举报南京大学生命学院院长华子春学术不端 方先生您好！ 我们反映南京大学生命学院院长、长江、杰青、 国家科技进步奖获得者、国重主任华子春长期存在学术不端问题。 附件是我们发现的第一批四组共9篇文章。 2000-C和2000-E两篇文章皆为英 …
王建平教授的文章与美国普渡大学教授Nancy J. Peterson在1994年发表的题为“History, Postmodernism, and Louise Erdrich’s Tracks”（PMLA, pp. 982-994）的论文存在大量雷同之处。
中文文章第三部分“历史的坐标”的论述顺序、内容和引用，与英文文章第二部分（小标题“The Past as Reference Point”）雷同；
中文文章第四部分小标题“历史与故事”在论述内容、顺序和引用方面，与英文中第三部分（小标题History as Story）存在大量雷同，中文部分是对英文部分的简化。
1） In a 1986 review of Louise Erdrich’s second novel, The Beet Queen, Leslie Marmon Silko argues that Erdrich is more interested in the dazzling language and self-referentiality associated with postmodernism than in representing Native American oral traditions, communal experiences, or history. In Silko’s view, the “self-referential writing” that Erdrich practices “has an ethereal clarity and shimmering beauty because no history or politics intrudes to muddy the well of pure necessity contained within language itself” (179). Whether or not one agrees with Silko’s characterization of postmodernism, 2) with her criticism of The Beet Queen as apolitical and ahistorical, or with the implicit agenda that she proposes for Erdrich, it is true that reviewers of Love Medicine and The Beet Queen, the first two novels of Erdrich’s recently completed tetralogy, tend to praise Erdrich’s lyrical prose style and to applaud her subtle treatment of Native American issues. Erdrich’s novel Tracks, published in 1988, almost seems to answer Silko’s criticisms of The Beet Queen by overtly engaging political and historical issues.2 But writing such a novel did not come easily to Erdrich: 3) she put the original 400-page manuscript for Tracks aside for ten years, and only after she had worked backward in time from Love Medicine to The Beet Queen did she take it up again and begin to link it to her already completed novels about contemporary generations of Chippewa and immigrant settlers in North Dakot
1）在一次关于路易丝·厄德里齐（Louise Erdrich）的采访中, 当代美国印第安作家莱丝 丽·M·西尔科（Leslie Marmon Silko）指出 , 厄德里齐的小说创作缺乏历史感 , 更注重后现代 语言游戏和自我指向 , 忽略了美国土著文化的 口述传统 、 社群经历或种族历史。 2）她认为厄德 里齐的小说 《土著皇后》（The Beet Queen）有逃避政治和历史的嫌疑 , 违背了原创者的初衷 。厄德里齐于1988 年出版了小说《痕迹》 (Tracks)中, 针对西尔科的批评做了回答。《痕迹》 是厄德里齐关于德克塔州印第安芝普 亚部落 (Chippewa)生活四部曲中的第三部 , 3）小说的创作花了十年之久。在完成了《爱之药》 (Love Medicine)和 《土著皇后》 之后，厄德里齐又回到历史题材，以芝普亚部落在美国 殖民统治下的生存状况为背景, 揭示弱势文化 在重新述说历史时所面临的问题 。
1）Erdrich’s difficulty in fleshing out this historical saga is symptomatic of a crisis: the impossibility of writing traditional history in a postmodern, post-representational era. It seems epistemologically naive today to believe in the existence of a past to which a historian or novelist has unmediated access. Radicalized in the post-structuralist movement, language and linguistics have not only led to skepticism concerning access to the past but also instigated a debate about whether historical narratives can be objective representations or are (merely) subjective constructions of a researcher’s and a culture’s ideologies.2）Following Lacan, Saussure, and Althusser, prominent poststructuralists have without regret or nostal- gia asserted the textuality of history-that there is no direct access to the past, only recourse to texts about the past. Even the facts of history are constructed in language, as Barthes observes: “It turns out that the only feature which dis- tinguishes historical discourse from other kinds is a paradox: the ‘fact’ can only exist linguisti- cally, as a term in a discourse, yet we behave as if it were a simple reproduction of something on another plane of existence altogether, some extra-structural ‘reality”’ (153). Similarly decon- structing the linkage of history and the real, Derrida demonstrates in Of Grammatology the degree to which historicity is linked to writing: “Before being the object of a history-of an historical science-writing opens the field of history-of historical becoming”. 3）And else- where in Of Grammatology, Derrida makes the now famous pronouncement “there is nothing beyond the text” (158), which indicates to some readers a radical ontological and epistemolog- ical skepticism that makes history pure fic- tion, with no referential link to events of the past.4 In the light of this cultural-intellectual trajectory, which radically destabilizes history, it is no wonder that Erdrich grappled with the difficulties and possibilities of telling a historical tale. The crisis Erdrich confronts may also be viewed as an outgrowth of the Nietzschean view of history as a disease, an affliction, a burden. In The Use and Abuse of History, Nietzsche argues that historicizing is abusive when it overdeter- mines the present and future or when it leads to paralysis rather than action. Indeed, Erdrich’s lengthy hiatus from working on Tracks might be read as a symptom of this Nietzschean paralysis; certainly Erdrich’s comments about Tracks echo a Nietzschean anxiety regarding the weight of history: “I always felt this was a great burden, this novel” (qtd. in Stead). 4）Extending Nietzsche’s concerns about “an excess of history,” Hayden White asserts in a chapter titled “The Burden of History” that “it is only by disenthralling human intelligence from the sense of history that men will be able to confront creatively the problems of the present” (Tropics 40; emphasis added). Thus, as White suggests elsewhere, many histo- rians and theorists have become interested in “getting out of history” (“Getting” 2). Getting out of history, however, is a strategy not available to those who have never been in it, as Diana Fuss observes. Fuss challenges White’s position by arguing that “[s]ince women as his- torical subjects are rarely included in ‘History’ to begin with, the strong feminist interest in forging a new historicity that moves across and against ‘his story’ is not surprising” (95). The same claim can be made on behalf of other groups that have been marginalized in tradi- tional historical accounts-Native Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos and Latinas, and so forth. Indeed, the burden of history is markedly different for writers from such groups since a lack of historical repre- sentations can be as burdensome as an excess.
1） 厄德里齐在处理历史题材上的迟疑和困惑 从某种意义上反映了当代历史学的危机:当代作家们已经无法用传统的方式书写历史, 那种认为史家和文人可以直面历史、 再现过去的观 点已不合时宜。但是后现代主义在聚焦历史的 同时 , 也加深了人们对历史的疑虑。2）以拉康 、索结尔和阿尔图塞为代表的后结构主义理论家 义无反顾地论证了历史的文本性 :只有关于过 去的文本, 没有通向历史的直通车, 所谓历史 事实也是由语言构成的。罗兰·巴尔特指出 : “历史话语与其他叙事作品的区别基于一种悖 论 :事实只有在语言学的语境下才有意义 , 成 为话语的指称。然而我们却一直以为事实不过 是现实的复制品 。” 3）德里达在解构历史与事实 的关系时指出, “文本之外什么都不存在 。” 从 文化史和思想史看, 这种本体论和认识论的怀 疑主 义意在颠覆 正统的历 史。 4）海顿·怀特 (Hayden White)指出 , “只有当人们从历史的 重负下解脱之后才能创造性地面对现实, 因 此 , 历史学家们应学会如何摆脱历史。” ③ 但 是 , 对那些尚未真正进入历史和在传统历史叙 述中被边缘化的族裔而言, 如何摆脱历史则是 一个不能谈的问题。5）琳达·安得森在 《当代妇 女小说中历史问题的再思考》 一文中指出 : “后结构主义理论对女性文化产生了不良影响 , 因为我们尚未来得及把自己写进历史 , 历史就 消失了。” （这一部分引用了英文原文注释5中的论述，注释原文为In her essay “The Re-imagining of History in Contempo- rary Women’s Fiction,” Linda Anderson acknowledges this concern on behalf of women but sets it aside by invoking its opposition, the return of naive bourgeois realism: “The fear that post-structuralist theory could be disabling for women, making history disappear even before we have had a chance to write ourselves into it, needs to be set against another danger: the constant danger that by using categories and genres which are implicated in patriarchal ideology we are simply re-writing our own oppression” (1)
Erdrich’s writing lays tracks here for a revisionist history and a new historicity. Nanapush’s speech is revisionist because it defamiliarizes the popu- lar narrative of American history as progress by showing the costs of that “progress” to native peoples.9 His speech to Lulu presents an alterna- tive narrative of certain past events-epidemics (“the spotted sickness,” “consumption”) and “government papers” (various federal treaties and legislative acts)-that led to hardship and death for members of the tribe. Indeed, academic history “documents” the “fact” that Nanapush’s historical account corresponds to past events: academic accounts report that North Dakota was afflicted with outbreaks of smallpox from 1869 to 1870 and of tuberculosis from 1891 to 1901. In fact, European diseases such as small- pox, measles, and tuberculosis are said to have been more deadly to native populations across the country than Indian-white warfare was.
But Erdrich’s work moves beyond documen- tation. Such historical “facts” do not fully ac- knowledge the horror of depopulation and genocide, a horror that is marked in the opening passage by the shift from “we” (the people) in the first paragraph to “I” (the only surviving witness) in the last. The problem of relating the past in the form of history is further addressed in that passage when Nanapush instructs Lulu on the limits of his own narrative: “My girl, I saw the passing of times you will never know.”
Without denying the referentiality or importance of his historical narrative, Nanapush acknowl- edges that the real (or “what really happened”) is that which Lulu “will never know” in other words, the complexity of the past exceeds his (and anyone else’s) ability to re-present it fully.11 Nonetheless, Nanapush insists on telling this history to Lulu, for only by creating his own narrative can he empower her.
The question of power and empowerment is central: Erdrich’s novel focuses not only on the limits of documentary history but also on its politics. “Documents originate among the pow- erful ones, the conquerors,” writes Simone Weil, a French Jew exiled to London during World War II. “History, therefore, is nothing but a compilation of the depositions made by assassins with respect to their victims and themselves” (224-25). Indeed, a documentary history of Na- tive America would necessarily be based on treaties, legislative acts, and other documents written or commissioned in the name of the United States government and subsequently (ab)used to take land from indigenous peoples. 12 The history of treaty making and treaty breaking with Native Americans demonstrates that such documents are not autonomous, objective, or transparent statements but texts open to inter- pretation by whoever is in power. Since traditional written history, based on documents, is another kind of violence inflicted on oppressed peoples, Tracks features oral history.
The opening of the novel uses oral story- telling markers: the narrator does not name himself, as he would not in a traditional face-to- face storytelling situation, nor is the addressee named except to designate her relationship to the narrator (“Granddaughter”); the last two para- graphs quoted above contain a rhetorical pattern typically associated with orality, repetition with variations (“I guided,” “I saw,” “I trapped”). Other oral markers signify Erdrich’s rejection of the language of documents: Nanapush refers to “the spotted sickness,” not to smallpox or mea- sles; he uses traditional oral tribal names (Nadouissioux, Anishinabe) rather than angli- cized textual ones (Sioux, Chippewa); he speaks of “a storm of government papers” instead of naming specific documents affecting the tribe. The turn to oral history in Tracks signals the need for indigenous peoples to tell their own stories and their own histories。
6）But the evocation of the oral in a written text implicates this counterhistory in the historical narrative that it seeks to displace. Tracks renders a history of Anishinabe dispossession that moves within and against an academic account of this history. Indeed, the need to know history as it is constructed both orally and textually is indicated by the contextual phrases that begin each chap- ter: first a date, including the designation of season(s) and year(s), then a phrase in Anishinabe followed by an English translation. This information establishes two competing and con- tradictory frames of reference: one associated with orality, a seasonal or cyclic approach to history, a precontact culture; the other linked with textuality, a linear or progressive approach to history, a postcontact culture. Erdrich creates a history of dispossession that moves between these frames, that is enmeshed in the academic narrative of dates and of causes and effects concerning the loss of land. Indeed, only by knowing this narrative can the reader attach any significance to the fact that chapter 1 begins in 1912.
1）厄德里齐在小说里刻意阐述一种具有颠覆 性和修正性的历史观 。纳米普什的故事是对美 国官方历史的修正, 对历史事件的再陈述。它 把美国历史的宏大叙述陌生化 , 把所谓 “历史 进步” 的代价展示给人看 。
2）厄德里齐不只是陈 述历史事件或 “事实” , 而是质疑隐含在其中 的强权意识。因为历史 “事实” 省略了惨绝人 寰的种族灭绝和血腥恐怖的屠杀掠夺。小说第 一段采用第一人称复数形式 “我们” (人民), 而最后一段则以单数第一人称 “我” (唯一的 幸存者)结尾, 强调浩劫之恐怖。纳米普什讲 给露露的故事以史的方式叙述 , 反映其自身叙事话语的局限性和语言与历史真实的矛盾 : “我的孩子 , 我所目睹的历史变迁 、 时光荏苒，是你永远也无法想象的。”
3）纳米普什一方面承认历史叙述的指涉意义和必要性 , 同时又告诫读者 (小说中的听者), 历史的真实 (或真实的历史)是露露 “永远也无法想象的” 。换言之 , 历史的复杂性超出他 (或任何其他人)对其完整再现的能力 (representability)。尽管如此, 纳米普什仍孜孜不倦地给露露讲故事、 说历史, 因为他只有构建自己的叙述才能行使历史的权力。
4）权力与权力控制是小说的核心问题。 《痕 迹》 不仅揭示历史叙述的局限, 还暗示隐含在 历史叙述中的政治取向和权力动因。历史文献是征服者意识的载体和文本, 是刽子手镇压弱者的工具。美国的官方历史记载只是一系列联邦政府为掠夺土著居民土地而制定的条约、 法律和公文。可是 , 美国联邦政府与土著部落既签约又违约的历史证明 , 这些文献无法自圆其说 , 历史并非客观陈述 , 而是由当权者随意解释的文本。这种以书面历史文献为基础的历史 叙述对被压迫的人民来说无异于精神和政治强 暴 。与之针锋相对, 小说采用口述历史与之抗 衡 。
5）作品带有明显的口述特征:作者没有交代 叙述者和被述人 (听者)的姓名 , 只是暗示其 与叙述人的关系 (“孙女”)。上面一段引文中 的修辞手段也是口述文字所惯常使用的, 如排比和复句 (“我指挥” , “我目睹” , “我捕获”) 等 。厄德里齐在叙述时有意避免历史文献习惯 使用的约定性语言:纳米普什把天花或麻疹称为 “斑病” (spotted sickness);使用口语化的部 落名称 (Nadouissioux , Anishinabe), 而不用英语化 、 文本化的指称 (Siux , Chippewa);用形象的比喻 “铺天盖地的政府公文” , 而不具体指明联邦政府文件。
6）作者的寓意十分明显:印第安人应该用自 己的方式来讲述部落的故事和历史 。在小说 (书写文本)中采用口述故事是为了抵制历史 叙述 的 权 威 性 , 是 一 种 反 历 史 (Counterhistory)。口述历史和书面历史同样重要 。 《痕 迹》 重写艾尼施纳比部落被摧残的历史意在颠 覆或解构这段历史的官方文本。小说的各章节 均以特定日期开始, 标明季节和年份 , 然后用 艾尼施纳比部落语言标出 , 最后是英文翻译 。 显然, 作者刻意把两种相互矛盾 、 相互冲突的 语境呈现给读者 :一个是土著、 口述 、 自然的 (按季节)记录历史的方法, 属于文明冲突以 前的原始文化记载;另一个是文本性 、 单线 条 、 按时间顺序来记录历史, 属于殖民文化 。小说中印第安部落被掠夺 、 被压迫的历史交织 在这两种历史语境之间, 读者只有在阅读了这 段文字之后才会对小说开头 (1912 年)发生 的事件的历史意义有所领悟。
The academic historical narrative that Erdrich uses and resists typically begins with the reser- vation period: the United States government initially disrupted tribal ways of life by estab- lishing reservations so that the tribes were confined within strict boundaries while white settlers claimed more territory.13 Then the Dawes Allotment Act of 1887 codified a turn in government policy, making it relatively easy to divide up land formerly held communally on reservations and to allot it to individual Indi- ans.14 The point of allotment was to convert tribes such as the Chippewa from a communal hunting and gathering organization to a capital- istic, individualistic agricultural economy. The allotted tracts were to be held in trust for twenty- five years (according to the original plan), during which time the owners would be encouraged to profit from the lands (by farming, selling timber rights, and so on) but would not be required to pay property taxes. The goal was to use the trust period to assimilate the Indians into the “white man’s” way of life so that they would become productive capitalists, capable of assuming the responsibilities of landholding-such as paying taxes-without further governmental interven- tion. But in 1906 Congress passed the Burke Act, which allowed the commissioner of Indian affairs to shorten the twenty-five-year trust period for “competent” Indians. Under this act, those deemed competent were issued a fee patent rather than a trust patent; they could therefore sell or lease-or lose-their allotments. Then in a 1917 “Declaration of Policy,” Commissioner of Indian Affairs Cato Sells announced that all Indians with more than one-half white blood would be defined as competent and thus would be made United States citizens and that they would be granted fee patents for their allotments. Although the professed original intent of allot- ment was to maintain Indian land ownership, the policy had the opposite effect: “before allotment 139 million acres were held in trust for Indians. In 1934 when allotment was officially repealed, only 48 million acres of land were left and many Indians were without land” (Schneider 85). Some Indians lost their allotments because they could not pay the taxes after the trust period ended; others were conned into selling their allotments at prices well below the land’s value; still others used their allotments as security to buy goods on credit or to get loans and then lost the land after failing to repay the debts.15 By opening in 1912 and proceeding through the disastrous consequences of Sells’s 1917 declaration, Tracks dramatizes the tenuousness of land tenure for Native Americans. Although Nanapush tells Father Damien, “I know about law. I know that ‘trust’ means they can’t tax our parcels” (174), the map Father Damien brings along-with its seemingly innocuous little squares of pink, green, yellow-shows that the agent’s office is busy calculating who will be unable to pay. As Fleur, Nanapush, Eli, Nector, and Margaret work to raise money to pay their taxes, native traditions are forced into a new economic context: the Pillager-Kashpaw family gathers and sells cranberry bark, just as Turtle Mountain women sold herbs and roots to raise money, while Eli traps and sells hides, activities that Turtle Mountain men had to engage in (Murray 16, 29). These efforts raise just enough money. But when Margaret and Nector go to pay the taxes, they are told that they have enough only to pay the taxes on their own tract. No doubt Fleur’s land is too valuable to be left to Indian ownership; the lumber is worth too much for the encroaching capitalists to leave it unhar- vested. As Nanapush recognizes, the late-pay- ment fine levied by the agent is probably illegal, yet greed and desire divide the Anishinabeg, turning some, such as Bernadette Morrissey and Edgar Pukwan Junior, into “government Indi- ans,” while prompting others-Margaret and Nector-to look out for themselves at the ex- pense of communal values. Erdrich’s novel takes up (corresponds to) a turning point in the history of Anglo-Indian land conflicts. But the absence of names for the dates, acts, and other specifics attached to this kind of history displaces this narrative, even as it is invoked. That is, the tension and conflict at the heart of Tracks come into focus only when readers have some knowledge of the Dawes Allotment Act of 1887, but the text does not refer to the act directly.16 The documentary history of dispossession that the novel uses and resists functions as an absent presence; the text acknowl- edges the way in which this historical script has impinged on the Anishinabeg but opposes allow- ing this history to function as the only story that can be told. Moreover, by refusing to participate in such documentation, Erdrich’s novel refocuses atten- tion on the emotional and cultural repercussions that the loss of land entails. In one of the final events of the novel, the trees on Fleur’s tract are razed. Fleur does not communicate the trauma of this event; she is not a narrator in the novel, though she is a central character (perhaps the central character). Instead, the razing of the trees accrues import through its link to two earlier episodes: Fleur’s rape by the butchermen of Argus, North Dakota, after her victory at poker and Margaret’s “rape” by Clarence Morrissey and Boy Lazarre, who shave her head out of vengeance. In all three incidents, a nexus of forces-capitalism, sexism, violence-causes ir- reparable loss. Fleur has ways to redress these wrongs: she causes the tornado in Argus that maims and kills the butchermen, she reduces Boy Lazarre’s speech to babbling because of his voyeurism, and she asks the manitou of Matchi- manito Lake to drown men who cross her. But her powers cannot ward off the whites and government Indians greedy for land, money, and power. The novel portrays Fleur’s loss in this sociocultural war as tragic: it is because tradi- tional Anishinabeg like Fleur and Nanapush are dispossessed and because Native American clans and tribes are consequently fragmented that the tracks of Native American history and culture are so difficult to discern. At the end of the novel Fleur is said to walk “without leaving tracks,” a foreboding development since she is described by Pauline as “the hinge” between the Chippewa people and their manitous and by Nanapush as “the funnel of our history” (215, 139, 178). And yet, Fleur’s disappearance and tracklessness at the end of the novel function as a present absence -her absence becomes a haunting presence in the narrative,17 signifying the need for a recon- ceptualization of history, for a new historicity that both refers to the past and makes a space for what can never be known of it.
厄德里奇在小说中锋芒所向的那段历史指 的是 “印第安保留区时期” 。根据已故的著名 美国历史学家丁泽民先生的论述, 保留区时期 大致在1867 年至 1887 年 。在这一时期, 大多 数印第安人被赶入各个大小不同的保留区。保 留区是美国政府管理、 改造印第安部落的基 地。在这 20 年间, 美国政府一方面加强对保 留区的管理和控制 , 对印第安人政策作了调 整, 让白人定居者获得更多土地。在镇压印第 安人反抗斗争的同时 , 加紧出台一系列同化印 第安人 (美国化)的措施 , 以便把他们 “从任 意漫游的猎人和袭击者改造成为定居入, 遵纪 守法的和受政府保护的人” 。 ⑧ 1887 年出台的 《道斯法案》 标志着美国政府对印第安人政策 的转变。 ⑨ 法案规定解散具有法律实体的印第 安部落, 把土地分配给部落的成年成员 。联邦 政府拥有 25 年托管权 , 托管期满 , 把土地所 有权移交给个人并授予承租人美国公民资格 , 剩下的保留区土地向非印第安人定居者开放 。 《道斯法案》 使政府得以分割原印第安保留区 的土地。对印第安人来说 , 法案的实施意味着 他们已由 “外化之民” 变成美国 “准公民” 。 ⑩ 《道斯法案》 意在把像芝普亚这样以狩猎 和游牧为生的部落纳入资本主义私有制农业经 济轨道 , 把印第安人同化为遵纪守法的公民 。 可是, 法案并没给印第安人带来好处 。首先 , 土地分配制度实施后 , 贪婪的白人进一步夺取 印第安人的土地 。1906 年, 国会通过 《博克 法案》 (Burke Act), 授权印第安事务委员会主 席缩短对 “有能力印第安人” 规定的 25 年托 管期限 。1917 年 , 委员会主席卡托·赛尔斯在 《政策宣言》 中把具有二分之一印第安血统的 印第安人视为 “有能力” (competent)、 有资格 成为美国公民的人。尽管 《道斯法案》 明确表 明土地分配制度是为了维护印第安人的土地所 有权, 可结果恰恰相反：在《道斯法案》颁布以前，1.39 亿公顷土地由政府替印第安人托。到1934年，土地分配法几乎被正式取消时，部落只剩下4800万公顷的土地，许多印第安人丧失了土地，流离失所，甚至无家可归。11由于托管期过后支付不起繁重的税务，许多人失去了分得的土地，或低价出售土地，或用土地置换生活资料，偿还贷款。小说的历史背景在这里十分重要 。故事开 始于1912 年 , 书中的人物已经历了 《政策宣 言》 公布之后灾难频仍的岁月。小说戏剧化地 描写了美国土著居民在印第安土地法的重压之 下潦倒的生活 。尽管纳米普什通晓政府法律 , 为印第安人奔走呼吁, 但他显然无力回天 。弗 雷尔、 纳米普什 、 艾里 、 奈克特 、 马格丽特为 缴税疲于奔命, 部落文化也不得不转入美国大 一统的经济模式 。弗雷尔家的土地拥有丰富的 森林资源, 令白人资本家们垂涎欲滴 。苛捐杂 税也迫使部落分化, 部落成员有的成了 “亲政 府派” , 还有的 , 如马格丽特和奈克特, 背弃 部族文化, 另谋生路。 《痕迹》 切入美国联邦政府与印第安部落 土地冲突史上的一个重要转折时期, 但作品并没有直接提及《道斯法案》这一历史事件。作者有意省略具体的所指（如称谓、事件、时 间、地点等），把历史作为潜在的文本，来印证印第安文化在官方历史教科书中的缺席 。
例2: 中文文章第四部分“历史与故事”（79-90页）与英文第三部分“History as Story”（988页）存在大量雷同，思路与论证一致，内容有所简化。具体参见下划线部分。
Tracks dramatizes the problematic nature of historical narrative, which cannot give voice to the (precontact) past directly-a notion figured in the character of Fleur-but which mediates that past in language and narrative. The novel works toward an understanding of history not as an objective narrative but as a story con- structed of personal and ideological interests. Arising from this insight is a vexing theoretical issue: if history is just a story, how is it possible (or is it possible at all) to discriminate between one account of the past and other accounts？
The postmodern novel, which Hutcheon terms “historiographic metafiction,” characteristically foregrounds the fictionality of history. E. L. Doctorow exemplifies this position in his essay This image of a Chippewa woman called Josephine is remarkable for the absence of historical detail sur- rounding it and her. Unlike the photo of Little Shell, this portrait is captioned only with her first name: no last name, birth date, or tribal affiliation is given; no date or place of the sitting is recorded. Like Fleur, she is a voiceless, enigmatic presence. (Courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution. National Anthropological Archives negative 434-C.) “False Documents,” where he argues that there is no difference between history and fiction, that both are narratives constructing the only world that can be known.18 Erdrich’s work resists absolute groundlessness or relativity by contrast- ing the two narrators who construct the story of Tracks. The second narrator-in addition to Nana- push-is Pauline, an orphaned young woman who is trying to make sense of the beginnings of sexual desire and her alienation from both the tribe and Anglo society. She eventually resolves this psychic tension by becoming a nun, but only after becoming pregnant, trying to force a mis- carriage, and then forgetting about the illegiti- mate baby after it is delivered. Ignoring her part-Chippewa ancestry, she declares herself to be “wholly white” in order to become a nun (137).19 Pauline’s narrative voice reproduces a phenomenon Bell Hooks describes in Black Looks: “Too many red and black people live in a state of forgetfulness, embracing a colonized mind so that they can better assimilate into the white world” (191). Indeed, Pauline embraces Catholicism to repress her sexual desire and her connection to tribal culture; but the perverseness of this repression becomes apparent when she begins masochistically punishing herself for being unworthy. Because of different identities and allegiances, Nanapush and Pauline narrate contrasting inter- pretations of the historical moment that unfolds in Tracks. Nanapush’s elegiac historical saga runs contrapuntally with Pauline’s assimilation- ist version, which interprets the Anglo settling of America as progress. Whereas Nanapush sees the allotment policy and the concomitant con- version of the Anishinabeg from hunters and trappers to farmers as the cause of starvation, poverty, and land loss, Pauline suggests that “many old Chippewa did not know how to keep” -that is, to farm-their allotments and there- fore deserved to lose them. In addition, while Nanapush views the destruction of Anishinabe society and culture as tragic, Pauline sees it in terms of Christian millennialism
Although part Chippewa, Pauline justifies the maneuvers of Christian and governmental authorities to dispossess the people of their land and culture. By teaching at Saint Catherine’s, Pauline becomes one of the agents that blind and deafen children to their native culture and lan- guage. In contrast, Nanapush rescues Lulu from boarding school and its inevitable racism. This difference in perspective is also reflected in Pauline’s eagerness to be renamed and reborn as Leopolda-a name given to her by white Chris- tian authorities-in contrast to Nanapush’s re- fusal to reveal his name to those authorities. Pauline recognizes that indoctrination into white culture is a kind of mutilation-her students will be “blinded” and “deafened” as she herself has been-but she sees this development as inevita- ble. The white Christian capitalists will win the cultural-epistemological war, in Pauline’s view, and she will side with the victor.
《痕迹》 揭示了历史叙述的真实性问题: 如果历史再现不是客观的叙述, 而是掺杂着意 识形态和权力取向的故事, 那么 , 历史的真实 性何在 ? 我们又如何区分不同的故事?
文学理论家琳达·哈琴（Linda Hutcheon）认为，后现代小说的后设叙述（metanarrative）通常凸现历史的虚构性。小说安排了两位叙述者，纳米普什和宝兰（Pauline）。宝兰是印第 79 后殖民语境下的美国土著文学 安部落的后代, 但她与自己部落和美国社会都 格格不入 。在经历了爱情挫折、堕胎 、生育 、当尼姑后，宝兰发誓要与芝普亚部落文化一刀 两断 。为了排遣性压抑, 她皈依天主教 , 生活 在历史的遗忘之中 。由于身份和信仰的差异 , 纳米普什和宝兰对同一历史事件的陈述和解释 形成反差 。纳米普什讲的是一个历史悲剧, 而 宝兰讲的是一个被同化的美国人的故事 :她把 美国掠夺印第安人土地的行径视为历史进步 。 纳米普什认为, 美国政府把印第安人从狩猎者 改造成农场主的土地分配政策是导致印第安社 会贫困、 饥饿和土地流失的根本原因, 而宝兰 则认为这是印第安人咎由自取, 是部落荒蛮 、 落后 、 无知所致 。纳米普什认为印第安文化的 毁灭是悲剧性的, 而宝兰则认为这是罪有应 得, 是基督显灵的结果。宝兰还为美国政府掠 夺印第安人土地 、 摧残印第安文化的行径辩 护。她在圣凯瑟琳任教期间, 肆无忌惮地诋毁 印第安文化和语言。她采用白人教会为她起的名字, 更名为利奥普多, 想脱胎换骨, 重新做 人。她明知同化是自杀行为, 却认为这不可能 逆转 。她坚信白人基督教资本家们会赢得这场 战争, 而她要站在胜利者一边 。
We started dying before the snow, and like the snow, we continued to fall. It was surprising there were so many of us left to die. For those who survived the spotted sickness from the south, our long fight west to Nadouissioux land where we signed the treaty, and then a wind from the east, bringing exile in a storm of government papers, what descended from the north in 1912 seemed impossible. By then, we thought disaster must surely have spent its force, that disease must have claimed all of the Anishinabe that the earth could hold and bury. But the earth is limitless and so is luck and so were our people once. Granddaughter, you are the child of the invisible, the ones who disappeared when, along with the first bitter punishments of early winter, a new sickness swept down. The consumption, it was called by young Father Damien, who came in that year to replace the priest who succumbed to the same devastation as his flock. This disease was different from the pox and fever, for it came on slow. The outcome, however, was just as certain. Whole families of your relatives lay ill and helpless in its breath. On the reservation, where we were forced close together, the clans dwindled. Our tribe unraveled like a coarse rope, frayed at either end as the old and new among us were taken. My own family was wiped out one by one, leaving only Nanapush. And after, although I had lived no more than fifty winters, I was consid- ered an old man. I’d seen enough to be one. In the years I’d passed, I saw more change than in a hundred upon a hundred before. My girl, I saw the passing of times you will never know. I guided the last buffalo hunt. I saw the last bear shot. I trapped the last beaver with a pelt of more than two years' growth. I spoke aloud the words of 984 This content downloaded from 188.8.131.52 on Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:43:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NancyJ. Peterson the government treaty, and refused to sign the settlement papers that would take away our woods and lake. I axed the last birch that was older than I, and I saved the last Pillage。
冬雪降临之际 , 我们部落的人开始死 去 , 就像这纷纷扬扬的雪片 , 人们无声无 息地陨落、 消失。居然还有这么多人存活 下来去等待死亡, 真是不可思议 。我们战 胜了南方的天花, 顽强地活下来 , 后来逃 往我们曾经签订条约的纳多索。可是 , 祸 从天降 , 从东方刮来的一阵风暴 , 政府铺 天盖地的文件 、 条款 , 逼得我们无家可 归 , 背井离乡。 同胞们死无藏身之地。我们呼天不 应 , 叫地不灵, 天灾人祸, 无以复加 。安 尼施纳比的大地 (Anishinabe)埋葬了你 的先人 。 然而, 大地是广阔无限的, 我们的人 民 , 他们的命运也与之息息相关。孩子 , 你是无名之辈的后生, 你的前辈们在严寒 将至、 残酷刑罚和病魔的戕害之下, 纷纷 离开人世 。瘟疫肆虐 , 亲戚们全都病倒 了 , 苦不堪言, 剩下的人不得不留在保护 区 , 人越来越少, 我们的部落就像一根破 烂的麻绳, 岌岌可危, 年老年少一个接一 个被病魔吞噬。我们的家人差不多都死光 了 , 只剩下我纳米普什孤零零一个人 , 虽 然我年近半百, 可我已经是垂垂暮年的老 人了。我饱经风霜 , 见过世态炎凉, 也算 77 后殖民语境下的美国土著文学 得上老字辈了。在我活过的岁月里 , 我耳 闻目睹的历史变故比别人在数千年里见的 还要多。 我的孩子, 我所目睹的历史变迁、 时 光荏苒, 是你永远也无法想像的。 曾几何时, 我率领我的部落指挥最后 一次水牛狩猎。我亲眼目睹了我们国土上 最后一只熊饮弹呜呼 。也是我捕到了大草 原上最后一只山狸。联邦政府不平等条约 的文字我至今记忆犹新。我曾经拒绝签署 那些掠夺我们的森林和湖泊的文件和合 同。我也曾用斧头劈倒了最后一棵比我的 年龄还要大的白桦树 , 我冒着生命危险拯 救了最后一位皮里格的后代。
[O]nce the bureaucrats sink their barbed pens into the lives of Indians, the paper starts flying, a blizzard of legal forms, a waste of ink by the gallon, a correspondence to which there is no end or reason. That’s when I began to see what we were becoming, and the years have borne me out: a tribe of file cabinets and triplicates, a tribe of single-space docu- ments, directives, policy. A tribe of pressed trees. A tribe of chicken-scratch that can be scattered by a wind, ind, diminished to ashes by one struck match.
官僚们肆虐的钢笔刺进印第安人生命的肌 体 , 铺天盖地的法律公文、 无穷无尽 、 毫 无意义的墨汁淹没了我们的生命 。在这铺 天盖地的文件里, 我看到了自己的命运 , 时间证实了我的预言:现实惨不忍睹 、 苦 不堪言 。我们已经变成了一个被尘封在档 案柜里的部落, 一个被卷宗 、 法律公文和 政府文件压迫得近乎窒息的部落 , 一个森 林遭砍伐、 有家不能归的部族, 一个不堪 一击、 星星之火便可付之一炬的部族 。
我是“中医药黑” 作者：西安宋律师 我大概在2000年左右在新语丝看到一篇文章说对待中医药要“废医验药”这个观点，当时觉得很震惊也很新奇，因为我们从小到大都是在中医中药的环境中长大，中医药历史悠久传承千年是宝贵的财富，保佑中华民族繁衍至今， …
方舟子推特合集（177）2017.7.1-5 方舟子Verified account@fangshiminTweets15.2KFollowing38Followers119K 方舟子?Verified account …
方舟子推特合集（178）2017.7.6-10 方舟子Verified account@fangshiminTweets15.3KFollowing38Followers122K 方舟子?Verified account …
方舟子推特合集（179）2017.7.11-20 方舟子Verified account@fangshiminTweets15.3KFollowing38Followers124K 方舟子?Verified account …