譯/陳曉慈
川普口中的「人民」為川粉限定
Fifty years ago, reviewing Toni Morrison's novel "Sula" in The New York Times, a critic wrote that Morrison was "far too talented to remain only a marvelous recorder of the Black side of provincial American life" — that to "maintain the large and serious audience she deserves" and transcend the "limiting classification 'Black woman writer,'" she had to "address a riskier contemporary reality."
50年前，一名紐約時報書評評論托妮．莫里森的小說「蘇拉」時，形容莫里森「才華遠不止於做為美國鄉村黑人生活的不凡記錄者」，若要「留住她值得擁有的廣大且認真的讀者群」並超脫「『黑人女性作家』的歸類限制」，她必須「處理一個風險更高的當代現實」。
Morrison, who would go on to win Pulitzer and Nobel prizes, bristled at reviews like that, which seemed to suggest that she needed to write about white people. She chafed at the notion that writing primarily about Black people was a limitation rather than a liberation. In a 1981 New Republic interview, Morrison put a point on it: "From my perspective, there are only Black people. When I say 'people,' that's what I mean."
莫里森之後陸續獲頒普立茲獎及諾貝爾獎，而這種似乎在暗示她必須書寫白人的評論讓她頗為惱火。聚焦書寫黑人是限制而非解放的論調，讓她不耐煩。莫里森1981年接受「新共和」周刊專訪時明言：「從我的角度看，只有黑人。當我說『人民』，我就是這個意思」。
This idea, that the parameters of the word "people" can be defined by a speaker or writer, came rushing back to me recently as I was reviewing the increasingly erratic posts and comments of Donald Trump.
「人民」一詞所涵蓋的範圍可由講者或作者定義，這個想法在我最近重新瀏覽川普愈加不合常理的發文及回應時，重現在我腦海。
Intellectually and creatively, Trump is the antithesis of Morrison, but if I come to understand that when Trump says "people," it is confined to his people, then his inane utterances make more sense to me. In fact, the whole of the MAGA universe begins to make more sense to me.
川普於智識於創意，都是莫里森的反面對照，但當我理解到，當川普說「人民」，指的僅限於他的人民，那麼他的空洞發言對我來說就變得比較合理了。事實上，整個「讓美國再次偉大」宇宙都開始變得更合理。
There's a reason Trump never attempted to govern as a unifier and isn't running for reelection as one. Instead, he's deepening his attachment with loyalists. He wants to reshape America into a nation where his will rules, the law is his tool to punish others, and he is exempt from punishment — where his throngs are rewarded for their adoration.
川普無論執政或再度參選都沒試圖扮演一名團結者，背後有其原因。他選擇強化他與忠誠支持者的連結。他想將美國重塑成一個由他統治的國家，法律是他懲罰別人的工具，他則免於受罰，而他的子民將因崇拜他而獲得回報。
It isn't as simple as saying that Trump wants to drag the country backward. He wants to bend his brand of straight white male nationalism into a kind of totalitarianism.
這不僅是川普想讓美國開倒車那麼簡單。他想將他的白人男性異性戀民族主義品牌，轉變為某種極權主義。
A Trump autocracy would redound to their credit, and they would be rewarded for it.
川普獨裁將會為他們增光，他們也將獲得回報。
He and his people, the true people, are the new civil rights victims, in need of a defensive mobilization to prevent continued injury. Trump defense becomes self-defense.
川普與他的人民，真正的人民，是新的民權運動受害者，亟需防衛動員以免繼續受傷害。捍衛川普於是成了自我防衛。
He spoke to and for "the people." He tailored a particular form of populism, one aimed at xenophobes and subversives.
川普向著並為著「這些人民」發聲。他裁製出一種特殊形式的民粹主義，旨在號召仇外人士與顛覆分子。
They don't worry about Trump torching the country if he's reelected, because they believe that they will frolic in the ashes. They believe that whatever benefits Trump will eventually benefit them. Trump has deceived his people into believing in trickle-down tyranny.
他們不擔心川普若再度當選將放火毀掉美國，因他們堅信自己將是灰燼中的狂歡者。他們相信，凡有利於川普的，終將有利他們。川普已成功欺騙他的人民相信涓滴成流的暴政。
沒有留言:
張貼留言