这果然成为英国目前举国上下激烈争论的热点话题。前两天第二波地铁爆炸未遂之后，我们就在这里开玩笑说，大英帝国多种族、多文化的现代文明社会这顶高帽子，恐怕是要主动摘下来了。当时即有网友说，一个国家可以多总族，但必须单一文化。记不清是哪位网友了。当时看了也觉无言以队。多文化是不是国家这种政体形态之内无法容下的一种过渡奢侈？
这周正好自己暗中给自己放假，听了各种媒体大量的讨论。可惜这里没有时间一一记录分析出来，希望BBC中文网那些拿工资的家伙能干些正经工作。总的来说，知识界大多认为将自杀式恐怖活动将多元文化强行联系起来，是极为荒谬的一件事情。政界政客则大多认为，多元文化国粹是完全失败的，应该立刻改弦易辙，立刻借鉴美国的价值观，强调统一的文化标准。一如既往，知识界着眼与长远，政客落实当前最为现实的政策。民主总是能确保国家利益的均衡。唉。
- Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/06/2005
Why British think 美国的价值观强调统一的文化标准? I don't think it is true. - Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/06/2005
Susan wrote:
Why British think 美国的价值观强调统一的文化标准? I don't think it is true.
Do you? Elaborate it a bit for me? :)
- Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/06/2005
I think 美国的价值观 never 强调统一的文化标准。On the contrary, diversity is always celebrated, even though racial tension can't be avoided entirely.
令胡冲 wrote:
Susan wrote:Do you? Elaborate it a bit for me? :)
Why British think 美国的价值观强调统一的文化标准? I don't think it is true.
- posted on 08/06/2005
American has diversity under one roof, but there is one roof. It's not symbolic, you have a constitution that you have to swear for when you become a citizen. Even your citizenship has to be exclusive.
British never bothered with this. They don't have constitution, they don't care how many passport in your pocket. I only swore to her majesty when i became a citizen, and there was even no such ceremony before 2004. Her majesty is symbolic. English is dominant natually instead of arbitrarily. There is nothing in the chapter saying what you should do and should think.
Britain has many roofs. Usually Scots have their own roof, welsh got evertying for themselve, and Northern Ireland even don't need a roof. Some first generation muslim never speak any english in their British life.
Lots people suspect there is a race called British. English just saying they are English. And you can guess out it's a shame for Scots to be sluggish to disclaim such a word.
Susan wrote:
I think 美国的价值观 never 强调统一的文化标准。On the contrary, diversity is always celebrated, even though racial tension can't be avoided entirely.
令胡冲 wrote:
Susan wrote:Do you? Elaborate it a bit for me? :)
Why British think 美国的价值观强调统一的文化标准? I don't think it is true.
- posted on 08/06/2005
Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the British handle this Militant Islamist thing.
Multi-culturalism (?) in the states is quite superficial, I think. There is no doubt an Americana that is not only consisted of Broadway and Holywood, but the whiteman corporate culture, the press which speaks in unison most of the time, the evangelical Christian movement, and a life style represented by spawling surburbans and their shopping malls.
Multi-culturalism exists in the states pretty much only in private, that is, in everyone's home. The Chinese, the Indians, the Jews, the Italians, and the Mexicans retrieve to their respective cultures only after work and in their private home. - posted on 08/06/2005
U.S. Citizenship doesn't have to be exclusive, it is possible that you have dual-citizenships. It is the Chinese citizenship that is exclusive.
English is not mandatory either. You sure have right to speak whatever language you like here.
Concerning the "roof", there are Southerners who still think the civil war is not over yet. :-)
I am not a U.S. Citizen yet so I don't know about the swearing part, but the constitution is not really culture oriented. As far as the culture is concerned, I believe U.S. is deversified.
令胡冲 wrote:
American has diversity under one roof, but there is one roof. It's not symbolic, you have a constitution that you have to swear for when you become a citizen. Even your citizenship has to be exclusive.
British never bothered with this. They don't have constitution, they don't care how many passport in your pocket. I only swore to her majesty when i became a citizen, and there was even no such ceremony before 2004. Her majesty is symbolic. English is dominant natually instead of arbitrarily. There is nothing in the chapter saying what you should do and should think.
Britain has many roofs. Usually Scots have their own roof, welsh got evertying for themselve, and Northern Ireland even don't need a roof. Some first generation muslim never speak any english in their British life.
Lots people suspect there is a race called British. English just saying they are English. And you can guess out it's a shame for Scots to be sluggish to disclaim such a word.
Susan wrote:
I think 美国的价值观 never 强调统一的文化标准。On the contrary, diversity is always celebrated, even though racial tension can't be avoided entirely.
令胡冲 wrote:
Susan wrote:Do you? Elaborate it a bit for me? :)
Why British think 美国的价值观强调统一的文化标准? I don't think it is true.
- Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/06/2005
Yes, there's no other ways for the Americans to go, as long as they are diversified in the population, in origin, race, culture etc., as never existed in any nation in human history before. - Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/06/2005
Susan wrote:
U.S. Citizenship doesn't have to be exclusive, it is possible that you have dual-citizenships. It is the Chinese citizenship that is exclusive.
Really? American can take legitimate dual citizenships? That's not too bad. :)
Okok, as long as you live in States, you take the horn. I thought it's atually pretty to use diresity to cast one nation. :) - posted on 08/06/2005
I beg to differ! Different cultures exist not only in private homes but also in media, in press, in colleges, in work spaces, in religional institutions...
I do sometimes feel the superficial side of the diversity though. I wrote a poem called "O say can you see" in the cafe. It is not much of a poem but it does show my frustration. :-)
八十一子 wrote:
Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the British handle this Militant Islamist thing.
Multi-culturalism (?) in the states is quite superficial, I think. There is no doubt an Americana that is not only consisted of Broadway and Holywood, but the whiteman corporate culture, the press which speaks in unison most of the time, the evangelical Christian movement, and a life style represented by spawling surburbans and their shopping malls.
Multi-culturalism exists in the states pretty much only in private, that is, in everyone's home. The Chinese, the Indians, the Jews, the Italians, and the Mexicans retrieve to their respective cultures only after work and in their private home. - posted on 08/06/2005
Very good, Susan! How did I miss this one!
I agree with you that it is not quite just the commercialism, although that accounts for a big chunk of it, such as the spread of Americana to Europe. Centralization of the control of the media by a few big corporations is another important cause. The rise of Evangelicals, which, remind you, is not a very tolerate religion (because they are obliged to convert others), may account for the increasingly narrow-mind of the public. The tide against feminism and minority populations (the "angry white men"), the advancement of technology which has led to marginalization of the masculine ... The collective effect is that people are becoming xenophobic, and are hesitating to exhibit difference. The road to Iraq is a good example of this whole trend.
O say can you See
by Susan
O say can you See
The next trend come to thee
So you are a refined man
The citizen of the globe
Can say "hello" in seven languages
And "I love you" in eight
The world is like a buffet
Served to you in a silver plate
The Pharoah the Allah the Buddha
The Kabbalah the Karma the Ka
Since when the world became a fashion show
A cultural Safari if you will
Observe behind the safety window
You come, you shoot, you go
but --- can you see it
If it is not in a souvenir shop can you see it
If it doesn't have a price tab can you see it
If it is not reviewed, appraised, approved can you see it
Do you even dare to look at it
Are you even allowed to appreciate it
I begin to suspect this is all illusion
This so-called diversity
All education
But no intuition
All decoration
But no inspiration
(And I am dangerously becoming one of them)
Since when the world became an anthropology museum
Only viewing but no touching
And definitely no feeling
But -- can you see it
If it is not behind the display glass can you see it
If it is not on the magazine catalog
Can you can you can you
Still see it - posted on 08/08/2005
Thanks 八十一子.
What if the technology keeps advancing? ;-)
八十一子 wrote:
Very good, Susan! How did I miss this one!
I agree with you that it is not quite just the commercialism, although that accounts for a big chunk of it, such as the spread of Americana to Europe. Centralization of the control of the media by a few big corporations is another important cause. The rise of Evangelicals, which, remind you, is not a very tolerate religion (because they are obliged to convert others), may account for the increasingly narrow-mind of the public. The tide against feminism and minority populations (the "angry white men"), the advancement of technology which has led to marginalization of the masculine ... The collective effect is that people are becoming xenophobic, and are hesitating to exhibit difference. The road to Iraq is a good example of this whole trend. - Re:O say can you Seeposted on 08/09/2005
Susan wrote:
Thanks 八十一子.
What if the technology keeps advancing? ;-)
Well, I think females will steer males toward nerdishness. :-) - posted on 08/11/2005
这篇刊登在本周的U.S. News and World Report。
8/15/05
By Michael Barone
Cultures Aren't Equal
Anyone who has been keeping up with British opinion since the July 7 bombings will have noticed that "multiculturalism" is under sharp attack. Multiculturalism preaches that we should allow and encourage immigrants and their children to maintain and celebrate their own culture apart from the national culture. Society should be not a melting pot but, in the phrase of former New York Mayor David Dinkins, "a gorgeous mosaic." That mosaic, of course, looked less gorgeous as people surveyed the work of the British-born-and-raised bombers.
In the past, Tony Blair has spoken favorably about multiculturalism. But on July 7, he struck a different note. "It is important, however, that the terrorists realize our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause the death and destruction of innocent people and impose their extremism on the world" (italics added). Sadly, the multiculturalist policies of Blair's Labor government and its Conservative predecessors gave refuge to preachers of Islamist hate in what some have called "Londonistan." Even before the bombings that prompted second thoughts, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality said, "We need to assert there is a core of Britishness," and the former home secretary introduced English-language tests for citizenship. Now the Blair government has moved to expel Muslim clerics who preach hatred and terrorism, and the left-wing Guardian fired a writer who was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical group that advocates a "clash of civilization" and urges Muslims to kill Jews.
Imbalance. Writers in other tolerant countries have been noticing the blowback from multiculturalism. The Dutch novelist Leon de Winter wrote that as traditional Calvinist discipline frayed and Muslim immigrants rejected Dutch tolerance, "the delicate mechanism of Holland's traditional tolerant society gradually lost its balance." In The Age, the Melbourne, Australia, newspaper, Pamela Bone wrote, "Perhaps it is time to say, you are welcome, but this is the way it is here." The Age 's Tony Parkinson quoted the French writer Jean Francois Revel's Cold War comment: "A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn.
The conservative Telegraph of London ran a series of articles on extolling Britishness and placed on its website the contributions, positive as well as a few negative, of dozens of citizens. The nonagenarian W.F. Deedes, a journalist since the 1930s, perhaps summed it up best: "The reputation we have in distant lands, I have learned in my travels, is higher than we give ourselves. They admire us for our social stability, our parliamentary and diplomatic experience, for fair play, for tolerance, for a willingness to help lame dogs over stiles, as well as for some of the qualities Shakespeare sang about in his plays." When I was in Britain for the election in May, I was surprised to hear nothing from Tony Blair (or other politicians) about Britain's positive contributions to the world. Now they are being heard.
Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places--mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.
In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swaths of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America though it has existed in many societies, and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.
But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage. While Harvard and Brown are replacing scholars of the founding period with those studying other things, book buyers are snapping up first-rate histories of the founders by David McCullough, Joseph Ellis, and Ron Chernow. Multiculturalist intellectuals do not think our kind of society is worth defending. But millions here and increasing numbers in Britain and other countries know better.
- posted on 08/11/2005
哈哈，这是个狡猾的问题，完全要看你站在哪个立场上说话了。今天我很市侩，一点也不liberal，所以我可能会得罪许多人。把砖头准备好吧。看棒！
要问多元文化还要不要，首先我们要看看多元文化到底是“好”还是不“好。” 什么叫“好”呢？换言之，就是造福人类。医药可以造福全人类，所以我们都说它好。说到多元文化，问题就不那么简单了。因为到目前为止，人类的所有文化都有某种区域、种族或群体特征。Universal Culture 到目前还没有诞生。我们所说的“西方社会”通常是指那些实行资本主义民主制度的欧洲国家，还有美国加拿大澳大利亚等等。这是从制度划分的。实际上，有的号称“资本主义”的国家，其社会主义的特征远强于中国。那么，有没有以文化来分类国家的呢？由于这是一个很敏感的问题，人们通常闭口不谈。但是实际上，在苏东波瓦解后，今日世界上存在着两大对立的文化阵营，这就是基督教阵营和穆斯林阵营。虽然今天还有中国北韩古巴这样的共产集权国家存在，但那种主义实际上已经不成气候。而中国本身亦处在剧烈的文化动荡之中，像只没头的蒼蝇，闻到哪有肉香就往哪飞。实际上基督教文化和穆斯林文化一直在争夺世界文化的主导。基督教文化是西方文化的根基。在近百年人类社会的发展中，基督教文化成功地主导了世界的潮流。先是战胜了共产主义，现在又在同穆斯林文化进行一场艰苦卓绝的斗争。 穆斯林文化显然已露败像，但却垂而不死。基督教文化和穆斯林文化，哪一个更“好”呢？我说，穆斯林文化是娘西皮，因为它不给人类带来平和，平等，平安。想想，女人们出门就要用大袍子紧裹全身，只能露两个眼睛，走在大街上，稍有不对，任何男子都可以对女子施以拳脚。我操！但是，我也并不是说， 基督教文化就是好到到不长肚脐眼的地步。头脑发热，一走极端，哪个文化都不好。俺今年写了两篇稿子，猛烈抨击基督教，也把美国如今的政局的黑暗归罪于基督教右派，就是发泄对那些基督教极端主义者的强烈不满。
现在，回到多元文化的问题上。多元文化的概念是在哪些国家开始被推崇的呢？起先，它是美国民权运动的产物。是美国黑人用汽油，枪弹，砖头硬打出来的。后来，这一概念在西方国家逐渐普及。最直接受益的，当然是那些少数族裔和移民，比如说你和我。我们KC城有个中文学校，由一帮大陆来的家长组织的。你猜猜学校设在哪里？哈哈，在一个基督教堂。人家免费提供场所，也不要求任何家长或学生参加人家教堂的任何活动。你说说这教堂是不是绝顶聪明？至于在一个多元文化的社会里大多数人能否受益，那就要具体地看问题了。中国的针灸和武术当然是造福了美国社会。黑人的非洲文化是如何造福美国社会的，俺还不清楚。虽然每年二月是老黑文化月，俺到现在对老黑的贡献的认识还是停留在原始水平（shame on me!!!），他们发明了爵士乐，蓝色乐，RAP，再就是红绿灯。
当然，有一个观点是大多数人都可以接受的，那就是，多元文化可以增加社会不同族裔之间的理解，减少社会不同族裔之间的摩擦和对立。
但是（杀气腾腾的样子），如果一些少数族裔的文化有违于主流社会的公众利益，甚至危害主流社会的安全，那么主流社会完全有理由和有权利把多元文化的大门对这些少数族裔关上。你要杀人吗？回到你父母的原居住地去杀吧。
单一文化的社会也许缺乏活力。但是，面对一个垂死挣扎的文化的最后绝命式的挑战，你怎么办？
杀无赦！
（砖头雨点般地砸过来吧，俺恨透了如今这没有革命的世界） - posted on 08/11/2005
基督教文化和穆斯林文化，哪一个更“好”呢？我说，穆斯林文化是娘西皮，因为它不给人类带来平和，平等，平安。想想，女人们出门就要用大袍子紧裹全身，只能露两个眼睛，走在大街上，稍有不对，任何男子都可以对女子施以拳脚。我操！
KC厉害，比gadfly都冲。:)
有几个根本问题我们得返回去review一下，
1，现代西方是基督教文化吗？还是伪基督教文化？
就比如，英文为什么会成为主导性的语言，中文为什么不太可能？
生命活力来自兼收并蓄。如同语言一样，社会与人并不为文化特征而活着，而不是相反。
也许没有人能简单穷举清楚西方文化的表征，但我们至少知道，它绝对不包含原教旨主义的特征，而且正在迅速远离之。
穆斯林在这一方面是有些严重的作茧自缚。如果有些教条不能改变，那后世的人就没有必要活着。没有意义。
中国如果惦记着过去朝代的个别虚假盛世，以此而为自己两千年的劣质政体做无意义的狡辩和幻想，将其作为一种正面的文化特征，那悲凉的命运现在就已经写在历史书中了。
2，什么是多元文化？存在现实意义是什么？
大概是为了解决地球村的冲突问题。可惜文明的冲突根本就不是文化的冲突，而是利益的冲突。冲突使人类进化。文明的冲突，所以说，是最让人感到好笑的一种说法。
西方在国内预先演习多种文化的兼容和冲突，抢了点先机。没办法。
3, 自杀式爆炸根源是否真的在多文化？
爱丁堡大学的一位教授电视辩论时提出这个大众问题，有脑子的政客都没法正面回答这个问题。可是英国政客又无法承认这是伊战所引发的民间仇恨。这不仅仅是一个勇气的问题。美国的情况又不同。
- Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/11/2005
发生英国的恐怖活动, 是因为英国紧跟在美国之后实行战争的结果吧.
对中国的贬低, 是因为什么呢? 讨厌它吗? 还是因为你远离了它而投奔到一个更富裕或者说更好的地方了, 所以你反过来骂它? 好势利眼!
- posted on 08/11/2005
势利 wrote:
对中国的贬低, 是因为什么呢? 讨厌它吗? 还是因为你远离了它而投奔到一个更富裕或者说更好的地方了, 所以你反过来骂它? 好势利眼!
势利小朋友，你大概是一个没有见过毛时代的人。很可惜。你听说过“你们要关心国家大事”这句话吗？ 好。我劝你读读毛的书，然后再读读邓的书。这样，你就可以明白很多事理。你可以不听西方资产阶级的疯狂叫嚣，但是不能不懂得这两位中国现代思想家的教诲吧。光听那帮子流氓箐英的民族主义怂恿，头脑是否有些单一化？我贬低中国你心疼了吗？好，告诉你，咱在上小学时就开始大骂中国了。年年骂，月月骂，天天骂。很小的时候是跟着毛主席糊里糊涂地骂，后来大一点是跟着拥护周恩来那批人一起骂，再后来托邓小平的福上了大学后又跟着邓小平一起骂，到了国外又跟着那些有良心的读书人继续骂。以前是反过来骂，如今是正过去骂。骂，骂，骂！骂出个新世界！你该听说过孙志刚的故事吧。要不是几百万网民联合痛骂，那个禽嘼不如的衙门会理睬那件事吗？我现在教你一点做人的事理：我的政府是我的儿子，因为政府是我养活的，所以我就是政府的爹。哪怕政府不是我选举出来的，我也还是政府的爹。只要你每个月把白花花的大洋送给政府，你就是政府的爹，懂吗？这个道理，不管是西方资本主义国家，还是东方社会主义国家，都是一样的。共产党的书上也是这么写的。作为一个爹，你就有权利对你的儿子说三道四。你同意不？好，你看不惯你儿子的行为，打他几巴掌，可以吗？告诉你，即使在美国这样严厉保护儿童权益的国家，老子煽儿子屁股几巴掌（spanking），也毫无问题。老子可以骂儿子，那么为什么民众就不可以骂政府呢？政府是谁养活的？你听说过一句老话吗：打是疼，骂是爱。作为一个远离中国的华人，凭什么就不能骂自己母亲土地上的那个混账儿子？岂止骂，哪天实在看的不耐烦了，还要回去打他几拳呢。这些道理是谁教的？共产党，毛主席。所以我劝你读一些毛泽东和共产党的书。你说咱势利眼？呵呵，国内如今的新文化，势利眼成了人们的口头禅。告诉你，老子可以骂儿子，是古今中外放之四海而皆准的真理。咱泼口大骂布什当局的文字，连国内都可以查到。一个不准人骂的政府，就是一个流氓，应该送去劳动教养。越多的老百姓骂政府，政府就越乖，越听话。老子就是错骂了儿子，那也活该！只有政府对老百姓战战兢兢的事，没有老百姓对政府俯首听命之理。如果不是这样，那么就是本末倒置了，懂吗？
（唉，算你今天倒霉） - posted on 08/11/2005
KC Wrote:
一个不准人骂的政府，就是一个流氓，应该送去劳动教养。
我们从来无法从理论上验证这种说法的准确性。但在实践常识中他是无庸置疑的。
在中国传统中，政府总是凌驾于一切社会资源之上，而且是整个社会和文化的表征。所以有言，君辱臣死。不仅碰不得，而且说不得。西方政体从古希腊以后，就没有这么明显和简单的形状。社会的层极比较混乱和复杂，总是处于动态之中。现代民主理论和实践，确实不是天上掉下来的。
在今天的西方社会里，政府只是社会系统中的一个职能部门。从来没有人认为，国家政府是高于其它部门和阶层的一个特殊权利机关。事实上，西方社会根本就没有过一个简单的金字塔形状，这点欧洲比美国更明显。所以英，这大概就是为什么，国政府要员政客都特喜欢看金字塔，梦里都想抱着睡觉。
简单静态的体制，能省领导的事，只是国家效率就完了。新加坡和香港可以当一个特大型的企业去管理，这种方式还能勉强见效。美国和中国要是这么干，那就真万了蛋了。中国发展到一定程度，比如今天，就无无法在图省事了。否则，说塌就塌了。理论上讲，领导者几乎需要无穷的智慧和能力，才能使一个13亿人的巨大国家中一切社会元素都能充分和均衡地发展。这是不可能的事情。也是非常愚蠢和无可救要的无知与狂妄。国家是每一个人的国家，应该让每一个人都能出力。 - posted on 08/11/2005
令胡冲 wrote:
在中国传统中，政府总是凌驾于一切社会资源之上，而且是整个社会和文化的表征。所以有言，君辱臣死。不仅碰不得，而且说不得。西方政体从古希腊以后，就没有这么明显和简单的形状。社会的层极比较混乱和复杂，总是处于动态之中。现代民主理论和实践，确实不是天上掉下来的。
十分赞同你的分析!
我们中国曾在人类历史上最早创立了中央集权政府，这在当时对消除战乱修养生息起了很好的作用。西方史学家们对中国的这一古代文明的创举是肯定的。而且，每当一个朝代建立起来，总是有那么一段相对来说“安定团结”的局面。这对社会发展起了促进作用。一直到第十七世纪工业革命前，中国的GNP一直是世界第一。最高的时候占世界份额的三分之一强。即使美国也从来没有达到过这么高的份额。然而，这种“安定团结”局面的代价，就是从下对上的绝对服从 - 官本位制。也就是你说的“君辱臣死。”政府是社会系统中的压倒一切的机关，是人们朝思暮想的金字塔。在这种万马齐諳的局面下，人们的智慧和才能被压抑，社会财富的分配也极不合理，而政府的腐败也得不到有效控制。所以“安定团结”的局面最后总是要被更大的动乱而打破。中国社会在领先世界一千年后，终于在十八世纪被西方列强残酷地征服和奴役。虽然中国社会经历了反清、共和、民国、共产等革命，中国几千年来的封建传统总是在人们头上萦绕，踢之不走，挥之不去。一直到今天，我们一回到那块母亲的土地上，马上就可以嗅到强烈的来自那古老封建大酱缸的臭味。中国发展到一定程度，比如今天，按道理说是需要充分的理智和科学的方来有效地管理。可是当权者们仍然在图懒省事。实际上，今天中国的领导者们几乎需要无穷的智慧和能力来应付官场恶斗，否则就无法立足。而对于管理国家最图懒省事的办法 - 民主和法治，中国的官员们避之不及。为什么呢？因为当制度一改，中国的官僚阶层就要上上下下来个大洗牌。人头落地，老婆孩子们也可能坐监。谁愿意这样？
中国知识精英们有一种说法，就是只要中国的经济发展到了一定的规模，民主法治将会必然到来，和韩国、台湾那样。可是，我们记得前南斯拉夫吗？那也是前社会主义国家中市场经济搞的很好的一个国家。那里还曾经举办过冬季奥运会。那个时候他们的人均收入就超过中国今天了。他们甚至早就民主选举了政府。可是今天他们怎么样？中国当然不会出现那样的局面。有可能发生的是，地方诸侯和中央分庭抗礼，贫富不均造成全国大规模群众暴乱。这就是中国几千年的封建历史的再重复。 - Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/11/2005
令狐冲：在咖啡店看到你的一篇“成为纽约女人的黄金准则”，是否发表过？我是侨报副刊的编辑，不知道怎麽跟你联系？方便请联系我fk@chinapress.net 急。 - Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/12/2005
fk wrote:
令狐冲：在咖啡店看到你的一篇“成为纽约女人的黄金准则”，是否发表过？我是侨报副刊的编辑，不知道怎麽跟你联系？方便请联系我fk@chinapress.net 急。
Not me. Maya ZT it here. I don't think I am qualified to write a word on how to 成为纽约女人 :) - posted on 08/12/2005
KC, 没想到你跳出来讲了一通你可以骂中国政府的话, 我那帖子其实是说令胡冲的. 但是你既然说了一通, 我也读了, 就回复给你, 希望你狭隘的思路不要钻到牛角尖里去了. 你说, 你以前跟着毛泽东骂, 想来是骂中国历史几千年的东西, 因为毛认为自己开创了一个新时代. 你那时肯定不敢骂毛吧? 你到现在又不认为毛开创的新时代有什么好的, 所以你就将中国完全否定了. 你很可怜!
当你在异国的土地, 说到异国的好处, 这让人理解, 因为你选择了生存在那里. 也可能入了那个国籍. 然而说到你出生的这个国家, 你是满腹怨言, 却是轻飘飘的, 因为你不受这个苦. 看着苦难中挣扎的人民, 你昔日的同胞, 你有一种优越感, 因为你认为这些人是又苦又不敢言! 而你敢言! 似乎你很侠义, 其实骨子里是一种小市民的庸俗和势利罢了! 还妄谈什么文化. 你了解多少文化? 跟着毛泽东学了几手三脚猫似的造反派的精神, 几十年后, 跑去一个远离的地方叫嚣. 但是, 毛泽东的伟大, 你也并不知道吧? 毛泽东的文化策略, 你又知道吗? 为什么他能左右一代人的思维? 要我告诉你吗?
- posted on 08/12/2005
网上混得久了，有一个后遗症就是，搞不清人家说的是正话还是反话。
比如这个势利网友，一边哭述着“苦难中的人民”，一边毫无保留地歌颂毛主席的伟大，痛斥KC对毛主席伟大的无动于衷态度，质问人家对”毛主席文化策略“的无知。
我不知道这苦难的人民有多少应该归功于毛主席的英明领导和文化策略。使人惊奇和佩服的是，好象有很多苦难的人民宁愿自己及其后代在苦难中挣扎，也觉不允许KC这样的家伙对毛主席及其方针策略有丝毫不敬。就如同，有些穆斯林夥计宁愿自己去搞自杀式爆炸当炮灰，也不能忍受别人对真主和可兰经的不敬。我看这样的”人民“只配苦难。穆斯林兄弟死的时候还至少能觉着他能去天堂享乐，不知道毛主席能给中国这些苦难的人民死后带去哪里。水晶棺材里一穷二白，恐怕也没啥可享受的。
有什么样的人民，就配什么样的政府。俗话说。
势利 wrote:
KC, 没想到你跳出来讲了一通你可以骂中国政府的话, 我那帖子其实是说令胡冲的. 但是你既然说了一通, 我也读了, 就回复给你, 希望你狭隘的思路不要钻到牛角尖里去了. 你说, 你以前跟着毛泽东骂, 想来是骂中国历史几千年的东西, 因为毛认为自己开创了一个新时代. 你那时肯定不敢骂毛吧? 你到现在又不认为毛开创的新时代有什么好的, 所以你就将中国完全否定了. 你很可怜!
当你在异国的土地, 说到异国的好处, 这让人理解, 因为你选择了生存在那里. 也可能入了那个国籍. 然而说到你出生的这个国家, 你是满腹怨言, 却是轻飘飘的, 因为你不受这个苦. 看着苦难中挣扎的人民, 你昔日的同胞, 你有一种优越感, 因为你认为这些人是又苦又不敢言! 而你敢言! 似乎你很侠义, 其实骨子里是一种小市民的庸俗和势利罢了! 还妄谈什么文化. 你了解多少文化? 跟着毛泽东学了几手三脚猫似的造反派的精神, 几十年后, 跑去一个远离的地方叫嚣. 但是, 毛泽东的伟大, 你也并不知道吧? 毛泽东的文化策略, 你又知道吗? 为什么他能左右一代人的思维? 要我告诉你吗?
- Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/12/2005
令胡冲 wrote:
有什么样的人民，就配什么样的政府。俗话说。
所以xw说，教育是最难的嘛。:-) - Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/13/2005
难怪。你自己也是这样说话的。你也有今天。俗话说。：))))
令胡冲 wrote:
网上混得久了，有一个后遗症就是，搞不清人家说的是正话还是反话。
- posted on 08/13/2005
势利 wrote:
...... 因为毛认为自己开创了一个新时代. 你那时肯定不敢骂毛吧? 你到现在又不认为毛开创的新时代有什么好的, 所以你就将中国完全否定了......
...... 因为你不受这个苦. 看着苦难中挣扎的人民, .... 但是, 毛泽东的伟大, 你也并不知道吧? 毛泽东的文化策略, 你又知道吗? 为什么他能左右一代人的思维? 要我告诉你吗?
呵呵，“开创新时代”？ 这话听起来怎么好象是宋姐姐歌颂江总书记的歌词中的。主席他老人家活着的时候，人家可不是这样说他的耶。你可别江冠毛戴呀。何况，谁也没有说过毛“自己开创了一个新时代”呀。瞧现在的小朋友，都不学中共党史了。这也罢，就连唯物史观都不学。毛主席多次教导我们，“人民创造历史。”你看看现在这些年轻人的思想政治工作有多糟，整天帝王将象的。
“看着苦难中挣扎的人民”？
啊，怎么会是这个样子呢？你这话可当真？你这么说就不怕“将中国完全否定了”？社会主义制度的无比优越性，加上改革开放挖掘出的巨大潜力，使中国人民的生活水平日益提高。你这样说法，怎能和党中央高度保持一致呢？
“因为你不受这个苦”？
哪个苦？能具体地说说吗？
“毛泽东的文化策略, 你又知道吗?”
嘿嘿，你想考我啊？他老人家的“文化策略”俺当然知道啦。“文艺必须为无产阶级政治服务，为工农兵服务。”江青同志是是主席文艺革命的旗手，还有有老张、老姚，老邱，老于，等等。毛主席他老人家亲自发动了史无前例的无产阶级文化大革命，把他老人家的“文化策略”推上了顶峰。你瞧那阵势，他老人家天安门城楼上楞是一挥手，那千百万红卫兵小将猛砸啊，猛打啊，猛烧啊，哇赛！那个酷劲就别提了。俺要是能酷上那么一回，立马去死都不后悔了。 - Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/13/2005
笨笨 wrote:
难怪。你自己也是这样说话的。你也有今天。俗话说。：))))
说实话，我最近也发现这个问题的严重性了。正话被当反话，还觉得沾沾自喜一下。最没趣的事情，就是自己说半天反话，被当了正话。:) - Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/15/2005
令胡冲, 我觉得你们很苯, 也不愿意再和你们谈下去了. 我分析的是KC的思路, 怎么变成我的思路了? 我不觉得中国人有多少苦, 至少不会比你们苦. 我也没有受毛泽东的影响, 是KC先提到毛泽东, 说他是跟着毛泽东在骂中国几千年历史上的东西, 我才说他自己很苯, 只会跟着毛泽东学到些皮毛而已.
- Re: 澶氬厓鏂囧寲杩樿涓嶈posted on 08/15/2005
多元文化是搅市屎棍，到哪里臭那里！
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation