方禮倫:Sensitivity And Tolerance Can Go Too Far 英國的極左意識形態

A+A-
圖片來源:路透社

Last year I was contacted by students at leading UK university about putting my name to a petition demanding a college remove from their collection a portrait of a past benefactor who had, I was told, ‘profited from slavery’.

I did not know much about this benefactor. He lived 400 years ago. So I called a friend, a historian who specialises in British history of the age, for advice. I was told that the person in question was, in fact, not a slave owner nor involved in the slave trade. There is no record of him having in defence of the trade. In fact, he was neither particularly notable nor wealthy.(註 1)

The only connection he had with slavery was he had inherited a very small shareholding in a trading company which counted the slave trade as one of its many lines of business.(註 2)

Given how tenuous the link, I replied to the request by saying I was uncomfortable signing a petition on a specific case I did not know much about. To be tactful, I decided to not let on what I had been told. However, I did say that I would be happy to sign the petition if the organisers would be prepared to also raise an issue which I do know quite a lot about, being the college’s current and ongoing connections with a Chinese company that is known to be using forced labour.

Modern slavery, I added, was as much a stain as historic slavery, and arguably more morally abhorrent given prevailing morals.

I did not expect the student organisers to accept my suggestion. But I had expected them to consider the point I made, and to understand my reticence in signing such a narrowing framed petition. As happens, my suggestion was ignored — and I was called a racist.(註 3)

The story continues to hurt. Thankfully, I am not employed by the University, as the charge could well have had further consequences. People have lost jobs and seen careers destroyed, not for being racist, but for simply being called so. In the age of “felt experience”, evidence is no longer required to substantiate an allegation such as this.

At the same university, the student union went from having separate male and female toilets (declared discriminatory), to unisex (also declared discriminatory), to male and female toilets that include a sign welcoming people to choose what they feel most appropriate depending on what ever gender they identify as at the time.

A leading geneticist, with whom I spoke recently, told me of how he had been ‘de-platformed’(註 4)by students and called a ‘racist’ for stating that we are genetically distinct.

“Race has nothing to do with genetics,” he said to me in obvious frustration. “Our genetically distinctions are what allows us to evolve.”(註 5)

Despite being of mixed race, and proud of his heritage, he was categorised by his accusers as a “white male”.

These experiences pain me on two levels: firstly, they are so patently wrong. They are factually wrong, and they are also misguided in reasoning. This should not be how university students think, let alone taught to think. It is neither critical nor scientific.

Secondly, I am pained by the damage this does to those who seek, quite rightly, to discuss issues that are important. There is a repulsive irony that racial hatred is being promoted in the name of fighting racism; and that in the name of addressing the historic wrongs of slavery we ignore slavery as it continues to exist today.(註 6)

Neither should it be overlooked that this particular thinking, the promotion of this culture of self-victimisation and the censorship and extreme intolerance demanded, manifest not in the most racial and oppressive societies in the world, but in the most open, tolerant and just. Thus in the US the term “LatinX” is promoted in favour of the gender specific Latino (male) and Latina (female) in the name of gender and cultural sensitivity, and social justice — despite it being a term universally rejected in Latino societies themselves, who view it as insulting to their history and culture.

I do not condemn the students for rejecting my suggestion, though I am disappointed that they did not seem willing to even entertain the point made.

I am, however, concerned that society has become so sensitive and tolerant to positions that are not only unreasonable and counterfactual, but intolerant. People should be allowed a voice, and we should listen.

But the adults do need to be more discerning when deciding to act. Whilst it hurts to be called racist, I have no doubt that I am not. But no one should lose their jobs or silenced, nor signs altered and words changed.

The problem in the UK is not intolerance or insensitivity, but that it is too tolerant and too sensitive, and to afraid to cause of give offence, even when that offence is unjustified. As a society, it is too hesitant to call out falsehoods and bad thinking, and too willing to let things pass. We fail to remember that those who find offence and who demand action are a merely a vocal minority. We need to more away from signing up for what sounds right to what we know to be right.(註 7)

陶傑點評

作者身為中英混血人士,與香港妻子移居英國後,卻被指「種族主義者」,而不是被所謂的種族歧視。

事緣他畢業的英國大學母校,有一些學生發起聯署,要求移除校內一名 400 年前的贊助人畫像,理由是這位善長曾經由「販賣奴隸」而得益。作者拒絕之後,即被該校的左翼學生稱為「種族主義者」。好笑嗎?

1.

  • 作者發揮求知精神,不是收到這種聯署就妄自答應。跳上一艘「反種族大愛包容號」列車,一齊高歌,駛向道德高地,十分容易,但這樣做對嗎?搜索真相、理性思考,是大學教育的基本精神,於是作者自己做了一點點 Research,發現這幅校董畫像的人物,與所謂的販賣奴隸完全沒有關係。

2.

  • 原來這位政治正確的種族主義「罪犯」,當年只是一家非常小規模的貿易公司小股東,這家公司當年確實有從事販賣奴隸。如此類推,怡和曾經向中國人銷售鴉片,他們的一切慈善捐款,都不應該接受。

3.

  • 令人驚異的是:發起此聯署的一批學生,完全不理會作者的研究結果。這種態度,與大學教育的原則相違背。

4.

  • 極左翼勢力喜歡製造新名詞,「去平台化」(De-platformed)就是其中一個例子。這個世界本來就不需要太多 platform,火車站的月台除外。

5.

  • 「種族與遺傳學沒有關係」,提出這種說法的人,有如聲稱「地心吸力與物理學中的力學沒有關係」一樣。作者應該立即在現場駁斥。

6.

  • 今日的中國製造,不是來自所謂的血汗工廠嗎?這是不是現代的奴隸制度?還有香港中產家庭聘請的菲律賓和印尼女傭,又算不算另類的奴隸制度?她們居住香港通常滿 7 年,卻無法得到永久居留權,這是對人權平等的公然剝奪。但今日西方的「白左」,對於「活在當下」的奴隸制度不聞不問,視而不見,卻對其祖宗的一些歷史人物,小事化大地投射巨大的自我罪疚感,這是一種精神上的被虐待狂。

7.

  • 最後的結論,值得移民英國的香港人分享留意。這是英國主流社會面臨的激烈爭論和衝突,極左意識形態侵蝕了英語文化國家的理性思維。一個香港移民,無論身在何處,也要選擇做一個清醒的人。

陶傑英文遊花園

香港和台灣,面臨世紀的變局。海外華人居住西方國家,也數目龐大。如何提升英文程度,克服文化隔閡,加強英文能力,在亂世中至關重要。

許多華人都有合理的職業或專業的英文程度,但如何在原有的中學文法訓練基礎之上,探討高層次的英語文化和表達方式,以備融入英語世界主流社會?

本欄介紹評析欣賞英文的寫作細節,分享經驗,歡迎提出不同的評析角度和心得。

※ 此欄文章為作者觀點,不代表本網立場。 ※

方禮倫(Evan Fowler ) ,本地出生成長、中英交界的香港人,在劍橋和倫敦大學政經學院畢業。現居英國。 英文怎樣能表達得更好?香港的英文教育,著重文法正確、詞彙廣泛。但除了這兩樣,說好的英文、寫好的英文,還要有某種英語的理性與感性思維。 好的英文必清晰、婉約而有教養,與中文寫作文化略有不同。有時借用英文的文化特色,用於中文,可以別具一格。但若有一日移居英語國家,與以英語為母語的當地人溝通,融入主流社會,摸通英文表達藝術的深層結構,會很有用。 方禮倫的英文筆觸細膩,每週五他會以英文與我們見一次面,講述香港和海外華人關心的事情。除了獨特的觀點,其文筆可供英文寫作學習參考。