外國的月亮

標籤: 明日黃花, 倉海君

媒體說：「你奸。」你就發現自己很奸。媒體說：「有人罵人奸。」你就聽到滿街都在說：「奸...奸...奸...奸...奸...奸...」。

梁文道最近有一篇《焉能辨我是忠奸》，本意似乎是提醒大家要在具體情境中實踐及理解道德原則，不要對歷史人物的忠奸妄下判斷，對此我當然沒有異議。可惜這篇理應很具批判精神的文章，依然刺眼地浮現着一種很膚淺的中西二元對立觀，例如他說：

第二次世界大战结束之后，欧陆各国也纷纷掀起了肃清“通敌者”的风潮(“通敌者”一般英译为Collaborator，他们似乎没有“德奸”、“日奸”和 “荷兰奸”的概念)。

关于“通敌者”的糊涂账，西方史学界已经研究得十分透彻，实况绝非历史剧里那般正邪分明。反观中国，几乎所有超越简化、二元对立模式的声音都成了异议，甚至也成了一种“汉奸”的雄辩。

我们中国人学历史就像小孩看戏，任何人物一出场，首先要问：“他是忠臣还是奸贼？”除此之外，再无第三条路。

難道西方真沒有「漢奸」這概念或說法嗎？難道只有中國人才忠奸分界心理變態嗎？

“Collaborator”源於二次大戰維琪法國，「漢奸」則起於清代。單就詞源而論--或用梁文道所謂「要历史地对待历史」的角度審之--兩者當然不會完全對應。從詞義來說，「漢奸」跟「叛國者」(Traitor)沒很大分別， 只是漢奸較traitor狹義，因為traitor只是背叛自己國家，但不一定要「通敵」，而漢奸今天的含意則明顯是「通敵賣國」。然而traitor本身已包含漢奸的意思，儘管兩字不完全對應，但你不能說西方沒這「概念」。至於Collaborator跟漢奸又是否對應呢？的確，Collaborator不完全等同漢奸，因為法國當時有一種 「權宜協和者」(collaborateur tactique)，其目的就是要「把國家從外國桎梏中解放，恢復自由及盡量避免民眾遭受屠殺」(libérer le pays du joug étranger et recouvrer ma liberté, éviter, autant que possible, le massacre de masse de gens innocents，見Wikipédia)。由此觀之，我們當然不能把 collaborateur一律譯為法奸。但梁文道似乎不知道法文中collaborateur經二次大戰後已可作貶義字用，而為了指明是與德國勾結的賣國賊，通常又簡化為collabo， 有時更被「德語化」成充滿諷刺意味的Kollabo，所以collabo/Kollabo正是「法奸」。

討論「漢奸」是否有對應的外語字只是翻譯問題，我相信我已經回答了。剩下來的只是「中西文化」這種通常沒甚意義的「大問題」。讓我們看看梁文道這兩段話：

我们中国人学历史就像小孩看戏，任何人物一出场，首先要问：“他是忠臣还是奸贼？”除此之外，再无第三条路。

关于“通敌者”的糊涂账，西方史学界已经研究得十分透彻，实况绝非历史剧里那般正邪分明。反观中国，几乎所有超越简化、二元对立模式的声音都成了异议，甚至也成了一种“汉奸”的雄辩。

在梁筆下，中國史學家似乎都很simple and naive，但我國著名史學家呂思勉先生，早在1923年出版的《白話本國史》中已用非常客觀的角度為「漢奸」秦檜平反了(見《南宋和金朝的和戰》一章)，更重要的，這不是一部流傳於小圈子的學術論著，而是寫給廣大民眾的普及書籍。中國史學界真是像梁文道筆下那麼蒙昧嗎？他們難道沒有盡責教育國民嗎？當然，別人寫出來是一件事，你有沒有看又是另一件事了。

至於要說到「非黑即白」的習性，何以見得就是中國人的專利？平民被罵為「叛國賊」，難道是中國獨有的奇景？大家都替李安不值，卻不提一提Michael Moore，真有趣。

http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=277 :

The "documentary" movie Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore is -- in a word -- TREASON!!!
To dupe the uninformed, delight the blame-America-first crowd and inspire terrorists, Moore concentrates his anti-Bush venom to the detriment of our troops and our nation at a time of war. As a result, more of our soldiers are dying, and America is increasingly being threatened because of this turncoat's treachery.
Don't let Moore get away with treason! Sign this petition urging U.S. Attorney General-to-be Alberto Gonzales to brand Moore a treacherous traitor guilty of seeking to undermine our nation's resolve to fight while giving aid and encouragement to our avowed enemies during a time of war!

http://www.cin3ma.tv/moving_pictures/reviews/f/fahrenheit_911.shtml :

Many moviegoers called Michael Moore a traitor for making Fahrenheit 9/11. Why? Just because a person dug up some truths and shared them with the world, does that make him/her a traitor? Michael was passionate and patriotic enough to rightfully do what he thought was proper. In a free country, you can do the very same thing–make your own movie or web site, present your own opposing views, and disprove his.
The real traitors, in my opinion, are the corporate media. Instead of doing their duty of extracting the truth out of prominent people's asses, they have been helping covering it up big time. In essence, they've been propagandizing the masses for many years.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=78 :

“Alvarez has formed a group called Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood (http://www.pabaah.com) and he wants Michael Moore charged with treason.”

附錄

Y.T. :　Collaborateurs!(《焉能辨我是忠奸》評論)

(1) "这些往事，皆有史可考。关于“通敌者”的糊涂账，西方史学界已经研究得十分透彻，实况绝非历史剧里那般正邪分明。反观中国，几乎所有超越简化、二元对立模式的声音都成了异议，甚至也成了一种“汉奸”的雄辩。" Mr. Leung, I am sorry to say, seems to be very fond of this sort of contrast: "Look! The West"--always in a general sense--"has done this and this already. But look, we are still so simple and naive" etc. etc.

"关于“通敌者”的糊涂账，西方史学界已经研究得十分透彻"; that statement concerns professional historians in the West. "反观中国，几乎所有超越简化、二元对立模式的声音都成了异议，甚至也成了一种“汉奸”的雄辩"; this, on the other hand, asserts something about the more general readers in the Chinese world. But such a comparison I can certainly make the other way round. I can loudly proclaim, that whereas there is already good documentation of collaborative acts in China during the Second World War, many Frenchmen, on the other hand, are still so naive as to speak of Vichy in exclusively negative terms.

(2) "第二次世界大战结束之后，欧陆各国也纷纷掀起了肃清“通敌者”的风潮(“通敌者”一般英译为Collaborator，他们似乎没有“德奸”、“日奸” 和 “荷兰奸”的概念)。Well, I do not read Japanese nor Dutch; but at least there are such concepts as "Verräter" in German and "traîtres" in French. Not simply "collaborators"--if that sounds too light an accusation--but "traitors"! Of course when the French cried "collaborateurs," there was every overtone of "法奸," if only you are willing to listen to it. As for "德奸," there was certainly this idea and this usage: During the process of Denazification, Germans coming out to accuse other Germans were routinely viewed or even called by other Germans as Verräter.

(3) It is right of Mr. Leung to suggest that history is more complicated than one tends to believe, especially where moral judgment is concerned. Professional historians should have the ability to make a case for many sides, and to let those who have the time and the will to read form a better judgment on the facts. It is wrong of Mr. Leung, however, to insinuate, by setting up a simple contrast between "China" and "the West," that "they"--the ordinary Frenchmen, German, Pole, et al.--are so much more advanced in moral thinking than "we" are; and to do so even to such a degree as to suggest that because the word "collaborator" is often used, these people in the West "似乎没有“德奸”、“日奸”和 “荷兰奸”的概念". When a Frenchman called another Frenchman a "collaborateur," could he mean anything other than "collaborateur des allemands"? and could he ever be so neutral in using that phrase as to lack what me might well translate as "法奸"? Mr. Leung could have insinuated such a thought only because at the back of his mind there was a notion that "they" were more reasonable and detached than "we" are; but this is plain non-sense.