2008年3月29日 星期六

Friedrich Nietzsche :Light is everything that I touch

"那些年,我和尼采一樣到處為家,我以為哲人說的有理,我也是heimatlos(編按,德語,即是英文的homeless)。我曾是尼采在瑞士西絲.瑪麗亞的鄰居,那裡現在是歐洲有錢人和知識分子來滑雪渡假的地方,我經過他以前住過的小公寓,想起他愛的女子莎樂美在回憶錄中寫道:我不記得我是否吻過尼采?啊,尼采,還有舒伯特,這些大師年紀輕輕都得了梅毒。然後逐漸精神崩潰。"

"To educate educators! But the first ones must educate themselves! And for these I write."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche: German philosopher who wrote about the Übermensch, or superman (1844-1900)


Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future
by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - Philosophy - 1997 - 176 pages
Page 36 - so totally .ANTIPIDAL* to my ears and habits of thought, that in my first impulse of rage on finding them, I wrote on the margin, "la niaiserie religieuse par excellence! "...
*Diametrically opposed; exactly opposite.
(niaiserie SIMPLICITY FOOLISHNESS

A Nietzsche Reader
by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - 1978 - 288 pages
Page 63 - ... be no more than foreground valuations, a certain species of niaiserie which may be necessary precisely for the preservation of beings such as us. ...
BGE 3
Twilight of the Idols and the Antichrist
by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - Philosophy - 2004 - 134 pages
Page 109 - ... he had had such a hallucination, would be a genuine niaiserie on the part of a psychologist: Paul willed the end, consequently he willed also the means. ...






Culture | 25.03.2008

Coal Mining Venture May Force Removal of Nietzsche's Remains

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has been dead since 1900, but he could still be in for a move. A strip-mining company is taking samples of coal near his hometown of Roecken, where he's also buried.

As reported in the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mibrag, a mining company, has been carrying out exploratory drilling near the village in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt since 2006.

If the samples prove positive, the surrounding towns might have to be demolished to make room for strip-mining.

That could mean the destruction of the house where one of the 20th century's most influential thinkers was born and nurtured his adolescent will to power.

It would also likely force the philosopher's grave to be moved elsewhere

Residents resistant

NietzscheBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Ashes to ashes or, um, coal?

A fair number of Roecken's 170 residents seem unhappy about the possibility of an involuntary move. The Green party, the only party to oppose the drilling, recently polled 36.4 percent in elections -- and they posted even higher numbers in other neighboring hamlets.

But the larger surrounding area, which was part of communist former East Germany and suffers from high unemployment, has different priorities. In September 2007, the state parliament of Saxony-Anhalt approved an energy policy that would allow for new mining operations near Roecken.

Local parliaments have also since voiced their support for continuing coal mining in the region.

"Around half of the visitors to the Nietzsche memorial here want to talk to us about coal," the pastor currently occupying Nietzsche's boyhood home told the ddp news agency.

Mibrag said it will try to respect the area's cultural heritage, should mining plans go ahead.

"If it's possible to dig around it, we will," company spokeswoman Angelika Diesener told ddp. "We're aware of the cultural and historical treasures here."

Diesener added that the company had not drawn up any concrete plans for moving the village -- or Nietzsche's final resting place.

Even if that situation changes, the philosopher will have a few more years of peace and quiet -- the earliest mining would commence would be 2025.

Still, it would be ironic if the philosopher-poet does have to make way for the backhoes and bulldozers since one of his most famous couplets reads: "Light is everything that I touch/ And coal everything I leave behind."

DW staff (jc)


德国中部地区褐煤开采集团近来公布了一组数据,结果显示德国东部城市莱比锡、哈勒等地褐煤的开采能源最多只能维持到2040年。在无煤可采的情况下,该集团又瞄准了一块宝地—德国著名哲学家尼采的墓地。在经济利刃的诱惑之下尼采之墓恐怕很难保全。

沉睡的尼采

生于1844年10月15日的德国著名哲学家弗 里德里希·威廉·尼采自1900年去世之后,至今还沉睡在他的故乡德国莱比锡附近的洛卡小镇(Röcken Dorf)。尼采的墓地就设在洛卡小镇的一间罗马式建筑风格的教堂内。当然这间教堂也是尼采的出生地和他受洗的地方,可以说这里弥留着很多尼采儿时的记 忆。

1990年,教堂被重新修复,如今是牧师们诵经和生活的地方。1994年,教堂旁边的马棚被改建成一个小型博物馆用以纪念这位伟大的哲学大师,但就是这样的小型纪念几年后将不复存在。

为该地区提供供电供暖的(MIBRAG)褐煤开 采商,不仅是德国知名企业还是当地的经济支柱。据德国法兰克福汇报报道:“该集团仅间接提供的工作岗位就达2800个,直接提供工作位置2100个,同时 还有其名下的慈善组织机构。”但人们又会想到一个煤矿开采商的盈利就意味着更多乡镇和自然资源被破坏,随之而来的是为了开采褐煤,当地大批居民还要被迫搬 迁。

反对声音如蚊叫

煤矿开采和文化遗迹相比,究竟哪个更重要?这一 点当地老百姓也有点犹豫。德国法兰克福汇报报道中称,2007年5月当地有64%的居民表示反对采煤行动,但另一方面反对似乎不起什么作用。因为当地失业 率极为严重,有20%的人已经丢掉了饭碗,1990年以后洛卡周边地区的小镇有36%的人也表示不愿意再居住下去。

鉴于该地的资源薄弱加之失业率大增,居民们关注 的不再是尼采墓地要被挖掘,而是更担心将来褐煤采完后带来的恶性循环。但由于褐煤的利用价值及其丰富,它可以提供取暖和供电资源,因此德国社民党、基民盟 和左翼党人士意见一致,赞同褐煤的开采。只有德国绿党持反对意见,2007年4月绿党试图改变这一现状,但结果是令人失望的。

尼采如何睡得安稳

专家预计,截至到2040年该地区的褐煤资源将 开采完。事实上,开采集团早就看到这一现状,2006年他们已经在尼采墓地所在地洛卡小镇的教堂处钻孔勘查。但有关人士指出,在最后决定开采这片土地之前 应该先弄清开采商是否有资格进行露天采煤。不管结果怎样,事实上根据目前开采商给出的采煤计划,开采将于2025年动工。

2008年3月27日 星期四

莫扎特 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

除了這樣多的簡介之外
要問我們多久聽他的音樂.....
http://www.answers.com/topic/wolfgang-amadeus-mozart?cat=entertainment

音乐大师莫扎特的珍稀肖像画

莫扎特肖像
这幅画被英国专家鉴定为莫扎特珍稀肖像画
一幅18世纪著名奥地利音乐大师莫扎特的珍稀肖像画默默无闻地沉睡了二百多年,最近被英国国王学院的专家鉴定为罕见珍品。

莫扎特的全名叫沃尔夫冈.阿玛迪斯.莫扎特(Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart),于1756年1月27日诞生于奥地利古城萨尔斯堡。于1791年12月5日英年早逝,还不到35岁。

但在他短短的一生中,却创作了600多部音乐作品,包括20多部歌剧、40多部交响乐、29部室内乐作品,20部弥撒曲和数百部奏鸣曲和协奏曲。

他是欧洲古典歌剧史上四大巨子之一,在交响乐领域,他同贝多芬和海顿齐名,而他在钢琴创作和演奏方面的造诣,使其成为钢琴协奏曲的奠基人。

未见庐山真面目

但是,尽管这位奥地利音乐大师给人类艺术宝库留下了如此巨大的财富,多年来乐迷们一直遗憾,音乐家竟然没有留下几幅自己的肖像画。

此前,人们对莫扎特形象的概念大都是根据画家芭芭拉•克拉夫特(Barbara Kraft)在莫扎特去世20多年后绘制的一幅肖像画得来的。

莫扎特肖像
莫扎特去世后画家芭芭拉·克拉夫特画的莫扎特肖像画

克里夫•艾森教授的研究发现

克里夫•艾森教授(Prof. Cliff Eisen)是伦敦国王学院(King's College)的18世纪古典音乐专家,他研究的主题之一是有关音乐大师莫扎特的生平和音乐。

最近他在英国皇家音乐协会发表了一项学术研究发现。他说,在经过了一年多的研究之后,他确认一幅默默无闻地沉睡了200多年的油画是莫扎特的真实肖像画。

他说,这是一幅创作于1783年的肖像画,当时27岁的莫扎特住在维也纳,正处于创作的鼎盛时期。

珍稀肖像画

这幅油画是一位美国收藏家于2005年从一位莫扎特家族密友的后裔那里买来的。艾森教授认为,画家很可能是18世纪著名奥地利画家约瑟夫•黑格尔(Joseph Hickel*)。

在这幅油画上,音乐家穿着一件精致的猩红色镶边外套。艾森教授说,肖像画上的这件外套,几乎跟莫扎特给他父亲的一封信中形容的一件外套一模一样,甚至连衣扣都一样。

根据这幅画的原主奥地利萨尔斯堡的Johann Lorenz Hagenauer家族流传下来的故事说,画家约瑟夫•黑格尔为莫扎特画了这幅肖像画,是为了答谢作曲家为他的一个亲友创作了管乐小夜曲作品K375。

另一位英国音乐专家英国谢菲尔德大学(University of Sheffield)的西蒙•吉弗教授 (Prof. Simon Keefe)说,“这是一个非常令人兴奋的发现。无需说,这将使我们重新考虑这位著名音乐家的真实形象了。”

*

(b Cesky Krumlov, Bohemia [now in Czech Republic], 19 March 1736; d Vienna, 28 March 1807). In 1756 he was accepted as a student at the Akademie der Bildenden K?nste in Vienna, where he studied for about ten years. In 1768 he was commissioned by Empress Maria-Theresa to go to Italy to paint portraits of the nobility in Milan, Parma and Florence; he became a member of the Accademia di Belle Arti in Florence in 1769. In 1772 he was appointed deputy head of the Vienna Gem?ldegalerie and in 1776 became painter to the imperial court. He was granted full membership of the Akademie in Vienna that same year, submitting the Portrait of a Man Aged 104 from Bohemia (Vienna, Akad. Bild. Kst.) on his admission.

Part of the Hickel family

2008年3月24日 星期一

本田宗一郎 ( 極小部分)

門脅轟二 簡歷:1965年畢業于大阪外語大學中文系,同年進入本田公司。派駐歐美之後,于1993年出任本田技研工業(中國)社長,1995年出任 本田駐中國總代表,1998年任廣州本田汽車總經理,2002年任本田地區執行董事,2004年退休。出生於日本鳥取縣,現年65歲。

  之所以在大學選擇中文專業,與我想讓高中古漢語老師另眼相看有關。那位老師非常挑剔。而天生執拗的我就想取得好成績來讓他讚揚我。因此我就認真學習古 漢語,學著學著學出了樂趣。這使得我對中國的興趣越來越濃。儘管這樣,我高考的第一志願還是經營學。但是誰知第一志願沒考上,最終進入了為了保底而報考的 大阪外國語大學中文專業。

第一次知曉本田是在大學時代。當時我讀了一本本田宗一郎的著書。因為是外國語大學,所以同學的就業方向多為貿易公司。儘管我也有從事與中國有 關工作的想法,但還是希望進入傳媒業或是製造業。父親二戰前在鍛造工廠工作,從小就看著父親勞作的背影,讓我產生了從事製造業的念頭。

  與本田的結緣可謂偶然。大三的時候,在朋友的宿舍不經意地看到了一本書——《我的思考》,是本田宗一郎的著作。翻開一看,書中寫道:“人們把我說成是 ‘霹靂族老大’,好像在說我壞話,但我很樂意。因為我製造出了性能如霹靂一般的摩托車,很自豪它支撐著本田現在的出口業務。”我想,真是位有趣的企業家, 於是一氣讀完該書。不過,之後就把本田忘得一乾二淨了。


——1965年4月,門脅被本田正式錄用。與本田的創業者本田宗一郎的極具震撼力的相遇正在等著他。

  本田的入司儀式是永遠都不會忘記的。那是在琦玉縣的本田培訓中心,一座木板走廊的老房子。腳蹬長靴、身著白色工裝的本田宗一郎(以下稱老爺子)咚、咚、咚地跑了進來。還沒登上講臺聲音就先出來了。
  “小子們,都給我聽好了,今後你們要被我這個小學畢業的人使喚。今後將不論學歷,只看實力!把畢業證什麼的都給我撕了!”話音剛落,天空竟然電閃雷鳴。真是“雷公”啊。那印象真是太深刻了。

  現在想來,實際上老爺子是算好了時機,進行那場“表演“的吧。進入會場之前天空就烏雲滾滾,老爺子該是估摸著打雷的時機講話的。那天儀式的開始時間被推遲,而且老爺子是急忙跑進會場的,應該是看著要打雷才上臺發言的。

  正如這樣,老爺子其實是個細緻入微的人。知道如何才能給初次見面的人留下深刻的印象。

  還有過這樣一件事。老爺子邀請台灣的銷售商到琦玉的狹山工廠參觀。準備讓老爺子登臺致詞。當時我正在作為歡迎儀式會場的食堂擺放椅子,老爺子的秘書臉色驚慌地跑進來叫我的名字。

  “社長叫你。”

  我以為發生了什麼事,急忙跑進了幹部休息室。老爺子正怒氣沖天。周圍的董事都低頭不語,連大氣都不敢出。莫非是我有什麼過失?我戰戰兢兢地問:“您叫我嗎?”

  於是老爺子嚷嚷道:“哦,門脅,這些人我見過嗎?”噢,原來老爺子是想知道與台灣的客人有沒有見過面。於是我回答道:“是,您見過,在台灣工廠的典禮上見過。晚上還開了宴會,氣氛很熱鬧。”“哦,這樣啊……”老爺子的臉色馬上就“陰轉晴”了。

  等到台灣客人休息室的門一打開,老爺子立即就上前挨個握住台灣銷售商的手寒暄道:“哎呀哎呀,在台灣的時候承蒙熱情款待啊。”當然,銷售商們十分高興地認為“本田社長能夠記得我們”。老爺子就是這樣一個注重對方心情的人。

門脅把“WAIGAYA”(暢所欲言)式會議帶到了廣州本田。正因為他是與本田宗一郎有過直接接觸的一代,所以才重視讓經營一線的各種意見相互交鋒。

  我在本田見到的是人與人之間的“撞擊”。本田的經營也是這樣。我在年輕的時候有過與老爺子共處的機會,多次見過那樣的場景。大家時常是一邊相互“撞 擊”,一邊通過WAIGAYA來推動公司的運轉。我想,正是這種無所不言的做法催生了新想法,推動了產品的製造及市場開拓。

  但是,這種氛圍在成為大企業後就難以維持了。如何在大企業中也能通過WAIGAYA來創造出相互碰撞交流意見,推進工作的環境呢?這也是經營廣州本田所面對的一個重大課題。(未完待續,12月18日 《日經產業新聞》)

小說 潘玉良Pan Yuliang, THE PAINTER FROM SHANGHAI

The Emperor’s Club


Published: March 23, 2008

In this age of memoir and thinly veiled autobiographical fiction, writers who take high dives into deeply imagined waters have become increasingly rare — and valuable. What a pleasure, then, to discover that Jennifer Cody Epstein, whose luminous first novel, “The Painter From Shanghai,” is based on the actual life of Pan Yuliang, a former child prostitute turned celebrated painter, also happens to be one such writer.

Skip to next paragraph

THE PAINTER FROM SHANGHAI

By Jennifer Cody Epstein.

416 pp. W. W. Norton & Company. $24.95.

It doesn’t hurt that Yuliang’s life — buffeted by the seismic cultural and political shifts in China during the first half of the 20th century — makes for an irresistible story: born in 1895 and orphaned as a child, Yuliang was sold into sexual slavery at 14 by her opium-addicted uncle. After seven years in the brothel, she was bought out by Pan Zanhua, a progressive official who made her his concubine, then his second wife, and encouraged her painting. One of a handful of women accepted into the Shanghai Art School, she went on to win fellowships for study in Paris and Rome. After several years abroad, she returned to China, where success and scandal — thanks to her Western-influenced nude self-portraits — followed. In 1937, with Shanghai and Nanking under bloody assault by the Japanese, Yuliang fled China for good, settling alone in Paris, where she died, impoverished, in 1977.

In “The Painter From Shanghai,” Epstein concentrates on Yuliang’s time in the brothel — chillingly named the Hall of Eternal Splendor — and her early years with the devoted Pan Zanhua when, as Epstein imagines, Yuliang’s understanding of herself as a (relatively) free woman and artist began to emerge. The brothel sections are harrowing. Epstein, who clearly did vast amounts of research, brings palpably to life the degradations these young women are subjected to: the mock wedding of new “leaves” (or virgins) to the highest bidder; the enforced vinegar diets to lose weight; the “puffy ringed hands” of Godmother, who checks the girls for signs of “sex-sickness.”

Most vivid is Epstein’s portrait of the lovely Jinling, “trailing scent like an elegant scarf, an exotic blend of gardenia and musk.” The establishment’s top girl, she eats seed pearls crushed with sugar to enhance her complexion. Jinling befriends and protects Yuliang, bringing a bright insouciance to the brothel’s dark halls — until she is murdered, her throat slit by one of her clients. Her death reverberates throughout the novel. Indeed, Epstein suggests that Yuliang’s desire to repossess Jinling’s pale, beautiful, youthful flesh — and thereby her own — inspires the nude paintings that will later bring her such notoriety.

In an epigraph, Epstein quotes the English painter John Sloane, who wrote that “though a living cannot be made at art, art makes life worth living. It makes starving, living.” In the end, this is precisely what Epstein illustrates in her moving characterization of Pan Yuliang, who even as an abused young girl notes the way a “slap mark glows red at first but fades slowly to peach-pink,” and as an adult, torn between her love for her husband and her desire to be unconstrained as an artist, chooses the nourishment of her work: “She cocks her head ... and starts anew. She paints until the light outside has seeped away into the black sky; until the monks go home and the mourners leave, and all that’s left is the soft click of the gamblers’ ivory.”

Sarah Towers teaches creative writing at the Bard Prison Initiative.

2008年3月23日 星期日

祝宗嶺(伍寶笙 未央歌) 達爾文全集

我見到了伍寶笙 by 樸月

樸月(編著) 鹿橋歌未央,台灣:商務印書館,2006 pp.316-33
該書還有其他第一手資料

我對於未央歌 的女主角等在約38年之後早已沒印象
這回對"
倒是翻譯的一本達爾文的書"特別有興趣
查一下
達爾文,《植物的運動》(全集第12 卷),婁昌後、周邦立、祝宗嶺譯,北京:科學出版社,. 1995。又 (.......達爾文《肉食植物》一書,尚未付印。此書乃科學出版社請其譯者。 ..... 後由北京農業大學祝宗嶺教授作了校訂,於1987年9月由科學出版社出版。 ...)
其實 農業大學可能出版過達爾文全集
祝宗嶺女士的先生叫婁成後



轉錄自中國時報人間副刊
2000.04.30~2000.05.04
原始網站:
http://hsc.usf.edu/~yyao/digest/daily/043000.htm

人間副刊2000.04.30我見到了伍寶笙
⊙樸月
 「伍寶笙」,是一個我從少年時代就熟悉的名字;那時,《未央歌》正風靡著大學裡愛好文學的莘莘學子。對女生而言,能被稱許為像「伍寶笙」,是讚美的極致!
  那活在鹿橋的書裡,活在昆明山光水色中,活在「西南聯大」簡陋的校舍裡,有著明麗過人的容顏、溫厚誠懇的人品、自然淡雅的風度。為人處世,待人接物,融和 了理性與感性、智慧與仁愛,又一片的純摯真誠。不像藺燕梅那樣鑽石般的炫人眼目,卻如美玉般曖曖內含光的「伍寶笙」,成為親切友愛、溫柔敦厚、風清月朗等 人間美質的具體象徵。
 當時,由於時空的阻隔,作者鹿橋先生又蓄意放《未央歌》在人海中歷練、沈浮,從不露面。因此,對讀者而言,就連作者「鹿橋」本身也是謎樣的人物,更增添了人們對《未央歌》書中人物的好奇。
  直到「商務版」在臺灣問世,鹿橋先生親自撰寫了長文向讀者致意,書中的人物才漸漸的明朗落實了。有的人物,是有真實人物為原型的,有的則出於杜撰。而他第 一個明確指名道姓的主角就是「祝宗嶺」-伍寶笙的原型。這一人物顯然為當時西南聯大同學們所共知,而且,「呼之欲出」。鹿橋文中提到,他讀過《未央歌》的 聯大同學,一見到他,來不及寒暄的就嚷:
 「你那個伍寶笙一看就是祝宗嶺!」
 他也自承:
 「伍寶笙當然是照了宗嶺寫的!」
 這一切,在我少年時代,也不過如一般讀者,是附麗於《未央歌》浮光掠影的印象。無法探究,也無從探究。
  人世的因緣,真不是自己所能預料的。二十年前,由於先義父李抱忱先生的關係,一向「遠在天邊」的《未央歌》作者鹿橋先生,在一夕之間成為我必得稱之為「姑 父」的親長:他的夫人薛慕蓮女士,是先義父的表妹。甚且,他們是在李家邂逅相遇,終成眷屬的!我奉先義父之命,稱他們二位為姑姑、姑父。而且,「一個字也 不許多!」因為,我原先淘氣,聲稱要喊慕蓮姑姑為「乾表姑姑」!
 更由於冥冥之間的緣會,這本來也只是稱謂親切的「姑姑」、「姑父」,在不通音問,彼此睽隔達十七年之後,重續前因。就此情誼固結,如今彼此之間,真親如家人了。而且,由於我與姑父「同行」,更有幾分「忘年知己」的投契。
  由於這份親近,我對《未央歌》的人物有了更進一步的了解;「小童」根本就是鹿橋姑父自己的化身;大宴是已故的經濟部長李達海先生;藺燕梅容貌、衣著是幾個 人的組合體,卻是個虛構人物。書中的情調、精神、友情是他想要表現的重點。故事情節,則是為了表現「人」的成長歷程而設計的,大多出於杜撰。
 至於常被別人投以好奇眼光,總想對號入座,臆測她是書中哪一位的慕蓮姑姑,則笑著說:
 「我總想對他們搖手,告訴他們:我不是藺燕梅,也不是伍寶笙!」
 這一點我是知道的;他們相識在《未央歌》完成之後。但我確然相信,也得到姑父欣然認可的是:
 「在姑父心目中,您恐怕是藺燕梅加伍寶笙!」
  這位彷彿為他量身打造的「如花美眷」,成為鹿橋姑父今生最大的幸福與滿足。由姑父的談話中,我知道他今生最崇慕的女性有三位,這三位女性,在他心上、眼 中,都是風華絕代,無可比擬的。而且,在感情境界上,也都到了理想完美的極致。代表親情的是他的二姊吳詠香;代表愛情的,是妻子薛慕蓮;代表友情的,則是 「伍寶笙」--祝宗嶺。詠香姑姑早已去世。慕蓮姑姑是與他白頭偕老的「神仙眷屬」,相依相守,須臾不離。只有祝宗嶺,那麼多年來,不但山遙水遠,還加上那 麼多難以跨越的有形、無形阻隔,更讓他念念難忘。
 姑父說,他們後來又見過;大陸改革開放後,「伍寶笙」的兒子到了美國。當她到美國探望兒子的時候,姑父曾將她接到聖鹿邑家中敘舊。
 「那風度,還是當年的伍寶笙!在現代人物中是找不到的了!」
 在姑父的讚歎中,我知道,在他心目中,伍寶笙的美好,是永恆的!但,那離我很遠;遠得搆不著。
  人世的緣分怎麼說呢?千禧年剛過,我的《清宮豔》系列小說《玉玲瓏》、《金輪劫》、《胭脂雪》由大陸的湖南岳麓書社出了簡體字版。隨即,北京「中國作協」 的朋友,熱誠的為我安排了一場座談會。讓我藉此與北京的學者、作家們見面聯誼。事情發生得太快;元月三日,我才知道新書出版。六日在一通電話中,已把座談 會的時間、地點決定了。第二天趕忙著通知出版社寄書,照相、辦台胞證……,幾乎在我自己都還沒回過神來時,人已經到了北京。
 在確定了北京之行後,我立即打電話告訴姑姑、姑父這件事。姑父聽說我要到北京開新書發表的座談會,興奮異常。他認為,這對我來說,是太好的機緣;寫了那麼多發生在北京故宮中故事的人,怎麼能不去見識一下真正的北京?
 而我,卻想到他曾提過的事:「伍寶笙」在北京!於是,我說:
 「姑父,您的『伍寶笙』不是在北京嗎?如果您給我她的電話,我到北京的時候,可以打個電話問候她!」
 「我沒有她的電話,給你個地址吧!」
  當時,我並不知道,姑父心裡對「小孩兒家」基於好奇的「問候」,並不太以為然。只是他素來知道我率性任真,不忍掃我的興,才帶著點勉強的把地址傳真給我。 我立刻請大陸音樂界的朋友康普姊去打聽電話號碼。康普姊原是資深的音樂廣播節目主持人,退休後,常住美國。曾為了大陸音樂界有意填補中國近代音樂史的「斷 層」,找先義父李抱忱先生的資料時,透過姑父介紹找到我,解決了這個問題。因此,她不但認識姑父,也讀過《未央歌》。所以對這件事也格外的熱心,不久就有 了回音。康普姊告訴我:
 「我已經跟祝教授通過電話了。我告訴她:『有一位劉小姐,是鹿橋--吳訥孫教授的侄女,過幾天要從台灣到北京來。吳教授請她代為問候,所以,她託我打聽您的電話,向您致意。』」
 對康普姐這一番話,我認為是陌生人冒昧聯絡,得體合宜的說辭。姑父卻提出了抗議:
 「明儀(他通常是喊我本名的)!是你吵著要去問候她的,我可沒說要請你問候!我與她的友情,已到達人世情緣理想的完美境界,用不著請人問候!」
 聽他認真爭辯的話,我又好氣、又好笑;當即就說:
 「姑父!您既然這麼說,我不管是跟她通電話,或是見到她,總會幫您把您的問候收回來!」
 她住海淀區,與頤和園鄰近,於是我安排在遊賞頤和園之後去探訪她。
  由北京的朋友陪著,按址找到一座不同於四周連棟公寓式宿舍的二樓花園住宅,只見門前貼著一張紙條,大意是說:不必敲門了,來客就請直接進門吧!後來我才知 道,「伍寶笙」在七○年代下放陝北時,為卡車上落下的汽油桶壓傷了腳,不良於行。而她的夫婿,著名的生物學者婁成後教授,如今已九十高齡,還在帶研究生, 常在二樓給研究生上課,無人應門。因為二老都是甚受敬重的學者,也不會有人無故打擾,所以就「門雖設而常開」,請客人排闥直入了。
 走進一樓客廳,只見一位穿著黑色毛衣,灰色外套,頭髮花白的老太太,坐在明窗下的書桌前。聽到有人進來,正朝這邊望著,臉上還帶著笑意。
 「您是祝姑姑?我姓劉,從台灣來。吳訥孫先生是我姑父。」
 我趨前自我介紹。她親切地笑著,招呼我先脫下厚重的皮大衣。又指著茶几:
 「康普告訴我,你今天下午會來。我剛才熱了『露露』,先喝點,暖和一下吧。」
 才踩著雪,從零下的氣溫中來,喝了她細心準備溫熱的「露露」,只覺身心俱暖。
  走到她的跟前,我取出事先預備了帶給她的禮物和「信物」,禮物有一條臺北故宮製作的「丹楓呦鹿」絲巾,是送她的。一條領帶,是送婁教授的。還有一本我的小 書:詩詞名句欣賞的《漫漫古典情》。信物則有三張照片;姑父前年來台時照的。一張是他單人的,一張他跟姑姑的合照,還有一張是加上我的,以「驗明正身」。 另有兩張影印文件,是姑父寫了送我的杜詩,和他的一封信。信的內容很可愛,而且與「伍寶笙」有關。那天正好是七夕,姑父一時興起,就杜撰了一個故事。說織 女如何從鵲橋上落下來,落到昆明,《未央歌》的三十一頁上;正是伍寶笙出場的那一頁。
 由這些人生引子,彼此之間很快的親近起來。我問:
 「祝姑姑,您記得當年姑父是什麼樣子嗎?」
 「其實記得不很清楚。只記得他是個很規矩、很有教養的男孩子。」
 我想所謂的「規矩」,應該是「正派」的意思,因為姑父可不是那種行規步矩的夫子先生。我笑著說:
 「這是其來有自的;他出身在一個書香門第的仕宦世家。他的父親就作得非常好的舊詩;他送過我一幅一丈多長的手卷,寫的就是他父親的詩。後來因為老爺子的外文好,又被徵召到外交界工作。所以,可以說,中國的禮教,外國的禮節,在他身上都是自然融合的。」
  「難怪!我們一起從長沙經過廣州到昆明。那時候,大家都離家在外,我年紀大些,又愛管閒事,跟那些學弟學妹們都挺好的。但,我真不記得對他有什麼特別的照 顧,像他寫的那樣。他跟我說,我教他讀過英文詩,我也不記得了。努力回想,彷彿有那麼點影子。說起來,都六十年了!」
 她笑著,笑得很真誠、 很坦率。似乎對姑父的「過譽」有點「愧不敢當」。她的說法,和姑父的說法顯然有著相當的落差;姑父彷彿覺得與她的友情非常深厚,且「受恩深重」,因此念念 不忘。她卻覺得只是同學之間的一般情誼,並沒有什麼特別。我想起姑姑曾跟我談及她與祝姑姑見面的情形,當時姑姑說過一段話:
 「我感覺她好像很努力的想告訴我,她和姑父之間『沒什麼』;我也沒有認為他們之間『有什麼』呀!」
 姑姑當時笑著,恬適的眸光中,是一派沒有心機的坦然。姑姑為人極溫厚寬容,她的器量和對姑父的信任,我是知之甚深的。當時我的想法是:大概祝姑姑不了解姑姑的為人與心性,怕姑姑多心,所以有這一番解釋。
----------------------
人間副刊2000.05.01我見到了伍寶笙
⊙樸月
 也許祝姑姑真的認為她與姑父之間交誼並不特殊;甚至認為姑父書中所寫的小童與伍寶笙的深厚情誼,相較於真實的姑父和她,都屬於「文學的誇張」。她的坦誠率真,使她不能不有所「澄清」。
  但聽了祝姑姑對我說的這一番話,卻有了另一種看法;也許祝姑姑並不是為了怕姑姑多心而「撇清」,是她真的認為她與姑父之間交誼並不特殊;甚至認為姑父書中 所寫的小童與伍寶笙的深厚情誼,相較於真實的姑父和她,都屬於「文學的誇張」。她的坦誠率真,使她不能不有所「澄清」。
 何以致此?這倒真是 個有趣的問題。但我很快的領悟了她與姑父二者間認知落差的原因何在:她本身是個熱誠;她自己的說法是「愛管閒事」的人。對這些學弟、學妹,很自然的如大姊 姊一般的關懷照顧,卻出於自然天性,渾不自覺。加上長久歲月、關山的阻隔,使她不再記得她也許曾付出,卻因未曾縈心,已然遺忘了的往事。而姑父卻是身受其 惠的人,深銘於心,感念不忘。這就像一個好老師之愛護學生,本是一視同仁且出於自然的。而學生則可能感受深切:老師對我真好!感念終身。老師未必能記得每 個畢了業的學生。而有心的學生,卻因為一心認定了他心目中的「恩師」,歷經數十年再見,還能「如數家珍」的回憶與老師相處的點點滴滴。
 由此,倒見出姑父和祝姑姑的心性與人品了;兩位各有立場,也都做到了「施人慎勿念,受施慎勿忘」的古訓。
 我們隨興的談著,談姑父與姑姑的近況,談我與姑父、姑姑結緣、續緣的經過,談姑父那迄今不改小孩脾氣的一些趣事,也談她的家庭與生活。四點多,我不能不告辭了;晚上有飯局,而「老北京」警告我,必得早點回程,否則就會塞在半路上,趕不及了。
 我帶著照相機,為她照了幾張照片,又與她合照了幾張。答應洗出來,一定寄給她。並留下了我的名片,上面有我在臺灣的電話和地址。
 她支撐著站起來,堅持要送我到門口。我攔不住,感動得擁著她,問:
 「我可不可以親親您?」
 她高興的接受了。帶著依依之情問我:
 「你幾時會再到北京來?我希望能再見到你!」
 我不能確定我何時能再到北京。但,保證如果來了,一定會來看她。她真扶著助行器,把我送到門口,依依揮別。
 隔天上午,我在旅館中接到一通電話。清脆帶笑的女聲,開口就問:
 「劉小姐,你猜猜我是誰?」
 我反應得很快;在北京,文藝界的朋友喊我「樸月」,音樂界的朋友喊我「明儀」,沒有人喊我「劉小姐」……。
 「您是祝姑姑!」
 「對!」
 答案有了,我卻有些疑惑:我沒有留旅館的電話給她!她自動的答覆了我的疑問:
 「這個電話號碼,是我打電話向康普問來的。」
----------------------
人間副刊2000.05.02■我見到了伍寶笙
⊙樸月
「我打這個電話,還想告訴你……我已經這麼老了,真沒有想到,會有一個從那麼遠的地方來的女孩,走進了我的生活裡,帶給我這麼大的快樂!……」
 她頓了一下,說:
 「我看了幾篇《漫漫古典情》。你那些對詩詞體悟和詮釋的小品裡,有好些意思,都是我心裡想過,卻沒法用文字表達出來的。所以看了心裡真高興,就想跟你說。」
 「我也高興;高興您喜歡。」
 「我打這個電話,還想告訴你……我已經這麼老了,真沒有想到,會有一個從那麼遠的地方來的女孩,走進了我的生活裡,帶給我這麼大的快樂!那天見到你的人,是那麼親切坦誠,又看了你寫的那些精緻小品,就想告訴你:我真喜歡你!」
 我聽了感動、喜悅,而又詫異;詫異她說得那麼直接,那麼真誠、又那麼自然。
 「那您就別喊我『劉小姐』了。姑父、姑姑都喊我『明儀』,您就把我當侄女,也喊我明儀吧?」
 「我心裡是把你當侄女的。那我就喊你明儀了。」
  在她歡愉的笑聲中,我卻感覺著一些些的感傷;或許,她的生活,也是相當寂寞的吧?年齡和輪椅,限制了她的活動範圍。她的三個兒子,應該都很優秀。卻也因 此,都出了國,不在身邊。已退休的她,雖然有老伴相扶相持,清寂,卻是無可避免的現實狀況。為了沖淡這份感傷,我開玩笑的說:
 「姑父總說,他的女朋友們,見到了姑姑,就愛姑姑超過愛他!我能不能告訴他,在我們三個人裡頭,現在他已經落到第三名了?」
 她在那一端笑了:
 「你就這麼告訴他!他真是第三名!」
 可憐的鹿橋姑父!我又告訴她:
  「在見過您之後,我已經打電話告訴姑父、姑姑了。還說跟您照了照片,等洗出來,可以寄給他;我也會寄給您。姑父知道我見到了您,高興得不得了。直說:『現 在再看不到這樣風度的人了吧?』還要我寫一篇文章,附加照片呢。我告訴他,我題目都想好了,就叫:『我見到了伍寶笙』!」
 她笑了,委婉地說:
 「我覺得,文章可以寫,照片嘛……我現在這麼老了,完全是個老太太了,恐怕會破壞《未央歌》讀者對『伍寶笙』的美好想像,還是不要吧。」
 「我先把照片寄給您看,再由您決定;我一定會尊重您的意思的。」
 「那天,你走了之後,我就想,要找兩張我在『伍寶笙』時代的照片出來,複製了送給你。讓你看看當年的『伍寶笙』是什麼樣子。」
 呵!這真是「固所願也,不敢請耳」的意外之喜!我連聲道謝:
 「太高興了!也太謝謝您了!您可不要忘了喲!」
 「我不會忘的。你送給我的書,是你自己寫的。我沒有寫過文學創作的作品;我是學科學的人,寫的東西,都是本行專業的。倒是翻譯的一本達爾文的書,可以送你留個紀念。我已經請人去找了。若找到一本,就送你。若有兩本,再送你姑父、姑姑。」


----------------------
人間副刊2000.05.03■我見到了伍寶笙
⊙樸月
 就著話題,我把姑父「不必問候」的那段話講了一遍。還笑著跟她說:
 「那個老小孩!我聽了又好氣、又好笑,答應他,會幫他把問候收回來呢!」
 「其實,他說的也沒錯;我們是相交六十年的老同學了,也不需要刻意的問候。這麼著吧,你回去,就幫我問候你姑姑。你姑父嘛,我也不用問候他了!」
 她風趣的話,讓我們在電話中又是一陣朗笑,莫逆於心。
 我又把這件事打電話告訴了姑父、姑姑。我不知道,姑父對我竟那麼「輕易」的就把他一心欽慕的學姐「騙」來當「忘年交」,是否心中存疑;他直到聽說祝姑姑答應找「伍寶笙時代」的照片送我,才大為詫異:
 「這可真不容易!大陸一般人在經過文革之後,還保存著照片的,恐怕都很少了。就有,也絕不會隨便送人。她肯送你,可知她是真心的喜歡你!」
 我在北京停留的時間很短,前後只有八天,最後的幾天,我和祝姑姑天天都通電話,彼此都珍惜著這難得的緣會,和難得方便通話的時光。對姑父的《未央歌》,她有著關切。希望能在大陸出版。對書中所描述「伍寶笙」的性情,她認為與她相當貼近。
 「但故事可是他編的。」
 「我知道;要照他寫的,您不就嫁了『余孟勤』了嗎?」
 婁教授所學的是生物,與她同行。年齡也比她大得多,當然不是「余孟勤」。
 她笑著說:
 「我和『余孟勤』同學是真的,可沒見過。他如今還在北大呢!還有,我從來也沒到過男生宿舍。小說嘛,情節總是虛構的,可不能對號入座。」
----------------------
人間副刊2000.05.04■我見到了伍寶笙
⊙樸月
 回到台北,迫不及待的和幾位好朋友分享這段「奇緣」,一位也跟姑父、姑姑相熟的朋友鄧潔華問我:
 「你覺得,她比你姑姑如何?」
 我想起祝姑姑明朗熱誠的笑容,與直抒的話語:「我真喜歡你!」覺得她就像清秋了無雲翳長空中,溫暖和煦的太陽。那光與熱,是讓人直接就能感受到的。
  而我相信、也知道同樣「喜歡我」的姑姑,則是不會直接說出「我真喜歡你」這樣的話的。姑姑不是讓人覺得「熱和」的人,她的愛、關心,流露在溫靜的微笑、關 切的眼神、和婉卻無多的話語中。當她陪在姑父身邊時,也總只見她帶著了解、乃至縱容的微笑,用欣愛的眸光,默然凝視著神采飛揚、談笑風生的姑父。而那無聲 的醞藉與溫柔,卻凝成一種無以言詮的絕美,使我忍不住率直的對姑父說:
 「您可真配不上人家姑姑;您看!話都給您一個人說完了,姑姑卻是『不著一字,盡得風流』!」
 溫柔、含蓄、內歛的姑姑,就像月亮,在靜夜裡默默地散播著清輝。
 而我,何其有幸!同時擁有了兩個姑姑,和她們真摰近於親情的關愛!
 在口頭上,我對「伍寶笙」的稱呼是「祝姑姑」。在題贈書,和給她寫信時,卻忍不住寫著「寶笙姑姑」。
 對很多人而言,恐怕甚至不確定「伍寶笙」是不是真有其人?不確定她是否還存在於現世?更不確定經歷了六十年的歲月風霜,她澄澈清瀅的本質,是否依然如昔?但,就我-從書裡認識「伍寶笙」三十多年之後,有幸見到她本人,並有幸與她成為「忘年交」的晚輩,要這麼說:
 「如果你能超越那花白的頭髮,和畫上了六十年歲月滄桑的面容,用心靈去透視探索,『伍寶笙』風華依舊!」
----------------------

'Managing Ignorance,' (Peter F. Drucker)

紐約時報Peter Drucker (1909-2005)訃文

Peter F. Drucker, a Pioneer in Social and Management Theory, Is Dead at 95


Published: November 12, 2005

Correction Appended

Peter F. Drucker, the political economist and author, whose view that big business and nonprofit enterprises were the defining innovation of the 20th century led him to pioneering social and management theories, died yesterday at his home in Claremont, Calif. He was 95.

Skip to next paragraph
Lee Celano

Peter F. Drucker in 1999.

His death was announced by Claremont Graduate University.

Mr. Drucker thought of himself, first and foremost, as a writer and teacher, though he eventually settled on the term "social ecologist." He became internationally renowned for urging corporate leaders to agree with subordinates on objectives and goals and then get out of the way of decisions about how to achieve them.

這本文集The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition (1993)台灣未翻譯Wikipedia article "Peter Drucker".


He challenged both business and labor leaders to search for ways to give workers more control over their work environment. He also argued that governments should turn many functions over to private enterprise and urged organizing in teams to exploit the rise of a technology-astute class of "knowledge workers."

Mr. Drucker staunchly defended the need for businesses to be profitable but he preached that employees were a resource, not a cost. His constant focus on the human impact of management decisions did not always appeal to executives, but they could not help noticing how it helped him foresee many major trends in business and politics.

He began talking about such practices in the 1940's and 50's, decades before they became so widespread that they were taken for common sense. Mr. Drucker also foresaw that the 1970's would be a decade of inflation, that Japanese manufacturers would become major competitors for the United States and that union power would decline.

For all his insights, he clearly owed much of his impact to his extraordinary energy and skills as a communicator. But while Mr. Drucker loved dazzling audiences with his wit and wisdom, his goal was not to be known as an oracle. Indeed, after writing a rosy-eyed article shortly before the stock market crash of 1929 in which he outlined why stocks prices would rise, he pledged to himself to stay away from gratuitous predictions. Instead, his views about where the world was headed generally arose out of advocacy for what he saw as moral action.

His first book ("The End of Economic Man," 1939)was intended to strengthen the will of the free world to fight fascism. His later economic and social predictions were intended to encourage businesses and social groups to organize in ways that he felt would promote human dignity and vaccinate society against political and economic chaos.

"He is remarkable for his social imagination, not his futurism," said Jack Beatty in a 1998 review of Mr. Drucker's work "The World According to Peter Drucker."

Mr. Drucker, who was born in Vienna and never completely shed his Austrian accent, worked in Germany as a reporter until Hitler rose to power and then in a London investment firm before emigrating to the United States in 1937. He became an American citizen in 1943.

Recalling the disasters that overran the Europe of his youth and watching the American response left him convinced that good managers were the true heroes of the century.

The world, especially the developed world, had recovered from repeated catastrophe because "ordinary people, people running the everyday concerns of business and institutions, took responsibility and kept on building for tomorrow while around them the world came crashing down," he wrote in 1986 in "The Frontiers of Management."

Mr. Drucker never hesitated to make suggestions he knew would be viewed as radical. He advocated legalization of drugs and stimulating innovation by permitting new ventures to charge the government for the cost of regulations and paperwork. He was not surprised that General Motors for years ignored nearly every recommendation in "The Concept of the Corporation," the book he published in 1946 after an 18-month study of G.M. that its own executives had commissioned.

From his early 20's to his death, Mr. Drucker held various teaching posts, including a 20-year stint at the Stern School of Management at New York University and, since 1971, a chair at the Claremont Graduate School of Management. He also consulted widely, devoting several days a month to such work into his 90's. His clients included G.M., General Electric and Sears, Roebuck but also the Archdiocese of New York and several Protestant churches; government agencies in the United States, Canada and Japan; universities; and entrepreneurs.

For over 50 years, at least half of the consulting work was done free for nonprofits and small businesses. As his career progressed and it became clearer that competitive pressures were keeping businesses from embracing many practices he advocated, like guaranteed wages and lifetime employment for industrial workers, he became increasingly interested in "the social sector," as he called the nonprofit groups.

Mr. Drucker counseled groups like the Girl Scouts to think like businesses even though their bottom line was "changed lives" rather than profits. He warned them that donors would increasingly judge them on results rather than intentions. In 1990, Frances Hesselbein, the former national director of the Girl Scouts, organized a group of admirers to honor him by setting up the Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management in New York to expose nonprofits to Mr. Drucker's thinking and to new concepts in management.

Mr. Drucker's greatest impact came from his writing. His more than 30 books, which have sold tens of millions of copies in more than 30 languages, came on top of thousands of articles, including a monthly op-ed column in The Wall Street Journal from 1975 to 1995.

Among the sayings of Chairman Peter, as he was sometimes called, were these:

¶"Marketing is a fashionable term. The sales manager becomes a marketing vice president. But a gravedigger is still a gravedigger even when it is called a mortician - only the price of the burial goes up."

¶"One either meets or one works."

¶"The only things that evolve by themselves in an organization are disorder, friction and malperformance."

¶"Stock option plans reward the executive for doing the wrong thing. Instead of asking, 'Are we making the right decision?' he asks, 'How did we close today?' It is encouragement to loot the corporation."

Mr. Drucker's thirst for new experiences never waned. He became so fascinated with Japanese art during his trips to Japan after World War II that he eventually helped write "Adventures of the Brush: Japanese Paintings" (1979), and lectured on Oriental art at Pomona College in Claremont from 1975 to 1985.

比較書名 Song of the Brush: Japanese Painting from the Sanso Collection (1979)



Peter Ferdinand Drucker was born Nov. 19, 1909, one of two sons of Caroline and Adolph Drucker, a prominent lawyer and high-ranking civil servant in the Austro-Hungarian government. He left Vienna in 1927 to work for an export firm in Hamburg, Germany, and to study law.

Mr. Drucker then moved to Frankfurt, where he earned a doctorate in international and public law in 1931 from the University of Frankfurt, became a reporter and then senior editor in charge of financial and foreign news at the newspaper General-Anzeiger, and, while substitute teaching at the university, met Doris Schmitz, a 19-year-old student. They became reacquainted after waving madly while passing each other going opposite directions on a London subway escalator in 1933 and were married in 1937.

Mr. Drucker had moved to England to work as a securities analyst and writer after watching the rise of the Nazis with increasing alarm. In England, he took an economics course from John Maynard Keynes in Cambridge, but was put off by how much the talk centered on commodities rather than people.

Mr. Drucker's reputation as a political economist was firmly established with the publication in 1939 of "The End of Economic Man." The New York Times said it brought a "remarkable vision and freshness" to the understanding of fascism. The book's observations, along with those in articles he wrote for Harpers and The New Republic, caught the eye of policy makers in the federal government and at corporations as the country prepared for war, and landed him a job teaching at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, N.Y.

Writing "The Future of Industrial Man," published in 1942 after Mr. Drucker moved to Bennington College in Vermont, convinced him that he needed to understand big organizations from the inside. Rebuffed in his requests to work with several major companies, he was delighted when General Motors called in late 1943 proposing that he study its structure and policies. To avoid having him treated like a management spy, G.M. agreed to let him publish his findings.

Neither G.M. nor Mr. Drucker expected the public to be interested because no one had ever written such a management profile, but "The Concept of the Corporation" became an overnight sensation when it was published in 1946. " 'Concept of the Corporation' is a book about business the way 'Moby Dick' is a book about whaling," said Mr. Beatty, referring to the focus on social issues extending far beyond G.M.'s immediate operating challenges.

In it, Mr. Drucker argued that profitability was crucial to a business's health but more importantly to full employment. Management could achieve sustainable profits only by treating employees like valuable resources. That, he argued, required decentralizing the power to make decisions, including giving hourly workers more control over factory life, and guaranteed wages.

In the 1950's, Mr. Drucker began proclaiming that democratic governments had become too big to function effectively. This, he said, was a threat to the freedom of their citizens and to their economic well-being.

Unlike many conservative thinkers, Mr. Drucker wanted to keep government regulation over areas like food and drugs and finance. Indeed, he argued that the rise of global businesses required stronger governments and stronger social institutions, including more powerful unions, to keep them from forgetting social interests.

According to Claremont Graduate University, Mr. Drucker's survivors include his wife, Doris, an inventor and physicist; his children, Audrey Drucker of Puyallup, Wash., Cecily Drucker of San Francisco, Joan Weinstein of Chicago, and Vincent Drucker of San Rafael, Calif.; and six grandchildren.

Early last year, in an interview with Forbes magazine, Mr. Drucker was asked if there was anything in his long career that he wished he had done but had not been able to do.

"Yes, quite a few things," he said. "There are many books I could have written that are better than the ones I actually wrote. My best book would have been "Managing Ignorance," and I'm very sorry I didn't write it."

Correction: Nov. 19, 2005, Saturday:

An obituary last Saturday about the political economist and management consultant Peter F. Drucker misstated the source of a quotation about him - "He is remarkable for his social imagination, not his futurism" - and misstated the authorship of a book, "The World According to Peter Drucker." The book was written by Jack Beatty, not by Mr. Drucker, and the quotation was from the book, not from a review of the book. Because of an editing error, the obituary also misstated the source of a quotation from Mr. Drucker. It was Fortune magazine, not Forbes, in which he said: "There are many books I could have written that are better than the ones I actually wrote. My best book would have been 'Managing Ignorance,' and I'm very sorry I didn't write it."

2008年3月22日 星期六

黃伯飛 Parker Po-Fei Huang


夏居

把夏天圍在一個
小城裡,院子就更
小了。螢火蟲就是
燈塔。新蟬是萬里外
鄉音的呼喚:
院落裏
綠棗圓壯,盆荷紅特,
蓮葉團尖,石榴胖靚,
夾竹桃發放濃香。

有人賣晚香玉。
街頭一聲吆喝
透過多少度門簾去。
還是到院子來吧!
至不及,泡上一壺茶
彼此安坐在星光下。


後記:此詩英譯發表於一九六七年九月二日紐約時報
HC2008 我在紐約時報資料庫用"september 2, 1967 SUMMER"和名字都 找不到
可能是"讀者投書"
不過透過張華先生和 梁永安先生的名字資料
得以知道紐約時報幾篇藝術報導(書法與舞蹈等)提到他)

參觀他的紀念blog
http://parkerpofeihuang.blogspot.com/2008_01_12_archive.html
著作
Books by Parker Po-Fei Huang available on Amazon.com

After A Heavy Snow

By Parker Po-Fei Huang



A bank of whiteness

Is all I see. Have I


tossed away the world


or the world me? Or


is it just a single


moment that I stand on


a sheer precipice


with clouds passing


through me?



Some mists sweep the


sky. Some stars elicit


serenity. I feel that


I am gathering the


reflections of a flower


in the water and that of


the moon in the mirror—


no scent, no motion,


yet I sense eternity.



I stop breathing lest


I wake myself. From


where, of what world,


have I come here? I


turn my head and see


there are only footprints


that follow me.



"晚間這伙朋友在黃伯飛﹐陳葆真家中用膳。黃伯飛是耶魯中文講師﹐也是新詩作家。三十年代前後﹐他父親在北京沙灘開漢園公寓﹐那時他才十二三歲。記得清清楚楚﹐丁玲胡也頻住的哪兩間﹐沈從文住的哪一間。他說從那時起﹐他就深深種下了文學種子﹐走向新文學道路﹐沒有繼承父志做公寓老闆。現在成了個詩人。而且多產。他退休時我在紀念冊上寫了兩句"一任天荒地老﹐依然人疲詩肥"。"

憶沈從文訪問美東
作者﹕張充和




美籍華裔學者黃伯飛(Huang Po-Fei)所編的《廣州話辭典》(Cantonese ...

多年前一位朋友給我的:"呵呵~
好久沒聽人提及這名字嚕,他是美籍華人,生於民國3年
,原籍廣東台山,美國史單福大學大眾傳播學碩士,當過舊金山少年中國晨報編輯,香港國民日報總編輯,任教過耶魯大學(講師)。
臺灣幼獅出版過黃伯飛的《詩國門外拾》(1975)
,商務人人文庫有本《祈響集》,另有《微明集》《天山集》等。

黃老的新詩集《風沙集》(香港人生1957初版)此書較少見
,舊書店裡嘟到,別忘買下來。"


"一天一世皆詩人 敬念黃伯飛先生

老友詩人弦好像這般說過,一天是詩人,一世是詩人。觀言思意,當然不是指那些胡亂寫了幾首詩就自詡為詩人的人。我想,他的意思是:詩是詩人一生的志業,寫一天詩也好,寫一世也好,如果心中有這個志業抱負,寫一首詩也好,寫一百首詩也好,都是一個詩人。

黃伯飛教授自耶魯退休下來,逸隱洛城,日惟以詩自娛。他對詩的投入,無論新舊,都可算得是一天一世皆詩人。他1914年生於廣州,2008年逝於洛杉磯, 高齡94歲。我當天去玫瑰崗墓園致祭,代表本地黃美之女士的「德維文學協會」,也代表三十多年前黃老支持台灣的「星座詩社」(黃教授亦兼任洛杉磯《新大 陸》詩刊顧問)。他雖生於廣州,但小學、初中卻在北平讀,所以說得一口京片兒,加上地道的粵語與台山話,南北一家,不相伯仲,是我見到三語皆標準而無土音 (accent)的語言天才。

在洛城本可與黃家來往熟絡,因我除嫻諳國粵雙語外,早年留學生在北加州農田打夏季工,與一群早年移民在美的廣東台山、恩平、開平等所謂三邑或四邑家庭均有來往,說聽各一半,應可與黃老水乳交融,無分軒輊。但上天弄人,偏有他人在旁讓人厭煩,也就作罷,亦是緣淺。

黃老在生與我傾談,曾問及可識《漢園集》,我笑答當然當然。80年代卞之琳、艾青等人來美均住我家。卞老更為我購置盜版的《漢園集》及《魚目集》重新題 字。《漢園集》為1936北京大學學生何其芳、卞之琳、李廣田三人的詩合集,當年在台屬禁書,但我們均把集內何、卞的名詩背得滾瓜爛熟。

承黃伯飛老師相告,漢園是一所公寓,是他父親在北京的物業,當時許多文學青年都租住在那兒,包括戴望舒和朱湘等人。其中最讓人注目卻是一同住進漢園公寓的 沈從文、丁玲與胡也頻三人的錯綜關係。沈、丁是湖南同鄉,丁、胡是夫婦,三人三角關係十分微妙。據黃老日後文字追憶,有以下一段:

這幾位住在漢園公寓的青年,我雖然只是個十三四歲的孩子,不知怎的卻都知道他們搞創作。我和沈從文所住的房間只是一牆之隔。沈從文的房間是樓房後座二樓左 角的一間。我的房間正對著圍繞著天井的左邊的走廊。沿著左邊走廊的兩個房間,一間是胡也頻的,一間是丁玲的。這兩個房間裡邊彼此相通,他們兩個只用靠近樓 梯的一個門口出入。

這三個人我常看見是沈從文。他每次從外面回來,差不多總是挾著一些書籍和紙張,腳步迅捷地走到我的房間前邊就向左一轉走到他的房間去。胡也頻總是一早就出去,很晚才回來。有時幾天都看不見他。丁玲則多半的時間躲在她的房間裡。(〈確是有緣〉)

黃伯飛教授是基督徒,我在他的安息禮拜致憶念詞提到十七世紀玄學詩人鄧肯(John Donne)那首“Death Be Not Proud”的詩,基督徒相信永生,生有時限,死無時間,救世主二度降臨之時,眾生甦醒,猶似一夢。

我還提到自周策縱先生逝世後,有如黃粱一夢、花果凋零的「白馬社」詩人,此社眾人以黃伯飛詩作最豐碩、詩齡最持久,相反,又以盧飛白(筆名李經)命蹇詩 稀。盧為出色的艾略特研究學者,雖然出版了薄薄一冊T. S. Eliot: The Dialectical Structure of His Theory of Poetry(1966),圖書館裡卻是重量級著作。盧命坎坷,擇善固執、淡泊明志,一生未在學院爭得席位,但卻無損詩心。

以上這篇短文,是逃避南加州大學一個演講的早晨寫的。不想再做無意義之事,只想告訴自己與世間何謂喜歡做而有意義之事,因而寫就這篇紀念黃伯飛先生的文章。"


2008年3月18日 星期二

Barack Obama’s Speech on Race

Disowning racism

Mar 18th 2008 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

Barack Obama speaks about race


AP

BARACK OBAMA is on the defensive like never before. In the past week, news reports have aired sermons from his adviser and friend in Chicago, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, that repelled many moderates and independents who had been attracted to Mr Obama’s unifying presidential campaign. The candidate was under pressure to respond, and he finally did so on Tuesday March 18th with an ambitious and lengthy speech that attempted to go far beyond the issue of Mr Wright.

The clips that were aired of Mr Wright’s speeches were damning. Speaking of white racism, and after accusing the government of selling drugs to blacks in order to jail them, the pastor once said that blacks should sing not “God Bless America”, but “God damn America”. He said of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” Words on the page fail to do justice to Mr Wright’s anger; his fierce cadence has been played on television and computer screens all across America, again and again. Middle-of-the-road voters have, understandably, been shocked.

Instead, Mr Obama sought ambitiously to lift the discussion far beyond his preacher’s comments to take on the far larger issues of racial frustration in America. He described the justifiable frustration of blacks in America, given their history of oppression and the lingering inequalities they face. But he also said that the black community is flawed by pockets of ignorance, decaying families and other ills. Mr Wright’s mistake, said Mr Obama, was focusing only on the past and on injustice, and not on the changes that have already been made and the possibility of a “more perfect union” in the future.

But Mr Obama spoke out against labelling whites as racist without realising that their “resentments...are grounded in legitimate concerns”. He said that past policies of welfare, which have gone disproportionately to blacks, may have done more harm than good. He empathised with struggling white parents who see children of minority groups win help through affirmative action to atone for crimes that they and their own children had not committed. He returned again and again to the weak economy, and to corporations which he said destroyed American dreams by shipping jobs overseas.

In other words he denied that he was trying to put race aside through his own candidacy, saying instead that it was an issue Americans could not afford to ignore. This rhetorical structure was ambitious: to criticise both whites and blacks, but to sympathise with both groups’ grievances, and implicitly to say that this made his candidacy even more necessary. No vague call for unity, this was Mr Obama pulling the fire alarm on racial tension in America and calling for an urgent reappraisal.

But will it work? Republicans hoping to win the White House in the autumn, and Hillary Clinton, who is battling him for the Democratic nomination now, have every reason to turn attention from his call to action back to his relationship with an inflammatory pastor. Mrs Clinton and John McCain themselves may step carefully around the issue, as they have so far, but their supporters will not be so subtle. Clinton boosters will hope that the types of downtrodden whites Mrs Clinton needs to win (including in the crucial Pennsylvania primary in April) will not be soothed by Mr Obama’s talk. And Republicans will pursue those same voters with the same tactics should Mr Obama become the nominee. Those opposed to Mr Obama will say that Tuesday’s oratory proves only what they already knew: that Mr Obama gives a fine speech, but that questions remain over the young candidate’s rush to the White House.

In 1960 another eloquent young candidate, John Kennedy, was suspected of belonging to a church with some attitudes that looked suspiciously un-American: the Catholic Church. He successfully defused that fear by stating that his faith was private and the church would never dictate his politics. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, was a competent and articulate Republican who toed the party line on all its big issues. Yet his run for the Republican nomination failed, perhaps partly as a result of his religious identity. For Mr Obama it appears that the words of Mr Wright are a bigger liability than was Kennedy’s Catholicism. But Mr Obama has shown considerable talent on the campaign trail thus far. If he fails to keep defining himself aggressively, his pastor’s paranoid and angry comments will let opponents do it for him.



今天早上聽cnn/bbc等 有些人認為這篇演講稿可能"傳世"
所以錄之存檔
(後來更知道此演講之原委之一 如上)
Transcript

Barack Obama’s Speech on Race

Published: March 18, 2008

The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Senator Barack Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia, as provided by his presidential campaign.

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

網誌存檔