【09.04.10 英国 卫报】中国的负担(附有部分读者评论)
本帖最后由 酸枣树310 于 2009-4-13 17:16 编辑【原文标题】China's burden
【来源地址】http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/08/tibet-china
【译者】aha
【翻译方式】人工
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
【译文】中国的负担
引言：
如果说西藏人受到压迫，那所有的中国人都一样。这不是民族主义或种族歧视的问题，而是缺乏民主的问题。
作者：Ian Buruma
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 April 2009 17.00 BST
上个月是1959年西藏人在拉萨反抗中国共产党统治的日子五十周年，西藏活动分子称之为西藏民族起义日。当年的反抗遭到镇压，达赖喇嘛逃往印度，而那之后至少十年时间情况更加恶化。许多藏族人，可能超过一百万，在毛主席的大跃进运动中饿死。文革期间，庙宇被毁坏，有时是藏族红卫兵所为，并有许多人死于暴力。
人们注意到，今年种种的纪念日让中国官员们头疼（天安门之后二十年）。上个月，我在四川成都，那里居住着很多藏族人。警察警惕任何叛乱的迹象，连对纪念日一无所知的外国游客也当街被拦下。五颜六色的藏族社区被隔离。不仅拍照被禁止，甚至不允许进入。
然而，为庆祝纪念日，中国媒体上充满了描绘藏族人民摆脱数百年来封建奴隶社会的喜悦的报道。如果在这些媒体中，中国日报是可信的，那么解放前的西藏就是人间地狱，藏族人民对于成为中华人民共和国的公民充满感激。
或许有人感激，很多却并不。但如果中国的宣传机器将西藏的过去描绘的太过黑暗，那些同情西藏的西方人往往会更加感情用事。
达赖喇嘛的人格魅力已经使人们相信了这样一副漫画：一群神秘的聪明的爱好和平的人民被一个残暴的帝国碾碎。然而这并不是无端的。事实上在1950年，有不少受过良好教育的藏族人是欢迎中国共产党的。僧侣集团在当时是不无原因的死板和专制。而中国共产党承诺要实现现代化。
现代化正是过去几十年中国政府在付诸实施的。仅仅三十年前，拉萨还是一片破败不堪，如今已五脏俱全，巨大的公共广场，购物中心，以及高层建筑物，还有一条连接中国内地的高速铁路线。的确，藏族人（稀疏的安插的地方政府中）或许并不及汉族从中受益更多。在拉萨这样的城市里，汉族士兵、商贩和**随处可见以致人们担心藏族文化除了作为一个旅游目的地之外正走向灭亡。
必须承认，在电气化、教育、医疗和其他公共设施方面，西藏无疑比过去现代的多。这一点，不仅常常被官方拿来当做论据，甚至所有中国人都借此表达西藏融入中国的合理性。
这种辩护早已有之。二十世纪，西方（当然，还有日本）帝国主义者就以此为自己的“使命”开脱，声称要为土著人带去“文明”或“现代化”。日本统治下的台湾其实就比中国其他地区要更现代。而英国人不仅给印度带去了铁路、大学、医院，甚至还带去了现代化的行政部门。
然而，除去一小撮保守的盲目的爱国主义者外，大多数的欧洲人和日本人都不再那么坚信现代化可以作为充足的接口去侵略别国。现代化应该由自己人民自己的政府来实施，而不是由外来力量强加。
不过中国人手里还有一张王牌，这张王牌更加言之凿凿（更加现代）。他们为中国的民族多样化感到骄傲，这骄傲合情合理。为什么国籍要建立在语言和民族的基础上？如果允许西藏从中国独立，那威尔士为什么不从英国独立？巴斯克为什么不从西班牙独立？库尔德为什么不从土耳其独立？克什米尔为什么不从印度独立？
在某些情况下，答案或许是：好吧，它们可能应该独立。但是用民族来划分国籍确是含糊不清甚至危险的，不仅仅因为这会让所有的少数民族孤立无援。
所以说那些支持西藏事业的人就错了吗？是不是该给这些感情用事的行为喊卡？那倒不必。其实这事不是藏文化的事，不是精神领域的事，甚至不是民族独立的事，而是政治。
在这方面，藏族人并不比中华人民共和国的其他公民情况更遭。以发展前进的名义，中国到处都在拆毁古迹。文化被消毒，被同化，被剥除自主性，这些在所有中国城市都同步发生着，不仅仅是西藏。没有一个中国公民，不管是汉族、藏族、维族还是蒙古族，可以在权力以外投票。
所以，问题主要不是民族主义或歧视的问题，而是政治问题。中国政府宣称藏族人是幸福的。但没有媒体自由，没有选举权，这一切无从得知。不过偶发的集体暴力事件，和紧随其后的同样的暴力镇压显示，很多人并不幸福。
没有民主改革，这个恶性循环就无法终止，因为在没有言论自由的情况下诉诸暴力是人们的普遍选择。对西藏是这样，对中国的其他地区也是这样。只有当所有中国人都自由的时候，藏族人才能自由。从这个角度来说，所有的中国公民都绑在同一条船上。
作者的上一本书是《爱上中国的人》（The China Lover）
【原文】
China's burden
Tibetans are only as oppressed as all Chinese are. Theirs is not a problem of nationality or discrimination, but lack of democracy
Ian Buruma
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 April 2009 17.00 BST
Last month saw the 50th anniversary of what Tibetan activists like to call Tibetan National Uprising Day, the day in 1959 when Tibetans in Lhasa revolted against Chinese Communist party rule. The rebellion was crushed. The Dalai Lama fled to India, and for at least a decade things became a lot worse. Many Tibetans, possibly more than a million, starved to death during Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward campaign. Temples and monasteries were smashed, sometimes by Tibetan Red Guards, during the Cultural Revolution, and a large number of people died in the violence.
Chinese officials are noticeably jumpy in this year of anniversaries (20 years after the Tiananmen Square protests). Last month I was in Chengdu, in Sichuan province, where many Tibetans live. Even foreign tourists who had no clue about the anniversary were stopped in the streets by police looking for signs of rebellion. The colourful Tibetan district was cordoned off. Not only was it forbidden to take pictures there; one couldn't even walk through.
The Chinese press, however, marked the anniversary with effusive articles describing Tibetan joy at being liberated from centuries of feudalism and slavery. If the China Daily, among other publications, is to be believed, "pre-Liberation" Tibet was a living hell, and Tibetans are now grateful to be citizens of the People's Republic of China.
Some probably are. Many are not. But if Chinese propaganda paints too dark a picture of the Tibetan past, westerners who sympathise with the Tibetan cause are often too sentimental.
The personal charm of the Dalai Lama has promoted a caricature of a mystical, wise and peace-loving people being crushed by a brutal empire. It was not for nothing, however, that quite a few educated Tibetans actually welcomed the Chinese communists in 1950. The Buddhist clergy was seen, not without reason, as hidebound and oppressive. Chinese communism promised modernisation.
And that is what China's government has delivered in the past few decades. Lhasa, a sleepy, rather grubby backwater only 30 years ago, is now a city of huge public squares, shopping centres, and high-rise buildings, connected to the rest of China by a high-speed railway line. It is true that Tibetans, sparsely represented in local government, may not have benefited as much as the Han Chinese, whose presence in cities such as Lhasa as soldiers, traders and prostitutes is so overwhelming that people worry about the extinction of Tibetan culture, except as a tourist attraction.
Still, there is no question that Tibetan towns are now more modern – in terms of electrification, education, hospitals, and other public facilities – than they were before. This is one of the arguments used not only by Chinese officials, but by almost all Chinese, to justify Tibet's absorption into greater China.
This argument has a long history. Western (and, indeed, Japanese) imperialists used it in the early 20th century to justify their "missions" to "civilise" or "modernise" the natives. Taiwan, under Japanese rule, was in fact more modern than other parts of China. And the British brought modern administration, as well as railways, universities, and hospitals, to India.
Outside a fringe of nostalgic chauvinists, however, most Europeans and Japanese are no longer so convinced that modernisation is sufficient validation of imperial rule. Modernisation should be carried out by self-governing people, not imposed by foreign force.
But the Chinese have another argument up their sleeve, which seems more plausible (and more modern). They are justly proud of the ethnic diversity of China. Why should nationality be defined by language or ethnicity? If Tibetans should be allowed to break away from China, why not the Welsh from Britain, the Basques from Spain, the Kurds from Turkey, or the Kashmiris from India?
In some cases, the answer might be: well, perhaps they should. But ethnicity as the main marker of nationality is a vague and dangerous concept, not least because it leaves all minorities out in the cold.
So are people wrong to support the Tibetan cause? Should we dismiss it as sentimental nonsense? Not necessarily. The issue is not so much Tibetan culture, or spirituality, or even national independence, but political consent.
In this respect, the Tibetans are no worse off than other citizens of the People's Republic of China. Historic monuments are being bulldozed everywhere in China in the name of development. Culture is being sterilised, homogenised and deprived of independence and spontaneity in all Chinese cities, not just in Tibet. No Chinese citizen, regardless of whether he or she is Han, Tibetan, Uighur or Mongolian, can vote the ruling party out of power.
The problem, then, is not mainly one of nationality or discrimination, but of politics. The Chinese government claims that Tibetans are happy. But without a free press and the right to vote, there is no way of knowing this. Sporadic acts of collective violence, followed by equally violent oppression, suggest that many are not.
Without democratic reform there will be no end to this cycle, for violence is the typical expression of people without free speech. This is true not only for Tibet, but also for the rest of China. Tibetans will be free only when all Chinese are free. In that sense, if in no other, all citizens of China hang together.
• Ian Buruma's latest book is The China Lover.
【读者评论】
DrJohnZoidberg
10 Apr 09, 5:50pm
good god. this is just plain propaganda of the most transparent sort and insulting to the tibetan people.
i hope the guardian didn't actually have to pay for this.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
老天，这真是光天化日下明目张胆的宣传（propaganda,宣传，贬义词），完全侮辱西藏人民。
希望卫报不至于还要为此掏腰包。
MilesSmiles
10 Apr 09, 6:16pm
Tibet is a weak state between two large rival powers. If the Chinese weren't running it, then the Indians would be. I don't see the Tibetans being better off either way.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
西藏是个弱国，夹在两个敌对的强权中间。中国人不占领，印度人也会占领。不管哪样，藏人的日子都不会好过。
Britoriental
10 Apr 09, 7:11pm
Good article. This ethnocentric thinking imposed by the NGOs in the West is against the Dalai Lama's teaching, as with independence cries.
The whole of China needs to politically modernise, which will in turn help the people in Tibet. The sovereignty issue is dead and buried; no country doubted this, even when China was weak and had $0 in the bank.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
好文章。这个由西方NGO人员发表的有关种族中心论的思考挑战了达赖喇嘛的说教和那些声张独立的声音。
全中国都需要政治上的现代化，这也将帮助西藏的人民。主权问题不容侵犯；没有一个国家可以质疑，即使是在中国贫困虚弱之时。
gwale
10 Apr 09, 8:27pm
This article is a stunning example of willed ignorance of historical fact. Last I heard, the Nobel committee did not give the peace prize to a cartoon. As for the fabulous new modern Lhasa - you totally disregard the destruction of thousands of temples, torture, and genocide that preceded the inundation of the new, modern Tibet by Han people, who have starved out the Tibetans.
"Why should nationality be defined by language or ethnicity? If Tibetans should be allowed to break away from China, why not the Welsh from Britain, the Basques from Spain, the Kurds from Turkey, or the Kashmiris from India?"
Er, this kind of thinking presupposes that TIbet belonged to China in the first place. It did not and does not. Surely the English, having successfully either repelled or absorbed invaders for 1000 yrs, should have the perspective to see that Tibetans do not consider themselves part of China. Or maybe this is just the good old Colonialist view. Whether or not pre-Chinese invasion Tibet was Shangri-La or "a shabby backwater" -- an ethnocentric observation if I ever heard one - is utterly beside the point.
People like this writer assume that the takeover is a done deal so why don't the Tibetans, like, get over it and consider themselves (those of them still left) lucky to have running water - and screaming propaganda broadcast from the streetcorners. Hey, progress is good.
But you, sir, are not representing it. On the contrary.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
这篇文章是个极好的例子，关于人们如何有意识的忽略历史事实的。就我所知，诺贝尔委员会不会将他们的和平奖颁给一副漫画。当你说起绚丽的摩登的拉萨，你完全漠视数以千计的庙宇的毁坏，种族屠杀，虐待。这些都发生在汉族人民将新的摩登的西藏铺天盖地之前，而正是这些汉人让藏族人饥饿并且屈服。
“为什么国籍要建立在语言和民族的基础上？如果允许西藏从中国独立，那威尔士为什么不从英国独立？巴斯克为什么不从西班牙独立？库尔德为什么不从土耳其独立？克什米尔为什么不从印度独立？”
额，这种思考方式首先就将西藏作为中国的一部分了。但西藏过去不是，现在也不是。当然英国人（一千年的时间成功的或抵御或同化了侵略者）也该有足够的视野明白西藏人并不认为西藏是中国的一部分。或者说这只是新瓶装旧酒的殖民主义观。是否支持中国的入侵，和西藏到底是个香格里拉还是“破败不堪”——我第一次听到这种民族中心论的观点——一点关系也没有。
和这位作者一样的人认为西藏被占领已经是个既定事实，所以你们西藏人（还活着的那些），你们算了吧，你们有自来水喝应该感到幸福无比，你们还能享受大街上高声放松的宣传广播。嘿，进步多好。
不过你，先生，没有在体现这些，恰恰相反。 西媒的论据，好象很有道理哦，那“民主的”法国，英国,德国，泰国，韩国，怎么经常有诉诸暴力呀!
难道同样是：这个恶性循环就无法终止，因为在没有言论自由的情况下诉诸暴力是人们的普遍选择！
还是 普遍NC？ 如果允许西藏从中国独立，那威尔士为什么不从英国独立？巴斯克为什么不从西班牙独立？库尔德为什么不从土耳其独立？克什米尔为什么不从印度独立？
这句。说的好啊！ "但没有媒体自由，没有选举权，这一切无从得知。"??????
有了这两点,就一定是幸福的吗??????
忽悠谁啊! 奇怪了，有自由的国家为什么还会有暴力和独立运动？
当然，我要求自由 懒得理西霉 。不过偶发的集体暴力事件，和紧随其后的同样的暴力镇压显示，很多人并不幸福。
--------------------
中国人幸福与否不是由西方人说了算的.
所以说那些支持西藏事业的人就错了吗？是不是该给这些感情用事的行为喊卡？那倒不必。其实这事不是藏文化的事，不是精神领域的事，甚至不是民族独立的事，而是政治。
-------------------------------------------
既然是政治,那为什么西方说的最多的却是宗教信仰,文化大灭绝.
西方媒体知道西藏存在的农奴制度。但是，为了反华，他们不愿意承认西藏民主改革得西藏农奴的心，并且把西藏描绘为一个被高度镇压、人民没有自由的区域。
中国是一个文化多元的国家，各地、各族文化是区别中有联系、联系中有区别。别说西藏文化与中国其他地区文化不同，西藏就要独立。那么，中国很多省份，不同地区，文化风俗等等都有很大不同，是不是也要分裂？中国文化有中国自己的凝聚力，所以中国才能在版图如此广大的情况下，各民族、文化、宗教仍能和平共处。中国和你们欧洲不同地，你们葫芦瓢一群，整不到一起，那是你们自己历史和文化的悲哀，不要以为你们自己无法和平相处，全世界其他的人能生活到一起就是不对的了。果然是国土太小的国家，小家子气流露得自然啊。
另：西方一贯自诩文明、自诩民主，现在却用民主而文明的臂膀，去推动一个宗教人事去搞政治事物。原来，西方的民主和文明，是推崇政教合一的啊！ 太可怕了。
他们对中国每一件事都持批判式态度。难道他们脑子里就只有反共吗?
这种根深蒂固的意识形态何时才会结束呢…… 可以和这位作者讨论哦，虽然他的观点不敢全部苟同，但却是个可以理性探讨的人
不错 本帖最后由 aha 于 2009-4-13 17:42 编辑
这文章原文评论很多，挑其中几条翻译，挂一漏万，陆续添加中。
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/08/tibet-china
DrJohnZoidberg
10 Apr 09, 5:50pm
good god. this is just plain propaganda of the most transparent sort and insulting to the tibetan people.
i hope the guardian didn't actually have to pay for this.
老天，这真是光天化日下明目张胆的宣传（propaganda,宣传，贬义词），完全侮辱西藏人民。
希望卫报不至于还要为此掏腰包。
MilesSmiles
10 Apr 09, 6:16pm
Tibet is a weak state between two large rival powers. If the Chinese weren't running it, then the Indians would be. I don't see the Tibetans being better off either way.
西藏是个弱国，夹在两个敌对的强权中间。中国人不占领，印度人也会占领。不管哪样，藏人的日子都不会好过。
Britoriental
10 Apr 09, 7:11pm
Good article. This ethnocentric thinking imposed by the NGOs in the West is against the Dalai Lama's teaching, as with independence cries.
The whole of China needs to politically modernise, which will in turn help the people in Tibet. The sovereignty issue is dead and buried; no country doubted this, even when China was weak and had $0 in the bank.
好文章。这个由西方NGO人员发表的有关种族中心论的思考挑战了达赖喇嘛的说教和那些声张独立的声音。
全中国都需要政治上的现代化，这也将帮助西藏的人民。主权问题不容侵犯；没有一个国家可以质疑，即使是在中国贫困虚弱之时。
gwale
10 Apr 09, 8:27pm
This article is a stunning example of willed ignorance of historical fact. Last I heard, the Nobel committee did not give the peace prize to a cartoon. As for the fabulous new modern Lhasa - you totally disregard the destruction of thousands of temples, torture, and genocide that preceded the inundation of the new, modern Tibet by Han people, who have starved out the Tibetans.
"Why should nationality be defined by language or ethnicity? If Tibetans should be allowed to break away from China, why not the Welsh from Britain, the Basques from Spain, the Kurds from Turkey, or the Kashmiris from India?"
Er, this kind of thinking presupposes that TIbet belonged to China in the first place. It did not and does not. Surely the English, having successfully either repelled or absorbed invaders for 1000 yrs, should have the perspective to see that Tibetans do not consider themselves part of China. Or maybe this is just the good old Colonialist view. Whether or not pre-Chinese invasion Tibet was Shangri-La or "a shabby backwater" -- an ethnocentric observation if I ever heard one - is utterly beside the point.
People like this writer assume that the takeover is a done deal so why don't the Tibetans, like, get over it and consider themselves (those of them still left) lucky to have running water - and screaming propaganda broadcast from the streetcorners. Hey, progress is good.
But you, sir, are not representing it. On the contrary.
这篇文章是个极好的例子，关于人们如何有意识的忽略历史事实的。就我所知，诺贝尔委员会不会将他们的和平奖颁给一副漫画。当你说起绚丽的摩登的拉萨，你完全漠视数以千计的庙宇的毁坏，种族屠杀，虐待。这些都发生在汉族人民将新的摩登的西藏铺天盖地之前，而正是这些汉人让藏族人饥饿并且屈服。
“为什么国籍要建立在语言和民族的基础上？如果允许西藏从中国独立，那威尔士为什么不从英国独立？巴斯克为什么不从西班牙独立？库尔德为什么不从土耳其独立？克什米尔为什么不从印度独立？”
额，这种思考方式首先就将西藏作为中国的一部分了。但西藏过去不是，现在也不是。当然英国人（一千年的时间成功的或抵御或同化了侵略者）也该有足够的视野明白西藏人并不认为西藏是中国的一部分。或者说这只是新瓶装旧酒的殖民主义观。是否支持中国的入侵，和西藏到底是个香格里拉还是“破败不堪”——我第一次听到这种民族中心论的观点——一点关系也没有。
和这位作者一样的人认为西藏被占领已经是个既定事实，所以你们西藏人（还活着的那些），你们算了吧，你们有自来水喝应该感到幸福无比，你们还能享受大街上高声放松的宣传广播。嘿，进步多好。
不过你，先生，没有在体现这些，恰恰相反。
duppyconqueror
11 Apr 09, 11:36am
“The problem about this is that the flow of finance has always been one way - from Chinese tax payers to Tibet.”
ah yes.
That is why it was known by Mao as the 'western treasure house'.
All those heavily laden trucks carry Timber and minerals heading east for the last 50 years were just practicing driving.
Have you no shame whatsoever??
The brutal Chiinese colonisation of Tibet is a crime on a par with the Colonisation of the Americas. Yet here you are defending China.
“问题是这种资金流始终是单向的——从中国纳税人流向西藏”
哦 是哦。
这就是为什么毛泽东称之为“西部大宝库”。
所以那些重型卡车50年来持续将木材和矿产运往东方，原来他们是在练习开车。
你到底有没有廉耻？？
中国人对西藏的残暴殖民是罪行，和美国殖民毫无二致。你却在这里为中国辩护。
MarkKearney
11 Apr 09, 2:50pm
The standard of living for most Tibetans is very low by our standards, but not much worse than most poor rural han Chinese. Yes, Tibet is police state, but only a somewhat more extreme version of the rest of the police state that is China. I think that the tension between ethnic groups, while it exists, is only a diversion from the real tension in China, that between rich and poor, between the majority made up of poor farmers and labourers, the new middle class, and the political elite.
以我们的标准看西藏人的生活水平相当低，但他们并不比偏远贫穷的中国汉族人差多少。的确，西藏现在是警察国家（state，不是我们说的国家，比如美国 UNITED STATES），但相对于中国的其他部分，只是一个稍微极端点的版本。我认为民族之间的矛盾，是的确存在，也只是中国真正矛盾的分支变种而已。贫富之间的矛盾，那些占大多数的穷苦农民和劳工，新兴中产阶级，和政治精英之间的矛盾，这些才是中国真正的矛盾。 看看读者的评论就知道西方媒体的反中宣传做得有多到位了，一提到西藏就知道是侵略，压迫，还以为自己掌握了真理 不知道究竟是谁“有没有廉耻”........ 連中國-西藏歷史都不懂的人，有什麼資格說話。
不如先讓美國的白人回到愛爾蘭那個小島吧，怎樣？ 可以和这位作者讨论哦，虽然他的观点不敢全部苟同，但却是个可以理性探讨的人
不错
brian.wang 发表于 2009-4-13 13:02 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
你从哪看出的理性？？？
举例说说看，来，说说。。。。
你从哪看出的理性？？？
举例说说看，来，说说。。。。
道行天下 发表于 2009-4-14 17:52 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
至少承认西藏在现代化，并且，大多数西藏人和内地汉人是一样的贫穷，不是西方一贯的汉人在剥削藏人的论调。 我觉得，和他们没什么好说的。说了也是白说，完全是浪费！
西方真正关心的是如何跟着奥巴马继续“faced down fascism and communism”。这么些年下来，中国人其实已经不太在意意识形态了，但是外国人恰恰相反，死盯着不放，只要意识形态、政治体制不和他们一样，口诛笔伐、有意识的歧视永远不会结束！从媒体和某些网友留言可以看出，他们顽固地把“共产主义”等同于“独裁”。个人觉得，他们这种类似于“非我族类，其心必异”似的偏执的思维方式才是真正的独裁——思想独裁！ 此文在加拿大第一大报环球邮报也有登出，读者评论下有些人把这篇文章看作是为中国西藏政策半辩护性质的。
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090409.wcotibet11/BNStory/specialComment/IAN+BURUMA
环球邮报de标题改为: 藏人高兴吗? 无从得知
Are Tibetans happy? There's no way of knowing 两边的留言都很多，不过西方人的看法一边倒。 But if Chinese propaganda paints too dark a picture of the Tibetan past, westerners who sympathise with the Tibetan cause are often too sentimental.
这句的前后两个分句并不是因果关系，“if”在这里的意思是“如果说一方面……那么不得不说另一方面……”。 殖民者入侵的最终目的是让本国发展最大化，给殖民地的好处只是顺便的。西藏那地方每年从从央行政府吸了多少钱？怎么能跟日本入侵别国相比？？？
页:
[1]
2