分頁: (7) [1] 2 3 ... 最後 » ( 前往第一篇未讀文章 ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> [精]終於出現這樣的文章了
老實人魯子敬
發表於: Jan 25 2012, 14:26  評價+1
Quote Post


仕官
***

發表數: 66
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 1-18-2010

活躍:5
聲望:108


算是延續下面火熱的討論吧,小弟臨睡前發現這篇的文章,(或許也有更多類似的文章正「瘋傳」)

我只是粗略看了一遍,便得出了一結論 : 作者好天真好傻

大家有甚麼看法?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

為什麼我想香港獨立/自治
Marie Meow 寫於 2012年1月22日 12:50

這篇文章,不止寫給香港及台灣想搞獨立的朋友,也寫給大陸的知識分子看,希望你們能放下謾罵的衝動,明白我(們)的想法。



首先,我必須承認,香港人和大陸人是有互相歧視的情況,香港人用來標籤大陸人的港式粗話很多,大陸人也天天在Youtube 嗆香港無能要靠中央政府養。可是我認為,重點不是誰歧視得多誰錯得多,而是這個現象的成因及意義。



想香港獨立的原因很簡單,就是覺得香港人和大陸人並沒有同胞的親切感。我不是想說那些不文明不衛生的遊客,我是在說,即使是大陸的優秀人材,例如在香港的大學任教的教授,到香港發展的歌唱家音樂家等,我也不覺得他們跟我是「同鄉」。這就正如,無論你多敬重一個日本人或韓國人,你都只會覺得他是一個「可敬的外國人」,不會覺得他有同鄉的親切感。香港人跟大陸人的文化底蘊是不相同的,大家共同分享中華文化,但最影響香港人的,還是殖民地時期學回來的價值觀、國際觀和英語,同樣地大陸人有過不同的經歷,可能是比較多在貧窮中力爭上游的體驗等,所以大家的思想、視野是不同的。我沒有說香港人的性情要比大陸人高級(事實上我覺得大陸最高學府的學生要比香港大學生溫文爾雅,我也沒資格去看不起學養比我高的大陸學生),我只是想說出,大家的經歷和教育太不同,不是同一種人。這種「不同」的感覺,相信很多在海外留學或工作的朋友都感受過,人在異地就想找同鄉,可是很失望地香港人和大陸人互相都不覺得對方是同鄉,這不止是語言的隔閡,就是簡單的感覺。



我想,廿一世紀不應該再是強盛國家擴張領土的年代,我認為一塊土地屬於土地上的居民,屬於認了這塊土地為家的人,而不是周邊軍力強盛的人。只要想獨立就可以獨立,不需要搬出歷史因素,我也支持世界各地想獨立的人民。中原必須大統一是一種迷信,一種少人辯論過卻多人接受了的迷信,對大家最好的可能是一個美國式聯邦政府,或地方各自獨立,再成立一個像北約的組識互相保護,及一個像歐元區的組識加緊經貿往來。不過無論是北約或歐元區式合併都是自由加入的,互相尊重,不勉強同化。獨立不是鬧事,是很基本的人權。為獨立運動犧牲的人都是勇敢的民主鬥士。香港在過去幾千年都跟大陸是同一個國家,但這不代表今天也應該是同一個國家,因為最決定香港和大陸差異的,不是過去那幾千年留下來的文化遺產,而是在近代中國發生的事,使得有知識的華人很多離開了大陸那些事,而香港則學習了西方民主自由法治思想的那些事。香港的主權移交是不符合國際慣例的,根據聯合國的Declaration on Granting the Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,殖民地有權公投要獨立還是留在宗主國,例如直布羅陀公民投票就選擇了繼續留在英國,即使前宗主國西班牙至今不承認英國主權。人權宣言中國有份簽署但沒份屐行。新界條款只寫租借不是藉口,殖民地的自決權是割讓或租借都平等享有的。



將來如果香港人跟大陸人思想文化拉近了,當然可以再合併,但不是今天這個仇怨已深的時候,就像情侶性格不合是應該暫時分手的。主權移交十四年,香港人跟大陸人合不來已是明顯不過,大家可以有限度地交流,但不能更親。大陸人說受到香港人歧視,其實他們自己也討厭香港人是不是,合不來不合則去,不要強迫對方歸化自己好不好。



我認為每個人都是獨立的個體,我的祖先的身份認同不等於我的身份認同。這種國民身份認同很主觀的,我自己在大陸出生,我有很多親戚在大陸,但我在香港成長,甜酸苦辣都在香港經歷,所以我覺得香港是我家,不是大陸。在這個全球化的年代,血緣關係不再去到大於一切的重要,我很欣賞美國那一套無分種族立國基於友誼的理想(雖然美國人實踐得不夠好)。對於大陸偏遠地區的貧苦大眾,我當然同情也願意捐助,但我對其他國家的窮人的憐憫程度是一樣的,換言之,對大陸山區農民的同情心是出於「我是地球人」的身份,並不是我對中華人民共和國有歸屬感。很可惜,我能認同在港南亞裔和東亞裔長期居民為半個香港人,絕不歧視少數族裔,但無法認同不愛香港的大陸人為同鄉。大家應該還記得,主權移交之前,及主權移交後起初幾年,香港人曾經有幻想過大陸人真是同胞,以為同是中華民族後裔就是同胞,所以在大陸混亂時幫助大陸人逃到香港,大陸有天災人禍香港人踴躍捐助,我自己起初來到香港沒被歧視過,完全沒有。可是近幾年,我們漸漸發現大陸人有錢了就不當我們同胞,只當香港一個賺錢賺福利的地方,完全失望。台灣人也曾被騙過真心想過拯救大陸水深火熱的同胞是不是。



我希望香港獨立,但並不是要香港跟大陸切斷交流,我願意見到世界各國都有更緊密的交流。除非大陸派軍隊鎮壓,否則我也不想看見香港人在深圳河築城牆的情況,而我也不認為自私的香港人願意服兩年兵役及花GDP 4%在國防上(新加坡是這樣獨立了)。我不認為香港跟大陸的經貿交流是單向的香港依賴大陸,根據我不完全的資料搜集︰港人在大陸消費要比自由行在港消費多;香港的米主要從泰國入口而非大陸,香港買東江水已比海水化淡貴所以是廣東省有賺;香港是自己發電,並有剩餘賣給廣東省;大陸人要透過香港獲得國際車牌;香港空氣污染七成來自大陸;大陸人來香港買大量奶粉因為品質較可靠;大陸人一方面罵香港人是殖民地奴才,卻又爭相申請居港權一起做奴才……這些都說明了,香港不是單方面依賴大陸。日本和韓國的最大入口國和出口國都是中國,但大家不會說他們因此是依賴中國是應該納入中國版圖對不對,這是全球化的趨勢和有comparative advantage下正常的經貿交流。



在大陸人眼中,香港人罵大陸女人和小孩吃東西弄污地鐵車廂是反應太大了,捍衛廣東話也變成生安白造貶低普通話而非理性語言學討論。可是,為什麼香港人那麼大反應那麼不理性?我看到的,香港人是好像一群痛失家園的災民無力地呼喊,我們無權管理不守禮的遊客,無力維護被侵蝕的本地文化,無權決定接收幾多移民,只好把一切悲傷憤怒都化作對大陸人的粗話,又好像被欺負的小孩,他沒有武器只能丟丟石頭,我不贊同香港人的不冷靜,卻又不忍心譴責受傷了的香港人。我不認為懷念英國的一部份香港人是崇洋媚外,那是發自內心的感激之情,我們絕對知道殖民地政府自己拿過好處,真誠為香港的官不多,但英國人為香港確立了廉潔、自由和法治,建立了完善的社會福利制度,把香港從漁村變成國際金融中心,這些都是香港人自己做不到的,就看特區政府的無能而知。我不覺得這是奴性,這是學生對老師般的感恩,我很佩服英國人的管治能力。殖民地政府沒有教我們愛英國,以前政府口號廣告公民教育都是教我們愛香港。香港人在外國遇險,例如日本地震或泰國軍變,中國大使館不受理,反而英國會接走持有英國海外國民護照的香港人,我完全能理解他們認英國為祖國。還有,香港人引以為傲的獅子山下自力更生精神,也是在殖民地政府下建立的。



為什麼馬來亞迫新加坡獨立,但大陸是迫香港合併?我看到前者是較文明。也想一讀《風雨獨立路—李光耀回憶錄>。香港要跟整個大陸拼軍力很難. 但我們是不是跟整個大陸拼呢?不止西藏新疆內蒙,其實廣東及上海這些較為思想開放的地方,也有獨立的呼聲。大陸太多利益在香港,一個飛彈夷平香港是不會發生的。歐洲人已覺醒了,不再想要統一對方,分成幾十個國家反而和平共處。現在英美友好,想想如果美國當初獨立不成功還會不會友好。和諧不是大統一。不過,看到網上給大陸人罵的留言... 我還是覺得,要令多數大陸人考慮一下分裂是很難的事。 還有, 我說的獨立是一個籠統的詞,包含各種不同程度的自治權,大陸聯邦政府及香港高度自治是完全可以接受的。但台灣, 必須獨立,那是很基本的尊重。台灣的朋友,請不要懼怕對岸軍力。如果情況是解放軍對國軍,那當然解放軍勝。但打起來的實際情況將會是部分解放軍對全體台灣人民,加美軍支援,還有國際間對大陸侵略行為的譴責。大陸不可能調派太多兵力去打台灣,因為台灣要獨立,大陸境內就有很多受壓迫已久的少數族群呼應,大陸要先控制國內的混亂。唇亡齒寒,懇請支持香港,當香港被完全同化,下一個目標一定是台灣。請相信獨立運動不是尋釁滋事,是爭取很基本的人權。我個人認為國號叫中華民國或台灣國不重要。台灣現在當然是主權國家,但十年廿載後?情況令人擔心。



香港人,無論是去到什麼程度的獨立或自治,第一步都一定是團結起來,來個使香港癱瘓的示威,迫使修改移民政策,落實高度自治。可惜,香港人很多在出賣香港給大陸,我很懷疑,香港能不能拿出三百萬人示威。大家都說香港沒獨立的條件,我說,是獨立的第一個條件——團結抵抗,大家都沒有。那別說獨立,維持現狀也不可能。不要把高度自治或獨立運動醜化成「萬一九龍從新界獨立出去怎辦」的假設性問題,因為獨立不是個人的人權,是集體的人權,不是你喜歡你家的房子叫獨立國家那樣兒戲的事情,不是鬧著玩地迫出一個類似台北天龍國的那樣,我是說獨立應作為解決衝突的一個可能性,在雙方做不到和而不同的時候,而又存在一條清楚的地界分開兩邊人民。香港與大陸的衝突主要源自次主權逐漸失去,外來人口太多。完全獨立那一步有點紙上談兵,但自治是迫在眉睫,給我們一個明確的目標,三百萬人七一遊行可不可以?



有空再寫英文翻譯。大陸的知識分子們,看到這裡可能你們心裡已積了很多怒氣,感謝你們抽時間理解不同的觀點。我不是文史哲系學生,不懂分析或代表其他獨立支持者的想法,這些都是我個人的感覺。我相信,香港獨立了,中港的仇怨會淡化,香港人和大陸人會學習互助互愛。


--------------------
QUOTE
馮兩努...佢揾餐晏仔o者,而且佢講既野,有好多都好有水準,如果佢肯同我飲架啡傾下偈,我絕對開心得不得了,可以跟佢學下野


QUOTE
你真係應該快D去搵馮兩努傾幾句,學下野
PMEmail Poster
Top
拖雷
發表於: Jan 25 2012, 14:41  評價+1
Quote Post


五品官
********

發表數: 997
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:10
聲望:440


顯然被林忌或是fb上譁眾取寵的白痴影響的觀點......
很傻很天真是對的


--------------------
平生不作好人事,半夜派卡也不驚....
PMUsers Website
Top
悲慘
發表於: Jan 25 2012, 15:42  
Quote Post


五品官
********

發表數: 750
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 3-08-2004

活躍:7
聲望:629


  我能理解「不現實」左右的想法,很天真可能是指不現實的,很傻即是怎樣?能不能具體些更理性地道破其荒謬處?



  比如,我覺得可以輕易舉出一點的是,我們誰都知道中港存有一些文化差異,而文化不同的地方不應該用劃一的標準統治,所以,香港目前高度自治,維持政治獨立五十年不變。文中所求的獨立程度,現在已經有,所以上文應作廢,他只是重覆在寫20年前別人已經考慮完並想出一些「應付」和「解決」方法的情況。

本篇文章已被 悲慘 於 Jan 25 2012, 15:44 編輯過


--------------------
  或者這樣說,人不可能要自己每句都是有價值的言論,只可以要求「好話」與「下一句好話」之間的廢話在你過濾的耐性之內。我們不是要編名著,能夠發掘些大家可能會有興趣的想法,其實夠好罷。

  大家人一個,何苦呢又?
PMEmail Poster
Top
mj342178
發表於: Jan 25 2012, 15:49  評價-1
Quote Post


仕官
***

發表數: 52
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 8-16-2011

活躍:0
聲望:-41


天真到不行的傢伙
PMEmail Poster
Top
悲慘
發表於: Jan 25 2012, 16:07  評價+1
Quote Post


五品官
********

發表數: 750
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 3-08-2004

活躍:7
聲望:629


QUOTE (mj342178 @ Jan 25 2012, 23:49 )
天真到不行的傢伙

  請問你也能提出一些「天真」的理由,以及解釋一下「天真」的負面影響嗎?



  恕我得罪你說你想選修歷史科,我不知你是中三到中四的「選」,還是中六七到大一的「選」。中三應該是發中二病的童年,上大學也是講理想的歲月,不論哪個都好,你還是十來歲的年青人,你正處於人生最多夢想的時期,而你輕視天真者的想法,這很可惜呀。

  審視一種意見,應該提出其不可行,不現實,不圓滿處。只因不近成例斥其天真,這只是長輩們的僵化和頑固呀。

本篇文章已被 悲慘 於 Jan 25 2012, 18:25 編輯過


--------------------
  或者這樣說,人不可能要自己每句都是有價值的言論,只可以要求「好話」與「下一句好話」之間的廢話在你過濾的耐性之內。我們不是要編名著,能夠發掘些大家可能會有興趣的想法,其實夠好罷。

  大家人一個,何苦呢又?
PMEmail Poster
Top
參謀ABC
發表於: Jan 26 2012, 02:54  評價+3
Quote Post


神隱之主犯-永遠與須臾之罪人
************

發表數: 3,456
所屬群組: 太守
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:49
聲望:1854


腦殘小資文,說不出來一點實質性的東西
PM
Top
徐元直
發表於: Jan 26 2012, 07:14  評價+2
Quote Post


攤抖首領
************

發表數: 7,889
所屬群組: 君主
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:66
聲望:4146


QUOTE (悲慘 @ Jan 25 2012, 08:42 )
  我能理解「不現實」左右的想法,很天真可能是指不現實的,很傻即是怎樣?能不能具體些更理性地道破其荒謬處?



  比如,我覺得可以輕易舉出一點的是,我們誰都知道中港存有一些文化差異,而文化不同的地方不應該用劃一的標準統治,所以,香港目前高度自治,維持政治獨立五十年不變。文中所求的獨立程度,現在已經有,所以上文應作廢,他只是重覆在寫20年前別人已經考慮完並想出一些「應付」和「解決」方法的情況。

文中描述的「實情」以謊言和妄想居多,已經沒必要再去追究邏輯是否完備了。

你要是覺得前面的回覆不夠「理性地道破」,可以嘗試把文中謊言和妄想列出來嘛,我相信你有足夠的判斷力。 grin2.gif


--------------------
......
PMEmail Poster
Top
徐元直
發表於: Jan 28 2012, 11:01  評價+4
Quote Post


攤抖首領
************

發表數: 7,889
所屬群組: 君主
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:66
聲望:4146


今天在其他地方看到此文,作者一欄寫的不是Marie Meow而是《來生不做中國人》鐘祖康。後來我稍微搜尋了一下,似乎鐘祖康只是在他自己的博客轉載過此文,而不是原文作者。不過要說是鐘寫的,我也不難相信,這些人的智商都是同一個水平的。

然後該文在內地論壇上轉載,第一個回覆就是:
QUOTE
该文非常能够代表和表达广大香港人内心深处的想法,所以本版推荐


--------------------
......
PMEmail Poster
Top
Anon1
發表於: Jan 31 2012, 21:52  評價+6 | -6
Quote Post


出世


發表數: 4
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 1-31-2012

活躍:0
聲望:-3


QUOTE (參謀ABC @ Jan 26 2012, 02:54 )
腦殘小資文,說不出來一點實質性的東西

But you cannot deny that what is written is in principle correct.

These days the phrase I see people say most is "本是同根生,相煎何太急".

That is entirely ridiculous. Just because we have the same roots does not mean that there exist no material differences between mainlanders and hong kong-ers to the extent that we cannot claim that we have our own special identity.

Not that it is any more superior than other identities, but it's a fact that after more than a hundred years of separation from the mainland, we have developed our own culture distinct from that in the rest of China.

Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I see no reason why in principle Hong Kong cannot seek independence. In fact, I see no reason why there should be a single political entity ruling the whole of so-called "China", considering that there are so many minority races in China who are being politically suppressed and have their traditional lifestyle fundamentally "changed" (more like eradicated) by the Han Chinese.

Of course the reality won't allow for independence to happen at all. I agree.

But in this day and age, it's outdated to talk of "強國盛世". Nationalism is a product of the last century. Nowadays the universal principle is to focus on the individual. Human rights, democracy etc - they are much more important than "超英趕美", much more important than hosting a grand olympic games when most people in the country are still living under the poverty line. These vain policies are what will happen when the mentality of the whole country is that "中國人要站起來". That was declared in 1949 and we see now how many times the Chinese have fallen since declaring that they have stood up. The only solution is to allow each region to govern themselves where the government's priority is not to contribute to the appearance of China being the "waking dragon", but to focus on improving the basic livelihood of citizens.

Perhaps a federal system will do. Perhaps independence of the regions will do. I don't know.

But that's my intuitive feeling after browsing youtube clips these few days. Especially with regard to the fights between mainlanders and the taiwanese users.

I sincerely hope that Taiwan will never be ruled by the CCP. Consistent with what I said above, I also hope that Taiwan can be an independent country recognised across the world.

We are all Chinese (華人) by race. But (after the term being monopolised by the PRC) I'm hesitant to regard myself as Chinese by nationality (中國人). I'm sure my Taiwanese friends will feel even more so.

PMEmail Poster
Top
Leaf
發表於: Jan 31 2012, 23:55  
Quote Post


請開金口
************

發表數: 3,501
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 9-19-2003

活躍:54
聲望:428


QUOTE (徐元直 @ Jan 26 2012, 15:14 )
QUOTE (悲慘 @ Jan 25 2012, 08:42 )
  我能理解「不現實」左右的想法,很天真可能是指不現實的,很傻即是怎樣?能不能具體些更理性地道破其荒謬處?



  比如,我覺得可以輕易舉出一點的是,我們誰都知道中港存有一些文化差異,而文化不同的地方不應該用劃一的標準統治,所以,香港目前高度自治,維持政治獨立五十年不變。文中所求的獨立程度,現在已經有,所以上文應作廢,他只是重覆在寫20年前別人已經考慮完並想出一些「應付」和「解決」方法的情況。

文中描述的「實情」以謊言和妄想居多,已經沒必要再去追究邏輯是否完備了。

你要是覺得前面的回覆不夠「理性地道破」,可以嘗試把文中謊言和妄想列出來嘛,我相信你有足夠的判斷力。 grin2.gif

我知道引入雙非的黑手是公民黨

但我很想知道為什麼中央有絕對權力給誰可以出境誰不可以出境居然完全沒有令雙非孕婦不來香港; 是不是香港有人打了基本法一巴就要全香港承擔?


--------------------
QUOTE
沒有主題就不會有討論,沒有討論這個討論區就要開始掃灰塵。特別是這個本來以三國誌主題為主打的論壇,在現在單機市場委縮,近來也沒有新一代三國誌或單機的三國遊戲的情況下,此種其他討論突顯重要。

諸如所以,政治討論,歷史討論,東方系列,信長系列等等一的討論,支撐著這個三國風漸漸江河日下的三國誌討論區。


QUOTE
就算有偏向性又如何?每個人能中立,高人般世事都給你看透了?


原來猥褻侵犯不但只要啞忍,還要打開雙腳歡迎入去要大叫熱咕真是大開眼界!

某日,某蛇與某b曾是水火不相容的敵人
今日,某蛇與某b是雷打不動的戰友

果真如言,沒有永遠的敵人,也沒有永遠的朋友,只有永遠的利益?
PM
Top
徐元直
發表於: Feb 1 2012, 07:17  評價+6
Quote Post


攤抖首領
************

發表數: 7,889
所屬群組: 君主
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:66
聲望:4146


QUOTE (Leaf @ Jan 31 2012, 16:55 )
QUOTE (徐元直 @ Jan 26 2012, 15:14 )
QUOTE (悲慘 @ Jan 25 2012, 08:42 )
  我能理解「不現實」左右的想法,很天真可能是指不現實的,很傻即是怎樣?能不能具體些更理性地道破其荒謬處?



  比如,我覺得可以輕易舉出一點的是,我們誰都知道中港存有一些文化差異,而文化不同的地方不應該用劃一的標準統治,所以,香港目前高度自治,維持政治獨立五十年不變。文中所求的獨立程度,現在已經有,所以上文應作廢,他只是重覆在寫20年前別人已經考慮完並想出一些「應付」和「解決」方法的情況。

文中描述的「實情」以謊言和妄想居多,已經沒必要再去追究邏輯是否完備了。

你要是覺得前面的回覆不夠「理性地道破」,可以嘗試把文中謊言和妄想列出來嘛,我相信你有足夠的判斷力。 grin2.gif

我知道引入雙非的黑手是公民黨

但我很想知道為什麼中央有絕對權力給誰可以出境誰不可以出境居然完全沒有令雙非孕婦不來香港; 是不是香港有人打了基本法一巴就要全香港承擔?

香港自己的法院判雙非嬰有居留權,中央憑甚麼要代為禁絕?

香港自己有入境處來管理入境事務,自己有法庭來判定給不給某些人居留權,基本法也留有解釋空間可以不給居留權,再不濟還可以提請人大修改使得條文更清晰,結果這麼多年了,香港依然沒有解決問題,這種情況,你憑甚麼問責到中央頭上?要是都由中央負責決定甚麼好甚麼不好,然後直接插手干預,那還要香港政府幹甚麼?還要一國兩制做甚麼?

很多現象其實跟制度有關。香港的體制跟內地大城市比起來,擁有更獨立的司法,更強的制衡,更分散的權力;但你選擇了一種制度,就不能輸打贏要,只願享受這種制度的長處,卻不去面對其短處,比如推行新政效率低,扯皮多,目光短淺等等。現在碰上短處了,就怪罪中央沒有插手干預,做人不能這麼沒有原則啊。



--------------------
......
PMEmail Poster
Top
徐元直
發表於: Feb 1 2012, 08:06  評價+9
Quote Post


攤抖首領
************

發表數: 7,889
所屬群組: 君主
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:66
聲望:4146


QUOTE
But you cannot deny that what is written is in principle correct.

What is written is in principle stupid.

QUOTE
That is entirely ridiculous. Just because we have the same roots does not mean that there exist no material differences between mainlanders and hong kong-ers to the extent that we cannot claim that we have our own special identity.

貌似沒人不讓你說自己是香港人。

QUOTE
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I see no reason why in principle Hong Kong cannot seek independence. In fact, I see no reason why there should be a single political entity ruling the whole of so-called "China", considering that there are so many minority races in China who are being politically suppressed and have their traditional lifestyle fundamentally "changed" (more like eradicated) by the Han Chinese.

我想起來之前看到的文章,中國政府出資為西藏牧民蓋房子,讓他們有地方可以定居,被「人權觀察」說成是強制遷徙、文化滅絕,顯然這就是你所謂的"politically suppressed"。在某些人眼中,讓落後地區的少數民族保持「原生態」,維持著三四十歲的平均壽命,讓他們這些生活在城市,用著電腦,吃著肉麋的人有機會去旅遊參觀,這才是最重要的。最好是連路都不要修,因為修橋打洞會破壞自然景觀,電也不要通,因為現代生活方式吸引力太大,會破壞傳統。

QUOTE
But in this day and age, it's outdated to talk of "強國盛世". Nationalism is a product of the last century. Nowadays the universal principle is to focus on the individual. Human rights, democracy etc - they are much more important than "超英趕美", much more important than hosting a grand olympic games when most people in the country are still living under the poverty line. These vain policies are what will happen when the mentality of the whole country is that "中國人要站起來". That was declared in 1949 and we see now how many times the Chinese have fallen since declaring that they have stood up. The only solution is to allow each region to govern themselves where the government's priority is not to contribute to the appearance of China being the "waking dragon", but to focus on improving the basic livelihood of citizens.

這段話顯示你既不懂歷史,也不懂現實,還真是可憐啊。今天不想太晚睡覺,就不給你科普了,再說你對歷史和現實皆一無所知,想談也不知從何談起。自己去讀讀1840-1949的中國歷史吧,要是讀完還能得出中國分成n塊就好的結論,那就當我沒說過吧。對了,有機會你可以多理解下外國人的愛國主義,各種左右政治觀點以及對地緣政治、世界秩序的看法。多聆聽真實世界的聲音,總好過被某些「普世價值」或者幾個youtube clips洗腦洗到癡呆。




--------------------
......
PMEmail Poster
Top
one way ticket
發表於: Feb 1 2012, 12:18  評價+2
Quote Post


五品官
********

發表數: 775
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 10-19-2003

活躍:9
聲望:165


QUOTE (Anon1 @ Feb 1 2012, 05:52 )
QUOTE (參謀ABC @ Jan 26 2012, 02:54 )
腦殘小資文,說不出來一點實質性的東西

But you cannot deny that what is written is in principle correct.

These days the phrase I see people say most is "本是同根生,相煎何太急".

That is entirely ridiculous. Just because we have the same roots does not mean that there exist no material differences between mainlanders and hong kong-ers to the extent that we cannot claim that we have our own special identity.

Not that it is any more superior than other identities, but it's a fact that after more than a hundred years of separation from the mainland, we have developed our own culture distinct from that in the rest of China.

Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I see no reason why in principle Hong Kong cannot seek independence. In fact, I see no reason why there should be a single political entity ruling the whole of so-called "China", considering that there are so many minority races in China who are being politically suppressed and have their traditional lifestyle fundamentally "changed" (more like eradicated) by the Han Chinese.

Of course the reality won't allow for independence to happen at all. I agree.

But in this day and age, it's outdated to talk of "強國盛世". Nationalism is a product of the last century. Nowadays the universal principle is to focus on the individual. Human rights, democracy etc - they are much more important than "超英趕美", much more important than hosting a grand olympic games when most people in the country are still living under the poverty line. These vain policies are what will happen when the mentality of the whole country is that "中國人要站起來". That was declared in 1949 and we see now how many times the Chinese have fallen since declaring that they have stood up. The only solution is to allow each region to govern themselves where the government's priority is not to contribute to the appearance of China being the "waking dragon", but to focus on improving the basic livelihood of citizens.

Perhaps a federal system will do. Perhaps independence of the regions will do. I don't know.

But that's my intuitive feeling after browsing youtube clips these few days. Especially with regard to the fights between mainlanders and the taiwanese users.

I sincerely hope that Taiwan will never be ruled by the CCP. Consistent with what I said above, I also hope that Taiwan can be an independent country recognised across the world.

We are all Chinese (華人) by race. But (after the term being monopolised by the PRC) I'm hesitant to regard myself as Chinese by nationality (中國人). I'm sure my Taiwanese friends will feel even more so.

一整篇也是"I sincerely hope that"," I also hope that","Perhaps"....世界沒有跟著你所想一樣的轉,感覺很痛苦吧?


--------------------
あの日見た花の名前を僕達はまだ知らない...
user posted image
OP: 青い栞
ED: secret base ∼君がくれたもの∼ ( 10 years after Ver. )
PMEmail Poster
Top
Anon1
發表於: Feb 2 2012, 01:44  評價-1
Quote Post


出世


發表數: 4
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 1-31-2012

活躍:0
聲望:-3


QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 1 2012, 08:06 )
QUOTE
But you cannot deny that what is written is in principle correct.

What is written is in principle stupid.

QUOTE
That is entirely ridiculous. Just because we have the same roots does not mean that there exist no material differences between mainlanders and hong kong-ers to the extent that we cannot claim that we have our own special identity.

貌似沒人不讓你說自己是香港人。

QUOTE
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I see no reason why in principle Hong Kong cannot seek independence. In fact, I see no reason why there should be a single political entity ruling the whole of so-called "China", considering that there are so many minority races in China who are being politically suppressed and have their traditional lifestyle fundamentally "changed" (more like eradicated) by the Han Chinese.

我想起來之前看到的文章,中國政府出資為西藏牧民蓋房子,讓他們有地方可以定居,被「人權觀察」說成是強制遷徙、文化滅絕,顯然這就是你所謂的"politically suppressed"。在某些人眼中,讓落後地區的少數民族保持「原生態」,維持著三四十歲的平均壽命,讓他們這些生活在城市,用著電腦,吃著肉麋的人有機會去旅遊參觀,這才是最重要的。最好是連路都不要修,因為修橋打洞會破壞自然景觀,電也不要通,因為現代生活方式吸引力太大,會破壞傳統。

QUOTE
But in this day and age, it's outdated to talk of "強國盛世". Nationalism is a product of the last century. Nowadays the universal principle is to focus on the individual. Human rights, democracy etc - they are much more important than "超英趕美", much more important than hosting a grand olympic games when most people in the country are still living under the poverty line. These vain policies are what will happen when the mentality of the whole country is that "中國人要站起來". That was declared in 1949 and we see now how many times the Chinese have fallen since declaring that they have stood up. The only solution is to allow each region to govern themselves where the government's priority is not to contribute to the appearance of China being the "waking dragon", but to focus on improving the basic livelihood of citizens.

這段話顯示你既不懂歷史,也不懂現實,還真是可憐啊。今天不想太晚睡覺,就不給你科普了,再說你對歷史和現實皆一無所知,想談也不知從何談起。自己去讀讀1840-1949的中國歷史吧,要是讀完還能得出中國分成n塊就好的結論,那就當我沒說過吧。對了,有機會你可以多理解下外國人的愛國主義,各種左右政治觀點以及對地緣政治、世界秩序的看法。多聆聽真實世界的聲音,總好過被某些「普世價值」或者幾個youtube clips洗腦洗到癡呆。

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. Perhaps you haven't. I don't know and yet I don't really care.

What I was thinking was not that we should arbitrarily divide China up into small pieces. What I was criticising was simply the idea of nationalism. The idea that we ought to "be together" only because we have the same roots same culture same ancestors.

I confess that I don't know much about the history of modern China - perhaps you'd be kind enough to lecture me as to which parts of them would be detrimental to my central proposition - that the people should have the right to self-determination.

In other words, the idea of "合則來不合則去".

There is no reason that we should be restrained, in the modern day, to the outdated idea that we've to grow strong as a "nation". It's ridiculous because of the increasing trend of the world to become one global village. Those who cling relentlessly to the idea of 強國 will find increasingly find themselves in situations of hostility and animosity across the rest of the world.

Think about it - Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines....how many enemies have China been making these days? Why are the Chinese in general being feared, hated, or even worse despised by so many others in this world? Maybe the people I am in contact with are biased, yet sadly that's my impression having been in the UK for some time.

Why can't, say for example, that Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and mainland China co-exist independently of each other and yet cooperating with each other in areas of trade just like how the European Free Trade Association operates - if the building of the economy is what that concerns you so much?

Of course as a matter of reality that couldn't happen. But I was to only condemn those who hold 大中國主義 and on that basis force or subject others unwillingly to their own rule.



QUOTE
我想起來之前看到的文章,中國政府出資為西藏牧民蓋房子,讓他們有地方可以定居,被「人權觀察」說成是強制遷徙、文化滅絕,顯然這就是你所謂的"politically suppressed"。在某些人眼中,讓落後地區的少數民族保持「原生態」,維持著三四十歲的平均壽命,讓他們這些生活在城市,用著電腦,吃著肉麋的人有機會去旅遊參觀,這才是最重要的。最好是連路都不要修,因為修橋打洞會破壞自然景觀,電也不要通,因為現代生活方式吸引力太大,會破壞傳統。


I take issue with your analysis. It is not for a third party to decide what is the best for another. I may be 犯賤, but it's my own business. For otherwise one would be dangerously close to the mentality of the Japanese or the Germans during the Second World War - that we are "helping" you to develop your culture/economy through force and eradication of your old beliefs and instead of fighting back you should be grateful for what we have done.

In short a recipe for disaster.
PMEmail Poster
Top
one way ticket
發表於: Feb 2 2012, 07:16  評價+1
Quote Post


五品官
********

發表數: 775
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 10-19-2003

活躍:9
聲望:165


QUOTE (Anon1 @ Feb 2 2012, 09:44 )
QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 1 2012, 08:06 )
QUOTE
But you cannot deny that what is written is in principle correct.

What is written is in principle stupid.

QUOTE
That is entirely ridiculous. Just because we have the same roots does not mean that there exist no material differences between mainlanders and hong kong-ers to the extent that we cannot claim that we have our own special identity.

貌似沒人不讓你說自己是香港人。

QUOTE
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I see no reason why in principle Hong Kong cannot seek independence. In fact, I see no reason why there should be a single political entity ruling the whole of so-called "China", considering that there are so many minority races in China who are being politically suppressed and have their traditional lifestyle fundamentally "changed" (more like eradicated) by the Han Chinese.

我想起來之前看到的文章,中國政府出資為西藏牧民蓋房子,讓他們有地方可以定居,被「人權觀察」說成是強制遷徙、文化滅絕,顯然這就是你所謂的"politically suppressed"。在某些人眼中,讓落後地區的少數民族保持「原生態」,維持著三四十歲的平均壽命,讓他們這些生活在城市,用著電腦,吃著肉麋的人有機會去旅遊參觀,這才是最重要的。最好是連路都不要修,因為修橋打洞會破壞自然景觀,電也不要通,因為現代生活方式吸引力太大,會破壞傳統。

QUOTE
But in this day and age, it's outdated to talk of "強國盛世". Nationalism is a product of the last century. Nowadays the universal principle is to focus on the individual. Human rights, democracy etc - they are much more important than "超英趕美", much more important than hosting a grand olympic games when most people in the country are still living under the poverty line. These vain policies are what will happen when the mentality of the whole country is that "中國人要站起來". That was declared in 1949 and we see now how many times the Chinese have fallen since declaring that they have stood up. The only solution is to allow each region to govern themselves where the government's priority is not to contribute to the appearance of China being the "waking dragon", but to focus on improving the basic livelihood of citizens.

這段話顯示你既不懂歷史,也不懂現實,還真是可憐啊。今天不想太晚睡覺,就不給你科普了,再說你對歷史和現實皆一無所知,想談也不知從何談起。自己去讀讀1840-1949的中國歷史吧,要是讀完還能得出中國分成n塊就好的結論,那就當我沒說過吧。對了,有機會你可以多理解下外國人的愛國主義,各種左右政治觀點以及對地緣政治、世界秩序的看法。多聆聽真實世界的聲音,總好過被某些「普世價值」或者幾個youtube clips洗腦洗到癡呆。

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. Perhaps you haven't. I don't know and yet I don't really care.

What I was thinking was not that we should arbitrarily divide China up into small pieces. What I was criticising was simply the idea of nationalism. The idea that we ought to "be together" only because we have the same roots same culture same ancestors.

I confess that I don't know much about the history of modern China - perhaps you'd be kind enough to lecture me as to which parts of them would be detrimental to my central proposition - that the people should have the right to self-determination.

In other words, the idea of "合則來不合則去".

There is no reason that we should be restrained, in the modern day, to the outdated idea that we've to grow strong as a "nation". It's ridiculous because of the increasing trend of the world to become one global village. Those who cling relentlessly to the idea of 強國 will find increasingly find themselves in situations of hostility and animosity across the rest of the world.

Think about it - Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines....how many enemies have China been making these days? Why are the Chinese in general being feared, hated, or even worse despised by so many others in this world? Maybe the people I am in contact with are biased, yet sadly that's my impression having been in the UK for some time.

Why can't, say for example, that Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and mainland China co-exist independently of each other and yet cooperating with each other in areas of trade just like how the European Free Trade Association operates - if the building of the economy is what that concerns you so much?

Of course as a matter of reality that couldn't happen. But I was to only condemn those who hold 大中國主義 and on that basis force or subject others unwillingly to their own rule.



QUOTE
我想起來之前看到的文章,中國政府出資為西藏牧民蓋房子,讓他們有地方可以定居,被「人權觀察」說成是強制遷徙、文化滅絕,顯然這就是你所謂的"politically suppressed"。在某些人眼中,讓落後地區的少數民族保持「原生態」,維持著三四十歲的平均壽命,讓他們這些生活在城市,用著電腦,吃著肉麋的人有機會去旅遊參觀,這才是最重要的。最好是連路都不要修,因為修橋打洞會破壞自然景觀,電也不要通,因為現代生活方式吸引力太大,會破壞傳統。


I take issue with your analysis. It is not for a third party to decide what is the best for another. I may be 犯賤, but it's my own business. For otherwise one would be dangerously close to the mentality of the Japanese or the Germans during the Second World War - that we are "helping" you to develop your culture/economy through force and eradication of your old beliefs and instead of fighting back you should be grateful for what we have done.

In short a recipe for disaster.

打了這麼一大篇也沒有一點實質的東西,一個大統一的中國有什麼壞處?一個分裂的中國有什麼好處?一整篇也不過是被強迫症的幻想,相反地.我也可以這樣說:But I was to only condemn those who hold 虛無主義 and on that basis force or subject others unwillingly to their own rule.


順帶一提,西藏人除了達賴喇嘛的照片之外還把毛澤東的照片供奉在家中,這個事實本身就很能說明問題


--------------------
あの日見た花の名前を僕達はまだ知らない...
user posted image
OP: 青い栞
ED: secret base ∼君がくれたもの∼ ( 10 years after Ver. )
PMEmail Poster
Top
徐元直
發表於: Feb 2 2012, 10:45  評價+10
Quote Post


攤抖首領
************

發表數: 7,889
所屬群組: 君主
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:66
聲望:4146


QUOTE (Anon1)
Perhaps you have misunderstood me. Perhaps you haven't. I don't know and yet I don't really care.

......

個人價值和團結的力量同樣需要尊重,兩者之間需要平衡和互補。然而你表露出來的觀念基本上是極端的,單方面的,我對類似的言論一般總結為「pussy價值」,意思就是病態地單方面強調個人價值,傾向於只顧自己,強調個人或小團體對自身利益的自決權,毫無對於大團體(包括民族和國家)的擔當、勇氣和眼光,故意忽略團結和國家的作用,恐懼對團體的義務和付出。相信這種價值的人,我認為就是一個pussy,一個自私的膽小鬼而已。在傳媒洗腦之下,當今的中國就有很多這種pussy(雖已遠不及八九十年代那麼多),在香港尤其多,當然他們對自己的自私與膽怯是無知無覺的,他們自稱為「普世」,並且自以為「普世」,這也就是你所說的"universal principle"。

為甚麼說個人價值和團結愛國等精神需要互補?因為中國近代史告訴我們,沒有一個統一而強大的國家作為靠山,作為秩序的制定者、資源的調度者、人民的保護者、長遠的規畫者......我們就沒條件享受如今很多人視之為理所當然的個人自由和權利。你說你不懂中國近代史,要我給你lecture,可我沒那個心情給你普及那些隨處可得的基本知識,對歷史無知又不願自學,那是你的損失,不是我的損失。你不懂中國,又自稱懂得「普世」價值,那我們就說說「普世」的外國好了。你說你在英國:在英國這種沒落國家,偏安心理、小弟的定位和pussy價值也是很流行的,現在連蘇格蘭都想要分裂出去了。三十年前他們還有一點勇氣遠渡重洋維護自己的「領土」,現在恐怕也是不行了,當然幸運的是她的對手更衰,戰場換成在東亞試試,十有八九連南韓都打不過。英國現在吃的是老本,人民生活還能維持一定水平,靠的是身為發達國家的底子,而這個底子是怎麼來的呢?是以前的大英帝國賺來的。以前的大英帝國又是怎麼來的呢?讀過歷史的都知道,顯然不是靠pussy價值得來的,更不是靠「尊重原生態文化」和「討好鄰國」得來的。一個國家從大帝國衰退成小弟國,安於現狀吃老本的人開始忘本,這才會造成pussy價值的橫行。

再說說美國,美國現在因為產業空心化,也開始衰退,只是還遠沒有走到英國那個地步。當然,美國在人口和資源上畢竟底氣更足些,而且依然占有主導性地位,日後即使衰退也會是逐漸邊緣化而不是變成小弟國----除非它先分裂掉。美國對外也是廣為宣傳pussy價值的,因為其他國家通通變成pussy很符合美國的利益,但對內就完全不同了。從各種強調力量與合作的體育運動,到印在錢幣上的In god we trust,再到United we stand,divided we fall這些廣為宣傳的口號,我們可以看到美國在尊重個人價值之餘,一直以來----包括在911之前----都是極為強調團結與愛國的。從政治上來說,在愛國這一基本立場上即使是偏自由主義的政客也不敢造次的,他們可以攻擊保守政策,但攻擊國家本身或者把愛國當成負面概念,那是不可想像的(反觀香港某些政客的「賣國自由」,國內某些政治活動家的「賣國為榮」,我是懶得評論了)。事時就是,美國根本不流行你腦中被灌輸的「愛國過時」「強國無益」等所謂「普世」價值觀,愛國與團結從來都是極為重要的正面符號,沒有一個總統候選人敢於忽略。有趣的是,形容別人愛別國,美國人通常會說"Nationalism......bla bla bla"甚至極端的可以往法西斯上靠,但講美國人愛美國,則幾乎都是Patriotism和Patriot,這是極為正面的詞語。看看美國歷史吧,美國內戰時可曾尊重過南方的自決權?林肯卻是最受美國人尊重的總統之一。同樣地,新中國政權出兵西藏時也不需要尊重奴隸主的自決權。在大是大非面前,在生產力與人民福祉面前,落後的「文化」和社會結構、生活方式,該淘汰就淘汰,可以不淘汰的部分,不跟現代生活衝突的自然會留存下來,留存不下來的,再去談保育和研究。人類文明不就是這樣進步的嗎?

在我的經驗中,「讓少數民族自行選擇」就是一種被洗腦者的典型說法,因為你們被BBC等媒體灌輸的就只有少數民族都在艱苦反抗,共產黨一直搞文化滅絕等等「新聞」。不接觸第一手資料的你是不會明白,對少數民族尤其是其年輕一代衝擊最大的,不是共產黨的統治又或者中國的主流傳統文化,而是西方文明、工業革命帶來的新生活模式,新生產模式,對經濟結構連帶社會結構的根本性改變,如城市化和人口流動的增加,以及包括西式自由主義、個人主義、科學觀念、無神論等等思潮在內的現代文明價值觀,這些東西並不依靠強制推行,而往往是潛移默化的。當年中國從變法到維新到革命,也是中國人的自救,自己破除自己的傳統,而不是依靠外國人來強制推行。追求更舒適更安全的生活是人的本能,只需要一點現代教育來啟蒙示範,並且提供足夠的經濟條件,那就夠了,你以為人家會像你一樣何不食肉麋?當然,這裡面必然會牽涉一定程度的行政干預,而且在有些地方(如西藏新疆)問題不只是文化衝突,而是有政治訴求,有不同政治勢力和既得利益者(如達賴、東突)插手其中,這就要求相對較強的行政干預和控制。

真要不管不顧,不搞現代化而是追求原住民自決、文化傳統至上,我們可以回顧一下古代和近代中國,光是同一民族內村與村之間、宗族與宗族之間的衝突武鬥,死人就是家常便飯,更不要說民族之間的,大規模的蠻夷之亂了。再看看當今,中東那種傳統文化氛圍濃厚而又缺乏強力統一政權得地方,即使沒有西方插手,光是回教自己的教派內鬨就不知道每年死多少人----當然西方的干預放大了這個問題。連地下滿是黑金的地方都能搞成那個死樣,可見沒有一定程度上的統一(包括行政統一和文化統一,而堅持傳統文化的主導又是文化統一的障礙)就很難有秩序,而沒有秩序還談何競爭力,談何發展經濟?印度內部各種教派衝突也是如此,他們最好的出路就是由一個強力政權加速推行現代化和去宗教化改革(現在的印度政府沒這個條件),但在pussy們的眼中那就是干預傳統文化的大罪,可以跟日德在二戰的帝國主義擴張和種族屠殺相比----你這個比喻是連最基本的歷史事實與邏輯都不顧了。pussy們認為只有讓人們「自決」地互相內訌扯後腿才是最pussy的選擇,有分離主義就直接放任它分離就好了,這樣那些躲在小弟國、天堂國等已發展國家的pussy們就可以居高臨下地看戲批評了。從這個角度上說,講pussy價值的人往往才是最不尊重人權的人,當然他們自己是不知不覺也不承認的。

說回美國吧,美國曾經是一個弱國,是一個人民生活既不富裕也不安全的國家。二十世紀初是美國開始崛起的時候,那時候還沒有甚麼「普世價值」的說法,但已經開始因為大量的工業化和城市化,以及周邊環境的逐漸穩定,使得很多人逐漸失去了以往開拓冒險的精神。隨著女權運動在同一時代的興起,當時有批評家認為美國的國民精神有「女性化」的傾向----我個人更喜歡稱之為pussy化,因為女性也可以是堅強有擔當的嘛。也就是在那個時候,泰迪羅斯福,在他當選第二十六任美國總統之前,在二十世紀來臨的前夕,作了一篇演講,題目叫作《論自強》。這篇演講不但體現了他的人生哲學,也勾勒出了二十世紀的美國精神。這種大國的進取心,而不是甚麼pussy價值,才是中國需要從美國身上學習的。

QUOTE
THE STRENUOUS LIFE (節錄)

April 10, 1899

The Hamilton Club, Chicago

IN speaking to you, men of the greatest city of the West, men of the State which gave to the country Lincoln and Grant, men who pre-eminently and distinctly embody all that is most American in the American character, I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph. A life of slothful ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack either of desire or of power to strive after great things, is as little worthy of a nation as of an individual. I ask only that what every self-respecting American demands from himself and from his sons shall be demanded of the American nation as a whole. Who among you would teach your boys that ease, that peace, is to be the first consideration in their eyes - to be the ultimate goal after which they strive? You men of Chicago have made this city great, you men of Illinois have done your share, and more than your share, in making America great, because you neither preach nor practise such a doctrine. You work yourselves, and you bring up your sons to work. If you are rich and are worth your salt, you will teach your sons that though they may have leisure, it is not to be spent in idleness; for wisely used leisure merely means that those who possess it, being free from the necessity of working for their livelihood, are all the more bound to carry on some kind of non-remunerative work in science, in letters, in art, in exploration, in historical research - work of the type we most need in this country, the successful carrying out of which reflects most honor upon the nation We do not admire the man of timid peace. We admire the man who embodies victorious effort; the man who never wrongs his neighbor, who is prompt to help a friend, but who has those virile qualities necessary to win in the stern strife of actual life.

It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. In this life we get nothing save by effort. Freedom from effort in the present merely means that there has been stored up effort in the past. A man can be freed from the necessity of work only by the fact that he or his fathers before him have worked to good purpose. If the freedom thus purchased is used aright, and the man still does actual work, though of a different kind, whether as a writer or a general, whether in the field of politics or in the field of exploration and adventure, he shows he deserves his good fortune. But if he treats this period of freedom from the need of actual labor as a period, not of preparation, but of mere enjoyment, even though perhaps not of vicious enjoyment, he shows that he is simply a cumberer of the earth's surface, and he surely unfits himself to hold his own with his fellows if the need to do so should again arise. A mere life of ease is not in the end a very satisfactory life, and, above all, it is a life which ultimately unfits those who follow it for serious work in the world.

In the last analysis a healthy state can exist only when the men and women who make it up lead clean, vigorous, healthy lives; when the children are so trained that they shall endeavor, not to shirk difficulties, but to overcome them; not to seek ease, but to know how to wrest triumph from toil and risk. The man must be glad to do a man's work, to dare and endure and to labor; to keep himself, and to keep those dependent upon him. The woman must be the housewife, the helpmeet of the homemaker, the wise and fearless mother of many healthy children. In one of Daudet's powerful and melancholy books he speaks of "the fear of maternity, the haunting terror of the young wife of the present day." When such words can be truthfully written of a nation, that nation is rotten to the heart's core. When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth, where they are fit subjects for the scorn of all men and women who are themselves strong and brave and high-minded.

As it is with the individual, so it is with the nation. It is a base untruth to say that happy is the nation that has no history. Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. If in 1861 the men who loved the Union had believed that peace was the end of all things, and war and strife the worst of all things, and had acted up to their belief, we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, we would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, besides saving all the blood and treasure we then lavished, we would have prevented the heartbreak of many women, the dissolution of many homes, and we would have spared the country those months of gloom and shame when it seemed as if our armies marched only to defeat. We could have avoided all this suffering simply by shrinking from strife. And if we had thus avoided it, we would have shown that we were weaklings, and that we were unfit to stand among the great nations of the earth. Thank God for the iron in the blood of our fathers, the men who upheld the wisdom of Lincoln, and bore sword or rifle in the armies of Grant! Let us, the children of the men who proved themselves equal to the mighty days, let us, the children of the men who carried the great Civil War to a triumphant conclusion, praise the God of our- fathers that the ignoble counsels of peace were rejected; that the suffering and loss, the blackness of sorrow and despair, were unflinchingly faced, and the years of strife endured; for in the end the slave was freed, the Union restored, and the mighty American republic placed once more as a helmeted queen among nations. We of this generation do not have to face a task such as that our fathers faced, but we have our tasks, and woe to us if we fail to perform them! We cannot, if we would, play the part of China, and be content to rot by inches in ignoble ease within our borders, taking no interest in what goes on beyond them, sunk in a scrambling commercialism; heedless of the higher life, the life of aspiration, of toil and risk, busying ourselves only with the wants of our bodies for the day, until suddenly we should find, beyond a shadow of question, what China has already found, that in this world the nation that has trained itself to a career of unwarlike and isolated ease is bound, in the end, to go down before other nations which have not lost the manly and adventurous qualities. If we are to be a really great people, we must strive in good faith to play a great part in the world. We cannot avoid meeting great issues. All that we can determine for ourselves is whether we shall meet them well or ill. In 1898 we could not help being brought face to face with the problem of war with Spain. All we could decide was whether we should shrink like cowards from the contest, or enter into it as beseemed a brave and high-spirited people; and; once in, whether failure or success should crown our banners. So it is now. We cannot avoid the responsibilities that confront us in Hawaii, Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. All we can decide is whether we shall meet them in a way that will redound to the national credit, or whether we shall make of our dealings with these new problems a dark and shameful page in our history. To refuse to deal with them at all merely amounts to dealing with them badly. We have a given problem to solve. If we undertake the solution, there is, of course, always danger that we may not solve it aright; but to refuse to undertake the solution simply renders it certain that we cannot possibly solve it aright.

The timid man, the lazy man, the man who distrusts his country, the over-civilized man, who has lost the great fighting, masterful virtues, the ignorant man, and the man of dull mind, whose soul is incapable of feeling the mighty lift that thrills "stern men with empires in their brains" - all these, of course, shrink from seeing the nation undertake its new duties; shrink from seeing us build a navy and an army adequate to our needs; shrink from seeing us do our share of the world's work, by bringing order out of chaos in the great, fair tropic islands from which the valor of our soldiers and sailors has driven the Spanish flag.These are the men who fear the strenuous life, who fear the only national life which is really worth leading. They believe in that cloistered life which saps the hardy virtues in a nation, as it saps them in the individual; or else they are wedded to that base spirit of gain and greed which recognizes in commercialism the be-all and end-all of national life, instead of realizing that, though an indispensable element, it is, after all, but one of the many elements that go to make up true national greatness. No country can long endure if its foundations are not laid deep in the material prosperity which comes from thrift, from business energy and enterprise, from hard, unsparing effort in the fields of industrial activity; but neither was any nation ever yet truly great if it relied upon material prosperity alone. All honor must be paid to the architects of our material prosperity, to the great captains of industry who have built our factories and our railroads, to the strong men who toil for wealth with brain or hand; for great is the debt of the nation to these and their kind. But our debt is yet greater to the men whose highest type is to be found in a statesman like Lincoln, a soldier like Grant. They showed by their lives that they recognized the law of work, the law of strife; they toiled to win a competence for themselves and those dependent upon them; but they recognized that there were yet other and even loftier duties - duties to the nation and duties to the race. We cannot sit huddled within our own borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond. Such a policy would defeat even its own end; for as the nations grow to have ever wider and wider interests, and are brought into closer and closer contact, if we are to hold our own in the struggle for naval and commercial supremacy, we must build up our power without our own borders. We must build the isthmian canal, and we must grasp the points of vantage which will enable us to have our say in deciding the destiny of the oceans of the East and the West.

So much for the commercial side. From the standpoint of international honor the argument is even stronger. The guns that thundered off Manila and Santiago, left us echoes of glory, but they also left us a legacy of duty. If we drove out a medieval tyranny only to make room for savage anarchy, we had better not have begun the task at all. It is worse than idle to say that we have no duty to perform, and can leave to their fates the islands we have conquered. Such a course would be the course of infamy. It would be followed at once by utter chaos in the wretched islands themselves.

Some stronger, manlier power would have to step in and do the work, and we would have shown ourselves weaklings, unable to carry to successful completion the labors that great and high-spirited nations are eager to undertake. The work must be done; we cannot escape our responsibility; and if we are worth our salt, we shall be glad of the chance to do the work - glad of the chance to show ourselves equal to one of the great tasks set modern civilization. But let us not deceive ourselves as to the importance of the task. Let us not be misled by vainglory into underestimating the strain it will put on our powers. Above all, let us, as we value our own self-respect, face the responsibilities with proper seriousness, courage, and high resolve. We must demand the highest order of integrity and ability in our public men who are to grapple with these new problems. We must hold to a rigid accountability those public servants who show unfaithfulness to the interests of the nation or inability to rise to the high level of the new demands upon our strength and our resources.

......

I preach to you, then, my countrymen, that our country calls not for the life of ease but for the life of strenuous endeavor. The twentieth century looms before us big with the fate of many nations. If we stand idly by, if we seek merely swollen, slothful ease and ignoble peace, if we shrink from the hard contests where men must win at hazard of their lives and at the risk of all they hold dear, then the bolder and stronger peoples will pass us by, and will win for themselves the domination of the world. Let us therefore boldly face the life of strife, resolute to do our duty well and manfully; resolute to uphold righteousness by deed and by word; resolute to be both honest and brave, to serve high ideals, yet to use practical methods. Above all, let us shrink from no strife, moral or physical, within or without the nation, provided we are certain that the strife is justified, for it is only through strife, through hard and dangerous endeavor, that we shall ultimately win the goal of true national greatness.

最後贈你一句,英國老早已經outdate了,美國也距離outdate不遠了,但愛國精神本身,至少在共產主義烏托邦兼世界大同實現之前,永遠不會outdate。

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Feb 2 2012, 10:59 編輯過


--------------------
......
PMEmail Poster
Top
one way ticket
發表於: Feb 2 2012, 12:51  評價+1
Quote Post


五品官
********

發表數: 775
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 10-19-2003

活躍:9
聲望:165


QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 2 2012, 18:45 )

個人價值和團結的力量同樣需要尊重,兩者之間需要平衡和互補。然而你表露出來的觀念基本上是極端的,單方面的,我對類似的言論一般總結為「pussy價值」,意思就是病態地單方面強調個人價值,傾向於只顧自己,強調個人或小團體對自身利益的自決權,毫無對於大團體(包括民族和國家)的擔當、勇氣和眼光,故意忽略團結和國家的作用,恐懼對團體的義務和付出。相信這種價值的人,我認為就是一個pussy,一個自私的膽小鬼而已。在傳媒洗腦之下,當今的中國就有很多這種pussy(雖已遠不及八九十年代那麼多),在香港尤其多,當然他們對自己的自私與膽怯是無知無覺的,他們自稱為「普世」,並且自以為「普世」,這也就是你所說的"universal principle"。

個人感覺。。。大陸的PUSSY黨是別有用心。。。香港的PUSSY基本上就是蠢字一個,典型那種被人賣了還替人數錢那種角色


--------------------
あの日見た花の名前を僕達はまだ知らない...
user posted image
OP: 青い栞
ED: secret base ∼君がくれたもの∼ ( 10 years after Ver. )
PMEmail Poster
Top
徐元直
發表於: Feb 2 2012, 13:29  評價+1
Quote Post


攤抖首領
************

發表數: 7,889
所屬群組: 君主
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:66
聲望:4146


國內別有用心的多數是某些「經濟學家」「公共知識分子」之類,有些人背後是有國外基金資助的,有些人則是利用這類思潮出名賺錢,至於其他搖旗吶喊的小魚小蝦,其實也跟香港的情況差不多。

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Feb 2 2012, 13:30 編輯過


--------------------
......
PMEmail Poster
Top
Anon1
發表於: Feb 2 2012, 14:36  評價-1
Quote Post


出世


發表數: 4
所屬群組: 一般
註冊日期: 1-31-2012

活躍:0
聲望:-3


QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 2 2012, 10:45 )

個人價值和團結的力量同樣需要尊重,兩者之間需要平衡和互補。然而你表露出來的觀念基本上是極端的,單方面的,我對類似的言論一般總結為「pussy價值」,意思就是病態地單方面強調個人價值,傾向於只顧自己,強調個人或小團體對自身利益的自決權,毫無對於大團體(包括民族和國家)的擔當、勇氣和眼光,故意忽略團結和國家的作用,恐懼對團體的義務和付出。相信這種價值的人,我認為就是一個pussy,一個自私的膽小鬼而已。在傳媒洗腦之下,當今的中國就有很多這種pussy(雖已遠不及八九十年代那麼多),在香港尤其多,當然他們對自己的自私與膽怯是無知無覺的,他們自稱為「普世」,並且自以為「普世」,這也就是你所說的"universal principle"。

為甚麼說個人價值和團結愛國等精神需要互補?因為中國近代史告訴我們,沒有一個統一而強大的國家作為靠山,作為秩序的制定者、資源的調度者、人民的保護者、長遠的規畫者......我們就沒條件享受如今很多人視之為理所當然的個人自由和權利。你說你不懂中國近代史,要我給你lecture,可我沒那個心情給你普及那些隨處可得的基本知識,對歷史無知又不願自學,那是你的損失,不是我的損失。你不懂中國,又自稱懂得「普世」價值,那我們就說說「普世」的外國好了。你說你在英國:在英國這種沒落國家,偏安心理、小弟的定位和pussy價值也是很流行的,現在連蘇格蘭都想要分裂出去了。三十年前他們還有一點勇氣遠渡重洋維護自己的「領土」,現在恐怕也是不行了,當然幸運的是她的對手更衰,戰場換成在東亞試試,十有八九連南韓都打不過。英國現在吃的是老本,人民生活還能維持一定水平,靠的是身為發達國家的底子,而這個底子是怎麼來的呢?是以前的大英帝國賺來的。以前的大英帝國又是怎麼來的呢?讀過歷史的都知道,顯然不是靠pussy價值得來的,更不是靠「尊重原生態文化」和「討好鄰國」得來的。一個國家從大帝國衰退成小弟國,安於現狀吃老本的人開始忘本,這才會造成pussy價值的橫行。

再說說美國,美國現在因為產業空心化,也開始衰退,只是還遠沒有走到英國那個地步。當然,美國在人口和資源上畢竟底氣更足些,而且依然占有主導性地位,日後即使衰退也會是逐漸邊緣化而不是變成小弟國----除非它先分裂掉。美國對外也是廣為宣傳pussy價值的,因為其他國家通通變成pussy很符合美國的利益,但對內就完全不同了。從各種強調力量與合作的體育運動,到印在錢幣上的In god we trust,再到United we stand,divided we fall這些廣為宣傳的口號,我們可以看到美國在尊重個人價值之餘,一直以來----包括在911之前----都是極為強調團結與愛國的。從政治上來說,在愛國這一基本立場上即使是偏自由主義的政客也不敢造次的,他們可以攻擊保守政策,但攻擊國家本身或者把愛國當成負面概念,那是不可想像的(反觀香港某些政客的「賣國自由」,國內某些政治活動家的「賣國為榮」,我是懶得評論了)。事時就是,美國根本不流行你腦中被灌輸的「愛國過時」「強國無益」等所謂「普世」價值觀,愛國與團結從來都是極為重要的正面符號,沒有一個總統候選人敢於忽略。有趣的是,形容別人愛別國,美國人通常會說"Nationalism......bla bla bla"甚至極端的可以往法西斯上靠,但講美國人愛美國,則幾乎都是Patriotism和Patriot,這是極為正面的詞語。看看美國歷史吧,美國內戰時可曾尊重過南方的自決權?林肯卻是最受美國人尊重的總統之一。同樣地,新中國政權出兵西藏時也不需要尊重奴隸主的自決權。在大是大非面前,在生產力與人民福祉面前,落後的「文化」和社會結構、生活方式,該淘汰就淘汰,可以不淘汰的部分,不跟現代生活衝突的自然會留存下來,留存不下來的,再去談保育和研究。人類文明不就是這樣進步的嗎?

在我的經驗中,「讓少數民族自行選擇」就是一種被洗腦者的典型說法,因為你們被BBC等媒體灌輸的就只有少數民族都在艱苦反抗,共產黨一直搞文化滅絕等等「新聞」。不接觸第一手資料的你是不會明白,對少數民族尤其是其年輕一代衝擊最大的,不是共產黨的統治又或者中國的主流傳統文化,而是西方文明、工業革命帶來的新生活模式,新生產模式,對經濟結構連帶社會結構的根本性改變,如城市化和人口流動的增加,以及包括西式自由主義、個人主義、科學觀念、無神論等等思潮在內的現代文明價值觀,這些東西並不依靠強制推行,而往往是潛移默化的。當年中國從變法到維新到革命,也是中國人的自救,自己破除自己的傳統,而不是依靠外國人來強制推行。追求更舒適更安全的生活是人的本能,只需要一點現代教育來啟蒙示範,並且提供足夠的經濟條件,那就夠了,你以為人家會像你一樣何不食肉麋?當然,這裡面必然會牽涉一定程度的行政干預,而且在有些地方(如西藏新疆)問題不只是文化衝突,而是有政治訴求,有不同政治勢力和既得利益者(如達賴、東突)插手其中,這就要求相對較強的行政干預和控制。

真要不管不顧,不搞現代化而是追求原住民自決、文化傳統至上,我們可以回顧一下古代和近代中國,光是同一民族內村與村之間、宗族與宗族之間的衝突武鬥,死人就是家常便飯,更不要說民族之間的,大規模的蠻夷之亂了。再看看當今,中東那種傳統文化氛圍濃厚而又缺乏強力統一政權得地方,即使沒有西方插手,光是回教自己的教派內鬨就不知道每年死多少人----當然西方的干預放大了這個問題。連地下滿是黑金的地方都能搞成那個死樣,可見沒有一定程度上的統一(包括行政統一和文化統一,而堅持傳統文化的主導又是文化統一的障礙)就很難有秩序,而沒有秩序還談何競爭力,談何發展經濟?印度內部各種教派衝突也是如此,他們最好的出路就是由一個強力政權加速推行現代化和去宗教化改革(現在的印度政府沒這個條件),但在pussy們的眼中那就是干預傳統文化的大罪,可以跟日德在二戰的帝國主義擴張和種族屠殺相比----你這個比喻是連最基本的歷史事實與邏輯都不顧了。pussy們認為只有讓人們「自決」地互相內訌扯後腿才是最pussy的選擇,有分離主義就直接放任它分離就好了,這樣那些躲在小弟國、天堂國等已發展國家的pussy們就可以居高臨下地看戲批評了。從這個角度上說,講pussy價值的人往往才是最不尊重人權的人,當然他們自己是不知不覺也不承認的。

說回美國吧,美國曾經是一個弱國,是一個人民生活既不富裕也不安全的國家。二十世紀初是美國開始崛起的時候,那時候還沒有甚麼「普世價值」的說法,但已經開始因為大量的工業化和城市化,以及周邊環境的逐漸穩定,使得很多人逐漸失去了以往開拓冒險的精神。隨著女權運動在同一時代的興起,當時有批評家認為美國的國民精神有「女性化」的傾向----我個人更喜歡稱之為pussy化,因為女性也可以是堅強有擔當的嘛。也就是在那個時候,泰迪羅斯福,在他當選第二十六任美國總統之前,在二十世紀來臨的前夕,作了一篇演講,題目叫作《論自強》。這篇演講不但體現了他的人生哲學,也勾勒出了二十世紀的美國精神。這種大國的進取心,而不是甚麼pussy價值,才是中國需要從美國身上學習的。


最後贈你一句,英國老早已經outdate了,美國也距離outdate不遠了,但愛國精神本身,至少在共產主義烏托邦兼世界大同實現之前,永遠不會outdate。

Thank you for spending so much time giving me a response. I appreciate it.

I can only say that we simply hold so diametrically opposite views.

You talk about the pride of a nation. I talk about the the value of individual liberties and human rights.

You cannot forgo the inner desire of Chinese people to overtake the US and become the world's most dominating power. I see human beings as part of the global family and give my utmost respect to the openmindedness/氣量 of the English in allowing the Scots to decide their own future with the UK. Something which we can never see among the Chinese (as exemplified by the rather inexplicable personal attacks directed to me).

You cling on to the idea that it'd be "better" for a person to have his home subjugated and destroyed in the name of development. I respect and uphold the value that we are all equal and it's no one's business except myself to decide for my future.

You desperately invoke the example of the US to rebut my points. It is however manifestly clear that my criticisms were equally applicable to the rather hypocritical US government as the CCP.

You give the examples of some unknown hypothetical small village in China to demonstrate your point (which I cannot wonder but ask - have you ever spent several months in the relatively less developed areas of China? Do you really know the extent of the political suppression in the mainland, both as regards Han Chinese and the so-called ethnic minorities?) I would on the other hand have in my mind the former socialists states that have gained their independence and have their economy successfully restored after accession to the EU.

You may think that the emphasis on the individual is a cowardly characteristic. I would only pray that you would not end up agitating everyone ("nation" if, again, you cannot read sarcasm) around you and being mocked by your neighbours in your pursuit of being 強國.

Of course, you are free like anyone else to promote chauvinism and to propagate the selfishness and narrowmindedness of the Chinese across the whole world. To become the world's #1 power yes? Cheers for that!

我們就此作罷。
PMEmail Poster
Top
徐元直
發表於: Feb 2 2012, 16:06  評價+1
Quote Post


攤抖首領
************

發表數: 7,889
所屬群組: 君主
註冊日期: 9-18-2003

活躍:66
聲望:4146


QUOTE
ou cannot forgo the inner desire of Chinese people to overtake the US and become the world's most dominating power. I see human beings as part of the global family and give my utmost respect to the openmindedness/氣量 of the English in allowing the Scots to decide their own future with the UK. Something which we can never see among the Chinese (as exemplified by the rather inexplicable personal attacks directed to me).

不懂得歷史之沉重的人,就不要空談縱容分離主義的氣量了,先去惡補下中國近代史好嗎?

QUOTE
You cling on to the idea that it'd be "better" for a person to have his home subjugated and destroyed in the name of development. I respect and uphold the value that we are all equal and it's no one's business except myself to decide for my future.

不好意思,拆遷是有補償的,甚至有很多人盼望拆遷。這不是說拆遷從來沒有過問題,強拆也死過人也有過貓膩,但這種「拆遷就是錯誤」的二元化簡單思維足以顯示你在政治上的幼稚。

QUOTE
You desperately invoke the example of the US to rebut my points. It is however manifestly clear that my criticisms were equally applicable to the rather hypocritical US government as the CCP.

這時候怎麼不提你的價值有多「普世」了?恐怕desperate的不是本人。

QUOTE
You give the examples of some unknown hypothetical small village in China to demonstrate your point (which I cannot wonder but ask - have you ever spent several months in the relatively less developed areas of China? Do you really know the extent of the political suppression in the mainland, both as regards Han Chinese and the so-called ethnic minorities?) I would on the other hand have in my mind the former socialists states that have gained their independence and have their economy successfully restored after accession to the EU.

村莊械鬥的歷史是事實,不是猜想。我去過國內比較落後的地方,主要在川藏一帶,也聽過一些對當地比較熟悉的人的講述,至於在大城市居住的時間就別提了。請問你去過嗎?自己觀察過嗎?所謂的政治壓迫,聽人們說自己的生活,要比看洗腦媒體好得多,這也是我親身經歷出來的結論,你不信就算了。

QUOTE
You may think that the emphasis on the individual is a cowardly characteristic. I would only pray that you would not end up agitating everyone ("nation" if, again, you cannot read sarcasm) around you and being mocked by your neighbours in your pursuit of being 強國.

喔,我從來不擔心,因為我很明白甚麼是真正在這個世界上運行的規則,甚麼是有些人吹噓出來的「普世價值」。

QUOTE
Of course, you are free like anyone else to promote chauvinism and to propagate the selfishness and narrowmindedness of the Chinese across the whole world. To become the world's #1 power yes? Cheers for that!

大多數中國人不是你這種太傻太天真的全球主義者,這是中國之幸,同慶同慶。 smile.gif


--------------------
......
PMEmail Poster
Top
0 位使用者正在閱讀本主題 (0 位訪客及 0 位匿名使用者)
0 位會員:

Topic Options分頁: (7) [1] 2 3 ... 最後 » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0273 ]   [ 13 queries used ]   [ GZIP 啟用 ]