|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2008-6-14 11:38
|
显示全部楼层
【回應原文】
Tibet Response Network Posted:Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:24 pm
Just to say that I will be responding to MA Jones' reply to my posting but I'm in the midst of a very busy day and want to spend some time to try and give a considered and thought-out response.I think the high quality of his post requires that.
I just wanted to say that the reference to reds under beds and Mr. Jones' available time was intended to be ironic. Aussies and Brits, in my experience, understand irony well but it can fall flat with some others.Sorry if that was the case here.
Finally; nope no final nail in my coffin. Might opt for a sky-burial anyway!
David Meanwell
【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511
【聲明】本文翻譯僅限Anti-CNN使用，謝絕轉載。
【中文翻譯】
Tibet Response Network貼於: 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 下午 1:24
只是說一下我將會回應MA Jones對我貼文的回覆, 但我現在很忙, 而且想花些時間試法給一個深思熟慮的回覆。我覺得他優質回貼值得那麼做。
我只想說引用「草木皆兵」及Jones先生有餘暇時間只是說反話。依我經驗, 澳洲佬跟英國佬很懂反話, 其他人卻不著頭腦。要是後者, 那就抱歉了。
最後, 我棺材沒有最後一夥釘子, 也許我會選擇天葬。
【回應原文】
M.A.Jones Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:37pm
David - I look forward to reading your response, but please take your time, as I too will be snowed under with work for the remainder of the day - probably for the next few days in fact.
Your "reds under the bed" remark I took in good humour, by the way - I wasn't in the slightest bit offended by it. If you read my piece On the nature of Chinese governance and society, you will see that I am in fact a Marxian thinker, of the Frankfurt School variety. This in itself hardly motivates me to defend the CCP though,since I regard China's system of governance not as a communist or socialist one, but rather, I see it as an example of a market-preserving federalism that is paternalistically authoritarian (in keeping with the classic Confucian tradition). I do argue though, that China's new capitalism, for all of its undeniable faults, is a historically progressive one.
I agree that Aussies and Brits share a similar sense of humour - I lived and taught in London for two years myself, back in 1994 and 1995, and I very much felt at home there.
Finally, I should like to say that I too would be more than happy to be given a Sky Burial, though you should keep in mind here David that Sky Burials are used only for the disposing of the corpses of commoners. Stupa burial and cremation are reserved for high lamas like His Holiness who are being honoured in death.
Personally though, I can't think of a more environmentally-friendly form of burial, than a Tibetan Sky Burial.
Best regards,
M.A.Jones, Hangzhou
【中文翻譯】
M.A. Jones 貼於: 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 晚上7:37
大衛, 我期待看到你的回應, 但請不用急, 因為我今天剩下來時間也是忙得像被大雪覆蓋, 事實上未來幾天也一樣
順帶一句, 你的「草木皆兵」我是以輕鬆幽默態度面對的, 我一點都沒有被觸怒。如何你有看我那篇中國治國和社會性質探討, 你會發現我其實是法蘭克福學派之流的 (譯註: 是新馬克思主義學派的一支, 以他們的批判理論為特色, 可參閱wikipedia的中英文網頁:
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B3%95%E8%98%AD%E5%85%8B%E7%A6%8F%E5%AD%B8%E6%B4%BE]http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B3%95%E8%98%AD%E5%85%8B%E7%A6%8F%E5%AD%B8%E6%B4%BE[/url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
的馬克思主義思想家的。這本身就很難促使我去為中共辯護, 因為我不認為中國政治制度是共產或是社會主義, 而是被我視為溫和大家長專制獨裁的經濟聯邦制 (古典儒家傳統的延續)。但我會堅持中國的新資本主義, 包括它所有無可否認的過失, 在歷史上是進步的。
我同意澳洲佬跟英國佬有許多互通的幽默感
– 我自己也在1994跟1995年倫敦生活和教了兩年書, 覺得很像在家的感覺。
最後, 我想說我也很欣賞能天葬, 但大衛你得記著天葬只是平民用來處置屍身而已。浮圖(譯註: Stupa是梵文, 音譯窣堵坡, 中譯浮圖或塔婆, 是埋火化後舍利的墳冢) 和火化才是像活佛這些高級喇嘛死後才有的尊榮的專利。
個人認為沒有比西藏天葬更為環保的葬禮儀式了。祝好M.A.Jones , 杭州
【回應原文】
Tibet Response Network Posted:Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:05 pm
Dear Mark,
Thanks for your reply - still gathering information for mine. I am a little disconcerted to hear that you taught in London in 94/95 as based on your Culture Club experience you can only have been 14/15 at the time? (And I now realise that the age quoted of 15 in 1995 would make you just 11 when you began work with your current employer of over fifteen years.) Care to clarify - perhaps you meant 25?
I would also mention allegations, of which I am sure you are aware, made against you in the past in other for a that you make posts in other names congratulating yourself for your contributions. Call me a cynic but I feel some of the other postings here do read like that.
There have also been allegations of plagiarism which would at least in part explain your prolific output.
We at Tibet Response like to know who we are debating with, although in this cyber-world this is often hard to ascertain. It seems you are an Australian from Sydney, probably working as an educator in Beijing these last four years or so and a self-confessed "China-lover". Care to add any more detail?
Dixon Green - who may or may not be David Meanwell or vice versa.
_________________
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet
【中文翻譯】
Tibet Response Network貼於: 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 晚上9:05親愛的麥克:
謝謝回應 – 還在為我自己的回應搜集資料。聽你說94/95在倫敦教書, 你又說自己文化俱樂部的往事時只有14/15歲, 我有點時空錯亂? (那你報自己在1995年是15歲, 那代表你15年前替現在僱主工作時只有11歲) 麻煩你澄清一下, 也許你是說25歲吧?
我也想說有關一些我相信你也很清楚的過去對你的指稱說你用分身貼文來稱讚自己。說我憤世嫉俗吧, 不過我覺得這裡其他人的貼文讀起來真是那麼回事。
也曾有一些抄襲的指控, 至少部份解釋了你寫作的多產。
我們在西藏反應這裡希望知道我們是跟誰在辯論, 雖然在虛擬網路這通常很難確定。似乎你是來自雪梨的澳洲人, 或許過去四年左右在北京任教, 而且自命是「中國熱愛者」。夠膽提供多些資料嗎?
Dixon Green – 也許是或也許不是 David Meanwell 或反之亦然.
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet
西藏緊急回應網絡
–
與藏人為西藏工作
【回應原文】
M.A.Jones Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:34 pm
Dear Dixon Green/David Meanwell,
Firstly, I made a typing error in my previous comment (obviously) - I meant to type "1985" not "1995". I have just edited my previous comment by correcting the mistake. I was born in 1969, which makes me now 37.
It is true that I was once accused of plagiarism on another site, roughly two years ago, I might add. The allegation was exaggerated, but I confess partly true. My comments at that time had been strung together quickly, and although I often did identify the titles of the studies I used and the names of the authors, I would often also copy and paste passages without taking the time to place them in quotation marks. I didn't really see the need to, since I was only making blog comments - a poor error of judgement on my part though, I now realise. Nevertheless, those particular comments, like my comments here, were a product of a synthesis. Like most people, I synthesize the views and research findings of others in order to develop assessments of my own.
These days, as you can see from my comments on this forum,I have learnt to take a little more care in the way that I present my views.All of my sources are cited, in that I mention the names of the authors and the titles of their studies or reports, and I have also integrated their passages as quotes. I have drawn from quite a large number of sources, and most of them I derived from the internet, so you are quite free to check them for yourself.
I therefore request that you engage me on the arguments that I present, rather that on how closely I adhere to conventional academic standards of citation when presenting them. Remember, this is only a forum -I'm not writing for publication here.
Why do I take the time to conduct such research and to then write up such lengthy comments? The answer is simple and far more innocent than what you seem to want to suggest. Aside from weekends, I have little day-to-day contact with other native English speakers where I am, and my Chinese language skills are very limited. I therefore use forums like this as away of communicating with others in order to exercise my brain. I enjoy developing a particular line of discourse, and I post them on forums such as this in the hope of being able to test the strengths and weaknesses of my arguments. I am not a member or representative in any way of any political organisation or activist group. It seems as though, in many cases, the more dogmatic and lesser tolerant among forum readers find it easier and necessary to try to look for ways of discrediting those individuals whose positions they don't like or disagree with - especially when they are confronted with evidence that they find difficult to challenge.
The charges of plagiarism I faced two years ago on the other forum in question, were levied at me as part of a wider smear campaign by frustrated and vindictive Tony Martin-types, and my response, I must confess,was to experiment with the use of multiple person as (which I have come to regret I might add, although it was also both a creative and liberating experience in some ways) but I can assure you that I have not done so here, nor do I intend to do so here. I write most of these comments from my Apple laptop at home (using the Safari browser) and sometimes (as I'm doing now) from my office computer on campus (using Windows), and I am located in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. The Moderator of this forum should therefore be able to verify for you that my two IP addresses are both Hangzhou ones. I have no idea where the other posters that you find suspect are writing from, but I would be very surprised if there is anybody else contributing to this discussion that is also writing from Hangzhou.
You imply, because I wrote under the name of "China Lover" on another site, that I must therefore be somehow biased in my views. If you read my piece On the nature of Chinese governance and society you will be able to see just where exactly I am coming from intellectually - I am a Marxian thinker influenced most strongly by those writers of the Frankfurt School. This hardly makes me a mouthpiece of the CCP then, does it? I don't even consider the Chinese system of government to be a communist or socialist one. Rather, I see it as a market-preserving federalism, albeit, of a paternalistically authoritarian nature (in keeping with the Confucian tradition). You will see, if you read both that piece and my other piece titled Shenzhen Kitsch, that I am also quite critical of China's new capitalism, and of the CCP. I nevertheless see China's new capitalism, for all of its undeniable faults, as being historically progressive.
Also, I have never written or lived in Beijing,though I have been to Beijing a few times on vacation. I have been here in China now for a full five years, not four, throughout which time I have lived in the cities of Huai'an, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and now Hangzhou.
I am employed by the N.S.W. Department of Education and Training, and you can visit the site that I have set up to showcase my students work and read my full profile at the following address: www.zustenglish.blog.comYou can also learn from this site where I am currently working.
If there is anything more that you would like to know about me please don't hesitate to ask. I'll even provide you with my shoe size if you like!
You can also visit my humble little China travel website, at: www.journeysthroughchina.blog.comif you want to see what I look like.
Finally, and in anticipation of your promised response to my arguments on the Tibetan issue, I'd like to say a few things about my actual sources.
The writer who identifies him or herself as the Tibetan Photo Project has, on another thread, raised some valid questions in relation to my use of sources. I do rely very heavily, as he points out, on Western sources, the majority of which are academic research papers.
There is a reason for this: I do not speak the Tibetan language, so I cannot communicate with the vast majority of Tibetans living in Tibet. When I travelled throughout the Kham region for example, back in 2002, I was unable to find one single Tibetan monk who could speak either Mandarin or English, and so was I simply unable to strike up much of a conversation with any of them -either directly, or through my other half, who is Chinese. I was therefore restricted to making visual observations.
All of the academic studies that I have used here were produced by researchers who have spent lengthy periods of time in Tibet and or Dharmasala, and their observations and findings from their discussions with Tibetans are, I think, every bit as valid as those who speak out on behalf of the Tibetan independence movement and its government in exile.
Keep in mind too, that I have drawn from a wide variety of sources - count them all - I certainly have not relied on the findings of one or two studies only.
The Tibetan Photo Project has also raised the question of funding, which is a valid one of course, but unfortunately only one of the studies that I have drawn upon cited its sources of funding. That was the study I discussed at length carried out by Melvyn C. Goldstein, who is Professor and Chairman, Department of Anthropology, and Director of the Center for Research on Tibet at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Cynthia M. Beall, who is Professor of Anthropology at Case Western Reserve University.Their research was carried out over a 16 month period in the Tibet Autonomous Region, and was supported by grants from the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China, the Committee on Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society, and the National Science Foundation. It certainly doesn't appear then, to have been politically or ideologically motivated or biased.
In any case, I could just as easily point the same questions at you David/Dixon. It is, after all, an undeniable fact that the government in exile employs a very good and experienced PR team, and enjoys considerable funding from the U.S. State Department and other commercial enterprises.
Keep in mind here, that I have never denied the fact that serious human rights abuses have occurred in Tibet, nor have I ever argued that they don't continue to occur today. My argument focuses on the bigger picture, which I see as improving, and I also argue that the extent to which human rights abuses have occurred in Tibet in the past have also been exaggerated.
You will of course argue that you have drawn your knowledge from the personal discussions that you have had in English with English-speaking Tibetans in exile. This kind of evidence, while important, is also quite limited though, in that their experiences do not necessary represent those of the majority, and in that they may also have personal grievances which may lead them to exaggerate the extent to which human rights abuses occur.
Such qualitative evidence is therefore insufficient on its own if one wants to gain an accurate view of the broader picture. This is why I am inclined to give more credence to those academic research findings that have been carried out within the TAR, and that have some kind of quantitative strength, as opposed to a purely qualitative one.
You may argue that the sheer number of testimonies given by Tibetans in exile provides such a quantitative view, but I would have to disagree with you on that, simply because such numbers constitute a relatively small percentage of China's overall Tibetan population - both within and outside the TAR. That doesn't mean that their testimonies should be ignored, but it does limit their value if one's objective is to gain a broader picture of how the majority of ethnic Tibetans feel about their lives under Chinese rule.
By all accounts, Tibetans are divided in their attitudes,which are not only complex, but are also in states of constant flux. I do not believe that exaggerating the extent of the human rights abuses that occur in Tibet will in any way lead to improvements. In fact, as I have already argued, it would be far more beneficial if Tibetan lobbyists were to present to the world a more soberly balanced and realistic view of what is happening in today's Tibet - and for reasons that I have already outlined in an earlier comment via a reading of A.Tom Grunfeld and others.
Warmest wishes to you,
M.A.Jones, Hangzhou
【中文翻譯】
M.A.Jones : 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 晚上10:34
親愛的 Dixon Green 或 David Meanwell,
首先, 我在之前的回應(明顯地)打錯了字- 把"1985"打成"1995", 我剛把之前貼文修改了, 我是1969年出生, 今年37歲。
沒錯我曾在另一論壇被指稱抄襲, 我可補充一上, 那大概兩年前的事。那指控是誇大其辭, 但我也承認有部份是真實的。我那次的回應是倉猝組織起來, 雖然我經常說明那些研究的標題及作者名字, 我也時常剪貼引用而沒及加上引號。我那時的確不覺得有那個必要, 因為我只是在寫部落格回應 – 雖然我現在覺得那是我考慮不周。無論如何, 那時的具體回應, 一如我這裡的回應, 都是一個綜合言論結果。跟許多人一樣, 我綜合了他人的看法及研究結果以求發展我自己的判斷。
最近, 你可以從這論壇裡我的回應中看到, 我對自己意見呈現小心了很多。我的資訊來源全標明的, 作者, 研究題目或報告都清楚, 引述也加括。我採用大量的資料, 主要是來自網路, 所以你大可隨時查看。
為什麼我花時間從事這樣研究, 長篇大論為文? 答案很簡單而比你希望暗示的來得單純。除了週末, 我在這裡很少有機會跟英語為母語的人說話, 而我中文能力又有限。故此我利用論壇作為與別人交流以動動腦筋。我喜歡另闢途徑, 我這樣貼文是希望考驗自己論點的優劣。我不是任何政治組織或是活躍份子的一員。似乎許多時候一些比較教條的或是不耐煩的讀者特別當發覺面對難以挑戰的證據時, 想法來攻擊他們不喜的人的公信力是有必要而比較容易的。
兩年前我在別的論壇面對的抄襲指控, 也是像Tony Martin那種失意想報復的人大規模抹黑行動的一部份。我必須承認我的反應是在試驗利用不同多重身份(也許我得指出我後來很後悔, 雖則那在某程度上是有創意及放任的經驗), 而我可以保證在這裡我絕沒這樣做, 也不準備做。我大多數回應是用家裡的蘋果電腦(用Safari瀏覽器), 有時(比如現在)是用學校辦公室的電腦(用Windows), 而我現在是在浙江省杭州市。這論壇的版主應該可以向你證明我兩個ip地址都是杭州的。我不知你懷疑的其他回應者從那裡回應, 但我很奇怪這論壇回應者中還有來自杭州的。
你暗示因為我在另一論壇上用了「中國熱愛者」一名, 我就必然看法存在某種偏見。如果你看了我那篇論中國統治及社會性質一文, 你就可以知道我智性取向如何 – 我是深受法蘭克福學院學者影響的馬克思主義思想家。這本身就很難讓我成為中共的代言人, 對否? 我根本沒把中國統治系統視為是共產或社會主義的。而是看它作為雖是大家長專制獨裁的經濟聯邦制 (古典儒家傳統的延續)。如果你有看那篇及我另一篇名為深圳庸俗作品, 你就該明白我對中國的新資本主義及共產黨持批判態度。但儘管它無可否認的過失,我還是認為中國新資本主義具歷史性進步的。
還有, 我雖然去過北京旅遊數次, 我從來沒寫過或是在北京生活過。現在我已在中國整整五年, 不是四年, 我在淮安, 上海, 深圳都待過, 如今是在杭州。
我受僱於新南威爾斯教育訓練部, 你可以參閱我為學生功課設的網頁, 內有我詳細資料, 地址如下:
www.zustenglish.blog.com在這裡你可找到我現在工作的地方。
如你還需要其他有關我的情況, 歡迎發問, 你喜歡的話, 我甚至可以告訴你我鞋子的尺碼!
如你想知道我長相如何, 你也可以過訪我小小中國行蹤的網址(譯註: 網址已失效) www.journeysthroughchina.blog.com
最後, 在預期你承諾對我有關西藏問題的回應時, 我想說說我真正的資訊來源。
那位自稱是Tibetan Photo Project的仁兄或仁姐在另一欄裡就我採用的資源提出一些實質的質疑。正如他說, 我的確大量依靠西方資訊, 大部份是學術研究文章。
這是有原因的: 我不懂藏文, 所以我不能跟西藏的廣大藏人交流。比如我在2002年在康區旅行時, 我無法找到一位能說普通話或英語的西藏僧侶, 於是我沒法跟他們交談 – 不管是直接, 或是通過我太太, 一個中國人。所以我只能局限於觀察上。
我這裡用的所有學術研究都是由在西藏及達蘭薩拉長期研究的研究人員做的, 我覺得他們跟西藏人的討論所得的觀察及結論, 跟替藏獨運動及流亡政府代言的言論是同樣效用的。
要記著是, 我是採用許多不同來源 – 你可以數數 – 我肯定沒有只依賴一兩個研究結果而已。
Tibetan Photo Project也提到資金的問題, 當然這也是很實在的, 但遺憾是我引用的研究中只有一個說明它的(研究)資金來源。那是俄亥俄州, 克里夫兰, 华盛顿天主教大学(Case Western Reserve University)人类学系教授, 西藏研究中心主任梅尔文·戈尔斯坦教授,与该大学人类学教授辛西娅·比尔(CynthiaM.Beal)的研究。他們的研究在西藏自治区進行超过16个月, 获国家科学院与中国学术交流委员会, 美国国家地理协会研究与探险委员会, 和美国国家科学基金支助支持。它明顯地不像有任何政治或意識形態推動或偏見的。
無論如何, 我也同樣可以輕易以同樣的題目來質疑你大衛或迪斯。畢竟不能否認的是流亡政府僱用了一個很優秀有經驗的公關隊伍, 而且從美國國務院及其他商業企業獲得不菲的資金。
請記著是我從來沒有否認西藏有嚴重侵犯人權的事實, 也沒辯論這種事今天不再繼續。我的爭論是聚焦在更廣的層面, 而我看到是在改善中。而我爭論的是西藏過去發生的人權侵犯程度是被誇大的。
你當時會辯稱你所知是來自個人與懂英語的流亡藏人的英語對話得來的。這些證據雖也重要, 卻也是很有限的, 因為那些人的經驗不必然是大部份人的經驗, 而且也因為他們有些個人恩怨而導致他們把侵犯人權事件有所誇大。
單憑這種質量的證據去掌握正確的全面觀點是不足夠的。因此我傾向覺得那些在西藏自治區, 較具量質的學術研究比純質的證據較可信。
你也可反駁流亡藏人幾個純粹的見證也具量方面的視野, 但我必須持相反意見, 因為這些數據對整個中國-包括西藏自治區以內及以外的藏族人口來說, 只能是相對很少的百分比。那不意味他們的例證該被忽略, 但如果我們目的是想知道大部份藏族人對他們在中國管治下的生活感覺時, 造些例證的價值是有限的。
一切資料顯示, 西藏人的態度是分歧, 不但是複雜, 而且是一直在變化中。我不相信誇大西藏境內的人權侵犯事件有利於任何改善。事實上, 一如我之前所論, 若西藏遊說團體向世界呈現今日西藏合理真實的情況, 將更為有利 – 理由就是我在介紹戈倫夫及其他人的文章時所列出那一樣。
M.A.Jones 杭州
[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-6-14 11:41 编辑 ] |
|
楼主: ltbriar
狗仔卡
显身卡
发表于 2008-7-28 15:49
