谈谈杀光中国人事件游行示威的得失 送交者: 直言

万得福

谈谈杀光中国人事件游行示威的得失 送交者: 直言 2013年11月11日12:53:30 于 [五 味 斋] 发送悄悄话

一个滑稽节目里杀光中国人的一句小儿戏言,竟然引起在美华人山崩地裂的过度反应。如不是美国媒体的常识和智慧,将其视作闹剧,不予重视,酿成国际事件都有可能。虽荒诞可笑,事件的后果,却令人痛心。
先从技术上分析一哈事件的起因。
吉米的节目,背景是前段时间的政府关门,主题是如何解决美国的债务,男孩说杀光中国人,纯粹是句玩笑话,吉米的应答,也是一句玩笑话,讽刺的,也是美国政府的窘境和无奈,属于黑色幽默。关于这点,我相信在愤怒声讨、示威游行者和认为是小题大做者之间,应该没有异议。否则,就是没有任何共同语言,也就无法讨论廖。
基于此,我们可以进一步探讨一哈玩笑的性质,以分析游行示威者的愤怒是否有道理。
所有玩笑,皆有合适不合适,和是否有恶意的两重属性。两者是完全不同的概念,不可混淆。玩笑的合适不合适,主要判断标准是是否令人感觉不适,尤其是当事人。一般来说,在生活中,令人感觉不舒服的玩笑,都是不合适的玩笑,哪怕不舒服的感觉完全是由于当事人缺乏幽默感,或气量不大造成。
而在本事件中,这种不舒服,除了当事者的中国人缺乏幽默感,内心由于缺乏自信、安全感而造成无雅量之外,尚且带有因语言障碍而导致的误解。
至于恶意,就语言本身,以及基于节目总体的上下文,则是绝对不存在的。原因如下:
一.吉米节目讽刺的对象是对债台高筑处理不力且不负责任的美国政府。不是中国,也与中国无关。中国在话题出现,仅仅因为是债主。
二.孩子的原话,是to kill everyone in China。而 to kill everyone in China 和 to kill every Chinese,就词义上说,是有本质区别的。前者是人的国籍甚至居住地属性,后者指人的族群或种族。举例来说,to kill everyone in Japan,不等于 to kill every Japanese;to kill everyone in Israel,不等于 to kill every Jew;to kill everyone in Africa,不等于 to kill every black。
不明白这个道理,就此断章取义,捕风捉影,强行得出结论,认为孩子,吉米,ABC,或迪斯尼的本意是种族歧视,欺负中国人,不敢针对犹太人、黑人用同样的语言,我认为,是我们中国人因为英语阅读能力不佳而造成的曲解。
两种情况,可以建立恶意。
一.如果节目的内容,是关于中国的,譬如中国人抢走了美国人工作机会,或对美国造成威胁云云,那么,同样的原话,被理解成带有恶意,就语言来说,或许合情合理。
二.如果吉米节目中孩子说的是 to kill every Chinese,那么,就词义上说,不仅有恶意,甚至可以被上纲上线拔高为种族仇视,种族灭绝,哪怕孩子内心并无此意,也都属于活该。
但以上两点皆不存在。另外,平心静气地说,如果债主不是中国,而是日本、英国、德国 或以色列,则话题中出现的将会是日本、英国、德国、以色列。那么,孩子的玩笑也就会变成杀了所有的日本人,杀了所有的英国人,杀了所有的德国人,杀了所有的以色列人了。从上下文判断,丝毫看不出孩子不会这么说。债主就是债主,黄世仁张世仁有什么区别聂?
换个场景。假设同样对话发生在一个债台高筑的家庭,债主是舅舅家,家长无所作为,并继续若无其事地大手大脚,花销无度,几个孩子看不过去,遂聚在一起冷嘲热讽,借用一句国内流行语,就是吐嘈,议论家长应该如何才算恰当,一小儿脱口而出,不如杀了舅舅全家,债务可一笔勾消,成年的哥哥评曰:草,真聪明。吉米这段节目,意思不过如此。
舅舅家如果听到,会怎么办?报警?抗议外甥家竟敢动杀人的脑筋?抗议外甥家歧视?凡是心智健全、脑筋正常的人,是不会去做这种傻事的。
即使不幸多疑,性情超级敏感,只要头脑正常,舅舅家因听到还债计划竟然是杀了债主全家这种荒诞儿戏而就此为自己借出的钱是否能分文不少的收回来倒还有几分道理。
因此,就此事愤怒讨伐、示威游行者不独因极度缺乏自信而内心脆弱,过于敏感从而容易悲愤,就人之常情上,也是站不住脚的。
我们的母语是中文,对英语不熟,原属正常;再加上我们中国人民族性格比较严肃,绷得一向比较紧,缺乏天然的幽默感,不懂笑话,同时又欠缺理性思维的传统,凡事不喜欢就事论事,依据基本事实去冷静分析,思考,而是性情冲动,先激动了再说。于是一听到杀光中国人,我们即笼而统之地由这句儿戏的玩笑话,迅捷地在第一时间推而广之,无限上纲,演绎成灭绝中国人这一关乎民族生存的大事。于是,我们的热血便沸腾了起来,愤怒也带上了反对种族歧视、甚至反对种族灭绝的悲壮的色彩和光环,让原本是件牵强附会的闹剧,变成了一项伟大的事业。吉米的节目也不幸被屈打成招,成了无幽默感、英文不佳、爱激动的中国人的牺牲品,也就不奇怪了。
只是,吉米的冤屈,ABC的冤屈,迪斯尼的冤屈,都不是什么大事;在世人眼里,此次事件真正可笑的是大惊小怪、沟通能力不佳的中国人,也都不是什么大问题。真正的问题,其实是,海外中国裔人士不经意暴露出来的忠诚所在。
众所周知,中国人虽遍布天下,移民历史亦不可谓不悠久,但在所在国家,社会地位一贯与其经济成就和对社会的贡献不相称。不仅在白人为主体的欧洲北美澳洲如此,即使在中东非洲中南美,甚至东南业,也是一样。一向被视为异类,一有社会动荡即动辄首当其冲成为牺牲品。
我们至今在悲愤使中国人成为美国历史上唯一被剥夺移民权排华法案的牺牲品。我们却没有明白,排华法案的根本原因,其实就是华人拒绝接受加纳国的价值挂念、生活方式,对接纳国毫无忠诚感。
这里的同学喜欢模仿黑人当年的民权运动,不懂得此举属东施效颦,其中一个原因,是没有明白黑人当年成功的深层原因。黑人当年之所以成功,除了天时地利的因素,具有高度政治智慧,战略眼光,深通人性世故,打悲情牌,强调并证明自己与白美国人一样,同为毫无贰心的忠诚的美国人,赢得大部分美国白人同情,是很有关系的。
艳羡黑人政治地位、却动辄为祖国悲愤的中国人懂得这个道理吗?
吉米的节目提到的中国,不是华裔的种族,而是国籍,作为一个外国的中国,就跟秃子头上的虱子一样明显,而艳羡黑人政治地位、却动辄为祖国悲愤的爱国人士恰恰看不明白。
俗话说,人在做,天在看。公道自在人心。既然你们自己都不将作为一个国家的中国和作为一个族裔的华人不加区分,一悲愤即混为一谈,那么,以后也就不要指望别人在你们需要帮忙的时候,将你们视为自己人,视为与白人、黑人无异的十足的美国人。

此次事件中海外华人的这类行为,不幸更进一步坐实了外籍人士对中国人是否有能力转移忠诚,将寄居国真正视为自己的国家,愿意与之同甘苦共患难。
所以,本事件最大的输家,绝对不是吉米,吉米至多是个roadkill,也不是ABC。ABC是做生意的,砍掉个节目,或为利,或为名,不过是生意的考虑。真正的输家,其实是打算在美国安家乐业的每一个我们。不,严格来说,是每一个我们的子弟。
中国人,尤其是海外的中国人,要谋求黑人的政治地位,应该缓行。中国人对西方的了解,对现代文明的认知程度,现代公民素养,皆惨不忍睹,与黑人不可同日而语,差得实在太远。由于中国人极其缺乏谋略,无政治智慧,见解幼稚,目前的要务,不是出头,而是低调,以求多福,连韬光养晦都谈不上,藏拙是也。
这是所有稍有点常识的中国人由此次闹剧应该得出的合理结论。

ssgo2008

这个文章太扯谈了。

archers

已阅

kaleege

SteelDragon 发表于 2013-11-12 11:10
这个比较搞笑。我土人们被欺负得最后需要别人来给伸张正义了。
前不久的NASA会议禁止华裔不就是例子吗？

要抗议nasa禁止华裔，就去抗议nasa禁止华裔。

奇怪的问题就在这里，
NASA，路虎男这些明显的欺负人的情况不去游行，不去抗议，
偏偏在ABC这种极有争议的问题上纠缠不休，

kaleege

这篇文章结尾有点太拍马屁，我也不是很赞成。

我最赞同的分析是一个ABC写的，比较客观的分析语义：
Jimmy Kimmel - kill everyone in China

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

All of Jimmy Kimmel’s lines transcribed from the video by me


“kill everyone in China? okay that’s an interesting idea…again.”
“you’re saying build a wall in China? a huge big great kind of a wall?”
“that will never happen”
“when you owe someone money, should you pay them back”
“but then they won’t lend you money anymore”
“should this country be forced to pay OUR own debts?”
-response: YES

“but you just said kill everyone in china a while ago…what happened to
that?”
“should we allow the Chinese to live?”
“well this has been an interesting edition of kids table: the lord of the
flies edition (LAUGHTER) I’d like to thank my correspondents ___….”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone, I am an American-born Chinese male and it has come to my
attention that a recent Jimmy Kimmel video has become the subject of much
controversy.


I’m here to give the Chinese community another (contrasting) perspective on
this issue, except this time it’s coming from someone who has lived in the
United States for his entire life, and I hope it allows everyone to have a
more balanced discussion.

First, the current consensus about Jimmy Kimmel’s position is that he is
completely guilty of slandering the Chinese people and that his comments in
the video were horrifically unjustified. From the point of view of someone
who is familiar with American culture, this consensus seems unfounded for
a few reasons. These following
arguments will take the video at face value and will not consider his
occupation or background as an American.


First is that when Jimmy Kimmel said that the child’s idea was “
interesting”, it doesn't necessarily mean that he’s actively supporting it
. The full definition of interesting as defined by Merriam Webster is “
holding the attention”. This means that JK did not actively voice support
for this suggested policy. It simply means that it attracted his attention
which could also mean that he finds it particularly surprising that a child
could possibly come up with such a cruel solution. A common argument that
has arisen is that JK shouldn't have even aired such slander; however, he
traps the child in a contradiction by leading him into the conclusion that
the United States should in fact pay their debts. He clearly and loudly asks
if “this country should be forced to pay…” after he makes it clear that
people should pay off their debts, and shows that since paying the debt is
obviously the morally correct choice, that the child’s argument of killing
the Chinese is fundamentally wrong both logically and morally when he asks:
“but you just said kill everyone in China a while ago… what happened to
that?”. In addition, the line “should we allow the Chinese to live?” is a
question, which means that it carries no opinion forward.

Second, the most important part of the show that I believe truly
contextualizes and casts JK in a completely different light is his comment
that the show was “the lord of the flies edition” of kid’s table. This
remark was immediately followed by a laugh track, marking it as clearly
understandable by the majority of the United States and making sure that it
is acknowledged by the audience. What a vast amount a lot of people may not
have is the experience of reading British author William Golding’s novel:
The Lord Of The Flies. The Lord of the Flies is a book that centers around
describing the human condition with a complete lack of constraints. The
story is about a group of boys who are stranded on a deserted island. At
first, they attempt to recreate a civilized society much like the one that
they’d left behind, but it quickly breaks down and they are reduced to
savagery. A critique on the true nature of humans, it describes the natural
human as nasty, vile, and brutal. The boys end up killing each other and
destruction prevails. An understanding of JK’s reference to the Lord of The
Flies is imperative to any discussion about JK’s message to the audience
because it shows that he believes that the children’s comments were much
like the behavior exhibited by the savage boys on the deserted island. This
means that JK truly does NOT believe that Chinese people deserve to be
killed, as he does end up portraying these kids as morally wrong.


Even though these lines of the video are crucial to his message, the media
outlets are skewing the general consensus about him. After inputting the
keywords “Jimmy Kimmel China” and clicking on the first link which is
provided below, I read an article that took his lines completely out of
context and even lies about the order! Here’s the excerpt from the article:


"America owes China a lot of money, $1.3 trillion," Kimmel told the children
. "How should we pay them back?"
"Shoot cannons all the way over and kill everyone in China," the boy said.
"Kill everyone in China? OK, that's an interesting idea," Kimmel said, then
asked the group, "Should we allow the Chinese to live?"
While one boy said, "No," most of the children said, "Yes," CNN said.


Now if you do a quick comparison of THAT article and the full catalog of
everything JK actually said in the video, you’ll find a few differences.
Differences that make all the difference when mulling over his innocence/
guilt.

The article completely fails to include the two major dialog that I spoke
about in the paragraph above, and the article also falsely places the blame
on JK for making the choice to air the segment. Since Jimmy Kimmel’s
occupation is clearly being an actor, it makes sense to come to the
conclusion that the person choosing what airs on TV is probably not the
actor, but other employees who are responsible for editing and scheduling
time-slots on TV. I have provided the excerpt below.


“LOS ANGELES, Nov. 1 (UPI) -- TV talk show host Jimmy Kimmel apologized to
the Chinese and Chinese-American communities for airing a little boy's
bloodthirsty remarks about attacking China.”


The media’s portrayal of JK has twisted the story and I believe that this
is very problematic because it’s giving the Chinese people a false cause to
rally behind. I am able to understand the entire
video’s cultural references so I’m assuming that most other Americans will
also come to some of the same conclusions that I came to. Even though I do
believe that the intent is noble, there is a problem because this isn't the
right rallying point.

Another view that could easily pardon JK is the fact that this "kid's table"
episode centered around the United State's debt crisis and possible ways to
solve it. The use of China as the country in question was done not because
JK is racist, but because it's a statement of fact to say that the United
States owes China a tremendous amount of money. The comments that he makes
are NOT racially charged as he doesn't stereotype any particular race at all
. In fact, the "killing" is a question of debtors and creditors i.e. "kill
the people we owe money to", not "kill Chinese people because they're bad".
He makes no racist argument like： “Chinese people are violent people". The
statements in the video make the country in question completely arbitrary,
which is another way to show that JK was not racist.

Now, let’s pretend that JK did in fact “agree” to the policy of killing
China’s people. I think it’s a valid argument to say that for most Chinese
people protesting, the first JK video they ever watched was the video in
question. I have actually been watching JK for years and I’m very familiar
with “Kid’s table”. Kid’s table is not meant to take kids seriously. In
fact, he intends for people to just have a nice laugh about the naivety and
the wide variety of dispositions that kids can display. If he were to “
agree” to the policy he would be doing his comical act and just playing
along for the laughs. In no way would JK actually take a child’s word and
legitimately try to send the message that the kid speaks the absolute truth.
Comedians by nature are also “offensive” in the United States, and the
Chinese community’s reaction is completely different than the reactions of
other races which may make this recent Chinese movement look bad because
American people have already come to accept the fact that comedy is a break
from reality and not to be taken seriously. American comedians are already
accustomed to poking fun at sensitive topics like: abortion, or gay rights.
The material of these comedians may seem extremely
offensive to some, but the nature of their job is to not be taken seriously
. This means that the recent protests could in fact backfire on the Chinese
and make the rest of the nation believe that the Chinese are over-reacting
to a trivial issue.


PART TWO:


Now let’s pretend that Jimmy Kimmel himself said: “yes that is a very good
idea”. I believe that the Chinese community that is calling for more out
of him (he has already apologized) is going way too far. He shouldn’t be
fired because this would have been a first offense, and he would have been
ignorant to any cultural norms he’d been infringing upon. He has already
issued a full, public apology and trying to inflict more suffering upon his
life would just be beating a dead horse with a stick. Instead, the Chinese
community would do better by showing itself as calm, and understanding that
all humans are fallible. From my point of view, it looks as if the movement
has moved from a political statement to a witch-hunt.


Here’s what I believe to be a better solution to the current situation:


First, calling for the punishment of someone who wronged someone because of
racial prejudices. Sound familiar? That’s because it was a significant
rallying point for the African American community during the recent Trayvon
Martin trials. The problem is that the “solution” was an attack on the
result of the problem. The better solution would have been going for the
source of the problem as these protests on isolated, publicized incidents
don’t actually provide the proper avenue to a successful change. If JK is
fired, so what? The Chinese people do not take a step forward because the
real problem was the boy who suggested the policy in the first place. His
ignorance made him say that cruel statement on television and JK being fired
has absolutely no affect on today’s racist youth. The only way for the
community to overcome this racism is to have today’s population be educated
on the true nature of the Chinese people and why we deserve the same
recognition as human beings. This would solve for the root problem of racism
as not only would the child have not made that comment at all, but it
becomes a more universal band-aid to all future wrongs too in that it helps
prevent future problems from arising. What I think the Chinese people should
be rallying for is reform of the US public education system to include the
labors of the Chinese people in its curriculum, because I also believe that
without a doubt that the child’s suggestion to kill all the Chinese people
was horrifically inexcusable and should never have happened. Currently, it
is mandatory for public schools to teach about the Japanese internment camps
that imprisoned Japanese-Americans during WWII. This teaching curbs the
racism that could occur as a result of WWII as it humanizes them and shows
the American public that they are also people with their own lives. I think
that including more information about the hard work of China’s immigrants
would definitely increase the respect and recognition for the current
population of China living in the United States and overseas.


Finally, I’d like to pre-empt some arguments that people might have


POLITICIANS ARE SAYING THAT HE SHOULD BE FIRED:

politicians are primarily motivated by the vote, so citing them as a
credible source for a compelling reason to do bad things to Jimmy Kimmel
doesn’t make sense because their public actions are all carefully
calculated for the best possible public reaction.


COMEDY SHOULD HAVE LIMITS. COMEDIANS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO SAY THESE
KINDS OF THINGS:

if comedy cannot offend anyone, then no medium for entertainment could ever
exist as there’s always going to be at least one minority group that is
offended by the medium. If you’ve read Fahrenheit 451, Captain Beatty tells
Guy Montag that all the reading and mediums for expression were banned
because everything offended at least one minority.


HIS APOLOGY WASN'T SINCERE

What is he supposed to do then? either A: he doesn't apologize which makes
everyone angry, or B：he apologizes and everyone claims that he's not
speaking the truth


Thanks you for your time, and I hope you’ll be able to understand and
consider my point of view

ssgo2008

ThinkShine 发表于 2013-11-12 13:10
为什么呀，具体说说哪里扯淡？我怎么觉得挺有道理的呢。

在美国凡是威胁杀个人的言论是违法的，杀种族的的言论是Hate Crime.
小孩说杀掉中国人是为了逃债，是符合逻辑的，因为杀了债主的确就可以不还债。
这小孩说那话不是家长教育问题就是制片人教的。如果是家长的教育问题，这说明他家里是歧视黄种人的，把种族屠杀当成理所当然的。如果是制片人教就说明制片人没把中国当回事， 当成是讥讽的对象。 而且小孩说了这话后，制片人也没反驳教育，完全把这当成一种可以接受的言论，轻松放过去了。虽然今天美国政府不能也不会把中国怎么样， 可是有些美国白人还是有很深的种族歧视，一旦条件成熟，他们很可能对华人进行攻击，我也见到过白、西班牙小孩大叫中国人滚蛋，俗话说小儿吐真言。这些人是华人潜在的敌人，如果不反击，试想一下种族份子威胁你的家人， 回头说是个玩笑， 你觉得合理吗？不对这种言论打击， 以后华人被种族份子杀了， 陪审团判无罪， 你怎么办？

kaleege

ssgo2008 发表于 2013-11-12 14:09
在美国凡是威胁杀个人的言论是违法的，杀种族的的言论是Hate Crime.
小孩说杀掉中国人是为了逃债，是符 ...

我觉得你们大概都是填鸭式权威式家长式教育受多了，听不惯引导式平等式启发式的教育，主持人的话明显都是引导小孩自己去做出相反的结论，难道只有硬邦邦地教训“你这样不对，不许这样说”才是更好的教育方式？至于什么把“interesting”当成是同意和背书，简直是颠倒黑白，不是故意断章取义，就是对美国人说话习惯不了解。

小孩如果是自发说出这样的话，肯定学校或者家长有问题，但是我没看出主持人有任何问题，ABC也没有任何问题，喜剧节目本来就是展现一种荒谬，讥讽的对象恰恰是用小孩来讥讽美国政客。更何况主持人说这是《蝇王》版本的parody，《蝇王》本身就是类似于大逃杀，hunger game，讲孩子之间的政治，最后走向残酷杀戮的书。总不至于说《蝇王》的作者和出版社也有问题吧。
部分白人对华人有歧视不假，但也不是每个白人都对华人有歧视，也不是白人的每一个行为都是歧视。草木皆兵对华人没有好处。红脖子那些真正歧视的行为没看到有人去出头，对弱势群体比较友好的左翼媒体反倒要去抗议一番。结果不是让华人更有地位，而是更加孤立。更让人受不了的是mitbbs上某些人那种self-righteous的态度，只有去抗议了才是爱国，才是争取平等，反对抗议的都是政治不敏感，自卑自恨。要是真都这么政治敏感，平时看到诸如路虎男被打，NASA会议被禁这种事情，一个个都躲到哪儿去了？如果真是对平等那么敏感，为什么整天张口闭口泥哥，棒子，阿三，黑鬼，把男尊女卑看作理所当然？真是会装。

ssgo2008

kaleege 发表于 2013-11-13 11:45
我觉得你们大概都是填鸭式权威式家长式教育受多了，听不惯引导式平等式启发式的教育，主持人的话明显都是 ...

主持人不但不说任何东西，也没剪掉这个，还说 “should we allow Chinese to live?" , 没问题才怪呢。

kaleege

ssgo2008 发表于 2013-11-13 11:49
主持人不但不说任何东西，也没剪掉这个，还说 “should we allow Chinese to live?" , 没问题才怪呢。 ...

语境，语境，这句话明显就是归缪。其中的意思就是“我们总不能不让人活吧？”
again，这不是填鸭式教育，我就告诉你答案，你不可以不让人活，而是一个引导式问题，你应不应该不让人活？让你自己去找答案。这个问题的问法是：把问题中荒谬性凸现出来摆在你面前，为了让答案更加明显。

kaleege

ssgo2008 发表于 2013-11-13 11:49
主持人不但不说任何东西，也没剪掉这个，还说 “should we allow Chinese to live?" , 没问题才怪呢。 ...

主持人不说任何东西吗？你确定你完整地看过了视频？如果没看过，我转载的英文评论里面有完整script，建议你完整地回顾一下。

其中主持人立场最明显莫过于其中这句话：
“should this country be forced to pay OUR own debts?”
-response: YES
“but you just said kill everyone in china a while ago…what happened to
that?”

这是什么？就是归缪，主持人抓到了小男孩话中自相矛盾，把这种矛盾摆回他面前。
如果主持人是同意小孩的，为什么要去抓他的矛盾？

我真觉得，大多数人的阅读理解真有问题。

ssgo2008

kaleege 发表于 2013-11-13 12:07
主持人不说任何东西吗？你确定你完整地看过了视频？如果没看过，我转载的英文评论里面有完整script，建议 ...

这个矛盾问题是中性的，他也没说杀中国人是错的， 比如说我要出去玩， 后来又说不出门了， 有人指出这个矛盾， 他是想出去还是不想？ 这个谁也不知道。你根据你的屁股有这个观点也就无所谓，  由此发动人身攻击就是太没人品了。

kaleege

ssgo2008 发表于 2013-11-13 13:24
这个矛盾问题是中性的，他也没说杀中国人是错的， 比如说我要出去玩， 后来又说不出门了， 有人指出这个 ...

首先，我什么地方人身攻击了？

其次，我一再说，这是引导式教育，不是家长权威式教育，你一再说，他没说杀中国人是错的，我们是在两个频道上各说各的。你非就得觉得说“这是错的，你不可以这样说”才是唯一可接受的教育方式。

令我联想到上次MIT版画事件，本来把这些辱华宣传搬出来就已经很明显了，观众自己会有判断。一群义愤填膺的抗议人士也是说，你光把那些历史版画搬出来不行，你没说这些版画都是错的。这大概真的跟中国的教育习惯有关，中国学生不习惯独立思考自己下结论，不习惯被问一个开放式问题，受教育的时候都必须老师帮你总结好结论教给你才行。

OckhamT1

kaleege 发表于 2013-11-13 12:07
主持人不说任何东西吗？你确定你完整地看过了视频？如果没看过，我转载的英文评论里面有完整script，建议 ...

在这个问题上，你是小事上聪明，大事上糊涂。你确实分析清楚了细节的点，确实忽视了整体的面。

这个事件的根本原因鸡毛和ABC吗？我看不是。一个事件的发生与发展，背后必然有更深一层的原因和更宽泛的背景。

OckhamT1

kaleege 发表于 2013-11-13 13:36
首先，我什么地方人身攻击了？

其次，我一再说，这是引导式教育，不是家长权威式教育，你一再说，他没说 ...

西方媒体长期辱华，西方影视作品恶意丑化亚裔形象，美国第一代华人不公平的竞争环境，第二代华人不公平的教育政策，美国华人人口组成比例的改变都是这次事件发生的原因。

这次不因为ABC而抗议，下次会因为别的事情而抗议，美国华人作为新型政治力量出现在历史舞台是历史发展的必然，不是哪一件事情或那一个组织导致的，是所有社会力量的合力所导致的，每一股社会力量却都在影响着事件的发展，所有这些力量的平行四边形的合力指向了事件的结果。

更为重要的大环境，我以前提到的，中美争霸，绕不过去的，我们就生活在这样一个时代，没办法。

ssgo2008

kaleege 发表于 2013-11-13 13:36
首先，我什么地方人身攻击了？

其次，我一再说，这是引导式教育，不是家长权威式教育，你一再说，他没说 ...

"我真觉得，大多数人的阅读理解真有问题。"
人家不同意你的解读，就是“阅读理解真有问题”了？

kaleege

OckhamT1 发表于 2013-11-13 14:32
在这个问题上，你是小事上聪明，大事上糊涂。你确实分析清楚了细节的点，确实忽视了整体的面。

这个事件 ...

我倒觉得是抗议的人抓错了细节，而忽视了整体。

这个小孩会把杀人这种事情当作玩笑说出来，肯定是这孩子受的教育有问题，
有问题的地方在于这个孩子特殊的成长环境，应该责问一下学校，街道或者家长。

问题不在鸡毛或者ABC。鸡毛的主持更没有任何说错的地方。

华人有没有被歧视的时候，当然有，那么就要找一个确证无误的歧视的例子来抗议，
你要抗议，至少要让人觉得有理有据，抗议要找准抗议的方向，
方向都打不准，只会让人觉得无理取闹，对华人更加不利。
不是说，只要这个社会有歧视，那么我怎么抗议都对。

OckhamT1

kaleege 发表于 2013-11-13 16:52
我倒觉得是抗议的人抓错了细节，而忽视了整体。

这个小孩会把杀人这种事情当作玩笑说出来，肯定是这孩子 ...

呵呵，咱俩看问题的角度不一样，很明显你的思想比我更加偏西方。

这里我要分析一下为什么会在ABC和鸡毛身上出问题，因为他们是西方媒体的代表，这次反抗的不是ABC这个个体，而是整个西方媒体和他们长期反华和丑化华裔的现象，这些问题长期以来就让很多华人不爽，这次终于有一个宣泄口，还不抓住机会？你说的路虎男和NASA，没有这个背景，所以引不起大多数人的共鸣，也就是说这些事件不具备引发大规模群体事件的群众基础。“西媒辱华和丑化华裔”这个因素激化了那些第一代移民当中民族感情深厚的那批人。

第二，为什么会上纲上线到宣扬种族屠杀？原因很简单，因为这个策略最实用。大陆的近代史教育已经打下了非常好的铺垫，近几百年的中国历史就是中国人民被外族奴役屠杀的屈辱史，这种心理已经成为了我们这一代人的一个集体心理路标，民族主义就是干柴上的汽油，一点就着。这是这个事件的民族心理基础，引起了所有人的共鸣。

第三，这个节目内容还涉及了另一个敏感话题，国债。这个问题牵扯到了中国政府的卖国政策，绝大多数中国人对这么大金额的美债是耿耿于怀，尤其考虑到国内现在其他各种社会问题，民怨极大。ABC不识时务在这个问题上“开玩笑”，纯粹自找麻烦，这个因素激化美国华人里面的爱国青年。

第四，这个节目是一个儿童节目，杀光中国人是从一个白人小孩口里说出来的，牵扯到下一代教育，和下一代的安全，这个因素激化了美国的有孩大妈一族。

这个节目涉及“西媒辱华”，“种族屠杀”，“巨额国债”，“下一代安全”的元素，分别激化了美国华裔里的好多阶层，这些阶层的力量共同作用，想不出事都难。这个视频一出来，我就断定一定会闹大。

osculation

老万同学有闲了，欢迎欢迎