Board logo

标题: 【转】MIT日裔教授发布屠杀中国人画报:旧中国、新日本(组图)【完结篇】 [打印本页]

作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 12:26     标题: 【转】MIT日裔教授发布屠杀中国人画报:旧中国、新日本(组图)【完结篇】

各位同胞:
今天,在美国麻省理工(MIT)的主页上出现约一百多幅上个世纪日本人屠杀中国人的画报,还美其名日本艺术



http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/2 ... /2000_380_07_l.html

http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/2 ... ia/toa_core_04.html)。

据查这些画报来源于一个任教于麻省理工的日本叫兽 Shigereu Miyagawa的课程。

b此人的联系办法是:

****@***.***,

电话:*********。

麻省理工的中国学生已经正在发起各种抗议活动。如果你是中国人,请通过适当途径向这个日本人,以及mit校方提出抗议。

附:OLD CHINA, NEW JAPAN

In contrast to Kiyochika’s distinctive thematic compositions, many woodblock artists reveled in the tumult and chaos of the battlefield. They offered their audience riotous melees—congested spectacles that invite the viewer to scrutinize the scene, sort out the combatants, discover any number of intimate details. Sometimes the detail is so dense it is startling to be reminded that these popular artworks were usually tossed off in a matter of days.

Still, predictable patterns give order to this chaos. Discipline (the Japanese side) prevails over disarray (the Chinese). The sword-wielding Japanese officer and bayonet-thrusting infantryman are invariably present—and easy to locate, since their black uniforms contrast sharply to the flamboyant clothing and paraphernalia of the Chinese. The enemy’s garments vary from battle to battle but are always colorful and frequently decorated with elaborate designs. Their headgear suggests that they employ many different haberdashers. In contrast to the ubiquitous rising-sun-with-rays military flag of the Japanese, Chinese banners and ensigns feature a range of designs. Sometimes the enemy employ archaic weapons such as a three-prong pike or trident. Here and there they carry old-fashioned round shields decorated with garish face-like designs. The braided queues worn by Chinese men often stretch out like ropes or snakes; sometimes they are coiled in a bun. In short, the Chinese are riotous in every way—disgracefully so in their behavior, and delightfully so in their accoutrements.



“Great Attack in Snow at Fort of One-Hundred-Foot Cliff Near Weihaiwei:

Illustration of Major General Odera’s Desperate Fight - Commander of the 11th Brigade”

by Utagawa Kokunimasa, February 1895

[2000_102] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston


“Chinese and Japanese Troops: Picture of a Fierce Battle at Gaiping” by Nakagawa, February 1895

[21_1540] Museum of Fine Arts, Boston




“Sino-Japanese War: The Fierce Battle on the Floating Bridge at Jiuliancheng”

by Kobayashi Toshimitsu, October 1894

[2000_023] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

spacespaceHeroic encounters between relative equals are not entirely absent from these depictions, however. A fairly typical rendering of a melee by Toshimitsu, for example, includes two swordsmen dueling to an uncertain finish. With comparable even-handedness, several quite spectacular prints by unidentified artists render individuals on both sides as almost mirror images of one another—faces frozen in Kabuki-like determination or similarly marked by rather individualized touches.



“Picture of Our Forces Bringing About the

Fall of Pyongyang” by Kobayashi Toshimitsu,

September 1894 (with detail, right)

[2000_380_03] Sharf Collection,

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston










“Great Rear Attack by Our Second Army at Weihaiwei,” artist unknown, February 1895

(with details of Chinese, left, and Japanese, right)

[2000_113] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

[ 本帖最后由 二楞子 于 2006-4-29 12:37 编辑 ]
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 12:30



“The Japanese Second Army Battles at Jinzhou” by Shuko, November 1894

(with details of Chinese, left,

and Japanese, right)

[res_23_294]

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston



“Attacking Pyongyang, Our Troops Conquer the Enemy Fortress ”

by Mizuno Toshikata, September 1894

(with details of Chinese, left, and Japanese, right)

[res_23_344], Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

uch suggestions of relative equality emerge especially clearly in depictions of combat between mounted officers. These figures stand out from the tumult around them by virtue of their horses alone, but this is not the only source of shared identity. On both sides these combatants were men of comparable rank, accomplishment, and ability.



n one print by an unidentified artist, a clash between two cavalrymen is actually turned into a spectator sport. Fighting men pause to watch, and a few Chinese have even climbed a tree to get a better view.



In the midst of battle a crowd has gathered to watch two cavalrymen in one-on-one combat.

“The Battle of Mukden” by Shunsai Toshimasa, 1894

[res_23_312] Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

spacespaceA few prints detach cavalry combat from the congestion of battlefield tumult and place it alone at stage center, occasionally even giving the names of Chinese generals involved.


“A Great Victory at Port Arthur” by Adachi Ginkō, November 1894

[PMOA_055]

The single most honorable Chinese singled out in the war prints, however, was not a mounted officer but an admiral—the venerable Ding Juchang, whose fleet was destroyed after hard fighting off Weihaiwei early in 1895. After surrendering in a courteous exchange of messages between the two sides, Admiral Ding Juchang committed suicide by taking poison. When the Chinese warship carrying his body left the harbor, the Japanese fleet dropped their flags to half-mast and fired a salute. Death by one’s own hand held an honorable place in Japan’s own warrior tradition, of course; be that as it may, several woodblock artists commemorated the admiral’s death with respectful renderings. One of the best of these, by Toshikata, imagines Admiral Ding Juchang seated in an elegant room holding a cup of poison in his hand.



The most honorable Chinese opponent depicted in the Japanese war prints was Admiral

Ding Juchang, who committed suicide after his fleet was destroyed in 1895. Here he is

portrayed seated in an elegant room with a cup of poison in his hand.

“Admiral Ding Juchang of the Chinese Beiyang Fleet, Totally Destroyed at Weihaiwei,

Commits Suicide at His Official Residence” by Mizuno Toshikata, February 1895

[IMP_44_74]
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 12:33

orgIn another well-known print, Toshikata pitted his Japanese hero, “Captain Awata,” against a Chinese antagonist of no status but undeniably formidable strength—in this case, a giant on Taiwan whose weapon of choice was a halberd. In his treatment of this celebrated encounter, Toshikata portrays the Chinese foe with respect. More typical, however, was Toshihide’s rendering of the same duel, in which Awata administers the coup de grâce to a twisted figure collapsing from a lethal blow to the head—his straw hat flying through the air, clearly torn where Awata’s sword blade sliced through. (This is the same Captain Awata whom Kiyochika lovingly portrayed cleaving the enemy’s skull.)







These two prints of the same subject — a powerful Chinese with a halberd fighting Captain Awata

on Taiwan — treat the enemy in completely different ways. In one (detail on right), he is a

stalwart and heroic foe. In the other (detail on left), he collapses in grotesque defeat.

“Captain Awata” by Mizuno Toshikata, 1895 (top)

[2000_440] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

“Picture of Captain Awata, Who Fights Furiously with His Celebrated Sword in the Assault

on Magongcheng in the Pescadores” by Migita Toshihide, 1895

[2000_431] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

spacespaceWhen all was said and done, denigration of the latter sort ruled the day when it came to portraying the Chinese foe. As the prints so graphically reveal, moreover, such disdain frequently carried both a harsh racist charge and an undisguised edge of pure sadism. The devil, as always, is in the details. The Chinese are slashed with swords; skewered with bayonets (often run through from behind, as in Kiyochika’s showing); shot at close range; beaten down with rifle butts; strangled; crushed with boulders; pounded with oars while floundering in the sea. They tumble off cliffs and warships like tiny rag dolls. In one print, a civilian caught in battle lies crumpled on the ground with a still open parasol on his corpse, conspicuous once again by his gaudy and (in Japanese eyes) outlandish clothing.

It is particularly sobering to keep in mind that this was not on-the-scene “realism.” The woodblock artists worked largely out of their own imaginations, tailoring this to news reports from the front. They were commercial artists catering to a popular audience, and this was the war Japanese wished to see.

Admiral Ding Juchang, the Chinese generals on their horses, the occasional battlefield enemies treated as just as human as the Japanese are exceptions that prove the rule. The prototypical Chinese is grotesque. His face is contorted, his body twisted and often turned topsy-turvy, his demeanor in most cases abject. Battlefield scenes routinely include cringing foe pleading for their lives—even while making clear that the emperor’s stalwart heroes should and would pay no heed to such cowardice. The braided queue becomes, in and of itself, a mark of backwardness and inferiority; in more than a few battle scenes, Japanese stalwarts grasp this while dispatching their victim. (Pulling Chinese men by their “pigtail” was also a favorite image among American and English cartoonists until the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty in 1911, after which this hairstyle was no longer mandatory for ethnic Chinese males.)

The Devil in the Details

Although woodblock artists did not personally visit the battle front, their war prints routinely ridiculed the Chinese and depicted Japanese fighting men commiting extraordinary acts of violence against them. Clearly this was the war Japanese at home wished to see.







Chinese prisoners of war, usually bound with thick rope, also drew attention. Ōkura Kōtō imagined “Captain Higuchi” (lionized for picking up a Chinese child on the battlefield) confronting three such captured Chinese—a particularly suggestive scene, combining as it did denigration of the “old” China with chivalrously rescuing “young” (or future) China, and all this in front of a piece of heavy artillery. Toshihide and others similarly dwelled on Chinese officers kneeling in supplication before their captors.




“Captain Higuchi, A Fierce Warrior, Ready to Lay Down His Life for Mercy’s Sake at Fort Motianling” by Ōkura Kōtō, January 1895

(detail)

[2000_179] Sharf Collection,

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston


“Illustration of Chinese Generals from

Pyongyang Captured Alive” by

Migita Toshihide, October 1894 (detail)

[2000_380_08]

Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston




“Illustration of Our Righteous Army

Capturing Money and Prisoners,”

artist unidentified (detail)

[2000_380_05]

Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 12:38

Kokunimasa offered a harsh “Illustration of the Decapitation of Violent Chinese Soldiers” that included a lengthy inscription. The benevolence and justice of the Japanese army, this text explained, equaled and even surpassed that of the civilized Western nations. By contrast, the barbarity of the Chinese was such that some prisoners attacked their guards. As a warning, the Japanese—as depicted in the print—had beheaded as many as thirty-eight rebellious prisoners in front of other captured Chinese. The Rising Sun military flag still fluttered in one panel of Kokunimasa’s print; the stalwart cavalry officer still surveyed the scene; the executioner still struck the familiar heroic pose with upraised sword. The subject itself, however, and severed heads on the ground, made this an unusually frightful scene.



The derision of the Chinese that permeates these prints found expression in other sectors of popular Japanese culture. The scholar Donald Keene, for example, has documented how popular prose, poems, and songs of the war years took similar delight in lampooning the “pumpkin-headed” Chinese and making jokes about their slaughter. (It was around this time that the pejorative Japanese epithets chanchan and chankoro became popular, amounting to a counterpart to the English-language slur “Chink.”)

Even today, over a century later, this contempt remains shocking. Simply as racial stereotyping alone, it was as disdainful of the Chinese as anything that can be found in anti-“Oriental” racism in the United States and Europe at the time—as if the process of “Westernization” had entailed, for Japanese, adopting the white man’s imagery while excluding themselves from it. This poisonous seed, already planted in violence in 1894-95, would burst into full atrocious flower four decades later, when the emperor’s soldiers and sailors once again launched war against China. Ironically, the Japanese propaganda that accompanied that later war involved throwing off “the West” and embracing “Pan-Asianism”—but that is another story.

Because racism in the age of imperialism is most commonly associated with “white supremacism” (and the smug rhetoric of a “white man’s burden”), this explosive outburst of Japanese condescension toward China and the Chinese seems all the more stunning. In the Western hierarchy of race, so-called Orientals or Asiatics or Mongoloids were lumped together—below the superior Caucasians and above the “Negroid.” In their inimitable way, the Japanese promoted these stereotypes where the Chinese were concerned, even while trying to demonstrate their own identity with the Caucasians.

What made this even more disconcerting was the intimate overlay of race and culture in the case of Japan and China. No non-Chinese society was more indebted to China. Japan’s written language, its great traditions of Buddhism and Confucianism, vast portions of its finest achievements in art and architecture—all came from China. In an abrupt phrase familiar to all literate Japanese, even in the Meiji period, China and Japan were culturally as close as “lips and teeth.”

But that, of course, was the point—and what made this outburst of anti-Chinese sentiment a very peculiar sort of racism on the part of the Japanese. The Chinese were contemptible because they were deemed inept. At the same time, however, “China” was symbolic and self-referential. “China,” that is, stood for “Asia.’ It stood for “the past.” It stood for outmoded “traditional values.” It stood for “weakness” vis-à-vis the Western powers. It stood, coming even closer to home, for “evil customs of the past” that Japanese leaders ever since the Restoration argued had to be eradicated within Japan itself if their nation—and Asia as a whole—were to survive in a dog-eat-dog modern world.

“Old” China was the Anti-West, the Anti-Modern (a notion China’s own Communist leaders would later embrace with a vengeance themselves). As a consequence, while the corpses were unmistakably and brutally Chinese, they stood for a great deal more as well.

To return to Fukuzawa’s famous phrase, killing Chinese amounted to “throwing off Asia” in every conceivable way. This was seen to be essential to Japan’s security, its very survival. It was deemed progressive. It amounted, when all was said and done, to embracing a “modern” kind of hybridization. Where the old Japan had been distinguished by enormous indebtedness to traditional Chinese culture, the new Japan would be distinguished by wholesale borrowing from the modern West.

At the same time, of course—as is true of nationalism everywhere—it was necessary to think oneself unique. In the Japanese case, this was accomplished by “reinventing” the mystique surrounding the throne and imperial family. It was not coincidental that the war against China coincided with the consolidation of a modern emperor system under the new constitution of 1890.

From the Japanese perspective, the denigration of the Chinese that permeates the Sino-Japanese War prints was really secondary to the obverse side of this triumphal new nationalism. It was secondary, that is, to the story of the surpassing discipline and self-sacrifice of Japanese from every level of society. That is why many of the most memorable war prints do not depict the enemy at all, but rather focus on the Japanese alone. Sometimes they are simply battling raw nature (the fierce blizzards and turbulent seas), sometimes simply shown in control of the powerful machinery of modern warfare. Always there is a celebration of brave men engaged in a noble mission—throwing themselves against an ominous, threatening, but also thrillingly challenging and alluring world.

Thus Gekkō, who often reveled in particularly grisly combat details, devoted one print to a serene depiction of “Officers and Men Worshipping the Rising Sun While Encamped in the Mountains of Port Arthur.” (That the sun rose in the east, the direction of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, intensified the ideological implications of such worship.) Another Gekkō offering focuses on the solitary figure of “Engineer Superior Private Onoguchi Tokuji, Defying Death,” and yet another on “the Famous Death-Defying Seven from the Warship 'Yaeyama'” rowing through high waves.




“Picture of the Second Army’s Assault on Jinzhoucheng: Engineer Superior Private Onoguchi Tokuji,

Defying Death, Places Explosives and Blasts the Gate of the Enemy Fort” by Ogata Gekkō, 1895

[2000_407] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston




“Illustration of the Death-Defying Squad of Captain Osawa and Seven Others from the Crew

of the Warship 'Yaeyama' Pushing Forward in Rongcheng Bay” by Ogata Gekkō, 1895

[2000_408] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Nobukazu’s most famous war print is probably his heroic close-up rendering of “General Nozu” leading his horse and three men across a deep river in the moonlight. Toshihide paid tribute to “Sergeant Miyake” and a sturdy subordinate, who stripped to the waist and braved the frigid waters of the Yalu River to carry out their mission. An indidentified artist went Toshihide one better by depicting a certain “Sergeant Kawasaki” swimming across a turbulent rain-swollen river with a sword clenched between his teeth.




“Sergeant Miyake’s Courage at the Yalu River” by Watanabe Nobukazu, 1895

[2000_380_30] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston




Toshikata (the maestro of the predictable pose with whom this discussion began) also captured this spirit of valor transcending any specific battle or foe without necessarily explicitly flourishing a sword or unfurling a Rising Sun flag. One of his most effective war prints, for example, simply depicts sailors poised almost like a group statue as they man one of their warship’s big guns. Another of his well-known scenes portrays naval officers seated on deck calmly planning strategy. Toshikata’s remarkable “Picture of the Fearless Major General Tatsumi” portrays the general sleeping “peacefully under a pine tree, taking his own life lightly.”




“Japanese Warships Fire on the Enemy near Haiyang Island”

by Mizuno Toshikata, September 1894

[2000_380_13] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston




“Picture of a Discussion by Naval Officers about the Battle Strategy against China”

by Mizuno Toshikata, September 1894

[2000_380_09] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston



This was precisely the sentiment the Meiji leaders had devoted themselves to inculcating ever since the emperor’s 1882 “Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors.” Duty was heavy as a mountain, death light as a feather. These were free-floating heroes, ready to sacrifice themselves for the nation whenever and wherever they were commanded to do so. The precise enemy was secondary.

Among the last prints to come out of the Sino-Japanese War were depictions of the Chinese surrender in February 1895. All of the participating officials were rendered straightforwardly and reasonably realistically—and the impression that Japan had truly thrown off Asia could not have been conveyed more strongly. The Chinese envoys were garbed in traditional ceremonial gowns and caps; Japanese dignitaries wore formal Western dress; and both British and American diplomats were present, particularly to act as advisers to the Chinese side. There could be no doubt whatsoever concerning with which side the Japanese were identifying.




This woodblock print is an almost perfect example of how the Japanese (left detail) saw themselves as totally different from the Chinese and fundamentally similar to the Westerners (seen here in the figures of Western advisors standing behind the Chinese, right detail).

“After the Fall of Weihaiwei, the Commander of the Chinese Beiyang Fleet, Admiral Ding Juchang, Surrenders” by Mizuno Toshikata, November 1895 (with details).

[2000_123] Sharf Collection, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston




The Chinese are accompanied by two American advisors. The two Japanese officials, on the right, are Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi and Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu.

“Japanese Representatives Meet with a Chinese Peace Mission” by Tsuchiya Kōitsu, February 1895.

[res_27_160] Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 18:53     标题: 关注此事,这里是一个网友刚发的消息

下面是我刚发给MIT校长,及抄送历史系主任,哲学系主任,和那个日本叫兽的Email. 综合了一下大家的意见和朋友的修改,起草的下面的Email, 欢迎大家修改.

大家团结一致,可以起草一封联合的抗议信,大家签名,一定要让那个小日本道歉!

把MIT告上法庭也是一个选择,告MIT种族歧视,什么学术自由,那也有个限度,MIT有种就贴一贴纳粹屠杀犹太人的照片,世贸大厦倒塌的照片,再美化一下看看有什么反应!

很喜欢有一哥们说的,这是在辱没咱们的祖先,是可忍,孰不可忍!

当有人在挖你们家祖坟, 你还没点血性,那他妈还叫男人吗

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Hockfield,

I am a Chinese Assistant Professor at XXX University. I am very shocked and upset to see the webpages that Professor Shigery Miyagawa posted for his course at your university, MIT. In these webpages, Professor Miyagawa posted a number of drawings, which he called ARTS and many of these drawings depict beheading of Chinese civilians and soldiers by Japanese captives during the 1894-1895 Japanese invasion war to China. The texts and drawings humiliate

Chinese people by arrogantly glorifying the fascism and atrocity of Japanese army. The link to the webpages is as follows:

http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/2 ... ia/toa_core_01.html

Prof. Miyagawa claimed that these paintings are “arts” and only used to illustrate the thoughts and/or stereotypes of the Japanese in the period of imperial Japan. However, as a Chinese, I feel these so-called arts are very offensive and insulting. It is NOT cceptable to glorify brutality of the Japanese army and propagate the killing of innocent civilians. These images remind people from all over the world of the heinous crimes that imperial Japan committed to hinese, Korean, people from other Asian countries during their notorious invasion and occupation of these countries in the last century. The drawings themselves have already showed the brutality and atrocity of the war, which may be used to educate people to avoid a rehearsal of such a horrible history. However, the whole contexts including these drawings do NOT show any introspection and are NOT neutral either for educational purposes, rather, the contexts express an appreciation of these inhuman and beast-like activities on Chinese and convey a message to discriminate and humiliate a whole race – Chinese. So I wonder what the purpose of these drawings is, to

educate MIT students and/or Boston community to appreciate these brutal actions of Japanese army and simulate these actions, or just simply to discriminate Chinese???

Let us consider some analogous examples here. Would you and MIT allow or encourage to publicly exhibit any so-called arts that glorify the history of Pear Harbor and that beautify the victory of Japanese army by killing and murdering American soldiers and citizens on December 7, 1941??? Would you and MIT allow or encourage to publish any so-called arts that glorify Nazi’s history of killing Jewish people and other European people in World War II???

Would you and MIT allow or encourage to publicly post any so-called arts that glorify the 911 and beautify the victory of the terrorists by killing and murdering American civilians on September 11, 2001??? In my eyes, these things certainly are NOT arts, and I feel they are insults and humiliations to the ART and, more importantly, they are huge disrespects and insults to millions of the victims and their families and offspring.

If you and MIT really think those paintings at the above MIT webpages are ARTS , why don’t you select some pictures from the following website which shows what “ARTWORKS” that Japanese army did in Nanjing Massacre in 1937 and post them. According to Prof. Miyagawa, those real pictures are ARTS too!

http://www.historywiz.com/nanjing-mm.htm

I cannot believe that MIT, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, could allow to post such webpages with an appreciation of the war violence and discrimination over a whole race. I seriously request removal of these offensive and misleading webpages from MIT. I also request a sincere apology from Prof. Miyagawa and MIT for publicly posting such discriminating and insulting webpages on me and the whole Chinese community of all over the world. I reserve all the right including the protest and lawsuit against Prof.

Miyagawa and MIT for the discrimination and insults that the webpages above at MIT put on me and the whole Chinese Community in the whole world. I also send this email to Dr. Yablo, Dr. Ritvo, and Prof. Miyagawa, but I would like to bring this issue up to you as well. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

XXX XXX

A CHINESE (Here I don't represent XXX University. I represent myself and my Chinese Fellows!)
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 19:46     标题: 事态进展:刚收到MIT webmaster的回信

Hi,
Thank you for your email about the MIT home page spotlight on Visualizing Cultures.

We appreciate your strong concerns with the images and text on thisweb site, presently spotlighted on the MIT home page.

These images are the subject of academic inquiry. Visualizing Cultureslooks at "cultures" in the broadest sense, including cultures of war,race, propaganda and atrocity that we must confront squarely if we areever to create a better world.

To date, the model case study has been Japan's emergence as a modernstate. The newest unit, Ground Zero 1945, addresses the human effectsof the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

For more information, read an interview with Professor John Dower at

http://web.mit.edu/giving/spectr ... cting-cultures.html

or visit the web site at

http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027j/menu/

Sincerely,
作者: Mr.Big    时间: 2006-4-25 20:49

md个死日本, 黑他!
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 21:59     标题: 网友:我关于MIT回复de回复:课程的重点应着重了解日本的野蛮

原题:This my reply to MIT's reply to my initial Protests
What all these images and this Pulitzer winner's class should focus on is the cruelty of these inhuman Japanese soldiers and the Japanese Race as whole of the times. If you study this, you will find these traits of Japanese Race similar to those of Naizis of Germany actually led to the Pearl Habor Killing and Bombing. These traits are inherent and you should let Americans know and understand so that we can detect and prevent another Pearl Habor and Bombing and another Nanjing Holocast so that we will not let History of Tragedy and cruelty repeat. This should be our high goal of all humans and mankind.
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-25 22:09     标题: 原文详见麻省理工大 网页

http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/2 ... ia/toa_core_04.html
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-26 10:20     标题: 最新动态: 中国驻纽约总领馆开始注意并表强烈不满:MIT日本版画

【特别提示:我们注意到MIT已将相关网页撤出】

美国麻省理工学院(MIT)一个名为「逐鹿亚洲」的日本版画展览,其官方网页竟以一幅歌颂日军屠杀中国人的版画作为首页,引来该校华裔学生及中国领事馆不满。

展览由研究日本史的历史学家道尔主持,展品全出自十九世纪日本风景版画大师葛饰北斋及歌川广重手笔。而展出的版画多是描绘中日甲午战争及日俄战争,当中有大量日军残杀中国人的斩头处决场面,十分血腥。另一版画中的人物,则有自尽身亡的清朝北洋海军提督丁汝昌,以及战死的「致远号」管带邓世昌。

中国驻纽约总领馆表不满

事件引起中国驻纽约总领事馆不满,育参艾方林表示关注事件,并将进行了解。不少中国留学生亦发电邮向校方表示抗议,还致电主办单位要求解释,但该网页至今仍未抽起有关版画。

非MIT的中国留学生也极感不满,认为「MIT公开展示日军的残暴,等於在全体华人的历史伤口上盐」,更呼黑客攻击网站。有学生则表示,展览应指出日本军国主义和侵略战争的残酷本质,否则就会误导观众。

[ 本帖最后由 二楞子 于 2006-4-26 11:38 编辑 ]
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 11:48     标题: 【转】画报事件教授见面会 MIT中国学生驳斥Dower的“学术自由”

今日,MIT校方主持“画报事件”教授与中国留学生的见面会。MIT中国留学生们有理有节、据理力争地同历史系教授辩论。

我4点30分就到了14N,上楼去探了探路,14N-310是一个很小的办公室,心里暗暗

郁闷可能坐不下。在下面逛悠了一圈再次上楼,刚要进门就被办公室里的人告知

13E-310在楼层的另一头。过去一看,只有寥寥几个中国人,其他多是教授和学校

相关官员。心里那是相当的着急,想着,完,学校看来是有备而来,可我们的人马

因为诸多的变更而损失严重。

5点时的部分会场



站在台上的从左到右是Professor Miyagawa,MIT Chancellor Philip Clay, 还有

就是历史系的教授Dower。Chancellor是特地过来主持的,同来的还有校长办公室

及网管等的官员,说明学校还是相当重视这件事情的。



事实证明我的担心是多余的。刚过5点没多久,大批中国学生就开始陆续到来。

Dower先开始讲话。一上来就说这个网页和课程所有的东西都是他写的,与日本教

授无关。之所以Contact里只有日本教授,是因为他自己从来不使用email。然后又

讲日本教授收到多少恐吓信,这些信表现出来多严重的民族主义,最后说他们使用

的这些材料是合理的,很多其他类似的Project都会使用类似的材料。虽然刚开始

的时候提了一下理解我们的感受,但是整个过程相当的义正言辞。



这时候Chancellor开始讲话,说作为大学要兼容并包,如果这些材料在MIT都不能

讲授的话,世界上就没有别的地方可以讲授了。显然,大家根本不卖帐。



同学继续陆续进场



左边的哥们儿是科技日报过来做fellow的,后来举了个很好的例子。右边这位

susan是校长办公室的。


日本教授道歉,一开始就说deeply regretful。 他今天的态度是相当不错的。



接着Dower又开始讲他的那些理论,辩论他们使用的材料是恰当的。这时,一个勇

敢的MIT 哥们儿第一个站了出来打断了他的话。虽然并没有非常有效的搏击,但是

给后面大家的争相发言提供了巨大的信心。



Dower不卖账,凭借口语优势紧紧相逼。



这时候,MIT CSSA的前任主席,素有女将风范的hidy挺身而出,用准备良久的发言

有点哽咽地向Dower发起轰炸,从表现方式,材料内容等多方面发表意见,博得了

在座听众热烈的鼓掌声援!其他同学也在踊跃地举手争取与教授交锋的机会



右边的这位女生口齿伶俐,多次向教授发难



这位MIT女生的评论水平也相当高



还有一位MIT哥们儿干脆单挑Dower

其他同学轮番发问,各抒己见



MIT 本科生中国学生会的主席也来发表抗议



同样作为MIT CSSA的长久核心之一,Hai同学也是有备而来,长篇大论地发表中国

同胞的看法,并且最后送给Dower一本《南京大屠杀》,建议他学习一下中日关系

日历史再研究日本历史。



巧的是,这位黑衣短发mm也给教授们准备了一本,于是正好一起送了。

Hai在展示书中杀戮图片



Dower进行回应,还说美国炸了广岛他也痛心,但不会如此过敏。废话,又不是你

家被炸了,炸别人当然心里不过敏啦!



这时候冒出一个研究这方面历史的本科生,大谈不必如此过敏。



还有一个老美也跳出来声援教授们,被中国学生狂扁。

跳出一个教了二十多年中国历史的教授来,说Dower是他见过的最正直,最没有

bias的历史学教授。女将继续发问

日本教授作答,措词比较收敛,阐述自己为何研究日本史以及开始这个项目的初衷。

Chancellor宣布进入最后proposal阶段,每位想发言的观众都只有20秒。

中国史教授跳出来propose,不道歉,图片照常上,但在网页上开一个有管理员的

论坛供大家发表意见。大伙儿一阵坚决的“No!”他竟然气得一边大喊“This is

academic freedom!”一边夺门而出,身后还有人跟着喊“This is not!”。教了

二十多年中国史,却对中国人的情感缺乏基本的尊重和理解,真是可悲!

同学继续20秒发言。Chancellor紧握话筒控制时间。

这位新闻记者之前提了个很好的例子,说的是他前一段在开一个国际媒体会议的时

候,美国的一些大牌记者批评现在的媒体为了商业利益而不惜多报暴力事件吸引眼

球,进而指出作为门面媒体,MIT在主页上宣传这样的展览,虽是无心但也是不恰

当的。

最后Vower来了总结陈词,无非还是老调重弹。他一弹完,Chancellor就赶紧宣布

今天的见面会结束,没给同学们反击的机会。

还是会议结束以后,我们剩下一些人跟校方进行了很好的交流,向她们说明了实情

的严重性,提出了我们目前设想的一些解决方案(包括校方和教授的正式道歉),

并要求校方给教授施压。校方表示会尽最大努力尽快给大家一个答复。明天中午

CSSA与Dean of Graduate Students见面,相信会有更多更具体的进展。

总的来看,这次见面会我们中国同胞的表现相当的出色,有理有据,也引起了校方

对这件事情更多的关注和重视。日本教授认错态度较好,Dower虽然对发生的事情

表示遗憾,但是还是没有从实质上认识到为什么整个Chinese Community被

pissed off。我们的同学多次提出这个问题给他,还是没有答案。

最后一句话:United We Win!

[ 本帖最后由 二楞子 于 2006-4-27 21:07 编辑 ]
作者: 窗外城    时间: 2006-4-27 14:46

过分虽过分,可是楼主你这样把别人电话,信箱什么贴出来是犯法的知道么?
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 18:51

原帖由 窗外城 于 2006-4-27 15:46 发表
过分虽过分,可是楼主你这样把别人电话,信箱什么贴出来是犯法的知道么?

sorry。谢谢提醒
特此声名:本贴为转贴,个大网站均有类似内容
我只是把事件的经过用一个帖子总结了一下。

[ 本帖最后由 二楞子 于 2006-4-27 21:07 编辑 ]
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 18:52     标题: MIT官方网站更新首页决定暂停“视觉文化”网页

中新网4月27日电 麻省理工学院(MIT)官方网站首页日前出现具有日本军国主义色彩的版画展,引起该校华裔学生的强烈反应,华裔学生纷纷透过电子邮件、传真和电话向校方表达不满。该校“视觉文化”负责人25日下午已封锁其网页。
据北美《世界日报》报道,麻省理工学院官方网站23日把该校“视觉文化” (Visualizing Cultures)专案中名为“逐鹿亚洲”的版画作品刊登在首页。其中描述军国主义的作品包括日军在甲午战争时期屠杀中国军人和平民的画面,包括自尽的清王朝北洋海军提督丁汝昌、战死的“致远号”管带邓世昌,以及在日军的枪炮刀剑下命如草芥的清军等。

从24日开始,该校华生对这项充满歧视和血腥的图片堂而皇之登上学校网站首页表示不解和愤怒。华裔学生利用电子邮件陆续向网页管理部门、专案负责人和校方抗议,并有人在网络上呼吁华生发起抗议游行。

中国同学会主席张欢25日表示,华人学生社团尊重教授的学术研究自由,在展览的最后部分也可看到语言阐释中对日本军国主义的批判论点,学生会在不干涉学者历史研究自由的前提下,要求将批判观点放在说明的开始部分,表达鲜明的立场。学生会在促进文化交流的同时,也希望校方今后增加对华人学生民族文化的关注,涉及敏感的事务先与华人学生商讨。

“逐鹿亚洲”展览是由该校历史系教授道尔和日本语言文学系教授Shigeru Miyagawa联合进行的网路文化展览,作品为19世纪日本风景版画大师葛饰北斋(Katsushika Hokusai)与歌川广重(Utagawa Hiroshige)的创作。

据悉,MIT官方网站25日已更新首页,撤下有争议的图片。网页设计部门的李莎婷(Suzana Lisanti)表示,两位教授对华裔学生的抗议非常关注,已经在图片前增加解释内容,甚至决定暂停“视觉文化”的网页,希望与抗议的华人学生会见讨论,澄清误解。

事情至此,告一段落。一场文化风波暂时平息。
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 19:54

很遗憾,未能保存这些图片,现在网页被撤下,这些图片估计也将不会再次出现在网络上了。
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 19:56     标题: I deeply regret —— 日本教授的声明



日本教授的声明 - 希望一些比较冲动的同胞至少停止对他的个人骚扰和威胁


I deeply regret that some of the images on the Visualizing Cultures website have offended you. This was never my intention. I am genuinely sorry that this has caused you pain. We have taken the site down and will continue to work to address the concerns raised, and it is my hope that we can work together to better understand each other.

Shigeru Miyagawa

Professor

MIT
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 21:03     标题: 应该向MIT Dower教授提出的问题

如果能证明Prof. Dower 有学术偏见(Biased),那将是他一大污点。
如果能让他承认自己在搜集材料时候不小心,至少他得道歉,以后也会小心些。

可以参考如下几个问题:

1. 你如何定义“公正的研究战争”?

2. 为了“公正的研究战争”,你认为是否需要展示战争双方对这场战争的观点?

3. 你在搜集日本方面关于这场战争的视觉艺术花费了多长时间,联系过那些学者,那些网站?

4. 你在搜集中国方面关于这场战争的视觉艺术花费了多长时间,联系过那些学者,那些网站?

5. 你认为你公正的表现了这场战争吗?

6. 如果你仅仅在网站上公布日本方面对这场战争的描述,大家怎么不会认为你有偏见呢?

英文版:

Ask Prof. Dower The fllowing questions

1. What do you mean by confront the event of war squarely ? As you put on your website.

2. To study the event squarely, don't you think you should present both sides' view on this event ?

3. What's was your effort to collect Japanese "visual arts" on this event ? Name the contacts and website you researched.

4. What's was your effort to collect Chinese "visual arts" on this event ? Name the contacts and website you researched.

5. Do you think you represented the war in an unbiased attitude ?

6. By only putting Japanese side view, isn't it obvious that people would think you strongly biased ?

Provocating one side of story is call biased.
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 21:59     标题: MIT画报事件:Prof. Dower is Biased 的一些证据

Prof. Dower is Biased 的一些证据:
skydive太牛啦原文:

http://mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article ... 5730427&ftype=0

证据一:

"Old" China was the Anti-West, the Anti-Modern (a notion China?ˉs ownCommunist leaders would later embrace with a vengeance themselves). As aconsequence, while the corpses were unmistakably and brutally Chinese,they stood for a great deal more as well.先把old china骂一通,然后又嘲笑中共。然后,有赞美日本军国主义分子自立自强。

From the Japanese perspective, the denigration of the Chinese thatpermeates the Sino-Japanese War prints was really secondary to theobverse side of this triumphal new nationalism. It was secondary, thatis, to the story of the surpassing discipline and self-sacrifice ofJapanese from every level of society. That is why many of the mostmemorable war prints do not depict the enemy at all, but rather focus onthe Japanese alone. Sometimes they are simply battling raw nature(the fierce blizzards and turbulent seas), sometimes simply shown incontrol of the powerful machinery of modern warfare. Always there is acelebration of brave men engaged in a noble mission?athrowing themselvesagainst an ominous, threatening, but also thrillingly challenging andalluring world.

证据二:

再看这段:

那个清兵斩首图,对日本人屠杀的行为只有一个没有褒贬色彩的词“frightful”。----有一个字对这种暴行的谴责吗?有的只是洋洋得意的转述,用的都是赞美的字眼:benevolence, civilized,

heroic。中国人:barbarity, violent, rebellious.也没有任何对这种歪曲事实的军国主义宣传的谴责。

Kokunimasa offered a harsh “Illustration of the Decapitation of ViolentChinese Soldiers” that included a lengthy inscription. The benevolenceand justice of the Japanese army, this text explained, equaled and evensurpassed that of the civilized Western nations. By contrast, thebarbarity of the Chinese was such that some prisoners attacked theirguards. As a warning, the Japanese—as depicted in the print—hadbeheaded as many as thirty-eight rebellious prisoners in front ofother captured Chinese. The Rising Sun military flag still flutteredin one panel of Kokunimasa’s print; the stalwart cavalry officerstill surveyed the scene; the executioner still struck the familiarheroic pose with upraised sword. The subject itself, however, andsevered heads on the ground, made this an unusually frightful scene.

证据三:

再补充:

整个Old China, New Japan长长的3300个词的介绍,注释中,只有这一句话貌似谴责了日本:

This poisonous seed, already planted in violence in 1894-95, would burstinto full atrocious flower four decades later, when the emperor?ˉssoldiers and sailors once again launched war against China.

就算这句话,也只是说变相的种族主义导致了战争,没有任何对日本战争暴行本身的谴责。

作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-27 22:02     标题: MIT画报事件de特此鸣谢:MIT中国同学的持续支持

近日,在MIT发生了目前大家仍然密切关注的“MIT画报事件”,我们意识到这是一个意义重大而且影响深远的事件,强烈地刺激了中国族群的整体神经,刺激中国人不得不再次思考:
1)中国人究竟是怎样的族群----在一个世界背景下,在西洋和东洋人的眼里,尤其以东邻日本为显然对照;

2)如何对待历史----尤其是惨痛悲惨的历史;

3)如何对待“学术自由”和“人种歧视”;

4)如何协调行动,维护整体的荣誉和利益;

。。。

我们注意到,面对这些问题,不仅国人和洋人有这显然的分歧,国人内部又有各种观点,诱人深思。无论面对历史,或身置辩论多么的苦楚和艰难,这对我们,作为一个意欲立足世界之林的民族的成长、成熟将不无益处!----虽然,《八阕》对待这一事件的报道,同对待其他事件一样:没有观点和立场。

在此我们要特别提到:《八阕》之所以能够对这一事件进行最即时最全面的报道,并由此载往整个华人世界,得到了MIT中国同学的持续支持。为此,我们由衷感谢。----八阕之地。

[ 本帖最后由 二楞子 于 2006-4-27 23:04 编辑 ]
作者: jiejiedog    时间: 2006-4-28 07:14

精彩!
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-28 08:33     标题: 在MIT抗议日本版画的那些“中国学生”都是一群精神病 (不同声音)

不得不说:MIT抗议的“中国学生”都是一群神经病!
首先,这些版画忠实地反映了当时的历史---对学术研究而言,展示研究反映了历史真实的东西即使有可能考虑不周,也是根本没有理由需要道歉的。

第二,这些画不仅客观揭露了日本军队的残暴,同时还正面描绘了邓世昌、丁汝昌等清朝将领的形象。。。如果说这些画公开出来会有人感到不安的话,那倒恰恰应该是屠杀了中国人的日本民族才对-----事实上,反映中国人被日本军队大量屠杀、中国军队在外敌面前不堪一击的艺术作品在大陆层出不穷,而且多被提升到为 “勿忘国耻”的宣传高度。。。既然如此,这些MIT的“中国学生”怎么如今又对这些在大陆都可以公开宣传反映的国耻如此神经过敏呢?

第三,美国黑人在历史上曾为奴隶,美国印第安人在历史上曾惨遭屠杀。。。按理说他们对这些过去的屈辱历史最应该感到难堪,但在如今的美国,不仅学术研究领域可以容忍那些历史的重现,甚至在公开出版物、公开展览中也经常可以看到反映白人贩卖殴打黑奴、或者印第安人被屠杀的当时和现代艺术作品-----黑人和印第安人虽然现在基本上仍被他们祖上的仇人所统治,但却从没有就此类艺术作品的公开展示表示过任何不满。。。难道华人面对根本和当年日本军国主义毫无任何传承关系的美国MIT教授们就非要特别神经过敏不成?

总之,连这类校内学术研究事情都要大吵大闹抗议,还非逼别人公开道歉不可。。。这不仅不能大长中国人的志气,反而显得中国的年轻一代特别不可理喻-----其实什么叫真正的国耻?用坦克机枪在长安街上屠杀手无寸铁的民众,或者重判师涛那样的网络作者。。。这类龌龊事才是真正不仅大丢现代中国的脸,更大丢全体中国人脸的事情!

-----不要以为我这是在“讲政治”,自从我移民海外以来,我已经很多次目睹老外在突然了解六四镇压、或者突然听说师涛被重判(因为牵涉雅虎,所以很受关注)之后,摇着头表示不敢相信世界上竟然有这样国家的夸张表情----每次遇到这样的事情,作为一个来自中国大陆的人,我都会感到一种真正的羞辱。。。

可这种羞辱,如今在MIT对着教授们无理取闹的那帮愤青们却从来不管不问----由此可见这帮愤青实在根本谈不上什么爱国,谈不上什么民族主义。。。他们不过一群对中国和世界都不学无术却又偏偏肾上腺素过多的蠢才罢了----而且这帮蠢才将来还非死乞白赖地留在据说侮辱了他们民族的美国甚至日本不成!
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-28 08:33     标题: MIT日裔教授向中国学生真诚道歉

麻省理工学院中国学生与学者联合会告知,MIT画报事件的引发者Dower教授和Miyagawa教授对版画的展出对中国学生造成的感情伤害表示深切的歉意和真诚的道歉,这一歉意是在今天上午的MIT中国学生与学者联合会和MIT校级领导,新闻办及相关教授参加的会谈中作出的。
这次会议所达成的解决方案包括,Dower教授和Miyagawa教授以及麻省理工学院校方将会尽快在学院网站主页上发表正式申明,这一申明将在网页上永久保存。这一事件也引起了学院种族关系委员会的关注,麻省理工学院还将建立一个将建立用以具体讨论敏感视觉资料的公共论坛,以鼓励大家各抒己见。目前,学校种族关系委员会正在筹备于五月初召开一次关于视觉资料的讨论会。

为了避免日后活动出现类似问题,解决方案还规定,对于极度敏感的视觉资料,“视觉文化”研究组将与中国学生会进行交流和咨询,从而以合适的语言提示为读者提供适当而客观的历史背景。MIT中国学生会重申,对任何不理性行为持强烈反对立场,联合会真诚欢迎各种个人反馈意见。

据麻省理工学院中国学生与学者联合会发出的一份致全体成员和全体同胞的公开信称,27日上午,就此次“视觉文化”网络版画展出之“脱亚入欧”部分,MIT 中国学生与学者联合会(CSSA)与 MIT校方就这次件进行了一次深刻细致的会谈。双方均认同此次版画展出乃是以学术研究为宗旨,并非有基于此内容的艺术展览。

MIT校级领导,MIT新闻办公室,以及这次网络展出的主要负责教授均出席会议。与会双方就这次会谈达到了一系列建设性共识。研究组成员已意识到这些材料的敏感性,认为在引用叙述这些材料时应提供足够的历史背景,并保证与中国学生会及其它相关组织合作以达到此目的。Dower教授与 Miyagawa教授对这次展出对中国同胞造成的感情伤害表示深切的歉意及真诚的道歉
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-28 08:39

郑重声名:本贴所有观点,不代表楼主的观点,楼主只是把事情经过通用时间的前后做了一个简单的罗列,使读者能够更容易观察和关注事态的发展。
作者: 窗外城    时间: 2006-4-28 11:22

原帖由 二楞子 于 2006-4-28 09:39 发表
郑重声名:本贴所有观点,不代表楼主的观点,楼主只是把事情经过通用时间的前后做了一个简单的罗列,使读者能够更容易观察和关注事态的发展。


呵呵,这样你就不会有麻烦!
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-29 11:10     标题: MIT删除网页引发学术自由思考(转)

美国之音记者齐之丰报道/美国麻省理工学院星期二取下了一个历史课程的互联网网页。一些华人学生早些时候对网页中日本兵在甲午战争期间处决中国战俘的19 世纪末木版画表示不满。麻省理工学院的两位任课教授对这种图像令华人感到感情伤害表示歉意,但同时表示,对各种思想的自由探索属于大学的中心价值观,为了一个更好的未来必须学习历史。
麻省理工学院历史课程“文化视觉化”的互联网网页展示了一些日本版画图像,在1894到1895的甲午战争期间,日本帝国当局利用那些版画做为宣传画,其中有一幅版画画的是日本兵在砍中国俘虏的头。

*华人学生提出抱怨*

在华人学生提出抱怨之后,麻省理工学院取下了那个网页,并在星期三晚上召开座谈会,让学生、尤其是华人学生表达他们的看法。

“文化视觉化”是普利策奖得主约翰.道尔教授以及宫川茂教授共同开设的,目的是以尽可能广阔的角度来探索历史,学习历史。

美国的大学以及西方国家的大学历来以学术自由以及自由探索为宗旨,因此麻省理工学院在学生提出投诉之后取下历史课程网页的做法让许多观察者想到,这是否会损害麻省理工学院乃至其他高等学校的学术自由。

*学院各方强调学术自由不应受损*

麻省理工学院有关各方也对这个问题也十分敏感,并且都强调大学的学术自由不应当受到损害。麻省理工学院华人学生学者联谊会致函校长表示,“我们也理解这些版画的历史意义,并且尊重作者研究这个问题的学术自由。但是我们对这些图像缺乏适当的历史说明感到震惊。”

“文化视觉化”课程的任课教授道尔以及宫川发表声明表示,在暂时取下有关网页期间,他们正在跟麻省理工学院内的华人学生学者商讨如何组织解释材料,以便更有效地促成跨文化的理解。

*当事教授:揭示人类经验*

道尔以及宫川两位教授表示,那些甲午战争期间的日本帝国宣传材料并不反映他们的信仰,他们的目的是“揭示人类经验的某些方面,其中包括帝国主义、种族主义、暴力以及战争。假如我们要创造一个更好的世界,就必须直面这些问题”。

在教学中如何对待历史性作品的争议时常在许多国家出现。早些时候,美国一些学校把美国文学名着“哈克.芬历险纪”列为禁书,理由是书中反复出现在当今看来是对黑人有诬蔑意味的称呼。
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-29 11:12     标题: MIT道尔和一宫川茂教授的声明

我们希望能够对这些版画所造成情感上的伤害表达深深的遗憾,并且对这个网站给中国社区带来的痛苦真诚地道歉(genuinely sorry)。这与我们初衷完全不同,我们的目的是以最可能宽广的视野来看待历史,并且从中学习。
这个项目的一个部分展示了一些版画的画面,而这些版画在1894年至1895年中日战争中被用作宣传工具,是不同社会如何使用视觉图案来达到政治目的的例子。这些历史图案并不代表我们的观点和思想。相反,我们的目的是展示人类历史的不同层面---包括帝国主义、种族主义、暴力和战争---如果我们希望去开创一个更好的世界,我们必须多元地去面对这些层面。这些复杂的议题在图案附带的文字中有被提及。如果我们想有更好的未来,我们必须从历史中学习。

许多访问过这个网站的人暗示,这个项目的目的并不足够明确地来抵消这些历史图案中所带有的负面含义。在对这点认同的基础上,我们与中国学生以及其他社团座谈讨论我们如何可以通过加强不同文化之间理解的方式来呈现这些材料。同时,中国学生的顾虑正在被关注,而我们也暂时关闭了这个网站。我希望能够澄清,这是学术研究项目,其中并没有任何艺术展览的含义。

我们对曾帮助我们解决这个议题并抚慰受伤害中国社区的中国学生团体的成员表达感激。在这些讨论中,我们一直被学校的核心价值所领引:对不同思想的自由探究以及对知识文化多样性的认同。这也是我们所致力于的。

历史教授道尔(John W. Dower)语言学以及外国语言文学教授一宫川茂(Shigeru Miyagawa)
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-29 11:12     标题: MIT:他们俩有学院(MIT)最有力的支持

据美联社4月28日报道,在中国学生对一副19世纪日本士兵斩首中国囚犯的版画进行抱怨后,美国麻省理工学院关闭了一门历史课的网站。
在中国学生提出抗议后,“视觉文化”(Visualizing Cultures)课程的其中一位教授作出了道歉 (apology)的表示,而这正式门课程使用了1894年至1895年中日战争的版画作为课程材料。

报道指出,这门课程由普利策奖得主历史教授道尔(John Dower)和作出道歉的语言学教授一宫川茂(Shigeru Miyagawa)开设。

“我为视觉文化网站上有所冒犯的图案表示深深地遗憾”,一宫川茂说。“这不是我原来的意图,我为给你们带来的痛苦真诚地惂歉(genuinely sorry)。”

4月25日,这个网站关闭,而学校于次日主持了一次座谈会,让中国学生能够表达他们的顾虑。

报道指出,麻省理工学院中国学生学者联合会在给校长的一封信中要求在网页上面提供“合理的历史背景介绍”,并且贴出一个警告“这些图片是绘画图片和有种族主义倾向的(racist)。”

中国学生学者联合会在信中表示,斩首图案中的用词侮辱了中国人民。

1894-1895年,日本赢得了争夺朝鲜控制权的中日战争。

“我们对这些图片没有提供解释以及适当的历史背景介绍感到震惊”,信中提及。

麻省理工学院发言人庞姆(Pam Dumas)表示,学校没有计划对两名教授进行任何纪律处罚。“他们俩有学院最有力的支持。作为课程的一部分使用这些图片并不代表是对那些历史事件的认同,这是一个学术课程,是对各种思想的自由探究。”

庞姆表示,这个网站只是暂时被关闭,学院教授和中国学生团体正在讨论给这些图片添加更多的背景介绍。
作者: 二楞子    时间: 2006-4-29 11:34     标题: MIT事件高潮俨然已经过去【总结篇】

如同我当初猜想的一样,结局和中美当年撞机一样,双方都强硬一把,然后各让一步,各自宣布胜利.其实在现实中,这样的结果也不奇怪,要MIT承认错误,那是不可能的.不愿接受MIT申明,也得接受.(当初常春藤有不少反对入侵依拉克的教授,在本校半数教授,美国主要媒体,已及众多校友的威胁重压之下,也没有怎样.这次单凭中国留学生,搞到这样已经很不错了.)这次MIT虽然嘴上不承认错误,但撤了网页,行动上是让步了.至少旁观者不禁要问:如果没有错,为什么要撤?
某一行为是否中立,要放在历史环境中看.美国曾有白人,黑人学校分开,并且经费完全相等的州法律.不看历史,根本无法判断是黑人歧视白人,还是反之.但当这一貌似中立的事件发生在美国这样一个有着悠久奴隶制的国家时,那显然是在歧视黑人了.

类似,小犬拜神厕,也狡辩(大意)说他是拜非战犯的供奉排位.但稍知道倭狗侵略历史的人就知道,小犬不过在扯淡,分明是明目张胆地宣扬军国主义.

这次MIT事件,对中国人,乃至于所有亚洲人,都很好理解.只可惜这是在美国,大部分美国人本来历史知识就不多,又全都是书本知识,所以很难理解为什么这些网页有宣扬军国主义,为疯狗歌功颂德的实质.

斗争是不可能毕其功于一役的.现在回贴的人都少了,看来冲劲已经过去,事件不会有太多进展了.不过MIT嘴硬手软,已经是不小的成果.部分美国人,包括那个号称书本研究亚洲多年的那个DOWER,对亚洲,尤其中国历史,看法多少有改变,至少了解更加感性了.

建议把斗争历史,经验,详加考古,由MIT参加斗争的同学整理完善,永远保留于此BBS,为将来革命高潮做准备.




欢迎光临 人在德国 社区 (http://csuchen.de/bbs/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2