加拿大土著民族文化的人类学反思

加拿大是一个多民族、多文化的国家,土著文化在加拿大多元文化中占有十分重要的地位.本文在已有研究成果的基础上,对人类学关于土著文化的解释进行了反思.土著文化是土著民族生存与发展的根基,从时间上看文化不是单线进化的,土著文化不是西方文化的过去;从空间上讲,文化不是由中心向四周扩散的,加拿大土著文化没有因为西方文化的传播而消失,而是在与其他民族的交往中不断地调适和重构.世界上各个民族的文化只有类型上差异,而没有水平上的高低之分.加拿大的多元文化政策不仅尊重和重视土著文化的价值与作用,还提高土著民族的文化自觉意识和主体自治能力.     

台湾阿美族的"织树为布"工艺及其文化史意义

无纺树皮文化起源、发展的中心在华南、东南亚至太平洋群岛,是百越先民和南岛语族共同的文化遗产。亚太土著民族志丰富的土著文化遗存,不仅为认识人类服饰全史提供了新的视角,而且为认识华南、东南亚、太平洋土著民族史及文化史,提供了不可多得的实证资料。亚太土著地带的树皮布文化圈,突显了"百越—南岛"古今文化的源流及其共同体性质。     

澳门华人与中华文化

澳门华人是中华民族的重要组成部分。澳门华人人口主要随澳门经济、政治地位的变化而变化 ,其构成呈现出静态土著起源和动态国内外华人移民相结合的社会特征。具有悠久历史传统的中华文化根植于澳门华人社会生活的各个基本领域 ,成为整合当地华人社会和维系其族群认同的重要力量。澳门华人在数千年的社会历史发展过程中与国内其他族群一起创造、保存、延续和发展了中华文化。     

“北方计划”下的加拿大魁北克土著民族发展

在加拿大魁北克的语境中,土著民族的发展越来越与全省的经济发展联系在一起.近年来对北方地区资源的开发利用更是从不同程度影响着土著民族的教育、生活、文化和社会发展.魁北克政府需要扩大与相关土著民族的协商,落实资金,落实社会性项目,切实提高土著民族生活水平.推出支持土著民族创业的配套措施,在北方计划的融资过程中增加对土著民族中小企业的投资和贷款,促进土著民族真正参与到经济开发当中,把自身的现代化过程融入经济开发的过程中.而土著民族也需要在经济开发过程中积极参与教育培训,更好地参与经济开发和分享经济成果.土著民族一方面需要打破外部世界对其经济落后、拘泥于渔猎活动的刻板印象,也需要在具备更高教育水平的基础上,寻找适合自身的发展路径,在保护民族文化的同时,融入魁北克经济和加拿大经济.     

关于岭南与广府文化形成的讨论

对岭南文化形成的探讨,应从既包括儒家学术文化,也包括土著民俗文化的大文化观出发.岭南原始文化出现雏形当于母系氏族社会;但渐趋成熟则在夏商周,全面确立在春秋战国时,比中原稍晚.秦统一中国后,岭南土著民族文化出现雏形;赵佗主南越国,岭南汉族地域文化出现雏形.此后,随着中原文化不断向岭南传播,岭南汉族地域文化与土著民族文化交替演进,至唐代以后岭南文化渐趋成熟,明代全面确立.     

扶起倾斜的天平:加拿大发展土著民族高等教育的政策研究

加拿大的土著民族由印第安、因纽特和梅帝人构成,他们在历史上长期饱受战争和疾病的困扰,土著儿童更是从19世纪末开始遭受了长达半个多世纪的寄宿教育制度的文化摧残,土著人口的整体教育水平薄弱.加拿大政府在20世纪中期开始发展土著高等教育时面临着三大困境,即土著人的自我迷失、土著学生的求学意愿不足和土著地区的地理环境挑战,最终政府通过设立社区学院、进行招生倾斜和提供经济资助等三管齐下的方式推动了土著民族地区的高等教育发展,为其他国家提供了参考范例.     

《藏族法律文化研究》简介

藏族法律文化体现了藏族社会、藏民族数千年来为了实现生存发展而创造的特殊的社会秩序,从而对社会进行有目的调节和控制。离开藏族的历史文化,以及孕育这一文     

澳大利亚的多元文化主义政策

一、澳大利亚文化政策的变迁早在欧洲人到来之前 ,澳大利亚这片广袤土地上的主人是土著民族。这些土著民族的先民 ( 4万年前的第四纪冰河时期乘独木舟从亚洲来到澳大利亚 )远在史前时代就已经创造了他们的独特文化。欧洲人的到来改变了澳大利亚的民族与文化构成 ,也打断了土著民族自由发展的历史。 1 788年英国的库克船长在悉尼湾登陆 ,西方文化与土著文化之间的矛盾就开始在澳大利亚的历史舞台上上演。二战后 ,随着大量外来移民的涌入 ,澳大利亚的文化冲突就由两种文化间的问题逐渐成为多元文化间的问题 ,从而衍生出澳大利亚文化政策的变迁…     

黄帝文化及其在华夏族形成中的历史作用

黄帝作为华夏民族最远古的先祖,是中华民族的象征,黄帝文化在后世几千年里广泛影响政治、经济、文化、生活、宗教等方方面面,后被《史记》确立为至高无上的华夏始祖,黄帝文化数千年来对华夏族的形成、发展和推动、凝聚起着至关重要的作用。本文重点分析了黄帝文化形成的历史原因及其在华夏族形成中的历史作用。     

土著人民权利的国际保护——兼评《联合国土著人民权利宣言》

土著人民的权利保护问题由来已久,人们一直在探寻保护土著人民的优惠政策和特殊法律。自上个世纪八十年代以来,国际社会在土著人民权利保护方面取得了较大的成就。譬如,土著人民不仅仅享有人类最基本的平等权、自由权、发展权等,还享有涉及教育、语言、文化、就业、土地、自然资源、政治权利、宗教权利、信仰、司法平等、保护传统经济和生活方式、跨国界权、参与权、发展权和高度自治权等多方面权利。2007年出台的《联合国土著人民权利宣言》,正是国际社会对土著人民权利进行保护的集大成者。这一国际法律文件的出台始末虽然反映了绝大多数国家对土著人民权利进行保护的决心,但其执行情况依然不容乐观。     

加拿大土著同化教育的兴衰——以布鲁奎尔斯印第安寄宿制学校为例

历史上,开办寄宿制学校是加拿大政府对土著人实施同化教育的途径之一。布鲁奎尔斯印第安寄宿制学校的历史变迁为了解加拿大土著教育的发展历程提供了一个窗口。透过寄宿制学校的生活状况及联邦政府对土著教育采取同化、隔离、融合与自主的政策变化历程可以一睹加拿大土著寄宿制学校的兴衰。其衰落标志着教会与政府联合实施的同化教育的失败。随后,土著人重新掌控教育权,土著教育与西方教育相结合的模式既使土著年青一代适应了现代社会的需求,也确保了土著民族的价值观、认同感、语言及传统文化得以保留与传承。     

弗雷泽与南岛语族神话研究

在中国,弗雷泽的人类学著作<金枝>一书影响很大,却少有人去注意弗雷泽的另两部著作--1918年出版的<旧约中的民俗>与1930年出版的<火种起源神话>.前一部书中一个章节讨论洪水神话,包括了世界各地的洪水神话资料,也包括台湾原住民的洪水神话;而后者则举了台湾阿里山邹族的火种神话例子.本文希望借由弗雷泽这两部著作,讨论这位人类学家对南岛语族神话的调查与贡献.     

拂去历史尘埃,重现始祖灵光——“壮族始祖布洛陀”编造说辩正

布洛陀是珠江流域原住民族的人文始祖。桂西和滇南一带壮族民间一直流传着布洛陀开天辟地、创造万物、开创农耕、安排秩序、规范道德、构建和谐的神话传说,民间麽公一直传唱赞颂布洛陀历史功绩的经文;一直传承着始祖布洛陀崇拜信仰及祭祀习俗。近10年来,壮学研究者对壮族民间的布洛陀信仰、经文和祭祀活动进行调查和研究,对民间流传的布洛陀神话、经诗和布洛陀习俗进行梳理,诠释其中的文化内涵,阐明其信仰的性质、定位与演变,揭示了历史上壮族及其先民对于始祖布洛陀信仰及其文化的面貌。从理论和实践上辨正互联网上所谓的始祖布洛陀编造说之谬论。     

略论纳西族饮食习俗的文化意蕴

本文从东巴古籍记载的饮食习俗和当代的延续、饮食禁忌与民间信仰的关系、食品祭祀和相关的水土观念、纳西族饮食中的民族文化融合以及饮食烹饪习俗中的社会性别和长幼观念五个方面探讨了纳西族饮食习俗的文化意蕴.纳西族的饮食文化源远流长,随着社会的变迁和发展,纳西族的饮食文化也在不断地发生着较大的变迁.其从古相沿的饮食文化,吸收了其他民族的饮食文化精华,进行了本土化改造和创新,得到了丰富和发展.     

Can't hold us back! Hip-hop and the racial motility of aboriginal bodies in urban spaces

Urban centers across Canada are partitioned by racial geographies that circumvent and circumscribe the movements of aboriginal bodies. This article examines how aboriginal youth experience and engage these racisms that organize Canadian social spaces. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork undertaken at a drop-in recreational centre in the inner city of Edmonton, Alberta, it documents the different ways in which indigenous youth employ hip-hop as a means to contest their subjection to these immobilizing racisms. First, it shows how these youth employ hip-hop as a technology of self-transformation through which they recreate their selves as meaningful, efficacious political actors capable of disrupting their relegation to criminogenic places. Second, it documents how the practice of a distinctly indigenous hip-hop allows these youth to innovate an aesthetic space disruptive of the historicist racisms that otherwise subject aboriginality to anachronistic spaces. Finally, this article shows that, by performing a hybridized, distinctly indigenous breakdance, these practitioners of hip-hop dramatize the physical and cultural motility of aboriginal bodies.     

中国四大传统文化说

学术界一直认为中国有三大传统文化:儒家文化、释家文化、道家文化,笔者认为中国历史上有四大传统文化,即除了以上三大传统文化之外,还有帝王文化。帝王文化的思想源流是春秋战国时期的法家,自晋之后是历代皇帝的独断思想。帝王文化即有自己的社会基础、自己的文化典籍、自己的文化符号和自己的文化结构。当然,帝王文化和儒家文化、释家文化、道家文化进行了充分的融合,互相汲取,从而形成了中国特有的多元文化。帝王文化对其他文化进行了两千多年的整合,形成了中国特有的专制文化传统。     

回族武术与民间体育

武术是我国的文化瑰宝 ,又称武艺或国术。是我国各族劳动人民在长期的社会实践中不断创造积累和丰富发展起来的宝贵文化遗产。回族人民历来喜爱体育活动 ,特别是崇尚武术成为世代相传的民族传统。回族武术的内容丰富 ,门派繁多 ,包括各种拳术、器械、对练 ,既有中华武术的传统项目 ,也有富有独特风格的本民族项目。除武术外 ,回族具有民族特色的群众体育 (民间体育 )活动十分活跃、丰富     

抗战时期《新华日报》关于回族报道的研究

抗战时期《新华日报》自创办起就始终坚持中国共产党的领导,以团结抗战作为工作的出发点,在全民族抗战中发挥了巨大的作用。《新华日报》对广大国统区回族民众的爱国行为展开积极报道,称赞回族同胞参与抗战救国的行为,还对陕甘宁边区的回族民众进行了报道,展现了边区回族的崭新风貌。通过研究抗战时期《新华日报》对回族的报道,有利于我们全面认识回族的抗战贡献以及中共中央为维护全民族抗战所作的不懈努力。     

"嚼酒"民俗初探

"嚼酒"是人类利用唾液发酵的原理来做酒,是最原始的做酒法之一.在中国历史记载中,只有魏晋南北朝时的勿吉族和自明代始台湾岛的原住民使用这种独特的造酒术.本文在材料分析的基础上,探讨"嚼酒"民俗的产生、发展至湮灭的过程.     

从民族志物品收集到东南海洋系文化构建——林惠祥先生收藏与展示实践（1929-1958）

Since the 1980s, critical museum studies have interpreted the‘collecting and exhibi-ting activities’ of a museum as both practical activ-ities as well as a persistent scientific and socio-cul-tural process, and have explored the natures of museum, including the logic and strategy behind these practices. Through reviewing Lin Huixiang ’s collecting and exhibiting practices ( 1929 to 1958 ) , this article aims to explore internal rela-tionships between ( i ) museum practices and ( ii ) the practitioner, all under a particular episteme. This article moreover presents the genealogy of Lin Huixiang ’s academic ideas, museum practices, and‘Southeastern-oceanic-cultural ’ research pro-jects;it covers his earlier activities of ethnographic object collecting and exhibiting practices all the way to the construction of the‘Southeastern-ocean-ic-culture-system ’ within the framework of the‘New Theory of Evolution’ . Seen from a critical perspective, a museum is not a neutral and objective institution but a space full of power and discussion. In addition, in our modern times Museums have become a controver-sial place: the museum’s nature has changed from a‘palace of knowledge’ to a representation-system composed of objects. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill uses the terms“effective history” and“episteme” to ex-amine the history of a museum, and divides it into three stages: ( i ) the irrational cabinet, ( ii ) a classical episteme, and ( iii) a modern episteme. Different epistemes directly influence the collecting and exhibiting practices. Susan Pearce points out that collecting activities express and shape the rela-tionship between the human and material worlds. She distinguishes between “gathering”, “hoard-ing”, and “collecting” and she emphasizes that the term “collecting” points to products of imagi-nation. This imagination metaphorically creates meanings by arrangement and it displays the known world. Therefore, the activity of collecting and ex-hibiting is always practiced under a particular epis-teme;in addition political standpoints, value judg-ments, and academic interests are involved when interpreting the meanings of the objects and the constructing the knowledge order. This article moreover conducts a systematic exploration of Lin Huixiang’s collecting and exhibi-ting practices as well as the genealogy of his aca-demic ideas. All is examined from three aspects:( i) ethnicity, nation, and ethnographic object col-lecting practices; ( ii ) the intellectual, display practices and Museum of Anthropology; ( iii ) the New Theory of Evolution and the establishment of the Southeastern-oceanic-culture-system. The first section of “ethnicity, nation, and ethnographic object collecting practices”focuses on Lin Huixiang’s collecting practices from 1929 until the end of the Second World War. He started to collect aboriginal human objects in Taiwan since 1929 and ethnographical objects in the South Sea since 1937 . As most anthropologists from that area and period, Lin Huixiang’s collecting activities were influenced by patriotism, the establishment of a Chinese anthropology, and by personal academic interests. Chinese anthropologists during the 1920s to 1940s, including Lin Huixiang, believed that nationalism and the ‘Great Harmony ’ would lead to Chinese independence and civilization. And his practices had real significance for China in war-time. On the one hand, these aboriginal objects from Taiwan and the South Sea were regarded as material evidence of an extant“barbarian” culture;this was helpful in understanding that the‘barbari-an’ culture was basically same as that of ours, which then would reduce our ethnic prejudice a-gainst the ‘barbarian’ . On the other hand, these objects also became a means for the public to un-derstand Taiwan, the colony of Japan; in fact, these aboriginal objects even became a symbol of anti-colonialism and aroused the people’s patriot-ism. The second part of “the intelluctual, display practices and Museum of Anthropology” turns to Lin Huixiang’s ideas about the enlightment through a museum and its exhibitions. Lin Huixiang indeed emphasized the educational function of exhibitions and the museum. He displayed his collections to the public, held several exhibitions starting in 1929 , donated all his collections to Xiamen Uni-versity in 1951 , and advocated the establishment of the Museum of Anthropology. Lin Huixiang pointed out that museums were educational institu-tions meant to spread knowledge, and he used specimens, charts, and models to educate the pub-lic. As an anthropologist, Lin Huixiang understood the meaning of an ethnographical museum as an in-strument for teaching, research, and social educa-tion. By reviewing Lin Huixiang’s ‘collecting and exhibiting practices ’ during the period 1929 -1958 , we can clearly come to understand his aca-demic ideas about the discipline of anthropology and about the Southeastern-regional culture. The exhibitions in the Museum of Anthropology of Xia-men University represent his endeavor to construct the Southeastern-oceanic-culture-system within the framework of the New Theory of Evolution. He showed archaeological specimens from the prehis-toric period to the historical period, as well as eth-nographical objects of China’s Southeastern region and Taiwan region, Indonesia, Singapore, India, and of Burma. All objects displayed in exhibitions were used to illustrate the rule of evolution, espe-cially the ethnographic objects that evidenced the primitiveness of human culture; this is helpful to us when exploring the origins of cultures. At the same time, Lin Huixiang compared the cultures of Northern China and Southeastern China, and iden-tified cultural traits specific to the Southeastern ar-ea, aiming to show cultural similarities among China’s Southeastern region and the Taiwan region, and Southeast Asia, which he called the“South-eastern-oceanic-culture-system”.