- st dude wrote:
History will remember him not as a communist who preached his faith, or a sociologist who ostensibly prescribed for a society, but a Chinese who was willing to give up his own life to bring equality and happiness to China.非常不同意这样的观点. 历史不能这样记住方志敏. 你个人可以这样记住(所以, 如果写成 I will remember him not as...没有任何问题). 历史不是选择性的记录. 我们个人可以为了个人需要而选择性地"断章取义"或者淡化历史背景. 但是历史是客观全面的. 设想一下, 如果用上面的历史观,那么是不是可以说历史将只记住希特勒是一个伟大的爱国者? 或者伟大的民族主义者? 他作为纳粹, 他的爱国行为对其他人犯下罪行历史就可以不管了? 这里我在类比两个例子的历史观,方和希两人之间没有什么可类比的.
It is precisely because history should be viewed in its totality, not in isolation, that one needs to focus on not just what a historical figure believed and stated, but what he actually did. Fang was not a preaching communist theorist or someone who pretended to have a solution for all the problems plaguing China during his lifetime (although he certainly painstakingly described some of them). Instead, he was one who put aside his own personal interests and died for the people and country he loved.
在儿童教育中, 由于孩子不能理解复杂事物, 我们可以采用简单化历史的方法, 甚至断章取义, 以达到特殊的教育目的. 对待成熟的成年人, 这样的历史观是不行的. 一方面, 它和人们认识到十分复杂的社会真实性对不上号;另一方面它让人们的头脑简单化理想化, 阻止人们走向成熟.
历史记住的方志敏是一位共产党员, 革命烈士, 不是爱国烈士.
Whether he is a “martyr”, “revolutionary” or “patriotic” is of little significance because what label to use for him is not at issue here, not to mention that artificially created pigeonholes like these are analytically useless. Furthermore, an over reliance on labels or on arbitrary terminologies like the ones resorted to here tends to project a historical figure through a simplified stereotypical framework, which presumably you would agree not to adopt.
历史记住了方志敏有一篇充满爱国主义的文章. 其中的爱国之情和爱国之心(不是爱国思想和行为)的文学风格式的表达,符合很多人的心理, 被人喜爱.
I take it that you have abandoned your initial doubts that his writings will be remembered by history.
而且, 忠于历史也是忠于本人的意愿. 方志敏特别在信封上写到(大意), 文章就是告诉人们,某某XXX员(指共产党员,他自己)也是爱国的.
No one has disputed the fact that he was a communist.
椋庡瓙