透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.238.228.191
  • 期刊

為何考證?如何解讀?-評論黃彰健著《二二八事件真相考證稿》

Why Investigate? How to Interpret?-A Critique of Huang Chang-chian's A Draft of Evidential Investigations into the Truth of the 2.28 Incident

摘要


黃彰健先生係中央研究院院士,2007年2月出版《二二八事件真相考證稿》,對過去代表性的二二八研究成果做翻案文章。首先對於高雄要塞司令彭孟緝,曾被批評為濫殺無事的「屠夫」,黃彰健認為彭孟緝當時出兵並無不當,因為「暴徒先開槍、國軍乃反擊」,而且「將在外,君命有所不受」的電報是彭孟緝所假造。本文指出黃彰健不當解讀檔案、不當使用口述資料,對彭司令的「善念」明察秋毫,對諸多搶劫、濫殺的描述不見興薪;況且1953年彭孟緝撰寫〈台灣省二二八事件回憶錄〉時引用的電報,衡諸當時處境並無假造動機,且沒有被收入中研院近史所編的《二二八事件資料選輯》,不一定就不存在。 其次,彭孟緝之子彭蔭剛提示給朱浤源、黃彰健等人的「新資料八種」,雖然澄清了民軍代表在3月5日、6日「兩次」上山以及林界有否上山的事實,但是根據出事以後即3月6日彭清靠議長給彭司令的「呈文」,以及3月8日黃仲圖市長與彭議長呈陳儀的電報,即認定他們兩位是被「暴徒」塗光明脅迫上山,作為軍審定罪塗光明的證據,本文認為應注意這些描述是否在自由意志下所為。此外,本文認為黃彰健對蔣渭川的褒揚、對王添汀的貶抑皆難以成立,黃彰健把報紙報導二二八事件處理委員會消息的出入視為王添灯有意欺騙的結果,歌加之罪何息無詞,可見黃彰健「為辨偽而辨偽」,不僅在學衛上徒增混淆,而且對台灣社會的公義與和解恐有負面作用。

並列摘要


In February 2007, professor Huang Chang-chian, an academician of the Academia Sinica published A Draft of Evidential Investigations into the Truth of the 2.28 Incident, a revisionist study designed to overthrow standard works describing previous research on the 2.28 Incident. The first issue in this critique of Huang's study considers the Kaohsiung Garrison Commander-in-Chief Peng Meng-chi, called a ”butcher” for his indiscriminating killing of innocents. Huang concludes that Commander Peng did nothing wrong in ordering the army to attack those killed on the grounds that the ”rioters had opened fire first, which thus called for the national army to counterattack.” Huang also holds the view that the telegram stating that ”when a fighting general out in the field is faced with an emergency, he may disregard even the supreme order of the emperor” was simply a fabrication by Commander Peng. This critique argues that, on the contrary, Huang not only misread the archive, but also misused oral materials, while implicitly claiming the ability to discern the Commander-in-chief's ”good motives”-all in total disregard of numerous accounts of robberies and random killings. Moreover, this critique sees no motive for Peng Meng-chi, who edited and published his ”Memoirs of the 2.28 Incident in Taiwan” in 1953, to quote a fabricated telegram; the fact that it was not incorporated in The 228 Incident: A Documentary Collection published by the Institute of Modern History of the Academia Sinica does not necessarily mean it did not exist. The second issue this critique considers is the ”Eight New Sources” provided by Peng Meng-chi's son Peng Yin-gang to Huang and Chu Hong-yuan. It is admitted these documents have clarified the facts about: (1) the ”two” climbings of the mountains by militia representatives on the 5th and 6th of March, and (2) whether Lin Chieh did the same thing, but it has to be pointed out that merely on the basis of (1) the ”representation” provided by the chairman of the Kaohsiung city council Peng Ching-kao to Commander-in-Chief Peng during the aftermath of the event, i.e. the 6(superscript th) of March, and (2) the cable presented by Kaohsiung Mayor Huang Chung-tu and the council chairman Peng to Chen Yi, on the 8(superscript th) of March, Huang Chang-chian has rashly asserted that they (the mayor and the council chairman) were abducted by force to the mountains by the ”outlaw” Tu Kuang-min, which was thus used as the evidence to court-martial Tu. This critique, however, raises the question whether the testimony of Huang and Peng was made under their own free will. Moreover. Huang Chang-chian failed to substantiate his praise of Chiang Wei-chuan and his criticisms of Wang Tian-deng. Huang believed the discrepancy in the information on the Settlement Committee as reported by the newspapers resulted from Wang Tian-deng's deliberate deception, but this is really a case of just finding a pretext to condemn someone you have already convicted. It can be held that Huang Chang-chian's ”attempt to verify falsehood for the sake of falsehood” not only confuses scholarly issues, but may also have a negative effect on justice and peaceful settlement in Taiwanese society.

參考文獻


中央研究院近代史研究所編(1992)。二二八事件資料選輯。台北:中央研究院近代史研究所。
中央研究院近代史研究所編(1992)。二二八事件資料選輯。台北:中央研究院近代史研究所。
王景弘(2002)。第三隻眼睛看二二八:美國外交檔案揭密。台北:玉山社。
史明(1980)。台灣人四百年史。台北:自由時代週刊社。
行政院研究二二八事件小組(1994)。「二二八事件」研究報告。台北:時報文化出版公司。

被引用紀錄


蕭國邦(2010)。公共空間的意識形態印記─臺北新公園政治地景的權力流變〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2010.00334

延伸閱讀