外國網民：與洋鬼子碰撞，中國如此善於記憶

　　中文標題：與洋鬼子的碰撞：為什麼中國是善於記憶的國家

　　原文標題：Clashing with the foreign devils

　　導讀：這是一個老坑，花了大半個月才填好。原文是書摘評論，回復也比較少，大家可以自行展開討論。1840年開始的屈辱歷史相信每個中國人都銘刻在心，也正是這段歷史激勵著我們民族現在不斷的前行。

　　19th-century China

　　19世紀的中國

　　Feb 17th 2011 | from PRINT EDITION

　　The Scramble For China: Foreign Devils in the Qing Empire, 1832-1914. By Robert Bickers. Allen Lane; 496 pages

　　引自《中國爭奪戰：1832-1914洋鬼子在清帝國》第496頁，Robert Bickers. Allen Lane著

　　AS NUMEROUS museums across China testify, the country dwells on itspast in order to justify the present. A common theme is that of the 「national humiliation」 China says it suffered from the mid-19th century until the Communist Party came to power in 1949. To help prove that the party created a 「new China」 and has the right to rule it,schoolchildren are made to tramp around exhibits showing how foreigners scrambled to dismember China, how they poisoned it with opium, bullied (and sometimes butchered) its people and looted its treasures.

　　正如遍布中國大地的為數眾多的博物館所證明的，這個國家以凝思過往來調整當下。一個常見的主旋律說法「國恥」——中國從19世紀中期開始遭受深重災難直到TG1949年執政，就是很好的體現。為證明TG創造了一個「新中國」及其統治的合法性，那些小學生被要求去參觀展覽，了解那些列強是怎樣爭相肢解中國、用鴉片荼毒中國、欺侮（有時是屠殺）她的人民並掠奪她的財富。

　　As far as it goes, this outline of what happened is true enough,though opium was commonly used by the Chinese elite before the British started peddling their own produce from India. But the party forbids exploration of anything that might blur this picture. One taboo area is what Chinese nationalists at the time saw as the foreign nature of the last imperial dynasty, the Qing, which collapsed in 1911. Sun Yat-sen, the revolutionary who helped topple it, held the ethnic Manchus who controlled the dynasty in more contempt than the Westerners who had forcibly set up colonial enclaves, the Russians who had carved off part of Manchuria, or the Japanese who had taken Taiwan after a war in 1895. To keep the story simple, the party prefers to view the Manchus as Chinese.

　　上述的史實概略是真實無誤的，雖然早在英國開始傾銷來自印度的「產品」之前，鴉片就已經為中國精英們所廣泛使用。但TG禁止了對此的深究，以免模糊這幅圖景。現在的禁區之一就是當時的中國民族主義者如何看待這個於1911年垮塌的中國最後王朝——清朝的外交性質。孫逸仙——推翻清朝的革命者，相比強行設立殖民飛地的西方人，對控制這個王朝的滿族更加蔑視。因為沙俄割佔了部分滿洲地區，日本也在1895年的戰爭之後拿走了台灣。為了簡單化的需要，TG選擇視滿族為中國人。

　　In his history of the foreign scramble for China, Robert Bickers of Bristol University looks mainly at the story of west European and, to a lesser extent, American interaction with the country. The Japanese and Russian strands of this hugely complex tale of an evolving nation -state are picked out in less detail. The anglophone actors take centre stage—rightly, perhaps, at first, given the pioneering role played by the British in China』s history of humiliation. Mr Bickerstakes 1832 as his starting point, the year when British ships sailed north from the Canton delta, carrying pamphlets, textiles and opium.As the 1800s unfold, the stage becomes more crowded and Mr Bickers sometimes appears to wander in the detail. His story ends well short of the communist victory that the party claims sent foreign intruders scuttling, although China』s ever-pragmatic nationalism allowed Britain to rule over Hong Kong and Portugal to control Macau until the end of the 20th century.

　　在布里斯託大學Robert Bickers看來，這段列強逐鹿中國的歷史看起來主要是西歐人的歷史，對美國人與這個國家的交往他做了一個次要的展開。在這巨大複雜的故事中，日本人和俄國人——作為演變中的單民族國家，被單獨列出做簡單介紹。英國是站在舞台最中心的演員——準確地講，可能在中國恥辱史的最開始，不列顛人扮演了先鋒角色。Bickers先生把1832年作為起始點，這一年英國商船從珠江三角洲起航北上，滿載著福音小冊、紡織品和鴉片。隨著19世紀大幕的開啟，世界舞台變得更加擁擠，而Bickers先生有時似乎在細節中徘徊。他的這段歷史正好在共產主義者的勝利之後結束——TG主張送外國入侵者「陰溝翻船」，儘管中國一貫的實用民族主義允許英國支配香港、葡萄牙控制澳門直到20世紀末。

　　Mr Bickers specifies 1914 as his cut-off date (three years after theQing』s demise), but he describes 1913 as the turning point when 「asa multinational enterprise, the scramble for China started to unravel」. With the outbreak of the first world war, 「the European concertin China was broken」, he writes. The story, however, did not reachits climax until the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, which lasted from1931 to the end of the second world war.

　　Bickers先生將1914年作為截止日期（清朝滅亡后三年），但是他卻把1913年描述為轉折點，此時「對中國的爭奪開始成為一項多國參與的生意」。隨著第一次世界大戰的爆發，「歐洲人在中國的音樂會散場了」，他寫道。而故事遠沒達到它的高潮，直到日本人入侵滿洲，從1931年一直持續到二戰結束。

　　「The Scramble for China」 is based largely on English-languagesources, which leaves the reader sometimes yearning for more insightfrom other actors: the Germans and Russians, for example, whoseresponse to the anti-foreign Boxer rebellion in 1900 was particularlybrutal. British accounts provide rich illustrations of the clashbetween two civilisations whose early interactions were dogged bytheir respective convictions of their own superiority and the barbarity of the other.

　　「爭奪中國」大多是英語國家唱主角，這有時讓讀者渴望從其他配角了解一些內情。譬如說德國人和俄國人，他們對1900年發生的排外義和團運動的反應尤其激烈殘忍。英國人提供了這兩個文明之間碰撞的豐富例證，因為各自確信自己比對方優越而對方不過是野蠻人，他們早前的互動被擱置了。

　　Described now as a humiliation, the establishment of foreignsettlements was not always seen this way by the Chinese. Mr Bickerssays the arrangement was 「simply a variant of the long-establishedpractice of allowing sojourning communities to organise their ownaffairs」. The term 「unequal treaties」, now routinely used in Chinato describe the agreements reached between foreign powers and the Qinggovernment after several military defeats, was unknown until 1923.Chinese nationalism, portrayed by the party in terms suggesting it hadalways been a force, was slow and fitful in its 19th-centuryawakening.

　　外國殖民地現在被視為恥辱，但當時的中國人不總是這麼看待。Bickers先生認為這種安排只是「簡單地允許短期逗留的團體人員組織起來負責自己的事務——一種長期變相的實踐」罷了。「不平等條約」這一概念，現在中國慣用的描述清政府在幾次軍事失利之後和外國列強簽訂的條約，直到1923年還未為人所知。TG所描繪的中國民族主義，明確表明了在19世紀的民族覺醒中，它一直是一股力量，緩慢而間歇不斷。

　　British nationalism, by contrast, was at its height. The author noteshow 「humiliation」 narratives fortified the minds of the British asthey made inroads into China in the 1840s (among them the tale of howChina had curtly rejected the request for trade made by Britain』sfirst envoy to China, Lord Macartney, at the end of the 18th century).「They often talked, wrote and taught, as the Chinese came to talk,write and teach, about the lessons of history,」 he says. This mightnot bode well for China』s future behaviour. As the West』s scramblefor China showed, rising nations, eager to extend their global reachand easily riled by the slights of other powers, have a habit ofbehaving badly.

　　相比之下，英國民族主義正處於高潮。作者指出了中國皇帝的「羞辱性」言辭是怎樣強化了英國人1840年代侵入中國的決心（尤其是中國人草率回絕了英國在18世紀末派出的第一位公使馬戈爾尼公爵的貿易通商的要求）。「他們經常像中國人一樣談論，書寫和教授歷史上的經驗教訓，」他說。這對中國未來走勢來說可能不算是個吉兆。就像西方爭奪中國這段歷史表明的，崛起中的大國，急切地想在全球各地擴張自己的勢力範圍，他們很輕易地就會被其他強權的怠慢所激怒，習慣性地表現惡劣。

　　評論翻譯

　　mrvitamin wrote:

　　Feb 17th 2011 5:52 GMT

　　James Legge is one of my literary heroes, for his translation of the Chinese classics into English. In doing this, he gave great honor to Chinese civilization. Yet the publication of his work was financed by the Jardine corporation, which made much of their profits from opium. As Jardine put it (more or less), "We make our profits in China and are glad to return some of them to the benefit of the Chinese."

　　James Legge是我的文學偶像之一，因為他把中國的經典翻成英文。他這麼做給予中國文明以莫大的榮譽。然而，他的作品出版卻是由恰和集團所資助。這家公司曾通過鴉片貿易獲取龐大利潤。正如恰和表示的（或多或少），「我們在中國賺錢，很樂意拿出其中的一些來為中國人做些有意義的事情作為回報。」

　　Mishmael wrote:

　　Feb 17th 2011 8:56 GMT

　　To clarify a point in the article, just because the people at the time did not use modern terminology to describe it, or were as aware of it, does not mean that the unequal predatory conditions of Western (and Russian and Japanese) activities in Qing and Republican China did not exist. I am personally sick and tired of historical revisionists who claim that injustices did not exist in the past because the people at the time differed in political consciousness.

　　澄清文章中的一點，僅僅因為當時的人們不使用現代術語來描述或者意識到，並不意味著西方人（還有俄國人和日本人）清末民初對中國不平等的掠奪行為不存在。對歷史修正主義者宣揚的那套因為當時的人們政治意識與現在不同所以過去不存在所謂的不公正的理論，我個人感到十分噁心和厭倦。

　　For the current generation of Chinese, the historical lessons of China in the bad old days are not simple, clear-cut models to be pasted upon the present. The party is not a new "dynasty," as some may claim, because it does possess an internal mechanism for transferring power to successive leaders based at least partly upon merit. Revolutionary activity in Qing China brought down an empire, but it did not bring about national unity and strength, but weakness and warlords. If anything, Chinese history for the Chinese is more of an instruction in what not to do, rather than a prescription for modern policy. It would be ironic if China ultimately adopted novel policies while western countries emulated Qing or Republican China.

　　對於目前這一代中國人來說，舊時代歷史的慘痛教訓絕不簡單，它依然深深影響著現在。TG不是一些人所聲稱的一個新「朝代」，因為它確實有一套內部機制來向接任的領導人轉移權力，繼任者至少部分是依靠其過往功績的。

　　清朝時的革命運動最終推翻了帝制，但並沒有帶來國家的統一和富強，反而是積弱和戰火。如果中國漫長的歷史不僅僅是一份教導中國人不該做什麼的說明書，而是一份現代政策方針的處方的話，那又會如何。如果中國最終採用新型政策而西方國家卻模仿清朝或者中華民國那套，那會是多麼的諷刺。

　　Sensible GaTech Student wrote:

　　Feb 18th 2011 3:53 GMT

　　One day, someone should gather up a variety of sources: Chinese accounts by the Boxers, Japanese accounts of Sun Yat-Sen, Russian and German accounts, and British accounts...and write an objective history of the region.

　　I'm not sure who to trust on this. Obviously, the Chinese view of history is biased, but then again, so is the British view.

　　總有一天，會有人收集一系列的原始資料：中國義和團員的，留日孫逸仙的，俄國人和德國人的，還有英國人的…然後書寫出這個地區客觀的歷史。

　　我拿不準該相信誰。很顯然，中國人對這段歷史的看法是有偏見的，不過，英國人的看法也一樣。

　　bismarck111 wrote:

　　Feb 18th 2011 9:02 GMT

　　The notion of providing foreign enclaves only really extended to the Portuguese. Its the only foreign country that the Chinese were not "coerced" into providing a foreign enclave. The Chinese willing allowed to them to settle in Macau and the Portuguese paid a nominal fee.

　　為外國提供租界的概念竟然延伸到了葡萄牙人身上。這是唯一一個沒有強迫中國這麼做的國家，中國人允許他們定居澳門，而葡萄牙人要支付一點象徵性的費用。

　　While much of the history is revisionism, the point about the Manchus should be noted. The Han Chinese treated the Manchus well after 1911, however that does should not detract from the fact that the Manchus, despite adopting a lot of Chinese customs

　　而這段歷史被「修正主義」了，其中有關滿族的問題應該予以指出。在1911年後，漢族人對待滿族還算厚道的，但這並不能改變他們是滿族的事實，儘管他們吸收了很多中國的傳統習俗。

　　nkab wrote:

　　Feb 18th 2011 5:23 GMT

　　Given the corrupt and inept state of Chinese government of Qing Dynasty at that time, the forced concession of establishment of foreign settlements was nothing but humiliation as seen by the Chinese who is any Chinese. So dont let anyone, especially foreigners, to tell you it wasn't shame and humliation down to the core.

　　在任何一個中國人看來，當時腐敗無能的清政府被迫讓步允許建立租界除了屈辱還是屈辱。所以別讓任何人，特別是外國人告訴你這從本質上來講並不值得遺憾或者感到羞恥。

　　However, despite the serious downside of foreign predacious robbing and pillage of China』s resources and pride as a result, the very existence of these foreign settlements did provide a window for China of 18th century modern world and opened the eyes of many Chinese to 18th century Western science and technology and Western liberal arts.

　　然而，儘管從結果上來看外國人巧取豪奪中國的資源，踐踏中國人的自尊，有這樣嚴重的不利一面，但正是這些租界的存在為中國打開了一扇了解18世紀現代世界的窗口，開闊了中國人的眼界，讓他們見識到了西方科學技術和人文科學的前沿。

　　It helped unwittingly to usher a sort of early version of "reform and opening up" movement in the making. Too bad that subsequent internal tumultuous war lording, civil wars and Japs imperialist invasion prevent further progress of the movement.

　　這在不知不覺中引導了一種本質上可稱之為「改革開放」早期版本運動的成形。但不幸的是隨後而來的內部爭鬥，內戰和日本帝國主義入侵阻斷了這場運動的進一步發展。

　　China does not have a long memory any longer than any other nation as Westerners inclines to claim. They simply suffered more than the most.

　　中國並不擁有比其他民族更強的記憶力，很多西方人更傾向這麼認為。他們只是比其他大多數民族遭受更多的苦難。

Most Chinese today blame no one but themselves for such miseries endured before. That's why they are resolutely and solidly behind their CCP led government no matter what, and no matter what the China bashers would fabricate or blaspheme on the media day in and day out.

　　今天多數中國人把遭受如此苦難的過去歸咎於他們自己。這就是為什麼無論如何他們都會堅定地毅然決然地站在由TG主導的政府這邊的原因，不管那些仇恨中國的人如何日復一日在媒體上捏造事實、口出惡言地抨擊。

　　huhahuha wrote:

　　Feb 18th 2011 5:42 GMT

　　The end point of 1914 is rather weird. For many Chinese people, the climax of humiliation was actually 1919, when China was forced in Versailles by the British and French to transfer German possessions in China to the Japanese, even China was actually a victor in WWI.

　　把1914年作為結局相當奇怪。對很多中國人來說，最恥辱的一年事實上是1919年，當時中國在凡爾賽迫於英國人和法國人的壓力將德國人在中國的權益轉移給日本人，即使中國事實上是一戰的勝利者。

　　This event was so pivotal in Chinese history because it is one of the direct causes leading to the founding of the CCP in 1921. It also led to the New Cultural Movement that ended the thousands of years of Confucian norms of the Chinese society.

　　這一事件在中國歷史上是如此關鍵，因為它是1921年TG創立的直接起因之一。他也導致了新文化運動，終結了中國社會延續數千年之久的儒家規範。

　　alex65 wrote:

　　Feb 18th 2011 11:49 GMT

　　Not every foreign devil is remembered as a devil by Chinese. The Americans have a special place in the hearts of the Chinese. If you read Chinese, the following piece, titled 「Americans are the Single Best Friends of the Chinese People in the World」, reflects the forever indebtedness the Chinese people feel towards the Americans:

　　The piece was a personal account from a well-known Chinese poet, 流沙河, on his experience with the Americans. The central theme is that the American people showed tremendous compassion towards the Chinese during their time of hardship.

　　並不是每個外國人都被視作洋鬼子的。美國人在中國人心中就有一個特殊的位置。如果你能看懂中文，下面這篇文章，題目是「美國人是中國人在這世上唯一最好的朋友」，反映了中國人對美國人永遠的感恩之情：

　　這篇文章出自中國著名的詩人流沙河之手，是關於他的美國人體驗的。中心思想就是在艱難時期，美國人民顯示了對中國人巨大的同情和憐憫。

　　Chinese language is full of idioms that reflect its culture. Here is a well-known idiom: 受人滴水之恩，當永泉相報。Translated into English, it means that when you are about to die from thirst, and someone let you have a sip of water, you must, when the time comes, repay with a running spring.

　　中文裡有很多成語反映這種文化傳統。眾所周知的一句就是：受人滴水之恩，當湧泉相報。翻譯成英文就是BLABLA，大家都懂得就不廢話了。。。

　　I understand completely how the Chinese should feel indebted to the Americans. When all the foreign devils kick you in the guts as you are weak and down only the American people lend a helping hand out their compassion towards a poor and desperate people.

　　我完全理解中國人該對美國人有多麼的感激。當所有的洋鬼子趁你病要你命往死里揍你時，只有美國人民出於同情給予貧窮絕望的中國人援助之手、

　　Personally the Americans as a people will always have a special place in my heart.

　　對我個人來說，美國人民將一直在我心裡佔據一個特殊的位置。

　　alex65 wrote:

　　Feb 19th 2011 12:56 GMT

　　I truly believe that the Chinese can let bygones be bygones. At least that is my sincere hope. Historically (or just my version of history) the Chinese do not have a take-no-prisoners attitude after they defeat the invading 「barbarians」. They are capable to let bygones be bygones instead of seeking revenge and getting even. A good example is how the Chinese incorporated the Machu people as truly one of their own after overthrowing the Qing dynasty instead of slaughtering their former oppressors.

　　我真的相信中國人能讓過去的成為過去。至少這是我真誠的願望。從歷史上看（或者說只是從我本人歷史觀出發），中國人在擊敗入侵的「野蠻人」之後並沒有採取過不留活口的態度。他們能夠讓過去的成為過去，而不是伺機復仇或報復。一個很好的例子就是，中國人在推翻清朝統治之後真心把滿族人視為自己人，而不是去屠戮曾經的壓迫者。

　　Chinese feel humiliated by that period of history? Sure. The Chinese are a proud people and they naturally feel humiliated.

　　中國人對那段歷史感到恥辱？當然。中華民族是驕傲的民族，他們自然會對此感到恥辱。

　　Chinese have a strong sense of nationalism? Sure. They come this far only after they get united as a people instead of being divided and conquered. The nationalism will subside as they no longer have to deal with the same 「national humiliation」.

　　中國人有很強烈的民族主義感？當然。他們在這方面過火只是在他們團結成一體之後的事情，而之前他們被割裂被征服。在他們再沒必要應對同樣的「國恥」之後，這股民族主義情緒才會平歇下來。

　　Chinese have an evil intention to get even with their former oppressors? Not sure… so far I have not observed any.

　　中國人對曾經的壓迫者懷有報仇雪恨的歹意？並不盡然。。。到目前為止我還沒觀察到這類跡象。

　　Nemesis61 wrote:

　　Feb 19th 2011 8:00 GMT

　　Look at the history of the UK and there is acommon theme: self-interest. Our anglo-saxon friends are in for a big suprise: The age of Ayn Rand, Rockefeller and this magazine (The pathetic Voice of hard Capitalism) is over. Why didn't UBS Warburg get a lot of deals in China? Because of their opium trade in the 19th century. Why is Germany well positioned in China? They decided not to leave after the Tiamin square protest in 1989.

　　Capitalim failed because it enabled crooks to rise to power. The new generation entering the labour market will change all that. Mutinationals will bleed to death - finally. Question is how much time hard Capitalism has left in China.

　　翻看英國的歷史，你會發現這樣一項普遍的主題：利己主義。我們的盎格魯撒克遜朋友免不了遭受一個大驚喜：艾因蘭德、洛克菲勒和這本雜誌（頑固資本主義的悲嘆之聲）的時代結束了。為什麼瑞銀華寶在中國接不到太多生意？那是因為他們在19世紀曾涉足鴉片貿易。為什麼德國在中國混得很好？那是因為在八平方事件之後他們決定不撤離中國。

　　資本主義失敗了是因為它讓惡棍們爬上去執掌權力。新一代人進入勞動力市場將會徹底改變這一切。跨國公司將會流血至死，最後，問題是中國的資本主義還能存在多久。

　　Gasanwu wrote:

　　Feb 19th 2011 4:08 GMT

　　So let me get this straight. The author is saying, because the West, invaded, poisoned, robbed, enslaved, killed, butchered other nations/continents when they were on the rise to power/prosperity, the now rising power(s) will do the same?

　　WOW!... That's all I have say to the self-centric West-superiority projections, and dooms-day-is-being-brought-here-by-China rhetoric.

　　那麼讓我把文章意思理順直。作者是說，因為西方國家在他們權力財富崛起的過程中，侵略了，毒害了，搶劫了，殖民了，殺害了，屠殺了其他民族/大洲，那麼現在崛起中的大國也同樣這麼做？

　　喔。。。這就是我對這種基於自我中心的西方優越性的推斷以及「中國將給我們帶來末日」這種說法的所作的全部評價。

　　L.Y.Z. wrote:

　　Feb 19th 2011 6:59 GMT

　　Since the West can not simply delete from history the trail of havoc it left in its passage by China, it's obvious that the Westerners would invoke something able to lessen the spoil: revamp history adding "new" facts trying to make it less "unpleasant", so that it can be deemed more palatable to the insight of people who granted themselves more civilized and more aware than other people.

　　既然西方無法輕易抹去中國教科書中他們給中國帶來的浩劫的事實，顯然西方人就會去求助與一些能減輕這種破壞的做法：篡改歷史，加進一些「事實」，試圖使其看起來沒有那麼「不快」。這麼一來，這段歷史在那些自認為更加文明和開化的人眼中，就變得更加順眼順心了。

　　Hibro wrote:

　　Feb 19th 2011 7:04 GMT

　　Weren't the Manchus considered foreign devils themselves before they conquered China to start the Qing Dynasty?

　　在征服中國開創清朝之前，滿族人不是該被視作洋鬼子么？

　　"The Manchus' identity as a race or nationality has tended to elude both Manchus and non-Manchus alike. In a sense, they invented themselves: People of Jurchen, Mongolian, Han Chinese and Korean descent who lived in the northeast and had developed a distinctive society first identified themselves using the collective term 'Manchu' only in 1635. The fact that they were barbarians who had been kept beyond the empire's north-east border, and were so weak numerically compared with the Han Chinese, must have made the fall of the Ming all the more humiliating to the Hans."

　　「滿族人作為一個種族或者部落的特徵，對於滿族人自己和非滿族人來說一樣的迷惑。在某種意義上，是他們自己創造出了自己這個民族：他們是生活在東北的，擁有女真人、蒙古人、漢族人和朝鮮族血統，發展出了一個與眾不同的社會；他們第一次使用滿族這個稱呼定義他們自己族群是在1635年。事實是，他們是被隔絕在中華帝國東北邊界之外的野蠻人。與漢族人相比他們在數量上是如此弱小，而他們卻推翻了明朝，這對漢族人來說更加恥辱。」

　　42345678 wrote:

　　Feb 20th 2011 12:06 GMT

　　China needs not be dwelling on the "humiliation" narrative. But it needs to change its defensive thinking, or the Great Wall complex.

　　中國不必在所謂的「羞辱性」言辭上考慮過多。但她必須改變防禦性思維，或者說長城情節。

　　When China was strong, it spent its resource on the defensive mechanism. Built great wall and sent 100,000 strong fleet for a friendly visit around south-east asia during 15th Century.

　　當中國強盛時，她在防禦機制上消耗了太多的資源。在15世紀時，建造長城，還派遣擁有100000船隻的強大艦隊滿東南亞做友好訪問。

　　Look at what Mongolian still call China today. a country of "Male Castrated Slave".

　　Defense will get you nowhere.

　　看看蒙古是如何稱呼現今的中國，一個「太監」國家

　　一味防禦根本無濟於事。

　　Even today. the Chinese force is still called by Chinese "the Great Steel Wall" GangTieChangCheng If Chinese continue to use defensive posture, They will still be called "Male Castrated Slave" generations after.

　　即使是現在，很多中國人還稱自己的軍隊為「鋼鐵長城」。如果中國人一直採取守勢，幾代人之後還是會被稱為「太監」。

　　Legio Yow wrote:

　　Feb 20th 2011 12:40 GMT

　　I greatly dislike the obsession many writers on China have with the term "foreign devil" and similar ones (It seems that nearly every book on China these days has the phrase in its title somewhere). It perpetuates the completely false portrait of a virulently xenophobic China that even a cursory glance at history shows that isn't the case. During the Ming and early Qing Dynasty, missionaries like Matteo Ricci were given free reign in the country and places of high honor in the imperial court. Giuseppe Castigiolne became a court painter to the Kangxi Emperor and led construction of the Summer Palace, a beautiful fusion of Western and Chinese architecture--until the British and French destroyed it. Many advances in cartography were made by the missionaries. Kangxi didn't restrict the missionaries until the Pope explicitly attempted to interfere in Chinese internal affairs and the mission was closed by the xenophobic Chinese but by Clement the XIV.

　　我極其厭惡許多中國問題作者執著地使用「洋鬼子」或者類似概念（現在中國市面上的每本書看起來都在標題或者其他地方使用這個詞）。這麼一來就展現出了中國一直是帶著惡毒心理懼外的形象，這完全是錯誤的印象，只要你對歷史略知一二就會發現根本不是這回事。在明朝和清朝早期，像利瑪竇這樣的傳教士在尊貴的紫禁城內是能夠自由不受支配地走動的。朱塞佩成為了康熙皇帝的宮廷畫師，並主導了頤和園的建設。它完美融合了西式和中式的建築，直到遭受英法聯軍的破壞。許多地圖學上的進步都是由傳教士取得的。康熙沒有限制傳教士直到教皇明確地企圖干涉中國的內部事務，傳教活動不是被懼外的中國人所禁止，而是被教皇克雷門特16世所結束。

　　Was there anti-foreign sentiment in China during the 19th century? Absolutely, but you might care to note that the West wasn't exactly a bastion of tolerance. As Kangxi said, would any European prince allow him to send monks to evangelize in their country?

　　中國在19世紀有過排外情緒么？毫無疑問，但你也得指出西方自己也不是一個包容各種種族的堡壘。就如同康熙說的，有沒有任何一個歐洲王公會允許他派遣和尚過去「和諧」他們的國家？

　　Will@Moor wrote:

　　Feb 20th 2011 4:00 GMT

　　@Legio Yow

　　回復Legio Yow

　　Totally agree with you for the point of Kangxi.

　　完全同意你所說的康熙的觀點。

　　Many people in the West forget how much they have battled to separate politics from religion, but yet still believe that the Pop should be able to interfere China's own business. Even Kangxi, without any experience of how warriors could arrive after missionaries, refused his Holy political influence, I don't see how China in these days would buy the words from Rome again.

　　許多西方人都已經忘記他們是經過多少鬥爭才將政治從宗教里分離出來，但他們卻還是認為教皇應該能干涉中國的自身事務。即使康熙沒有過經驗——戰士將會在傳教士之後到達，他還是拒絕了這種福音政治的影響。現在，我也沒怎麼看到中國把羅馬的話當一回事。

　　A part of China's government rigid altitude towards any kind of political power/pressure from outside may favours to justify its own rule, but the real reason is --- what the West has done towards China -- not always --- is though in fact suspicious.

　　面對外部的各種強權和壓力，中國政府的一貫堅定態度是更傾向於按自己的規則出牌，但是真正的原因是——西方對中國所做的種種——雖然不總是，但事實上是別有用心的。

　　dmonalon wrote:

　　Feb 20th 2011 6:10 GMT

　　Well the chinese gov't. used rather a common approach of reverse psychology to turn their citizen against or to put it in a more light way, disapproving to foreign nationals. By showing children the mutilation, humiliation and all the hardships that previous generations encountered when dealing with outsiders they will be able to capture the young's innocence and be able to instill with them whatever values they wish to bestow to them. Though I must admit it was a clever move to start with children as prospects, for they are easy target of manipulation and them being the future leaders of Chine per se.

　　額。。。中國政府使用相當普通的伎倆來反轉公眾的心理，要麼讓他們激烈反外，要麼讓這種反外情緒以更加緩和的方式宣洩。通過向小孩子們展示他們先輩在對抗外來者時所遭受的破壞、恥辱和艱難困苦，就能輕易俘獲他們純潔的內心，進而灌輸任何他們想灌輸的價值觀。但我必須承認從娃娃抓起的這一手相當高明，因為他們是最容易塑造的目標人群，未來也會成長為這個國家的領導人。

　　AdityaMookerjee wrote:

　　Feb 20th 2011 8:50 GMT

　　The perceived phenomenon of 'Colonialism', was disagreeable, first to the ruled, and later, much later, to the powers who colonised. Perhaps, the ideas which led to the phenomen(a)on of Colonialism, were bitter fruit, first to the colonised, and then to the colonisers. After all, Colonialism was a national malaise in Britain, where all the rich folk who had invested in the East India Company, had wanted great returns for their share of investments. Why blame the East India Company, when the 'Liberal' values of Great Britain, saw it correct, first to 'colonise', then to rule in India? I note, however, that this writing is on China's tryst with Colonialism.

　　這種切身感知的「殖民主義」現象相當令人不快，首先是對統治階級，然後，很久之後，對殖民的強權。很可能，導致殖民主義現象的觀念最初對被殖民一方，然後是對殖民者來說都是一個苦澀的果實。畢竟，英國的殖民主義對整個國家來說都是一場大折騰，所有在東印度公司有投資的富人，都想得到屬於自己那份巨大的投資回報。為啥指責東印度公司，他們為印度帶去了大不列顛自由的價值觀，這是正確無誤的，這種價值觀首先「殖民」印度，然後統治了這個國家。但我得指出的是，這部作品是有關中國與殖民主義的「幽會」的。

　　Perhaps, just perhaps, undermining any interest, even if you undermine interests of others, to an advantage to yourself, turns out to be a disadvantage in the run, long or short. All nations who seek to undermine other nations to their own advantage, should heed history. It was the dream of colonising China, by Japan, which led to the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

　　可能，只是可能，剛開始出於自己的利益，你去破壞其他所有人的利益，在具體實施中，或早或晚損害到自身。所有那些試圖損人利己的國家都應該好好從歷史中吸取教訓。正是日本妄想殖民中國，才招致廣島長崎的核爆之禍。

好啊。既然殖民那麼好，中國將來可以殖民英國，給他們送去人種的改良。

11nn93n9 發表於 2011-3-15 21:23
好啊。既然殖民那麼好，中國將來可以殖民英國，給他們送去人種的改良。