EnclavedMicrostate在2022-04-11~2022-04-17的言论

2022-04-17 作者: EnclavedMicrostate 原文 #Reddit 的其它文章

335: Without barriers the British still know how to queue!, submitted on 2022-04-11 11:59:49+08:00.

—– 335.1 —–2022-04-11 14:06:47+08:00:

Yep, a radio series, a book series based on the radio series, a semi-rebooted radio series based on the book series, and a TV series based on the original radio series. The original radio and book continuities diverge, but the second radio series is a direct adaptation of the latter part of the book series. The TV series (which goes up to roughly the end of book 2) hews closer to the radio series but not exactly.

336: 1973: Native American actor Sacheen Littlefeather boo’d (and cheered) by Hollywood at the Oscars before being mocked by Clint Eastwood and almost physically assaulted by John Wayne simply for asking that Indigenous people not to be dehumanized in film, submitted on 2022-04-11 14:05:30+08:00.

—– 336.1 —–2022-04-11 16:30:15+08:00:

the only Eastwood western with native Americans mentioned at all is Joe Kidd

Also The Outlaw Josey Wales, Hang ‘Em High, and Ambush at Cimmaron Pass.

337: Making Zetamemes everyday until r/hololive add her flair: day 2, submitted on 2022-04-11 15:11:35+08:00.

—– 337.1 —–2022-04-11 20:50:56+08:00:

…You mean Uproar, right? (ditto to /u/InfernoMax)

338: のんびり 人間 慰め - Weekly Discussion Thread, April 11th, 2022, submitted on 2022-04-11 17:32:19+08:00.

—– 338.1 —–2022-04-12 11:17:42+08:00:

Calli also apparently learned Latin at school, so that also doesn’t save us.

—– 338.2 —–2022-04-12 17:08:12+08:00:

To add my two cents, it’s worth distinguishing between why it was originally introduced, and why it might still be done now. To be frank, it was originally done because Activ8 believed it ought to have such total control over Kizuna AI’s image that even her VA’s actual identity was to be concealed from the public. Many VTubers today appreciate the anonymity, and it might be their reason for doing it, but its original existence in corporate contracts, particularly of a lot of early agencies, is probably a function of most of these companies basically emulating Activ8’s model without necessarily thinking that hard about the full implications down the line.

—– 338.3 —–2022-04-17 03:40:43+08:00:

I feel like Hololive nowadays is like a Generic term for Vtubers.

cf. Kleenex and tissue paper or hoovers and vacuum cleaners.

339: Bosnia is almost landlocked, but it has a narrow, 12-mile long piece of land on the Adriatic Sea. How did it get this sliver, and how has it kept it, despite it cutting off a piece of Croatia? Why isn’t the strip built up as an industrial port for Bosnia?, submitted on 2022-04-12 06:26:50+08:00.

—– 339.1 —–2022-04-12 14:58:38+08:00:

Sorry, but we have removed your response, as we expect answers in this subreddit to be in-depth and comprehensive, and to demonstrate a familiarity with the current, academic understanding of the topic at hand. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the rules, as well as our expectations for an answer such as featured on Twitter or in the Sunday Digest.

340: Mio gave Fubuki a ring! This is not a drill, Mio gave Fubuki a ring!! This truly is フブミオてぇてぇ of the purest quality~ (TL by Major Arcana #310 Big God Mion), submitted on 2022-04-12 07:15:18+08:00.

—– 340.1 —–2022-04-12 12:16:05+08:00:

Um… yeah? Kinda?

Well, there’s two aspects to this. The first is that simply put, calling them lovers is applying modern and honestly somewhat heteronormative standards to ancient Macedonian society. Alexander almost certainly did not see his relationship with Hephaistion as equivalent to that with, say, Roxane; that is to say it wasn’t just ‘the same thing, but with a man’.

The other is that the sources that play up the possible romantic and/or sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion are… dubious. It’s very clear that Alexander was in some way very affectionate towards Hephaistion and we do get this from the majority of the source material, but the sources suggesting this went beyond a deeply affectionate friendship are those that try to map Alexander and Hephaistion onto Achilles and Patroklos. These sources are problematic on this count because they try to paint Alexander as a quintessentially Greek hero, almost a walking embodiment of Greek high culture, instead of as a Macedonian warlord. In effect, the ‘Achilles+Hephaistion = Achilles+Patroklos’ narrative is one rooted more in Greek chauvinism than historical fact.

Oh also with Mio she did say the garnet was for ‘friendship’ specifically, so I feel like that’s explicit enough of an indication. We’re not at Noel/Flare levels of platinum bridal rings just yet.

EDIT: I guess the main thing to say is, its not that we’re incorrectly defining Alexander and Hephaistion as friends, it’s that the way we colloquially use ‘friend’ today encompasses different ideas from how people of the time understood it.

341: My boyfriend says that in the 18th century, part of the reason the British Navy gave sailors “grog” was to make them alcohol dependant so they’d stay in Navy service. Is this true?, submitted on 2022-04-13 04:12:21+08:00.

—– 341.1 —–2022-04-14 22:19:21+08:00:

Being from the UK I’ve toured some of the historical ships we have and find them very unpleasant so it makes sense people were ‘pressed’ into doing these things.

To expand on a point /u/shermanstorch has made, impressment made up only a minority of the Royal Navy’s recruitment. Between 1793 and 1801, at the height of the early French Revolutionary Wars when the Navy was most in need of manpower, impressment accounted for only 16% of new enlistments in total, albeit with an upward trend peaking at 27% for the year 1801. More importantly, impressment targeted experienced sailors and craftsmen, not landsmen. The press gangs went round taverns and public houses in port cities precisely because those were where you’d find sailors between voyages, or specialists like carpenters, sailmakers, and ropers. The problem the Navy faced wasn’t that it needed more warm bodies, but rather that a decent chunk of the country’s experienced sailors (not unwisely) preferred to work for merchant shipping, and so impressment gave it a means of poaching them off the civilian labour market. And as noted, even then the remainder of the Navy’s personnel volunteered for the posts. I discuss this more in this answer condensed from some of the findings in J. Ross Dancy’s The Myth of the Press-Gang.

—– 341.2 —–2022-04-14 22:47:55+08:00:

More may of course be said, but you may wish to check out these past answers by /u/jschooltiger which discuss alcohol provision in the Royal Navy:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2aos9q/how_large_were_the_daily_rations_of_alcohol_in/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3amzc3/i_keep_reading_about_the_large_amounts_of_alcohol/\

342: Got this book a few months ago and was wondering what these two symbols on the cover mean., submitted on 2022-04-13 14:51:44+08:00.

—– 342.1 —–2022-04-13 16:14:27+08:00:

More specifically, it indicates a general state of long-term happiness in one’s life, rather than an emotional state.

343: Countries with coastal capitals, submitted on 2022-04-13 18:19:55+08:00.

—– 343.1 —–2022-04-13 23:47:00+08:00:

Do I comment on the fact that the decidedly coastal city of Taipei seems not to have been counted?

344: ‘Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein.’ So said Dick Rowe of Decca Records when he rejected the Beatles in 1962. We now know he was wrong, but would this have been a reasonable prediction in 1962? What sorts of ‘guitar groups’ were around, and were they facing a decline in popularity?, submitted on 2022-04-13 23:33:23+08:00.

—– 344.1 —–2022-04-14 12:44:14+08:00:

Thank you!

345: Britain we need answers and we need them now, submitted on 2022-04-14 10:51:15+08:00.

—– 345.1 —–2022-04-15 01:04:17+08:00:

So, a possible source of confusion is that American baked beans are served in a brown sugar sauce, while British baked beans are served in a tomato sauce. Because of that, it probably looks like a much weirder flavour combo to non-British people than it actually is, because the bean sauce is a bit more ketchupy than it may seem.

—– 345.2 —–2022-04-15 10:51:24+08:00:

Does it? It’s basically just three kinds of starch plus tomato sauce.

346: Ah yes, the “Negotiator”, submitted on 2022-04-14 23:33:48+08:00.

—– 346.1 —–2022-04-15 00:55:59+08:00:

Clip source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykLiHHepL9E

347: Chaos in Singapore streets when husband tries to chop his wife in the street, and is pushed back by witnesses around, submitted on 2022-04-15 16:57:34+08:00.

—– 347.1 —–2022-04-15 23:10:31+08:00:

‘M-m-m-my lord?’

348: Free for All Friday, 15 April 2022, submitted on 2022-04-15 19:00:09+08:00.

—– 348.1 —–2022-04-17 11:41:30+08:00:

Honestly, I’m not really sure keeping museum ships in water is a smart idea. People no doubt prefer it for aesthetic reasons and because it’s relatively easy to just park it somewhere and set up shop, but ships leak, wooden ships rot, and metal ships rust. This is true when ships are actively used and maintained but seems even worse when it’s just some museum operation with a ship sitting out in the elements for years/decades. It’s ultimately kicking a can down the road to the tune of millions of repairs.

I have a vague recollection – probably it’s a Drachinifel video where I heard it – that storing in concrete isn’t a brilliant solution either as the acids in the concrete will eat into the hull of any metal ships, which means you need a protective layer of material that hopefully will last a relatively long time or else the ship still ends up corroding. I think this is what had ended up happening to the Mikasa, which was laid in concrete back in the 1920s. Presumably someone concreting up a metal-hulled ship today would have a little more foresight.

349: Did the Manchu (Qing) empire know of its connection to the earlier Jurchen Jin dynasty? Did they ever harken back to the memory of that dynasty in their official propaganda? Did they ever want to take revenge from the Mongols for destroying the Jurchen Jin empire?, submitted on 2022-04-16 16:43:58+08:00.

—– 349.1 —–2022-04-16 20:24:52+08:00:

The Manchu Qing was absolutely cognisant of its Jurchen Jin predecessor, and did, to a certain extent, seek to portray itself as its successor. That said, it did so primarily in the period from 1616 to 1636, when the Qing was still the (Latter?) Jin, and the Manchus still the Jurchens.

While the exact rationale behind the naming of both the Latter Jin and Qing states has never actually been firmly established, it is almost certainly not coincidence that Nurgaci chose to refer to his state in 1616 as the ‘golden state’ (aisin gurun), just as Agūda had named his state the ‘golden state’ (anchun gurun), both of which would be rendered as Jin 金 in written Chinese. (Whether the term ‘Latter Jin’ (hou Jin in Mandarin) was used in any official capacity during the lifetime of the state itself, which would have made a claim to continuity explicit, is unfortunately uncertain.) But such emphases on continuity were not a consistent feature of Manchu historiography. In the first surviving version of the Manchu foundation myth from 1635, the Aisin Gioro clan’s progenitor, Bukūri Yongšon, who was almost certainly fictional, was said to have been immaculately conceived by the spirit maiden Fekulen, who commanded him to take the leadership of the Jurchens, implicitly in the time of Ming rule in China. Only in later versions of the myth was it made explicit that these Jurchens had previously been those under the Jin empire, but in early ones, that continuity was not stated in the text.

As Pamela Crossley notes, there are some interesting parallels between the fabricated story of Bukūri Yongšon and the actual history of the Gioro clan(s), which in turn highlight some of the complexities . In the myth, Bukūri Yongšon is an outsider to the Jurchens whose claim to power derives solely from his divine birth. And the official history of the Jin noted that the Gioro had originally been members of the Hurka tribe, and were thus considered non-Jurchens and ineligible to marry members of the ruling Wanggiya clan, only later being formally recognised as part of the Jurchen people. It was thus absolutely in the interest of Nurgaci and Hong Taiji to demonstrate some concrete point at which their clan was formally integrated into Jurchen society, which in the absence of a strong written record would have to be fabricated and thus led to the Bukūri Yongšon myth. But it was also in their interest, and especially that of Hong Taiji, to create some kind of identity that cohered around the Aisin Gioro in particular, which likely is what ultimately motivated Hong Taiji to rename his people the Manchus, and to subsequently retcon Jurchen history by claiming ‘Jurchen’ was a pejorative label to obscure the Manchus’ true name. Bukūri Yongšon serves as a somewhat paradoxical pivot point for the Qing narrative of Jurchen history: on the one hand, he ties the Aisin Gioro into a history of the ‘Manchu’ people that was explicitly said to stretch even further into the past; on the other, he serves as the genesis of Manchu history by being the ancestor to the imperial clan around whom the construction of Manchu identity would theoretically revolve going forward.

Bukūri Yongšon ends up as a useful illustration of the somewhat complicated relationship the Qing, throughout their existence, held to the Jin. The Jin could be looked to as an earlier phase when the Manchus’ ancestors held great power, and therefore the Qing could reasonably seek to tie itself into that history. Yet the rulers of the Qing were not directly descended from those of the Jin, and had an interest in creating a basis of rulership that centred specifically on themselves. Privately, the Qing did not see the Jin as having been some sort of perfect entity; indeed, it looked on the Jin at least partially as a failure. But it did so in a way that paralleled their assessment of the Mongol Yuan. When the Manchus began translating the Chinese dynastic histories into Manchu under Hong Taiji, the first three were to be of fellow ‘conquest dynasties’ – the Khitan Liao, the Jurchen Jin, and the Mongol Yuan. The Jurchen Jin, especially, was of interest to Hong Taiji, who explicitly recognised its antecedence to the state now under his rule. While not necessarily stated explicitly by Qing rulers, they may well have drawn the lessons of these states as follows: a state could not afford to break from the neo-Confucian patterns of rule to which the people of China were accustomed without fatally compromising their rule in China (the lesson of the Yuan), but neither could it allow the integrity of its core ruling group to falter, which would be equally compromising (the lesson of the Liao and the Jin). The Jurchen Jin, in the view of the Manchu Qing, had fallen to the Mongols because it had failed to maintain the integrity of the Jurchens and prevent acculturation to Han Chinese ways. It was to be emulated in some regards, but repudiated in others.

But despite understanding certain failings of the original Jin, the Latter Jin didn’t see it as being worthy of completely discarding, indeed far from it. In 1622, Nurgaci was supposed to have made a speech to his troops where he claimed that the great cities of China were not immutably Chinese, because the Jurchens had held many of them in the past. The Jin were not specifically named, but would of course have been the state under whom that had taken place. In 1629, during the only raid that Hong Taiji would ever lead into China proper, he stopped at Fangshan to make sacrifices at the tombs of the Jin founder Agūda and the fifth Jin emperor Shizong. Latterly, he would revise the Manchu histories to make explicit parallels between several aspects of Agūda and Nurgaci’s lives and careers: both having their lives saved by Han officials at one stage, both initially serving the interests of a Han-led empire before being forced to rebel, and both uniting and reorganising the Jurchens into a people capable of turning that rebellion into conquest. Despite their ultimate fall, the Jin still served as an example for the Manchus as a period of past glories.

However, the emphasis on Jin heritage under Nurgaci and Hong Taijin came to be softened as circumstances changed. Needing Ming non-interference in his wars with the Chakhar Mongols, in 1631 Hong Taiji, in a letter to the Ming emperor, declared that he was not aiming to replicate the circumstances of the Song, and that just as the Ming were not the Song, his state was not the old Jurchen Jin. In turn, he would proscribe the term ‘Jurchen’ in favour of ‘Manchu’ in 1635 and discard ‘Jin’ for ‘Qing’ the year after. Descent from the old Jurchens was, as stated, far from outright repudiated, but after 1636, the newly named Manchu Qing state was one that ceased to imply the restoration of the 12th-13th century Jin, but rather a new state whose ties to the Jin were chiefly historical and genealogical. This was further compounded when Lighdan Khan, the Chakhar khan who was the last serious claimant to the title of Yuan emperor, surrendered to Hong Taiji after being hemmed in by revolts from within and by attacks from the Jurchens. The two aforementioned renamings occurred in the wake of the absorption of the Chakhar khanate over the course of 1634-5, and Crossley rather pointedly suggests that the Qing ought to be seen less as a direct continuation of the Latter Jin, and more a union of Latter Jin with the Northern Yuan, inheriting not just the 12th century Jin legacy, but also that of the Mongol Empire. From here on out, the Jin would move to a position of lesser importance as Qing rulers worked to build a more uniquely Qing-specific ruling ideology, with distinct variations for Manchus, Mongols, Han, and latterly Tibetans and Muslims.

We have focussed so far on the Qing self-image as presented to the Manchus, but for the Han Chinese, however, the Jin were less of an ideal object to harken back to. For instance, the Yongzheng Emperor, in his dayi juemi lu, a propaganda text attempting to defend the Manchus against charges of ethnic favouritism through claiming that the Manchus had been successfully acculturated to Han ways, only mentioned the Jin in passing when discussing major periods of disunity between northern and southern China. In this, he merely discussed the existence of mutual, ethnically charged animosity between northerners and southerners in these periods as being of equivalent nature, and did not attempt to provide a specific defence of the Jin as a state. As noted, the Qing had, even to the Manchus, stopped portraying itself as a direct resumption of the Jin as opposed to its own state, so within China there was little motive to directly associate the Qing with a period widely perceived as one of unjust barbarian dominion.

Sources and Further Reading

  • Pamela Kyle Crossley, A Translucent Mirror (1999)
  • Mark C. Elliott, The Manchu Way (2001)
  • Pamela Kyle Crossley, ‘Dayi juemi lu 大義覺迷錄 and the Lost Yongzheng Philosophy of Identity’ (2012)
  • Pamela Kyle Crossley, ‘An Introduction to the Qing Foundation Myth’ (1995)

—– 349.2 —–2022-04-16 21:01:44+08:00:

The only good answer to that question is we do not know. It is possible that it was in some way derived from the name of Manjusri, the bodhisattva of wisdom, which might align with the greater exposure of Hong Taiji to Tibetan Buddhism following the integration of the surrendered Chakhar khanate. But we also see the term ‘Manchu’ attested as early as 1605 or thereabouts if I recall correctly, so it may well have been some kind of existing identification that Hong Taiji seized on when he decided to actively rework Jurchen identity, with the similarity to Manjusri being pure coincidence.

—– 349.3 —–2022-04-16 22:44:21+08:00:

The Manchu language has always been a bit of an on-and-off amateur interest of mine so I really can’t claim a very strong grasp of the actual linguistics. That said, vernacular Manchu has never died out entirely, as there have been a few scattered pockets of first language speakers. This includes the Sibe exclave in Xinjiang, who do not consider themselves Manchus or their language to be Manchu, but where their language is nevertheless extremely proximate to the ‘standard’ Manchu of the Qing period. Sibe has thus been a particularly significant tool for linguists in reconstructing spoken Manchu, in conjunction with the few remaining first language speakers of ‘standard’ Manchu in ‘Manchuria’ proper.

I don’t really know what Manchu as taught in China is like, but in general overseas Manchu instruction centres mainly on clerical written Manchu for the student of history rather than Manchu as a spoken language. That said, given the nicheness of Manchu there is some limited focus on surviving modern forms such as Sibe and the admittedly small corpus of 20th century Manchu-language texts in more rounded Manchu programmes and resources, such as Gertraude Roth Li’s textbook.

—– 349.4 —–2022-06-11 12:28:34+08:00:

This is some months on so perhaps you may want to ask a new top-level for a more in-depth answer, but the sort of brief answer to this, going by Mark Elliott’s argument, is that the cultural dimension of Manchuness became considerably less important over the course of the eighteenth century. While cultural difference remained, there came to be less investment in its deliberate reification, with Manchuness instead being reinforced around the institutions of the Banner system and affiliation within it. The Qing state didn’t cease to have Manchu-language education, and the Qianlong Emperor at least continued to press for the maintenance of an idealised package of cultural behaviours, but post-Qianlong rulers (besides Cixi) appear to have been largely apathetic to such matters.

That said, I’d argue that the linguistic decline of Manchu was not homogeneous, in that we ought to consider the relative isolation of provincial garrisons, in which relatively small numbers of Banner people lived in sequestered quarters of majority-Han cities. Language use in such contexts naturally drifted towards Sinitic languages, although noticeably with a strong preference for court Mandarin over local languages, presumably due to the Banners’ much closer integration in the running of the state. Beijing, however, had a much larger permanent Banner population in an established sector of the city, and Manchu use there seems to have gone on much longer and more consistently. This would only have widened during and after the Taiping War, which saw a considerable inward turn by the court towards strengthening the metropolitan Banner population and the imperial princes, while essentially cutting investment (both economic and ideological) in the provincial garrisons.

350: For Kanata’s birthday on 22/4, Hong Kong fans have rented an outdoors advertisement screen to play a fan-made video for her! Let’s all support our PP tenshi while we wait for her to return from the hiatus., submitted on 2022-04-16 20:51:59+08:00.

—– 350.1 —–2022-04-17 00:32:56+08:00:

Really outdoing yourselves as of late; whoever might be next?

351: Hololive INA nutshell, submitted on 2022-04-17 12:44:50+08:00.

—– 351.1 —–2022-04-18 19:52:23+08:00:

No, IRyS got him in the end – timestamp of the winning run.

文章版权归原作者所有。
二维码分享本站