中華民族、炎黃子孫、莫那魯道
周婉窈
出處：《財訊》376期（2011/07/07），財訊專欄，頁70-72。 http://monthly.wealth.com.tw/index2.aspx?f=521&id=1791
《財訊》第376期（2011年7月7日）「民主甲政經」專欄書影。
「中華民族」、「炎黃子孫」是這幾年經常出現在某類主流媒體的關鍵詞，莫那魯道則是今年夏天未演先轟動的一部電影《賽德克．巴萊》的主人翁。這三個詞有何關係？當然有，但實際上也可以說沒有。讓我們來釐清其間的虛實。
為什麼說有呢？1973年臺灣省文獻委員會撰寫的〈抗日烈士莫那魯道傳略〉這麼說：
我政府為畛念莫那魯道烈士，轟轟烈烈抗日之精神以及堅貞不屈民族之志節，……恭迎靈骨， 禮葬於其故鄉，使忠魂英魄，有所憑依。亦足以彰我中華民族之精神，……。
這裡寫著：莫那魯道的抗日事蹟「足以彰我中華民族之精神」，而且一直到1990年還被南投縣仁愛鄉公所出版的《碧血英風：霧社抗日事件六十週年紀念》所轉錄呢。白紙黑字，其命維新。
梁啟超一九○二年創造物
為什麼說沒有呢？臺灣原住民屬於南島語族，約在距今六千年前從華南一帶遷移到臺灣；兩千多年後，以黃河中游為祖源地的華夏族群才逐漸出現在歷史舞臺。時間空間兩不相干。至於和「華夏」似同而異的「中華民族」這個詞語，則更是晚起。
「中華民族」是1902年由鼎鼎大名的思想家兼政治家梁啟超所鑄造的新語詞。讀者讀到這裡，可能要感到不可思議──我們的教育讓我們「很自然地」相信中華民族自古就存在，怎麼可能是新創的呢？實際上就是如此。二十世紀初梁啟超流亡日本，他發現自己的國家只有朝代名（如漢、唐、宋、明），沒有貫通不同時代的正式國名，於是主張採用約定俗成的詞語，稱她為「中國」或「中華」。那麼，構成這個國家的人群又如何稱呼呢？日本人將英文「nation」譯為「民族」，梁啟超於是拿來和「中國」湊合在一起，在1901年鑄造出「中國民族」一詞，內容指漢族。1902年梁啟超以「中華」替代中國，首次使用「中華民族」一詞，也還是指漢族。如所周知，孫文早年提倡革命，呼籲「驅逐撻虜，恢復中華」，就是要推翻滿清王朝，恢復漢族的國家。
繼承清帝國的「新帝國」
但是，清朝是帝國。所謂帝國，通常具有兩大要素，其一，統治集團（或族群）支配異民族；其次，統治領域廣大。推翻滿清之後，漢族要不要這個廣域？要不要繼續支配其他異民族？顯然要，所以後來孫文重新定義「中華民族」，變成包括「漢、滿、蒙、回、藏」五族。講白一點，就是要解決「民國」如何繼承「帝國」領土及其轄下各異民族的問題。這樣講可能還不夠明白，讓我們換個角度想。假設明朝沒被滿人征服，那麼中國從王朝轉變為「民國」，就是從漢人王朝直接跳接到民國。若是這樣，會有何不同？
首先，今天「新中國」的領土大概就和明朝差不多，也就是漢人傳統居住的區域加上西南非漢民族的地區（不包括臺灣！）。這樣的領土比清朝小很多，約小三分之二！清朝多出來的版圖，除了滿人的原居地，其他是清政權在十七、十八世紀征服的非漢地區，透過理藩院統轄，絕不許漢人參與。（當時那種統轄很鬆散，和近代集權國家無孔不入的統制天差地別。）其次，上述這些非漢地區的民族（西藏、蒙古、新疆諸民族），除了少數例外，本來就不曾為中國漢人王朝所統治，當然就不會被包括在「新中國」的版圖內。西藏（圖博）、新疆諸民族擁有自己的歷史、文化、語言，如果中華民國（及其後的中華人民共和國）繼承明朝版圖，那麼就不會有今天西藏、新疆等問題，半世紀以上還解決不了。今天中國的問題出在，在民族主義盛行的二十世紀下半葉以及本世紀初，仍想以武力維持滿清帝國的領域並支配原帝國架構下的異民族。就此而言，中國的統治是繼承滿清王朝的現代版帝國。亞洲大陸的真正和平可能要等到民國或共和國放棄帝國，或是帝國被迫成為道地的民國吧。
真的有「中華民族」嗎？
今天臺、中當權者的「中華民族」都採用孫文後來的「再定義」，也就是包括舊清帝國轄下的諸非漢民族。但真有這樣一個「中華民族」嗎？讀者 諸 君，如果您試圖用英文來理解，就會發現癥結所在。「中華」的英文翻譯是「Chinese」（似無別的譯法），它可以作為「中國」那個國家的形容詞，凡在中國管轄範圍內的事物都可以冠以「Chinese」，例如「中國的鐵路系統」、「中國的藝術家艾未未」；但若用來指稱特定人群時，就卡住了，沒有人能稱西藏人∕圖博人（Tibetans）、維吾爾人（Uighurs）、蒙古人（Mongols）為「Chinese」；臺灣的原住民，也不是「Chinese」。也就是說，「Chinese」這個詞若用來指民族，就是「漢人」的意思。
以此，當前甚囂塵上的詞語「Chinese Taipei」，基本上就只有兩個意思，其一「中國的臺北」，其二「漢人的臺北」。如果您不認為現在的臺北是「中國〔那個國家〕的」，那麼就只能取民族義的「漢人的臺北」，這裡的臺北雖可擴大包括新北市，但可不包括三鶯部落。難怪外國人被弄得昏頭轉向。
莫那魯道從來不是「中華民族」
莫那魯道生在馬赫坡社（今屬南投縣仁愛鄉），他誕生時，清朝還沒真正統治泰雅族，遑論更遠僻的賽德克族。日本是賽德克部落遇到的第一個近代國家。1902年梁啟超新鑄「中華民族」一詞時，臺灣歸日本統治；孫文重新定義「中華民族」，擴大為包含五族時，臺灣仍然在日本統治之下，而且五族也沒包括南島語族。1930年莫那魯道率領賽德克六社族人起而反抗日本人時，他腦海裡肯定沒有「中國」、「中華」等概念，那麼他的抗日到底彰顯了中華民族精神呢？還是彰顯了賽德克族作為「真正的人」（Seediq bale）的精神？那是一場部落為捍衛Gaya（傳統律法）誓死抵抗入侵帝國的戰爭，還是中華民族抗日戰爭的一環？
以上講的其實是歷史學領域的通識，但如果您和我大約屬於同個世代（現齡50至60歲），那麼我們在受教過程中吸收的「常識」，會讓您覺得以上的講法很難接受，包括本業是歷史的。
黃帝、炎帝 到底是誰？
我記得我讀小學時，教室後面的高牆上掛著一幅長捲橫式掛圖，畫著歷代重要人物，起頭是「黃帝」，最後是楊振寧和李政道。在彩圖極端匱乏的年代，每天看、每天看，印象深刻極了。後來我 和我的 先生提及此事，他治中國史，總要笑說我們還知道「黃帝」長得怎樣呢！
黃帝應是某氏族的人格化傳說（不是一個人），這個氏族起源於中國陝西一帶，後來在長久的歷史發展中，「他∕他們」所屬於的華夏集團和東夷、苗蠻集團混同了，黃帝也就成為這些揉雜在一起的人群的共祖。在二十世紀初「中華民族」論述成形之際，「他」遂成為這個觀念叢非常重要的構成。「炎黃子孫」的「炎帝」一般人比較不熟悉（我就沒看過他的畫像），若遇到好談我們都是炎黃子孫的人士，讀者 諸 君無妨請教他：「誰是炎帝？黃、炎關係為何？」無論「中華民族」或「炎黃子孫」，在臺灣，都是1945年的舶來品，嫁接到臺灣社會，透過黨國教育成為我們腦海中「想當然耳」的真理。聰慧的武則天就曾質疑：怎麼大家都是黃帝的後代，難不成黃帝之時沒有百姓？
莫那魯道生死於1945年前，他和族人在踐行Gaya之後，跨過彩虹橋，抵達祖靈之地時，肯定面見不到黃帝和炎帝。迎接他們的是，美麗的草原、鹿群，以及Utux。
說明：
1、本文係根據作者電子檔貼出，與刊登之文可能有些微出入（分段等）；紅色小標為該刊編輯所加。
2、本文刊於「財訊專欄」的「民主甲政經」專欄
專欄簡介：
桂林山水甲天下，民主價值甲政經。民主平台是在2008年陳雲林來台引發衝突後，由一群學者、律師和社運、文化工作者共同形成的網路群組。本專欄將由「守護民主平台」的成員輪流撰寫，其宗旨就是透過對於台灣民主實踐各種問題的分析，來凸顯說明民主的價值是政治穩定與經濟發展的必要支柱，因為唯有透過民主，才能避免政治的威權專制與經濟的剝削壓迫。
以上關於專欄的說明輯自「台灣守護民主平台」，網址：http://www.twdem.org/
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Taiwan, Understanding an Identity in Process Part I
Taiwan, Understanding an Identity in Process Part I
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
What is Taiwan’s identity? What does it mean to be Taiwanese? At a recent conference in Taiwan, Democracy Building in Interesting Times a speaker spoke accordingly, “Here we don’t have the issue of one China, two systems; we have the problem of one China and two Taiwans.” Mixing humor with reality he succinctly presented the current challenge of Taiwan’s identity between its growing pro-independence minded democrats and the leftover unificationists of its one-party state days.
To understand the shaping of Taiwan’s identity, one must examine and incorporate concepts such as creolization and hybridization in viewing Taiwan’s many waves of immigration. From the 1600s on Taiwan suffered successive colonization by the Netherlands, Spain, fleeing Ming loyalists, Manchu conquerors, Japan and (as interpreted by some) the fleeing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). First its indigenous people and then each subsequent wave of settlers reacted with a Hegelian dialectic of resistance to each new colonizer. The end result has been Taiwan’s present democratic identity, which dates to the first free nationwide election of legislators (1992) and its president (1996). Taiwan’s democracy was not a gift from the KMT but hard won by those willing to go to jail and shed their blood for it.
Taiwan has had mixed reactions from outside countries. As a nation it ranked 16th in both imports and exports (2010). As regards trade, visas, monetary exchange etc. Taiwan is treated independently by other nations, but few of them officially recognize it as such. In population, Taiwan (23 million) is larger than 75 percent of the countries in the United Nations. Europeans with their plethora of smaller states next to larger ones should understand best Taiwan’s desire to maintain a separate identity. No one asks Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Baltic States etc., why they don’t join France, Germany or Russia whatever their past histories and cultural relationships.
This author visited seven European capitals (Brussels, Paris, Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and London) with four other academics in 2007. Speaking with local legislators, think-tank members, academics and media, they advocated Taiwan’s need for international space. Is it any surprise that Prague, Budapest and Warsaw representing countries that had suffered loss of freedom and human rights under Russian rule gave a more balanced and different reception from those whose vision was clouded by material profits promised through trade with China?
What does Taiwan feel about Taiwan’s official name, the Republic of China (ROC) and its 100 year celebration in 2011? Taiwan was a part of Japan in 1911. It has no history with the stillborn revolution of the ROC. Taiwan’s identity comes more from its own long and separate history, its first free public elections of its legislators and its first free election of its president in the Consensus of 1996
Since Taiwan’s full achievement of democracy (1996) and its shaking off the White Terror and propaganda mentality of the KMT’s past one-party state days, successive opinion polls show an ever increasing majority of Taiwanese identify only with Taiwan. They see themselves as only Taiwanese or as Taiwanese with a Chinese background.
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D. is author of Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex Identity, Taiwan the Struggle for Democracy, Taiwan the Search for Identity, and an upcoming new book, The Mapping of Taiwan: Desired Economies, Coveted Geographies. Other writings can be found at http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
What is Taiwan’s identity? What does it mean to be Taiwanese? At a recent conference in Taiwan, Democracy Building in Interesting Times a speaker spoke accordingly, “Here we don’t have the issue of one China, two systems; we have the problem of one China and two Taiwans.” Mixing humor with reality he succinctly presented the current challenge of Taiwan’s identity between its growing pro-independence minded democrats and the leftover unificationists of its one-party state days.
To understand the shaping of Taiwan’s identity, one must examine and incorporate concepts such as creolization and hybridization in viewing Taiwan’s many waves of immigration. From the 1600s on Taiwan suffered successive colonization by the Netherlands, Spain, fleeing Ming loyalists, Manchu conquerors, Japan and (as interpreted by some) the fleeing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). First its indigenous people and then each subsequent wave of settlers reacted with a Hegelian dialectic of resistance to each new colonizer. The end result has been Taiwan’s present democratic identity, which dates to the first free nationwide election of legislators (1992) and its president (1996). Taiwan’s democracy was not a gift from the KMT but hard won by those willing to go to jail and shed their blood for it.
Taiwan has had mixed reactions from outside countries. As a nation it ranked 16th in both imports and exports (2010). As regards trade, visas, monetary exchange etc. Taiwan is treated independently by other nations, but few of them officially recognize it as such. In population, Taiwan (23 million) is larger than 75 percent of the countries in the United Nations. Europeans with their plethora of smaller states next to larger ones should understand best Taiwan’s desire to maintain a separate identity. No one asks Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Baltic States etc., why they don’t join France, Germany or Russia whatever their past histories and cultural relationships.
This author visited seven European capitals (Brussels, Paris, Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and London) with four other academics in 2007. Speaking with local legislators, think-tank members, academics and media, they advocated Taiwan’s need for international space. Is it any surprise that Prague, Budapest and Warsaw representing countries that had suffered loss of freedom and human rights under Russian rule gave a more balanced and different reception from those whose vision was clouded by material profits promised through trade with China?
What does Taiwan feel about Taiwan’s official name, the Republic of China (ROC) and its 100 year celebration in 2011? Taiwan was a part of Japan in 1911. It has no history with the stillborn revolution of the ROC. Taiwan’s identity comes more from its own long and separate history, its first free public elections of its legislators and its first free election of its president in the Consensus of 1996
Since Taiwan’s full achievement of democracy (1996) and its shaking off the White Terror and propaganda mentality of the KMT’s past one-party state days, successive opinion polls show an ever increasing majority of Taiwanese identify only with Taiwan. They see themselves as only Taiwanese or as Taiwanese with a Chinese background.
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D. is author of Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex Identity, Taiwan the Struggle for Democracy, Taiwan the Search for Identity, and an upcoming new book, The Mapping of Taiwan: Desired Economies, Coveted Geographies. Other writings can be found at http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
