中 、西方飲食文化大不同 The Difference of Dining between China and the West

今天讀到個有趣的論點想和大家分享，其載於王秋桂主編的《飲食文化綜論》(2009)中。
I came across an interesting topic today and I would like to introduce it to you. It was written in Yinshi Wenhua Zonglun [Reviews on the Culinary Culture] (2009) edited by Wang Qiugui.

中、西方飲食文化大不同這點自然大家都認同，中國人吃飯喜歡一碟一碟都放在桌子上，大家要多少、取多少，一起分享美食。西方人喜歡每人自己一碟、都安份地自己吃自己那份兒。
I think most of us would agree that the culinary culture of China and the West is significantly different. Let's say, Chinese like to have dishes all over the table and each of us get what we want and the portion we need while the Westerners have their own dish and reaching out to the others' dish would be impolite.

但中國人跟西方人從食具上的使用上比上述一點更是截然不同。西方人用刀叉進食，動作充滿動感，雖然餐桌禮儀要求進食時食具不可以發出聲響，但這些刀叉猶如廚房內之用具的迷你版，切切割割時難免充滿戰鬥動感，形象上自然多了份侵略的意味。
However, the real difference lies in the use of utensils. The Westerners use their knives and forks. The involved action of cutting can be described as quite aggressive and linked to the actions inside the kitchen as the knives and forks on the dining table are the miniature of their counterparts in the place where food is processed and cooked. This aggressiveness can hardly be got rid of even if table manner required them to use the utensils quietly.

中國人則認為刀叉是廚房裡用以切割食物的器具，而這些器具是不能登大雅之堂的，加上食物在烹調時已被割成小塊方便用筷子夾起。這些筷子在機能上就是伸長了的手指，食客利用筷子就可以在自己固定的位置上掌控餐桌上的所有食物，筷子的使用也體驗到中國人所強調的「和」，和西方人所呈現的形象不免有了份強烈的對比。
Chinese, on the other hand, think that knives are to be used only in the kitchen. These are used to process the food and they should not be presented on the table. Besides, the food is usually cut into small pieces which can be easily handled with chopsticks. The knives should have no function in the dining hall. Chopsticks, as the prolonged fingers, enabled their users to get their food without moving around. The use of chopsticks shows the "harmony" presented by the Chinese culture and this is significantly different from the Western culinary culture.

但要提到的一點是，「中國人」這個概念在這裡也不怎樣清晰。「中國人」包括了我們漢人以外的「五十五個少數民族」嗎？北方人至今也保留著在餐桌上用刀切割食物的風俗。如全羊宴中，大家用小刀想食多少就割多少，十分豪氣。
However, I just have a small question. What defines Chinese? Does this term "Chinese" include the other "55" ethnicity besides the Han? As the people of China who live in the North still use the knives on the dining table. In the whole sheep feast, each of them use a small knife to get the portion they want.

比較法相當有趣，中、西方的飲食、文化、生活、種種方面都有不同的學者研究，但這種二元對比法在很多情況下不是有點太籠統了嗎？「中」是指甚麼？在這個邏輯上，這個「中」好像也可以等於「東亞」等其他長久以來使用筷子的國家，如日本、韓國，如此一來，這個「中」字應更換成「東亞」嗎？另一方面，「西」又是甚麼呢？是指歐洲、北美或是所有非東亞的國家呢？比較容易定義難。
Binary opposition seems quite interesting and there are already a lot of researches on the difference of food, culture or lifestyle between China and the West. However, isn't this binary opposition a bit problematic? In this essay, what does "Chinese" mean? Within this context, can we consider this "Chinese" equal to "East Asia" countries such as Japan or Korea which also use chopsticks for a very long time. On the other hand, what is the "West"? Does it mean Europe, North America or all non-East Asia countries? It seems easy to compare something but harder to define them.

我都想聽聽大家的想法，關於飲食不同之處也好，關於上述定義上的問題也好。
I want to know what you guys think. May it be about the difference between the culinary culture of the East and the West or about the problem with definitions.

如何讀懂滿文？第一講︰介紹文 How to Read Manchu? First Lesson: An Introduction

滿文就是旁邊那些蟲蟲似的文字
The left-hand side is Chinese and the other side is Manchu

此分享是基於河內良弘和清瀨義三郎則府合編的《滿洲語文語入門》(2002)及Jerry Norman羅傑瑞的A Comprehensive Manchu-English Dictionary [滿英大詞典] (2013)而寫的。

This is a sharing based on the Introduction to Literary Manchu (2002) co-edited by Kawachi Yoshihiro and Kiyose Gisaburo Norikura and Jerry Norman’s A Comprehensive Manchu-English Dictionary (2013).

首先我要說我不是專家，我只要一個自學滿文的小人物，既不是大師、也說不上滿文能力非常好。兩年前我開始自己學習滿文，發現自學也不是特別困難，所以有了想跟大家分享一下學習方法這個念頭。如果可以引起大家對滿文的興趣或者是能把這個語言介紹給大家，我已經很高興啦！文章中如果有錯誤的地方，歡迎大家指出，也歡迎大家留言討論！

First of all, I am not an expert. I am just a learner of Manchu and I am still learning. I started my self-study on Manchu about two years ago. I found that self-studying Manchu was not as difficult as I have imagined and I wanted to share the way how I learn. If this post can promote the learning of Manchu or whatsoever about Manchu, then I would be very pleased. If there are any mistakes, they are solely mine. Comments are highly welcome.

甚麼是滿文？

What is Manchu?

滿文是滿洲族的語言「滿語」的文字，清朝時叫做「清文」或「國語」。滿洲族的直系先祖是明朝時住在松花江、黑龍江、牡丹江等流域的女真族，遠古先祖可以追溯到遼金時代的女真、隋唐時代的靺鞨、北朝時代的勿吉。清太宗於天聰9年（1635）正式使用「滿洲」這個名稱，後稱「滿族」。滿語屬阿爾泰語系‧滿-通古斯語族‧滿語支，是多音節語言。2007年的統計中，以滿語為母語的使用者為17人，屬瀕危語言。

Manchu is the language of the Manchu people. It was the national language of the Qing Dynasty. The ancestors of Manchu people were the Jurchen people living in the Northeast of China. Manchu is a Tungustic language belonging to the Altaic language family. The number of its native speakers is about 17. 

滿文取鑑蒙古字體，以下最左邊是蒙古文，最右邊是滿文，看起來就很像。(我也很想學蒙古文！)

The creation of Manchu was based on the Mongolian and they just look alike!

從左至右分別為蒙古文、藏文、漢文和滿文。
From left to right: Mongolian, Tibetan, Chinese and Manchu

滿文還有分有圈點和無圈點，這個我們以後再討論。

Manchu has two variants: with dots and without dots, but we will leave it for future discussion.

以下是滿文文字範例︰

Sample Text:

取自胡格金台《達斡爾故事》(1977) 的第九章

Excerpts from the Chapter 9 of Kūkejintai (Hugejintai)’s A Dagur Story (1977)

滿語的閱讀方法為上至下、左至右。左邊第一行就是第一句標題︰

The way to read Manchu is: from top to bottom, from left to right.  The first sentence would be the title:

跟一般字典用法無異
just use the Manchu-English dictionary the way you used to do

在閱讀滿文時，我們會先將其文字以穆麟德轉寫法（Möllendorff system）轉寫成羅馬拼音，如此一來，圈起的文字就是︰uyuci; mama eršere be kanagan arame ai hoi ci aljaha。其後我們就可以用這個羅馬拼音在字典裡查到字詞的意思了。第一個字就是uyuci（見上圖）翻開字典(使用方法和一般英文字典無異，在u欄找即可)就得出，uyuci: ninth。利用字典，可以得出整句意思就是“第九(話)︰藉天花為由離開曖暉”。
We would adopt the Möllendorff system to convert the Manchu text into Romanized form and the circled text would be “uyuci; mama eršere be kanagan arame ai hoi ci aljaha”. With a Manchu-English/Manchu-Chinese dictionary, we know the first word is uyuci (see the above image) which means “ninth” (the use of Manchu-English dictionary is no different from the use of normal English dictionary and you search through the “u” section for “uyuci”). Using the dictionary, we know that this whole sentence means “Ninth (Chapter nine): Leave Aihun with the Excuse of Small-pox”.

當然不是每個字都可以在字典中找到的，因為有語文文法、動詞變化、數量詞化、專有名詞等因素。但若要做到轉寫這步首先我們需具備閱讀滿文文字的能力（當然，滿文大師們都可以省略轉寫這步），所以我們下一課就是開始學習轉寫。簡而言之，我學習閱讀滿文的基本順序為︰先學轉寫、再學詞彙、文法。
Of course, not every word can be found in the dictionary as there are grammar, verb conjugations, numbers as adjectives, personal nouns, etc. Nevertheless, in order to proceed to the step of converting into Romanized form, we should, first of all, know how to read Manchu text (Professionals can skip this step of converting into Romanized form). Therefore, the first lesson on Manchu is to learn how to read Manchu and convert it into Romanized form. Simply speaking, the order of learning Manchu is: to learn how to convert the Manchu text into Romanized form, then the vocabulary and grammar.  

我會在下一講介紹組成滿文的母音和子音、並進一步討論母音「a」。

In next post, I will write about the vowels and consonants of Manchu and will discuss about the vowel “a”.

辛亥革命中的種族屠殺（讀畢路康樂《滿與漢》後感）

作為中國歷史研究中其中一個最熱門研究方向的辛亥革命，其光榮之處在於其不怎樣沾血、卻成功推翻統治了超過兩個半世紀的滿清皇朝。中國領導層在承繼對中國的管治權時不忘承繼革命派一貫說法︰辛亥革命只是權力的轉換、不傷害無辜平民。路康樂在他2000年的著作《滿與漢》中向廣大讀者揭示當年的真相，當中難免令人聯想到「大屠殺」、「種族清洗」等字條。

大眾皆知辛亥革命的目的是推翻由滿洲人統治的滿清政權。革命份子中最為人所知的是國父孫中山，他和其他志士決意從滿人手中奪回統治權，革命份子所抱的理念我們先不討論。但他們宣稱不傷害無辜滿人這個說法至今仍被尊崇。官方對革命中滿族人傷亡人數的統計數字為一千到兩千。可是，就單單一個旗營的滿人傷亡數字已經是翻幾倍了，當中有五個主要戰場（容許我稱呼為「屠場」）分別是湖北武昌、陝西西安、山西太原、江蘇鎮江和南京。當中旗營的傷亡數字和其抵抗的力度無直接關係。在這些旗營的滿人成為種族仇恨和無情殺戮的犧牲者。

作為革命運動大本營的武昌見證第一波反滿族暴力行動。當革命份子進入武昌城時，他們的口號是「殺戮滿官旗人」，目標是「興漢滅滿」。即使當地旗兵沒有抵抗，革命份子一樣殺無赦。旗人屍體遍佈武昌街頭。最可怕的事是革命份子對倖存的滿人進行獵巫，所有外貌、口音有一點像滿人的人會在街頭被叫停，進行一些測試。例如︰被截停的滿人需讀出數字666，若他們有滿人口音，就會立刻被處決。旗人（包括旗兵和他們的家人）的死傷數字在革命展開的首三天就達五百人了。

第一個遭遇大規模反滿族暴力行動的旗營是西安，針對旗人最血腥的暴行就在此處發生。因為西安是旗營，滿城內駐防的旗兵也作好充足準備起來抵抗到底。他們抵抗了足足一天，但革命份子在第二天就攻破防線。當他們攻入韃靼城後，看到的無論大小，殺的殺，像殺父仇人似的把他們屠宰，部份滿人跪求免於一死，但他們一跪下，就被立刻擊斃。

太原、鎮江和南京的滿人同樣難逃革命份子追擊，無論他們做甚麼最後都難逃一死。部份滿人抵抗到底、部份極力求饒、有些主動要求停火，但無論他們如何努力，最後還是被無情地殺害。老幼婦儒皆無一倖免，屍體像垃圾一樣散落一地。

革命份子所做的窮凶極惡之事實在數之不盡，我也不在此一一列舉了。有興趣的網友們可自行搜索或翻閱路康樂《滿與漢》的第四章。我相信無論是有沒有想像力的網友們都可以想像到當年的畫面，希望你們會跟我一樣感到噁心、可怕，同時為我們對這方面認知的缺乏感到難以接受。我們所接受的教育沒有告訴我們這些可怕的歷史真相。官方繼續宣傳辛亥革命是多麼的偉大，只犧牲了少數人的性命就為大多數人帶來新一頁，我們則繼續接受這樣的說法，那對大部份人來說可能是件好事，因為人類總是不喜歡黑暗那面的。路康樂這篇文章再次提醒了種族可以是一個好可怕的概念。將人分成不同組別，我們很容易可以說我們是不一樣的，我們比較好、我們比較棒。回顧歷史，這個可怕的分類法沒有消失，它一直在發展，因為我們堅持我們跟別人是不一樣的。被極端份子煽動時，人就可以失去人性，做出一些以往不敢做的事。

總結是辛亥革命並不像我們想像中那麼偉大、那麼「少犧牲」。學生和公眾應思考到底我們對我們的國家歷史有多少認識，也應思考我們所接受的教育有沒有瞞騙我們。不是因為我個人喜歡歷史我才鼓勵大家多讀史，而是，當我們只接受別人灌輸的教育而不多自行研究或多讀書時，我們對世界的理解就可以輕易被塑造，畢竟我們的世界觀有很大一部份來自於我們所接受的教育。故此，多思考和多讀書（多讀不同人寫的書）是應該多被推廣的。

**如文中出現錯處，歡迎提出。

Racial Slaughters during the 1911 Revolution (Reflection on Edward J. M. Rhoads' Manchus & Han)

The 1911 Revolution, one of the most discussed piece of Chinese history, is very often described as a “bloodless” revolution. The leaders of modern China, succeeding not only the authority to govern China but also the rhetoric in saying that the 1911 revolution is just a transfer of power, authority and is glorious as it did not involve merciless killings. However, Edward J. M. Rhoads, in his book Manchus & Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861 - 1928, presents a more accurate picture of this tumultuous event with terms like “massacre” and “racial slaughters”. Once again, readers are reminded to study history rather than “memorizing” history because what official can be a lie. 

Going back to the 1911 revolution, it was a revolution to overthrow the Qing court which was Manchu, as everyone knows. These revolutionaries, including the world-famous Sun Yat-sen, aimed to take the power from the Qing court. The reasons behind this revolution are beyond our discussion today, but basically, they wanted republicanism which gave power back to the people. Anyway, the revolutionaries emphasized that they would not exercise extra killings and the transfer of power would be most peaceful. The official figure for the deaths involved in this revolution was around 1,000 to 2,000. Most Chinese are taught to be proud of this revolution because it overthrew imperialism bloodlessly. However, number of deaths in one garrison can be several times greater than this “1,000 to 2,000”. There are five major battlefields (or let me call it “fields for massacre”): Wuchang, Xi’an, Taiyuan, Zhenjiang and Nanjing. The number of deaths in these garrisons had no relation to the level of resistance. The Manchus in these garrisons were targets of racial hatred and victims of relentless killings.

Wuchang, being the base for revolutionaries, witnessed the first outburst of anti-Manchu violence. When the revolutionaries rallied into Wuchang, their slogan was “slay the Manchu officials and the banner people!” (Shalu Manguan qiren) and their declared goal was to “elevate the Han and exterminate the Manchus” (xing-Han mie-Man). Even the banner soldiers did not resist, they were killed. Bodies of banner people littered the streets in Wuchang. The most terrible thing was that there was witch hunt for surviving Manchus. People who looked different or sounded different were stopped by in the street and they had to be quizzed. They would be asked to pronounce the number 666. If they pronounce it with the Manchu accent, they would be executed right away. The estimated number of deaths of banner people (both soldiers and their dependents) was over 5 hundred for the first three days of the revolt.

The first banner garrison which met a large-scale anti-Manchu violence was Xi’an. Bloodiest encounter between the revolutionaries and the banner people took place here. As it was a banner garrison, enough banner soldiers stationed inside the Manchu City, waiting to defend and resist. They stood up and fought for a whole day, but the revolutionaries managed to breakthrough the next day. When they poured into the Tartar city, they looked upon everyone (even women and little children) as enemies and butchered them relentlessly. Some Manchus knelt down and begged for pardon. When they did, they were shot right away. 

Taiyuan, Zhenjiang and Nanjing, also met the wrath of these revolutionaries. Manchus in these cities did not escape slaughter no matter what they did. Some of them resisted forcefully, some begged for pardon, some negotiated to cease fire. However, no matter what they did, they were killed unceasingly. Even women and little children were not pardoned. Dead bodies just littered the streets like piece of garbage. 

The horrible doings of the revolutionaries were plenty and I was tired listing them out (Interested readers would find the section “Anti-Manchu Violence” in Chapter 4 The 1911 Revolution useful. Readers with or without imagination, I hope, would also find it terrifying, unacceptable and not-at-all glorious to call ourselves descendants of those revolutionaries. It was also why the official saying would remain to be the bloodless one; Most people just hate the atrocious side of events. This piece of writing just reminds me how “race” or in Chinese we call “zongzu” or “zu” could be a really dangerous idea. By classifying people into groups, it is easier to make claims that we are different from them, we are better, we are superior. Throughout history, this dangerous idea has not extinguished, it is growing because we still hold on the differences. When inflamed by extremists, people lost their mind and they would be able to do something that they won’t dare to do before, like soldiers in the battlefields. They shoot, they kill and they drop bombs because they are told these others’ lives are different from theirs. 

It’s time to go back to our issue today. The 1911 revolution was not glorious, was not bloodless at all. Students or the general public should stop thinking about how glorious the way modern China was formed and should start thinking how much we really know about the history of China or even the history of the world and should start thinking how true is the knowledge we had been bestowed. It’s not because I like history, so I recommend people to start their independent research on history or on other subjects. It’s because without an independent research, our mind/ our world-view would be shaped by the officials, by the textbooks. It is thus important to read a little more and to think a little more. 

**If there are mistakes, they are solely mine. Recommendations and suggestions are always welcome.