评论
打印
But the argument that Washington and Jefferson were mere products of their time may ring hollow for some— their contemporary John Adams, who served as the nation's second President, didn't own slaves. He also declined to use slave labor on principle, although he spoke out against a bill to emancipate slaves in Massachusetts in 1777, saying the matter was too divisive at the time.
但是认为华盛顿和杰斐逊只是那个时代的产物的说法，可能听起来有些空洞——和他们处于同一时代的约翰·亚当斯是美国的第二任总统，他没有奴隶。他坚持自己的原则，拒绝使用奴隶。尽管他公开反对1777年在马萨诸塞州解放奴隶的法案，他认为在当时这个问题太容易造成分裂了。
And while contemporaries such as British politician William Wilberforce led the abolitionist movement to end slavery, Washington and Jefferson continued to profit off slave labor while decrying slavery as abhorrent.
当诸如英国政治学家威廉·威伯福斯等同时代的人们领导废奴运动以结束奴隶制时，华盛顿和杰斐逊一边继续从奴隶劳动中获利，一边谴责奴隶制是可憎的。
In an article for Smithsonian magazine in 2002, the late historian Stephen E. Ambrose laid bare the contradictions in both Washington and Jefferson's lives.
在2002年史密森尼杂志的一篇文章中，已故历史学家斯蒂芬·安布罗斯揭露了华盛顿和杰斐逊生活中的矛盾。
Both were visionaries who championed liberty, but "failed to rise above their time and place" when it came to slavery, Ambrose wrote. But he insisted that they should not be disavowed and judged solely on that.
安布罗斯写道，这两个人都是有远见的人，他们拥护自由，但在奴隶制问题上“未能超越他们所属的时代和地点”。但他坚持认为，不应仅凭这一点来否定和评判它们。
"The Washington Monument and the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials remind us that greatness comes in different forms and at a price. Jefferson, by his words, gave us aspirations. Washington, through his actions, showed us what was possible. Lincoln's courage turned both into reality," he wrote.
“华盛顿纪念碑以及杰斐逊和林肯纪念馆提醒着我们，伟大是以不同的形式和代价来实现的。杰斐逊用话语给了我们希望。华盛顿用行动向我们展示什么是可能的。林肯的勇气把这两件事都变成了现实，”他写道。
"Slavery and discrimination cloud our minds in the most extraordinary ways, including a blanket judgment today against American slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries," he said. "That the masters should be judged as lacking in the scope of their minds and hearts is fair, indeed must be insisted upon, but that doesn't mean we should judge the whole of them only by this part."
“奴隶制和歧视以最意想不到的方式迷惑了我们的思想，包括今天对18世纪和19世纪美国奴隶主的全面判决，”他说。“认为这些奴隶主们思想狭隘，内心局限，这样的判断是公平的，也是我们必须真正坚持认为的，但这并不意味着我们只通过这一部分就去判断他们的全部。”
Ellis noted that many historical figures including the Founding Fathers wouldn't come off well when judged by modern standards. "If you do that, there won't be anybody left," he said.
埃利斯指出，如果我们以现代的标准来衡量开国元勋等许多历史人物，他们并没有表现得很好。“如果你这样做的话，就不会有人留下来了，”他说。
America has been a nation of paradoxes from its inception, he said. "America is set on a group of ideals that are quite oppressive," he said. "The society that saved the West and Western Civilization in the 1940s and against the Russians in the Cold War is the same society that's responsible for Indian removal and black slavery."
美国从一开始就是一个充满矛盾的国家，他说。“美国是建立在很多非常压抑的理想之上的，”他说。“美国社会在20世纪40年代挽救了西方和西方文明，并在冷战中对抗俄罗斯，但这个社会也同样要对印第安人迁移和黑奴制负责。”
But while he understands why some protesters are yearning for contentious monuments to be torn down, Ellis doesn't believe it will help end racism in the country.
但是尽管埃利斯理解为什么一些抗议者渴望拆除有争议的纪念碑，但他不认为这样的行为会有助于结束美国的种族歧视。
"Anybody in America who believes racism is going away, that we can expunge it by knocking down monuments, is naive. It's a cancer. It's never going away. Never," he said. "We can take steps forward, but everybody time you do, there is a permanent pool of racism beneath American society."
“在美国，任何一个相信种族主义正在消失，我们可以通过拆除纪念碑来消除种族主义的人，都太天真了。这是一种癌症。永远不会消失。永远不会，”他说。“我们可以向前迈出一步，但每一个人只要你这样做，就永远会有一个种族主义群体存在于美国社会。”
"The ideals are there, we've acted on them in many ways, ending slavery was one step, the Civil Rights movement was another step. But each step in American history forward produces a half-step backward. For every 10 Americans that thought Martin Luther King had a dream, there's another three that thought it was a nightmare."
“理想就在那里，我们已经在很多方面采取了行动，结束奴隶制是一步，民权运动是另一步。但美国历史上每向前走一步，就会倒退半步。每10个认为马丁·路德·金有梦想的美国人中，就有3个认为这是一场噩梦。”
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
