Visualizing Culture at MIT
This is buzzing in the overseas Chinese newspapers (see, for example, Chinese News Net, Ta Kung Pao and World Journal) and Internet forums (see, for example, ChineseNewsNet). From Associated Press:
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken down a history course Web page after a 19th century wood-print image of Japanese soldiers beheading Chinese prisoners sparked complaints from Chinese students and led to an apology from one of the course's professors. The "Visualizing Cultures" course, which uses images from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, was spotlighted Sunday on MIT's home page. It was pulled late Tuesday afternoon, and the school hosted a forum Wednesday for students, particularly those in MIT's Chinese community, to voice concerns. The course was created by Pulitzer Prize-winning history professor John Dower and linguistics professor Shigeru Miyagawa, who posted an apology on his Web page. "I deeply regret that some of the images on the Visualizing Cultures website have offended you," Miyagawa said in a statement that was read at the forum. "This was never my intention. I am genuinely sorry that this has caused you pain."
... The image that angered students depicts Japanese soldiers lining up Chinese prisoners to be beheaded.
Here is that particular image:
Caption on website:
"Illustration of decapitation of Chinese violent soldiers"
More photographs in this pdf document along with the context (which is important in this debate because many people clearly never looked into it).
Now this appears to be the usual squabble over politcal correctness. Here is the most politically correct position to my mind, and it comes from Professors Dower and Miyagawa:
One section of the project displays images of Japanese wood-block prints that were used as propaganda during the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and are examples of how societies use visual imagery to further their political agendas. These historical images do not reflect our beliefs. To the contrary, our intent was to illuminate aspects of the human experience including imperialism, racism, violence and war that we must confront squarely if we are to create a better world. These complex issues are addressed in the long text that accompanies the images. We must learn from history if we are to have a better future.
So what is the fuss then? If one follows the statements from the various involved parties in detail, one realizes that the above position is not being challenged at all.
First, Professors Dower and Miyagawa explained their current activities:
Many people who have seen the web site, however, have indicated that the purpose of the project is not sufficiently clear to counteract the negative messages contained in the historical images portrayed on the site. Acknowledging this, we have been meeting with members of the Chinese community and others here at MIT to discuss how we might present these materials in a way that more effectively fosters understanding across cultures. In the meantime, we have temporarily taken down this web site while these community concerns are being addressed. We wish to make clear that this is a scholarly research project, and there is no art exhibition associated with it.
Second, at the MIT OpenCourseWare website:
Professor Dower intended the images and text in this section to reflect aspects of the human experience that we must confront squarely if we are to create a better world. Some of the materials on the website show the atrocities of war and depict how societies have used the visual arts as propaganda to further their political agendas.
The response to this section of the Visualizing Cultures website indicates that the intent of the project has been misunderstood. The "Throwing Off Asia" section of the Visualizing Cultures project has been taken down temporarily, while the responses of the MIT community can be taken into consideration and while an accompanying study guide can be completed.If you are interested in more information on the project and its purposes, please see the interview with Professor Dower posted at http://web.mit.edu/giving/spectrum/fall03/connecting-cultures.html
Third, from the Associated Press:
The MIT Chinese Student and Scholar Association, in a letter to MIT President Susan Hockfield, called for "proper historical context" at the top of the page, and asked for a posted warning that the images are graphic and racist.
"We do understand the historical significance of these wood prints, and respect the authors' academic freedom to pursue this study," the letter stated. "However, we are appalled at the lack of accessible explanations and the proper historical context that ought to accompany these images."
Fourth, from Phillip L. Clay, MIT's Chancellor:
One section of the web site Throwing Off Asia authored by Professor Dower, refers to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and displays images of Japanese wood-block prints that were used as wartime propaganda. Some of these images show the atrocities of war and are examples of how societies use visual imagery as propaganda to further their political agendas. The use of these historical images is not an endorsement of the events depicted.
Many readers, however, have indicated that the purpose of the project is not sufficiently clear to counteract the negative messages within the historical images portrayed on the site. Professors Dower and Miyagawa have been meeting with members of the MIT Chinese community to discuss their concerns and have temporarily taken down the web site while these concerns are being addressed.
The response from some outside the community, on the other hand, has been inappropriate and antithetical to the mission and spirit of MIT and of any university. This is not only unfair to our colleagues, but contrary to the very essence of the university as a place for the free exploration of ideas and the embrace of intellectual and cultural diversity. In the spirit of collaboration, MIT encourages an open and constructive dialogue.
So who are those "outside the community"? The usual "angry young people" throwing "bricks" on the Internet. Here are some vociferous (and not necessarily representative of the overall discourse) comments made at the ChineseNewsNet blog 图谋不贵 (note: the comments were moderated by the blogger, so the worst abusive items have been deleted already):
Little Japan is so savage! I fuck his grandma!
I don't understand. The pictures of the Nanjing massacre publicly exhibited in China are even more brutal, but why isn't that insulting the Chinese people? The Chinese people ought to support the showing of these images, because they expose the aggressive nature of Japan. When I was studying in 1987 at MIT, the compatriots were not like this. Whatever happened to the MIT students today? A tiny little thing happens, and it is an insult to the Chinese people.
Dower is obviously unfriendly towards China. He may be a racist. There are many such people in society, but there are fewer in universities. Unfortunately, we ran into one.
We celebrate the unprecedented great victory in this history of Chinese diplomacy! We salute the little soldiers of the Red Guards and Boxers at MIT!
(in English) The best resolution is China throwing a nuke to Japan then announcing we are deeply regretted.
(in English) These stupit MIT toadeater!
(in English)
You said in your post that you are deeply disturbed by these recent protests, because they threaten to destroy possibilities for productive dialogue. Actually, what you wrote has threatened me because of your biased arguments. In your writing, you stressed the gracious terms of academic research, but the least ability an academic researcher should have is some sensativity of cultural propensity of the audience in their publication. For, example, dare you call an African American Negro now in America with African Americans present in your audiance?
What those professors had done online is a clear evidence of their neglectance of the existence of Chinese community in America. YOu surely dont identify yourself as a Chinese, but there are thousands upon thousands in America as you can see in here if you are not blind. You may think that they are invisible, they have no identity although they work hard in restaurants, labs, China Town and what not.
MIT Chinese students have done a good thing to help the so-called academic professionals to start seeing things from a new view point, you should be happy that finally the civil right thought of Martin Ruther King has spread to to more people, including Chinese, a meekest group of human beings.
I deeply regret that MIT have hired such a group of libral arts professors with such low calibre. I gravely sorry that MIT as a famous technology school has hired these people who have such a low understanding of human and society to be in its Libral Arts faculty.(in English)
发信人: ubc1220 (ubc1220), 信区: Boston
标 题: To all those who are still condemning Dr. Minigawa,
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 28 11:50:28 2006)
To all those who are still condemning Dr. Minigawa,
I am a MIT student who has also been protesting against this woodprints project. I am, however, completely confused about the Chinese communitys hatred towards Dr. Minigawa. I strongly urge all of you to first consider the following:
1) If you have not personally seen the online project and read the text with it, do not use your imagination to fill in the blank. NOTE: you should at least try to read all the official statements from CSSA, MIT, and the profs.
2) If you read the entire thing like I had, you would have realized that the projects ultimate purpose is to portray the brutality of Japanese wartime. So do not insist that the authors are trying to discriminate against Chinese.
NOTE: Im still protesting because of the presentation of these materials, and the fact that the authors did not pay careful attention to the cultural sensitivity of Chinese people worldwide.
3) If you read the entire thing like I had, you would have found overwhemling evidence that this work was solely written by Dr. Dower (only his name on almost all pages). Dr. Minigawa played a minor role in this unit (Throwing off Asia). Also note that I read this on Sunday, before the public outcry. So this is NOT a coverup by MIT and MIT is not just trying to put an American out to protect a Japanese.
4) Dr. Minigawa has already issued quite a few statements to the Chinese community, all for a minor role he played in the work.
5) Irrational behavior like threats and hate mail are simply barbaric and completely against everything Chinese culture stands for. Anyone who does so is helping discimination by painting an ugly picture of Chinese in the minds of the American public. (Contrary to what some suggested, any reporting of this incident by western media will simply paint an ugly picture of us, due to the irresponsible reaction from a few of our community.)
Having said all that, I am glad to have seen the numerous excellent suggestions from most of the Chinese community. I look forward to CSSAs role in revising the projects presentation.
- Ed
A very puzzled protestor at MIT
Open Letter to Chinese Students at MIT
Peter C. Perdue
April 28, 2006
Recently, a group of Chinese students at MIT have protested pictures of the Sino-Japanese war which were posted on the MIT web site as part of the research project Visualizing Cultures conducted by Professors John Dower and Shigeru Miyagawa. The protest has included critical email messages addressed to Prof. Miyagawa, group discussion with the faculty and members of the MIT administration, and a list of demands passed out at a meeting on April 26.
Even though the protests are so far only verbal, they include extremely abusive messages directed at distinguished scholars of the Institute and demands for the suppression of free academic research. I am writing to you collectively in response to these activities. I address my remarks primarily to the graduate students from the Peoples Republic of China who have initiated these protests. I hasten to add that I am sure that not all the Chinese students at MIT approve of these activities, but I hope you will pay close attention to their implications. You are some of the best and brightest young people of China, who have come to MIT in order to pursue education mainly in scientific and technological subjects with the leading researchers in the world. Many of you, I am sure, plan to return to China to use the skills you learn here to help China become a truly modern country.I respect your dedication to your studies and your deep concern for the honor of your country. I have spent twenty-five years at MIT teaching East Asian history to Chinese and American students, trying to engage them in critical discussion of the complex relationships between China, Japan, and the world from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries. I have dedicated my professional life to improving mutual understanding of what are often very painful subjects on which people hold passionate views. But even the most painful events deserve reasoned, careful, and open discussion if we are to prevent future tragedies. Therefore, I am deeply disturbed by these recent protests, because they threaten to destroy possibilities for productive dialogue. Although some of you may find my views difficult to accept, I must present them honestly and directly.
I will add that I write only for myself and do not claim to represent the opinions of Profs. Dower and Miyagawa or the MIT administration. The images posted on the Visualizing Cultures website were not put there in order to offend. They are an integral part of an ongoing research and educational project which includes lengthy textual explanations that accompany each picture. John and Shigeru have put many hours of their time over the past two years into making the meaning of these materials as clear as possible. They have very graciously expressed regret over the misinterpretation of this images, but they did nothing wrong in the first place. This is not a case of unintentional insensitivity, but of deliberate misrepresentation. In historical interpretation, context is everything. Some students ripped one picture alone out of hundreds of pictures and accompanying textual explanation and broadcast it on the internet. This highly irresponsible act is what caused the uproar in the first place. Those who perpetrated this act have not expressed any remorse for the pain they have caused, nor do they seem to recognize the implications of their acts.
The picture they took has the caption Illustration of the Decapitation of Violent Chinese Soldiers. John Dowers textual explanation paraphrases the Japanese writing on the image and analyzes it as follows: The subject itself, however, and the severed heads on the ground, made this an unusually frightful sceneEven today, over a century later, this contempt remains shocking. Simply as racial stereotyping alone, it was as disdainful of the Chinese as anything that can be found in anti-Oriental racism in the United States and Europe at the time as if the process of Westernization had entailed, for Japanese, adopting the white mans imagery while excluding themselves from it.This poisonous seed, already planted in violence in 1894-95, would burst into full atrocious flower four decades later, when the emperors soldiers and sailors once again launched war against China. John Dower explains very clearly that this is a racist, shocking image, that it mirrors Western racism against all Asians, and that it sowed the poisonous seed which led to the atrocious Japanese war in China. Anyone who read these words could not possibly mistake the image for an endorsement of Japanese imperialism. Therefore I conclude that those who broadcast the image without its context had malicious motives. They intended to whip up anti-Japanese hatred in order to promote a political agenda. Since John Dower has been the most sensitive of all scholars of Asia to the pain of racism, the fact that they took his work as the tool of their project is especially despicable. There is no excuse for it.
Some of the students presented demands presented at the meeting on April 26 which are simply unacceptable by the ordinary standards of American academic life. They include: removing the website on Visualizing Cultures, apologizing to the Chinese community, canceling academic workshops scheduled as part of this research project, and revising the text and images to accord with the preferences of the students. Email messages from some MIT alumni have even called for Professors Dower and Miyagawa to be fired. In order to calm the situation, the MIT administration and Professors Dower and Shigeru have conceded some of these demands, while insisting on their own integrity.
I respect their decision, but let me explain why, even though I understand your anger, I find these demands unacceptable. MIT hires to its faculty only scholars of the highest caliber. When I was the head of the History Faculty, we hired John Dower after a national search indicated that he was the most outstanding scholar of Japanese history in the country. He has won many prizes to confirm that judgment. No one I know is more deeply committed to the empathetic understanding of the peoples of Asia than John Dower. Professor Miyagawa deserves equal respect.
You, despite your passion, are not specialists in East Asian history. Like any field in the sciences or engineering, historical study requires intensive concentration, acquisition of essential research skills, careful study of documents, and thoughtful, clear, writing. Those of you who think that you know the history of East Asian better than these distinguished scholars lack the authority to make this claim. No one so far has presented any evidence that the materials presented on the Visualizing Cultures are mistaken or biased. It is disrespectful of the dedication of serious scholars to make such emotional charges based on no evidence.
Contrary to the accusations of the protesters, the materials on Visualizing Cultures do not glorify Japanese imperialism. The visual images and the textual explanation describe and analyze the power of Japanese propaganda about the war. But to describe is not to condone. The text by John Dower makes it very clear that these images are shocking, racist, and sadistic. They did, however, have a powerful impact on the Japanese public at the time. We cannot ignore their power, but we must explain it. Suppression will not help us to understand them. The American university is based on the fundamental principle of academic freedom.
Scholars must be allowed to engage in whatever research activities they find most challenging in their professional fields. Their work is subject to the judgment of their peers in their discipline, and they must respond to careful, reasoned criticism from professional colleagues. Scholars also engage in open dialogue with students and the general public in order to promote public awareness of their research. But ultimately, no one can tell them what to study, or demand that their work be suppressed. The Sino-Japanese war indeed raises many crucial issues about East Asian history, and I would encourage you to explore them further.
Consider the following paradox, for example: after its defeat by Japan, the Qing government of China sent thousands of Chinese students to Japan for advanced study, to the very country that had committed atrocities against it. In fact, the Qing began the foreign study program that has brought you students to the U.S. today. Why did it do so? Because the Qing rulers realized that China was backward and weak in the face of Western imperialism, and Japan had mastered crucial aspects of industrial production, military organization, and technological skill. Japan was much less alien to the Chinese than were the United States and Europe. Japan had borrowed the Chinese writing system for its own language, and both countries shared the common cultural heritages of Confucianism and Buddhism.
The Chinese students in Japan picked up many of the key concepts of Western industrial nations through Japanese. Many of the most common Chinese modern political terms, like minzhuzhuyi (democracy), come from Japanese (minshushugi). But Japan had created the term minshu from the classical Chinese terms for people (min) and master (zhu). This is just one illustration to show that the Chinese and Japanese peoples have been closely tied to each other for many centuries. The history of their relations cannot be reduced simply to a story of atrocities. To do so violates the historians responsibility to describe the entire truth of a complex relationship as best she can.
Ironically, Lu Xun, Chinas greatest modern writer, faced a situation very similar to ours. While in Japan 1905 to study medicine, he saw a lantern slide depicting a Japanese soldier executing a Chinese traitor.Shocked by this brutality and by the failure of his fellow Chinese to respond to it, he resolved to become a writer in order to arouse his countrymen to resist oppression. His brilliant short stories and essays are not melodramatic expressions of anti-Japanese hatred. They are deeply insightful, biting comments on the character of the Chinese people themselves. Lu Xun turned his anger to productive purposes, for which he deserves honor.
You have a great responsibility as leading participants in Chinas future. China faces huge challenges in its effort to become a wealthy, strong, democratic, and open nation. You should study not only technical subjects but also the crucial questions of social and historical change that will determine Chinas future. There are many outstanding faculty at MIT and other universities who will gladly support your goals. Please open your minds to critical awareness of these most difficult questions in a spirit of reasoned, open intellectual discourse, not one of narrow, self-centered
indignation.
I wish you well,
Sincerely,
Peter C. Perdue
T.T. and Wei Fong Chao Professor of Asian Civilizations
Professor of History
(Re-published at 薛涌：反智的书生) May 19, 2006.
容得芳草才有花--麻省理工日本版画事件反思
林达
麻省理工学院网站的日本版画事件，在国内媒体上称为辱华版画，以麻省理工和道尔教授等的道歉声明暂告段落。但是事情并没有结束。视觉文化是一项学术活动，用学术标准来衡量，道尔教授和川茂教授没有做错。只要你有机会仔细看看如今网上分散存留的部分版画，耐心读几段道尔教授撰写的说明，不难看出这整个事件是一场误读误解。麻省理工和道尔教授等的道歉，并不说明他们承认错了，他们只是表示，他们了解，理解和尊重中国同学的愤怒。可是，受伤害者发出的愤怒，并不天然地具有正当性。现在，应该轮到我们来反思了。
道尔教授专治日本历史，是该领域享有声誉的著名学者，他的著作得到过包括普利策奖和国家图书奖在内的十几项荣誉。视觉文化中引起争议的这些版画，全部是一百多年前流行在日本的图画，反映的是当年的日本社会。作为历史学家，道尔教授等加以收集，分类，分析，解说，并不说明他们认同这些图画的宣传。道尔教授为这些版画撰写的说明，打印下来有三四十页之多。如果在浏览这些历史图画的同时，读过这些说明的哪怕十分之一，没有作出必要说明的指责从何而来？麻省理工的中国学生批评道尔教授没有把说明放在醒目地位，没有显著位置的警告语，道尔教授等接受了这一批评，这是现在撤除版画以便改进的原因。但是，反过来说，用草率的网上浏览习惯，对道尔教授撰写的说明视而不见，一看到图画就发出愤怒的吼声，倒过来指责道尔教授等没有必要说明，甚至是辱华反华，这公正吗？
麻省理工网站的一位网管，在接到中国学生的抗议以后写信说，这是对历史资料进行的学术研究，道尔教授的视觉文化项目在发展到二战的时候，或许还要展示广岛原子弹的蘑菇云图片。如此苦口婆心，是在提醒中国学生，指责美国教授亲日辱华实在是无的放矢。4月26日，麻省理工的首席执行官克雷先生和道尔等教授同中国学生的会谈，是这一事件的高潮。在这次会议上，美籍日本裔的川茂教授一再对中国学生感受的伤害表示歉意，一再表示造成这种伤害不是他的本意，其低调姿态和诚恳，显而易见。克雷先生和道尔教授则一再解释，这是一项史学研究，遵循的是史学研究的规范。在这次会议上，有一位在麻省理工教了25年中国历史的普度教授，表示对道尔教授的支持，其理由是，必须尊重和保障校园的学术自由。事后，普度教授给中国同学写了一封公开信。这封信，阐述了作为一个现代学者对待学术活动的应有原则和态度，语句诚恳，可圈可点。麻省理工的中国同学，应该为自己有这样的表率而庆幸。现在麻省理工和道尔教授作出了让步，我们却应该想想，我们中国人，怎么对待自己的历史，怎么研究自己的历史和别人的历史，又怎么对待别人研究我们的历史？
对于部分中国学生来说，既然我为这些图画生气了，说明我作为中国人受到了伤害，那么就证明道尔教授的网站内容是有问题的，就不能用学术自由原则来为道尔教授辩护。如果这一理由能成立，任何历史研究就都无法展开。历史中有的是血腥污秽，用感情来片面苛求学术，那么不是伤害了你，就是伤害了他。用学术自由的原则来衡量道尔教授的研究，那就只能用学术的公认规范来要求，第一是他的资料是否真实可靠，第二是他对资料的收集，分类，展示和说明是否客观公正，不加偏见。批评道尔教授，只能从这一方面来展开。可是至今为止，中国学生在这方面提不出一点点有价值的批评意见。如今其实谁都明白，用愤怒的吼声迫使道尔教授撤除网站内容，并不能获得人们的尊重。
在美国的校园里，讲学术自由。同样，我们讲百花齐放。美国人的学术自由，是要付出代价的：难免有人滥用学术自由，难免有人感受伤痛。美国人愿意承受这种惨痛代价，所以他们得到了学术自由。于是无论文科理科工科，最精彩的创新和成果，出现在美国，因为他们有学术自由的制度保障。我们的百花齐放，有很长的时间里花儿并不开放，这是什么原因？最重要的一个原因是，我们只想要香花，不愿容忍似乎并不芬芳的野草。花儿草儿刚刚破土而出，我们就手执锄头，虎视眈眈。看到那样子不可爱的，带刺儿的，别人说可能是毒草的，一冲动就一锄头下去。我们不懂一个简单的道理，在人类精神的花园里，只有容得了芳草萋萋，才可能得到珍花奇卉。
(Phoenix TV) 日本版画事件：应该对道尔教授说一声感谢 林达. May 25, 2006.
美国麻省理工学院(MIT)的日本版画事件，在美国和国内的报纸上得到广泛报道。麻省理工的网站，所有有关道尔教授的视觉文化专题的链接，已统统链接到了麻省理工首席执行官克雷先生作出的正式声明，就日本版画对中国朋友们造成的伤害表达深切的歉意。道尔教授和川茂教授也发表声明表达深切的歉意和真诚的道歉。这两份声明，都有中英文版本，而那些引起争议的日本版画，已经从网站撤除。
道尔教授是以治日本史出名的学者，他的著作多次得奖，包括普利策奖。他的历史学研究和教学，还有一个他十分重视的特点，就是重视视觉资料。他认为，了解历史事实，光靠文字是不够的，历史上的图像资料非常重要。这次视觉文化专题，就是要用历史上的图像资料，来呈现日本的近代史。
引起争议的是甲午中日战争前后，日本国内的一些版画。这些版画上，有日本军队屠杀中国军人和平民的画面。发起抗议的麻省理工的中国学者学生，在给麻省理工校长的信里说:这些图片没有附加解释，或提供相关的历史背景，我们对此非常震惊。
可是，这到底是一些什么样的图画，又到底怎样地没有附加解释，或提供相关的历史背景呢？
简单地浏览如今能在网上找到的部分图画，包括最有争议的几幅充满歧视和血腥的图片，用不着在麻省理工那样的一流大学读书也能一眼看出来，这些全部是一百多年前在日本流传过的属于流行艺术的图画，可以说是活生生地反映了甲午中日战争时期日本社会的气氛和舆论。这些图画是证据，证明当时的日本在所谓脱亚的过程中，怎样全民动员，怎样在民众中培养对中华民族的蔑视和侵略野心，怎样鼓动对中国人的杀戮。现代人不难理解，这些图画是宝贵的历史资料，对我们遭受侵略和残害的中国人尤其重要。道尔教授和川茂教授把这些图画从一百多年的时间长河里打捞出来，加以鉴别、整理、说明，这是具有警示意义的非常重要的学术工作。我们应该感谢道尔教授和川茂教授。
那么，是不是只有图画，没有附加解释，缺少相关的历史背景说明呢？事实上，我们能够读到大段大段的研究综述、评论和背景说明。就拿那幅被作为典型的有争议图画《清兵斩首之图》来说，道尔教授针对图上的日文解释，分析说:
然而，这个题材，和地上被砍下的人头，形成了一副极为可怕的景象 即使在一个多世纪后的今天，这种辱蔑仍然令人震惊。哪怕仅仅从种族偏见这个角度看，它对中国人的鄙视程度也不在当时欧美的反亚种族主义的任何材料之下对日本人来说，这简直像是西化的必要一步:采用白人的意象，但把自己排除在外。这个毒种在1894－1895年的暴行里就已种下，当四十年后天皇的士兵和航手再次对中国发动战争时，它将爆发为全面暴行。
我不得不说，道尔教授已经对这样一幅历史图画作出了足够充分的说明，其正义感和人道精神溢于言表。所谓没有附加解释，所谓缺少相关历史背景 的批评，只能说是对道尔教授的误读。这种误读，如果不是出于故意，就是出于无知和疏忽。道尔教授的这一学术工作，是对历史上侵略和杀戮中国人提出控诉的证据，作为一个史学教授，他一点没有做错，现在中国学生反过来却对道尔教授发起了一场抗议。事实就是事实，事实十分简单:中国留学生对道尔教授以及麻省理工的指责是没有道理的，此举对道尔教授等是不公正的。
(Southern Weekend) 值得反省的麻省理工版画事件. 林达. May 25, 2006
美国麻省理工学院(MIT)的日本版画事件，引起很大的波澜。与版画事件有关的事实，已经在国内部分地区的报纸上逐渐澄清。我觉得还是有必要对事件作进一步的讨论，回到常识，看看一个正常的学术研究，如何会酿成一个事件，在这里，应该汲取的教训是什么。
一、事情简单经过
美国麻省理工学院(MIT)的道尔教授和日裔美籍的川茂教授主持视觉文化课题，该大学网站为介绍他们的工作，在主页上建立了一个链接。链接本身是一个图像标志。读者通过点击，即可进入视觉文化的网页查看图像。其中一部分图像，是描绘甲午战争中日军屠杀中国军民的木版画。
中文媒体报道，4月24日开始，该校中国学生对这项充满歧视和血腥的图片堂而皇之登上学校网站首页表示不解和愤怒。华裔学生利用电子邮件陆续向网页管理部门、专案负责人和校方抗议，并有人在网络上呼吁华生发起抗议游行。发起抗议的麻省理工的中国学者学生，在给麻省理工校长的信里说，这些图片没有附加解释，或提供相关的历史背景，我们对此非常震惊。一位中国学生把其中几幅公布在网上，说这是在羞辱中国人。
4月26日下午，道尔教授、川茂教授和麻省理工首席执行官克雷先生和中国学生举行了一个沟通的会议。在会上，中国学生表达了对这个网站的愤怒，两位教授在表示深深歉意的基础上，解释了他们学术研究和公布历史资料的意义。首席执行官克雷先生说，大学要兼容并包，如果这些材料在MIT都不能讲授的话，世界上就没有别的地方可以讲授了。他们的解释却丝毫不能平息中国学生的愤怒。
美国和国内的报纸上开始广泛报道这一事件。随后，麻省理工的网站，有关道尔教授的视觉文化专题的链接，统统链接到了麻省理工首席执行官克雷先生作出的正式声明，就日本版画对中国朋友们造成的伤害表达深切的歉意。道尔教授和川茂教授也发表声明表达深切的歉意和真诚的道歉。两份声明都有中英文版本，引起争议的日本版画，从网站暂时撤除。
一些中国学生和麻省理工的中国校友，再向校方提出一系列要求，包括改写解说词，取消有关的学术活动，甚至解雇两位教授等等。
5月4日，麻省理工学院校长Susan Hockfield发表声明，表示坚定支持两位教授的学术工作，拒绝外界对该校学术自由的干扰。随后，麻省理工网站的视觉文化专题全面恢复。
二、对错可以依据常识作判断
这次引起争议的是甲午中日战争前后，日本国内的一些版画。这些版画上，有日本军队屠杀中国军人和平民的画面。可是，部分中国学生抗议这些图片没有附加解释，或提供相关的历史背景，却并不符合事实。从一开始，与这些历史图片同时公布的，就有道尔教授大段的研究综述、评论和背景说明。例如，对那幅最典型的有争议图画清兵斩首之图，道尔教授针对图上的日文解释，分析说：这个题材，和地上被砍下的人头，形成了一幅极为可怕的景象 即使在一个多世纪后的今天，这种辱蔑仍然令人震惊。哪怕仅仅从种族偏见这个角度看，它对中国人的鄙视程度也不在当时欧美的反亚种族主义的任何材料之下对日本人来说，这简直像是西化的必要一步：采用白人的意象，但把自己排除在外。这个毒种在1894－1895年间的暴行里就已种下，当40年后天皇的士兵和航手再次对中国发动战争时，它将暴发为全面暴行。
道尔教授在公布研究历史资料的时候，是支持日军屠杀中国人，还是反对和谴责？真相非常简单，凭常识即可判断：道尔教授事实上是站在一个现代学者的人道立场上谴责日本的历史暴行，是在帮助中国人民找出日军暴行思想根源的历史证据来。找出这些历史资料，公布和作出这样的评论，是作为深受日本军国主义伤害的中国人的后代学者，应该早早去做的工作。眼前的事实是，我们没有去做，却反过来试图声讨替我们在伸张正义而认真工作着的美国学者。
三、中美文化的隔阂
也许有人会说，假如麻省理工学院的网站没有错，两位教授和学校首席执行官一开始为什么要道歉？我们必须承认，中美之间在这样问题的理解上，是有文化隔阂的。
美国人在认为自己没有错的时候，确实也会道歉。
在他们看来，道歉分为两种，一种是为自己的错误道歉，一种是为他人感受的痛苦而道歉。在这个具体事例中，两位教授否认自己的行为是羞辱中国人，但是，美国人习惯认为，感情上是否受到伤害，往往要根据被伤害者的感觉来判断。假如他们公布的版画，有人看了之后宣称感觉难过、痛苦，他们就会表示歉意。
例如，在二战以后，犹太人在集中营最初的惨状都是由美国人或其他国家的记者记录和公布的。看到那些痛苦的画面，一些犹太人也可能会说，虽然公布这些历史资料是在替我们伸张正义，可是，看到这些画面，想到自己死于浩劫的亲人，我们仍然感到万分痛苦。在这样的情况下，公布材料的人也会对这些犹太人说一声抱歉。这种歉意其实只是他们对自己的一种道德要求，要求自己必须处处善待他人。
关键是，在道歉的同时，公布资料的一方，不会因此而停止重要历史资料的公布。而犹太人在表示痛苦的同时，也会感激对方。无法想象，犹太人会因此对揭露真相的外国人发出谴责甚至威胁。
因此，在这一事件中，对于道歉的理解，双方在根本上就是错位的。麻省理工学院一方认为，两位教授公布日本历史图片并没有错，可是既然有人看了材料表示痛苦，他们因此表示抱歉。而中国学生一方认为，公布材料本身是辱华，是错的。他们要求的道歉是对事情本身道歉。他们把对方的道歉认定是对辱华错误的承认，觉得这是我方的一个胜利，所以才会提出进一步无理要求，这是事件越演越烈的一个重要原因。
四、学术自由问题，还是简单判断能力问题
在恢复网站的时候，麻省理工学院校长Susan Hockfield在声明中说：网页将包括原来所有的材料，以及我们根据学校各方深思熟虑的意见而添加的背景和导览说明。令人遗憾的是，在过去一周我们收到来自世界各地的意见当中，有的对项目作者加以辱骂或威胁；有的则要求将网页永久撤销并且或是要求学校对Dower教授和 Miyagawa教授采取惩罚措施。
在此，我们重申将不遗余力地支持两位教授的工作，支持学术自由的原则。虽然这一网页上的一些文本和画面令观者痛苦，但对我们的同事及其工作的无端攻击，则与我们关于大学的根本信念背道而驰。这一根本信念是，大学应该投身于开放的研究以及自由的思想交流。作为学者和教育家，我们有义务以一种尊重不同意见的方式去探索那些复杂而有争议的思想。
学术活动受到威胁，当然要谈学术自由。说是威胁，一点不过分，川茂教授收到约2000封仇恨邮件和死亡威胁。可是对事件的评判落在学术自由层面，还远远不能传达这一事件传达出来的荒诞性。
学术自由的意思是，哪怕一个学者站在你的反面，例如，他站在学术角度为日本的侵略辩护，你可以用事实证明他的观点错误，却不能干涉他研究的自由。
在这一事件中，最荒唐的是，受到威胁的并非持对立观点的学者，两名教授是站在同情中国人民的立场上的，却被这些留学生和学者判断为是辱华，因而受到威胁。我们只能说，这一事件首先涉及的还不是那些中国学生不能容忍对立观点，还不仅仅是学术自由问题，而是缺乏最基本的是非判断能力。
五、脆弱的感情和历史观
MIT网站按照原样恢复时，只是在每一个图片前加了一句中英日三种语言的说明，说明这些历史图片是未经改动的原始资料，可能对读者产生刺激。它的意思和一些电影前的说明意思是一样的，就是感情上受不了的，请不要看。
对于感情伤害的说法，可以说不止在中美之间，而是在更大的范围内，存在两大类文化的差异。我们在中国的时候，不论在正式或非正式场合，严重伤害了中国人民的感情，是一句三天两头能够听到的抗议词，我们听得理所当然。出国后才发现，原来有许多国家是几乎不用这样的抗议表达的。尤其在美国，美国没有一天不被别人骂，什么骂法都有，可是美国人几乎从来不作伤害了美国人民的感情这样的抗议，他们只会在自认必要的时候，辩解说，某个说法不符合事实。对他们来说，面对别人的批评乃至辱骂，澄清事实是重要的，却不会要求别人照顾自己的感情。对他们来说，频频声称自己感情受伤害，只是一种弱者的反应。
这样的感情脆弱，其实是有害的，尤其在面对历史真相的时候。我们习惯于纵容和姑息自己拥有脆弱的神经，以至于到了不敢面对历史真相、把所有揭露历史真相的人都看作心怀恶意的地步。在这样的文化氛围中教育和成长出来的一代年轻人，会变得偏狭，否则我们无法理解，为什么进入麻省理工学院这样一流大学、应该是最优秀的中国留学生，会失去基本判断力。
这样的文化教育，也使得我们民族习惯回避任何惨痛的历史真相和教训，我们脆弱的感情扭曲了我们的历史观，令我们与世界主流历史观脱轨。版画事件在公之于世之后，外部世界几乎无法理解，如何会出现对同情自己的学者发难的事情。假如说，部分中国学生最初的动因是要维护民族尊严的话，那么，他们的行为本身造成的后果，恰恰事与愿违。
六、一个普通人的责任
在这一事件中，有个别中国学生在网上公布了几幅版画，指称其羞辱中国人，而完全不提版画原来配有批判性的解说词。麻省理工学院网站主页的链接图像标志，明明是日俄战争时街头卖报场景的日本明信片，却被渲染为充满歧视和血腥的场面。这些事实如此容易澄清，却听凭事件扩大和恶化。迄今为止，仍有大量中文网站和媒体，把事件报道到学校和教授的道歉、暂时撤下网站为止，而不报道麻省理工校长的严肃声明。媒体在利用中美之间的文化差异，制造对方辱华后被迫道歉、经我方抗议后被迫改正的假象。这样的报道方式，不仅是鸵鸟行为，还是非常不诚实地在误导不明真相的国内读者。媒体报道前半段而不报道后半段，至少说明媒体缺乏客观中立的职业准则和敢于负责任的道德担当。
中美是两个大国，又是相互之间存在着巨大差异的国家。长久以来，两国人民之间的一些对立和冲突，来自他们相互的隔离和陌生。每一个有机会接触这两种文化的人，都应该尽自己微薄的努力，做一些消除误会、增进两国民众之间相互了解的事情，而不是相反。
不论是驻外记者、留学生或学者，还是移民，都是跨越两国文化的一个个普通人。不论我们在版画事件中如何表现，这样一个事件最终都会走入历史，消失得了无痕迹。今天在这里作出回顾反省，是希望它不成为一次次类似的、加深两国之间民众误会事件的重复。哪怕是一个普通人，我们应再次感受一下，站在两国文化之间、站在这样一个特殊位置，一言一行分量很重，自己身上其实负有责任。
(Youth Weekend via Sina.com) 还原麻省理工辱华版画事件表象与真相. May 25, 2006.
文/本报记者 马军 实习记者 朱志鹏 图／MITBBS
麻省辱华版画源于中方误读？
麻省理工学院的两名教授，在他们的网上课程中使用了一些包含有甲午战争时日军屠杀中国军民等内容的版画资料。麻省的中国留学生就此与校方谈判，并发布带有个人评论的抗议帖子。随后帖子流传到国内论坛，引发华人圈强烈的不满。而有中国学者表示，事件中该反思的是中国人。这是一起因误读而发生的偶然事件吗？
本报记者近日电话越洋采访了中国留学生、麻省校方、相关教授、旅美学者，还原辱华版画事件的表象与真相。
中国学生认为版画辱华并与校方谈判
课程教授道歉 校方拒绝处分
中国学者指责学生制造假新闻
误读是因为 网民缺乏质疑精神
北京时间5月13日凌晨4点，美国麻省理工学院学生韩麟接通了记者的越洋电话。韩是此次辱华版画事件中国留学生与校方谈判的三位学生代表之一。
韩麟告诉记者，曾挂出辱华版画的麻省理工学院(以下简称麻省)网上课程视觉文化主页已在5月5日重新恢复，此前它被撤下来近2周时间。
记者进入视觉文化主页，看到第3章throwing off Aisa(脱离亚洲)中，引发争议的数十幅版画仍挂在上面。但在每个主要页面和每幅画的左上角，都有一个明显的粉红色长条提示，点击进入，就能看到这样一段话：
视觉文化从未经删节的历史材料中选取图像，作为学术研究的一个部分。需要提醒您注意的是，有的图像可能会令人反感并让观众痛苦。这些图像的描述及展示并不意味着对其内容的肯定。
这一小段提示，分别使用了英、中、日三种文字。
4月23日和24日，麻省网站在首页刊出了一个推荐性质的链接，该链接指向一个对外教学课程，其中有数幅日本军队在甲午战争中屠杀中国军民的版画图片。麻省的中国学生认为这些画有强烈的种族主义倾向。抗议者们严厉批评说，作为视觉文化课程的主办人，道尔教授和宫川茂教授对受害者的感情考虑不周。
在重重压力之下，相关的页面很快被撤下。
麻省的中国学生和校方、教授经过前后两次会谈。在第二天的会谈中，经CSSA(麻省中国学生学者联合会)努力，双方达成一致，由校方和两位教授分别公布了两份道歉声明。
麻省首席执行官克雷出席了前后两次会谈，并执笔了其中的一份道歉声明。麻省理工学院的校长Susan，事后也亲自对此事发表声明，陈述自己的观点。事件基本上就此平息下来。
然而在华人世界，回波不止。消息传到国内，引发了广大网民的持续声讨。
以《近距离看美国》一书而知名的林达，在广州某报撰文《应该对道尔教授说一声感谢》。旅美学者薛涌随即发表文章，批评了林达的观点，声援中国学生的抗议。
但在5月13日，薛涌又在其博客上连续发表两篇文章，就日本版画事件向两位当事人教授表示歉意，并提出该事件是一些中国学生制造的假新闻，要求麻省理工的中国同学拿出做人的勇气，进行道歉。
5月15日晚八点，记者连线远在美国的薛涌。在70分钟的越洋电话中，薛涌滔滔不绝地讲述了他对此事一波三折的再认识。
当事人之一的日裔教授宫川茂，在5月23日给本报发来长篇回复，详述他对整个事件的看法。
麻省理工辱华版画表象记录
刚开始，学校驳回了中国学生的抗议信。作为麻省CSSA(中国学生学者联合会)的副会长，韩麟参加了学生与校方、教授的前后两次会谈。
其实这个课程讲了有好几年了，只不过直到4月24日挂到学校首页之后，我们才发现。 韩麟说。
记者观察到，麻省首页每天更新一次，首页左半或右半部分是spotlight(聚光点)，每天出现一个新的链接。韩麟告诉记者，任何麻省师生想宣传自己的主页，都可以提交一个链接，只要负责此事的部门批准就可以发布。
就是这个spotlight，导致了一场影响颇为广泛的辱华事件。
问题版画何处犯忌？
整个华人社区都被激怒了。韩麟说，在这些版画被公示后，不仅在麻省和美国其他华人聚集区，从中国内地、新加坡等地，都有很多人发来邮件或打来电话，而美国的华人报纸更是在第一时间全程跟踪报道。
这些问题版画，为何引起如此大的反响？
作为麻省的OCW(对外开放教学)课程，视觉文化可以让来自世界各地的人访问。
这些画，都是一些日本的战时宣传画，感觉日本就是在给中国排忧解难，救中国于水火之中。这是为军国主义做宣传。韩麟说。
来自Mitbbs的不少帖子也都认为，这些版画将日本官兵表现得高大而正面，而清朝官兵则显得猥琐无能，进行过丑化处理。此外还有一幅日本兵对清朝平民砍头的画面，更是血腥残暴，直接伤害了中国人民的感情。
最早的帖子信息不完整
记者于5月11日登录麻省的中国学生论坛Mitbbs(未名空间)，可以看到从4月24日开始，论坛上出现了中国学生发布的抗议帖子，4月25日之后，帖子密集出现，Mitbbs为此事开设了一个名为MIT画报事件专区。
4月24日发布的一篇《麻省理工的屠杀中国人的画报》，如今还保存在这个专题区里。被认为应该是最早公布此消息的一篇帖子转贴了一幅中国清朝百姓被日军砍头的版画，场面相当血腥。作者在帖子中写道：
今天，在美国麻省理工(MIT)的主页上出现约一百多幅上个世纪日本人屠杀中国人的画报，还美其名日本艺术。据查这些画报来源于一个任教于麻省理工的日本叫兽(原文如此编者注)Shigereu Miyagawa的课程 如果你是中国人，请通过适当途径向这个日本人，以及MIT校方提出抗议。
记者看到，该帖在文字方面强调了两点：一百多幅上个世纪日本人屠杀中国人的画报，以及这些画报来源于一个日本人。但是，没有关于视觉文化这个课程的其他信息，如该课程的另一名主要主持者是道尔教授，以及这些版画在课程中的用途等。这是在辱没咱们的祖先！是可忍，孰不可忍？跟帖开始大量出现。
韩麟说，当天就有愤怒的学生给校方写抗议信，但是被校方驳回。不过，主持该课程的两名教授却很谨慎。就在学生发出抗议后的第二天，即4月25日，他们在自己的主页上撤下了这些版画，与之相关的那一章教学课程也被暂时取消。
华人的意见也并不统一
或许因为中国留学生的抗议行为，当地时间4月26日，麻省校方和两位教授与近百名中国留学生之间，举行了一次见面会。麻省的首席执行官克雷也到场。 参加了这次见面会的韩麟说。
第二天，即4月27日，一篇名为《MIT画报事件教授见面会》(以下简称《图文报道》)的帖子，发表在Mitbbs上。该帖以第一人称夹叙夹议，包括几十幅现场图片，主要是表现学生一方的据理抗争和对方的抵赖，以此展现当天的斗争过程。
其实我们华人的意见也并不统一。韩麟说，学生有三种观点：第一种认为这些版画是历史的一部分，可以展出，但需要正确地注明当时的历史背景，这也是CSSA的观点；第二种观点则要求教授道歉，并撤销全部辱华图片；第三种则进一步要求校方对教授进行处分。
(处分教授)这种看法太激进。韩麟评价说，学校拒绝处分并无不当，毕竟两位教授并未违反校规。
薛涌则认为，教授道歉是因为道尔在美国属于自由派的知识分子，他觉得既然你客观上受到伤害了，那么他就可以道歉，不管你是否占理。这与中国人的想法完全不同。
矛头指向日裔教授
在第一次见面会上，那个日裔教授主要是澄清他跟此事的关系。韩麟说，课程主办人之一的宫川茂教授对自己的人身安全很担心，他希望这一事件尽快结束。
韩麟说，是因为他的日裔身份，加上道尔教授不使用电子邮件，所以几乎所有的愤怒都倾泻到了宫川茂身上。宫川茂教授说他总共接到了数千封邮件，其中有一天就接到了500多封邮件。一些人身攻击的邮件，主要来自国内的服务器，比如163服务器。
宫川茂早在4月26日，就以个人身份发出了一份道歉申明，指出冒犯你们并非我的本意，我为此深感不安。
是否仅属于学术范畴？
北京时间5月15日晚9点，由于麻省校长Susan正在开会，她的助手替记者接通了校方新闻办公室的电话。
新闻办公室的行政助理Patti Foley女士谨慎的表示，她需要了解一些情况后通过电子邮件回复记者。
北京时间5月17日晚11点，记者收到了Patti Foley女士的回信。在信中，Patti Foley发给记者一个麻省官方声明的链接地址，这是署名分别为麻省校长、首席执行官的这两份官方声明。
其中首席执行官克雷的声明强调：来自MIT校外的一些人的反应不很恰当，并且有悖于MIT以及学院所推崇的使命与宗旨。他同时也明确指出：这些图像展示了战争的残暴，并例证了当时的政府如何利用视觉材料用作展示宣传的工具。
而麻省校长Susan则在其公开声明中说：我们重申将不遗余力地支持两位教授的工作，支持学术自由的原则。虽然这一网页上的一些文本和画面令观者痛苦，但对我们的同事及其工作的无端攻击，则与我们关于大学的根本信念背道而驰。这一根本信念是，大学应该投身于开放的研究以及自由的思想交流。
学校几乎是一边倒的倾向于两位教授。韩麟说，因为他们认为这属于学术自由的范畴，但我们不这么认为。
迂腐的美国人无法理解我们中国人的内心感受。一个中国学生在论坛上这样说到。
面对中国学生和网友的抗议浪潮，为什么旅美作家林达在其专栏中称应该对道尔教授说一声感谢？为什么留美学者薛涌会改变观点，在撰文反对林达的4天之后，又连续发表两篇文章，不但表示认同林达的观点，对道尔和宫川茂两位教授进行道歉，并称麻省的中国学生制造了一起假新闻？
