新足迹

 找回密码
 注册

精华好帖回顾

· 2013 Melbourne Marathon Festival 赛事图解 (大量图片) (2013-10-16) 澳洲火烧 · 肠胃镜检查,及私保经历 (2015-1-14) andy84
· 美食版+数码版联合活动《水果》:Something a bit childish - 献给孩子们 (2008-11-10) 西式唐人 · [红红火火烫火锅]P2 双喜狮子头/红烧鲈鱼/麻辣凉面/泡菜肉末 (2007-2-19) KUN
Advertisement
Advertisement
查看: 1305|回复: 8

(转)美媒体撰文:中国自下而上的“新爱国主义” [复制链接]

参与宝库编辑功臣

发表于 2008-4-12 16:36 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 蓝月亮 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 蓝月亮 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
美媒体撰文:中国自下而上的“新爱国主义”2008年04月11日
《华尔街日报》 Emily Parker

我们希望北京奥运为新爱国主义铺平道路,希望新爱国主义映照出一个自信民族。在这
个民族中,爱国情绪既非源于仇恨,也非始于中国共产党的某种命令。

中国媒体谴责“3·14事件”,西方媒体批评中国“镇压3·14事件”;西方媒体描述中
国媒体的审查制度,中国网民猛批西方媒体对华偏见;一名中国官员称达赖喇嘛为“从
事分裂国家活动的政治流亡分子”,西方则描述其为“和平与和解人士”;美国、欧洲
激辩抵制奥运,以抗议中国的人权记录,中国批评西方在对待一个即将举办奥运的发展
中国家时,表现得自大且傲慢。

我们究竟是否生活在同一个星球上?

也许我们不禁要将中国的民族主义态度,统统归结为国家宣传的结果。但随着中国人的
愤怒在网上和海外不断爆发,事实逐渐清晰起来:中国的民族主义不是一种自上而下的
爆发。你不难发现一名中国人表达这样的“民族主义者”的观点——西藏是中国的一部
分,西方媒体心存偏见。

那么,热爱中国究竟意味着什么?又是谁来决定这种感情呢?是中国共产党还是中国人
民自己?

同时,那些国外人脑中也在思考自己的问题。他们最想知道的当然是,中国的爱国主义
是否会累积为对他们这些国家的敌对?过去10年,特别是在涉及美国和日本两个国家时
,对这一问题的回答显然是肯定的。

其中最激烈的一次发生在1999年,北约轰炸中国驻南联盟大使馆,造成3名中国人死亡
。多数中国人拒绝相信美国所谓的轰炸事件纯属偶然的辩解,众多中国人走上街头抗议
,部分示威者向美国大使馆投掷石块。

2005年,众多中国人再次走上街头,针对日本对待历史的错误态度,包括修改教科书美
化历史暴行以及首相小泉纯一郎参拜靖国神社。

这些愤怒的表达方式根植于中国被外国欺凌的感受中。彼得·海斯·格里斯2005年所著
的《中国的新民族主义》一书,从中国在第一次鸦片战争中战败,英国于1842年攫取香
港的历史讲起,也将20世纪30~40年代中国人民抗击日本侵略者的历史涵盖在内。

强有力的自尊与愤慨倾向贯穿其中,这种情绪也渗入了商界。美国及日本企业已了解到
将中国视为“劣等国家”加以对待的做法非常危险。

民族主义者的情绪爆发或许受到了多年来政治宣传的影响,但并非总是源于上层授意。
事实上,互联网的普及使民众获得了影响媒体的力量。

公众意见在对媒体报道方面或许已起到了决定性作用。一名记者说:“在这个时代之前
,政府可以单方面行动。现在,当网上发生一些事情时,政府需要随之改变政策。”

许多中国人或许都会向你讲述1984年8月那个格外令人自豪的时刻。在洛杉矶奥运会上
,中国一举拿下15枚奥运金牌。对于一度被称为“东亚病夫”的国家而言,这是一个历
史时刻,中国从此迈向了新征程。

我们希望北京奥运为新爱国主义铺平道路,希望新爱国主义映照出一个自信民族。在这
个民族中,爱国情绪既非源于仇恨,也非始于中国共产党的某种命令。 (美国《华尔街
日报》)

评分

参与人数 1积分 +6 收起 理由
villa + 6 感谢转贴,写得不错。

查看全部评分

意兴阑珊
Advertisement
Advertisement

参与宝库编辑功臣

发表于 2008-4-12 16:37 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 蓝月亮 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 蓝月亮 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
The Roots of Chinese Nationalism
By EMILY PARKER
April 1, 2008; Page A17

The Chinese media decry violent Tibetan rioters; the West criticizes the Chinese crackdown. The Western press describes Chinese censorship; Chinese netizens slam Western media bias. A Chinese official calls the Dalai Lama a "political exile bent on engaging in activities aimed at splitting the motherland," while in the West he is described as a man of "peace" and "reconciliation." Americans and Europeans debate boycotting the Olympics to protest China's human-rights record; Chinese commentary describes Western arrogance toward a "developing country that is going to host the games."

Are we all living on the same planet?


It may be tempting to write off these Chinese nationalist attitudes as the results of state propaganda. And Beijing is certainly fanning the flames, at least for now. But as Chinese outrage explodes on the Web and among Chinese abroad, it's clear that Chinese nationalism is not just coming from the top down. It's not hard to find a Chinese person who expresses a "nationalist" view -- that Tibet is part of China, or that the Western media is biased -- but is also a vehement critic of the Communist Party. In some cases, nationalists have accused Beijing of not defending Chinese interests strongly enough.

So what does it mean to love China? And who decides, the Communist Party or the Chinese people themselves?

Meanwhile, those outside the country are asking their own questions. Perhaps what they want to know most is this: Will China's "love of country" (aiguozhuyi) somehow amount to hostility toward us? There have been several moments over the past decade when the short answer to this question, particularly where Americans and Japanese were concerned, appeared to be "yes."

One of the more dramatic outbursts took place in 1999, when NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese people. Many Chinese refused to believe fervent U.S. pleas that the bombing was a tragic accident, and tens of thousands took to the streets, with some throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails. U.S. Ambassador Jim Sasser was trapped in the American embassy for days as demonstrators pelted the building with stones.

In 2005, thousands of Chinese people took to the streets again, this time in reaction to Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The emotional, occasionally violent demonstrations were also protests against what many Chinese felt was Japan's failure to address the past -- including textbooks that whitewashed Japan's historical atrocities and then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to Japan's Yasukuni Shrine, where war criminals are enshrined.

These expressions of outrage were rooted in the perception that China was victimized by a foreign country. This idea of a wounded, defeated nation has deep roots in education and propaganda. In "China's New Nationalism," Peter Gries discusses how the narrative of China's "century of humiliation" has framed its interactions with the West. This narrative starts, he says, with China's defeat in the First Opium War and the British acquisition of Hong Kong in 1842, includes unequal treaties with the British and the Japanese in the 19th century, and continues with the "War of Resistance" against Japan in the 1930s and 1940s.

Running through this narrative is a potent streak of pride and indignation, and these emotions bleed into the business sphere. American and Japanese companies have learned the perils of appearing to treat China as an "inferior" nation. In 2004, Nike ran an ad on the mainland that featured American basketball star LeBron James battling, and defeating, Chinese symbols such as dragons and a kung-fu master.

Memo to Nike: If you run this kind of ad in China, the dragons better win. A brouhaha erupted, Chinese "national dignity" was wounded, and the Nike ad was banned. In 2005, a McDonald's television ad that showed a Chinese man begging for a discount was taken off the air, apparently because it was too humiliating.

A year before the Nike incident, Toyota ended up pulling and formally apologizing for advertisements featuring stone lions bowing to a Prado SUV. The issue was that lions, ancient symbols of Chinese power, were bowing to a Japanese product. Several years before that, some Chinese accused Toshiba of treating them as inferior because, following accusations of a laptop defect, the company compensated U.S. consumers but not their Chinese counterparts. Toshiba sales saw a steep drop on the Chinese marketplace.

These nationalist outbursts may have been influenced by years of propaganda, but they are not always dictated from the top. In fact, the widespread popularity of the Internet is allowing the people to influence the state media. A Chinese journalist who worked for CCTV, a major state media outlet, explained to me how this works. The journalist, who requested that he not be named, described his own experience covering Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council. An Internet petition opposing the bid reportedly obtained over 40 million signatures.

Public opinion may have played a decisive role in determining the state media reporting, not the other way around. "After the reactions on the Internet, the government changed, so we had to change. We had to report every day on how these efforts [to gain a seat on the Security Council] were going. Before this era, government could act unilaterally. Now, when something happens on the Internet, the government has to change policy."

As Beijing has tried to forge friendlier relations with Japan, public patriotism has threatened to get in the way. In 2004, the Chinese authorities shut down the popular Patriots' Alliance Web site founded two years earlier. The site had criticized Japan, the U.S., and occasionally the Chinese government for being too weak. It apparently crossed the line after launching an online petition protesting the Railways Ministry's decision to award contracts to Japanese companies. The petition obtained over 67,000 online signatures in under 24 hours.

Chinese outrage over Tibet could again put Beijing in a tough position. Stoking popular nationalism may have once been a convenient way to shore up faith in the party, but a public spewing rhetoric about the West bullying China has no place in a "One World, One Dream"-themed Olympic Games. The Olympics will provide a window into China's self-image and global ambitions, and one imagines that Beijing will not want to show the world a face that is contorted with anger.

Many Chinese might tell you that one particularly proud moment in recent history was in August 1984, a mere six years after Deng Xiaoping opened China's doors to the world. The moment was the Los Angeles Olympic Games, where China took home 15 gold medals. For a country that had once been called "the sick man of Asia," this was a truly historic moment. China has come a long way since.

Let's hope the Beijing Olympics will pave the way for a new aiguozhuyi -- one that reflects a confident nation whose patriotism is dictated neither by resentment nor by the Communist Party. Let the games begin.

Ms. Parker is an assistant editorial features editor at The Wall Street Journal. Her chapter on Chinese nationalism will appear in "China's Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges," (Seven Stories Press, May 2008).
意兴阑珊

参与宝库编辑功臣

发表于 2008-4-12 17:00 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 蓝月亮 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 蓝月亮 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
总算看到客观一些的评论了

参与宝库编辑功臣

发表于 2008-4-12 17:03 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 蓝月亮 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 蓝月亮 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
后面的评论总算也有些头脑清楚的美国人,看看他的观点, 我觉得还比较靠谱, 比较有意思.

I have spent years living in China and doing business in China.

Emily Parker is exactily right. It is encouraging to see that not all Americans are so blind to this important aspect of dealing successfully with China.

Principle: When you want something from the Chinese, never set up the situation so that the Chinese must lose face to give you what you want.

One fault with Republicans in Congress is that far too often they tend to use US foreign policy to express their hate for China. Rather than trying to actually get things done, Republicans in Congress choose to find ways to force China to lose face in order to do what we would hope they would do.

China's Communist Party is communist in name only. They have a single party rule, and if they drop the word "communist", they also lose that political advantage.

Mao has been dead a long long time. Do not assume today's Chinese Communist Party is the party of Mao Tse Tung. Mao put Deng Xiao Ping in prison, and today's party is more the party of Deng Xiao Ping instead of Mao.

Want evidence that China is not communist? Look at their economic development. No socialist (or communist) command and control economy can generate such year-on-year economic growth.

Take care when you wish for a "democratic" China. With over 800 million peasants, what makes you so sure the first democratic election will not elect another Mao Tse Tung?

Instead of wishing for a "democratic" China, wish for an end to single party rule. This can happen in one of two ways....either the Communist Party splits into competing sects, or the Nationalist Party is able to make a come back by getting permission to field candidates in elections.

Tibetan demonstrators hurt this effort. Tibetan demonstrators detract from real efforts to make China more politically open.
意兴阑珊

参与宝库编辑功臣

发表于 2008-4-12 17:05 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 蓝月亮 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 蓝月亮 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
another comment by a Chinese

I appreciate EMILY PARKER in her comments about the roots of Chinese Nationalism. At least she is able to see the other side of the coin -- unlike the majority of the western media, who seems never ever able to do so.

There is an ancient Chinese wisdom:

"The water can carry a boat; It can also capsize them".

It has been used by and educated to the past emperors as an inescapable dynamics between their reign and the people. While the governor rules his people, he has also have to follow his people's wills. This is a bidirectional dynamic that is well understood by every Chinese.

However, it seems that the western media could never understand this. They naively think that the Chinese people are deprived of their human right and need to be saved from the communist party, and that every word they hear against them are either propagandized by the Chinese government or secretly supported by the government. YES! The Chinese government might have fooled its people around sometimes, but which government don't? And No, don't take the 13 billion Chinese people as fools that naively do whatever their governors force them to do! They fight back! We have in our history much more times (compared with western history) subversion of the emperors from the people (not other emperors). Chinese people are capable of dealing with their own issues and we would really appreciate it if those "kind-hearted human saviors" would let us do our own business and stay out of our way!
意兴阑珊

发表于 2008-4-12 19:17 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 bats 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 bats 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
上面的评论写得很好
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2008-4-12 19:22 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 西北农夫 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 西北农夫 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
楼上,你的这个签名真牛

发表于 2008-4-12 19:36 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 格美 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 格美 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
原帖由 蓝月亮 于 2008-4-12 16:36 发表
强有力的自尊与愤慨倾向贯穿其中,这种情绪也渗入了商界。美国及日本企业已了解到
将中国视为“劣等国家”加以对待的做法非常危险。

民族主义者的情绪爆发或许受到了多年来政治宣传的影响,但并非总是源于上层授意。
事实上,互联网的普及使民众获得了影响媒体的力量。


定义为民族主义者?可大可小的一个词。

发表于 2008-4-12 19:46 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 OneLeaf 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 OneLeaf 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
我记得论坛上转过华尔街日报的一两篇从我们的角度看比较公正的稿子,而且中央后来的赴西藏境外媒体邀请团也有它的份。

发表回复

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Advertisement
Advertisement
返回顶部