西西河

主题:abc的世界观估计是比较矛盾的。 -- songcla

共:💬25 🌺35 新:
分页树展主题 · 全看 下页
  • 家园 abc的世界观估计是比较矛盾的。

    读了纽约时报关于google事件的文章的评论,基本是预料之中,不过有一个abc的评论却颇让人心酸。

    一点点点评。

    人的基本世界观是在幼年时期经历的主流文化下形成的。谁对谁错也许都不重要了,悲伤的是海外第一代和第二代之间的隔阂,第一代不是一个真正的西方人,第二代也不可能做真正的中国人了。

    新一代的中国留学生思潮左转,大部分和所谓的自卑情结无关,而主要是西藏奥运等等一系列事件刺激的。

    海外的中国人是否存在自卑情结,可能有,但是原因不在国内,因为很难想象一个主体民族会产生自卑情结,而恰恰是到海外后成为少数民族,受到各方面占优势的当地主体民族的压力产生的。相对来说,第一代反而可能更容易处理,因为成长时期的环境和受到的教育给第一代以民族的信心,而第二代可能没有任何这方面的准备。

    对于中国政府,有很多问题,但是显然比西方描述的好的多,也算是在进步中。大多数国外的中国人所以才会支持。

    文中隐晦提到中国学生是被洗脑,本质上是历史观的冲突。看待现代问题是基于对历史的认识基础上的。其实第一代和第二代的主要不同可能就是在于历史观。

    西方大众对主流历史观的坚信的基础在于“言论自由”,而且这个也是现在中国政府的软肋。

    有意思的是,扣除细节部分,客观的看今日世界,中国版本历史观更接近事实。

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23diplo.html?sort=oldest&offset=3

    aren Zhou (from page 1), I am all too familiar with the kind of knee-jerk ignorant "patriotism" you cling to. I am Chinese-American, and during my time in college (I recently graduated), I noticed that a good number of my mainland Chinese colleagues would gripe about Internet censorship while vacationing back home (they would, of course, try to climb the Great Firewall). Yet when they returned to the US for classes, they would go nuts if anyone--especially Chinese--dared to speak ill of China's lack of freedom in this or that area. They would harangue the US, deriding it as imperialist with terms reminiscent of Maoist 'struggle' sessions.

    Karen, since I can tell from your last name that you are probably of the mainland, let me give you some news: You are the cream of the crop. You've made it overseas. You understand English. Please, don't try to paternalistically speak for the hundreds of millions of ordinary Chinese who still live in the mainland and don't enjoy the freedoms you do in Canada. You probably have more in common with the average Canadian than the average factory worker or farmer in China who actually has legitimate grievances to air against the government.

    Your argument is specious in another respect. Chinese folks the likes of you love to lecture about how "Chinese culture" is supposedly based upon uniformity of belief. Well, let's see. If that's the case, then have the people in Taiwan been "violating" Chinese culture? After all, Taiwan has preserved traditional Chinese culture far more than the mainland has (think Cultural Revolution). How about Hong Kong? Upon reverting to China, the mainland granted them a "Basic Law" giving them relative freedom of speech. So is HK also somehow "un-Chinese"? How about Chinese communities abroad in the Americas and in Europe? You and I live in Western nations and we both probably identify with a local Chinese community. Now, the Chinese government claims that if it were to allow Internet freedom, then the Chinese people would fall into instability and disorder. Let me ask you: Of all the challenges we Chinese face in the West, when was the last time your Chinese community was torn apart by Internet freedom? Hmm? Are your Chinese friends feeling helpless because they can't cope with Internet freedom?

    You write that allowing Internet freedom "is like imposing your values on a group of people who needs to be governed in a different way." Let me ask you: Where did the ideology that underlies the CCP originate from? You know, Marxism-Leninism? I'm pretty well-versed in Chinese history, and I just don't think we made that crock up! And if you say that Chinese have their own unique way of governance, then why haven't Chinese like you been calling for a restoration of the dynastic system? That was our unique way of governing ourselves for oh, I don't know, 5,000 years--until a bunch of middle-class populists (Mao & Co.) decided that China ought to violently throw out its political system and institute one conceived of by..Germans! Very original, eh? (Note: If you didn't get the sarcasm, I don't actually advocate returning to being ruled by emperors. But you should!)

    What I discovered in college, Karen, was that Chinese who think like you actually have some sort of an "inferiority country complex." You guys are reluctant to criticize the government of your motherland because of one or a combination of four main factors. One, the government probably helped you and your family become successful. That's why you can afford to come overseas and "represent" the masses--you don't want to bite the hand that fed you. Two, you somehow think that if you criticize the CCP less, foreigners will follow. Three, you were educated in China, and therefore didn't have access to a lot of censored material people elsewhere have that reflects poorly upon the CCP. Four, you are ashamed of certain aspects of China's development and think that admitting them to Westerners would bring shame on China as a nation. (As if Westerners didn't already know!)

    None of these reasons, however, are justifiable excuses for being knee-jerk nationalistic. When I studied abroad in China, I did not go there with the sort of national arrogance that many "patriotic" mainland Chinese tend to have here in America. I made a distinction between the US government and US society. I was not afraid to discuss the respective shortcomings--and strengths--of both entities. People like you, however, conflate the two, and therein lies great danger. Karen, we Chinese have much to be proud of in our traditional culture and values. But appreciating Chinese culture need not, and is not, equivalent to a need to blindly defend the Chinese government at all costs, as if it were representative of the Chinese people (not). That is a lie perpetuated by the Chinese government, and it is really quite sad that otherwise educated Chinese like you have eagerly bought into it. Go talk with some real netizens in China!

    • 家园 不止矛盾,严重的估计得精分

      中国哲学一向是国家利益高于一切,为了国家牺牲个人是天经地义的事情。

      而西方哲学正好相反,为了个人利益可以牺牲国家。

      欧洲自罗马帝国之后再无法统一,而美国实行的是联邦制。

    • 家园 一点声明,这里的说第二代只是一部分

      不能一部分代表全部。也有非常热爱自己血缘国家的。很大部分与家庭教育有关。

    • 家园 我们这里的有中国特色的各种主义也不是祖上传下来的
    • 家园 哈哈

      Please, don't try to paternalistically speak for the hundreds of millions of ordinary Chinese who still live in the mainland and don't enjoy the freedoms you do in Canada. You probably have more in common with the average Canadian than the average factory worker or farmer in China who actually has legitimate grievances to air against the government.

    • 家园 很喜欢286楼TX sim xia对他的回复

      外链出处

      一些ABC,BBC,CBC的世界观和思维方式完全是西式的,会这样想其实不奇怪。对于西方人(文化上的定义)来说,要想能公正客观地看待中国,起码要满足以下条件:精通汉语,熟悉中国的历史文化,在中国各地有若干年的生活/工作经历,广泛结交当地人民,深入了解社会,最后也可能是最重要的一点open mindedness,think outside the box,这些对一般人来说都是很不容易做到的,甚至都意识不到the box的存在,也就免不了看到扭曲的影像了

      另外,249楼有个叫mary的TX相当靠谱啊外链出处

    • 家园 本来就是外国人

      我的中国人外国人判断方法

      1)有外国国籍的,就是外国人,这是最简单可行的,至于什么血统,或文化背景、或前国籍是中国,统统无效,但外国人可以成为私人意义的朋友。

      2)有中国国籍,有外国永久居留权,可以视为中国人,但一般此类人不在中国纳税,利益和我们有区别,故视为特殊的中国人。

      3) 有外国国籍,但有中国永久居留权,视为与中国利益相关的特殊外国人。

      4)港澳人视为中国人,但是只有部分权力和义务的中国人。台湾人视为未行权的中国人,而且它们有集体成为罪犯的可能(公投叛国)。

    • 家园 ABC也是有各种各样的

      他们对中国的态度在很大程度上取决于父母,不光是父母本人的态度,还和父母对子女的影响或者威望有关,不能排除这里面有青春反叛的因素。但他们自己对“三明治”处境也是很敏感,知道长大了才体会到自己的“中国性”。我知道很多CBC,直到大学毕业了,才深切体会到自己是中国人,才开始猛学中文,有的索性回中国去了,而父母还在加拿大。

    • 家园 不能这么说

      zd那段时间,在facebook上的挺奥运,反zd一些相关的group见过不少abc,cbc,还有的是老一辈的香港台湾移民的子女。他们倾诉了一些关于小时候在学校受到种族歧视的问题。

      这个回复在我看来实在是太过工整了。这个人大概不是大陆过去的二代abc,因为他知道last name不一样。这就不奇怪了,反正zd那些group还不是有很多香港(香港的估计还少)台湾的。

    • 家园 我看到的华人二代、甚至小移民都是教会的

      没信仰地人呀...捍卫起基督教比本土人更生猛。大学里的基督教large group很多都是华人。

      不知道在美国有孩子的河友怎么办?世界观这东西就是泡出来的,在哪个坛子里就是哪种泡菜。什么长大后突然发现、颠覆自己的历史观世界观是小概率事件,只有炸馆的同类事件才能触发,还是不要报希望的好。

      我是打算30岁前逃回老家..

    • 家园 这个wong很特别,我都有些怀疑它是CIA特务

      一向是只报道中国,只报道中国负面,好事一点不提,有点影子的坏事最少乘五乘十。

      不说中国人这边怎么看,就从NYT自己角度看,它这么大明目张胆地黑白颠倒,对NYT自己的声望损失很大。CIA特务的怀疑不是我凭空乱说,当前有些美国著名媒体人士被证明年轻时加入CIA,现在名气大了CIA经历被公开了,他们只好跟组织一刀两断。但是那些还很年轻根本不出名的记者和写手呢?

      美国政企分开,CIA瞒着私人企业钻进去干坏事害人(外国)害己(企业)没有一点道义上的疑问和动摇。

      另一方面中国有关部门也真是没用,就知道欺负老实巴交的普通网民。wong这么明显的敌对分子,全职工作就是攻击中国,它竟然可以毫无阻碍的在中国窜来窜去,给它来个永久据入,让它失去利用价值。

      几个月前7.5骚乱时,这个wong在新疆上窜下跳活跃异常。我当时就想,它这么觉得汉人无端被打被杀很应该,那就该让它亲身体验一下“很应该”,找两个信得过的维族,认认真真地好好教育它一番。它是华人,在维族眼里和其他受害者没什么区别,不该享受特殊待遇。

      别跟我说NYT人人都这样,倒下一个wong,站出十个wong。NYT常写中国话题的记者和评论员里面,Thomas Friedman是华粉,Nicholas Kristof是个中国通,八九年时人就在北京,他写中国毁誉参半,但是他对中国的批评都是有根有据,没有凭空捏造黑白颠倒。其他的还有以前的首席驻华记者Howard French,写中国也是誉多于毁。

      其他写中国比较少的记者,有突发事件时往往对中国横加指责,考虑到他们对中国了解有限,可以放他们一马。象wong这样除了中国话题不写别的,写出来的全是对中国的造谣和谩骂,在NYT里绝对找不出第二个。

      通宝推:dfindy,
分页树展主题 · 全看 下页


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河