本帖最后由 magicboy 于 2009-2-27 11:37 编辑
美国University of Chicago教授反对法国的立场！
http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/7 r* I6 J% [) q% Y9 h
* }! G* r, }3 K) i/ ]- _; K: B
James Hevia on Summer Palace Relics7 K# o( A7 y; f( ^* X
With disputes relating to lootedChinese objects in the news, we asked Professor James Hevia of theUniversity of Chicago, author of an important book called English Lessons,which includes analysis of foreign military actions in China from the1860s through the post-Boxer occupation of 1900-1901 and was cited in our earlier post on the topic, if he had any thoughts on the subject to share with our readers. Already quoted briefly in a useful Christian Science Monitor articleon the issue, here's what he had wrote in response to our query:
Therecent announcement by Christie’s of yet another auction includingSummer Palace plunder continues the long tradition of corporate andnational indifference to the depredations of European armies in Africaand Asia in the nineteenth century. Imperial and colonial warfarealways resulted in plunder. This is not news, but does need to beremembered in a form other than the public sale of stolen artifacts.More importantly, no one has yet been able to arrive at a formula foraddressing what are obviously understood by the descendents of victimsof these events as ongoing forms of humiliation. It does not help thesituation to read a Christie’s statement claiming that “for each andevery item … there is clear legal title.” That is not simplypreposterous, but Orwellian. How can there be clear legal title tolooted objects? That bit of mendacity is further compounded byChristie’s claim that they also adhere to international law on culturalproperty. There was no international law in 1860 dealing with culturalproperty, which requires, I think, another way of thinking about thestatus and ownership of the objects in question. The same could be saidfor the museums like the Victoria and Albert, the British Museum, theGuimet in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, andnumerous military museums and officer’s messes in Europe and NorthAmerica that hold objects taken in and around Beijing in 1860 and1900-1901. Insofar as they are capable, the animal heads on sale atChristie’s stand in for this vast amount of plunder. Turning them intocommodities only makes matters worse.
- N2 ~) h* U' s
There is also a certainirony in all of this. Since 1997, when Hong Kong was returned to China,the Yuan Ming Gardens in Beijing was the site of the “Never ForgetNational Humiliation” memorial wall. There inscribed on numerousplaques was the sordid history of European and American incursions intoChina, of opium dealing, and the imposition of unequal treaties thatmade up the “century of humiliation.” For reasons that are unclear, themonument was taken down last year. Perhaps it had something to do withthe Olympics. But given this recent reminder of the violent behavior ofWesterners in nineteenth century China, I would not be too surprised tosee a new monument, one that might be titled “Never ever forgetnational humiliation.” |
关于新闻中抢掠中国文物讨论，我们询问芝加哥大学的James Hevia教授是否有一些想法要与我们读者分享。他是重要著作《英语课程》的作者，该书分析了从19世纪60年代经由1900-1901义和团运动后的占领期间，外国军队在中国的行为，并且被我们之前关于此话题的帖子引用。已被《基督教科学箴言报》一篇有帮助的文章所简要地引用，这里是他对我们质疑的回复。
曾经拍卖过颐和园赃物的佳士得公司最近的声明延续了一个社团和国家的“悠久传统”——对19世纪欧洲军队在非洲和亚洲的抢掠漠不关心。帝国和殖民的战争总会导致抢掠。这不是新闻，但是需要以一种形式被铭记而不是拍卖盗走的文物。更重要的是，目前还没人能够做出表述的方案，这个方案能容易地被这些羞辱事件受害者的后代所理解。这种情况对于解读佳士得的说法：“对于每一项……有很清楚的法律条文”没有帮助。这不单是荒谬，而是专制。有关于抢掠的法律条文吗？佳士得声明说他们也依照了文物的国际法，这进一步组成了他们的谎言。1860年没有国际法律来处理文物，我认为这表明对于存疑物品的身份和所有权需要另一种思路。那些持有1860年和1900-1901年北京及北京周围带走文物的地方也同样适用，如维多利亚与爱伯特博物馆、大英博物馆、巴黎集美博物馆，纽约大都会（艺术）博物馆，和很多军事博物馆和欧洲北美的官方展览。 就他们的能力而言，佳士得拍卖的兽首代替了这些大量的赃物。把它们变成商品只会使事情更糟糕。
也有对这些的嘲讽。自1997年，当香港回归中国后，北京圆明园设立了“勿忘国耻”的纪念墙。无数的饰板上刻着欧洲和美国入侵中国的耻辱史，鸦片贸易以及不平等条约的耻辱史，它们组成了“百年耻辱”。由于一些不明原因那个纪念碑去年被拆掉了，可能是和奥运会有关系。但是给西方人对19世纪的中国的暴力行为一个提醒，当看到一个新的纪念碑，上面可能刻着“国耻永不忘”时，我可能不会太惊讶。
(水平有限，翻译中可能会有一些错误，麻烦各位大侠指正，我会及时改正的。不胜感激:-D）
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-2-27 11:19
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2009-2-27 11:34
楼主
