主题：一块红布---看西方愤老之理屈词不穷，成怒恼不羞 (一） -- 不悱不发

接上文

http://www.cchere.net/article/1523091

奉上愤老精彩回帖。

愤老David回帖

——————————————————————

关于犯罪你知道多少？就我有限的经验，获取好处决不是犯罪的唯一逻辑。当然犯罪的定义也值得商榷。

Do you know much about crime? In my limited experience, "benefit" is

hardly the only "logic" of crime. And there is of course the little

matter of the definition of crime.

（愤老开篇即尽尖酸。 语气上甚是跟我一般见识，未见长者的厚道。逻辑上也误入旁枝。）

不过让我把作为律师的异议放在一边。你是对的。反对权威的一方要被谴责，因为根据定义，他们从反对中获益。我当然要谴责那些造反的黑人自1860年以来在美国南方造成的不幸。南非也是一样，不是吗？在这方面，也包括各种中国人因不满东京或伦敦的统治的种种所为。我还没说犹太人呢。不过，既然中国不是“很大很邪恶”，藏人又是乱中获利，我们可以安心认定现政权没有错。所以我们大家，尤其是象你这样受过教育的中国人，可以不必在政治上思辨是非了。多好的解脱呀。作为一个德国人，我完全理解你的处境。

But let me put aside such lawyerly objections. You're right.

Clearly, those who oppose authority are to be blamed, by definition,

since they "benefit" from opposing authority. I of course blame those

uppity black folks for all the unhappiness that has befallen the

American South since, let's say, 1860. Just like South Africa, no?

For that matter, just like various Chinese, on various occasions, less

than happy with rule from Tokyo, or London. I could go on; I haven't

even gotten to the Jews, but since China is neither "big nor evil,"

and the Tibetans stand to "benefit," we may rest assured that the

current regime can do no wrong in Tibet. Which saves us all, and most

importantly, educated Chinese like you, from the hassle of having to

think critically about politics. Such a relief. As a German, I

understand your position entirely.

（这一段语多反讽，不过可以看到他的思想症结所在：他认为我无条件认同统治政权。下次需要向他讲清政权合法性的基础是代表大多数利益。另外，为什么德国人这次反弹强烈， 是否与纳粹失败的民族复兴有关？）

我也不认为卫报的文章支持你。它的用词，“灭绝”，“种族隔离”很难说正面。 不提卫报也罢。我不需要我们的论坛提供国际杂志链接，我早已淹没其中。我们，至少是我们中不住在中国的人， 可以自由上网，自由浏览媒体，不仅是卫报， 还有维基百科。

Nor am I convinced that the *Guardian* article supports you, speaking

as it does of "annihilation" and "apartheid." Hardly positive talking

points. But never mind the *Guardian*. I don't need WAISers for

links to international journalism; I'm drowning in it already. We

all--well those of us who don't live in China--have unfettered access

to the Internet, and the flow of journalism. Not just the *Guardian*,

but Wikipedia, too!

（老头这段不像老姜，倒像一小辣椒。一叶障目的尖酸，窃以为正是西方对中国思维定势的来源。）

现在我提出我的直白的问题。你可能了解一些中国的情况，说一下你个人的所闻所想，也许对我和其他人更有帮助。你对那里的情况做何判断，你为什么会那样想。请不要象你今天这样用暗指1）对中国的仇视 （我不仇视中国），或2）无知（正如苏格拉底说，我们谁不是呢？）来代替你自己的思考。另外也请不要通过引用我可以在别处找到的别人的论述来回避争论，除非你判定这些材料的权威性值得花时间研究。这不完全关乎中国或西藏，或者是你的读者的失望， 它同时对你作为一个独立的知识分子也至关重要。我想知道你，我们坛中一员，怎么想。你似乎支持一些在外部世界，比如很多西藏人，也许某些核心内的中国人(天安门事件后,这一点就很难说了), 看来是高压虐待政策。 为什么？

Here's my prosaic question. Since you presumably know something about

China yourself, it would be helpful to to me, and perhaps others on

the list, if you report on what you, personally, know, and have

thought through. How do you, xx, judge this situation, and why

have you come to this place in your thinking? Please refrain from

using, as you did today, the tropes of (i) hatred of China (I for one

don't hate China), or (ii) ignorance (who isn't? said Socrates) in

lieu of expressions of your own thought. Please also avoid

argument by mere citation to material written by others that I can

find elsewhere, unless in your judgment such materials constitute

authority worth the expense and bother of study. This is not entirely

about China or Tibet, or even about your readers' failings--it is also

about you as an individual intellectual. I want to know what you,

xx, the fellow WAISer, think. You appear to support a set of

policies that appears to much of the outside world, many Tibetans, and

perhaps some number of Chinese in the heartlands (though it is hard to

say, after Tienanmen) as rank oppression. Why?

（这段老头对自己独立意识的优越感溢于言表。然而深以为，这种依重个人见闻而忽略基本史实的“独立思考”正是西方自由人士对中国认识限入误区的原因之一。老头心态似乎很不端正，无意讨论事实，却不断要我表态站队，同时又早已把我贴上支持邪恶政权的标签。用意合在？ 这种自鸣得意，无意讲理的态度葬送了真诚沟通的条件，让我决定回帖中继续打击他的逻辑漏洞。对不想听道理的人，苦口婆心恐怕是一厢情愿， 在逻辑和心理上beat他是唯一可能做到的。）

不象我们有些理想主义的论坛成员认为的那样，事实上，丑陋的政治经常或总是有理由的。美国有理由入侵伊拉克，越南；雅典人有理由入侵西西里； 等等。卫报将中国的西藏政策和历史上美国在北美大陆的扩张相类比也大有问题，附和这种论调是小儿科。有些理由根本就是悲剧性的或完全就是愚蠢。辨别哪些属于这种性质正是政治思辨的要义所在。 善良的人们参与非正义战争是有原因的。我这里不做道德评判，我也不急于谴责中国，自我辩护是不必的。

Despite what some more idealistic WAISers think, there are often,

perhaps always, reasons for ugly politics. There are reasons that the

US went to war in Iraq or Vietnam, that Athens invaded Sicily ("your

empire is like a tyranny"--Thucydides), and so forth, and it would be

child's play to join the *Guardian* in making (troubling) analogies

between China's Tibet policy and US manifest destiny. Some reasons,

of course, are tragic or merely stupid, figuring out when that is the

case is part of what it means to think critically about politics.

There are reasons good people prosecute unholy wars. So I'm

not asking for simple moralizing, nor am I eager to condemn

China--defensiveness is hardly called for.

（这段其实回复到前面引出的为什么支持现政权的问题。老头几次三番的谈到这点，也验证了这是其思想结扣。但心态仍是叽讽不屑，从其对中美对比的态度中可略感一二。看不到平常心。Again， 决定在下面的对答中将心比心，以损对损。）

我既不是中国人，对西藏也知之甚少。你引出的问题是，作为在美国的中国知识分子，你如何判断西藏的形势？期待你思考后的回答。

In fact, I'm not Chinese, and know little of Tibet. The question you,

xx, have put on the table is, as a Chinese intellectual operating

in the US, how do you judge the situation in Tibet?

A thoughtful answer would be very much appreciated.

• 一块红布---看西方愤老之理屈词不穷,成怒恼不羞(三）