xiao's profilePleasurePhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
New York TImes 到底会不会说人话？？？？貌似公平中立，总是忘不了最后加一点不经意的小诽谤。 唯今之际，除了跟丫死磕，还能怎么办？？
Chinese Students in U.S. Fight View of Their Home By SHAILA DEWAN Published: April 29, 2008 LOS ANGELES — When the time came for the smiling Tibetan monk at the front of the University of Southern California lecture hall to answer questions,the Chinese students who packed the audience for the talk last Tuesday had plenty to lob at their guest: Ben Huang challenging a Tibetan monk last Tuesday. Enlarge This Image Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Min Zhu, center, was removed from an event with a monk at the University of Southern California after a bottle was thrown. If Tibet was not part of China, why had the Chinese emperor been the one to give the Dalai Lama his title? How did the tenets of Buddhism jibe with the“slavery system” in Tibet before China’s modernization efforts? What about the Dalai Lama’s connection to Hitler? As the monk tried to rebut the students, they grew more hostile. They brandished photographs and statistics to support their claims. “Stop lying!Stop lying!” one young man said. A plastic bottle of water hit the wall behind the monk, and campus police officers hustled the person who threw it out of the room. Scenes like this, ranging from civil to aggressive, have played out at colleges across the country over the past month, as Chinese students in the United States have been forced to confront an image of their homeland that they neither recognize nor appreciate. Since the riots last month in Tibet,the disrupted Olympic torch relays and calls to boycott the opening ceremony of the Games in Beijing, Chinese students, traditionally silent on political issues, have begun to lash out at what they perceive as a pervasive anti-Chinese bias. Last year, there were more than 42,000 students from mainland China studying in the United States, an increase from fewer than 20,000 in 2003, according to the State Department. Campuses including Cornell, the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of California, Irvine, have seen a wave of counter demonstrations using tactics that seem jarring in the American academic context. At the University of Washington, students fought to limit the Dalai Lama’s address to nonpolitical topics. At Duke, pro-China students surrounded and drowned out a pro-Tibet vigil; a Chinese freshman who tried to mediate received death threats, and her family was forced into hiding. And last Saturday, students from as far as Florida and Tennessee traveled to Atlanta to picket CNN after a commentator, Jack Cafferty, referred to the Chinese as “goons and thugs.” (CNN said he was referring to the government , not the people.) The student anger, stoked through e-mail messages sent to large campus mailing lists, stems not so much from satisfaction with the Chinese government but from shock at the portrayal of its actions, as well as frustration over the West’s long-standing love affair with Tibet — a love these students see as willfully blind. By and large, they do not acknowledge the cultural and religious crackdown in Tibet, insisting that ordinary Tibetans have prospered under China’s economic development, and that only a small minority are unhappy. “Before I came here, I’m very liberal,” said Minna Jia, a graduate student in political science at U.S.C. who encouraged fellow students to attend the monk’s lecture. “But after I come here, my professor told me that I’m nationalist.” “I believe in democracy,” Ms. Jia added, “but I can’t stand for someone to criticize my country using biased ways. You are wearing Chinese clothes and you are using Chinese goods.” Students interviewed for this article deplored the more extreme expressions of anger, like death threats against the Duke freshman and the tossing of the water bottle, and pointed out that Chinese students had little experience in the art of protest. But, they said, they could also understand them. “We’ve been smothered for too long time,” said Jasmine Dong, another graduate student who attended the U.S.C. lecture. By that, Ms. Dong did not mean that Chinese students had been repressed or censored by their own government. She meant that the Western news media had not acknowledged the strides China had made or the voices of overseas Chinese. “We are still neglected or misunderstood as either brainwashed or manipulated by the government,” she said. No matter what China does, these students say, it cannot win in the arena of world opinion. “When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet./ When we tried limiting our numbers, you said it is human rights abuse,” reads a poem posted on the Internet by “a silent, silent Chinese” and cited by some students as an accurate expression of their feelings. “When we were poor, you thought we were dogs./ When we loan you cash, you blame us for your debts./ When we build our industries, you called us polluters./ When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.” Rather than blend in to the prevailing campus ethos of free debate, the more strident Chinese students seem to replicate the authoritarian framework of their homeland, photographing demonstration participants and sometimes drowning out dissent. A Tibetan student who declined to be identified for fear of harassment said he decided not to attend a vigil for Tibet on his campus, which he also did not want identified because there are so few Tibetans there. “It’s not that I didn’t want to, I really did want to go — it’s our cause,” he said. “At the same time, I have to consider that my family’s back there, and I’m going back there in May.” Another factor fueling the zeal of many Chinese demonstrators could be that they, too, intend to return home; the Chinese government is widely believed to be monitoring large e-mail lists. （注意，丫开始不说人话了.能别大白天意淫吗？） Universities have often tried to accommodate the anger of their Chinese students. Before the Dalai Lama’s visit to the University of Washington,the campus Chinese Students and Scholars Association wrote to the university president expressing hopes that the visit would focus only on nonpolitical issues and not arouse anti-China sentiments. According to a posting on the group’s Web site, the university president, Mark A. Emmert, told them in a meeting that no political questions would be raised at the Dalai Lama’s speech. A spokesman said the university, which opened an office in Beijing last fall, had prescreened student questions before the Chinese students
A lecture by a Tibetan monk at U.S.C.Monica Almeida/The New York Times The lecture drew Chinese students who angrily questioned him and handed out fliers opposing the Dalai Lama. Some experts say that colleges feel constrained from reining in the more extreme protests through a combination of concerns about cultural sensitivity and a desire to expand their own ties with China. “I think there tends to be a great deal of self-censorship,” said Peter Gries, director of the Institute for U.S.-China Issues at the University of Oklahoma, “and not just among American China scholars but among the whole web of people who do business with China, including school administrators.” （废话，基本的社交礼仪懂不懂？礼貌懂不懂？你见德国人也见面就说你们总理好像脑袋秀豆了，你见法国人也见面就说你们法国人一向两面三刀墙头草？？） At the U.S.C. lecture, the Chinese students arrived early to distribute handouts on Tibet and China that contained a jumble of abbreviated history, slogans and maps with little context. A chart showing that infant mortality in Tibet had plummeted since 1951, when the Communist Chinese government asserted control, did not provide any means for comparison with mortality rates in China or other countries. （Errr, let me think here, oh, FYI, we have rights to do this!!!） One photograph showed the Dalai Lama with Heinrich Harrer, author of “Seven Years in Tibet” and a one-time member of the Nazi Party — hence the question about the Dalai Lama’s connection to Hitler, who died when the Dalai Lama was nine. The question about slavery referred to the feudal system in place in Tibet until the mid-20th century. Another photograph purported to show a Tibetan drum that, according to the caption, was covered with “a virgin girl’s skin.” The students said they were frustrated by a sense that many accounts of the recent riots did not reflect the violence and destruction by the Tibetan protesters, who vandalized shops owned by Han Chinese (the ethnic majority in China). According to official Chinese news sources, 22 died in the rioting. Much of the anger has the tenor of disillusionment. During the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, the Western news media was seen as a source of otherwise elusive truth. “We thought Western media is very objective,” said Chou Wu, a 28-year-old working on his doctorate in material science, “and what it turned out is that Western media is even more biased than Chinese media. They’re no better, and even more, they’re against us.” Students argue that China has spent billions on Tibet, building schools, roads and other infrastructure. Asked if the Tibetans wanted such development, they looked blankly incredulous. “They don’t ask that question,” said Lionel Jensen, a China scholar at Notre Dame. “They’ve accepted the basic premise of aggressive modernization.” That may be, some experts suggest, because the students whose families can afford to send them abroad are the ones who have benefited the most from China’s economic liberalization. Spring Zheng, 27, another graduate student at U.S.C., dismissed the notion that her patriotism stemmed from the government’s efforts to use the schools to instill national pride, particularly after Tiananmen Square. Rather, Ms. Zheng said, “We have witnessed with our own eyes about the rapid change of China. China is developing fast, and Chinese people’s lives” are “becoming better and better, fast.” As the U.S.C. session wound to a close, the organizer, Lisa Leeman, a documentary film instructor, pleaded for a change in tone. “My hope for this event, which I don’t totally see happening here, is for people on both , quote, sides to really hear each other and maybe learn from each other,”Ms. Leeman said. “Are there any genuine questions that don’t stem from a political point of view, that are really not here to be on a soap box?” （所以反正中国学生说什么都是political view。那到底什么不是political view?我们要跟他讨论佛教，您老人家有兴趣吗？您听得懂吗请问。您要想让中国学生都跟绵羊似的，乖乖听您教导，您说错了我们也惶惶然，那您就直说嘛，您不说我们怎么知道呢？您不说，我们还以为您真想让我们交流自己的看法呢。。。） At that moment, the bottle hit the wall.（这个太煽情了，我都落下泪来，大有鲁迅振臂一呼却不见影者云集的悲凉，大有出师未捷身先死的凄美啊） 节选：油彩下的历史脸谱——琐谈对日史识之病苍白无力的悲情 我们的“选择性健忘症”，还表现在时刻提醒日本勿忘侵略史的同时，却只提醒自己是个受害者，没有提醒自己去反省何以总是成为历史悲情的主角呢？受害者这样的身份，究竟是耻辱还是荣光？是否因为有了一个可供谴责的强盗和匪徒，我们就可以有理由和借口将窝囊与无能包装成悲壮和高尚呢？ 日本在中国的一场场大屠杀，是我们民族的悲剧，更是我们的耻辱。看南京大屠杀的报道，经常是我们成百上千人被十几个日本兵看管着就能分批杀害，如果反抗，至少可以跑出一部分人，至少可以把那几个日本兵干掉。是我们中国人将生死置之度外了，还是都在指望着别人挑头呢？毕竟，挑头的人基本是没有生还的希望的。 仅仅控诉暴行，仅仅诉诸悲情，丝毫也不能减弱我们应有的自责。遗憾的是，日本人被打回老家都已一个甲子，我们却还只沉溺于悲情之中，停留在哭诉的“伤痕文学”阶段，难以自拔、难以深入。一个遭受了过度苦难的民族，如果把精力只是放在控诉上，而不是放在自省和自强上；如果把纪念只是寄托在罹难者身上，而不是寄托在抗争者身上，它在心理上还是一个弱者。 甲午战争中，清军几乎是屡战屡败，日本人的文献在记录了清军作为军队的无能和衰弱的同时，却也记录了不少清军官兵作为军人的英勇和顽强，并对此敬意有加。但是，这些起而抗争的英雄们，却被我们后辈遗忘了，被我们只知道哀叹伤感的眼泪给淹没了。 悲痛如果不化作力量，眼泪就是最无用的化妆品。我们今天或许该问问自己：我们是应该让日本正视历史，但如果它就是不正视呢？我们是应该让日本道歉下跪，但如果它就是不道歉不下跪呢？我们是应该反对日本政要参拜靖国神社，但如果他们就是拒绝接受呢？我们除了叫叫嚷嚷，还能干些别的吗？ “以德抱怨”的单恋 在我们将纪念耻辱看得重于纪念抗争、推动自省的同时，我们却奇怪地坚信，“以德抱怨”的单恋，可以弥和历史的伤痕，缓解现实利益的冲突。 来自中国的战争赔款，曾经是日本赖以崛起的资本；而同样来自中国的放弃索赔，也对战后日本的复兴起到了重大的作用。等到我们的发展需要资本的时候，那些本该是战争赔款的日元却转弯抹角地以援助贷款的方式登陆，这样的事，难道不比要求日本下跪道歉更值得我们反思吗？ 中国文化，本不应如此阿Q。孔子当年就对“以德抱怨”嗤之以鼻，质问道：如果“以德抱怨”，那“何以报德”呢？大汉王朝时，出于“安全关切”，多次出兵“侵略”匈奴，著名将领陈汤从前敌给汉元帝发去一份奏折，表示了“宜将剩勇追穷寇”的决心，“以示万里，明犯强汉者，虽远必诛！”这种“虽远必诛”的阳刚精神，后来便逐渐消亡，对待外敌基本就是和亲、怀柔，用子女金帛“赎买”回大国崛起的感觉，且美其名曰“以德抱怨”，聊以自慰。这种阴柔性格的形成，就是 “一人为刚万夫柔”的产物（请参见拙作《一人为刚万夫柔》，本刊2008年3月上）。放弃对日索赔，在我看来，还是这种“和亲”思路的延续，可惜世易时移，人家未必领情。 正义就是力量？ 我们在自己作为受害者的身份认同之上，披挂了一件灿烂的外袍：正义。同时，我们大多数人还相信另一个神话：正义必胜。 然而，百多年来我们所遭受的外侮，其根源绝非因为我们坚守“正义”，而是：一曰“怀璧其罪”，你的地大物博正是人家所觊觎的发展空间，二曰“落后就要挨打”。外侮只能说明我们无能和软弱，并不能因此而赋予我们“正义”，更不能因此而赐给我们“胜利”。被凌辱与被屠 戮，不是正义；反抗凌辱与屠戮，才是正义。但胜利绝不来自正义，而只来自于实力。 在国际政治中，除了一些普世原则（如人权、民主、自由等）外，核心只有一个词：权力。这是至今仍奉行丛林原则的国际政治的实质。历史上所有的争斗（无论是民族之间的冲突还是民族内部的冲突），最后一定会归结到“利益”，区别无非在于为谁的利益和为什么样的利益。 其实，所谓的正义与非正义，是一个政治词汇，弹性很大。甲午战争时期，日军俨然以解放者自居，要从氏的异族统治下解放同文同种的中国，然后“革稗政，除民害，去虚文而从孔孟政教之旨，务核实而复三代帝王之治”（日本第一军《开诚忠告十八省之豪杰》，宗方小太郎执笔）。从大量的日本文献中，我们可以发现日本人对“征服支那”充满了正义感，他们坚信这不仅是解放中国，更是推进中国的文明进步，进而联合黄种人对抗西方侵略。他们的文献中，十分自然地自称“神州”、“华夏”乃至“中华”，而在甲午战争前二十多年（1871年），两国谈判《中日修好条规》时，日本就已经“义正词严”地反对清政府在文件中自称“中国”，而只能写为“大清”。在那部著名的电视连续剧《明成皇后》中，韩国人则充满正义地将中国人与日本人、俄国人一概丑化，这对华人观众的心理震撼无疑是十分巨大的。 我们研究中日历史，如果真要起到资治通鉴的作用，则必须摈弃毫无意义的道义之辩（那只适用于现实政治操盘），而还原和探究其最残酷的本质：中日之间的利益争夺和调整。温情脉脉的道德说教，往往容易蒙蔽自己，培养出一大帮宋襄公，把“正义”当作力量、乃至胜利，甚至天真地以为受害本身便可成为获得“正义”、乃至“胜利”的通行证。 “主义”的妖魔 与喜欢沉溺于虚幻的“正义” 感一样，在我们的对日声讨中，最盛行的是将日本的兽性归咎到某种“主义”（军国主义或****主义），似乎成千上万的日本人都只是误上贼船、被蒙蔽而已。这在“术”的层面上，作为一种公关、统战工具，未尝不可。但若真以为是，则不仅是幼稚的，甚至是危险的。 “主义”固然在塑造着人，但“主义”本身也是人所创造，更是由人在实践的。同一“主义”，在不同的人群手中，会实践出不同的、甚至完全相反的现实体现来。日本侵华，与其说是军国主义毒害了国民，不如说是其国民性格和利益诉求制造了军国主义。 我曾经收集了满蒙开拓团的一些影像和图片，毫无疑问，“日本人民”并不是侵略战争的受害者，而是受益者。活跃在中国的日本武装平民，得到了巨大的殖民利益，从而洋溢着无比的骄傲和自得。日本“军国主义”背后是强大的民意力量，其中包括那些属于“被压迫阶级”的工农。如果非要说“广大日本人民”“也”是受害者，则他们并不受害于侵略或“军国主义”，而只是受害于“失败”。 把“主义”当作分析和解决问题的症结，最后就只能在“主义”的高低和好坏上进行无谓的争论（不知大家注意过没有，民国初年****主义也曾被当作救中国的一剂灵药，而且应者不少），而偏离了实质的利益分析。简单地妖魔化某种“主义”，并把一切罪孽都安到它头上，其实是对历史解读的偷懒。 另一种妖魔化，就是过度解读并拘泥于一些极端事件，比如南京大屠杀等。极端事件当然能十分典型地证明恶魔的魔性，但过度拘泥于此，却有可能走入一个误区：似乎只有极端事件才能证明恶魔的魔性。设想一下：如果日本人占领南京，却没有进行大屠杀，而是实行某种宽容的统治（如同他们的谋士倡议的“仁政”），因此百姓安宁、市井俨然，我们是否就会因此而减弱对日控诉的力度呢？ 魔性，既体现在带血的刺刀上，也体现在甜蜜的糖果上。将敌人简单妖魔化，固然有利于把民众都统一到某些“主流的”思想和框架中，但同时也易培养弱智如同东郭先生者，在贷款、援助、下跪道歉等“糖果”面前，丧失分辨力。 我们家马的文章： 斗争的策略
Quote 斗争的策略 谁跟我装知识分子我抽谁这年头，粮价肉价飞涨，其他的倒是都便宜了。
会码字的都叫作家了。会打回车的都叫诗人了。念过几本书的都叫学者了。会写点文章的都成知识分子了。和小三相好的都叫追求真爱了。会挑战权威的，全都成斗士了。
作奸犯科的十恶不赦的，哪个不是条站权威的能手？他们也是正义的斗士？
就非要大家说东你说西，那就个性了就精英了就举世皆醉我独醒就可以自我陶醉了？
那也要看你有没有个point不是。还说不准谁睡着谁醒了呢。
这段很好笑我记得应该还有更好笑的一段，不过找不到了。 整个世界有时候沉重的像黑色幽默。有人像蚂蚁一样汹涌澎湃的投入其中，简单而盲目。 究竟是上帝为了巴别塔分隔了人类，还是人类自己用种种价值和主义争先恐后着居高临下？ 15
飞机在曼谷着陆。四百七十名医生、知识分子以及记者挤进了一家国际饭店的大舞厅。
那儿聚集着更多的医生、演员、歌唱家、语言学专家，还有数百名带有笔记本、录音机、照
相机以及摄像机的记者。乐台上约摸二十个美国人坐在一条长桌边上，正在主持各项事宜。
和弗兰茨一起进舞厅的那些法国知识分子，感到受了轻视和侮辱。向柬埔寨进军是他们
的主意，可这里的这些美国人，象平常一样恬不知耻，不但接管了领导权，而且是用英语接
管的，殊不知丹麦人和法国人听不懂他们的话。丹麦人早已忘记了他们曾形成了一个自己的
民族，因此法国佬便是唯一能进行抗议的欧洲人了。他们的原则是如此之高，以至拒绝用英
语抗议，而用母语法文向台上的美国人申明理由。那些美国人一个字也听不懂，报以友好和
赞同的微笑。到最后，法国人别无它法，只得用英语讲出他们的反对意见：“有法国人参
加，这个会为什么用英语？”
美国人对如此奇特的反对很觉惊奇，但仍然微笑，默认这个会议是该用两种语言进行
的。于是，在会议重新召开之前，得找一个合适的译员。随后，每个句子都用英语和法语两
种语言重复，使讨论花了两倍的时间，甚至还不止两倍，因为所有的法国人都懂一些英语，
他们不时打断译员的话来给他纠错，对每一个宇都争议不休。
一位著名的美国女演员站起来发言，使会议达到了高潮。就因为她，更多的摄影记者和
摄像师涌进了大厅，用照相机的咔嚓声伴随她发出的每一个音节。女演员谈到了受难的儿
童，共产党专政的残暴，人权的保障，当前对文明社会传统价值的威胁，个人不可剥夺的自
由，还谈到卡特总统，说他对柬埔寨事件表示深深的忧虑。她结束发言时，已是热泪盈眶。
一位长着小红胡子的法国年轻医生，跳出来吼道：“我们到这儿来是救死扶伤，不是来
向卡特总统致敬！别把这儿变成美国宣传的马戏场啦！我们不是来反共！我们是来这儿救
命！”
他马上得到另外几个法国人的响应。译员害怕了，不敢把他们的话翻译出来。于是乐台
上的二十个美国人满脸笑容，好意地看着他们，一再点头表示赞同。其中一位甚至把拳头举
向空中，他知道欧洲人在众人同乐时，是喜欢挥举拳头的。
重读《生命中不能承受之轻》 6
萨宾娜对国家当局最初的内心反感，与其说是具有道德性，还不如说带有美学性。她倒
不怎么反感当局管辖下的丑陋(把荒废的城堡变成牛栏)，却厌恶当局企图戴上美的假面具—
—换句话来说，就是当局的媚俗作态。当局媚俗作态的样板就是称为“五一节”的庆典。
她看见过这种庆典游行，是在人们依然有热情或依然尽力装出热情的年代。女人们穿上
红色、白色以及蓝色的衣裙，游行者队伍齐步行进时，阳台上或窗子前观看的老百姓便亮出
各种五角星、红心、印刷字体。铜管小乐队伴随着一个个游行群体，使大家的步伐一致。当
某个群体接近检阅台时，即使是最厌世的面孔上也要现出令入迷惑不解的微笑，似乎极力证
明他们极其欢欣，更准确地说，是他们完全认同。不仅仅是认同当局的政治，不，更是对生
命存在的认同。从无条件认同生命存在的深井里，这种庆典汲取了灵感。没有写出来、没有
唱出来的游行口号不是“共产主义万岁！”而是“生活万岁！”这种白痴式的同义反复
(“生活万岁！”)，使那些漠然处之的人对当局的论点和游行也发生了兴趣。对这一口号的
盗用，表现了当局的威力和灵巧。
7
十年后(这时她住在美国)，萨宾娜朋友之一，一位美国参议员，用他的大轿车带她出去
兜风。他的四个孩子在车后座跳上蹦下。参议员把车停在一个带有人造滑冰场的体育馆前
面，四个孩子从车上跳出来，开始在四周宽阔的草坪上跑起来。参议员坐在方向盘后，美美
地看着那四个活蹦乱跳的小身影，对萨宾娜说：“看看他们吧，”他用手臂划了个圆圈，把
运动场、草地以及孩子都划在圈里，“瞧，这就是我所说的幸福。”
他的话里面，不仅有看着孩子奔跑和绿草生长的欢欣，还有对一个来自共产党国家的难
民的深深理解。参议员深信，在那个国家里是不会有绿草生长和孩子奔跑的。
一瞬间，萨宾娜的脑子中闪现过一个幻影：这位参议员正站在布拉格广场的一个检阅台
上。他脸上的微笑，就是那些当权者在高高的检阅台上，对下面带着同样笑容的游行公民发
出的笑。
8
参议员怎么知道孩子就意昧着幸福？他能看透他们的灵魂？如果此刻他们都不见了，其
中三个向第四个扑过去并狠狠揍他，那又意味着什么？
参议员只有一条理由对他有利：他的感情。心灵和大脑经常意见不合抵触龃龉。而在媚
俗作态的王国里，心灵的专政是最高的统治。
媚俗所引起的感情是一种大众可以分享的东西。媚俗可以无须依赖某种非同寻常的情
势，是铭刻在人们记忆中的某些基本印象把它派生出来的：忘恩负义的女儿，被冷落了的父
亲，草地上奔跑的孩子，被出卖的祖国，第一次恋情。
媚俗引起两种前后紧密相连的泪流。第一种眼泪说：看见孩子们在草地上奔跑着，多好
啊！
第二种眼泪说：和所有的人类在一起，被草地上奔跑的孩子们所感动，多好啊！
第二种眼泪使媚俗更媚俗。
地球上人的博爱将只可能以媚俗作态为基础。
9
没有比政客更懂得这一点了。无论何时，一个照相机即将开拍，他们会立即奔向最近前
的孩子，把他举到空中，亲吻他的脸蛋。媚俗是所有政客的美学理想，也是所有政容党派和
政治活动的美学理想。
各种政治倾向并存的社会里，竞争中的各种影响互相抵销或限制，我们居于其中，还能
设法或多或少地逃避这种媚俗作态的统治：各人可以保留自己的个性，艺术家可以创造不见
的作品。但是，无论何时一旦某个政治运动垄断了权力，我们便发观自己置身于媚俗作态的
极权统治王国。
我说到极权统治，我的意思是一切侵犯媚俗的东西必将从生活中清除掉：每一种个性的
展示(在博爱者微笑的眼里，任何偏离集体的东西均遭藐视)；每一种怀疑(任何以怀疑局部
始的人，都将以怀疑生活自身而终)；所有的嘲讽(在媚俗的王国里，一切都必须严肃对
待)，以及抛弃了家庭的女人，或者爱男性胜过爱女性的男人。于是，“丰富而且多彩”这
样神圣的法令，就成为了疑问。
根据这一点，我们可以把古拉格当作媚俗作态极极统治用来处理垃圾的化粪池Phoebe这个转载要看完，因为这是我高中校友写的~~~
八阕 http://www.popyard.org
阿Q论/成龙论阿Q:别人摸得，我摸不得？ 成龙：我只是犯了天下男人都会犯的错误 共同的论证模板：如果A,B,C是性质相同或相近的事件，甲做了A，乙做了B，所以丙可以做C，或者说，丙做C是对的。 如果A,B,C本身是对的，那这句话就是废话：不管甲做不做A，乙做不做B，丙做C都是对的。换句话说，"甲做了A，乙做了B"与"丙做了C"无关。 如果A,B,C本身就是错的，这就是混蛋逻辑：所以别人耍流氓我就可以耍流氓，别人婚外通奸我就可以婚外通奸。那别人杀人放火扔原子弹，我也可以挺胸抬头去杀人放火扔原子弹，然后还说我是一个有很高道德境界的维护正义的英雄？别人做了什么，或者很多人做了什么，并不代表这么做就是对的。你跟着做，也只说明你也做错了。要非把错的说成对的，那叫指鹿为马，绝对可以上纲上线的。 当下有些说法，就是套用了以上的模板。固然是表达愤怒的好方法，却绝对不是好的论证，除了吵架和激化彼此的愤怒，没什么好处。 此为一例：西藏就是中国领土的一部份，你丫不服？有本事美国白人滚回欧洲，澳洲白人也滚回欧洲，云云。 拜托，你要论证的是"中国对于西藏那叫收回领土不叫侵略"，而不是"中国只是犯了天下强国都会犯的错误"。这话自己人说一说，大家义愤填膺一下也就罢了，千万别拿出去当作一个很好的论证跟人讨论。我们明白你是护国心切，他们看了只会觉得这个很黄很暴力。 It's a fine line. Don't cross it. We surely have the right to be outrageous on the current Tibet issue, because we are maltreated. But this is not an absolute right, meaning it has constraints, and only when within these constraints can our expressions be justifiable. It is ok to say "CNN is lying". This statement refers to some facts. But it is not ok to say "CNN is a bunch of thugs and goons". If those comments hurt your feelings, they hurt other people as well. Besides, it is not helping the debate. Are you trying to make a point or are you simply trying to make someone feel hurt? Are we satisfied with a shouting match? One comment on the Cafferty issue. Someone argues that it is kind of the American culture thing. They like to talk in an exaggerated way, and most of the times it is simply for the purpose of being fun. Well, that's fine. But it still seems to be self-centered given the fact that this society is pluralistic and multi-cultural. If some group of people feel being offended over and over again, it is not solely their problem being overreacted and too sensitive. Both sides need to take responsibility and need to improve. After all, it is not asking you to be Samaritan. It is asking you to be more considerate. Isn't that something basic? It is ok to engage in a debate, even a furious one, as long as it is for the purpose of exchanging information and examining each other's judgment. It is not ok to generate a fight intending the physical harms of your opponents. Nor is it ok to threaten your opponents in any way. We owe each other the duty to respect the right to bodily integrity as well as the right to conscience. In no society can unnecessary and intentional harms be justifiable. If someone can be persuaded by you, that is good. If not, you are not allowed to throw wahtever in your hand at that person. You persuade by evidence and elaborate by reasoning, not by violence and force! zzhttp://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b9cc179010092zc.html
精英为什么总爱给80后戴帽子【转帖】 在小女子身边，总出没着一群国际自由人，他们是超越在中国人这个范畴外的一群精英人士。 如果我年轻的八零后小友们谈一句民族主义，他们就会“嗖”一声飞过一顶帽子----狭隘的民族主义，为什么民族主义就一定是狭隘的？他们从不解释。 如果我年轻的八零后小友们谈一句爱国主义，他们就一定“嗖”一声再飞来一只帽子---奉旨爱国，为什么爱国不是本能不是冲动就只能是奉旨的呢？我高贵的国际自由人朋友们也从来不屑于解释。 但有一点是清楚的，他们爱人类，爱一切富裕、高雅、繁荣的事物。谁能要求别人不爱好的东西而爱糟糕的东西呢？从这个逻辑上讲，他们应该爱富强的西方国家而对尚当着西方打工仔的中国激不起什么感情。所以，当CNN说中国人五十年以来都是匪徒和暴民的时候他们很坦然，是啊，他们是中国极少数的精英，自我认定不是CNN批判的那部分人。但当爱国华人捍卫母亲的尊严保卫火炬传递的时候，他们很担心，呼喊着要冷静对待，要严格区分党、政府、国家、祖国的概念，不要奉旨爱国。一时间冷言冷语冷风习习。 在七八十年代，报纸的一则漫画描出了个老革命，一只手拿着一摞帽子，另一只手专门给人戴帽子。我想那是当时的年轻人对老一辈的讥讽。你们喋喋不休的忆苦思甜，你们拿着革命资本挥舞大棒，你们除了派发帽子还会做点什么？ 可惜时间不饶人。当年的年轻人两鬓斑白，也开始像九斤老太一样抱怨孩子们一代不如一代了。从指点江山书生意气变成了制造帽子的新工厂。 当老同志们严阵以待，枕戈待旦地警惕文革重来，将西人价值观当作宝贝的时候，80后已经站在西人之地，启动了维护东方人的斗争。呵呵，不是说国家崛起就是要文化输出吗？借机让西人领略一下中国人的价值观也好。中国不仅能用购买力、市场说话，今天更展示了需要尊重的要求。当然，我也承认，这个所谓的中国人价值观决不代表那一部分国际自由人民主精英的价值观，因为他们头脑里只有一直旗开得胜的西方宝典。 上周末一位湖南人跟我讲了他们的风水学。 房子要建在：靠山照水、四周环抱的环境下风水是最好的。 她解释，房子要背靠着山，面对着水，两旁是树木参天，家里的人就会比较成功、幸福，顺利。 我对风水没研究，但暗暗感觉这就是中国传统的一种价值观。 盖房子如此，做人更应该如此。 我们背靠的让自己踏实稳定的一定是先辈留给我们的，文化、历史、血脉、基因。 我们面对的让自己丰富充盈的是年轻的一代---映照我们的一汪灵水。他们活跃、聪慧、热情有血性，也秉承着我们的衣钵。 两侧是我们伸展翅膀拥抱世界的空间，我们要善于运用远方的灵秀为自己吐故纳新。 一个80后的小友倡议： 请大家从今天起， 爱自己的国家，爱自己的每一位国人，每一个民族的历史风俗我们都真心的欣赏并为之骄傲。 爱读自己的历史，正视自己祖国历史中的错误和磨难。 爱自己的国家，由每件小事做起。 我的外婆曾经对我说：最没出息的人是眼空一切的人，即，总觉得别人碗里的饭更香。 连一个80后，被精英们说成是“小屁孩”的人都掌握了历史赋予中国人的真理：正视自己祖国历史中的错误和磨难。爱自己的国家，由每件小事做起。 为什么“老人”却对此不屑一顾？为什么精英们这么不屈不挠地将担心历史重演的阴影笼罩在年轻人的头上，强迫他们捆束住自己的创造力和想象力，以冷箭对热血，将讥嘲当引导？ 遗憾的是，一个人再怎样洗刷自己的文化，也改变不了自己的基因。一个人再怎样粉饰自己的先进，也改变不了自己的父母。我从不抨击那些在美国呆了半年的人就说“我们美国人”如何如何的精英，毕竟林子大了什么鸟都有，但我实在受不了对这些80后小友理性的静默示威之时还要说三道四的“老人”。 有人这么批评怨妇，被一个男人辜负了就觉得天下没好男人。 作为女权主义者我很不服气。谁说只有女人是这样？中国不有一大批这样的男人，被文革蹂躏了，就觉得整个中国都黑暗了，就要投奔到自由民主的怀抱里批判自己的同胞。其实年轻人是同情他们理解他们的，但不意味着80后这一整代人都应该为此付出代价---老人们自己因为伤痛织了个套子钻进去，成了套中人。也逼着所有年轻人成为他们心理阴影的牺牲品。 一个人不能理解自己祖国的历史、不会欣赏自己国家的年轻人，那是自断筋脉，是不会有好风水的。也许他们因此能挣到更多的钱，能被人邀请四处讲学，能打上精英的标签，但心里踏实吗幸福吗？他们权威的姿态能保持多久？ 我曾经推出过一场讨论---八零后是不是垮掉的一代。当时来信如潮，对八零后的抱怨和声讨也如潮。但在讨论结束的时候，哈工大校长王树国对我说：“不论我们同意不同意，未来早晚要交给80后。我们国家将来的领导人肯定要从“80后”的大学生群体产生，他们的风貌代表了未来，他们也必将引领一个时代。” 今天我才真正相信了王校长的话，也真正折服于王校长的话。我坚信中国的未来，他们会受到很多的磨难会摔很多的跟头，但他们是未来中国的主人，任凭精英们如何的指指戳戳，他们都会势不可挡的长大、前行，而且一定会生活的更好。 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b9cc179010092zc.html 莫克尔说粮价上涨是因为印度人吃两顿饭和中国人全都喝牛奶
。时光倒流八十三年
- 论剑谈棋 豪杰尽聚 - 华岳论坛 - http://washeng.net/
黎阳 2008．4．13． 西藏“3．14”暴乱暴露出的中国的境遇，令人不由自主联想到83年前鲁迅在评价“五卅惨案”的文章“忽然想到”里描述的当时中国的境遇。 鲁迅说： ——“无论是谁，只要站在‘辩诬’的地位的，无论辩白与否，都已经是屈辱。更何况受了实际的大损害之后，还得来辩诬。” ——“我们的市民被上海租界的英国巡捕击杀了〔指五卅惨案〕，我们并不还击，却先来赶紧洗刷牺牲者的罪名。说道我们并非‘赤化’，因为没有受别国的煽动；说道我们并非‘暴徒’，因为都是空手，没有兵器的。〔指《京报》主笔邵振青（邵飘萍）一九二五年六月五日关于五卅惨案的文章，说：‘英、日帝国主义‘用种种宣传政策，谓中国国民已与俄国同其赤化，英日若不合力以压迫中国，行见中国赤化而后，美国亦大受其影响……然中国之并未赤化，所谓赤化说乃纯属英日两国之虚伪政策……’〕” ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" ——“我不解为什么中国人如果真使中国赤化，真在中国暴动，就得听英捕来处死刑？记得新希腊人也曾用兵器对付过国内的土耳其人，却并不被称为暴徒；俄国确已赤化多年了，也没有得到别国开枪的惩罚。而独有中国人，则市民被杀之后，还要皇皇然辩诬，张着含冤的眼睛，向世界搜求公道。” ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" ——“其实，这原由是很容易了然的，就因为我们并非暴徒，并未赤化的缘故。” ——“我并非说我们应该做‘爱敌若友’的人，不过说我们目下委实并没有认谁作敌。近来的文字中，虽然偶有‘认清敌人’这些话，那是行文过火的毛病。倘有敌人，我们就早该抽刃而起，要求‘以血偿血’了。而现在我们所要求的是什么呢？辩诬之后，不过想得点轻微的补偿；那办法虽说有十几条，总而言之，单是‘不相往来’，成为‘路人’而已。虽是对于本来极密的友人，怕也不过如此罢。” ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" ——“然而将实话说出来，就是：因为公道和实力还没有合为一体，而我们只抓得了公道，所以满眼是友人，即使他加了任意的杀戮。” ——“如果我们永远只有公道，就得永远着力于辩诬，终身空忙碌。” …… 把鲁迅文中的“上海租界”换成“拉萨”，把“英国巡捕”换成“藏独暴徒”，把“赤化”换成“激烈的民族主义姿态”，再稍加改动，就完全可以恰如其分地拿来描述中国在这次西藏“3．14”暴乱中的境遇： ——无论是谁，只要站在“辩诬”的地位的，无论辩白与否，都已经是屈辱。更何况受了实际的大损害之后，还得来辩诬。（中国的西藏被藏独暴徒打砸抢烧杀，“受了实际的大损害之后，还得来辩诬”——“无论辩白与否，都已经是屈辱”。） ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" ——我们的市民被潜入西藏的藏独暴徒击杀了，我们并不还击，却先来赶紧洗刷牺牲者的罪名。说道我们并非闹“激进的民族主义”，因为没有受政府的煽动；说道我们并非“镇压迫害少数民族”，因为都是空手，没有兵器的。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" ——我不解为什么中国人如果真闹“民族主义”，真在镇压分裂中国的暴徒，就得听外国人来处死刑？记得1992年美国政府也曾用武器军队对付过国内的洛杉矶黑人大骚乱，却并不被称为“镇压迫害少数民族”，德国、法国、英国、俄罗斯人的民族主义情节一直浓厚，也没有得到别国开枪的惩罚。而独有中国人，则市民被杀之后，还要皇皇然辩诬，张着含冤的眼睛，向世界搜求公道。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" ——其实，这原由是很容易了然的，就因为我们并非“激进的民族主义”，并未“镇压迫害少数民族”的缘故。 ——我并非说我们应该做“爱敌若友”的人，不过说我们目下委实并没有认谁作敌（只有“和谐世界”中的“战略伙伴关系”）。近来的文字中，虽然偶有“认清敌人”这些话，那是行文过火的毛病。倘有敌人，我们就早该抽刃而起，要求“以血偿血”了。而现在我们所要求的是什么呢？辩诬之后，不过想得点轻微的补偿；那办法虽说有十几条，总而言之，单是“允许有公信力的国内外媒体进入藏区进行独立的采访报道”、“不怕百般挑剔”、“克制”、“宽容”、“与普世价值接轨”，成为“和谐世界”而已。虽是对于本来极密的友人，怕也不过如此罢。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" ——然而将实话说出来，就是：因为公道和实力还没有合为一体，而我们只抓得了公道，所以满眼是友人，即使他加了任意的杀戮。 ——如果我们永远只有公道，就得永远着力于辩诬，终身空忙碌。 …… 中国2008年“拉萨3．14暴乱事件”的遭遇与83年前1925年的“五卅惨案”时的遭遇简直一模一样：“无论是谁，只要站在‘辩诬’的地位的，无论辩白与否，都已经是屈辱。更何况受了实际的大损害之后，还得来辩诬。” 所不同的是： 83年前“五卅惨案”时的中国，是“殖民地、半殖民地、半封建社会”；在中国领土上肆无忌惮杀中国人的，是外国的军队；杀完人之后污蔑中国人“赤匪”、“暴徒”的，是外国的宣传机器。而2008年“拉萨3．14暴乱事件”时的中国，是“改革开放”、“和谐环境”下的“特色社会主义”社会；在中国领土上肆无忌惮杀中国人的，是以“外国人”自居、疯狂分裂中国的“中国人”；杀完人之后比外国宣传机器更起劲地痛骂中国人“激进民族主义”、“迫害少数民族”的，是中国的“主流精英”。——83年前西方国家在中国领土上要杀要骂中国人还得亲自出马，而如今连亲自出马都省了，自有“中国人”“代办一切”，实行全过程“一条龙服务”：不折不扣“与时俱进”。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 更“先进”的是打了你，砸了你，抢了你，烧了你，杀了你之后还骂你“破害人权”、“激进民族主义”还不算，还不准你有任何不满：“呼吁中国民众和海外华人保持冷静和宽容，进行深入的思考。激烈的民族主义姿态只能招致国际社会的反感，有损于中国的国际形象”，更不得妨碍制止暴乱：“强烈敦促中国政府停止暴力镇压”；甚至连哭诉自己遭到打砸抢烧杀的暴行都不行：“具有煽动民族仇恨和加剧局势紧张的效果”、“我不敢说它是假的，但是也不能确认它是真的”……一句话，中国人必须逆来顺受，打左脸送右脸，任人宰割，不许反抗，不许声张，更不许有任何怨言——中国的“主流精英”收拾起中国人来比“五卅惨案”时的外国帝国主义不知凶狠多少倍，难怪鲁迅说：“叭儿狗往往比主人更严厉”。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" “主流精英”“贼喊捉贼”的本领实在令人叹为观止。西方媒体的造谣被中国网民抓了个正着，“南都”的长平跑出来舌头一翻，责任就全变成中国政府的了：“应该质疑中国政府对消息源和国内媒体的双重控制。毫无疑问，后者对新闻价值的伤害更甚于前者。”——闹了半天，西方媒体造谣原来全是中国政府造成的——谁让你不准我到暴乱现场煽风点火推波助澜的？这还不算，更绝的是让长平的三寸不烂之舌一鼓噪，西藏暴乱的责任居然是中国人自己，是中国的“民族主义”：“如果我们以民族主义为武器来反抗西方，那么怎样说服少数民族放弃民族主义，加入到主流的国家建设中来呢？”——藏族难道不属于中华民族？谁说过中华民族的“民族主义”不包括藏族？这种提法本身就偷偷包含了中华民族的“民族主义”不包括藏族，藏族的“民族主义”跟中华民族的“民族主义”不是一回事、“藏族与汉族的关系”等同与“中华民族”与西方国家这种“国与国级别的民族关系”的内涵，就是承认“藏独”。怪不得当网民质问长平“承认不承认西藏是中国的一部分”时，长平的答复闪烁其辞得如此高明之极：“我也赞同统一”——这个“也”字大有文章：不是主动赞同，不是无条件赞同，而是被动赞同，有条件赞同，得别人赞同了，我才“也”赞同。那么这个“别人”是谁呢？“天机不可泄露”，你可以猜是中国人，藏族人，藏独，达赖，也可以猜是外国主子——那样问题就好理解了：如果外国主子赞同西藏属于中国，那我“也”赞同，否则…… ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 长平故作姿态地问：“那么我们对少数民族又如何呢？”——你不是住在中国吗？不是“消息灵通的新闻人士”吗？怎么可能不知道中国的少数民族政策？怎么可能不知道中国是如何对待少数民族的？怎么可能不知道如今对少数民族是优待优待再优待，宽容宽容再宽容，几乎到了让汉族人感到“歧视”的程度？尤其为了今年的奥运会，从上到下战战兢兢委曲求全，不惜一切息事宁人，简直能忍的就忍，能躲的就躲，惟恐一不小心出乱子，更不用说做可能激化民族引起冲突的行为了——这种状况中国谁人不知？即便不在现场，也不至于弄不清西藏发生暴乱的大是大非，说出“我不敢说它是假的，但是也不能确认它是真的”这种虚伪透顶的假腥腥的话。——身为中国人，回答“如今中国女人裹不裹小脚”“刮不刮体毛”之类“问题”，难道也必须先“现场调查”吗？是不是没有一个“开放的舆论环境”，那就连“公鸡会不会下蛋”、“你长平是否是狗肚子里爬出来的”之类“问题”也得不出结论？ ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 长平们说了这许多，实际就是如同鲁迅所揭露的，“用了公理正义的美名，正人君子的徽号，温良敦厚的假脸，流言公论的武器，吞吐曲折的文字，行私利己，使无刀无笔的弱者不得喘息”—— 让中国人在中国的土地上挨杀挨骂还“不得喘息”。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 长平们口口声声“只要有一个开放的舆论环境”就能包医百病，有效对付“虚假报道和偏见”。实际呢？奥运火炬手、残疾姑娘金晶在巴黎遭到藏独分子施暴，在“一个开放的舆论环境”里，藏独分子在光天化日之下： 1．使用暴力 按照“普世价值”，是非彻底一边倒。然而口口声声“反对暴力”、“与普世价值接轨”的长平、“南都”、“炎黄春秋”以及西方“主流媒体”可曾有任何人以任何方式谴责这种赤裸裸的暴力、赤裸裸的罪行？如此公开明显的是非都混淆，还有脸说什么“能不能允许媒体自由讨论以进一步揭示真相？” ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 海内外华人空前团结一致，齐心协力奋起反击西方国家媒体对中国西藏暴乱的造谣诽谤和拿“西藏人权”为借口捣乱奥运火炬传递等逆行。面对这场前所未有的全世界华人大团结，是“站在他们的前头领导他们呢？还是站在他们的后头指手画脚地批评他们呢？还是站在他们的对面反对他们呢？”中国“主流精英”的态度：“站在他们的后头指手画脚地批评”+“站在他们的对面反对”——“激进民族主义”、“不利于中国的国际形象”…… ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 最典型的当属中国青年报：“别把奥运火炬传递和国家荣誉画等号”、“不要把奥运火炬传递和国家荣誉画等号；也不要把奥运火炬传递沿途遇到的示威和抗议，当做是对中国人民的羞辱”、“ 我们中国人看重面子，太在乎火炬传递对中国的意义”——既然如此，那为什么要在奥运期间把来京上访的人全赶走？难道这时就顾不上“也不要把奥运火炬传递沿途遇到的示威和抗议，当做是对中国人民的羞辱”了？说穿了，外国人示威抗议可以，中国人示威抗议不行——不折不扣“耗子扛枪——窝里横”。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 更“窝里横”的当属王力雄、刘晓波之流“民运精英”： ——“我们敦促中国政府允许有公信力的国内外媒体进入藏区进行独立的采访报道。”“如果政府掌握真相，就不怕百般挑剔。只有采取开放姿态，才能扭转目前国际社会对我国政府的不信任。” ——“建议政府邀请联合国人权理事会对证据和事件过程、伤亡人数等进行独立调查，以改变国际社会的相反看法和不信任心态”。 ——“文革语言无助于事态的平息，也不利于中国政府的形象”。 …… 1992年4月美国洛杉矶黑人大骚乱，共造成50多人死亡、2000多人重伤、1万多人被捕、上千家店铺被烧毁，财产损失达到10亿美元。对这场大骚乱，怎么没见“民运精英”、“主流精英”们要求美国政府“允许有公信力的国内外媒体进洛杉矶地区进行独立的采访报道”？怎么没见他们对美国政府说：“如果政府掌握真相，就不怕百般挑剔”？怎么没见他们建议美国政府“邀请联合国人权理事会对证据和事件过程、伤亡人数等进行独立调查，以改变国际社会的相反看法和不信任心态”？为什么只对中国政府如此要求？ ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 2003年美国“南方小鸡合唱团”（Dixie Chicks）公开声明反对美国入侵进攻伊拉克，歌迷马上宣布抵制她们的演出，当街砸烂她们的唱片，公开道了歉也不饶。当时一位美国妇女说：你有你的言论自由，但你必须为你的胡说八道付出代价。——怎么不见“民运精英”、“主流精英”们说美国闹“激进民族主义”、“文革式语言”？ ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" …… 所谓“允许有公信力的国内外媒体进入藏区进行独立的采访报道”、“邀请联合国人权理事会对证据和事件过程、伤亡人数等进行独立调查，以改变国际社会的相反看法和不信任心态”之类把戏中国人是早已领教过的：九．一八事变，当时中国的“主流精英”们不就是这样做的吗？“委曲求全”、“绝对不抵抗”——“不准抵抗，不准动，把枪放到库房里，挺着死，大家成仁，为国牺牲”、“先以公理对强权，以和平对野蛮，忍怒含愤，暂持逆来顺受态度，以待国际公理之判断。”一切寄托于“有公信力的国内外媒体”和当时的“联合国”——“国联”。等国联派出的“中立的调查委员会”——“李顿调查团”调查完了，东北也丢了，“满州国”也成立了。中国挨了打，丢了领土，换来的是一张毫无用处的废纸。如今“主流精英”们又要跟中国来这一手，难道他们当真以为中国人都不长记性？ ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 制造“民族问题”、煽动分裂是搞侵略的惯用手法了。纳粹德国强占苏台德、侵略波兰用的就是这种手段：先煽动少数民族闹事，然后乘虚而入。科索沃“独立”也是如此。如今轮到了中国，于是有了藏独、疆独的闹事和国外的“支持西藏独立”。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 国外肢解中国的努力在如火如荼。西藏暴乱。西方媒体公然一致造谣诽谤。纵容藏独捣乱奥运会圣火传递羞辱中国。国内的“主流精英”呢？变本加厉“割地赔款”，“量中华之物力，结美国之欢心”。“割地”：割让国民经济核心要害的“制高点”、“根据地”——取消对外资控股中国银行的一切限制。“赔款”：以“每月损失4艘航空母舰”的速度把中国的财富拱手相让。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" “历史有时惊人地相似”。对比中国在2008年西藏暴乱和1925年“五卅惨案”时的境遇，实在“似曾相识”，让人感到83年前的民族危机又在中国人头上盘旋开了。（不是“倒退没有出路”吗？怎么时光一下倒流了83年，再现“殖民地半殖民地半封建社会”的中国在“五卅惨案”时境遇——“无论是谁，只要站在‘辩诬’的地位的，无论辩白与否，都已经是屈辱。更何况受了实际的大损害之后，还得来辩诬”？） ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net" 难怪有人说：以前“我们高唱《东方红》，当家作主站起来”。后来“我们高唱《春天的故事》，扑通一声跪下来”。而如今的“主流精英”们呢？“高唱‘和谐’和‘普世价值’，任人宰割趴下来”。 难怪拿破仑说：“狮子统帅的绵羊军队强过绵羊统率的狮子军队”。 Hanhan's article...赶集
2008-04-20 15:48:34
标签：杂谈
关于这个问题，大家的理由非常的充足，首先家乐福的大老板如何了，而法国政府如何了，其次不管如何如何，我们的目的是让国际社会感受到我们的态度，让某些国家知道我们的力量，让某些人道歉。 我想说，道个歉是容易的。但是要改变对我们的态度和想法，似乎很难，而且经历此事，可能更难。 为什么一定是家乐福呢？这没有一个一定，因为也可能是别的东西，到时候我们也会问，为什么一定是XXX呢。但官方喜欢抓典型，潜移默化之间，老百姓也已经能抓典型。 我觉得，抵制家乐福其实挺没有出息的。对于真正爱国的检验应该是需要付出代价的，当你需要承受经济和生命的损失的时候，你愿意为了你心里的信仰而付出，这是真的。去家乐福闹闹，挺没有腔调的。其他国家侮辱你，你在自己国家为难一个超市，对着这个超市，有人抵制，有人拉横幅，有人要游行，有人看热闹，还有人用一百元去买小东西，要找光他们的零钱，有人自己降下家乐福的中国国旗，然后拍个照说是家乐福给中国降半旗。我认为这些行为都有点拿不出手，尤其是最后一条，那是猥琐加惟恐天下不乱了。爱国有的时候是自救，但有的时候是种腔调，我们做的没腔调。 当然，你可以指责我说，那你做点有腔调的事情啊，你去围法国大使馆啊，你去法国抗议啊，你去吧炸空客A380啊。关键是，我为什么要这么做呢。我心里根本就没那么想过。我依然做着我的本职工作，写好东西，赛好车，一年比一年进步，现在我们拉力水平可以在亚洲比了，让赛车水平很高的日本人和相对比较高马来西亚人都刮目相看，而且不输他们甚至可以战胜他们，再给一段时间估计我国车手和赛事的水平能赶上欧洲的二流，希望能出现顶尖的代表去何欧洲的顶级车手抗衡……最后的目标就是法国的世界拉力锦标赛之王勒布，不管有没有这个可能性，这些都是我们在做的。而一些人在做的却是去搞一个超市，要是你不去搞的，就是汉奸和卖国贼。 外国人说我们两句，骂我们两句，我们全国上下急成这样，而且边愤怒边得意，得意的是我们的“民族凝聚力”和“祖国终于强大了，所以一些国家开始害怕我们，企图分裂我国”。可是我怎么就没看见一个让世界都害怕的国家和民族的国民应有的气势呢。你搞家乐福，你很多中国人搞了半天，搞得家乐福里的中国员工也左右为难，然后围了越来越多的中国人，来几个坏事的中国人再砸那么几下，然后出动一帮中国防暴警察，看到的全是中国媒体的报导，敢情过程里没出现一个法国人啊。 我们觉得，支持我们的，夸奖我们的，就是我们的朋友，反对我们的，贬低我们的，就是我们的敌人。这个是非观未免太简单了和太看重自己的面子了。 我们的民族自尊心怎么那么脆弱和表面呢。人家说你是暴民，你就把人家骂一通恨不能打一通，然后说，我们不是暴民。这就好比小明说你是笨蛋，你就对着小明女朋友的弟弟的狗举个大牌子，上面写，我不是笨蛋。这个讯息的确会反馈给小明，但小明依然觉得你是个笨蛋，你像你觉得自己很委屈，而小明其实更加笨一样[lol, it is hilarious...]。 到了今天，有一个让人难过的倾向，就是我们几乎没有正方反方，你就是要表态，你抵制不抵制，你如果抵制，好样的，你是中国人，你站对了队伍，你如果不抵制，你就是汉奸，你如果不表态，你也是一个孙子。不知道这时候法国政府开放对抵制家乐福的中国人的入籍申请，会有多少人想去法国做卧底？
我觉得，现在的情况就是：家乐福就像一个充气娃娃，让一帮人抱着发泄，一方面可能的确平时活得太压抑，要找个没什么代价的出口。一方面边发泄还要边问这充气娃娃和充气娃娃的制造商，我强不强啊，我强不强啊，看见旁边那些对于搞充气娃娃没兴趣的人还指责他们性无能。
五月一号会发生什么事情，反正你我都不知道。但我真的怀疑大家的内心是否真的那么愤怒，还是大家很久没有行游和会集了？参加行游很好玩吧，赶去会集很热闹吧？爱国主义庇护下的行游和会集又很安全吧？如果你真的不能忍受，觉得现在的情况等同于八国联军侵略，是国难当头，是形势危急，是四面楚歌，而解决的办法就是必须对着超市抗议，那么我也尊重你，我最终也能理解你的情怀。就怕你是个赶集的。 zz
要去杀杀晦气最近怎么这么倒霉。难道人生低谷又来了？
先是被日本学生毫无point的challenge，然后是听说好朋友分手了。
哎，小三，又是小三。
世界上这么多这么多男人，为什么就一定要以别人的伤痛为代价换来自己的幸福？这样就幸福了吗？你在很傻很天真的微笑的时候，有没有想过另一个人用多大的悲伤和痛苦在成就你，而她不欠你的，她没义务成全你，你没权利伤害她。
说起这样的事情，就有人叹气说男人都这样了，本性了，云云。人要是完全跟着性冲动走，完全不用考虑人伦天理，那也太动物了吧，那怎么叫人呢？别太种马了，好吗？ The myth about Tibet genocideOne of my studnets "educated" the "brainwashed" me today:
"This is statement that Chinese Government adimitted: 1.2 million Tibetans were killed by Chinese Army since 1950. In fact, Population of Tibet was 5 million in 1950, You cannot argue with this fact, so cannnot I."
Gosh, before today, the myth I was trying to argue against was taht more than 1 million Tibetans were killed in (maybe central) Tibet. Well the response to this is obvious: the Tibetan population in central Tibet back to 1950s was about 1.2 million. And till 2000, the population has grown up to 2.8 million. Say 1 million were killed in the 1950s, then only 0.2 million survived. So if genocide took place, the Tibetan population now is 14 times than 50 years ago. Errrr, I am not an expert on Anthropology, but could anyone tell me: Is this really possible? While the challenge today is more interesting. Obviously that they, I mean his holliness and his followers, has updated their story. To quote from the holly side:
"According to China’ s State Statistical Bureau, the `TAR’ had 1,273,969 people in November
1959. Tibetan areas of Kham then named Xikang by China had 3,381,064 Tibetans. In Qinghai and other Tibetan areas incorporated into Gansu, Tibetans were reported to number 1,675,534. If the total of these three Ž gures is taken, the Tibetan population then stood at 6,330,567." To correct my lovely student, the number should be more than 6 million, not 5. Ok so the myth now actaully is this: they are counting the deaths in all residential areas that Tibetans live, and the number now is 1.2 out of 6.33 million. Errr, I sincerey don't want to jump to the conclusion that you are lying so fast. But I am just curious about the resources. If this is seriuosly publicly published data, why it has rarely been refered to?
Based on my investigation online, here is the info from another pro-free-Tibet website:
D1) What is the total population of Tibet? Tibetan Population (in millions)
Year All Ethnic Tibetans Central Tibet (TAR) Source
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1268 1.0 -- [Goldstein81]
1737 0.316 (monks)
0.127 (lay families) [Rockhill91]
1900 1.0 -- [McEvedy78]
1953 2.776 1.274 [Banister87]
1964 2.501 1.251 [Banister87]
1982 3.870 1.892 [Banister87]
1990 4.593 2.196 [BR-D90], [BR-N90]
1995 -- 2.389 [Reuter96]
http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/tibet/D1-What-is-the-total-population-of-Tibet.html
Hmmm,I have no clue which set of data is correct. You tell me. But at least I find some literature arguing agaisnt the first one:
"For several reasons, these figures seemed suspicious. Notably, the TAR did not even
exist in 1959, while Xikang was abolished in 1956. The Chinese government did not publish annual population statistics at that time, particularly extremely detailed breakdowns by region and ethnicity. Investigation by this author showed the citation above to be a fabrication. TGIE sources in the 1990s still claim the total number of Tibetans to be about 6 million, and this Ž gure is quite possible if taken to include all Tibetans worldwide, not just those in China." (http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/tibetan.population.in.china.pdf, p.14) And for the whole paper and the resolution to the myth, just click the link and read through it.
I expect an immediate response to the literature above to be this: The author is CHinese, and he must be biased. Actually this is the argument my student used to attack the long argument I sent him. (BTW, I have requested not to grade his assignments, so don't worry "genocide", or "torture", or "deprivation of free expression", or blablablabla will happen.) To all arguments like this, I have a question: Are you attacking a statement and an argument and seek for the truth, or are you attacking Chinese particularly? If the former, why ethnicity background be a huge problem here, and why it is the reason that the literature is not trustworthy? If the latter, please please admit that you are talking nonsense.... and I have no interest to engage in this discussion with you any more.
What is "to be brainwashed"? It means you take for granted whatever you are told. I am hesitant to agree that I am brainwashed. I did not take it for granted. I just have a belief that this blame on China cannot be true, and I am willing to be shown otherwise if any, and I truly try my best to investigate the issue, and I come to my conclusion based on my reasoning, or at least raise my own questions. So keep me posted the evolved defination of being brain-washed.
To the China government: we are trying so hard to back you up!!! If we had the chance to know all their claims before, we might have been prepared to know how to respond for a long time. Instead of all the hatred and emotional, well sort of, words, such as "You liars!" "CNN is lying." "All western media are lying." "You have hurt our feelings", we can give some more substantial lessons to them, all of them. You know, sometimes it is not bad to open up and let people know and talk. I am just kinda frustrated.
Hmmm, on second thought, I,m also to be blamed for this given my lack of motivation to look for info before... TIBETIAN CHINESE ARE NOT AMERICAN INDIANSTIBETIAN CHINESE ARE NOT AMERICAN INDIANS
(What the Western Media Would Not Publish) By Bevin Chu, December 3, 1999 (Selected from Antiwar.com) Bevin Chu is an American architect of Chinese descent registered to practice in Texas. Currently living and working in Taiwan, Chu is the son of a retired high-ranking diplomat with the ROC (Taiwan) government. His column, "The Strait Scoop," now appears Fridays at Antiwar.com. HISTORY ACCORDING TO HOLLYWOOD Humanitarian Interventionists and Benevolent Global Hegemonists and some Christian religious leaders and myopic followers of animistic Lamaism (a twisted form of Buddhism), most of whom lack even a rudimentary understanding of China's long and complex history, share a particularly nasty trait. Many of these Globocops imagine because they have downloaded a few pages of separatist propaganda from tibet.org, and shed a tear or two while watching "Seven Years in Tibet," that qualifies them as China experts. They believe this qualifies them to pass judgment about whether China "deserves" to remain intact or be forcibly Balkanized by the World's Only Remaining Superpower. Their attitude rivals that of the most contemptible 19th century imperialists. I have seen Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" once in the theater and several times on cable, and I never cease to be deeply moved by what screenwriting teachers term "a good story, well told." The same holds true of Neil Jordan's political biography "Michael Collins," about the famous, or infamous Irish revolutionary of the same name. I do not however assume merely because I have enjoyed a well scripted and well produced two hours of entertainment that I have necessarily learned anything substantive about English, Scottish or Irish history. I retain enough presence of mind to recall Hollywood's record of playing fast and loose with historical facts, motivated by either commercial considerations or the filmmakers' political biases. I certainly do not leave the theater convinced of either the rightness or wrongness of Scottish secession. Instead I remain scrupulously neutral. The issue of Scottish secession is one for the English and the Scots to settle between themselves. Why should I, who am neither an Englishman nor a Scots, behave like a damned busybody and stick my nose into something which is none of my business? Now if only the Globocops would have the decency to do likewise after watching "Kundun" or "The Wind Horse." CHINA'S WEST IS NOT THE AMERICAN WEST One especially disturbing aspect of the Tibet crusade in America is that Hollywood, academia, New Agers and the Washington establishment have drawn patently misleading parallels with American history. These comparisons of European immigrants to Han Chinese, and American Indians to Tibetan Chinese, have led to a grotesque collective misunderstanding. This dangerously egocentric, even narcissistic way of experiencing the world may get America into deep foreign policy hot water. In fact, it has. When such historically irrelevant parallels are drawn what non-Chinese get is worse than ignorance. What non-Chinese get is the illusion of understanding. Unfortunately most of what is readily available in English on the web regarding contemporary Tibet is predictable PC orthodoxy. The few rebuttals which are available in English are summarily dismissed by the intellectual orthodoxy as not credible simply because they are posted by Chinese or ethnic Chinese sources and do not support the "correct" conclusions. Tibet is a region of China. It has been since the 13th century. Obviously one needs to refer to Chinese history and Chinese historians to learn about it. Most of that data is obviously going to be in Chinese. Yet it is only virulently anti-China Tibetan secessionist propaganda written in English which is automatically accorded the status of unassailable truth. The China bashers' attitude reeks of colonialist arrogance. Far better to not know anything, and retain the humility that accompanies such ignorance, than to imagine that one knows all one needs to know to pass moral judgment and demand military intervention. As the old saw goes, "the problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so." TIBETAN CHINESE ARE NOT AMERICAN INDIANS For example, projection of "collective guilt" over the mistreatment of American Indians is with little doubt the psychological root of most pro- Dalai activism. Unfortunately the pro-Dalai faction has confused its own internal psychology with a foreign nation's history. Just because they feel "liberal guilt" about America's Indian minority does not mean that China's history actually conforms to their internal guilt and historical misunderstanding. This is why so many western sympathizers of Tibetan independence are taken aback, stunned even, when they discover that most Tienanmen pro-democracy leaders do NOT support, and in fact vehemently oppose Tibetan and Taiwan independence. The sympathizers' projection has been so extensive that they are trapped in a "virtual reality" of their own making. The relationship between majority Han-Chinese and minority Tibetan-Chinese does NOT historically parallel that of European-Americans and Native Americans. The territory of modern China includes Tibet not because "the Han-Chinese conquered Tibetan-Chinese" the way European-Americans conquered American Indians and Hawaiians. (E.g., "Dances with Wolves"). Instead both Tibetans and Hans were conquered by the Mongols under the leadership of Genghis Khan and grandson Kublai Khan in the 13th century. When the Mongol or Yuan Dynasty collapsed a century later, it was supplanted by a Han-Chinese dominated Ming Dynasty, which inherited jurisdiction over the Mongol empire, including the Tibetan region. This is how Tibet, and of course Mongolia, became part of China. Those who insist on "victim-victimizer" dichotomies might be tempted on leap to yet another equally simplistic conclusion, that "both Tibetans and Hans were victims of Mongol aggression." This ignores the fact that both "victims" and "victimizers" subsequently intermarried extensively, not under duress, but of their own volition, rendering the issue of victimization moot and irrelevant. The bottom line is that Tibet was not "invaded" or "annexed" by China in 1959. Because by then the Tibetan region had been part of China for seven centuries, five centuries longer than these United States of America have even been in existence. One does not "invade" or "annex" what is already one's own territory. Beijing dispatched troops to prevent secession by the serf-owing elite which objected to the abolition of slavery, not to implement annexation. Hardly the same thing. One can argue the merits or demerits of secession, but that is another issue entirely. Rather than debate the issue honestly however, the Dalai Lama and his Hollywood camp followers prefer to lie about history. They are counting on popular ignorance of the details about exotic and distant Cathay and Shangri-la, calculating that the general public will believe whatever is fed them if it is presented in a convenient and satisfying Manichean "good versus evil" framework. REDS, NOT RED HERRINGS The false equation of Tibetan-Chinese with American Indian has predictably led to the false attribution of racist motivations to Beijing's abolition of serfdom and crushing of Tibetan secession. Beijing's Tibet policies are being falsely equated with everything from Nazi genocide of Jews to Nato's allegations of Serbian "ethnic cleansing." If one is determined to force the Chinese experience into an American mold, one could perhaps equate the militarily powerful Mongols with one of the aggressive, nomadic tribes such as the Comanche, and Tibetans and Hans with less aggressive, agrarian tribes such as the Hopi or Navahoe. The point is that all of China's major ethnic subcultures are native Chinese, including so-called Hans. Now that communism is dead, sympathizers of the Dalai Lama, many of whom were sympathizers of Mao Zedong, seem to have forgotten what communism was all about. Communism was a political ideology obsessed with economic equality. Communism adjudged who was good and who was bad on the basis of its fatally flawed economic theory. To communist true believers the relevant question was to which economic class do you belong. Are you a capitalist victimizer or a proletarian victim? Ethnicity to communism was always irrelevant. The Chinese Communists were no exception. They committed their atrocities because they were fanatical radical egalitarians, "coercive egalitarians." The Lamaist theocracy was targeted because it engaged in the economic exploitation of Tibet's serfs. When Red Guards vandalized monasteries in Tibet they were doing precisely the same thing to Zen Buddhist monasteries, Taoist monasteries, Christian churches, Jewish synagogues all over the rest of China. They were not doing anything so narrowly parochial as singling out the Tibetan subculture for "cultural genocide." Rather they were motivated by disgust for what they perceived as vestiges of unjust economic systems throughout China. The Dalai Lama's allegation that Chinese Communist violence against Tibet's serf-owning elite was racially motivated ethnic cleansing is a red herring. Chinese Communists were evil because they were coercive egalitarians. Chinese Communists were never racist. IF THIS BE GENOCIDE, MAKE THE MOST OF IT In fact if the Chinese Communists had really been racially motivated, they could have deliberately and cynically left Tibet's Ancient Regime in place. Traditional Tibet's theocracy imposed a policy of "er xuan yi" (from two choose one) and "san xuan er" (from three choose two) on the Tibetan people. They dragooned enormous numbers of hapless Tibetan boys into the priesthood , where they would remain celibate for life. This draconian policy resulted in an alarming decline in Tibet's population in recent centuries. Adherence to a religious practice of strict celibacy led to the eventual extinction of the Shaker sect in America. Chinese Communist Party failure to intervene in China's Tibetan region would have, by default, abetted a similar process of Tibetan self-extinction. CCP intervention has instead led to a population increase. Beijing emerges an unlikely hero in this respect. Yet Beijing is ritually and reflexively accused by self-styled do-gooders of "genocide," both "cultural" and racial. Ironies abound. GENGHIS KHAN AND WILLIAM OF NORMANDY The fifty-six officially acknowledged ethnic groups in China, including but not limited to Tibetan-Chinese, Moslem-Chinese, Mongolian-Chinese, Manchurian-Chinese, and Han-Chinese, would be more instructively compared with certain ethnic groups in the west and not others. The relationship between Mongolian-Chinese and Han-Chinese, and Manchurian-Chinese and Han-Chinese in particular, parallels that between English of Norman descent and English of Saxon descent following the Norman Conquest. What made me think of this was a corny old Hollywood movie which I had seen before, but which just ran again on cable here in Taipei - "The Black Rose, " 1950, starring Tyrone Power, Jack Hawkins and Michael Rennie. THE BLACK ROSE The hero, Walter of Gurney (Tyrone Power) is the illegitimate son of a Saxon Lord denied his inheritance and birthright by the Norman King Edward (Michael Rennie.) Embittered, Gurney abandons England, which he feels is no longer his country and journeys to the middle-east, joining Kublai Khan's army which is about to invade China. He meets the title character "The Black Rose" who is not a flower, but a woman named Maryam, a teenager played by an 18 year old actress who didn't look a day over 13. Tyrone Power and sidekick Jack Hawkins rescue her from life as a concubine in Kublai Khan's harem. She falls in love with the hero and a typically chauvinistic 1950's type relationship follows in which he treats her like a mere "wench." At the beginning of the film the Tyrone Power character vows undying enmity for intolerable Saxon victimization under Norman rule. By the end of the film however he is reconciled to a future in which Saxons and Normans live together in peace. What is intriguing to me is how the events in Britain and China occurred at very nearly the same time, the 12th century, making the Marco Polo-ish linkage chronologically consistent and unintentionally underscoring the parallelism, at least for me. The aspect of the film that intrigued me was not the pyscho-sexual "Lolita" subplot, but the Norman-ruled Britain parallel to Mongol-ruled China. Let me stress that the historical parallel with China was not something the filmmakers intended, but merely a connection I made in my own mind. NORMANS AND SAXONS, MONGOLS AND HANS Both settings are virtually clichés in swashbuckler action adventure movies. Just as "The Black Rose" and countless Robin Hood related tales center on the conflict between Norman conquerors and Saxon conquered, so countless Taiwan and Hongkong swordfight swashbucklers set in the Southern Sung dynasty and late Ming dynasty deal with Mongol and Manchu conquerors and Han conquered. Just as these once powerful animosities are "ancient history" in modern Britain, so they are in modern China. Is there any Anglo-Saxon Englishman alive today who actually nurses animosity toward "Normans" for the Battle of Hastings? Is there any "Han" Chinese (good luck finding a "pure" Han Chinese by the way) alive today who actually nurses animosity toward "Mongols" or "Manchus" for the fall of the Sung and Ming dynasties? Remember the British commander during the Gulf War? He was Sir General Peter de la Billiere. Remember the writer/director of the Emmy award winning British mini-series "Prime Suspect"? She was Lynda LaPlante. Do westerners agitating for Tibetan/Uyghur/ Mongolian independence realize why these prominent British subjects have French names? Remember the pajamas clad student leader of the Tienanmen protest movement who demanded and got a conference with Li Peng? He was Wu ER Kai Xi, a Uyghur. Do westerners agitating for Tibetan/Uyghur/ Mongolian independence realize why he and millions of Chinese have Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongolian names ? Americans and Europeans who know nothing of Chinese history, yet shrilly demand that Tibet, Xinjiang, or Mongolia be carved out of China, do not realize how crazy and laughable their demands are. Imagine modern day Chinese wringing their hands and criticizing Britain for imposing the Anglo- Saxon tongue on Englishmen of Norman-descent, characterizing that as "cultural genocide?" Should Englishmen with Norman surnames secede from England? Crazy? Laughable? You bet. If only they knew how crazy and laughable. The animosities between Normans and Saxons were quite powerful at the time, as they were between Mongol and Han and Manchu and Han. Yet Normans and Saxons did not form separate kingdoms, nor did Mongol, Manchu and Han. If putting behind historical grievances and intermarrying was possible and desirable for Normans and Saxons in Britain, why do western acolytes of the Dalai Lama deem the identical process of reconciliation and integration undesirable for Hans and Tibetans in China? Their sanctimony is both historically ignorant and morally inconsistent. If their folly weren't so widespread, and hence, destructive, it wouldn't even deserve the time and effort needed to rebut it. AMERICA WAS NOT THE WORLD'S ONLY MELTING POT Modern China looks ethnically homogeneous not because of "Aryan racial purity," but because of millennia of what Ku Klux Klansmen and neo-Nazis denounce as "mongrelization of the races." China ranks among the most "mongrelized" nations in the world. Even China's so-called "Han" majority is in fact comprised of numerous Asiatic tribes which began intermarrying as early as the Shang dynasty. Jews who emigrated to Kaifeng one thousand years ago are so thoroughly assimilated they are indistinguishable from "native" Chinese. Jews in Europe and even America remain physically distinct due to incomplete assimilation. TIBET IS PART OF CHINA, GET OVER IT Tenzing Gyatso, aka the Dalai Lama, rather than rejecting his identity as a Tibetan-Chinese and demanding Tibetan racial purity along the lines of his Nazi mentor, SS Captain Heinrich Harrer, should instruct his band of reactionary theocrats huddled in Dharamsala to forsake their quixotic dream of "restoring" a "Shangri-La" that never existed, return to Lhasa, and shoulder to shoulder with fellow Chinese, help illiterate serfs they once exploited become the Andy Groves and Bill Gates of the 21st century. China Threat theorists, meanwhile, should get over their obsession with "dividing and conquering" China. Their insistence on seeing the Chinese people not as fellow human beings, but as an insidious "Yellow Peril" to be exterminated, merely reveals their own paranoia and racial bigotry. Xiang's update: Talking about Yi得精彩辩论，第三部分（完）
Quote Yi得精彩辩论，第三部分（完） Talking about Yi 的精彩辩论，第二部分
Quote Yi 的精彩辩论，第二部分 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
