格兰的英国清教徒的后裔……因为新英格兰人众多,以及从纽约上州移入的新英格兰人,在它早期历史的相当长时间,密歇根在文化上和早期新英格兰文化很相近……新英格兰扬基人口的庞大数量使得密歇根在内战前时期边疆州当中与众不同。因为这种传统,密歇根站在1840年代和1850年代的废奴十字军和改革的前列。
Alhough I can’t find proof of this specifically, I know that Michigan was settled from the south up, and I suspect that these New England settlers concentrated in the southern regions and that the north was settled by a more diverse group of whites who lacked the New England connection.
虽然我不能发现专门的证据,我知道密歇根是从南方被开拓的,我怀疑新英格兰开拓者集中于南部区域,而北部则被更多元的白人群体开拓,这些人缺乏和新英格兰地区的联系。
Here’s something else cool. We can’t track Borderers directly because there’s no “Borderer” or “Scots-Irish” option on the US census. But Albion’s Seed points out that the Borderers were uniquely likely to identify as just “American” and deliberately forgot their past ancestry as fast as they could.
还有更有趣的发现。我们不能直接跟踪边民,因为在美国人口普查中没有“边民”或者“苏格兰人-爱尔兰人”的选项。但是《阿尔比安的种子》一书指出,边民特别倾向于自我认同为“美国人”,并故意尽快忘记自己过去的先祖。
Meanwhile, when the census asks an ethnicity question about where your ancestors came from, every year some people will stubbornly ignore the point of the question and put down “America” (no, this does not track the distribution of Native American population). Here’s a map of so-called “unhyphenated Americans”, taken from this site:
同时,当普查问及关于你先祖来自何处的族裔问题时,每年都有一些人顽固的忽略这一问题的目的,而填上“美国”(不,这并不能代表印第安人的分布)。下面是所谓的“纯粹的美国人”的地图,来自这个网站。
We see a strong focus on the Appalachian Mountains, especially West Virginia, Tennesee, and Kentucky, bleeding into the rest of the South. Aside from west Pennsylvania, this is very close to where we would expect to find the Borderers. Could these be the same groups?
我们看到了该人群在阿巴拉契亚山脉区域有很高的密度,尤其是西弗吉尼亚,田纳西,和肯塔基,延伸到南方其他地区。除了西宾夕法尼亚之外,这和我们预期能发现边民的地区非常接近。这些可能是相同的人群吗?
Meanwhile, here is a map of where Obama underperformed the usual Democratic vote worst in 2008:
同时,这里还有奥巴马在08年民主党选举中表现最差的地区的一张地图:
These maps are small and lossy, and surely unhyphenatedness is not an exact proxy for Border ancestry – but they are nevertheless intriguing. You may also be interested in the Washington Post’s correlation between distribution of unhyphenated Americans and Trump voters, or the Atlantic’s article on Trump and Borderers.
这些地图也许小且模糊,而且纯种美国人认同也不是边民先祖的精确表征——但是它们仍然十分吸引人。你也许会对《华盛顿邮报》在纯种美国人分布和川普支持者之间相关性的报道感兴趣,还有《大西洋月刊》关于川普和边民的文章。
If I’m going to map these cultural affiliations to ancestry, do I have to walk back on my previous theory that they are related to class? Maybe I should. But I also think we can posit complicated interactions between these ideas. Consider for example the interaction between race and class; a black person with a white-sounding name, who speaks with a white-sounding accent, and who adopts white culture (eg listens to classical music, wears business suits) is far more likely to seem upper-class than a black person with a black-sounding name, a black accent, and black cultural preferences; a white person who seems black in some way (listens to hip-hop, wears baggy clothes) is more likely to seem lower-class. This doesn’t mean race and class are exactly the same thing, but it does mean that some races get stereotyped as upper-class and others as lower-class, and that people’s racial identifiers may change based on where they are in the class structure.
如果我把这些文化偏好对应到祖先谱系,我是否也不得不回到我之前的理论上,即这些和阶层有关?也许我应该这么做。但是我也认为我们应该注意这些看法之间的交互作用。比如考虑一下种族和阶层的交互关系;一个黑人带着一个白人式的名字,带白人口音,适应了白人文化(比如听古典音乐,穿西装),则比取黑人名、带黑人口音、偏好黑人文化的黑人更可能是上等阶级;一个某方面像黑人的白人(听嘻哈,穿松垮的衣服)则更可能属于底层。这并不是说种族和阶层完全是一码事,但是这说明一些族群给人的固定印象是上层,另一些是底层,而基于人们在阶层结构中位置,人们的和种族相关的特征可能会变化。
I think something similar is probably going on with these forms of ancestry. The education system is probably dominated by descendents of New Englanders and Pennsylvanians; they had an opportunity to influence the culture of academia and the educated classes more generally, they took it, and now anybody of any background who makes it into that world is going to be socialized according to their rules. Likewise, people in poorer and more rural environments will be surrounded by people of Borderer ancestry and acculturated by Borderer cultural products and end up a little more like that group. As a result, ethnic markers have turned into and merged with class markers in complicated ways.
我认为族裔血统的构成中,很可能发生了相似的事情。教育系统很可能被新英格兰人和宾夕法尼亚人把持,他们更有机会普遍地影响学术界的文化和受教育阶层,他们把握了这个机会,现在任何背景的人,要进入他们的世界,都会按照他们的规则被社会化。相似的,更穷和更乡村化的人,被边民的先祖和边民文化的产物包围,最终变得有点像这个群体。结果,族裔标志以种种复杂的方式转化成了阶层标志并与之融合。
Indeed, some kind of acculturation process has to have been going on, since most of the people in these areas today are not the descendents of the original settlers. But such a process seems very likely. Just to take an example, most of the Jews I know (including my own family) came into the country via New York, live somewhere on the coast, and have very Blue Tribe values. But Southern Jews believed in the Confederacy as strongly as any Virginian – see for example Judah Benjamin. And Barry Goldwater, a half-Jew raised in Arizona, invented the modern version of conservativism that seems closest to some Borderer beliefs.
的确,某种同化过程一定发生过,因为这些地区今天的大部分人并不是初代开拓者的后代。但是这样一个过程很可能发生。仅举一个例子,大部分我所认识的犹太人(包括我自己的家庭),从纽约来到这个国家,生活在靠海岸的某处,拥有蓝色的价值观。但是南方犹太人曾和任何弗吉尼亚人一样,相信南部邦联——可以参考Judah Benjamin的例子。而且Barry Goldwater,一个长在亚利桑那的半血犹太人,发明了现代版本的保守主义,其观点看起来最接近一些边民信仰。
All of this is very speculative, with some obvious flaws. What do we make of other countries like Britain or Germany with superficially similar splits but very different histories? Why should Puritans lose their religion and sexual prudery, but keep their interest in moralistic reform? There are whole heaps of questions like these.
所有这些都是很大胆的假设,带有一些明显的缺陷。对于英国或者德国,这些国家表面上有类似的分裂,但是有很不同的历史,我们如何来解释呢?为什么清教徒失去了他们的宗教和在性上的规矩,但是仍然在道德改革上保持兴趣?还有一大堆类似的问题。
But look. Before I had any idea about any of this, I wrote that American society seems divided into two strata, one of which is marked by emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, academic/financial jobs, and Democratic party affiliation, and furthermore that this group was centered in the North.
但是看看,在我有这些想法之前,我就曾写道美国社会看来被分裂成两层,其中之一有以下特征:重视教育、道德变革、种族宽容,很低的未成年怀孕率,学术和财经工作,以及支持民主党,而且这个群体以北方为中心。
Meanwhile, now I learn that the North was settled by two groups that when combined have emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, an academic and mercantile history, and were the heartland of the historical Whigs and Republicans who preceded the modern Democratic Party.
同时,我现在知道了北方曾被两个团体所开拓,两个群体结合起来,拥有以下特征:重视教育、道德变革、种族宽容,很低的未成年怀孕率 ,具有学术和商业历史,而且是历史上辉格党和共和党(后来的地位被现代的民主党取代)的核心地域。
And I wrote about another stratum centered in the South marked by poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high teenage pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, country western music, and support for the Republican Party. And now I learn that the South was settled by a group noted even in the 1700s for its poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high premarital pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, accent exactly like the modern country western accent, and support for the Democratic-Republicans who preceded the modern Republican Party.
我还写到过另一个集中于南方的阶层,它以教育贫乏,枪文化,暴力文化,排外,高未成年人怀孕率,军国主义,爱国主义,西部乡村音乐,和支持共和党为特征。现在我知道,开拓南方的群体,在18世纪就以教育的贫乏, 枪文化,暴力文化,排外,高未成年人怀孕率,尚武精神,爱国主义,接近现代西部乡村的口音,以及支持民主-共和党为特征(后来地位被现代的共和党取代)。
If this is true, I think it paints a very pessimistic world-view. The “iceberg model” of culture argues that apart from the surface cultural features we all recognize like language, clothing, and food, there are deeper levels of culture that determine the features and institutions of a people: whether they are progressive or traditional, peaceful or warlike, mercantile or self-contained.
如果这是真的,我认为这给出了一个非常悲观的世界图景。文化的“冰山模型”认为,撇开我们都能识别的文化表面特征,例如语言、衣着、和食物,存在更深层次的文化,它们决定了上述特征和人们的制度:决定他们是进步的还是传统的,和平的还是好战的,爱经商的还是自给自足的。
We grudgingly acknowledge these features when we admit that maybe making the Middle East exactly like America in every way is more of a long-term project than something that will happen as soon as we kick out the latest dictator and get treated as liberators. Part of us may still want to believe that pure reason is the universal solvent, that those Afghans will come around once they realize that being a secular liberal democracy is obviously great.
当我们承认也许让中东在每一方面都变成和美国一样是一个长期过程,而不是如我们把最近的独裁者赶下台,像解放者般被接待那么快,我们就是在勉强承认这些文化特征的存在。我们中的部分人还想相信纯粹理性是普遍适用的答案,只要阿富汗人意识到一个世俗化的自由主义的民主制度明显很棒,他们就会觉醒。
But we keep having deep culture shoved in our face again and again, and we don’t know how to get rid of it. This has led to reasonable speculation that some aspects of it might even be genetic – something which would explain a lot, though not its ability to acculturate recent arrivals.
但是我们已经一而再地被深层文化打脸,我们不知道如何摆脱它。这导致了合理的猜想,深层文化的某方面可能是遗传性的——这可以解释很多事情,虽然这个因素不能解释其同化最近的新来者的能力。
This is a hard pill to swallow even when we’re talking about Afghanistan. But it becomes doubly unpleasant when we think about it in the sense of our neighbors and fellow citizens in a modern democracy. What, after all, is the point? A democracy made up of 49% extremely liberal Americans and 51% fundamentalist Taliban Afghans would be something very different from the democratic ideal; even if occasionally a super-charismatic American candidate could win over enough marginal Afghans to take power, there’s none of the give-and-take, none of the competition within the marketplace of ideas, that makes democracy so attractive. Just two groups competing to dominate one another, with the fact that the competition is peaceful being at best a consolation prize.
即便我们讨论的是阿富汗,这也是一枚难以下咽的药丸。但如果我们从现代民主制中我们的邻舍和公民同胞的角度来考虑这个问题时,难受程度又要翻倍。这到底有什么意义?一个由49%的极端自由派的美国人和51%的基本教义派的阿富汗塔利班组成的民主制恐怕和民主典范非常不同;即使有时,一个很有人格魅力的美国候选人能赢得足够的阿富汗人摇摆票,获得权力,这里也没有讨价还价,没有思想市场的竞争,而正是这些因素才使得民主制如此有吸引力。只剩两个团体相互竞争来统治对方,事实上,如果竞争是和平的,就已经是谢天谢地了。
If America is best explained as a Puritan-Quaker culture locked in a death-match with a Cavalier-Borderer culture, with all of the appeals to freedom and equality and order and justice being just so many epiphenomena – well, I’m not sure what to do with that information.
如果美国可以很好地被解释成一种清教徒-贵格会文化,和一种骑士党-边民文化锁在一起的拼死对决,并且所有对自由,平等,秩序,正义的呼求仅是众多附带现象——那么我不确定该如何处理这个信息。
Push it under the rug? Say “Well, my culture is better, so I intend to do as good a job dominating yours as possible?” Agree that We Are Very Different Yet In The End All The Same And So Must Seek Common Ground? Start researching genetic engineering? Maybe secede?
把它藏在桌布下?说“好,我的文化更好,所以我打算竭尽全力做做好事,来统治你?”同意我们是非常不同的,但最终我们会变得一样,所以我们必须寻求共同立场?开始研究基因工程?也许独立分裂?
I’m not a Trump fan much more than I’m an Osama bin Laden fan; if somehow Osama ended up being elected President, should I start thinking “Maybe that time we made a country that was 49% people like me and 51% members of the Taliban –maybe that was a bad idea“.
我不是个川普粉,就像我不是奥萨马·本·拉登粉丝一样;如果不知何故,本·拉登当选了总统,我应该开始思考“也许那时候我们由49%的像我这样的人和51%的塔利班组成了一个国家——也许这是一个坏主意”。
I don’t know. But I highly recommend Albion’s Seed as an entertaining and enlightening work of historical scholarship which will be absolutely delightful if you don’t fret too much over all of the existential questions it raises.
我不知道。但是我高度推荐《阿尔比安的种子》这本富有娱乐性和启发性的历史学著作。如果你没有过多地被它引起的实在性问题吓到,读它绝对会是非常愉悦的。
(编辑:辉格@whigzhou)
*注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。
——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——
The Paranoid, Supremacist Roots of the Stabbing Intifada
捅刀起义的种族优越论根源,一种妄想症
作者:Jeffrey Goldbery @ 2015-10-16
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
一校:Eartha(@王小贰_Eartha)
来源:The Atlantic,www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/the-roots-of-the-palestinian-uprising-against-israel/410944/
Knife attacks on Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere are not based on Palestinian frustration over settlements, but on something deeper.
耶路撒冷及其他地区发生的针对犹太人的持刀攻击,并非出于巴勒斯坦人因以色列定居活动而产生的挫败感,而是存在某些更深层次的原因。
In September of 1928, a group of Jewish residents of Jerusalem placed a bench in front of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, for the comfort of elderly worshipers. They also brought with them a wooden partition, to separate the sexes during prayer. Jerusalem’s Muslim leaders treated the introduction of furniture into the alleyway in front of the Wall as a provocation, part of a Jewish conspiracy to slowly take control of the entire Temple Mount.
1928年9月,耶路撒冷的一群犹太居民为了老年礼拜者的舒适着想,在圣殿山的哭墙前安放了一条长凳,还带去了一张木质隔板用来区隔异性祈祷者。耶路撒冷的穆斯林领袖认为,这种在过道安放家具的行为是挑衅,是犹太人缓图全面掌控圣殿山的阴谋的一部分。
Many of the leaders of Palestine’s Muslims believed—or claimed to believe—that Jews had manufactured a set of historical and theological connections to the Western Wall and to the Mount, the site of the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, in order to advance the Zionist project.
巴勒斯坦的许多穆斯林领袖曾相信——或曾宣称其相信——犹太人捏造了一整套其与哭墙及圣殿山这一阿克萨清真寺和圆顶清真寺所在地之间的历史和神学联系,目的是为了推进犹太复国主义计划。
This belief defied Muslim history—the Dome of the Rock was built by Jerusalem’s Arab conquerors on the site of the Second Jewish Temple in order to venerate its memory (the site had previously been defiled by Jerusalem’s Christian rulers as a kind of rebuke to Judaism, the despised mother religion of Christianity). Jews themselves consider the Mount itself to be the holiest site in their faith. The Western Wall, a large retaining wall from the Second Temple period, is sacred only by proxy.
这一观念完全不顾穆斯林历史——圆顶清真寺是征服耶路撒冷的阿拉伯人为追思先人而在犹太人第二圣殿的旧址上建造的(原址被耶路撒冷的基督教统治者破坏,以谴责犹太教这一遭到鄙视的基督教母宗教)。犹太人自己则视圣殿山为其信仰的至圣之地。哭墙作为第二圣殿时期留存下来的巨大护墙,只是因其象征性才变得神圣。
The (more...)
[M]utual distrust between the two populations, internal pressures from the rejectionists on both sides, Yasser Arafat’s repeated deceptions, the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the electoral victories of Likud in Israeli elections, Palestinian terrorism, continuing Israeli settlement activities in the territories, the bloody rift between Fatah and Hamas, American presidents who did too little (George W. Bush) or too much and in a wrong way (Barack Obama), the political weakness of Mahmoud Abbas, governments headed by Netanyahu that did everything possible to undermine effective negotiations. All this is true, and everyone picks and chooses what fits their views and interests—but beyond all these lies a fundamental difference in the terms in which each side views the conflict, a difference many tend or choose to overlook. “两个群体之间的互不信任,双方抵制派所造成的内部压力,亚瑟·阿拉法特反复无常的欺诈,对伊扎克·拉宾总理的谋杀,利库德集团在以色利选举中的胜利,巴勒斯坦恐怖主义,以色列在该地区持续不断的定居活动,法塔赫和哈马斯之间的血腥纷争,美国总统的无所作为(乔治·W·布什)抑或在错误的方向上做得太多(巴拉克·奥巴马),马哈茂德·阿巴斯的政治软弱,内塔尼亚胡为首的政府干尽了一切有可能破坏有效和谈的事。这些都是对的,每个人都能从中挑选出与合于自身观点和利益的原因——但在此之外,还存在一个易被人忽略的因素,即双方看待这一冲突的角度存在根本性的差别。”The violence of the past two weeks, encouraged by purveyors of rumors who now have both Israeli and Palestinian blood on their hands, is rooted not in Israeli settlement policy, but in a worldview that dismisses the national and religious rights of Jews. There will not be peace between Israelis and Palestinians so long as parties on both sides of the conflict continue to deny the national and religious rights of the other. 过去两周发生的暴力活动受到了谣言散布者的鼓动,他们的手上现已沾满了以色列人还有巴勒斯坦人的鲜血。这种暴力并非根源于以色列的定居政策,而是源于一种拒绝承认犹太人享有民族和宗教权利的世界观。只要冲突双方继续否定彼此的民族和宗教权利,以色列人和巴勒斯坦人之间就不会出现和平。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。
——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——
【2016-09-14】
@whigzhou: 有些历史学家(特别是历史决定论者)喜欢用个体生命周期类比文明和国家的兴衰存亡,类似的,组织理论里也有『制度疲劳』的说法,对这种拟人化说辞总是要严加警惕,不过有些类比也并非毫无道理,比如『年轻』『成熟』『衰老』这组概念,确可运用于政权,至少适用于我们见过的政权类型中的大多数。
@whigzhou: 容易想到的几种导致政体衰老的机制:1)委托代理关系中的军备竞赛,多层级组织总是面临委托代理问题,层级越多越严重,一个成功的新政权必定找出(more...)