Oh, Mr. Green, Mr. Green I have that video game. I like to play as the Assyrians!

老師!老師! 我有那套電玩遊戲(文明帝國) 我喜歡玩亞述文明!

Yeah, Me From The Past. It was a video game. In fact, that is still is a video game; they've continued to update it.

是阿,過去的我, 那是套電玩遊戲, 事實上現在也還是，他們持續更新到現在，

But, you know, like actual civilization, its best days are probably behind it.

但是,就像真實世界中的文明,最好的時光大概都來得比較晚

So those you watched our first series will remember that civilization is a complicated and controversial concept.

如果看過我們第一個系列的話,你應該還記得「文明」是一個複雜且具爭議性的概念

Like to describe an individual or a group as civilized is to give them a privileged status that they maybe haven't earned

例如，描述一個個體或群體為文明的，是給予一個他們可能還未贏得的特殊地位，

while to call someone uncivilized is an insult, right?

而稱呼別人不文明是種侮辱吧?

And according to the usual mythology about civilizations, there are these uncivilized barbarians often from the hills

根據神學中對於文明的概念,不文明的野蠻人大多來自丘陵、

or the forest or the steppe, and they realize the benefits of settled agriculture

或森林, 草原, 而他們了解到定居農業的好處，

and give up their barbaric ways to settle in the valleys, eventually assimilating into civilized society.

放棄他們野蠻的生活方式移居到山谷, 最終被同化成文明社會

That's a really neatly packaged story, right? Like people all around the world come to the same realization

這是不是個包裝精美的故事? 似乎世界各地的人都有同樣的領悟

and they all make progress and become civilized, but what if it's not actually true?

所以他們都取得進步且文明化了，但如果這個說法並不是真的呢?

So today a little something for the anarchist historians among you. We're going to look at

今天有點小東西要給你們之中的無政府主義史學家。我們來看看

The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia by James Scott.

James Scott的著作《不被統治的藝術-高地東南亞一段無政府主義的歷史》

Scott argues that our view of hill people as primitive, tribal barbarians has it all wrong,

Scott 主張，一般人認為山地居民為原始的部落野蠻人的觀點，是全然錯誤的

and he calls into question much of what we assume about civilization.

他針對許多我們當前對文明的假設提出質疑。

So as you know, here at Crash Course History we like to approach history from many different perspectives

如同你所知的，在Crash Course的歷史課，我們喜歡從多元的觀點切入歷史，

because history isn't just about what happened, it's also about how we think about what happened.

因為歷史不只關乎發生過什麼事，也關乎我們如何思考已發生過的事。

So here you go anarchists, we are finally going to address your burning suspicion that civilization does not actually require a state.

所以，無政府主義者們，我們終於要談你們的強烈質疑，文明化並不需要以國家統治為背景

So long time Crash Course usual remember that many of the earlier civilizations were founded in river valleys,

Crash Course長久以來一直提醒，許多早期的文明都發源於河谷地區，

probably because the rivers brought water and made agriculture easier and more predictable.

多半因為河流帶來水源，使農耕變得容易而可預期

You know, you got the big 3: ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley civilization- all near river valleys.

三大文明:古埃及、美索不達米亞文明(兩河流域)、印度河文明都靠近河谷地區，

In fact, one of them is named after the Indus River, and because the land was so fertile for agriculture,

事實上，其中之一還是以河流命名，因為土地肥沃有利於農業，

you could finally have large, concentrated populations because there was a food surplus.

最終產生大規模、高密度集中的人口，由於糧食過剩的緣故。

Everything that we associate with civilization : from the idea that different people can have different jobs to like this video camera, all a result of food surplus.

任何讓我們聯想到文明的事 :人們可以從事不同工作、此影片， 都是糧食過剩的結果

Because if some people couldn't create enough food for all people, then, like, all people would be very focused on getting food.

因為，如果小部分的人不能生產足夠的食物供給所有人，那所有的人力將會集中在取得食物上

Having a food surplus was a huge change compared to like the first 100,000 years of humanity when everyone was a hunter-gatherer.

相較之下，糧食過剩是巨大的改變，人類的第一個十萬年的時候人人都還在從事漁獵

Food surplus led to population growth and population concentration

糧食過剩所引發的人口成長和人口集中，

which led to states and what we tend to call civilizations

造就了國家和我們常說的文明

which are characterized by good things like writing and arts and grocery stores,

文明以一些美好的事物為特徵，像是文字，藝術和食品雜貨店，

so that's the traditional narrative, but I'm not sure that it's the whole story. Let's go the Thought Bubble.

以上是對文明的傳統敘述，但我不確定那是事情的全貌。我們來看看思想泡泡

Now we might equate civilization with high culture, but historically it's probably more accurate to equate it with state control.

現在我們可能將文明與文化劃上等號，但以歷史角度來說，文明等同於國家統治比較正確

Like The Han Chinese who were a pretty successful civilizing empire back in the day, wrote of barbarians as people who were beyond state control.

像是中國漢族，在當時為相當成功的文明帝國，記載著胡人是國家管轄以外的人們

Some of these so-called barbarians were pastoral nomads whose raiding posed a genuine threat to the Chinese,

這些胡人之中有些是游牧民族，襲擊中國構成了實質的威脅，

but others were people who lived in the hills.

但其它的是指住在山裡的人們

So the opposition of civilized agricultural societies living in the valleys and barbarian hill people is as old as, you know, like, the hills.

所以，住在河谷的文明農業社會與野蠻山地居民之間的對抗，和這些丘陵一樣年代久遠

And one of the earliest and most famous examples of the town vs. country debate is the Epic of Gilgamesh

一個最古老並且最有名的鄉村對抗城市的例子，辯證於《吉爾伽美什史詩》

where Enkidu, the wild man from the hills, goes to town, spends seven days with a prostitute,

Enkidu是從山裡來的野蠻人，他來到城鎮裡，和一個妓女廝混了七天

joins civilization and becomes Gilgamesh's best friend.

融入文明社會並且成為吉爾伽美什的親密好友

In Southeast Asia, the story that hill people were dazzled by civilization and joined up circulated as well.

在東南亞，山地居民對文明感到驚異讚歎不已而加入文明社會的故事也流傳著

Here, though, the civilizing force was the reading of religious or philosophical texts.

雖然這些故事裡，文明教化是宗教讀物或哲學教科書之內容

But more important than either access to Classical age texts, or civilizing experiences in the city,

但比起接觸古典時代教科書或在城市裡體驗文明，更重要的是，

was that civilizations were based on settled agriculture and were associated with states.

文明是根基於人類定居農業興起，輔以國家統治的概念

In a way, it can be argued that without a state, there's no such thing as a barbarian.

就某種程度來說，可以主張沒有國家的話，就沒有蠻族

But because we live in states, we tend to think that they are A) Necessary B) Timeless, and C) overall a pretty good thing,

但因為我們住在國境內，我們容易認為國家是 A)必然的 B) 永恆的 C)總體而言相當棒的事物

and almost all civilizations are associated with states, like ancient Egypt, or China in the remote past or France if you're into Western civilization.

而幾乎所有文明都伴隨著國家，像是古埃及，遠古的中國，或法國，如果你對西方文化有興趣的話

Thanks Thought Bubble. I mean it's telling that the Mongols were arguably the greatest conquerors of the premodern world,

謝了思想泡泡。這說明了蒙古在近代之前，可以說是世界上最強大的征服者，

but we usually don't call them a civilization. They weren't just agriculture-y and state-like enough.

但我們通常不稱呼他們為文明，他們不夠農業化，也不太像是一個國家

Although of course the Mongols being the Mongols, there is an exception to the rule:

雖然蒙古族一直處於很蒙古式的狀態，但有一個例外狀況

the Mongols DID settle in a recognizable state in Yuan China. Ughhh, history, even your exceptions have exceptions.

蒙古族確實曾定居過，在中國元朝時是一個被認可的國家。歷史阿，即使是你的例外中也還有例外

So when we talk about states, we need to remember that it's pretty common for the creation of states to involve some form of coercion

當我們談到歷史的時候，須記得國家的建立涉及某種形式的強制性是很普遍的事，

like in ancient, and sometimes, not ancient societies. The power of the state rested primarily on two things - the army and taxes.

像是古代，或者較後來的社會時候有時候也是。國家的力量主要仰賴兩件事:軍事力量和稅收。

And if you want to create an army or raise taxes, or both,

如果要設立軍隊，或徵稅，或者兩者皆要

it's helpful to have a sedentary population that spends most of its time producing food because food is very valuable to a state.

擁有定居人口以貢獻大量時間生產糧食是非常有幫助，因為糧食對國家而言非常珍貴

I mean, while gold and palaces are beautiful, you can't feed them to your army.

也就是說，儘管黃金和宮殿非常漂亮，但你不能拿來餵飽你的軍隊

Anyway, agricultural production and the creation of states are deeply intertwined.

無論如何，農業生產和國家建立是密切相關的

Agricultural surplus and control over it leads to other aspects of civilization like property rights and patriarchy.

糧食過剩和其管理問題，造就了文明的其它面向，像是財產所有權和父權制

Well, I guess it doesn't have to be the patriarchy, but it usually has.

我想文明社會沒有必然是父權制，但他通常如此

So while states rely on the exploitation of agricultural labour and the subjugation of their citizens,

國家仰賴剝削農業勞力以及鎮壓來征服人民，

then the civilization narratives that barbarians were drawn to civilizations by their obvious superiority is kind of problematic.

那麼，文明記載著野蠻人被明顯具有優勢的文明吸引，是相當有問題的，

Because there's a big downside to all that state control and taxes and conscription and servitude.

因為在那樣的國家控制、徵兵制度和奴役狀態之下有著很大的負面影響，

And this leads us to James Scott's big idea

而這引導我們來到了James Scott 的高見

that rather than primitive hill tribes being attracted to the glamour and stability of valley settlements,

並不是原始山地部族被河谷定居文明的魅力和安定生活吸引，

hill cultures are formed by people running away from civilization; basically, Scott argues that people flee to the hills

山地文明是人們逃離文明社會所形成的，基本上，Scott 主張人們出逃到山裡，

because it makes it hard for states to find and conquer them. The Arab historian, Ibn Khaldun remarked that

因為這樣一來，國家難找到他們且征服他們。阿拉伯史學家 Ibn Khaldun 評論表示 :

Arabs can gain control over flat territory and do not pursue tribes that hide in the mountains.

阿拉伯人掌控平坦的疆域，但不追捕躲在山裡的部族們。

Then you have the Franco-Hungarian military officer, Baron de Tott, poetically exclaiming that "The steepest places have always been the asylum of liberty",

法匈盟軍軍官Baron de Tott如詩地感嘆「最陡峭的地方始終是自由的庇護所」

but the great French Historian Fernand Braudel probably summed it up best when he wrote,

但偉大的史學家 Fernand Braudel 或許下了最好的結論，他寫道，

"The mountains as a rule are a world apart from civilizations which are an urban and lowland achievement.

「山陵按常規而言是一個遠離文明的世界，遠離都市和低地的所達到的文明成就，

Their history is to have none, to remain always on the fringes of the great waves of civilization..."

他們的歷史上是沒有文明的，繼續存續於巨大文明浪潮之邊緣...」

And you may have noticed from the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan to people in Colorado with their legal marijuana,

你也許注意到了，巴基斯坦的山區部落和有著合法大麻的科羅拉多州

it's still kind of difficult for states to control hill people. This idea turns the civilization narrative on its head.

這表示了控制山地居民仍然是相當困難的。這個主張徹底反轉了文明的故事

Hill people are not barbarians waiting to become civilized. They're refugees from civilization itself.

山地居民並不是等著被文明化的野蠻人。他們是文明化之下的難民

And this brings up the possibility that life in the hills is actually better than settled agricultural states with their

這指出了一種可能性，山上的生活事實上比較好，比起定居農業的

wars and taxes and forced labor. Furthermore, cities and settlements breed epidemic diseases

戰爭、徵稅、強迫勞動。而且，城市和定居生活是流行病的溫床，

and when the next Spanish flu comes for all of us, it's going to be good to be in the mountains.

當下一次西班牙流感向我們撲來的時候，住在山上絕對會很不錯。

That said, I'm not a 100% sold on the argument, which is why I'm living in very flat, very civilized Indianapolis.

儘管如此，我並不是100% 的同意他的主張，這也是為什麼我住在非常平坦，相當文明的Indianapolis

I mean, as I said earlier, without agricultural surpluses, we wouldn't have the Internet, which I'm fond of,

就像我剛剛說的，沒有過剩的農產品，我們將不會有我非常熱愛的網際網路

also I have tried the hunter-gather paleo diet and it did not suit me. I like Doritos.

而且，我已經試過漁獵採集式的原始人飲食法，那不適合我。我喜歡多力多滋。

Stan just told me that the paleo diet is not in fact, the diet the people of the hills have, apparently the kind of agriculture they used was called swiddening?

Stan 剛剛跟我說那種原始人飲食法並不是山地居民的飲食，顯然他們採用的農業模式是"輪歇"?

It means shifting cultivation, and apparently it's great because it provides a more varied diet with less effort.

那是指移動式輪流耕作，而顯然那樣很棒，因為提供多樣性的飲食而耗費較少的勞力

Score another one for the hill people. Maybe I'll try to popularize the swidden diet. Ohhh! Time for the Open Letter!

山地居民又得一分。我也許會試著推廣輪歇農業的飲食法。噢! 公開信的時間到了!

Oh my God, the new globe opens and food comes out of it!! Is it my birthday? Man, I love our new globe!

天啊，新的地球儀而且裝滿了食物!! 今天我生日嗎? 我愛死我們的新地球儀!

Anyway, an open letter to fad diets. Dear fad diets, you know what doesn't work? Eating unheathily.

然後，一封給流行飲食法的公開信。親愛的流行飲食法，你知道什麼是行不通的嗎? 不健康的飲食

You know what does work? Eating healthily. Your noble prehistoric heritage as a scavenger has

你知道什麼是可行的嗎? 吃的健康。璀璨史前文化傳承所給你的是當個食物鏈中的清除者

prepared you to eat anything, anything that is food. So the idea of eating only one kind of food is just sort of inherently ludicrous.

你已準備好可以吃任何東西，任何食物。所以只吃一種食物的點子本質上是可笑的

I mean the average freegan is literally healthier than I am, and they just eat whatever is in the dumpster.

不消費主義者確實比我還健康，而他們吃任何從垃圾箱裡的食物

In short, fad diets, eating discarded food is much more in line with most of human history than the paleo diet.

總之，流行飲食法，吃丟棄的食物更符合大部分的人類歷史，跟原始人飲食法比起來

Best wishes, John Green.

敬祝 美好順心， John Green 敬上

All right, so far, much of what I've said can be applied to hill people from all over the world at various times,

到目前為止，我所說的適用在所有的山地居民身上，世界各地的以及不同的時期的

but the focus of Scott's book is the region of upland Southeast Asia and southern China that he calls "Zomia."

但 Scott 書中的焦點集中在東南亞高地及南中國之區域範圍，他稱之為 Zomia

Zomia is mountainous and jungle-y and home to between 80 and 100 million people. It'a a little hard to conceptualize

Zomia 是山巒起伏而且叢林密布的地方，居住了八千萬到一億人左右，這數字不容易概念化

because we're so used to thinking of history in terms of states, and this region is, to quote him,

因為我們習慣了用國家這個詞來思考歷史，而這的區域，引用 Scott 的話來說，

"relatively stateless." Zomia was at least partially created by slavery actually because flight from slavery

「相對的無國家狀態」事實上Zomia 至少有部分是由奴隸建立的，因為從奴役制度逃走

is one of the main reasons that people head for the hills. According to Scott, "Southeast Asian states were slaving states,

是人們往山上去的理由之一。根據 Scott 所說「東南亞國家過去以來一直有奴隸制度

without exception, some of them until well into the twentieth century. Wars in pre-colonial

沒有例外，有些仍一直延續到二十世紀。在殖民時代以前的戰爭中，

Southeast Asia were less about territory than about the seizure of as many captives as possible

相較之下東南亞人對領土較不感興趣，他們寧可盡可能地搶奪俘虜，

who were then resettled at the core of the winner's territory."

俘虜後來被重新安頓在勝者的主要領土上。」

I can just hear all you Crash Course viewers saying "Wait, is there any evidence that any of that is true?" Kinda...

我可以聽見你們在說「等等，有任何證據證明他所說的是真的嗎?」或許...

But like if one of the main reasons people create hill cultures like Zomia is to avoid civilizations and one of the hallmarks of civilization is writing?

但如果建立Zomia這種山地文化的主要原因之一是逃避文明化，而文明的特點就是書寫?

Then, it stands to reason that there won't be much written evidence from Zomia, as writing is kind of like the bread and butter of traditional history.

這樣一來，按理來說不會有許多關於Zomia的文字證據，當文字是傳統歷史的麵包和奶油(必需品) 時

Off-topic, but bread and butter is really no longer the staple of any diet. We should really change

離題一下，麵包和奶油已經不是任何飲食法的必需品了，我們真該

that to phrase like the Doritos Locos Tacos and Chipotle burritos of traditional history.

把這個的用語改一下像這樣，傳統歷史的「多力多滋玉米餅和墨西哥捲餅」

So the evidence that we can look at is flawed because it's mainly what other people have written about Zomians

所以我們能著眼的證據有瑕疵，因為那主要是來自別人所記載的Zomia人

and their hill-dwelling brethren.Like this Portuguese friar Father Sangermano wrote around 1800 that the people of the area,

以及他們的山居同胞們。葡萄牙修道士Sangermano 於1800年代所記載，此區域的人們

quote, "Unable any longer to bear witness to the heavy oppressions and continual levies of men and money

「再也不能忍受眼睜睜地看著沉重的壓迫，以及不斷地索兵徵稅

made upon them have withdrawn themselves from their native soil, with all their families..."

加諸在他們身上，因此他們撤出祖國，帶著家人...」

So basically, he thought, at least, that they were leaving because of conscription and taxes you know,

所以基本上，起碼他認為，這些人離開的原因是徵兵和徵稅，

hallmarks of civilization. And then there are also later colonialists like Sir Stamford Raffles who,

即文明的主要特徵。而後來的殖民主義者，例如 Stamford Raffles爵士(Raffles音同彩券)

despite his name, was not a clown. He was the founder of British Singapore. Here's what he said about

儘管他名字長這樣，他可不是個小丑。他是英屬新加坡的創立者。以下是他對

colonial rule in Indonesia: "Here I am the advocate of despotism. The strong arm of power is necessary to

印度尼西亞的殖民統治的說法:「在此我是獨裁主義的擁護者。強勢的武力是必須的，

bring men together and to concentrate them into societies... Sumatra is, in great measure,

武力把人們聚集在一起並凝聚成社會....蘇門答臘島大致上而言，

peopled by innumerable petty tribes subject to no central government..."

住著無數的小部落，不受中央政府管轄...」

"At present, people are as wandering in their habits as birds of the air, and until they are congregated

「目前，人們漫無目的，習慣像空中的鳥兒一般，直到他們聚集起來，

and organized under something like authority, nothing can be done with them."

被組織在某種威權之下之前，沒有人能對他們做什麼。」

Raffles there makes an accidental but pretty damning indictment of civilization to say that the reason that people exist is so

Raffles 偶然地對文明做了相當強烈的譴責，也就是指出文明之理由是因為

that something can be done with them. Now admittedly this isn't particularly strong evidence,

可以任意擺佈人們。無可否認地這並不是特別有力的證據，

and it doesn't touch on pre-modern history or the state formation activities of Southeast Asian rulers.

而且並未提及近代史或東南亞統治階層之生成

But if Europeans' attitudes and activities drove some people to the mountains, it's possible that earlier rulers,

但如果歐洲情勢和活動驅使人們逃到山區，早期的統治者很有可能

especially if they founded their states on war and slavery, and we know in many cases that they did, that

特別是以戰爭和奴役建國的統治者，而我們從許多案例中得知他們的確是這樣做，

they may have had a similar effect. So can we finally conclude that hill people as well as nomads

這些統治者們可能會造成同樣的影響。所以我們最後是否可以這麼下結論，遊牧的山地居民

and other cultures that attempt to live outside the state structure are not primitive people left behind by civilization,

和其他文化的人試圖在國家狀態以外的地方生存下來，他們並不是被文明所遺忘的原始人，

but those who have made a conscious choice to avoid it. Well, in the absence of extensive written records, we call history "anthropology."

而是有自覺的選擇去避開文明世界。 那些缺乏廣泛的文字記錄的歷史，我們稱之為「人類學」

That's a joke for all the anthropology majors out there.

那是所有主修人類學系的人的共同笑話。

And a number of anthropologists have suggested that people who live separate from our ideas of civilization

而許多人類學家表示，住在我們認知的文明化社會以外的人們

did indeed make that choice consciously in a wide variety of situations. Like in his book

確實是有意識地做了這個決定，在各式各樣的情況下。例如這本書的作者

Society Against the State, Pierre Clastres argues that the so-called primitive Amerindian societies of South America

《社會對抗國家》Pierre Clastres 主張，所謂的南美洲原始印地安人社會

were not in fact ancient societies that had failed to invent settled agriculture or state forms,

實際上，並不是曾經侵略定居農業社會或國家失敗後所形成的古老社會

but previously sedentary cultivators who abandoned agriculture and fixed villages in response to the effects of conquest.

而是以前的耕耘者，放棄了農業及定居的村莊，以回應外來征服者所造成的影響。

So are all these stateless social orders finally a response to civilization

所以，這一切結果，是所有非國家社會組織的人們對文明化所做的回應呢，

or just people who haven't realized the bounty of civilization yet?

或者，只因為他們還沒有了解到文明的恩惠呢?

I don't know, and studying history isn't really about providing answers. It's about providing context.

我不知道，研究歷史並不是真的提供什麼答案，是提供一些脈絡。

The question of what's the best and most just way to organize our social orders is a big question and a very old one.

如何以最好且最公正的方式組織來我們的社會秩序是個大哉問，而且是個老問題了。

But it's something we still need to be asking because we're all still making choices about how we're going to organize ourselves into communities.

但這是我們仍然要探尋的問題，因為我們所有人仍然在做這個決定: 要如何在社會中自我定位

Scott's idea of Zomia introduces us to a different way of thinking about things,

Scott 對於 Zomia 的觀點提供我們不同的思考方向，

and equating civilization with coercive state control calls into question the idea of what it even means to be civilized.

並且將文明視同極權國家控制，讓人思考這個問題，文明化到底意謂著什麼?

But I'm not enough of an anarchist

但我還不至於是個無政府主義者

to let this episode go without acknowledging the extraordinary accomplishments of civilization,

讓這一集完全無視文明化的傑出成就

not just agriculture but every thing from antibiotics to the ability to be connected to people who live half a world away from you.

不止是農業而已，所有的成就，抗生素的發現、能和地球另一端的你聯繫

The deep and growing interconnectedness among humans has its risks for sure, but it also provides tremendous opportunities.

人類之間越來越深入和頻繁的互動和聯繫當然會產生風險，但也提供了龐大的機會

We can collaborate, we can play each other in FIFA,

我們能合作，能在FIFA世足盃一起比賽

and we can also do THIS together. But then again, there's an extraordinary freedom to Zomian-style social orders,

我們還可以這樣在一起。但再次強調，Zomia風格的社會秩序有著非比尋常的自由

and vitally, their way of life is far more sustainable than ours.

更重要的是，他們的生活方式比我們的更能夠永續經營

Thanks for watching. I'll see you next week.

謝謝你的觀看。下周見

Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people, and it exists because of your support at Subbable.com.

Crash Course 由這些很棒的人協助製作，也因為你在 Subbable.com 網站上的贊助而存在

Subbable is a voluntary subscription service that allows you to directly support Crash Course,

Subbable 是自由認捐的服務平台，你可以在網站上直接贊助Crash Course，

so we want to say thank you to all of our Subbable subscribers, and thanks to every one who watches Crash Course.

因此我們想感謝所有 Subbable 的贊助者們，也謝謝 Crash Course 的每位觀眾

I hope that you enjoy our World History series. And as we say in my hometown,

希望你們喜歡世界歷史系列。如同我家鄉的人們常說的，

don't forget to be awesome.

别忘了精彩一回