顯示具有 台灣 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 台灣 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2010年8月18日 星期三

與《一二三,到台灣》不甚相關的讀書心得

More about 一二三到台灣

首先和因為書名而找到這篇文章的讀者說抱歉,這篇文章跟本書沒有太大關係。

今天跟兩個久未聯絡的朋友吃飯。我們都在台南長大,高中畢業後我到台大求學,而他們留在成大。經過了這麼多年,藉這個月外放到成大實習的機會,生活的軌跡才再度交叉。在成大實習醫師忙碌的生活中終於找到空檔吃個飯敘舊,除了更新近況外,話題總圍繞著北部與南部的不同。不只是氣候、生活環境,所磨練出的個性也有所異同。

要拿自己來作比較的時候,卻有些迷惘了。我是台大的實習醫師,這點當然沒有問題,可以拿來跟成大的實習醫師比較;那我是台北人嗎?朋友們不假思索地說,你在台北待那麼久了,當然算台北人。對他們來講,我是台北人。仔細一想,大學長大的過程,說是台南人轉變為台北人的過程也不為過。唸大學的那幾年時光,其實也對人格塑造影響甚鉅,這麼說的話,我想可以號稱自己是台北人。至少,成大的同學們似乎一眼便能辨出我身上氣勢的不同。

言談之間,更想去探究記憶中的台南,也不禁幻想當初如果留在台南,現在的我會是什麼樣子。我走上了離開台南的路,卻在多年之後與這條未走上的路交叉,努力伸長脖子想偷瞄這條路的不同風景。我突然理解了那麼多人糾結不清的鄉愁,關於中國與台灣。他們的中國存在他們的記憶中,甚至是父母親的記憶中,而那個中國與報紙上的中華人民共和國其實並不相同。假若哪一天台南成為台南國,與台北國敵對,這情勢對今天飯桌的討論絲毫沒有影響!我將永遠不會放下我曾經在台南的事實,並將在報紙的字裡行間找尋記憶中的台南;同樣的當我入境台北國,不論統治的政體是共和專制,都抵擋不了我前往緬懷網球場的儀式。地點的意義並不只是經緯度,還加上時間的座標,在過去時空中某一段曾經表演過的舞台,目前由什麼行政區管轄卻是枝微末節了。

在作者的思緒中,中國與台灣之間的關係,實在和政治八竿子打不著。縈繞作者腦海的是他的父親常掛在嘴邊的那個香味,在故鄉的香椿樹;是母親對他造訪北京的興奮;是女兒問他,什麼是外省人。緬懷中國或緬懷新營的鄉下,都只是相當私人的一種情感。或許有一天我將書寫台南的曝日與暴雨,或是台北的陰晴不定。台南國台北國的孩子會如我當年般不解,為什麼我的鄉愁在敵國。因為,孩子,那是我唯一擁有的過去。

2008年11月6日 星期四

靜坐抗議


昨天在板上看到號召,今天前往行政院參加靜坐抗議。

陳雲林要來台灣,我是滿不同意的。不過既然是政府的政策,又是大家選出來的政府,那也是沒有辦法的事情。

但是後來出現了一些無法忍受的事:拿國旗的被迫收起來,抗議的人被警察帶走,搞清楚,這裡是台灣!台灣的政府是幫誰?

在現在的政府領導下,這些行為已經違法,侵害了我們憲法保障該有的自由人權。

所以今天去參加了行政院前的靜坐抗議,訴求是要求政府為這些不合法的暴力行動負責。國安局本來就不該介入,警政署的政策失當,行政院也應該要道歉負責。偏偏這兩天在處理超多雜事的,所以覺得一直在跑來跑去,十一點下課就趕快趕往行政院。上次反反分裂法遊行只有我一個人去,今天有東哥、朱彥跟我一起去。

好不容易穿越中山南路的圍城人潮,到那邊的時候已經有很多學生集結了。席地坐下,行政院的門前站一排的警察,過沒多久又把大門給關起來了。

我們向著行政院呼喊訴求,卻又看見一隊佩著警棍的警察從行政院出動。集會遊行怎麼會是個暴力場合呢?需要這麼多警力嗎?帶了武器的人就會用,這是當然的!

醫學院居然被點名到旁邊去當醫療組,真是超抖的,還看到不少學弟妹也翹課來參加。本來主持人還叫我們上去講講話,告訴大家中暑的注意事項,所幸後來太忙就忘了這回事了。

下午得上課就先回來了,如果明天沒事的話再去!







2007年12月26日 星期三

Who speaks "Guo Yu"? (Part 2)

Note: This text is an English translation of the article 誰愛說國語?(二) by Richter. Both the text and image are his original works.

Translator's Note: "Guo Yu" in Mandarin literally translates to "Language of the state".




History never fails to amaze us by showing how phenomenons occur over and over again. Although the dominance of Japanese has been replaced by Mandarin, the distribution of the both are strikingly familiar.

After the war, a complete language usage survey of Taiwan was never conducted, so a Mandarin prevalence map is not readily available. Fortunately in 2004, the "Survey on Taiwan democracy and elections" provided us with some valuable information. The focus of the survey was on political actions, but information on language usage was also collected. The distribution pattern of "Guo Yu" families are clearly shown, despite only 63 of 358 towns in Taiwan were selected for survey.

We divide participants into three categories according to language used in the family: 3 points if usage of Holo, Hakka, or Aboriginal languages were found; 2 points if they were used collaterally with Mandarin; 1 point if only Mandarin was used. The average of all participants was 2.28 points. Average scores was calculated for the 63 towns. Lower scores indicates more "Guo Yu" families in the region, and shown on the map as smaller circles.

The first conclusion we draw from the map is, there are obviously more "Guo Yu" families in urban areas, identical to the distribution of Japanese in 1930. Smaller circles are present in central Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung, surrounded by larger circles. The whole Taipei area even lacks a single circle above the national average.

Secondly, Hakka towns have more "Guo Yu" families, also similar to Japanese in 1930. Scores of Jhongli, Yangmei, Miaoli were all below the national average. Southern Hakka towns were not included in this survey, neither were more rural Hakka towns, so we are unable to determine if the difference is due to its Hakka population or the result of urban-rural or north-south differences.

Finally, northern Taiwan has higher proportions of "Guo Yu" families, still adhering to the 1930 Japanese distribution. Likewise, rural towns were not included in this survey, and the possibility that the variation is caused by urban-rural differences cannot be eliminated. The three trends described above are preliminary observations, and further inspection is required.

What's the big deal with speaking "Guo Yu" in the family? It's a very big deal. Language is not only a tool of communication, it is inseparable with national identity. According to the same survey, in those whose familial language is not Mandarin, 58.1% consider themselves Taiwanese, 36.4% both Taiwanese and Chinese, and a mere 5.5% think of themselves as Chinese. In those who speak other languages alongside Mandarin in their family, 43.5% consider themselves Taiwanese, 51.1% both Taiwanese and Chinese, and 5.5% think of themselves as Chinese. As for the "Guo Yu" families, only 26.7% consider themselves Taiwanese, 63.7% both Taiwanese and Chinese, and 9.6% Chinese. The usage of "Guo Yu" in the family correlates with the probability of self-identifying with Chinese.

Some may doubt, non-Mandarin families may be biased to the Holo population, as they constitute the largest proportion. The national identities of Haaka- and Aboriginal-speaking families may differ from that of Holo ones. We now break down this segment, and the results show 50% of Hakka families, along with 65% of Aborigine, and 58.3% of Holo families consider themselves Taiwanese. Clearly, all three have a preference for choosing Taiwanese as their national identity.

Again, among those who identify themselves as Taiwanese, 64.4% are non-Mandarin families, 21.9% use both, and only 13.7% use only Mandarin; of the Taiwanese-and-Chinese group, 40.9% are non-Mandarin, 26.1% both, and 33% Mandarin; of the Chinese group, 44.3% are non-Mandarin, 20% use both, and 35.7% Mandarin. We can easily discover the similarity between the Chinese-identifying group and the Taiwanese-and-Chinese group. As a matter of fact, these two groups show little differences in their political behaviours. Thus it is concluded that the national identity crisis of modern Taiwan is whether one identifies oneself to Chinese, rather than if they identify as Taiwanese. In the present political atmosphere, all participants are willing to throw in a "I'm a Taiwanese too" from time to time.

Since language has such a close interaction with national identity, which happens to be the most important disagreement in Taiwan, inevitably makes language a much-discussed political matter.

Who speaks "Guo Yu"? (Part 1)

Note: This text is an English translation of the article 誰愛說國語?(一) by Richter. Both the text and image are his original works.

Translator's Note: "Guo Yu" in Mandarin literally translates to "Language of the state".


The "Guo Yu" in 1930s Taiwan is, of course, not Mandarin as it is today, but rather Japanese. The exact same phrase, conveyed a different underlying meaning. Obviously the term "Guo Yu" is not a specific linguistic term, but a political expression.

Seventy years before present time, who spoke "Guo Yu"?

We gain insight of the popularity of Japanese from a survey conducted in 1930. Interestingly, the east and the so-called "barbarian areas" (areas occupied by aborigines) had a higher level of penetrance relative to the rest of the island. This is explained by the fact that Japanese authorities of the time had put a great deal of effort into "assimilating" the aboriginals with quite some results. In fact, to this day, Japanese is still a common language among the elders of aborigines. On one occasion, I actually had to rely on a Taiwanese-Japanese translator to communicate with the aboriginal elders.

Excluding the east and "barbarian areas", three trends of distribution of Japanese were observed. Not surprisingly, higher prevalence was found in urban than rural areas. Over 1/4 of the local population in Taipei city, Taichung city, and Tainan city spoke Japanese. Hakka acceptance of "Guo Yu" seemed wider than Holo people both in the north or and in the south. Other than this, using the Jhuoshuei river as the border, the north part of Taiwan spoke "Guo yu" more readily than the south.

Intuitively, we expect the portion of Japanese in the population, the population density(reflecting the urban-rural differences), and the composition of the local population (Holo/Haaka/Aborigine) fully explains the prevalence of Japanese. However, as regular readers might have expected, language is the most typical collective behavior. Unless one lives in a totally isolated environment, the language we choose to use is often decided by the language commonly used around us. The more people use a particular language, the more likely we choose to use this language. The popularity of a language is obviously a type of "diffusion".

Unfortunately as a student, I don't have the time to deeply research this topic. Nevertheless, I am going to point out the distribution pattern of "Guo Yu" today is identical to the one 70 years ago, although they are two completely different languages.

2007年5月15日 星期二

二二八紀念館

天氣舒適的一個下午,適合出去遊蕩。就在新公園的二二八紀念館就在三步之遙,卻鮮少想到要去拜訪。國立博物館也是上次一時興起才去參觀的。

館內如同我想像的,人並不多。公園內則不乏全家大小出動,或依著長椅或席地而坐,小朋友們歡天喜地的在遊樂場內橫衝直撞。走進入口,暫時與日光道別,走進灰暗的歷史當中。

台北是有歷史的,然而她的歷史卻背埋藏在記憶之中,在國家機器的命令下抹滅。也可能是因為地狹人稠,舊的記憶被迫要讓位給現代與未來。台北帶給我的印象一直是新潮的;身為一個二十歲才入住台北的新移民,西門町與信義計劃區是同樣的光鮮亮麗。對老台北而言,西門町舊時的面容或許仍能自新穎的玻璃大廈穿透出來,但缺乏解說的我只能看見表面的西門。或許統治者是真的刻意想要切斷和過去之間的連結?

二二八,在我們這代眼中,好像是一則民間故事。媒體的渲染與各個黨派之間的叫囂之後,我們不知道該相信誰才是中立的陳述。課本?報紙?研究報告?我猜想也許有很多人在心中默默的將二二八歸檔於「蔣公看魚逆流而上」一類,似真似假。

但二二八不是這樣的。有一些事情的確發生了。拋開目前政治亂象所導致的各種解讀,曾經發生過的歷史事件是不容遺忘的。

正是因為二二八與我們的歷史、與我們的現在如此關係密切,所以到現今仍然是話題。造成二二八的原因,與二二八本身的後果,深深地影響了今日的台灣。讓我驚訝的是這些「歷史」距離我如此的近,解嚴與廢除刑法一百條都是我出生以後的事情。也就是說,在我小時候,三歲以前居住的台北市,和上演鄭南榕自焚、民進黨非法成立是同一個時空。所有現代都要放進歷史的大脈絡理解;然而台灣的歷史脈絡並不長,二二八與現代幾乎是連接在一起的,幾個小節前的序曲卻被劃下了幾十年的休止符。今日在台灣的舞台上演出的那些主角,與紀念館陳列的相去無幾。

對任何一個國家而言,突然移入大量的外來人口都不免對社會造成衝擊,更圖像式的描繪,是用一把大槌子敲破個大洞。五十年前的傷尚未癒合,今日又再面對新的課題:我們有陷入戰爭的危險,有大量的外籍新娘、大量的外籍勞工。這些「外籍」的新台灣人,勢必又會對台灣的認同造度造成衝擊;希望我們能夠有足夠的智慧迎接這些改變。

關於二二八的死亡人數,一直沒有確切的定論,但無論如何,都是個怵目驚心的數字。依人口統計推估,死亡人數相當於當時所有台灣人中,每300人中有一人死亡。這麼深沈的撕裂,無怪乎台灣今日的社會不能活在和諧當中。台灣的白色恐怖,本省人與外省人間的衝突,根本就是上一秒鐘才剛結束。新生的台灣,完全沒有時間好好養傷,然而我們又迫切需要一個共識,關於台灣的認同與未來的走向。

在參觀完畢的留言板前,播放著蕭泰然的1947序曲,而我看著前人留下的各式字句,只想補上我的感想:台灣,你好可憐。

回首歷史,台灣曾走過的路充滿血淚,備經艱苦,但感謝命運我們仍然有值得欣慰的事情。從世界上最長的戒嚴到民選總統,我們成為真正的共和國,用自己的聲音選出新的統治者,而非流落在一個又一個的軍閥手裡。前輩流血用生命換來的言論自由,已經深植在每一個台灣人的心中。

離開紀念館,在中正紀念堂的門口,我遇到一大群穿著同樣黃色及白色衣服的法輪功學員。他們結束了活動,接著進行的是慈濟的禮佛活動。黃色的人們與藍色的人們,就這麼微笑著揮手擦肩交錯著。也許如同中正紀念堂的際遇,台灣的招牌會遭受辯證、爭論,甚至有可能取下而不再存在於這世界,但白色廣場上聚合拍手歌唱,善良而自由的靈魂們永遠不會放棄這個島,我們的土地,我們的家。