“大英帝國2.0”不合時宜

As a piece of branding, it was unfortunate. The fact that some British officials refer to their efforts to sign new trade deals with Commonwealth nations as “Empire 2.0” started life as an internal office joke. But the phrase has been seized upon by critics of Brexit as confirmation that the whole idea is driven by nostalgia for empire.

作為一張名片，“大英帝國”是不合時宜的。一些英國官員把他們與英聯(lián)邦國家簽訂新的貿(mào)易協(xié)定的努力稱作“大英帝國2.0”(Empire 2.0)，這只是始于一個辦公室內(nèi)部玩笑。但這個詞已被英國退歐的批評者牢牢抓住，認(rèn)為這證實了整個想法是由對大英帝國的懷念引發(fā)的。

This strikes me as a serious misunderstanding of Britain’s relationship with its past. Rather than being obsessed by empire, the British have largely consigned the whole imperial experience to George Orwell’s “memory hole”. Most British people, including leading politicians, are profoundly ignorant of the country’s imperial history.

我認(rèn)為這是對英國與其過往之間關(guān)系的一種嚴(yán)重誤解。英國人非但沒有沉迷于帝國，反而已經(jīng)在很大程度上把全部帝國經(jīng)歷拋進了喬治•奧威爾(George Orwell)口中的“記憶空洞”(memory hole)。包括政治領(lǐng)袖在內(nèi)的大多數(shù)英國人對于大英帝國的歷史都相當(dāng)無知。

This imperial amnesia does, however, have a crucial bearing on Brexit. It means that leading Brexiters and advocates of “Global Britain” misunderstand the past — with dangerous consequences for the future. They speak warmly of returning to Britain’s historical vocation as a “great trading nation”, when it was actually a great imperial nation. That important distinction leads to overconfidence about the ease of re-creating a global trading destiny, in a world in which Britannia no longer rules the waves.

然而，這種對帝國的記憶缺失對英國退歐產(chǎn)生了至關(guān)重要的影響。這意味著，退歐派領(lǐng)袖以及“全球化的英國”的倡導(dǎo)者誤讀了英國的過去——這將給未來造成危險的后果。他們熱烈地討論英國回歸老本行，做一個“偉大的貿(mào)易國”，但實際上那時英國是一個偉大的帝國。這一重要區(qū)別導(dǎo)致了對于輕而易舉即可重現(xiàn)全球貿(mào)易輝煌的過度自信，而大不列顛已不再是當(dāng)今世界的海洋主宰。

In the imperial age, Britain was in the habit of blasting its way into global markets. The East India Company went to war when its trading privileges were threatened, and ended up extending its rule over most of India. And when China tried to stop the opium trade in the 19th century, Britain went to war again — sinking the Chinese fleet and forcing the Qing dynasty to cede Hong Kong.

在帝國時代，英國習(xí)慣借助槍炮打進全球市場。每當(dāng)貿(mào)易特權(quán)受到威脅，東印度公司(East India Company)便會發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭，最終將統(tǒng)治擴大到了幾乎整個印度。而中國19世紀(jì)試圖阻止鴉片貿(mào)易時，英國再次發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭——擊潰中國艦隊并迫使清政府把香港割讓給英國。

The British ignorance of their own imperial history is captured by a passage in Tony Blair’s autobiography. The former prime minister records that when the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Jiang Zemin, the Chinese president at the time, suggested that Britain and China could now put the past behind them. Mr Blair admits that: “I had, at the time, only a fairly dim and sketchy understanding of what that past was.”

托尼•布萊爾(Tony Blair)自傳中的一段話清楚地反映了英國人對帝國史的無知。這位前首相寫道，當(dāng)英國1997年把香港交還給中國時，時任中國國家主席江澤民暗示，中英兩國現(xiàn)在可以將過去放下了。但布萊爾坦承：“當(dāng)時，我對他所說的過去只有非常模糊和粗略的理解。”

But while the British elite may have largely forgotten their own imperial history, the countries that Britain sees as crucial to its future as a trading nation most decidedly have not.

但是，雖然英國精英或許多半已經(jīng)忘了英帝國史，那些被英國視為對其作為貿(mào)易國的未來至關(guān)重要的國家卻絕對沒有忘記。

Shashi Tharoor, head of the foreign affairs committee of the Indian parliament, has just published an excoriating account of Britain’s imperial rule in India, Inglorious Empire. Those Brits who speak confidently about how Britain’s “historical and cultural ties” to India will make it easy to strike a great new trade deal should read Mr Tharoor’s book. It would help them to see the world through the eyes of the emerging economic superpowers of the 21st century — India and China — countries once colonised or defeated by Britain; and that, in consequence, harbour decidedly ambivalent feelings about the UK.

印度議會外交事務(wù)委員會主席沙希•塔魯爾(Shashi Tharoor)剛出版了一本新書《無恥帝國》(Inglorious Empire)，痛斥了英國在印度的帝國統(tǒng)治。那些滿懷信心聲稱英國與印度的“歷史和文化紐帶”將使兩國很容易達成一項新的偉大貿(mào)易協(xié)議的英國人，應(yīng)該讀一讀塔魯爾這本書。它可以幫助他們從21世紀(jì)新興經(jīng)濟超級大國——印度和中國——的視角看世界;這兩國曾受英國殖民統(tǒng)治或敗給英國，因而對英國產(chǎn)生了明顯的矛盾感情。

British vagueness about the country’s imperial past reflects the history that is taught at schools and universities. The standard curriculums stress British political history and the development of parliamentary democracy. As for Britain’s interactions with the rest of the world, students will learn about wars against Napoleon and Hitler — but very little about the empire.

英國人對本國帝國史的模糊認(rèn)識反映了中小學(xué)和大學(xué)教授的歷史。學(xué)校的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)課程強調(diào)的是英國政治史及議會民主制的發(fā)展。至于英國與世界其他國家的互動，學(xué)生們學(xué)習(xí)的是抵抗拿破侖(Napoleon)、希特勒(Hitler)的戰(zhàn)爭——但很少涉及大英帝國。

For a Martian historian, the most interesting thing about modern British history would surely be that the country built a massive global empire. But for the Brits themselves, shaping a national story that centres around the war against the Nazis — rather than the empire — makes psychological sense. It has allowed Britain to nurture a national self-image as champions of freedom and plucky underdogs (captured in the eternal popularity of the television programme Dad’s Army) rather than imperialist oppressors.

對一名歷史門外漢而言，近代英國史最有趣的事當(dāng)然是英國建立了一個龐大的全球帝國。但在英國人自身看來，塑造以反法西斯戰(zhàn)爭——而非大英帝國——為中心的國家敘事在心理上具有意義。這樣做可以讓英國塑造一種作為自由斗士和勇敢反抗的受壓迫者(比如一直受歡迎的電視劇《爸爸的部隊》(Dad's Army)中的角色)的國家形象，而不是作為帝國主義壓迫者的形象。

The fact that victory in the second world war and loss of empire more or less coincided was also helpful. Victory in Europe was a moment of national triumph that cushioned the psychological blow of the loss of empire. All British opinion formers have 1945 stamped on their memory — the year that marked victory in Europe. Few would be able to tell you that 1947 was the year of the independence of India.

大英帝國解體或多或少與二戰(zhàn)勝利在時間上重合，這一事實也起到安慰作用。在歐洲戰(zhàn)勝納粹是英國全民勝利的時刻，這緩和了帝國解體對英國人心理造成的打擊。所有英國意見領(lǐng)袖都記住了1945年——歐洲反法西斯勝利之年。很少有人能告訴你，1947年是印度獨立之年。

Victory in two world wars has also cemented the role of parliament as a symbol of the nation and of freedom. It was from the floor of the House of Commons that Winston Churchill made his famous vow to “fight them on the beaches”. The domestic history that the British elite revere is the story of parliament: Oliver Cromwell, William Gladstone, the great reform acts and the like. The mental imprint of this on modern British politicians is reflected in the arch decision to call the bill pulling Britain out of the EU “the Great Repeal Act”, which is presumably a deliberate reference to the Great Reform Act of 1832.

在兩次世界大戰(zhàn)中獲勝還鞏固了議會作為英國以及自由的象征的角色。溫斯頓•丘吉爾(Winston Churchill)正是站在下議院發(fā)出了著名的誓言：“在海灘上與他們戰(zhàn)斗”。英國精英敬畏的國內(nèi)史是英國議會的歷史：奧利弗•克倫威爾(Oliver Cromwell)、威廉•格拉德斯通(William Gladstone)、大改革法案等。這對現(xiàn)代英國政治家的思想造成的影響，反映在決定將英國退歐法案稱為《大廢除法案》(Great Repeal Bill)，想必是有意參照1832年的《大改革法案》(Great Reform Act)。

If Prime Minister Theresa May truly wants to forge a future for a “global Britain”, she might consider changing the kind of history that its citizens are taught. It would be helpful if future British politicians understood the significance not just of 1939, the year that the second world war broke out, but also of 1839, the year that the first opium war broke out.

如果英國首相特里薩•梅(Theresa May)真的想為“全球化的英國”打造一個未來，她或許可以考慮改變向英國公民教授的歷史。如果未來的英國政治家不僅理解二戰(zhàn)爆發(fā)的1939年的意義，也能理解第一次鴉片戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)的1839年的意義，將是有益的。

Still, it would be unfair to say that the British establishment has entirely forgotten the great empire builders of the past. Palmerston, who was prime minister at the time of the second opium war in the 1850s, is still remembered at the Foreign Office. The office cat has been named after him.

不過，如果說英國建制派完全忘記了昔日大英帝國的締造者，是不公平的。英國外交部仍記得1850年代第二次鴉片戰(zhàn)爭時期擔(dān)任首相的帕默斯頓(Palmerston)。外交部的貓就以他的名字命名。