Translation: Briefing Anarchism

原文:

anarchism is the refusal of domination; it is the refusal of a society where man dominates man.

anarchism rejects capitalism; anarchism rejects communism; because capitalism and communism are both dominations of human beings over nature. anarchism refuses to dominate nature.

anarchism, therefore, is the rejection of domination of the superpowers of the world; of domination of developed countries over under-developed countries; of domination of the city over the country.

All our civilization has been based on the domination of man over nature.

anarchism is therefore trying to supersede our present civilization based on that domination.

it is a society without any form whatever of dominations. the domination of intellectuals over students and the masses; the domination of men over women; the domination of adults over children; the domination of one particular form of art over other forms of art.

anarchism is therefore the liberation and expansion of all possible forms of human potentialities, that is to say, the expansion of human sexualities; of human feelings; of human intelligence; and everything that is in nature and not only what is human.

the present contents millions of possible futures and the anarchist’ s conception of the present, is not just to look at present with the vision of the past, but also with the vision of possible futures and desirable futures.[1]

譯文:

略說無政府

無政府係對宰制的拒絕, 它拒絕一個由人宰制人的社會.

無政府反對資本主義; 無政府也反對共產主義; 因為資本主義和共產主義都主張人對自然的宰制. 無政府拒絕宰制自然.

所以, 無政府是一種反對世界霸權宰制世界的立場; 是一種反對已開發國家宰制低度開發國家的立場; 是一種反對都市宰制鄉村的立場.

我們的文明已經變成一種建基於人宰制自然的產物.

無政府試圖超脫現今這種建基於宰制上的文明.

那會是一個沒有任何宰制形式的社會. 沒有知識份子對學生和群眾的宰制; 沒有男性對女性的宰制; 沒有成人對兒童的宰制; 沒有任何一種藝術形式對其他藝術形式的宰制.

所以, 無政府是人類潛能以所有可能形式的解放與擴張, 那就是說, 一種人類欲望權利的擴張; 一種人類情感的擴張; 一種人類智能的擴張; 自然界的一切不只是為著人類所有而存在.

此刻所包含著發展未來的無數可能性, 以及當今無政府者的理念不只是以過去的視野來關注現在, 其是以可能和可欲的未來視野來關注現在.

[1] 摘自香港黑鳥(Blackbird)樂團「活此一生」(LIVING OUR LIVES)專輯所收錄的其中一首作品 ‘BRIEFING ANARCHISM’(略說無政府)之說文部份。其為法國蒙皮里阿大學(University of Montpelier)政治系教授基爾(Roland Creagh)接受郭達年先生於1985年所做的訪問內容。

Translation: Where’s the Beef? Does Digital Humanities Have to Answer Questions? Tom Scheinfeldt

原文:

The criticism most frequently leveled at digital humanities is what I like to call the “Where’s the beef?” question, that is, what questions does digital humanities answer that can’t be answered without it? What humanities arguments does digital humanities make?

Concern over the apparent lack of argument in digital humanities comes not only from outside our young discipline. Many practicing digital humanists are concerned about it as well. Rob Nelson of the University of Richmond’s Digital Scholarship Lab, an accomplished digital humanist, recently ruminated in his THATCamp session proposal, “While there have been some projects that have been developed to present arguments, they are few, and for the most part I sense that they haven’t had a substantial impact among academics, at least in the field of history.” A recent post on the Humanist listserv expresses one digital humanist’s “dream” of “a way of interpreting with computing that would allow arguments, real arguments, to be conducted at the micro-level and their consequences made in effect instantly visible at the macro-level.”

These concerns are justified. Does digital humanities have to help answer questions and make arguments? Yes. Of course. That’s what humanities is all about. Is it answering lots of questions currently? Probably not really. Hence the reason for worry.

But this suggests another, more difficult, more nuanced question: When? When does digital humanities have to produce new arguments? Does it have to produce new arguments now? Does it have to answer questions yet?

In 1703 the great instrument maker, mathematician, and experimenter, Robert Hooke died, vacating the suggestively named position he occupied for more than forty years, Curator of Experiments to the Royal Society. In this role, it was Hooke’s job to prepare public demonstrations of scientific phenomena for the Fellows’ meetings. Among Hooke’s standbys in these scientific performances were animal dissections, demonstrations of the air pump (made famous by Robert Boyle but made by Hooke), and viewings of pre-prepared microscope slides. Part research, part ice breaker, and part theater, one important function of these performances was to entertain the wealthier Fellows of the Society, many of whom were chosen for election more for their patronage than their scientific achievements.

(link: http://foundhistory.org/2010/05/wheres-the-beef-does-digital-humanities-have-to-answer-questions/)

譯文:

牛肉在哪裡?「數位人文」必須回應所有難題嗎?

對「數位人文」的批評常常落在所謂「牛肉在哪裡」等重要問題上。「數位人文」到底牽涉什麼人文學的爭議?

「數位人文」本身欠缺理論基礎不只受外界關注,數位人文學者亦抱有相同立場。在「THATCamp」會議上,Richmond大學數位研究實驗室高級研究員Rob Nelson表示:「現在,一些研究計畫已著手建構數位人文的基礎理論,但並不多。就我所了解,這些工作還沒有在學術界造成實質性的影響,尤其在歷史論述的層面。」在「Humanist listserv」網路論壇上,有一篇文章敘述一個有關數位人文研究者的「夢」-以已知的科技開發出一種利用電腦運算技術的轉譯方法,使各種可能的理論論證容納在微電子層面(micro-level),而其運算結果可直接在巨集層面(macro-level)上反映出來。

各種關於「數位人文」的問題是存在的。那麼,「數位人文」是否就得回應它們或提供論據嗎?是,當然。這是人文學的主要工作。不過,人文學本身是否已將所有新舊問題都一一解決?或許沒有。至於為什麼,這實在值得深思。

值得深思的原因在於它與另一個更棘手的難題相關:「數位人文」應該在什麼時間點提供嶄新的、有效的理論論述?現在嗎?現在就得回應所有質疑?

1703年,科學儀器設計家、數學家兼實驗家Robert Hooke逝世。他的過世騰出一個他坐了四十多年的位子-英國皇家科學實驗學會召集人(Curator of Experiments to the Royal Society)。Hooke的工作主要是安排各種科學性實驗的公開展示,包括動物解剖、氣泵使用示範(Robert Boyle為其代表人物,Hooke是主要操作員)及前置顯微鏡觀察試驗。這些實驗及相關原理或已成為其他技術-例如碎冰機、劇場技術的一部份。安排公開展示的目的是激勵那些富裕的學會成員(其中包含一些為了累積財富多於科學的人)開發新的研究項目。

(trans. by levon kwok  8/2016)

Translation: 南音:香港史話 – 東方紅/給九七代 黑鳥

原文:

寒風陣陣
星月無光
正好怡和洋行慶祝佢百五周年
煙火勁放太平山
嗰個麥士德臣
就系當年嘅大班
見佢聲聲似狼
響處賣其鴉片
搞到清朝禍曬
好似小二過年

剩得個林則徐
同佢練哪
嗰次虎門之地燒大煙
你睇操場嗰年紅火艷
嗰啲道友、道姑也無言

耳畔聽得炮聲人頭落
只見大清割地將條約簽
割咗香港九龍,強借新界咯
普羅大眾恨綿綿
以後華人與狗一樣賤
佢哋錢財刮盡,樂趣無邊
奴化教育,真陰毒
我哋義憤填胸,向各位陳詞

講番清朝玩完,因革命啊
點知軍閥割據亂江山
大好家園,遭焚毀咯
蟻民避亂,恨難填
以為香港唔會受戰火亂
點知嘎頭來犯,我哋冇窿圈
三餐不繼,炊糧斷
夫亡子散,你話有誰憐?

輾轉三年八個月
日落途窮嘎仔系緊先
以為香港會有新生活
點知鬼佬晤走在眼前

大英帝國好唔掂
惟有賴死唔走刮多啲
嗰陣國內革命,形勢勁
貪官污吏,諗住玩完
道光當年曾割地呀
嗰啲富豪新貴夾帶南遷
紅旗插滿地呀
盈屍遍野,又三年

文革十年,喇喇亂呀
游水落哩,捱住先
今日香港繁榮,得佢哋呀
太平山下,慶團圓
卒之只有自由,冇民主
名牌靚衫,呃通天
點知租約就來期呀滿咯
任得你兩邊點樣來點啊
我哋都系系埋一條船

譯文:

The Folks Telling the History of Hong Kong

Cold wind blowing and no light from the moon and stars, just the Jardine celebrated the 150th anniversary of establishment. Fireworks were vigorously let off under the Victoria Peak, at the moment James Matheson was a very parvenu. His words were so cruel like wolf howling for opium selling, causing the Qing to collapse, to be spending the New Year like a young servant.

Here was only Lin Zexu to fight against the James’s, in Humen the hazardous destroyed. Saw the parade ground blazing big fire, drugsters and drugstresses with no whisper. Huge sound of cannon firing near ears, chopped heads were on the ground, then the great Qing cut the lands and had the treaty signed. Hongkong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories were all grabbed that the ordinary grinded teeth in anger.

Later on were Chinese living as pariahs like dogs, while the gweilos exhaustedly extorted capital from the colonised with endless laugh. So insidious the enslaved education was pushed that we are angry in heart and want to tell this story to all of you.

It is said the end of the Qing resulted from the Revolution, however the warlords’ set up a separated plain and devastated the country. Lovely family homes were burned and destroyed that brought the ant-like lowers fled with uncompensated fury.

Thinking that Hongkong would not be affected by the chaos, and yet the Kartaus (Japs) invaded the land so no cave to hide. Meals were not sustained because of no eatable offered, while husbands and sons were dead and lost that no one would sympathise.

Three years and eight months later set the Sun that the Kartaus ended the rule. Thinking of a new life in Hongkong but the hateable gweilos remained and did not go. Because of the falling of the Empire, the gweilos tended to stay for more grabbing. At the time China was in a high-blowing turmoil of civil war with corruption where no future for the people. Thanks to the Daoguang ceding the land, the rich and aristocrats brought all properties to the south. During the three years the red flags were raised on the plain where bodies were crammed.

The ten-year Cultural Revolution was like chaos, while many escaped from the mainland by swimming through the sea for the harbour. Thanks to them Hongkong is prosperous today and families are altogether celebrating under the Peak.

Here the life seems free, but no democracy. The fancy clothes with famous brands deceived the eyes. However, the expiry of the lease is coming.

Whatever political games and tricks played by the two, we are all living in the single little boat.

(trans. by levon kwok 8/2016)