熊起
发表于 2012-8-23 12:11:24
那一剑的风情 发表于 2012-8-23 07:58 static/image/common/back.gif
所以1984 在school system 通不过,
因为不但适用于苏联, 同样适于与美国。
哈哈,没听说过,这事儿真有意思,有没有具体出处啊
浮云
发表于 2012-8-23 12:14:27
伊莎贝 发表于 2012-8-23 12:04 static/image/common/back.gif
真是双重标准呀,你可调戏,而我就是“计较”,不然就是有失风度
对于翟文是否是阴谋论,当然是 ...
不双重标准难不成你还要调戏我?{:2_33:}
不痞了,再痞就真是轻薄mm了,抱歉!:L
翟文如何,继续看,是不是血统论,仔细看。
听那一剑的风情话,(咳),不争了。
那一剑的风情
发表于 2012-8-23 12:39:28
本帖最后由 那一剑的风情 于 2012-8-23 12:56 编辑
熊起 发表于 2012-8-23 12:11 http://www.sychaguan.com/static/image/common/back.gif
哈哈,没听说过,这事儿真有意思,有没有具体出处啊
随便用google 搜一下,比如搜 shool system reading: 1984
比如如下的对话
Questions:
Although famous literature that was read years ago in school is still read today, how come 1984 is no longer allowed in the curriculum? Has anybody read this book, or farm animals? What is your opinion?
I requested 1984 in my sophmore english class and the teacher told me the school system wouldn't allow it.
一个人的回答
Answer:
Orwell's works often fall in and out of political fashion. Many of his peers on the political left originally castigated him for publishing "1984" and especially "Animal Farm" (both of which are blistering and thinly veiled critiques of the Soviet Union's slide into brutal totalitarianism) primarily because they thought he was betraying their communist sympathies and either didn't want to believe, or willfully ignored the fact that their ideology was causing one of the greatest catastrophes ever committed against humanity.
And while he was no fan of unfettered capitalism (he was a socialist for awhile), he stood by his convictions and history has unequivocally vindicated him.
However, this has never sat quite well with with certain intellectuals who still to this day espouse marxist ideals (many of whom instruct and influence young teachers and administrators who select the reading lists and curriculums in our schools). Thus the reluctance of some of them to include him as required reading.
Not to fear, though; the power of his writing, and the prescience of his message will resonate as long as their are governments and leaders more intent on oppressing their own people than providing sound leadership. His detractors are well aware that to ban him outright would be considered, in a word, Orwellian.
以下是禁1984 的解释, 呵呵
“1984” by George Orwell has been challenged numerous times on the grounds that it contains communist and sexual content. This book was challenged in Jackson County, Florida (1981) because the novel is “pro-communist and contains explicit sexual matter.”
zh685
发表于 2012-8-23 12:57:44
什么是血统论?就只是血缘的血统论?那个金子塔尖上的不想千秋万代?
江南一苇
发表于 2012-8-24 00:36:33
翟老师只不过是如实描述了一下地球上某个比鼻屎大一点的国家的金字塔结构;以及这个小小的金字塔是如何维持其稳定的一些小窍门,简称“术”,仅此而已。不同的群体有不同的生存方式,没什么优劣之分,能让本民族或本国活着比什么都重要,
归根结底:谁的文明能最后一个死谁就是胜者---“略”是决定因素;“术”是具体手段,略指导术而非相反,历史上无略有术或略拙术强的文明实体,比如古埃及/古印度/古巴比伦/古印加。。。这个帝国那个帝国,,,都被灭了,
所以,不管什么术,学习一下,了解一下,就可以了,倘若去迷信它,那就是二个字---找灭。
ccaaatt
发表于 2012-8-24 10:14:12
本帖最后由 ccaaatt 于 2012-8-24 10:49 编辑
伊莎贝 发表于 2012-8-21 11:13 static/image/common/back.gif
bxdfhbh ,点评无法回复:
其实罗琳阿姨成名前也没书商文青渲染的那么凄惨
她也是名校正经文学本科,和土耳其总统居尔等一票名人贵族都是校友
只不过有几个月刚生小孩没工作又离婚,但是英国的安全网也够她不挨饿,而且还有亲戚关心,只是不宽裕而已
一川烟草
发表于 2012-8-24 12:59:56
这文很油菜啊,学法学的人里总算出了个不是笨蛋的了。
sneer
发表于 2012-8-24 13:05:37
这个谁能给做个PDF吗?网络问题总是看不全,,,
simplew
发表于 2012-8-24 15:26:05
伊莎贝 发表于 2012-8-23 12:04 static/image/common/back.gif
真是双重标准呀
你可调戏,而我就是“计较”,不然就是有失风度。。你也很“贵族”
对于翟文是否 ...
不要争了,除非你打算拿出作者的精力去写反驳文章或者是在论坛有了类似于忙总的威信,那么你不可能说服对方的。即使你拿出精力去写反驳文章也无法说服想相信的人。翟自己的按语写的很清楚了,对于人人网上指出的硬伤,他的回复都是“无关紧要的细节”。那么什么样的事实是有关主旨的“非细节”那?翟会告诉你只要不同意见都是“无关紧要的细节"。他即没有实际的领导经验,亦无英国的生活经历,而且人家明确指出这篇文章不是论文,本来就是当小说写的,要的效果其实和《货币战争》、《明朝那些事》没什么区别,为的就是出名而已。忙总这种风格的是很少的,不要把拿忙总做标准来要求普罗大众。
lucidus
发表于 2012-8-25 06:06:23
可以对照一美国女作家的看法
http://www.theawl.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-the-incredibly-conservative-aristocratic-childrens-club
Some years ago I was driving a carful of kids to some practice or party, and from the crowded back seat I heard one breathlessly ask the others, “When you were little,” (they were maybe twelve at the time), “did you think you were going to get a letter from Hogwarts?”
Giggles arose in the car, some lofty and some sounding a little embarrassed; a couple of the kids admitted that they had in fact fantasized about receiving such an invitation. (When you are chosen to attend Hogwarts, the public school for wizards attended by Harry Potter, an owl shows up with a letter informing you that you are one of the lucky ones.) This concept of “chosenness” has always put me off the Potter books because it seems so harmful for kids, even though I am a lifelong SF/fantasy fan (a genre where this crops up frequently, to be sure).
In the world of Harry Potter, rules are for the little people. The “wisest” adult, headmaster Albus Dumbledore, showers magical gifts and indulgences on his favorites and lets them break every rule because they are so special, better than all others. How come they are so much better? Well, the general awesomeness and favoriteness of Harry Potter and his friends is mostly arbitrary, the result of the chosenness itself, rather than of effort or application. Harry Potter is just naturally fantastic at flying around on a broom and conjuring illuminated stags up out of his soul and things, Hermione Granger is just naturally the most brilliant student Hogwarts has ever seen, and so on. Ron Weasley, the impoverished aristocrat, is a Sancho Panza-like figure whose rough common sense is meant to keep Harry on the straight and narrow; his noble blood is his “chosen” quality, and marks him, too, as an unimpeachable Establishment figure.
Which brings us to the disconnect between reality and appearances regarding the nonconformity that Rowling so hamfistedly praises at every turn. Harry Potter and his friends, far from being renegades, are in fact slavishly obedient to the all-powerful, omniscient, do-no-wrong Dumbledore. And why not, when he provides them in advance with every rare and fabulous magical gewgaw and hint they will ever need in order to extricate themselves from whatever peril they may find themselves in.
Rowling’s adherence to the old English principle of blood-nobility—that weird but deeply held superstition that has caused countless English protagonists to discover that unbeknownst to them, they were peers of the realm all along—is in stark contrast to the biggest conflict depicted in the Potter stories, the blood purity conflict. The bad guys, Voldemort and crew, are race purists, anti-Muggle (meaning anti-human), which is to say that they are against any magical Muggles or intermingling of Muggle blood (“Mudblood”) and wizard blood. Yet Rowling’s heroes are all noblemen, with the exception of one: Harry Potter learns in the old-fashioned surprise way that his father was a fabulously rich wizard, and his godfather is a rich aristocrat, too; Ron Weasley is a nobleman of the purest blood, though poor. The sole pure-Muggle wizard of any consequence at all in these books is Hermione, the author’s personal projection of herself (there are two other minor pure-Muggle wizards, boys, both of whom are bumped off). So this story can be read pretty effectively as an explanation of why J.K. Rowling should be allowed to hang around with the nobility (she is smart, is why).
In any case it is a horrible thing to be teaching children, that you have to be “chosen”; that the highest places in this world are gained by celestial fiat, rather than by working out how to get there yourself and then busting tail until you succeed. If the “special” and “chosen” and “gifted” automatically receive all the honors there are, then what would be the point of working hard to achieve anything? So it is really terrible to hear these twelve-year-old kids so smitten with the idea that fulfillment would literally fly to them out of the sky, via owl.
Rowling is a self-avowed liberal who gave a million pounds to the Labour Party in 2008, but her values are Tory through and through. In her books it is the hoary old white guys who run everything; women are popped in here and there for liberal flavor. The tokenism is unbelievable.
Rowling named her first child after Jessica Mitford, the lefty Mitford sister (as opposed to the Nazi-sympathizing ones). Rowling often says she read Mitford’s Hons and Rebels at age fourteen, and that it affected her profoundly; this book in fact provides a perfect illustration of Rowling’s political disconnect, because Jessica Mitford was the daughter of the second Baron Redesdale, a “terrific Hon," as the Mitfords would have said. She was a super-blue-blood with rebelliously liberal views. It’s exactly this privileged, elitist compassion-from-on-high that Rowling admires and has consistently depicted in the Potter books. But the liberal values, the openmindedness, the diversity, are all fake.
I am no fan of Ann Althouse, but I had to admit to a shudder of recognition when I read her criticism of liberals last week:
What is liberal about this attitude toward other people? You wallow in self-love, and what is it you love yourself for? For wanting to shower benefits on people… that you have nothing but contempt for.
This may not be such a very good description of liberals in general but it is an excellent description of J.K. Rowling. In the “touching” climactic scene in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the house-elf Dobby has been “liberated” by, and now sacrifices himself to save, Harry Potter & co. The house-elves as depicted in the movies are horrifyingly pathetic, small, cringing, grateful; the sad, brave little creature Dobby literally expires with the name of Harry Potter on his lips. It’s like freedom is the gift of the chosen ones to bestow, and those thus benefited can die of gratitude and be “properly buried," which really, there is this long burial scene complete with Harry Potter and shovel. It’s a perfect illustration of the “liberal condescension” that conservatives are always yodeling about, and it made my hair stand on end.
The most conservative element of Harry Potter’s world is that it is a materialist paradise, full of costly and rare magical artifacts, invisibility cloaks and piles of “wizard gold” at Gringott’s Bank. Things, that you can make toys out of, things that you can worship and desire and buy. There’s nothing in this story of alleged iconoclasts and rebels that would present the slightest challenge to the establishment. That’s why the story dovetails so easily into a series of Hollywood blockbusters.
The Rowling story of the Single Welfare Mom Who Made Good is not exactly accurate, either; her background is solidly middle class, her dad was a Rolls-Royce engineer, she read French and classics at Exeter, and the father of her first child (whom she divorced, rather than the other way around) was a Portuguese TV personality.
lucidus
发表于 2012-8-25 08:13:17
lucidus 发表于 2012-8-25 06:06 static/image/common/back.gif
可以对照一美国女作家的看法
http://www.theawl.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-the-incredibly-conservati ...
转一个读者评论,写得更透彻了
I have slightly different interpretation, that Rowling's world represents a conflict between traditional aristocratic privilege assigned via birth (born to the right family) vs. capitalist meritocratic privilege assigned via… birth (winning the genetic lottery). What we can read in Harry Potter is that meritocracy is an affirmation of a hierarchical class system, it only means that you want it to be organized scientifically according to who has talent, perseverance, etc. The central political conflict of the series is the split in the wizarding community over whether the small percentage of muggles who demonstrate magical talent should be allowed to enter the ranks of the elites. That the anti-muggle side is represented as cruel, callous and immoral while the pro-muggle side is benevolent and wise only serves to legitimize their rule. Another disturbing aspect is how the benevolent rulers systematically conceal their existence, almost as if they are trying to avoid popular resentment from forming and threatening their rule. This is confirmed by the fact that, in the books, the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy that hide the wizarding world from the muggles was enacted in circumstances essentially similar to the French Revolution. Therefore it's possible to read the narrative as a kind of conservative alternate history where the aristocracy reacted to the rise of democracy by making themselves invisible and continuing to rule in secret, and this is called capitalism. The cynicism here is quite breathtaking: the elites publicly pretend to live in an egalitarian, democratic society, but they control everything behind the scenes. It's tempting to write the other side of the story: the muggles know of the existence of the magical elite, but they pretend not to know because they believe they will be chosen to join them.
We can look at this through the lens of Hegel's master-slave dialectic: the master is dependent on the slave for recognition, and lords it over him, building impressive castles and so on, because he needs an Other to confirm that he really is a master. Rowling's insight is that this is ultimately what undoes the elite class, because it generates popular resentment who then revolt. So the idea is that the good wizards are somehow free of this dialectic, they have high self-esteem, don't need recognition and don't need to dominate and rule the muggles.
For kids and adults who read the books, the political implications are that they are solicited to endorse the hierarchical status quo. As a reader, it neutralizes your alienation from the system to reinforce the system, by flattering you and reframing your alienation so it's not an effect of domination, instead its your specialness gone unrecognized. The flaw in the system is that it doesn't see that your rightful place is among the elites, so rather than finding solidarity with other alienated individuals and overthrowing the system, you end up in favor of the existence of the hierarchy in general, only taking issue with the fact that you and your unique gifts are unfairly excluded from it. But this part is what makes Rowling's solution to the master-slave dialectic false. The reader who identifies with Harry Potter desperately craves recognition of his or her specialness from the Other, symbolized by the owl arriving with a message from Hogwart's that he/she has been chosen. The other side of this coin, of recognition of one's superiority, is the essence of the fascist Voldemortian wizard supremacist ideology.
Rowling's solution is that the elites can demonstrate their superiority through high-minded benevolence towards the lower classes instead of dominating them, a kind of noblesse oblige, as in Dumbledore's belief that love is the most powerful form of magic, which Voldemort was unable to see. But historically this sort of thing has turned out to be false ideological screen that only legitimizes domination, so someone should rewrite the story to show that Voldemort and Dumbledore are secretly working together to dominate the muggle world.
伊莎贝
发表于 2012-8-25 09:39:56
simplew 发表于 2012-8-24 15:26 http://www.sychaguan.com/static/image/common/back.gif
不要争了,除非你打算拿出作者的精力去写反驳文章或者是在论坛有了类似于忙总的威信,那么你不可能说服对 ...
同感,谢谢劝说
我根本就没打算要说服“想相信的人”。
反正翟说了是“无关紧要的细节”,哪怕明明知道是不符合历史,包括指出的不同意见,都可以用“无关紧要的细节”来搪塞,粉丝们真的没有智商吗?我想不是....可还会说:我是法律历史小白,所以这个科普很好
真是自欺欺人
我只是在茶馆看到被“捧”,才情不自禁回复一下。可人家愿如果意被“科普”,觉得看“网文”比读书容易,随便吧
也理解为何“历史发明家”有市场
laojiu
发表于 2012-8-25 17:02:56
本帖最后由 laojiu 于 2012-8-25 17:04 编辑
欧洲贵族最好的去处是断头台,中国贵族最好的去处是大锅。标榜自己血统纯正欺骗世人要永做稳拿的,只不过是做梦而已。那里有压迫,那里就有反抗。这才是真理
penny1003
发表于 2012-8-25 22:05:17
很精彩的文章!原作者的知识非常庞杂,而且可以系统地堆砌起来,让我也长了不少见识,佩服之!
武当七瞎
发表于 2012-8-26 15:58:47
本帖最后由 武当七瞎 于 2012-8-26 16:01 编辑
谜团 发表于 2012-8-22 13:26 http://www.sychaguan.com/static/image/common/back.gif
转个西河的文https://www.here4news.com/thread/3773807
一直想不好这篇的开头,正好最近很流行哈哈哈哈 ...
纯粹就学校片而言,我更喜欢周星驰的《逃学威龙》系列和林志颖的《旋风小子》,可能是俺品位俗了点,但实在是觉得比哈哈哈哈哈哈哈更符合口味和文化习惯一些。
都是在贵族学校,周星驰能通过对小人物的自嘲进而反衬所谓贵族学校的愚蠢,让现实中受尽歧视的小人物也能会心的嘲弄一番,而哈哈哈哈哈哈哈就不可能拍出这个感觉来。
中西方的这个差别实在太大了点,老外的东西还需要更多地进行无厘头解构。
sym2222
发表于 2012-8-26 21:15:30
很好的文章,学习了。
既然英美要把我们作为敌人,那我们就设法做一个难缠的敌人吧。
大爱微尘
发表于 2012-9-9 14:37:22
伊莎贝 发表于 2012-8-21 10:59 static/image/common/back.gif
哈利波特的作者恰恰是英国“下层”阶级
这样太过于“阴谋论”的解读文章,却被叫好,无 ...
欧洲文学里讽刺下层往上爬的作品数不胜数啊,名利场、红与黑……
南国忆
发表于 2012-9-9 18:57:20
嘻嘻哈哈
发表于 2012-9-9 19:27:44
本帖最后由 嘻嘻哈哈 于 2012-9-9 19:30 编辑
那一剑的风情 发表于 2012-8-23 11:54 static/image/common/back.gif
恕不奉陪,呵呵
这就对了{:soso_e179:}
嘻嘻哈哈
发表于 2012-9-9 19:32:18
看着文章总有怪怪的感觉,不过知识能力有限,不能有条理的说出一二三哪里不好
总之当个笑话看看消遣还是可以的
jxdz051277
发表于 2012-9-20 01:27:44
要是有整理成PDF版本的就好了……看的就不会这么辛苦!也许这篇帖子写的一些细节没有太有论证化(毕竟人不是写论文),但视角确实是很有趣!
psax
发表于 2012-9-20 01:43:13
最近这哥们又开始扯印度电影三SB大闹宝莱坞了,深得工业党欢心
龙之力量
发表于 2012-9-20 08:57:53
有句讲句,正统中世纪贵族才不太讲究礼节。喜欢以拘谨、约束的礼节表现自我成就的更像是平民中产的作风。就算是以讲究礼仪出名的路易十四,他的手下出了凡尔赛宫也是整天胡闹的德性。
zxkchina
发表于 2012-9-21 14:10:32
lbxyzd2 发表于 2012-8-20 11:52 static/image/common/back.gif
贵族资格在于个人品质的高贵,所有的高贵品质是来源于天赋,简而言之就是贵族与平民的划分是来源于上帝的 ...
平民表示,高贵的贵族啊,能否给俺展示一下您的天赋呢……师母一代。
flatworld
发表于 2012-9-21 21:25:09
不管什么贵族,只要喂不饱广大群众,结果都是上断头台或油锅。西方人现在还在吃他们殖民时期累积的老底。都是拿钱开路,自由民主麻醉。等哪天广大人民饿成了饥民,又没有殖民地无私奉献时,贵族也就成了食物了。革命造反又不是中国人的专利。阶级固有化,需要无限的买路钱......
记得忙总说过:老百姓不怕当官的,不反对只是想得点好处。我觉得对贵族也是一样的道理。
南天外
发表于 2012-9-22 00:29:26
lbxyzd2 发表于 2012-8-20 11:01
我认为我们中国必须培养起自己的贵族阶层,因为只有贵族阶层统治平民阶层的社会才是最完美无暇的社会组织结 ...
皇帝轮流做 ,明年到我家。