如果在美国由于独立战争在流行文化中将英国国王乔治三世描述为压迫者和暴君那么他在加拿大是被如何评价的？他是被骄傲的效忠派视为加拿大的国父而赞美吗？（一）
If in American popular culture King George III has been portrayed as oppressive and tyrannical due to the American Revolution; how is he portrayed in Canada? Is he glorified there after all the forefathers of Canada would proud loyalists.
译文简介
在美国独立战争的起点，乔治三世作为最后一任致力于重塑国王权威的英国国王到底扮演了什么样的角色，民间和学术界有一些争论，非常搞笑的是回答中某位美国历史学者坚持声称在美国乔治三世并没有被大众文化描述为暴君，然后其他美国人都表示“没错他就是个暴君”，侧面反映了美国学术界和大众之间的认知差距。文章太长分了两篇下篇稍后就到。
正文翻译
Wes Frank
You are misinformed.
King George III is not portrayed as oppressive and tyrannical in the United States. In most American history texts parliament is described as the source of the taxes and oppression during the crisis leading up to the War of the American Revolution. George is occasionally cursed at as the embodiment of British bullying, but mostly he is treated, as in the musical Hamilton!, as an out of touch aristocratic doofus, not directly in charge of anything, not understanding anything American.
None of this has kept American and British scholars, over the last couple of centuries, from writing books “debunking” this alleged portrayal of King George III as a tyrant. It is a fixation shared by academics on both sides of the Atlantic.
你得到的信息是错误的。
国王乔治三世在美国并没有被描述成压迫者与暴君。在大多数美国历史文献中是议会才被描述为根源，其因为在危机中征税和压迫从而导致了美国独立战争。乔治三世只是偶尔被当做英国霸凌的化身而被咒骂，但是大多数情况下例如音乐剧《汉密尔顿》中，他被当做一个脱离现实的贵族主义蠢蛋，不为任何事直接负责，对美洲事物也一无所知。
这些都没有阻止美国和英国的学者，在过去的几个世纪中，通过写书“揭穿”了乔治三世国王这种所谓的暴君形象。它是一种被大西洋两岸学术界共享的执念。
You are misinformed.
King George III is not portrayed as oppressive and tyrannical in the United States. In most American history texts parliament is described as the source of the taxes and oppression during the crisis leading up to the War of the American Revolution. George is occasionally cursed at as the embodiment of British bullying, but mostly he is treated, as in the musical Hamilton!, as an out of touch aristocratic doofus, not directly in charge of anything, not understanding anything American.
None of this has kept American and British scholars, over the last couple of centuries, from writing books “debunking” this alleged portrayal of King George III as a tyrant. It is a fixation shared by academics on both sides of the Atlantic.
你得到的信息是错误的。
国王乔治三世在美国并没有被描述成压迫者与暴君。在大多数美国历史文献中是议会才被描述为根源，其因为在危机中征税和压迫从而导致了美国独立战争。乔治三世只是偶尔被当做英国霸凌的化身而被咒骂，但是大多数情况下例如音乐剧《汉密尔顿》中，他被当做一个脱离现实的贵族主义蠢蛋，不为任何事直接负责，对美洲事物也一无所知。
这些都没有阻止美国和英国的学者，在过去的几个世纪中，通过写书“揭穿”了乔治三世国王这种所谓的暴君形象。它是一种被大西洋两岸学术界共享的执念。
When your role in government is to be the embodiment of the state, your statues get pulled down regardless of how much actual power you had
当你在政府中的角色是做为国家的化身时，你的雕像就会被推倒，而不管你有多少实际权力
当你在政府中的角色是做为国家的化身时，你的雕像就会被推倒，而不管你有多少实际权力
Addendum: Here is the definition of a tyrant from Merriam Webster:
Tyrant An absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.
A usurper of sovereignty.
A ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
One resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power You are not a tyrant just because you are a king and not all kings are tyrants.
The crisis of the 1760s was originally between Parliament and the assemblies of the thirteen Atlantic colonies. Denunciations of Parliament and various ministries were common long before George III came to be identified as the leader of the hardline faction in London. He was denounced as a tyrant by the Continental Congress only after he issued his fateful order of 1775 condemning them to be tried and hung as traitors. Modern American history books note that Parliament was the primary foe of the American resistant movement between 1765 and 1775 and that George III was not writing the laws that were the cause of protests and boycotts.
附录：这是梅里厄姆·韦伯斯特对暴君的定义：
暴君
· 一位不被法律或体制约束的绝对的统治者
· 一位最高统治权的篡夺者
· 一位利用绝对权力进行压迫或实施暴行的统治者
· 一位表现出严酷运用权威或权力的压迫性统治者
你不会仅仅因为是国王就成为暴君并且也不是所有的国王都是暴君。
1760年代的危机最初是发生在议会和13州殖民地集会之间。对议会和不同部门的指责早在乔治三世被认定为伦敦的强硬派领袖之前就已经很平常了。他在发布了决定性的1775年御令宣判大陆议会将作为叛徒被吊死后才被后者谴责为暴君。现代美国历史书指出议会才是1765年至1775年美国抵抗运动主要敌人同时乔治三世国王没有制定引起抗议和抵制的法律。
Tyrant An absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.
A usurper of sovereignty.
A ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
One resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power You are not a tyrant just because you are a king and not all kings are tyrants.
The crisis of the 1760s was originally between Parliament and the assemblies of the thirteen Atlantic colonies. Denunciations of Parliament and various ministries were common long before George III came to be identified as the leader of the hardline faction in London. He was denounced as a tyrant by the Continental Congress only after he issued his fateful order of 1775 condemning them to be tried and hung as traitors. Modern American history books note that Parliament was the primary foe of the American resistant movement between 1765 and 1775 and that George III was not writing the laws that were the cause of protests and boycotts.
附录：这是梅里厄姆·韦伯斯特对暴君的定义：
暴君
· 一位不被法律或体制约束的绝对的统治者
· 一位最高统治权的篡夺者
· 一位利用绝对权力进行压迫或实施暴行的统治者
· 一位表现出严酷运用权威或权力的压迫性统治者
你不会仅仅因为是国王就成为暴君并且也不是所有的国王都是暴君。
1760年代的危机最初是发生在议会和13州殖民地集会之间。对议会和不同部门的指责早在乔治三世被认定为伦敦的强硬派领袖之前就已经很平常了。他在发布了决定性的1775年御令宣判大陆议会将作为叛徒被吊死后才被后者谴责为暴君。现代美国历史书指出议会才是1765年至1775年美国抵抗运动主要敌人同时乔治三世国王没有制定引起抗议和抵制的法律。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
OK…true enough Wes. But you gotta love George III’s songs from “Hamilton”.
好的…足够真实。但是你得承认《汉密尔顿》里乔治三世的唱段棒极了。
Well, there was that unfortunate incident when Rip Van Winkle strolled into town after his 20-year sleep and praised King George in public. His admiration was not well received. Most Americans don’t realize that King George III reigned until his death in 1820. Later Americans kind of lost track of him after 1787.
好吧，有件不幸的事儿就是当里普·范·温克尔在休眠20年后晃悠到镇里公开的赞美乔治国王（译者注：这里指的是美国著名作家W.欧文脍炙人口的短篇小说中的情节）。他的赞赏可没讨到好。大多数美国人在乔治三世1820年去世之前都没有意识到他的统治。之后美国人在1787年后就把他差不多忘到脑后了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Thanks for writing this. I get a real kick out of British writers on Quora explaining to everyone what Americans think and why we are wrong about it.
谢谢你写的这个，我真高兴一位英国作家在QA上向每个人解释美国人怎么想以及为什么我们把它搞错了。
The number of British people on Quora who have read American high school history books is astonishing. They talk about them constantly.
在QA上读过美国高中历史书的的英国人数量多的令人震惊。他们经常讨论这些。
There must be a huge secondary market for them. There are also tons of British psychics on Quora who know what 350 Million think. I hope they haven’t found a way to tap into our hive mind, since we are all pretty much the same.
那他们肯定有一个巨大的二手市场。QA这里还有大量的英国通灵者知道3.5亿人是怎么想的。我希望他们还没有找到潜入我们蜂巢思维的方法，因为我们基本上都是一个样。
Actually, all we need to read is the self-serving and confused “Declaration of Independence”:
其实，我们所需要做的只是读一下自私自利并令人困惑的“独立宣言”
第二段：现任英国国王的历史是一部反复伤害和掠夺的历史，其直接目标就是要在各州之上建立一个独裁暴政。为了证明上述句句属实，现将事实公诸于世，让公正的世人作出评判。
接下来是一系列多达二十几条哀嚎着关于必须纳税和维持一支军队的条款。这些条款是针对“他”的，这个“他”当然是指乔治三世。我很有信心，从来没有人把“众议会之母”（这是英国人对英国议会自夸性的称呼）称为“他”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
这个奇怪文档的优点可不是其一致性。举个例子，乔治显然是在“努力引进我们边境的住民，无情的印第安野蛮人”，同时又“在我们之中驻扎大量的武装部队”-好吧，所以你到底想不想要免于“无情的野蛮人”伤害而被保护起来？
当然，真正令人的担忧是，英国政府试图通过和平条约和协议来限制向“印度野蛮人”领地的扩张，但是像华盛顿和杰弗逊这样的奴隶主却只看到了通过清除原住民所获得的土地可供他们掠夺。
当然，如果某些人通过一部音乐剧（一种只比最粗俗的哑剧还低几级的艺术形式）来取得他们的历史版本，那么他们就不能被认为拥有一丝值得被考虑的观点。
The first rule of historical analysis is to check a source for bias and polemic. And I’m afraid your citation was largely polemical.
Most primary sources for the period indicate the AR was mainly a parliamentary war and had little to do with the king. But it is true that the representation of George III as a tyrant is a populist myth in the US.
历史分析的第一步就是审视偏见的来源和争论者。而我认为恐怕你的引述很大程度上是为了挑起争端。
大多数来自这一时期的资料显示美国独立战争主要是一场议会发动的战争同时与国王的关系很小。但是将乔治三世描绘成一个暴君的确是一个美国民粹主义神话。
Personally have always thought of George III as mentally unstable not necessarily a tyrant (Yes I'm an American)
我个人一直认为乔治三世患有轻度精神障碍，不一定是个暴君（是的，我是美国人）
The Glorious Revolution replaced the Divine Right of Kings with Parliamentary Supremacy.
The US rejected both, and took as a founding principle that the ultimate authority resided in the people.
光荣革命以至高无上的议会制取代了国王的神圣权利。
美国拒绝了这两者，并将最高权威源自人民作为建国纲领。
In fact, the Continental Congress believed the king would be on their side and would step in to help them. They appealed to him as his subjects to defend their cause to Parliament. Only on the eve of war with his proclamation of them as traitors did those leading the Revolution lose faith in George.
事实上，大陆议会曾经相信国王会站在他们一边并将会介入帮助他们。他们以他的臣民的身份向其呼吁从议会的手中保护他们的事业。直到战争前夕他把他们宣布为叛徒后革命领袖们才对乔治国王失去了信心。
I guess you never read the Declaration of Independence
我猜你从没有读过独立宣言
You do realize that the Declaration of Independence was written two hundred and forty years ago and is not used as the primary base for history texts in the United States? American history narratives are generated by scholarly research using many sources, official documents, personal accounts, archived records, etc., just like every other nation’s history.
The Declaration of Independence is just one document in the history of the Revolutionary Crisis. American students, from my experience, are taught how Jefferson, in writing it, cleverly focused on the king as the personification and executive head of the British government, rather than diluting his message by jumping between the king, his ministers, and parliament. A brilliant creation, really, establishing a moral argument for revolution, listing the issues involved, and also serving as a polemic that could be read in public to promote the cause.
你能意识到独立宣言是240多年前写成的东西并且在美国也不被当作主要的根据性历史文本吧？美国的历史叙事是由学术研究产生的，它采用了许多来源，官方文件，个人纪录，存档档案等，就像其他所有国家的历史一样。
《独立宣言》只是革命危机历史中的一份文件。就我的经历而言美国学生被教导杰弗逊在撰写时巧妙地奖国王当作英国政府的化身和行政首脑，而不是在国王，大臣和议会之间浪费笔墨来稀释他所要传达的信息。一个智慧性的创举，真的，为这场革命树立起一个道德性论点，列举出所涉及的问题，同时也能够作为一篇演讲在公共场合宣读以促进独立事业。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
All true. But the notion of King George III as a tyrant is still prent in US culture, Hamilton notwithstanding. AndcI think the question was about how he was portrayed in lotal Canada. which I think is a very interesting question.
说的没错。但是把乔治三世国王当作一名暴君的意识依然在美国流行文化中盛行，即使有《汉密尔顿》这样的作品。而且我记得这个问题是关于他在忠诚派的加拿大是怎么被描述的。而我觉得这是一个非常有意思的问题。
Where in American culture? Who in American culture believes this? How do you know this to be true? Is it in novels? Television? Where?
在美国什么文化中？哪个处于美国文化中的人相信这个？你怎么会觉得事实是这样的？是在小说里？在电视上？在哪！？
In schools. in popular culture. Mistakes people don't have history degrees.
在学校。在流行文化中，没有历史学位的人犯的错误里。
Again, how would you or anyone else know this? Is there polling data? Research? My lifelong impression is that not one American in a hundred has a strong enough opinion about George III to label him as a tyrant or anything else. They vaguely remember him from their history classes as the guy who was king during the Revolution and that is about it.
再重复一遍，你或者那些这么说的人是怎么知道这一点的？有调查数据吗？研究？我活了这么长时间印象中在这几百年里没有一个美国人强烈的认为他应当给乔治三世打上暴君的标签或类似的事情。他们模糊的记得在历史课里有这么一个人在独立战争期间担任国王而这就是全部了。
You claim that you know. You are arguing passionately tgat you do. I've lived in this society for almost 60 years and I know what I was taught in school and have seen how the American “ revolution” is portrayed in popular culture. I am interested in how Canadians view this period or did at the time. That is the original question and I haven't see an answer.
你声称你知道。你激烈的争论。我在这个社会里生活了近60年了并且我知道我在学校是怎么被教的还有美国“革命”在流行文化中是怎么被描述的。我感兴趣的是加拿大人是怎么看待这段时期或曾经怎么看待。那才是原本的问题而我至今没有看到一个答案。
I have studied American history for many years and read many books and articles on the subject. I have definitely read a number of American primary, secondary, and college textbooks on this period in American history. None of them portrayed George III as a “tyrant.” Mostly, as in the John Adams series and the musical Hamilton, and the movie The Madness of King George III, he is described as a mediocrity who had no understanding of what Americans were like or what their grievances were.
I am also well aware, from decades of experience, that very few Americans have any strong opinions about the American Revolution and they rarely are opinions about George III. To believe some is a tyrant, you need to at least have a strong opinion about them.
What I was asking is what your source of information. Were, you, personally, were taught in school that George III was a tyrant?
我已经研究美国历史很多年了并且阅读了许多关于此话题的书籍和论文。我之前当然读过许多美国小学，中学和大学课本中有关这一段的美国历史。没有一本将乔治三世描述为“暴君”。更多的，就像约翰·亚当姆斯系列剧和音乐剧汉密尔顿还有电影乔治三世中那样，他被描述为一个平庸之辈完全不了解美国人或他们的苦衷。
我也很清楚，从我所经历的一打实例来说，很少有美国人对美国独立战争有任何鉴定的观点同时关于乔治三世的观念稀少。要相信某人是暴君，你至少需要对其有一个坚定的观点才行。
You keep arguing with all the American in this thread, insisting that you know how we view King George, and that he is not generally viewed as a Tyrant in America. You are clueless. And you think you know better because you read some books? And let’s not count what wa said in the founding document of America, since it is of negligible importance. Crazy. I’ve read plenty of sources outside the Declaration, in American textbooks, that have him portrayed as a tyrant. I took American History in America, and read American textbooks that portrayed him as a a Tyrant. How about Johnny Tremaine, a famous kids book still read in America? Or do you only quote English books discussing what Americans feel? You are so dug into your opinion, you are ignoring the very people you claim to understand! I am not even saying that he was a Tyrant, but that is what people view him as. But that is how Quora is. People who are not part of a group speaking about their viewpoints incorrectly, and then doubling down when the people they are speaking for disagree.
你跟每一个在这个楼里的美国人争辩，坚持称你知道我们如何看待乔治国王，并且坚持他在美国没有被广泛的看作一个暴君。你什么都不知道。而你就因为看了几本书就觉得自己懂得多？
Citations, please. What are these books you claim to have read? Where is your evidence that the majority of Americans even think about George III, let alone consider him a tyrant?
公民们，求求你们。那些你声称读过的书籍到底是哪些？你关于大多数美国人竟会想到乔治三世的证据在哪里，更别提考虑他是否是一个暴君了？
He was/is quite widely regarded as a rather cruel tyrant; some degree like Gaius Julius Caesar…
他曾经/现在也被广泛的认为是一个相对残暴的暴君；正如某种程度上和盖尤斯·尤利乌斯·凯撒一样……
Among the British, possibly. I have never personally heard an American describing him in that way or read of any American who regarded him as such. No American or Briton would not have read this descxtion in any American history text at a high school or college level. It would just be too bizarre a descxtion.
在英国人中，也许吧。但我从没有听一个美国人说过或读到过任何美国人这样看待他。任何美国人或英国人在任何高中以及大学等级的美国历史教材中都不会读到这一描述。这作为一种描述实在是太奇怪了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处