【國際關係深度評：經典復刻 🇺🇸】 政治正確摧毀的歷史偉人：由李將軍談起
Added 2024-09-01 08:01:02 +0000 UTC談及美國左翼政治正確摧毀名校歷史圖騰，其實在其他地方也同步進行。
年前維珍尼亞州發生騷亂之後，當地城鎮夏洛茨維爾（Charlottesville）議會通過，移除南北戰爭的南軍名將李將軍（Gen. Robert Lee）雕像，並把本來紀念李將軍的公園改名。夏洛茨維爾不少居民大為不滿，輾轉演變成大規模集會。
提起李將軍，華人可能不大熟悉，但絕對是美國家喻戶曉的名字。
記得我在美國讀書時，有一篇文章談及關羽，當時指導教授就建議拿來跟李將軍比較，兩人都是戰敗者，但都是國民心目中的英雄，而且比戰勝者更有「神級」地位。細看李將軍的一生，與關羽確有不少相似，除了在戰場上打過漂亮的勝仗，也被視為道德楷模，關羽的道德是「義氣」，南北戰爭後成為軍校校長的李將軍，則代表了「軍人精神」，長期成為美國人供奉的戰神。
關於南北戰爭 （1861-1865），主流歷史教科書認為是這樣的：1861年，共和黨林肯當選美國總統，主張限制南方奴隸主利益，南方各州反抗，宣佈脫離聯邦政府，另組邦聯，林肯決定出兵討伐，雙方爆發內戰。這是美國史上最血腥的戰爭，南北雙方死亡人數超過60萬，戰爭後來被演繹為「解放黑奴之戰」。但其實戰爭的結構性矛盾，更多源自南北雙方截然不同的經濟體系，黑奴問題是否最重要因素，一直備受爭議。
重要的是，李將軍長期被美國主流歷史視為促進國家重新統一的愛國者。雖然他領導南軍作戰，但只是基於對家鄉弗吉尼亞鄉親父老的忠誠，其實並不認同邦聯脫離中央的行為。他身為社會上層菁英，自然也有奴隸，但對奴隸制並不太熱中，戰爭後期甚至解放了南方黑奴參軍。南軍戰敗後，不少將領不服，打算化整為零打游擊，但李將軍強烈反對，主張立刻放下武器投降，承認聯邦政府為美國唯一合法政府，鼓勵重建國家。
由於李將軍是南軍「戰神」，比邦聯總統戴維斯更有號召力，他的態度，對美國戰後迅速恢復元氣，貢獻極大。
就是這樣一個神級人物，在今天的左派看來，依然「政治不正確」：他擁有奴隸，沒有主動廢奴，自然就是「奴隸主」，認同「白人至上種族主義」，「歧視黑人」，因此不應得到任何紀念。用這樣的觀點看歷史，其實林肯也不是第一天就要廢奴，是否也要被批判？關羽自然也是「封建主義代表人物」、「為大地主服務」，是否也要拆除全國關帝廟？文化大革命期間，關羽的有關古蹟文物，確被大規模破壞；現在美國當然還不到那地步，但以今日標準講求古人「政治正確」的矯枉過正思維，正是如出一徹。
古往今來任何一人，都只能放在所屬時空評價，不可能抽空以片面觀點閱讀，否則只會製造不必要的歷史傷痕。這是很簡單的道理，為什麼書讀得越多的人，反而越是反其道而行？特朗普、另類右派的興起，只正是集體反彈罷了。
*改編自沈旭暉《信報財經新聞》
▶️ 聯經總編輯涂豐恩博士（一）最完整的邱吉爾傳奇終於出版，政治正確風潮會否令邱吉爾跌落神壇？（中文字幕）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_u22gSOv2c
Comments
We should always be reminded to study historical figures in a non-decontextualized manner.
堅離地書院 College
2024-09-02 06:32:34 +0000 UTC同意
Geog
2024-09-02 04:58:49 +0000 UTCRobert Lee, a prominent Confederate general during the American Civil War, has become a focal point for heated debates and vitriolic attacks due to his association with the Confederacy and its defense of slavery. Progressivists often criticize Lee for his involvement in a cause that perpetuated the institution of slavery. However, it’s crucial to recognize the complexity of historical contexts and the limitations of applying contemporary moral standards to figures of the past. To understand Lee’s actions and beliefs, one must consider the societal norms of the 19th century. During Lee’s lifetime, slavery was a deeply entrenched institution in the United States, particularly in the South, where economic, social, and political systems were built around it. Lee’s personal views on slavery were intricate. While he inherited slaves and managed a plantation, he also expressed a belief in the gradual emancipation of enslaved people. In his correspondence, he acknowledged the moral dilemmas posed by slavery. However, he didn’t advocate for immediate abolition, reflecting the common perspective of many white Southerners of his time. Judging Lee solely based on modern standards ignores the fact that he was part of a larger cultural milieu that shaped his beliefs and actions. Presentism, the act of interpreting historical events or figures through the lens of contemporary values, can lead to significant distortions in understanding history. This narrow, toxic approach often results in not only prejudiced judgments that fail to account for the societal norms and challenges of a different era but also bitter and meaningless quarrels on “historical denialism.” In their severe censure, progressivists often unconsciously expose their weak spots on oversimplifying a complex narrative. Attempting to use the present as the sole point of reference to make absolute judgments on the past can rashly lead to a black-and-white view of historical figures, where individuals are either wholly good or entirely evil. This binary thinking ignores the complexity of humanity, the influence of personal experiences from the prevailing atmosphere of the time, and the reality that individuals can embody both admirable qualities and significant flaws. Undoubtedly, Lee displayed qualities of leadership, military strategy, and personal honor that should not be entirely overshadowed by a view of his association with the Confederacy that is either incomplete or overly simplistic.
George
2024-09-01 11:54:03 +0000 UTC文革在美國正在上映，唔係講笑。啲西方左膠同東方某千年大国既執政者，何其相似。
KTH
2024-09-01 11:20:05 +0000 UTC
