http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/china_prepares_for_its_60th_an
- Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/04/2009
Cool pics.
"Avenue of Heavenly Peace"? - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/04/2009
老方你也真会讽刺哈,把天安门刻后脑勺上,这不明摆着说:把祖国忘在脑后吗?让令胡冲看见,更要骂我们数祖忘典了。
让我想起当年的一个伤痕小说。说是有个出身黑五类的把毛主席像章别针在胸前的肉里,来表达自己的热爱和超乎寻常的忠诚。让我又联想起那些在冰冷黑屋子里鞭罚自己的基督徒,很SM。 - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/04/2009
照片很出色,算是速补没看到的电视转播的游行。
那种整齐与人数,一如既往让人觉得inhuman. - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/04/2009
有人说这叫不战而屈人之兵,我看这倒是在公牛面前舞红旗。昨天,让一些美国人看这些录像,人家是愤怒,他们觉得纳粹复活了,中国那坦克那阵势有野心要毁灭地球,更有理由鼓动国会制裁中国了。
其实他们也就在中国闹腾,地摊上练把式,吓唬中国人。在外面卖了那么多的领土,卖了那么多国家资产,替美国人背国债,那奴才样子。 - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/04/2009
maya wrote:
有人说这叫不战而屈人之兵,我看这倒是在公牛面前舞红旗。昨天,让一些美国人看这些录像,人家是愤怒,他们觉得纳粹复活了,中国那坦克那阵势有野心要毁灭地球,更有理由鼓动国会制裁中国了。
其实他们也就在中国闹腾,地摊上练把式,吓唬中国人。在外面卖了那么多的领土,卖了那么多国家资产,替美国人背国债,那奴才样子。
你是说他们一方面给人家当奴才,一方面要毁灭地球?:-) - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/04/2009
你是说他们一方面给人家当奴才,一方面要毁灭地球?:-)
为了维护他们的地位,他们什么事情没干过? - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/05/2009
guanzhong wrote:
你是说他们一方面给人家当奴才,一方面要毁灭地球?:-)
这并不矛盾啊,奴才也可以同时是蠢人。以今天的科技发展水平,一个大国想毁灭地球并没有太大难度,只要足够愚蠢就行。 - posted on 10/05/2009
"人家“ ?以maya之文字驾驿能力,不会是笔误吧?
中国的形势是不到万不得已不能打,可有些小破国在怂恿下蠢蠢欲动,有两个大国也虎视眈眈,不断在寻找和挑战底线。为了防止小破国不知死活和大国make misinformed decision坏了局,就是要阅兵。
你说到卖,真正的卖家和奴才是戈尔巴乔夫,不奇怪也是/会是俄罗斯民族的罪人。
我一家之言。不指望小资认同。
maya wrote:
有人说这叫不战而屈人之兵,我看这倒是在公牛面前舞红旗。昨天,让一些美国人看这些录像,人家是愤怒,他们觉得纳粹复活了,中国那坦克那阵势有野心要毁灭地球,更有理由鼓动国会制裁中国了。
其实他们也就在中国闹腾,地摊上练把式,吓唬中国人。在外面卖了那么多的领土,卖了那么多国家资产,替美国人背国债,那奴才样子。 - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/05/2009
说纳粹,我以为是不够的。如果比当年天皇阅兵,倒差强。
纳粹时代的德国,不得了啊。那时奥本海默也在德国留学吧,那德国
科学人文,如果还加上讲德语的奥地利,盖了帽的。
现在的中国可不能比,但话又说回来,天不幸,人幸。
maya wrote:
有人说这叫不战而屈人之兵,我看这倒是在公牛面前舞红旗。昨天,让一些美国人看这些录像,人家是愤怒,他们觉得纳粹复活了,中国那坦克那阵势有野心要毁灭地球,更有理由鼓动国会制裁中国了。
- posted on 10/05/2009
一些朋友因为没回去很多年了,深入得不够,实实在在的,我们渐渐都被边缘化了,一切都是雾里看花。玛雅也说点雾里看花的老实话。 中国这一两百年的核心问题,其实都是一个,就是鲁迅柏杨李敖一针见血看到的那些。外忧其实并不多,更多的是内患跟内耗。这个内患就连令胡冲都承认,就是10亿多人都在笼子里,不让里面的人讲话,有本事有能力有才华的都被排挤在外面,就是令胡冲这样满腔爱国的人都回不去。
世界变化很快,实际上,全世界的无产者们整天勾心斗角,而全世界的寡头们、超级富翁、超级政客早都联合在一起了。
我们该有个世界超级寡头宣言: 我们要毁灭地球。
中国的形势是不到万不得已不能打,可有些小破国在怂恿下蠢蠢欲动,有两个大国也虎视眈眈,不断在寻找和挑战底线。为了防止小破国不知死活和大国make misinformed decision坏了局,就是要阅兵。
- posted on 10/05/2009
嗯,内患/耗vs外忧,我们看问题的出发点不同,着重点也不同。外忧想尽办法利用内耗,制造内患,不明就理的卖了身还帮着数钱,曰,“好民主“。这就是戈尔巴乔夫糊涂的地方(或者是内鬼,按照你的勾结论)。
鲁迅柏杨李敖,需要有些人敲敲边鼓,但是战略意义不大,可以靠边站一站,能听见就行了,声大了烦人,影响正事。
maya wrote:
一些朋友因为没回去很多年了,深入得不够,实实在在的,我们渐渐都被边缘化了,一切都是雾里看花。玛雅也说点雾里看花的老实话。 中国这一两百年的核心问题,其实都是一个,就是鲁迅柏杨李敖一针见血看到的那些。外忧其实并不多,更多的是内患跟内耗。这个内患就连令胡冲都承认,就是10亿多人都在笼子里,不让里面的人讲话,有本事有能力有才华的都被排挤在外面,就是令胡冲这样满腔爱国的人都回不去。
世界变化很快,实际上,全世界的无产者们整天勾心斗角,而全世界的寡头们、超级富翁、超级政客早都联合在一起了。
我们该有个世界超级寡头宣言: 我们要毁灭地球。
- posted on 10/05/2009
有人说这叫不战而屈人之兵,我看这倒是在公牛面前舞红旗。昨天,让一些美国人看这些录像,人家是愤怒,他们觉得纳粹复活了,中国那坦克那阵势有野心要毁灭地球,更有理由鼓动国会制裁中国了。
“友邦愤怒论”?
... 中国这一两百年的核心问题,其实都是一个,就是鲁迅柏杨李敖一针见血看到的那些。外忧其实并不多,更多的是内患跟内耗。
However ugly one may think of the Chinese people, that IS the way they are. It is a given, you have to take it AS IS and live with it.
Some elite may think this people is not as good as others (whatever good may mean). They are certainly entitled of this opinion. But don't tell me Chinese people don't deserve any better just because they are ugly or not as good as others.
As a member of this people, one should be supportive of any effort for the improvement of their lives, and feel genuinely happy when this happens. If one does not consider him/herself a member of this people, why the hell do you even bother to care?
This is my nationalism.
- posted on 10/06/2009
gz wrote:
As a member of this people, one should be supportive of any effort for the improvement of their lives, and feel genuinely happy when this happens. If one does not consider him/herself a member of this people, why the hell do you even bother to care?
This is my nationalism.
嘿,guanzhong,你喜欢逻辑,你给看看这个对不对哈:
Let M = a member of the people
Let S = supportive (of any effort)
Let C = care = S or not S (Supportive or Non-supportive: reasonable definition of caring)
=> not C = not (S or not S) = (not S) and S = False
In plain English: Non-caring is neither Supportive nor Non-supportive
Your 1st sentence translates into: if M then S => if not S then not M
Your 2nd sentence translates into: if not M then not C
=> if not S then not C
=> if (not S) then (not S) and S
In order for the last statement to be True, S (being Supportive) has to be True. If S is False (being Non-supportive), then the last statement is False; we have a contradiction.
So does this mean that "your nationalism" as defined is irrationalism, or am I missing something here, which is quite possible as I'm rather rusty with logic :)
Note that if C is defined as S (i.e., Caring is equivalent to being Supportive), then there is no logical problem. But from the way your sentences are constructed, I don't think that's the implication, but I could be wrong.
I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just for fun, as tar put it, playing logic for the logic's sake :) - posted on 10/06/2009
maya wrote:
一些朋友因为没回去很多年了,深入得不够,实实在在的,我们渐渐都被边缘化了,一切都是雾里看花。玛雅也说点雾里看花的老实话。 中国这一两百年的核心问题,其实都是一个,就是鲁迅柏杨李敖一针见血看到的那些。外忧其实并不多,更多的是内患跟内耗。这个内患就连令胡冲都承认,就是10亿多人都在笼子里,不让里面的人讲话,有本事有能力有才华的都被排挤在外面,就是令胡冲这样满腔爱国的人都回不去。
共产党不让人说话,maya不是也删帖不让人说话来着?党性?人性?
不过说实在的,国内有本事有才华的多了去了,真正是缺了谁都行。别说海龟了,洋人里的精英都往中国跑。 - posted on 10/06/2009
国内有本事有才华的多了去了,
比如胡锦涛温家宝那样的?张艺谋还是章子怡?国宝级啊。
洋人里的精英都往中国跑。
那他们原本就是中国人嘛,不过是带着蓝眼睛高鼻子的面具,不过国内的比较喜欢他们的面具,特别有民族自豪感,狗日的先人板板!看看咱,老子今天能雇得起高鼻子的给咱干活儿了(尽管他得付起码高出5倍的工钱)。这些戴面具的其实什么活儿都不用干,把鼻子眼睛一套上就是钱,天下哪儿找这么好的买卖?
又不是政治家,老百姓谁不是打工挣钱吃干饭?也不用说他们是鬼子洋人了,都是地球人,他们找不到事情作,在中国找着事情作了,多好。
老方从前说,我们不过是逐水草而居的人,哪儿好活哪儿有草往哪儿跑,我最喜欢这实诚话。觉得在哪儿好就往哪儿去,非要让自己活在自己不喜欢的国家才是自己跟自己过不去。
说点老实话好不? - posted on 10/06/2009
浮生 wrote:
gz wrote:嘿,guanzhong,你喜欢逻辑,你给看看这个对不对哈:
As a member of this people, one should be supportive of any effort for the improvement of their lives, and feel genuinely happy when this happens. If one does not consider him/herself a member of this people, why the hell do you even bother to care?
This is my nationalism.
先声明啊, nationalism is never a logical consequence of some rational thinking process. Nationalism is totally by chance, i.e., you happen to be born and raised here instead of there.
But logic is fun, so let's see your logic. :-)
Let M = a member of the people
Let S = supportive (of any effort)
Let C = care = S or not S (Supportive or Non-supportive: reasonable definition of caring)
I have a big issue with this definition C = S or not S = True. Do you mean everybody cares in plain English? Aren't there many who don't?
("如果有人把真理的定义包涵了绝对,这是个很“赖皮”很“坏”的定义"?)
=> not C = not (S or not S) = (not S) and S = False
In plain English: Non-caring is neither Supportive nor Non-supportive
Indeed, if C = true, then not C = False. But again the premise C = True is wrong. Instead, I would say S < C (subset), i.e., some of those who care are supportive.
Your 1st sentence translates into: if M then S => if not S then not M
Your 2nd sentence translates into: if not M then not C
=> if not S then not C
The above steps are correct.
=> if (not S) then (not S) and S
But this is obviously wrong because of the wrong premise C = True.
- posted on 10/06/2009
gz wrote:
Indeed, if C = true, then not C = False. But again the premise C = True is wrong. Instead, I would say S < C (subset), i.e., some of those who care are supportive.
But this is obviously wrong because of the wrong premise C = True.
GZ, first admit it, her REASONING is perfect. She's highly intelligent (you are too). I have to say I'm quite impressed by the way she organized her argument.
You've been on the right track, but somehow you finally missed the target. Why did you say:
"I would say S < C (subset)"?
You were repeating her assumption. She says C = S + non S (sorry, + should be OR), doesn't that mean S is a subset of C? You were saying she is correct.
"some of those who care are supportive." Correct. But this means C and S are overlapping. Her assumption is incorrect not because of S < C,
but because of C ≠ S + non S (sorry, use OR instead of +)
-------------------------
I guess she hesitated for a few seconds when she wrote down C = S + non S (sorry, should be OR), because she added a note "Supportive or Non-supportive: reasonable definition of caring."
Fusheng, give me a REASONABLE definition of caring, please :).
Caring is an Emotion. Support can be based on emotions or purely cost-benefit calculations (rationality). Support = Emotions + (or OR) Rationality
Emotions ≠ Emotions + Rationality
--------------------
But overall, she's highly intelligent. And I guess she's a less happy person.
(I'm busy, come back to you later)
- Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/06/2009
Sorry, I just saw what she says is C = S or non-S
Anyway, my argument (Emotions (C) not equal to Emotions + Rationality (S))remains almost the same.
- posted on 10/06/2009
gz wrote:
As a member of this people, one should be supportive of any effort for the improvement of their lives, and feel genuinely happy when this happens. If one does not consider him/herself a member of this people, why the hell do you even bother to care?
What do you think about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc? Who not only do not care about their people(Britain), but also started a war against them and defeated them? What do you think about those from former Soviet Union? The country they born no longer exists, who should they care about? As you might already known, China re-negotided border with Vietnam, India and Russia in past a few years. As a result, some residents had to change nationality. Who should they care about now?
Should people from Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. care about their new nation or their old nation?
Nations have never been static in the past a few thousand years. And it won't be in foreseeable future. What do you expect a member react when "this people" changed? - posted on 10/06/2009
小蜜蜂 wrote:
gz wrote:
Indeed, if C = true, then not C = False. But again the premise C = True is wrong. Instead, I would say S < C (subset), i.e., some of those who care are supportive.
But this is obviously wrong because of the wrong premise C = True.
GZ, first admit it, her REASONING is perfect. She's highly intelligent (you are too). I have to say I'm quite impressed by the way she organized her argument.
I have no problem with her reasoning, but it is based on a wrong premise. BTW, I have to claim that I discovered FS was highly intelligent way before you did. :-)
You've been on the right track, but somehow you finally missed the target. Why did you say:
"I would say S < C (subset)"?
You were repeating her assumption. She says C = S + non S (sorry, + should be OR), doesn't that mean S is a subset of C? You were saying she is correct.
What she said was C is the union of S U ~S, which is a constant True, i.e., C=True. Or in English, all people, whether supportive or not, care. What I said was S < C, i.e., S is a proper subset of C, some of those who care are supportive, but some are not.
"some of those who care are supportive." Correct. But this means C and S are overlapping. Her assumption is incorrect not because of S < C,
but because of C ≠ S + non S (sorry, use OR instead of +)
I don't disagree. You could say C = S U ~S is wrong by either (a) S < C is a proper subset of C, or (b) C ≠ S U ~S. But (a) gives a correct answer, (b) does not. So (a) is better. :-)
I guess she hesitated for a few seconds when she wrote down C = S + non S (sorry, should be OR), because she added a note "Supportive or Non-supportive: reasonable definition of caring."
Fusheng, give me a REASONABLE definition of caring, please :).
Caring is an Emotion. Support can be based on emotions or purely cost-benefit calculations (rationality). Support = Emotions + (or OR) Rationality
Emotions ≠ Emotions + Rationality
I am afraid this is a little beyond what zeroth-order logic can describe.
But overall, she's highly intelligent. And I guess she's a less happy person.
Less happy in comparison to what? I feel FS is smart enough to know how to make herself feel happy. :-) - posted on 10/06/2009
小蜜蜂 wrote:
Fusheng, give me a REASONABLE definition of caring, please :).
When I said "reasonable", I didn't mean it's MY reasonable definition. I meant it being reasonable given guanzhong's statements, which he "corrected". Thanks for pointing it out that his correction is actually an agreement, so I didn't read gz completely wrong. This is in fact the crux of the problem.
Now let's see what happens after his correction:
gz wrote:
Instead, I would say S < C (subset), i.e., some of those who care are supportive.
Your 1st sentence translates into: if M then S => if not S then not MThe above steps are correct.
Your 2nd sentence translates into: if not M then not C
=> if not S then not C
Now guanzhong, you've agreed that the above steps are correct. I will let go with my premise but in stead use yours: S < C (subset)
If not S then not C => if C then S
Given the premise, this can only be True if S = C. If S is a proper subset of C (as stated in (a) above), the above statement is False; we have a contradiction.
Now I think I AM making a point :)
gz wrote:
先声明啊, nationalism is never a logical consequence of some rational thinking process. Nationalism is totally by chance, i.e., you happen to be born and raised here instead of there.
Nationalism is never a logical consequence of those who practice it but it is a logical consequence of those who have infused nationalism into its people. You may think that the village (北京海淀区 in your case) you grew up as your home and thus both the place and the people in the neigborhood hold a special place in your heart , but in order for you to think the whole land as big as China to be your home, the entire population over 1 billion to be your people, the whole thousands of years of history to be something specially important for you, it has to be done through systematic education. No one can be born with it.
巴黎的雪MM,给我们讲讲nationalism的起源好不好? - posted on 10/06/2009
Well done this time!
The source of this issue can be traced back to my second sentence which says: "If one does not consider him/herself a member of this people, why the hell do you even bother to care?" This is not a statement saying C < M. Because, after all, there are those who C but not M or S!
This is fun, isn't it? :-)
浮生 wrote:......
gz wrote:Nationalism is never a logical consequence of those who practice it but it is a logical consequence of those who have infused nationalism into its people. You may think that the village (北京海淀区 in your case) you grew up as your home and thus both the place and the people in the neigborhood hold a special place in your heart , but in order for you to think the whole land as big as China to be your home, the entire population over 1 billion to be your people, the whole thousands of years of history to be something specially important for you, it has to be done through systematic education. No one can be born with it.
先声明啊, nationalism is never a logical consequence of some rational thinking process. Nationalism is totally by chance, i.e., you happen to be born and raised here instead of there.
That is why I also mentioned "raised" as well as "born". Just like those raised in China have a special place in their hearts for, say, 唐诗宋词,or 四书五经 in the old days, it is only natural for those raised in the western culture to have a place in their hearts for the bible stories and Shakespeare.
I am not sure what subject one should use for the verb "infuse" though. The parents, school teachers, churches, emperors, governments, tribes leaders, society? or all of the above? I guess most of us were exposed to 唐诗宋词 from our parents when we were little. Were they trying to infuse nationalism into us? - posted on 10/06/2009
浮生 wrote:
Nationalism is never a logical consequence of those who practice it but it is a logical consequence of those who have infused nationalism into its people. You may think that the village (北京海淀区 in your case) you grew up as your home and thus both the place and the people in the neigborhood hold a special place in your heart , but in order for you to think the whole land as big as China to be your home, the entire population over 1 billion to be your people, the whole thousands of years of history to be something specially important for you, it has to be done through systematic education. No one can be born with it.
巴黎的雪MM,给我们讲讲nationalism的起源好不好?
We all know this is the core of your reasoning. Why didn't you say it straightforward? GZ's personal statement is quite emotional (he has the right) and should not be translated into logic. It is unfair to him and his response is pretty decent. As an ideology, nationalism is far more complicated than your simplification.
As someone from less developed countries (LDCs), you don't necessarily need the governmental indoctrination to be a natioanlist (moderately speaking).
- Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/06/2009
Political science is not my cup of tea. So I will simply say nationalism is an augmented, generalized, socialized and politicized basic instinct, the attachment to what you are familiar with, people (family members, friends), places (home village or hometown), and environment (from language to culture).
Of course nationalism can be further politicized to become patriotism, and possibly taken advantage of by politicians, but that is a whole different topic. - posted on 10/07/2009
小蜜蜂,回头看一下thread,what I said about nationalism is in response to guanzhong's post, which is in response to my reasoning post, which is in response to gz's statements, which is in response to maya's post. So I cannot really say all these up-front, even though I'm pretty good at ADD :)
guanzhong 喜欢逻辑 and I know he won't take it personal, 所以我才玩儿,mostly for fun.
不如小蜜蜂就来给我们讲讲nationalism吧。guanzhong把它定位在basic instinct,可我觉不是,要不怎么法国大革命前没有。还有说它是the attachment to what you are familiar with...,这个我也有问题,因为显然的这个attachment has also gone to something you are quite unfamiliar with. 举例说,新疆gz还没有去过吧?我也没有,那为什么应当对它有attachment呢?都不用那么远,就说我去西安,我都觉着有一种不熟悉,the otherness,这个不是跟美国比,是和我比较熟悉的北京比。Patriotism也请顺便给讲一讲,这个和nationalism不应当有因果关系吧?
BTW,小蜜蜂,我感觉在咖啡出没的人都是 highly intelligent, and less than perfectly happy. If anyone wants to dispute that, I have no problem :) Of course I don't know what perfect happiness is, just as I don't know what truism is. - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/07/2009
浮生 wrote:
guanzhong 喜欢逻辑 and I know he won't take it personal, 所以我才玩儿,mostly for fun.
Is that fun? He complained his post was deleted and now even that complaint was gone. I had to scrolled up and down several times to make sure I didn't miss the VIRTUAL reality in here.
Whatever, it's not your fault. Sorry. - posted on 10/07/2009
不如小蜜蜂就来给我们讲讲nationalism吧。guanzhong把它定位在basic instinct,可我觉不是,要不怎么法国大革命前没有。
大革命之前有英法的百年战争,你说法国人没有维护自己民族利益而反抗英国人占领的情绪?叫不叫“民族主义“倒真是个命名问题。
还有说它是the attachment to what you are familiar with...,这个我也有问题,因为显然的这个attachment has also gone to something you are quite unfamiliar with. 举例说,新疆gz还没有去过吧?我也没有,那为什么应当对它有attachment呢?都不用那么远,就说我去西安,
假设你很爱你的小弟弟,一天他吵着要买玩具枪。作为女孩,你从来都不熟悉枪,可难道你不愿意满足他吗?
- posted on 10/07/2009
小蜜蜂 wrote:
浮生 wrote:
guanzhong 喜欢逻辑 and I know he won't take it personal, 所以我才玩儿,mostly for fun.
Is that fun? He complained his post was deleted and now even that complaint was gone. I had to scrolled up and down several times to make sure I didn't miss the VIRTUAL reality in here.
Now I know the time I spent was not in vain. Thanks for reading. :=)
So BLX's comment about 人性/党性 is right. :-) - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/07/2009
gz wrote:
假设你很爱你的小弟弟,一天他吵着要买玩具枪。作为女孩,你从来都不熟悉枪,可难道你不愿意满足他吗?
要是他吵着买真枪呢?
小蜜蜂,welcome to the reality :)在删贴上 I'm totally in agreement with you and this is not relative. - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/07/2009
要是他吵着买真枪呢?
做为一个好姐姐,你该知道怎样对他最好啊!:-) - posted on 10/07/2009
gz wrote:
大革命之前有英法的百年战争,你说法国人没有维护自己民族利益而反抗英国人占领的情绪?叫不叫“民族主义“倒真是个命名问题。
Fusheng is correct. The French Revolution is a threashold in terms of nationalism. She always surprised me.
Fusheng, really nice to know a highly intelligent woman in here. I'm not in the talking mood tonight and hope I will have chance to talk to you later.
GZ: a pretty decent guy (in my eyes).
Nice to meet both of you. :) - posted on 10/07/2009
抱歉,刚看到有问民族主义。咱们这个坛子讨论的一个问题就是把握不好情境,context。是喝咖啡随意聊天呢,还是搁到某某范式里去探讨,当然搅合在一起就更热闹了哈。
蜜蜂浮生关中无论从各个方面都已经说得很正确了。我还是一如既往地闲聊几句,因为很惭愧,想起N年前在欧洲修一门欧洲历史的课,老师布置的考题就是论欧洲民族主义,没好好读书,只得了一个C。午饭时不甘心,跟一个学political science的意大利帅哥聊天,恢复了一点记忆。我们的对话:
问:哎,你们欧洲什么时候有了民族主义?
答:啊,你怎么问我这个。嗯。。。好像是17世纪晚期。
问:那不是三十年战争吗?欧洲有了摆脱神权的现代意义的民族国家,就有了民族主义?
答:民族主义的确是对于现代民族国家的一个概念,但一开始还并不明显,(我想起来了,30年战争结束是在1648年,)然后到了英国革命(克伦威尔,嗯,也就是17世纪末),然后美国革命和法国革命时就完全凸现出来了。
问:那为啥大家这么讨厌民族主义呢,是不是因为在一定程度上导致了两次世界大战
答:没错,尤其是第一次,凡尔赛条约是什么时候签订的?1918?
问:民族主义和爱国主义有什么区别?
答:爱国主义是民族主义的一个成分吧,但主要是被极权主义、纳粹主义给夸大了,为国家的价值而战。
问:你爱国吗?
答:俺们意大利人最不讲民族主义、爱国主义了,西班牙也是这样,你看法国的民族主义就强得多,最强的就是美国。
问:还有俺们中国。哈。
这个帅哥今天穿了件紫、灰色系的衬衫领带,每天的调调都不同,被我问的抓耳挠腮的,估计书也读的不咋样,哈。 - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/07/2009
"作为女孩,你从来都不熟悉枪"
That's a bold assumption. 赫赫。
(插科打诨)
浮生 wrote:
gz wrote:要是他吵着买真枪呢?
假设你很爱你的小弟弟,一天他吵着要买玩具枪。作为女孩,你从来都不熟悉枪,可难道你不愿意满足他吗?
- posted on 10/07/2009
浮生要探询民族主义的起源,那就多聊聊。
问:那不是三十年战争吗?欧洲有了摆脱神权的现代意义的民族国家,就有了民族主义?
答:民族主义的确是对于现代民族国家的一个概念,但一开始还并不明显,(我想起来了,30年战争结束是在1648年,)然后到了英国革命(克伦威尔,嗯,也就是17世纪末),然后美国革命和法国革命时就完全凸现出来了。
没有民族国家 (nation),当然就谈不上民族主义 (nationalism)。但如果用我上面的定义,即使没有国家,还有家族,村落,部落 (tribe),对这些小于民族国家的群体人们照样有类似于民族主义的情绪 (tribalism),这种情绪同样可能引起家族争斗,部落战争。这种情绪如果被放大,被社会化政治化,就成了民族主义,由此引起的战争就升级成为世界大战了。在这个意义上,nationalism 和 tribalism 并没有本质区别。
Tribalism
-- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The other concept to which the word tribalism frequently refers is the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates oneself as a member of one group from the members of another. This phenomenon is related to the concept of tribal society in that it is a precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong feeling of identity for a true tribal society to form.
Merriam-Webster
Tribalism:
1 : tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups
2 : strong in-group loyalty
Nationalism:
loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other - Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/11/2009
有病呀你?我们中国这么强大,还有小破国敢蠢蠢欲动?还被搞到不得已的程度!
光一个紫红色的女民兵方队就天下无敌了。两个大国有吗?
moab wrote:
中国的形势是不到万不得已不能打,可有些小破国在怂恿下蠢蠢欲动,有两个大国也虎视眈眈,不断在寻找和挑战底线。为了防止小破国不知死活和大国make misinformed decision坏了局,就是要阅兵。
- Re: 准备国庆大典的照片---photos showing preparation for China's National Dayposted on 10/12/2009
切。
SevenStar wrote:
有病呀你?我们中国这么强大,还有小破国敢蠢蠢欲动?还被搞到不得已的程度!
光一个紫红色的女民兵方队就天下无敌了。两个大国有吗?
moab wrote:
中国的形势是不到万不得已不能打,可有些小破国在怂恿下蠢蠢欲动,有两个大国也虎视眈眈,不断在寻找和挑战底线。为了防止小破国不知死活和大国make misinformed decision坏了局,就是要阅兵。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation