查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 翁斯蒂〈優勝美地山谷與蝴蝶百合大樹〉中之民族主義、環境保存主張與帝國主義
- 馬克思主義與民族主義的論證:是一種力量或兩種力量?
- 中國民族主義.帝國主義.臺灣獨立運動--評三本90年代中國出版的「臺獨研究」專書
- 保守主義的源流與特徵
- 殖民主義與民族主義之互動--以愛爾蘭、朝鮮半島及臺灣地區為基礎之比較
- 在帝國主義與經濟民族主義之間--評介[Sherman Cochran著,樊書華、程麟蓀譯]《中國的大企業--煙草工業中的中外競爭(1890~1930)》
- Book Review: Chihyun Chang, «Government, Imperialism and Nationalism in China: The Maritime Customs Service and Its Chinese Staff» (London: Routledge, 2013)
- 近代中國「民族主義」一詞的興起與演變--以1901至1935年為限
- 民族主義與“非基督教運動”(1922-1927):以黨派關係為中心的考察
- The "Invention" of National Park in America: The American Wilderness, Nationalism, and Imperialism
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 翁斯蒂〈優勝美地山谷與蝴蝶百合大樹〉中之民族主義、環境保存主張與帝國主義=Nationalism, Environmental Advocacy, and Imperialism in Frederick Law Olmsted's “The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees” |
---|---|
作 者 | 盧莉茹; | 書刊名 | 人文社會學報. 國立臺中技術學院 |
卷 期 | 5 民95.12 |
頁 次 | 頁93+95-101+103 |
分類號 | 992.38 |
關鍵詞 | 翁斯蒂; 優勝美地山谷與蝴蝶百合大樹; 國家公園論述; 民族主義; 環境保存主張; 帝國主義; Frederick Law Olmsted; The Yosemite valley and the mariposa big trees; National park discourse; Environmental advocacy; Nationalism; Imperialism; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 一八六五年 (美國南北戰爭開始的那一年),被喻為「國家公園之祖父」的翁斯蒂 (Frederic Law Olmsted, 1822-1903) 發表了一篇名為〈優勝美地山谷與蝴蝶百合大樹〉 ("The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees") 的文章。此文提倡以設立國家公園之形式來保存美國境內的原始荒野環境。翁斯蒂書寫此文之目的一方面是想藉由荒野保存來彌補、撫平南北戰爭所帶來的國族分裂與認同危機,另一方面則是想藉由設立國家公園來提昇文明人之身心健康與教化層次。由於翁斯蒂在此文中不時大聲疾呼荒野保存之必要性,因此批評家們一致高度肯定翁斯蒂,認為他是荒野生態保存運動的先知。 此文不同於上述批評家們之解讀。本文擬重新審視翁斯蒂國家公園論述 (the discourse of national park) 中的民族主義、環境保存主張、與帝國主義之議題,分析翁斯蒂如何以荒野保存之名,行漠視美國境內的「野蠻人」之人權 (the rights of the Indians) 及荒野自然的權利 (the rights of wild nature) 之實。本文欲指出〈優勝美地山谷與蝴蝶百合大樹〉一文看似旨在保存美國原始荒野,但實際上則是對於美國境內之「野蠻人」及荒野自然的一種論述上的帝國主義宰制與征服。 |
英文摘要 | For the nineteenth-century Americans, "national park" was a brand-new idea. Observing the rapid destruction of the American wilderness, Frederick Law Olmsted (1822-1903) composed an essay entitled "The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees" in 1865; in this essay, he advocated the preservation of America's wild scenery in the form of national parks. In short, it is Olmsted who took a leading role in formulating and instituting the idea of national park. Consequently, readers of Olmsted's "The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees" immediately posit it into the niche of classic environmental "manifesto" in early American literature, and most critics maintained that Olmsted was a prophet of the wilderness preservation movement. In Law Olmsted" (1996), Anne Whiston Spirn asserted that Olmsted "was a pivotal figure in the formative years of the conservation movement" (92). In Frederick Law Olmsted and the American Environmental Tradition (1972), Albert Fein claimed that Olmsted was America's "most comprehensive environmental planner and designer, who contributed to the development of. . . a national park system" (3). In this paper, I still consider Olmsted is rightly praised as a "prophet" of the national park movement; however, I think Olmsted's "The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees" is not really concerned about the rights of the "savagemen" and the rights of wild nature at all. In this article, I wish to explore the intricate relations of environmentalism, nationalism and imperialism in Olmsted's "The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees." In the following section of this essay, I will firstly discuss the historical background of Olmsted's "The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees"; then I shall explore the issue of cultural nationalism in Olmsted's national park discourse. Next, I will analyze Olmsted's environmental advocacy in "The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Trees," and then I will examine the issue of imperialism in Olmsted's national park discourse. Finally, I shall make a conclusion in the last part of this paper. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。