论文部分内容阅读
使用《工部局年报》及《工部局董事会会议录》——公园园规制定者的会议原始档案重新检视了上海公共租界外滩公园是否有过“华人与狗不得入内”牌示的争论,通过考察史料记载间的差异、华人入园的史实、园规原文及两次修订版措辞的变化等,认为“华人与狗不得入内”并非租界当局颁布的公园园规,虽不能完全排除其作为牌示存在的可能,但那应是公园门卫的个人行为,且持续时间较短,不能代表上海百年租界史中租界当局对华的一贯态度——“华人不得入内”的歧视的确存在,但歧视程度并非如“华人与狗不得入内”这般在公共场合将“华人”与“狗”单独并列之大。并复原了此一存在尚无定论的牌示是如何“层累地”成为近代中国的民族集体记忆的历史过程。
Using the Bureau of Industry and Bureaus Annual Report and the Board Meeting of the Bureau of Industry and Bureaus - The Original Files of the Meeting of the Park Rules Makers Review the Controversy over the Bund Park in the Shanghai Public Concession for “No Entry for Chinese and Dogs” Examining the differences between historical records, the historical facts of Chinese admission, the original texts of the garden rules and the wording of the two revised wordings, it is believed that “Chinese and dogs may not enter the country” is not a park garden code promulgated by the concession authorities. Although it can not be completely ruled out As a sign that there may be, but that should be the personal behavior of the park guard, and the short duration, can not represent the consistent conciliation of China’s concession authorities in Shanghai Centennial Concession - “Chinese shall not enter ” discrimination does exist, However, the degree of discrimination is not as large as “Chinese and dogs may not be allowed in” so that public places will be “Chinese” and “Dogs” alone. And reinstates the question of how this brand of indecisiveness exists in layers of history to become the historical process of collective memory of the nation in modern China.