如果在美國(guó)由于獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)在流行文化中將英國(guó)國(guó)王喬治三世描述為壓迫者和暴君那么他在加拿大是被如何評(píng)價(jià)的？他是被驕傲的效忠派視為加拿大的國(guó)父而贊美嗎？（一）
If in American popular culture King George III has been portrayed as oppressive and tyrannical due to the American Revolution; how is he portrayed in Canada? Is he glorified there after all the forefathers of Canada would proud loyalists.
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
在美國(guó)獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的起點(diǎn)，喬治三世作為最后一任致力于重塑國(guó)王權(quán)威的英國(guó)國(guó)王到底扮演了什么樣的角色，民間和學(xué)術(shù)界有一些爭(zhēng)論，非常搞笑的是回答中某位美國(guó)歷史學(xué)者堅(jiān)持聲稱在美國(guó)喬治三世并沒(méi)有被大眾文化描述為暴君，然后其他美國(guó)人都表示“沒(méi)錯(cuò)他就是個(gè)暴君”，側(cè)面反映了美國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)界和大眾之間的認(rèn)知差距。文章太長(zhǎng)分了兩篇下篇稍后就到。
正文翻譯
Wes Frank
You are misinformed.
King George III is not portrayed as oppressive and tyrannical in the United States. In most American history texts parliament is described as the source of the taxes and oppression during the crisis leading up to the War of the American Revolution. George is occasionally cursed at as the embodiment of British bullying, but mostly he is treated, as in the musical Hamilton!, as an out of touch aristocratic doofus, not directly in charge of anything, not understanding anything American.
None of this has kept American and British scholars, over the last couple of centuries, from writing books “debunking” this alleged portrayal of King George III as a tyrant. It is a fixation shared by academics on both sides of the Atlantic.
你得到的信息是錯(cuò)誤的。
國(guó)王喬治三世在美國(guó)并沒(méi)有被描述成壓迫者與暴君。在大多數(shù)美國(guó)歷史文獻(xiàn)中是議會(huì)才被描述為根源，其因?yàn)樵谖C(jī)中征稅和壓迫從而導(dǎo)致了美國(guó)獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。喬治三世只是偶爾被當(dāng)做英國(guó)霸凌的化身而被咒罵，但是大多數(shù)情況下例如音樂(lè)劇《漢密爾頓》中，他被當(dāng)做一個(gè)脫離現(xiàn)實(shí)的貴族主義蠢蛋，不為任何事直接負(fù)責(zé)，對(duì)美洲事物也一無(wú)所知。
這些都沒(méi)有阻止美國(guó)和英國(guó)的學(xué)者，在過(guò)去的幾個(gè)世紀(jì)中，通過(guò)寫書“揭穿”了喬治三世國(guó)王這種所謂的暴君形象。它是一種被大西洋兩岸學(xué)術(shù)界共享的執(zhí)念。
You are misinformed.
King George III is not portrayed as oppressive and tyrannical in the United States. In most American history texts parliament is described as the source of the taxes and oppression during the crisis leading up to the War of the American Revolution. George is occasionally cursed at as the embodiment of British bullying, but mostly he is treated, as in the musical Hamilton!, as an out of touch aristocratic doofus, not directly in charge of anything, not understanding anything American.
None of this has kept American and British scholars, over the last couple of centuries, from writing books “debunking” this alleged portrayal of King George III as a tyrant. It is a fixation shared by academics on both sides of the Atlantic.
你得到的信息是錯(cuò)誤的。
國(guó)王喬治三世在美國(guó)并沒(méi)有被描述成壓迫者與暴君。在大多數(shù)美國(guó)歷史文獻(xiàn)中是議會(huì)才被描述為根源，其因?yàn)樵谖C(jī)中征稅和壓迫從而導(dǎo)致了美國(guó)獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。喬治三世只是偶爾被當(dāng)做英國(guó)霸凌的化身而被咒罵，但是大多數(shù)情況下例如音樂(lè)劇《漢密爾頓》中，他被當(dāng)做一個(gè)脫離現(xiàn)實(shí)的貴族主義蠢蛋，不為任何事直接負(fù)責(zé)，對(duì)美洲事物也一無(wú)所知。
這些都沒(méi)有阻止美國(guó)和英國(guó)的學(xué)者，在過(guò)去的幾個(gè)世紀(jì)中，通過(guò)寫書“揭穿”了喬治三世國(guó)王這種所謂的暴君形象。它是一種被大西洋兩岸學(xué)術(shù)界共享的執(zhí)念。
When your role in government is to be the embodiment of the state, your statues get pulled down regardless of how much actual power you had
當(dāng)你在政府中的角色是做為國(guó)家的化身時(shí)，你的雕像就會(huì)被推倒，而不管你有多少實(shí)際權(quán)力
當(dāng)你在政府中的角色是做為國(guó)家的化身時(shí)，你的雕像就會(huì)被推倒，而不管你有多少實(shí)際權(quán)力
Addendum: Here is the definition of a tyrant from Merriam Webster:
Tyrant An absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.
A usurper of sovereignty.
A ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
One resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power You are not a tyrant just because you are a king and not all kings are tyrants.
The crisis of the 1760s was originally between Parliament and the assemblies of the thirteen Atlantic colonies. Denunciations of Parliament and various ministries were common long before George III came to be identified as the leader of the hardline faction in London. He was denounced as a tyrant by the Continental Congress only after he issued his fateful order of 1775 condemning them to be tried and hung as traitors. Modern American history books note that Parliament was the primary foe of the American resistant movement between 1765 and 1775 and that George III was not writing the laws that were the cause of protests and boycotts.
附錄：這是梅里厄姆·韋伯斯特對(duì)暴君的定義：
暴君
· 一位不被法律或體制約束的絕對(duì)的統(tǒng)治者
· 一位最高統(tǒng)治權(quán)的篡奪者
· 一位利用絕對(duì)權(quán)力進(jìn)行壓迫或?qū)嵤┍┬械慕y(tǒng)治者
· 一位表現(xiàn)出嚴(yán)酷運(yùn)用權(quán)威或權(quán)力的壓迫性統(tǒng)治者
你不會(huì)僅僅因?yàn)槭菄?guó)王就成為暴君并且也不是所有的國(guó)王都是暴君。
1760年代的危機(jī)最初是發(fā)生在議會(huì)和13州殖民地集會(huì)之間。對(duì)議會(huì)和不同部門的指責(zé)早在喬治三世被認(rèn)定為倫敦的強(qiáng)硬派領(lǐng)袖之前就已經(jīng)很平常了。他在發(fā)布了決定性的1775年御令宣判大陸議會(huì)將作為叛徒被吊死后才被后者譴責(zé)為暴君。現(xiàn)代美國(guó)歷史書指出議會(huì)才是1765年至1775年美國(guó)抵抗運(yùn)動(dòng)主要敵人同時(shí)喬治三世國(guó)王沒(méi)有制定引起抗議和抵制的法律。
Tyrant An absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.
A usurper of sovereignty.
A ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
One resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power You are not a tyrant just because you are a king and not all kings are tyrants.
The crisis of the 1760s was originally between Parliament and the assemblies of the thirteen Atlantic colonies. Denunciations of Parliament and various ministries were common long before George III came to be identified as the leader of the hardline faction in London. He was denounced as a tyrant by the Continental Congress only after he issued his fateful order of 1775 condemning them to be tried and hung as traitors. Modern American history books note that Parliament was the primary foe of the American resistant movement between 1765 and 1775 and that George III was not writing the laws that were the cause of protests and boycotts.
附錄：這是梅里厄姆·韋伯斯特對(duì)暴君的定義：
暴君
· 一位不被法律或體制約束的絕對(duì)的統(tǒng)治者
· 一位最高統(tǒng)治權(quán)的篡奪者
· 一位利用絕對(duì)權(quán)力進(jìn)行壓迫或?qū)嵤┍┬械慕y(tǒng)治者
· 一位表現(xiàn)出嚴(yán)酷運(yùn)用權(quán)威或權(quán)力的壓迫性統(tǒng)治者
你不會(huì)僅僅因?yàn)槭菄?guó)王就成為暴君并且也不是所有的國(guó)王都是暴君。
1760年代的危機(jī)最初是發(fā)生在議會(huì)和13州殖民地集會(huì)之間。對(duì)議會(huì)和不同部門的指責(zé)早在喬治三世被認(rèn)定為倫敦的強(qiáng)硬派領(lǐng)袖之前就已經(jīng)很平常了。他在發(fā)布了決定性的1775年御令宣判大陸議會(huì)將作為叛徒被吊死后才被后者譴責(zé)為暴君。現(xiàn)代美國(guó)歷史書指出議會(huì)才是1765年至1775年美國(guó)抵抗運(yùn)動(dòng)主要敵人同時(shí)喬治三世國(guó)王沒(méi)有制定引起抗議和抵制的法律。
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
OK…true enough Wes. But you gotta love George III’s songs from “Hamilton”.
好的…足夠真實(shí)。但是你得承認(rèn)《漢密爾頓》里喬治三世的唱段棒極了。
Well, there was that unfortunate incident when Rip Van Winkle strolled into town after his 20-year sleep and praised King George in public. His admiration was not well received. Most Americans don’t realize that King George III reigned until his death in 1820. Later Americans kind of lost track of him after 1787.
好吧，有件不幸的事兒就是當(dāng)里普·范·溫克爾在休眠20年后晃悠到鎮(zhèn)里公開的贊美喬治國(guó)王（譯者注：這里指的是美國(guó)著名作家W.歐文膾炙人口的短篇小說(shuō)中的情節(jié)）。他的贊賞可沒(méi)討到好。大多數(shù)美國(guó)人在喬治三世1820年去世之前都沒(méi)有意識(shí)到他的統(tǒng)治。之后美國(guó)人在1787年后就把他差不多忘到腦后了。
Thanks for writing this. I get a real kick out of British writers on Quora explaining to everyone what Americans think and why we are wrong about it.
謝謝你寫的這個(gè)，我真高興一位英國(guó)作家在QA上向每個(gè)人解釋美國(guó)人怎么想以及為什么我們把它搞錯(cuò)了。
The number of British people on Quora who have read American high school history books is astonishing. They talk about them constantly.
在QA上讀過(guò)美國(guó)高中歷史書的的英國(guó)人數(shù)量多的令人震驚。他們經(jīng)常討論這些。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
There must be a huge secondary market for them. There are also tons of British psychics on Quora who know what 350 Million think. I hope they haven’t found a way to tap into our hive mind, since we are all pretty much the same.
那他們肯定有一個(gè)巨大的二手市場(chǎng)。QA這里還有大量的英國(guó)通靈者知道3.5億人是怎么想的。我希望他們還沒(méi)有找到潛入我們蜂巢思維的方法，因?yàn)槲覀兓旧隙际且粋€(gè)樣。
Actually, all we need to read is the self-serving and confused “Declaration of Independence”:
其實(shí)，我們所需要做的只是讀一下自私自利并令人困惑的“獨(dú)立宣言”
第二段：現(xiàn)任英國(guó)國(guó)王的歷史是一部反復(fù)傷害和掠奪的歷史，其直接目標(biāo)就是要在各州之上建立一個(gè)獨(dú)裁暴政。為了證明上述句句屬實(shí)，現(xiàn)將事實(shí)公諸于世，讓公正的世人作出評(píng)判。
接下來(lái)是一系列多達(dá)二十幾條哀嚎著關(guān)于必須納稅和維持一支軍隊(duì)的條款。這些條款是針對(duì)“他”的，這個(gè)“他”當(dāng)然是指喬治三世。我很有信心，從來(lái)沒(méi)有人把“眾議會(huì)之母”（這是英國(guó)人對(duì)英國(guó)議會(huì)自夸性的稱呼）稱為“他”。
這個(gè)奇怪文檔的優(yōu)點(diǎn)可不是其一致性。舉個(gè)例子，喬治顯然是在“努力引進(jìn)我們邊境的住民，無(wú)情的印第安野蠻人”，同時(shí)又“在我們之中駐扎大量的武裝部隊(duì)”-好吧，所以你到底想不想要免于“無(wú)情的野蠻人”傷害而被保護(hù)起來(lái)？
當(dāng)然，真正令人的擔(dān)憂是，英國(guó)政府試圖通過(guò)和平條約和協(xié)議來(lái)限制向“印度野蠻人”領(lǐng)地的擴(kuò)張，但是像華盛頓和杰弗遜這樣的奴隸主卻只看到了通過(guò)清除原住民所獲得的土地可供他們掠奪。
當(dāng)然，如果某些人通過(guò)一部音樂(lè)?。ㄒ环N只比最粗俗的啞劇還低幾級(jí)的藝術(shù)形式）來(lái)取得他們的歷史版本，那么他們就不能被認(rèn)為擁有一絲值得被考慮的觀點(diǎn)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
The first rule of historical analysis is to check a source for bias and polemic. And I’m afraid your citation was largely polemical.
Most primary sources for the period indicate the AR was mainly a parliamentary war and had little to do with the king. But it is true that the representation of George III as a tyrant is a populist myth in the US.
歷史分析的第一步就是審視偏見的來(lái)源和爭(zhēng)論者。而我認(rèn)為恐怕你的引述很大程度上是為了挑起爭(zhēng)端。
大多數(shù)來(lái)自這一時(shí)期的資料顯示美國(guó)獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)主要是一場(chǎng)議會(huì)發(fā)動(dòng)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)同時(shí)與國(guó)王的關(guān)系很小。但是將喬治三世描繪成一個(gè)暴君的確是一個(gè)美國(guó)民粹主義神話。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Personally have always thought of George III as mentally unstable not necessarily a tyrant (Yes I'm an American)
我個(gè)人一直認(rèn)為喬治三世患有輕度精神障礙，不一定是個(gè)暴君（是的，我是美國(guó)人）
The Glorious Revolution replaced the Divine Right of Kings with Parliamentary Supremacy.
The US rejected both, and took as a founding principle that the ultimate authority resided in the people.
光榮革命以至高無(wú)上的議會(huì)制取代了國(guó)王的神圣權(quán)利。
美國(guó)拒絕了這兩者，并將最高權(quán)威源自人民作為建國(guó)綱領(lǐng)。
In fact, the Continental Congress believed the king would be on their side and would step in to help them. They appealed to him as his subjects to defend their cause to Parliament. Only on the eve of war with his proclamation of them as traitors did those leading the Revolution lose faith in George.
事實(shí)上，大陸議會(huì)曾經(jīng)相信國(guó)王會(huì)站在他們一邊并將會(huì)介入幫助他們。他們以他的臣民的身份向其呼吁從議會(huì)的手中保護(hù)他們的事業(yè)。直到戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)前夕他把他們宣布為叛徒后革命領(lǐng)袖們才對(duì)喬治國(guó)王失去了信心。
I guess you never read the Declaration of Independence
我猜你從沒(méi)有讀過(guò)獨(dú)立宣言
You do realize that the Declaration of Independence was written two hundred and forty years ago and is not used as the primary base for history texts in the United States? American history narratives are generated by scholarly research using many sources, official documents, personal accounts, archived records, etc., just like every other nation’s history.
The Declaration of Independence is just one document in the history of the Revolutionary Crisis. American students, from my experience, are taught how Jefferson, in writing it, cleverly focused on the king as the personification and executive head of the British government, rather than diluting his message by jumping between the king, his ministers, and parliament. A brilliant creation, really, establishing a moral argument for revolution, listing the issues involved, and also serving as a polemic that could be read in public to promote the cause.
你能意識(shí)到獨(dú)立宣言是240多年前寫成的東西并且在美國(guó)也不被當(dāng)作主要的根據(jù)性歷史文本吧？美國(guó)的歷史敘事是由學(xué)術(shù)研究產(chǎn)生的，它采用了許多來(lái)源，官方文件，個(gè)人紀(jì)錄，存檔檔案等，就像其他所有國(guó)家的歷史一樣。
《獨(dú)立宣言》只是革命危機(jī)歷史中的一份文件。就我的經(jīng)歷而言美國(guó)學(xué)生被教導(dǎo)杰弗遜在撰寫時(shí)巧妙地獎(jiǎng)國(guó)王當(dāng)作英國(guó)政府的化身和行政首腦，而不是在國(guó)王，大臣和議會(huì)之間浪費(fèi)筆墨來(lái)稀釋他所要傳達(dá)的信息。一個(gè)智慧性的創(chuàng)舉，真的，為這場(chǎng)革命樹立起一個(gè)道德性論點(diǎn)，列舉出所涉及的問(wèn)題，同時(shí)也能夠作為一篇演講在公共場(chǎng)合宣讀以促進(jìn)獨(dú)立事業(yè)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
All true. But the notion of King George III as a tyrant is still prent in US culture, Hamilton notwithstanding. AndcI think the question was about how he was portrayed in lotal Canada. which I think is a very interesting question.
說(shuō)的沒(méi)錯(cuò)。但是把喬治三世國(guó)王當(dāng)作一名暴君的意識(shí)依然在美國(guó)流行文化中盛行，即使有《漢密爾頓》這樣的作品。而且我記得這個(gè)問(wèn)題是關(guān)于他在忠誠(chéng)派的加拿大是怎么被描述的。而我覺得這是一個(gè)非常有意思的問(wèn)題。
Where in American culture? Who in American culture believes this? How do you know this to be true? Is it in novels? Television? Where?
在美國(guó)什么文化中？哪個(gè)處于美國(guó)文化中的人相信這個(gè)？你怎么會(huì)覺得事實(shí)是這樣的？是在小說(shuō)里？在電視上？在哪?。?/b>
In schools. in popular culture. Mistakes people don't have history degrees.
在學(xué)校。在流行文化中，沒(méi)有歷史學(xué)位的人犯的錯(cuò)誤里。
Again, how would you or anyone else know this? Is there polling data? Research? My lifelong impression is that not one American in a hundred has a strong enough opinion about George III to label him as a tyrant or anything else. They vaguely remember him from their history classes as the guy who was king during the Revolution and that is about it.
再重復(fù)一遍，你或者那些這么說(shuō)的人是怎么知道這一點(diǎn)的？有調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)嗎？研究？我活了這么長(zhǎng)時(shí)間印象中在這幾百年里沒(méi)有一個(gè)美國(guó)人強(qiáng)烈的認(rèn)為他應(yīng)當(dāng)給喬治三世打上暴君的標(biāo)簽或類似的事情。他們模糊的記得在歷史課里有這么一個(gè)人在獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間擔(dān)任國(guó)王而這就是全部了。
You claim that you know. You are arguing passionately tgat you do. I've lived in this society for almost 60 years and I know what I was taught in school and have seen how the American “ revolution” is portrayed in popular culture. I am interested in how Canadians view this period or did at the time. That is the original question and I haven't see an answer.
你聲稱你知道。你激烈的爭(zhēng)論。我在這個(gè)社會(huì)里生活了近60年了并且我知道我在學(xué)校是怎么被教的還有美國(guó)“革命”在流行文化中是怎么被描述的。我感興趣的是加拿大人是怎么看待這段時(shí)期或曾經(jīng)怎么看待。那才是原本的問(wèn)題而我至今沒(méi)有看到一個(gè)答案。
I have studied American history for many years and read many books and articles on the subject. I have definitely read a number of American primary, secondary, and college textbooks on this period in American history. None of them portrayed George III as a “tyrant.” Mostly, as in the John Adams series and the musical Hamilton, and the movie The Madness of King George III, he is described as a mediocrity who had no understanding of what Americans were like or what their grievances were.
I am also well aware, from decades of experience, that very few Americans have any strong opinions about the American Revolution and they rarely are opinions about George III. To believe some is a tyrant, you need to at least have a strong opinion about them.
What I was asking is what your source of information. Were, you, personally, were taught in school that George III was a tyrant?
我已經(jīng)研究美國(guó)歷史很多年了并且閱讀了許多關(guān)于此話題的書籍和論文。我之前當(dāng)然讀過(guò)許多美國(guó)小學(xué)，中學(xué)和大學(xué)課本中有關(guān)這一段的美國(guó)歷史。沒(méi)有一本將喬治三世描述為“暴君”。更多的，就像約翰·亞當(dāng)姆斯系列劇和音樂(lè)劇漢密爾頓還有電影喬治三世中那樣，他被描述為一個(gè)平庸之輩完全不了解美國(guó)人或他們的苦衷。
我也很清楚，從我所經(jīng)歷的一打?qū)嵗齺?lái)說(shuō)，很少有美國(guó)人對(duì)美國(guó)獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)有任何鑒定的觀點(diǎn)同時(shí)關(guān)于喬治三世的觀念稀少。要相信某人是暴君，你至少需要對(duì)其有一個(gè)堅(jiān)定的觀點(diǎn)才行。
You keep arguing with all the American in this thread, insisting that you know how we view King George, and that he is not generally viewed as a Tyrant in America. You are clueless. And you think you know better because you read some books? And let’s not count what wa said in the founding document of America, since it is of negligible importance. Crazy. I’ve read plenty of sources outside the Declaration, in American textbooks, that have him portrayed as a tyrant. I took American History in America, and read American textbooks that portrayed him as a a Tyrant. How about Johnny Tremaine, a famous kids book still read in America? Or do you only quote English books discussing what Americans feel? You are so dug into your opinion, you are ignoring the very people you claim to understand! I am not even saying that he was a Tyrant, but that is what people view him as. But that is how Quora is. People who are not part of a group speaking about their viewpoints incorrectly, and then doubling down when the people they are speaking for disagree.
你跟每一個(gè)在這個(gè)樓里的美國(guó)人爭(zhēng)辯，堅(jiān)持稱你知道我們?nèi)绾慰创龁讨螄?guó)王，并且堅(jiān)持他在美國(guó)沒(méi)有被廣泛的看作一個(gè)暴君。你什么都不知道。而你就因?yàn)榭戳藥妆緯陀X得自己懂得多？
Citations, please. What are these books you claim to have read? Where is your evidence that the majority of Americans even think about George III, let alone consider him a tyrant?
公民們，求求你們。那些你聲稱讀過(guò)的書籍到底是哪些？你關(guān)于大多數(shù)美國(guó)人竟會(huì)想到喬治三世的證據(jù)在哪里，更別提考慮他是否是一個(gè)暴君了？
He was/is quite widely regarded as a rather cruel tyrant; some degree like Gaius Julius Caesar…
他曾經(jīng)/現(xiàn)在也被廣泛的認(rèn)為是一個(gè)相對(duì)殘暴的暴君；正如某種程度上和蓋尤斯·尤利烏斯·凱撒一樣……
Among the British, possibly. I have never personally heard an American describing him in that way or read of any American who regarded him as such. No American or Briton would not have read this descxtion in any American history text at a high school or college level. It would just be too bizarre a descxtion.
在英國(guó)人中，也許吧。但我從沒(méi)有聽一個(gè)美國(guó)人說(shuō)過(guò)或讀到過(guò)任何美國(guó)人這樣看待他。任何美國(guó)人或英國(guó)人在任何高中以及大學(xué)等級(jí)的美國(guó)歷史教材中都不會(huì)讀到這一描述。這作為一種描述實(shí)在是太奇怪了。