Ysgrifennwyd y darn hwn fel ymateb i drafodaeth o faterion cyfoes a ddigwyddai’n achlysurol yn y grŵp o fis i fis, sef Brexit ac Etholiad yr Arweinydd yn yr UD. Roedd pobl yn canolbwyntio’n enwedig ar y berthynas rhwng y cyfryngau, democratiaeth, a gwirionedd. Gofynnwyd imi greu rhywbeth er mwyn symbylu trafod. Penderfynais beidio â chyflwyno dadansoddiad athronyddol manwl o’r pwnc — roedd eisoes gan bawb ddigon i’w ddweud. Yn hytrach, dyma sgwrs mwya dadleuol sy’n ceisio crisialu’r syniadau. Mae’n dechrau gan ofyn “beth yw gwirionedd?” Wedyn mae’n holi beth ddigwydd i’r amcan hwn mewn cymdeithasau cyfalafol byd-eang. Nesaf, gwna sylw o’r berthynas rhwng y cyfryngau a gwleidyddiaeth, a chrybwyll y canlyniad pan fydd “iaith yn mynd i ryfel.” Yn olaf, gofynna a all philosophi helpu i alluogi’r “person cyffredin” yn wyneb llif cyson “ffeithiau amgen.”
This piece was written in response to discussions of current affairs that occasionally arose in the group, such as Brexit and the US Presidential Election. People’s interest was focused especially on the relationship between the media, democracy, and truth, and I was asked to create a piece to stimulate discussion. I decided not to make a detailed philosophical analysis — everybody already had plenty to say. Instead, this is a more polemical discourse which tries to crystalize all the issues. It starts off by asking “what is truth?”; and interrogates what happens to this notion in global Capitalist societies. It then points towards the relationship between the media and politics, and touches on the outcomes when “language goes to war.” Finally, it asks whether philosophy can help empower the “small person” in the face of a constant flood of “alternative facts.”
| Er mwyn cyfathrebu gyda’n gilydd tu mewn i gymdeithas, mae angen symbolau arnom. Cynrychiola geiriau ysgrifenedig iaith ar lafar; crynhoa lluniau sefyllfaoedd cymhleth; cyflea cerddoriaeth deimladau. Cyn inni ystyried anwiredd yn fanwl iawn, bydd rhaid meddwl am y term cyflenwol. Beth, wedyn, ydy “ffaith”? Wel, dylem ddweud bod ffaith yn ddarn o wybodaeth, wedi’i fynegi mewn geiriau gan amlaf, a gyflwynwyd fel petai’n wrthrychol wirioneddol. O’u cymharu, mae celwyddau’n anwireddau pwrpasol, wedi’u creu gyda'r bwriad o ddychrynu, twyllo, neu ddefnyddio pobl eraill. Siawns na threcha ffeithiau a gwirionedd mewn cymdeithas rydd, agored, ddatblygedig, a soffistigedig? | In order to communicate with each other within society, we need symbols. Written words represent spoken language; pictures summarize complex situations; music conveys feelings. Before we consider untruth in great detail, we must think about the complementary term. What, then, is “fact”? Well, we should say that fact is a piece of information, expressed in words most often, which is conveyed as if it were objectively true. By comparison, lies are purposeful untruths, created with the intention of frightening, deceiving, or using other people. Surely facts and truth should win out in a society that is free, open, developed, and sophisticated? |
| Er hynny, uchafiaeth anochel Cyfalafiaeth sy’n rheoli’r byd, gan ddidoli cynhyrchion oddi wrth eu tarddiad. Rhoddir pris ar nwyddau ar sail gwerth ariannol yn hytrach na defnyddioldeb; ac yn nhermau cyllidol y defnyddir defnyddioldeb. Ailddiffinir diwylliant trwy gyfrwng diwydiant tra ydy trefoli’n gwahanu bodau dynol rhag y byd an-ddynol. Ffynna grwpiau grymus mewn cymdeithas trwy arfer nerth ariannol. O ganlyniad i hyn, mae pobl yn cael eu pellhau oddi wrth bobl eraill a’r byd go iawn. | Despite that, it’s the unstoppable dominance of Capitalism that rules the world, separating products from their sources. A price is put on goods on the basis of monetary worth rather than usefulness; and it’s in financial terms that usefulness is defined. Culture is re-defined my means of industry while urbanization separates human beings from the inhuman world. Strong groups flourish in society by the exercise of monetary might. As a result of this, people are alienated from other people and the real world. |
| Yn y dyddiau sydd arnom, rydym yn creu’n holl realiti cyffredin trwy gyfrwng symbolau a’r cyd-destunau lle y’u defnyddiwyd. Sut byddwn ni’n penderfynu beth yw gwirionedd, felly, o blith y cymysgedd o wybodaeth grai? Bydd rhaid inni farnu gwahanol honiadau o’u cymharu â’r dystiolaeth gorau. Mewn llys, er enghraifft, “ffeithiau amgen” a ddygwyd gan y ddwy ochr er mwyn i’r rheithgor ddod i gasgliad ynglŷn â pha rai sydd yn gywir ar sail tystiolaeth. Felly, mae synnwyr cywirdeb yn byw eto ar yr olwg gyntaf. | In the present day, we create our entire reality my means of symbols and the contexts where they are used. How do we decide what is truth, therefore, amongst the mélange of raw information? We must judge different claims by comparing them with the best evidence. In a court, for example, “alternative facts” are adduced by the two sides in order for the jury to come to a conclusion regarding which ones are correct on the basis of evidence. Thus, the sense of truthfulness is alive still, at a first glance. |
| Tu allan i’r llysoedd, ta beth, rydym yn dyfeisio iaith anarferol o ddyrys, y dyddiau eithriadol hyn. Ceir “camlefaru” sy’n golygu “dweud celwyddau,” er enghraifft. A beth am y rheiny sy’n ymroi i “ormodiaith eirwir”? Dim ond camliwiad diniwed ydy, yn ôl pob tebyg. Ond, i'r gwrthwyneb, mae’n gweithio i hyrwyddo buddiannau’r rhai pwerus sy’n ei defnyddio’n effeithiol iawn, achos bod pobl y dygwyd y grym oddi arnynt, eisiau credu mewn pethau eithriadol. Y cyfryngau i gyd sy’n cyfrannu at y broblem hon, trwy werthu nwyddau, syniadau a gobeithion diangen fel petaent yn hanfodol. O ganlyniad i hyn, “ffeithiau amgen,” sef “gwybodaeth wedi’i seilio’n bennaf ar farn” sy’n cymryd lle gwirionedd, a dweud y gwir. Golyga geiriau beth y dymuna’r newyddiadurwyr iddynt olygu. Bu farw’r hen wir! Hir oes i’r gwir newydd! | Outside the courts, though, we use extremely perplexing language, in these exceptional times. We have “mis-speaking” which means “telling ties,” for instance. And what about those who surrender themselves to “veracious exaggeration”? This is, apparently, nothing but harmless misrepresentation. But, on the contrary, it works to promote the interests of those in power, who use it most effectively, because people who have been disenfranchised want to believe in exceptional things. All of the media contribute to this problem by selling needless goods, ideas, and hopes, as if they were essential. As a result of this, we have “alternative facts,” namely “information based chiefly on opinion,” which, in truth, are taking the place of veracity. Words mean what the newscasters want them to mean. The truth is dead! Long live the new truth! |
| Arbenigwyr sy’n rheoli’n byd ni, wedi’i adeiladu â thechnoleg wynias, orlawn o wybodaeth, llawn i’r ymyl â ffeithiau. Boddi mewn hysbysrwydd rydym. Pwy sy’n treulio ac ailgyfogi’r testunau amlgyfrwng lluosog? Dyna’r sylwebyddion. Pwy sy’n gorfodi ni i fwyta’r seindalpiau blasus, y sylwau bachog hynny? Dyna’r darlledwyr. Pwy sy’n dadansoddi’r mynyddoedd o fanylion, cythreulig o gymhleth? Dyna’r gwŷr hysbys, wedi’u trwytho yn y dirgelion. Ac mae pob un o’r rhain wedi gwario llawer o arian yn ennill y cymwysterau priodol. Maen nhw i gyd wedi rhoi cryn dipyn o’u bywyd yn cronni’r medrau. Palu’n fwyfwy dwfn yn ffosydd sy wedi dod yn fwyfwy cul y maent. Fe amddiffynnant eu tiriogaeth a’u datganiadau â ffyrnigrwydd selogion. Yn awr, mae arbenigwyr wedi dod yn enwogion; ac mae selébs bob amser yn barod â’u barnau. | It’s experts who govern our world, built from white-hot technology, overloaded with information, overflowing with facts. We are drowning in knowledge. Who is it that digests and regurgitates the plurality of multi-media productions? Those are the commentators. Who forces us to eat the tasty sound-bites, those barbed commentaries? That’s the broadcasters. Who is it that analyses the myriad, devilishly complex, details? That’s the experts, who’ve been steeped in the mysteries. And every one of these has spent a great deal of money gaining the appropriate qualifications. They’ve all devoted a considerable part of their life to accumulating the skills. Delving more and more deeply into trenches which have become more and more narrow is what they do. They defend their territory and their revelations with the ferocity of zealots. Now, experts have become personalities; and ”celebs” are always ready with their opinions. |
| Ond y broblem yw hyn: gall unrhyw un ddadlau am y gorffennol, gan ddyfeisio damcaniaethau hyfryd o astrus sy’n esboniadol i ryw fesur. Serch hynny, does dim profion a fydd yn gallu eu gwirio nhw. Rydym yn sôn am ddysgu gwersi’r gorffennol, ond ni ddysgwn ni ddim byd. Beth am dybiaethau ynghylch y dyfodol? Wel, mewn unrhyw system mor gymhleth â chymdeithasau, nid o werth fydd yr un darogan o bethau i ddod. Byddinoedd o broffwydi ac o ddaroganwyr sydd. Ond, tra gweithiant yn eithriadol o galed i ennill eu tamaid, gwaethygu’r sefyllfa a wnaethant, o ran rhai. Fe ddaw syniadau’r werin bobl yn fwy dryslyd fyth. Byddan nhw’n fwy hydrin a haws eu camarwain. Ac felly gwella’r arbenigwyr amgylchiadau ar ran awdurdodau’r sefyllfa fel y mae. Wedi’r holl ymdrechion hyn, arhosa’r cwestiwn a ofynnwyd dau fileniwm yn ôl: beth yw gwir? | But the problem is this: anyone can debate about the past, dreaming up beautifully abstruse theories which are explanatory to some degree. Despite that, there are no tests which can verify them. We talk about learning the lessons of the past, but we learn nothing. What about speculations regarding the future? Well, in any system as complex as society, not a single prediction of things to come will be worthwhile. There are armies of prophets and futurologists. But, while they work exceptionally hard to earn their crusts, they actually worsen the situation, for some at least. The conceptions of the mass of people become more confused than ever. They are more malleable and easy to mislead. And so the experts make the circumstances better for the authorities of the status-quo. After all these efforts, the question asked two millennia ago still remains: what is truth? |
| Erbyn hyn, y doctoriaid areithiau, y troellwyr metafforaidd, sy’n gor-ddweud a chanmol i’r cymylau, ond nad ydynt yn dweud y gwir. lefaryddion ar ran pleidiau gwleidyddol sy’n rhoddi gwedd ffafriol ar ddigwyddiadau, pobl, a pholisïau, i’r cyfryngau torfol. Ac yn wir y byddan nhw’n cyflwyno dehongliadau rhagfarnllyd, dethol ffeithiau ffafriol, claddu newyddion drwg, gwadu pethau heb eu nacáu, ac ymddiheuro am gamgymeriadau heb ddweud ei bod yn ddrwg ganddynt, er mwyn hocedu a drysu. | By now, it’s the metaphorical spin-doctors, the silver-tongued snakes, who exaggerate, and praise to the clouds, but who don’t tell the truth. Spokespersons for political parties present a favourable view on every event, person, and policy. to the mass media. And in truth, they present prejudiced interpretations, select favourable facts, bury bad news, deny things without saying “no,” and apologise for mistakes without saying that they feel any sorrow, in order to beguile and bewilder. |
| Dylwn ofyn, felly: beth sy’n digwydd pan â iaith i’r gad? Dyma pan fydd ymadroddion diniwed a dymunol yn cymryd lle termau sarhaus, dadleuol, a garw, a gyfleai’n gywirach yr hyn a olygir. Wrth gwrs mae iaith, ac ieithoedd, yn ddibechod. Y propagandwyr yng Ngweinyddiaethau Heddwch a ddefnyddia fwytheiriau neu eiriau teg (ac onid lledneiseiriau yw’r rhain, hefyd?) sydd ar fai. Ac felly’r dyddiau hyn, mae “arweinyddion y byd rhydd” yn “ennyn rhyfel dyngarol” yn erbyn “llywodraethau gwrthwynebus” ar “Echel y Fall” sy biau “arfau eang ddistryw” – siŵr o fod. | We should ask, therefore, what happens when language goes to war? This is when harmless and pleasant phrases take the place of terms which are offensive, debatable, or harsh, but which would convey more truthfully what is meant. Of course, language, and languages, are sinless. It’s the propagandists in the Ministry of Peace who utilise euphemisms or fair words (and isn’t “fair words” a euphemism itself?), who are at fault. And so, these days, the “leaders of the free world” are “waging humanitarian war” against “hostile regimes” on the “Axis of Evil” which possess “weapons of mass destruction” – probably. |
| Yn ystod “ymgyrchoedd yn yr awyr,” y defnyddir “bomiau craff” er mwyn “diddymu asedau’r gelyn” y tu mewn i “lecynnau o wrthsafiad.” “Ymosodiadau â fflaim” sy’n “niwtraleiddio targedau;” a “dilëir minteiau o frawychwyr” gan “fomio’n fanwl.” Rywbryd, yn anffodus, cynyddu “cyfrif cyrff” a wna “saethu cyfeillgar” a “difrod ystlysol” wrth greu “naws braw ac ofn.” Ond trwy hyn, y gwareda “galluoedd y goleuni” diriogaethau rhag “grymoedd goresgynnol,” gan “lanburo ac ail-wneud” y ddaear ar eu delwau eu hun. | During “aerial campaigns” they use “targeted destruction” in order to “destroy enemy assets” within “pockets of resistance.” There are “surgical strikes” which “neutralize targets” and “terrorist cells are deleted” by “smart bombs.” Sometimes, unfortunately, the “friendly fire” and “collateral damage” increases the “body count” and creates an “atmosphere of shock and awe.” But through this the “powers of light” guard territories against “oppressive forces” by “purifying and refashioning” the earth in their own image. |
| Erbyn hyn, y mae maes y gad, sydd yn “theatr rhyfel” yn ôl y trosiad Saesneg, wedi dod yn theatr lythrennol. Bydd rhaid i’r “gormeswyr tramor” gael eu diawleiddio er mwyn hyrwyddo amcanion “ymgyrch rhyddid parhaus.” Gwneir hyn gan gynrychiolwyr cyfryngau newyddion wedi’u gosod ymhlith y gad. Dyma ohebwyr a blannwyd mewn unedau milwrol, yn cael adroddiadau disyfyd yn uniongyrchol oddi wrth y cadlywyddion a’r saethwyr cudd fel ei gilydd. Bydd yr anymladdwyr hyn yn aml yn llinell danio – tra chyffrous – nes iddynt farw! | Now, the battlefield is a “theatre of war” – literally. “Overseas oppressors” must be vilified in order to promote the ends of the “mission towards enduring peace.” This is done by the producers of news media implanted amidst the conflict. Here, correspondents inserted into military units receive continuous reports direct from the both the generals and from the hidden snipers. These non-combatants are often in the line of fire – so exciting – until they die! |
| Beth, felly, y gellir ei ddweud am Ail Ryfel y Gwlff, sy wedi cael ei alw gan rai damcaniaethwyr diwylliant yn anfadwaith a ffugiai fod yn rhyfel? Dim ond ychydig o anafusion a lladdedigion ymhlith grymoedd y coalisiwn (tua mil) ydoedd. Ni wneir llawer am y nifer gywir o glwyfedigion Iracaidd (efallai tua chan mil). Defnyddiai’r cynghreiriaid rym awyr llethol yn aml, yn hytrach nag ymladd yn uniongyrchol ar y ddaear. Darlledwyd lluniau o ganol y brwydro dros y byd mewn amser real, yn ogystal ag ailddarllediadau, sylwebaeth, cyfweliadau, a dadansoddiadau. O achos hyn y honnir na allai gwylwyr wahaniaethu rhwng y digwyddiadau go iawn a phropaganda wedi’i wneud. | What, then, can be said of the Second Gulf War, which has been called by some cultural theorists a “conflict pretending to be a war”? There were only a few injuries and deaths in the ranks of the coalition (about 1000). Not a lot is known about the true number of Iraqi injured (about 100,000, perhaps). The allies often used overpowering air power, rather than fighting directly on the ground. Pictures were broadcast across the world in real time, from the middle of the fighting, together with re-broadcasts, commentary, interviews, and analyses. Because of this it is alleged that viewers could not differentiate between real events and manufactured propaganda. |
| Fodd bynnag, efallai bod y newyddion, a’r cyfryngau drwodd a thro wedi syrthio i fagl eu llwyddiant eu hun. Mae carfannau mewn cymdeithas yn goruchafu ar eu gwrthwynebwyr a’u pleidwyr fel ei gilydd drwy negesau ideolegol hydreiddiol. Mae swyddogion y llywodraeth yn gallu bygwth a bwlian cynrychiolwyr y cyfryngau, ystwytho ffeithiau, a gadael cyfarfodydd heb ateb yr un cwestiwn. Wrth gwrs, ym Mhalas San Steffan, yn ôl rheolau Tŷ’r Cyffredin, ni all un Aelod Seneddol honni bod Aelod arall wedi gwyro oddi wrth y gwir; ac yno, gorliwiad a enwir yn “anfanylder mewn termau.” | However, perhaps the news, and the media in general, have become victims of their own success. Factions in society are overcoming their foes and allies alike through pervasive ideological messages. Government officials can threaten and bully media producers, manipulate facts, and leave meetings without answering a single question. Of course, in the Palace of Westminster, according the rules of the Commons, one MP cannot allege that another one has wandered from the truth, and there, exaggeration is called “terminological inexactitude.” |
| Ffrwydrodd bom o dan y fangre hybarch hon, a’i harferion, fodd bynnag, pan grybwyllodd rhaglen newyddiadurol ffeil wedi’i rhywioli ynghylch arfau eang ddistryw. Roedd hon o'r pwys mwyaf yn cyfiawnhau Ail Ryfel y Gwlff ar ran y llywodraeth Brydeinig. Gwylltiodd ysgrifennydd cyfryngau i’r prif weinidog, ac aeth y llywodraeth a’r cyfryngau i ryfel. O ganlyniad, collodd pwysigion teledu eu swyddi, lladdodd un arbenigwr ei hun, dechreuodd ymchwiliad cyhoeddus helaeth, a difethwyd enw da’r prif weinidog. Ymhellach, niweidiwyd enw llywodraeth ddemocrataidd ac agored ym Mhrydain yn enbyd. | A bomb exploded under this venerable place, and its practices, however, when a news programme mentioned a “sexed-up” file relating to weapons of mass destruction. This was of the greatest importance in justifying the Second Gulf War to the British Government. The PM’s media secretary went wild, and the government and the media went to war. As a result, television bigwigs lost their jobs, one expert killed himself, an extensive public enquiry started, and the good name of the PM was destroyed. Furthermore, the name of democratic and open government in Britain was damaged severely. |
| Peth arall yw’r ffenomen ddiweddar o’r enw “newyddion ffug” sy’n digwydd yn aml ar y we, ac yn enwedig ar gyfryngau cymdeithasol. Dewch yn llu! Dewch i weld y sioe! Lladd Arlywydd America lewpard llesg ar y lleuad! Ambell dro, llunnir y straeon hyn er mwyn denu darlledwyr i wefannau, lle enilla hysbysebu elw i’w crewyr. Propaganda gwleidyddol yw eu diben mwy anfad mewn rhai achosion. Maen nhw’n debyg i newyddiaduraeth go iawn, ond tra hollol ffug ydy’r mwyafrif ohonynt, mae rhai’n rhannol wir. Mae gwefannau’n ymddangos fel petaen nhw’n gyfreithlon. Nhw biau ansawdd rhyfedd o hygrededd, ac felly, mae’n anodd gweld y gwahaniaeth rhwng erthyglau cywir, straeon ffug, a hysbysebu. Mae syrffwyr y we yn rhy brysur a diog, ac eironi, hiwmor, a hurtrwydd sy’n helpu i ddileu’r gwahaniaethau. | Another thing is the recent phenomenon named “fake news” which often occurs on the web, and particularly on social media. Roll up, roll up! Come to see the show! The American President slays a languid leopard in London! Occasionally, these stories are fashioned to tempt readers to websites, where the advertising wins profit for the creators. Political propaganda is their more heinous aim in some cases. They are like real reportage, but while the majority of them are totally fake, some are partly true. The websites appear as if they were legitimate. They possess a strange quality of credibility, and so, it’s hard to see the difference between correct articles, fake stories, and advertising. The websurfers are too busy and lazy, and irony, humour, and negligence help to obscure the differences. |
| Roedd llawer o straeon ffug ar gerdded cyn yr etholiad arlywyddol diweddar yn America, ac yn wir, llwyth o wefannau’n cefnogi Trump. Eto i gyd, hwyrach bod Trump yn rhy brysur yn rhefru am raglenni teledu poblogaidd i gymryd sylw. Dyn busnes a biliwnydd ydy Arlywydd yr Unol Daleithiau newydd, nad yw’n llywodraethu drwy’r sianelau swyddogol, ond drwy ddictad personol ac ebychiadau di-dor ar drydar. Honnwyd i’w ddefod sefydlu ddenu’r gynulleidfa fwyaf erioed i dystio i achlysur o’r fath. “Anwiredd profadwy” a “gwybodaeth anghywir,” meddai’r newyddiadurwyr; “ffeithiau amgen” atebodd cynghorwyr dros yr Arlywydd, a gyhuddai’r gohebwyr o hau anghydfod, trwy wneud adroddiadau oedd yn fwriadol anwireddus. Ydy hwn yn ymosod difrifol ar y cyfryngau rhydd, ynteu ar y gyfundrefn wleidyddol ei hun? Ddylai hwn gael ei wrthwynebu, a chan bwy? | There were lots of fake stories afoot before the recent presidential election in America, and in truth, a load of websites supporting Trump. There again, perhaps Trump is too busy disparaging popular television programmes to pay attention. A businessman and billionaire is the new President of the United States, who doesn’t govern through the official channels but through personal diktat and ceaseless ejaculations on twitter. It was alleged that his investiture ceremony attracted the greatest ever audience to witness an occasion of this sort. “Provable untruth” and “incorrect information” is what the newscasters said; “alternative facts” answered the President’s advisers, who accused the correspondents of sowing discord, through making reports which were intentionally untrue. Is this a serious attack on the free media, or, on the political system itself? Should this be resisted, and by whom? |
| Tir diffaith oedd disgrifiad ar y byd ar ddiwedd y Rhyfel Byd Cyntaf, hynny yw, lle gwag llawn tranc ac annynoldeb a arhosai am farn. Ac wedyn yn sgil y distryw, digwyddodd yr Ail Ryfel Byd, a ryddhaodd bŵer daeargrynfaol yr atom. Felly, ar ôl mwy na’r deugain mlynedd Feiblaidd o grwydro yn anialdir diymadferthedd, o ymdrybaeddu yng nghors anobaith mud, lle rydym ni yn awr? | A Wasteland was the description of the word at the end of the First World War, that is, a void, full of desolation and inhumanity, which was awaiting judgement. And then in the wake of the destruction, the Second World War happened, which released the earth-shattering power of the atom. So, after more than forty Biblical years of wandering in the desolation of inertia, of wallowing in the slough of despond, where are we now? |
| Hyd yn hyn, trwy weddill y ganrif ddiwethaf, mae arswyd rhyfel a gwyrthiau technoleg wedi epilio’r byd “gwaeth-orau.” Buon ni’n byw mewn oes lle mai’r hollbwysig gysyniad paradocsaidd o’r enw “gwyn-ddu” reolai. Gwrthwynebwyr i ryw gyfundrefn a ddywedai gelwyddau enllibus pan honnent mai du yw gwyn drwy’r amser. Ar y llaw arall, bu rhaid i’r rheiny sy’n cefnogi’r gyfundrefn yn deyrngar wybod bod gwyn yn ddu heb os nac oni bai, gan ddiwygio’r gorffennol yn gyson. | Up till now, through the remainder of the last century, the horror of war and the miracles of technology have spawned the “best-worst” world. We’ve been living in an age where the all-important, paradoxical concept named “black-white” holds sway. Opponents of a certain system would tell slanderous lies when they alleged that black is white all the time. On the other hand, those who faithfully supported the regime had to believe that white was black without a shadow of a doubt, while re-envisioning the past, constantly. |
| Gyda thranc yr ugeinfed ganrif, rhedeg yn wyllt ydy’r ystrydebau. Nid wedi cymryd lle gwirionedd y mae’r symbolau; realiti ei hun ydynt, neu’n hytrach, “gor-realiti.” Mae ystyr wedi dod yn ddiystyr. Mae’r gwir go iawn wedi marw. Nid yw dim byd ar ôl, nac o ran deall, na chymdeithas, na moesoldeb. | With the demise of the twentieth century, stereotypes run amok. It’s not that symbols have taken the place of truth; it’s that they are reality, or, rather, “hyper-reality.” Meaning has become meaningless. The real truth has died. Nothing at all is left, not from the viewpoint of understanding, nor society, nor morality. |
| Erbyn hyn, sut bynnag, feiddiwn ni obeithio bod y cyfnod o ddarniad ac ansicrwydd ôl-fodern wedi diflannu, bod yr oes “amgen-fodern” yn cyrraedd, ac mai amser ailadeiladu ac ail-lunio sefydliadau ac arferion hirsefydlog fydd? Dyma unigolion trefnus a dyfal, a charfanau bychain ond uchel eu cloch, yn mynnu’r hawl i benderfynu drostynt eu hun. | By now, however, may we dare to hope that the period of post-modern shattering and insecurity has dissipated, that the “alter-modern” age has arrived, and that it will be a time of rebuilding and reforming institutions and long-standing practices? Here there are organised and industrious individuals, and factions that are small in size but loud in voice, who demand their rights to decide for themselves. |
| Yn lleol, ac ar bynciau penodol yr ymgyrchant, a newidia’r lleoliadau a’r achosion drwy’r amser. Maen nhw’n dechrau gwrthsefyll y grymoedd trechaf heddiw, sef brad y cyfryngau torfol a chelwyddau gwleidyddiaeth gyfalafol. Ac yn aml gwnân nhw hyn trwy ddefnyddio ffonau symudol, a thrwy ddymchwelyd y rhyngrwyd a chyfryngau cymdeithasol. Efallai y gwelwn gyrsiau prifysgol newydd cyn hir mewn llythrennedd cyfryngau digidol, ar gyfer pobl hen ac ifanc fel ei gilydd. Nyni sy biau lleisiau a’n lleisiau a glywir! | Locally, and on definite topics they are campaigning, and the localities and the causes change all the time. They are beginning to resist the most powerful of today’s forces, namely the treachery of the mass media and the lies of capitalistic politics. And often they do this by using mobile phones, and through subverting the internet and social media. Perhaps we’ll see new university courses before long in digital-media literacy, for people old and young alike. It’s us who have voices, and our voices will be heard! |
| Ac wedyn, allwn ni ddewis dyfodol ym Mharadwys neu Uffern? A grëwn ni gwlad iwtopaidd sy’n ymreolus, lewyrchus, gyson, amlieithog, neu ynteu ardal ddystopaidd, uniaith, heb hunaniaeth, sy’n llawn trais? Cymru Rydd, neu Loegr Orllewinol? Pwy a ddatrys? Gall ffuglen wyddonol archwilio dewisiadau, ond gall hyrwyddo propaganda ar yr un pryd. | And then, can we choose a future in Heaven or in Hell? Will we create a utopian land which is autonomous, flourishing, harmonious, multilingual, or rather a dystopian region, that’s monolingual, lacking identity, and full of violence? Free Wales, or Western England? Who’ll solve the puzzle? Sci-fi can illuminate the choices, but it can promote propaganda at the same time. |
| Efallai nad rhwng dau wrthwyneb mae’r dewisiadau pwysicach, fydd yn gwneud y mymryn lleiaf o wahaniaeth yn y pendraw. Hwyrach mai dyfodol yn byw mewn gwladwriaeth wedi’i reoli gan gyfrifiaduron lloerig fydd ein diwedd ni. Gadewch i bob un ohonom weddïo y gallwn ni i gyd ddwyn grym oddi ar yr arbenigwyr, a goresgyn gormes y dewiniaid delwau, gan adfeddiannu geiriau, a dod yn awduron ein hanesion ein hunain. | Perhaps, the most important choices, those which will make the tiniest bit of difference in the end, are not between two such polarities. Maybe, a future living in a state ruled by mad computers will be our end. Let each one of us pray that we can all reclaim power from the experts, and overcome the oppression of the televisual wizards, by repossessing our words, and becoming authors of our own histories. |
| Ond, peidiwch ufuddhau i fi’n wasaidd. Wedi’r cwbl, lledaenwr celwyddau noeth fel yr holl rai eraill ydw. On’d wyf? | But, don’t obey me slavishly. After all, a spreader of barefaced lies, just like all the others, is what I am. Am I not? |
