殺豬傳奇
必也正名乎！豬流感 (Swine Flu) 才在媒體中出現一個星期，就有了名字的困擾，美國政府與國際衛生組織 (WHO)，先後宣佈不再以「豬」掛名。美國總統歐巴瑪也在就職一百天的記者會上，正式啟用那個充滿化學氣味的名稱── "N1H1"。
這令人想起那些為「政治正確」而造的語言──矮子不能叫矮子，要叫「受高度挑戰者」(vertically challenged)，白痴也不是白痴，只是稍受智商挑戰而已。不過這次不把流感叫成豬，卻不是怕傷當事者的自尊心 (其實不用 pig，而用典雅的swine，已算是很給面子了)，據說，美國政府率先決定取消豬名，是擔心回教或猶太社區，會因「豬」的聯想，而對社區存在的病例隱藏不報 (是怕被指責偷吃豬肉？) 當然，最主要還是怕把「豬」和傳染病放在一處，會引起人們拒吃豬肉，而影響了豬農的業績。
對豬群而言，這「去豬化」的努力，並不見得全是好事。人們不因流感減吃豬肉，它們也就失去了暫逃屠刀的可能。但是，撇清和傳染病的關係，豬群卻可免去「禽流感」和「瘋牛病」時雞牛被殺得一隻不剩的命運。
當然，這也還要看它們是什麼國家的豬。比如，目前還沒有任何一個病例的埃及，竟然下令宰殺國內所有的豬隻，雖然科學證據顯示，此一病毒並無食物感染的先例。
為無辜被殺的埃及豬感到不平的，大有人在，只是聲音十分微弱。聯合國委婉地說埃及的決定是「一項真正的錯誤」，國際衛生組織，也只能希望以病毒的新名，來防止另一場類似的豬群屠殺。
國際人士心知肚明卻都不願點破的事實是，埃及政府的殺豬決定，其實牽扯到了宗教與文化，有著比流感更錯綜複雜的動機。
豬在回教文化裡本就是不潔之物，就算沒有豬流感，也是多數埃及人的眼中釘。回教徒不吃豬肉，埃及境內的三十幾萬頭豬，原是供給人口只占百分之十的少數基督教徒食用 (埃及的基督徒多屬東正教的傳統)。政客下令殺豬，不但大快人心地處罰了異教徒吃食豬肉的「野蠻行為」，更還製造了自己是在應對流感危機的印象，豈不是一石兩鳥的上上策？本著歷史經驗，埃及的豬農 (當然都是基督徒) 卻知道政府的這項決定，不過是以流感為名的另一場宗教迫害。埃及衛生部長原本答應豬農的賠償，卻在國會阻擾下不了了之。從務實的角度來看，埃及的殺豬舉動，除了暫時滿足人們一時的快感外，不但絲毫沒有增進自己對流感的防禦力，反而為埃及原本開明的國際形象開了倒車。
在危機中表現出種族與宗教偏見的，當然也不只有埃及人。中國政府也因強制隔離持墨西哥護照者，而引起爭議。依據國籍而不依據旅客所來地的公共政策，不僅是無知的表現，更有歧視墨西哥人的嫌疑。據報導，被監禁者中竟然包括了最近數月都未曾回到墨西哥境內的旅遊者。
美國人也好不到那裡，反移民人士，也以病例起自墨西哥為藉口，而把一切怪到移民頭上，好重新煽起仇視移民的火焰。
比其別的動物，豬似乎特容易被捲入人類混亂的政治。先不說女性主義把豬和大男人沙文主義掛鉤，而呼籲「殺豬」，台灣早期磨刀霍霍的「殺豬拔毛」運動，也只是因為豬與對岸敵人的姓氏同音，就莫名其妙地成為象徵朱德和毛澤東的圖騰。(因為同音而惹禍，好像是豬的宿命，明朝荒誕的正德皇帝朱厚照，也曾下令禁止養豬，以防殺豬 (朱) 吃豬事件的發生)。好在那時台灣普遍貧窮，憑白殺掉一頭豬，是太昂貴的犧牲，「殺豬拔毛」的激奮也只能像女性運動的口誅筆伐一樣，在文字與海報上做血淋淋的宣洩。否則台灣豬不也要和埃及豬一樣，都成了政治的祭品？英國小說家喬治歐維爾 (George Orwell) 政治寓言小說《動物庄園》 (Animal Farm) ，也用自以為是的豬做主角，並讓它們在書中說出了政治虛偽的本質：「在民主制度裡，所有的動物都是平等的，只是有些動物要比另外的動物更平等些。」埃及、中國、美國都紛紛為這句話做了示範。
羅密歐與茱麗葉兩家世仇，兩位情人礙於名姓而不能結合。莎士比亞透過茱麗葉之口說過：『名字包含了什麼呢？玫瑰就算用了別的名字，聞來不也同樣馨香？』
莎翁之言只能存在於理想國，在人世裡，名字不但能操持生殺大權，也影響著人們聞香的能力。像豬這種原本聰明乾淨的動物，不就在以玩弄名字與象徵的政治遊戲中，一次又一次地成為群起殺戮的對象？
(世界周刊, 2009-5-17)
Ah, this statement fully demonstrates how “conservatives” like you LOVE to be confronted and challenged. And they based their arguments purely on REASON and EVIDENCE and not GENERALIZATION!!!
And no, I am not sure if people have no true understand of the facts until i read their argument.
But it is ok, "Liberals" never like to be confronted or challenged. almost all of them based on their arguments on emotions and feelings and not facts...and you are no exception...I understood that long time ago.
Farewell, and Godspeed...
It amazes me how you are always SO SURE that people with different views simply “have no true understanding what the real issue is about” and are being brainlessly spoon fed by the liberals, while you yourself are the exemplary thinking being who not only fully understand the issues but also base everything on reason and ideals. To characterize more than half of the population as the gullible cool-aid drinking lunatics, you are either overtly confident in your own intelligence or have unusually low faith in other people’s mental capacity. In my opinion, discrediting the opponents’ position by condescendingly asserting that they “have no true understanding what the real issue is about” is a very lazy way to make arguments.
Has it ever occurred to you that other people might actually fully understand the issues, at least as well as you do, but they simply draw different conclusions? I also wonder -- Was there ever a tiny shred of recognition in your thinking that your way might not be the ONLY “correct” or “legitimate” approach to problems?
By the way, the confusion between “沙豬” and “殺豬” is precisely what my article is all about. Unfortunately you take a literal interpretation and completely miss the point.
As for my foul and offensive sentence about immigration and swine flu, you can google to find out the xenophobic statements made by politicians. My question is -- what purpose does it serve to raise immigration issues in the midst of swine flu which so happens to originate from Mexico? Other than creating a wedge of fear, what can such juxtaposition achieve in terms of solving immigration problems or curbing the pandemic?
You really think I don’t know the difference between “anti-immigration” and “anti-illegal immigration”? But who isn’t anti-illegal immigration? Just because you and I are only against illegal immigration, it does not mean there is no anti-immigration sentiment in this country. Hostility toward the unfamiliar is a universal human trait which translates into anti-immigration sentiment in every society. That’s why we need to be vigilant about anti-immigration xenophobia lest it should disguise as anti-illegal immigration movement to erode our sense of tolerance. I especially don’t understand why you would take this in such a partisan way. Xenophobia does not know party line. There are xenophobic Republicans and there are xenophobic Democrats. Both need to be called out.
As mentioned in my previous post, I am not interested in writing ideological manifesto. What interests me is life’s gray area – the irony, the ambiguity, the uncertainty, the subtlety of human conditions. Unfortunately, this totally runs against your black-or-white, right-or-left, conservative-or-liberal approach to issues. Therefore, unless I sense there is a possibility or intention for mutual understanding, I will no longer respond to your comments on this blog. I don’t see anything useful in a conversation (I can’t even call it a conversation) if it is filled with antagonism but no goodwill.
One may claim all he/she wants, but without a solid grasp of what any one side's true issues or even the correct understanding of its politics, that claim simply rings hollow.
And of course, it is "沙豬" and not "殺豬"! So not sure what is the claim of feminism there.
And fyi, it is not "anti-immigration" mind you, it has always been "anti- illegal immigration."
It has nothing to do with cherry picking certain parts of your article, it is as I stated in the beginning, you have no true understanding what the real issue is about, but spoon fed the ideology by the liberal side...such shame.
Some people read in order to challenge their deeply held perceptions; some read to solidify theirs. Readers in the latter camp, so eager to embrace or to attack, tend to pick on offending details without any minimum regard for the context. I write for the readers in the former group who are willing to give a fair hearing and pondering on things they might not even agree at the first glance. I am not interested in writing ideological manifestoes. I only observe and record political hypocrisy, dishonesty, phoniness whether they come from the left or from the right, and they come abundantly from both left and right.
As you pick on the anti-immigration sentiment mentioned in this piece, I am sure some liberals would complain about my remarks on feminism. I can’t pay serious attention to this cherry-picking kind of comments if the reader doesn’t even give it a damn about what this piece is all about.
OOOh my good God!
我只能搖頭嘆息...唉!
I can start WWW3 with this article, but I am going to leave it alone. All I will say is; you drank too much coolaid from the other side...the "L" side that is, it is aparently irreversible...sigh.