【桐音别馆】民族主义，或者是民主主义------由希特勒想到的民族主义，或者是民主主义
这篇文章的由头是这个周末断断续续看完了的“Hitler: the rise of a evil”。
这部长达三个小时的电视电影由于犹太人组织的抗议只是对希特勒本人作了简单而纯粹恶魔化的描写，同时有一些历史事实上的疏忽。然而它仍然是精彩的，因为它完全让我感觉到了，（同时也是历史的事实），处于那个时代的德国人，完全有充分的理由选择希特勒。这不能不让我开始绕过希特勒本人，开始思考这个问题背后的原因。
影片中那个明智然而不得好死的记者似乎接近了真相，“他（希特勒）熟悉人们心中的仇恨并且会去利用。”可是，即使人们都有仇恨，仇恨本身是不可以被利用的，除非人们的仇恨都来自于同一个方向。二三十年代的德国人的仇恨的共同来源，是民族主义。
一战德国的失败，除了美国参战之外，另一个最重要的原因就是德国国内革命。所以很多德国人觉得输得窝囊。再加上革命后成立的魏玛共和国签订的凡尔登条约被认为是“丧权辱国”，德国人的心里面已经是非常压抑了。这时你看电影里面希特勒在法庭上咆哮：“那些签订了凡尔登条约的人，才是叛国！”听到他撕心裂肺的大喊：“他们要削弱我们，我们将证明我们将重新强大起来 (more...)
和平崛起？还要多谢911。
Actually a lot of Chinese wants a new napoleon. Of the many Chinese from the older generation I have met, especially those that is relatively uneducated, the common speech they will render upon me is that “如果主席还在。。。印尼华人屠杀事件就会。。。某某搞民族分裂分子就会。。。。。。”
But personally I feel that the current Chinese leaders are doing the right things. Its in fact very heartening to see that Chinese is finally making a comeback, after so many years of being conquered, invaded and stamped on. But it is not the time to be proud. China definitely cannot have a new Napoleon. Thinking back of Pre-911 United States, the “common enemy” that was infused into their political imagination is not the Islamic extremist today, or the High Tech workers from Bangalore, India (who stole their job). In fact, before 911 happen, the rising Chinese power was the main issue which Bush demonize and seek to exploit politically.
Of course, as it turns out, America’s stance in the international political arena is significantly weakened through their own doings after 911. In comparison, Chinese government had made a right move through various soft influences on regional politics. By always being a colonized and weak nation through most of contemporary history, China can appear to be sincere as she seeks corporations with regional countries. In addition, many of the diplomatic moves are excellently crafted such that they had effectively transformed the “china threat to regional economies" into a “china as a new responsible regional power” that countries can gravitate and look up to.
The important thing is that the current trade between America and china is very single directional. While china is still depends on export oriented growth (and import of technologies!), America is a very closed economy. American’s international economic exposure is currently measly 4-6% of their GDP, while contemporary China is still a largely export oriented economy which depends on constant FDI (a steroid economy). Anytime, it is possible for the US economy to just switch direction and distance itself from the “international trade” thing they had been singing all these while. This single sided dependency will cause china problem if that happens. I personally feel that china should remain as a soft power, until the point where its influence (and export to US) is too significant to be ignored/cutoff/countered by America. Until the point where Chinese has a credible machinery of war (say what u like, America currently owns more than half the world’s weaponry). Or until a point where the local consumer economy can take off such that it can depend less on export oriented growth or FDI.
An important issue remains that eventually China and the west will clash when China tries to claim a larger share of the world’s resource. The reserve for petroleum is a huge problem that will escalate once production peaks, and go on a general decline (this will happen in less than 5 yrs by many estimates). America currently has Iraq (oil), what do china has? What can China do? At that point, its too difficult to portray oneself as a soft power or a nice guy.
I was tempted to say that Chinese needs a Lincoln, a leader who can unite the people. But it’s a wrong, because Lincoln is only a history book hero. In reality, American civil war started not because of emancipation of the blacks, but because of the secession of the southern states (trying to break away from US). Lincoln waged war just for his selfish reasons, and later used emancipation to look good. It’s as good as Bush conquering Iraq saying that there is WMD, then changing his line to “bringing democracy to people” later on. Or can I ever say that Chinese need a new ideal which unites the race. The French had their equality, fraternity and liberty. But look at history, Napoleon imposed such values on the conquered countries. Most noble values that allege to be “self standing” often time had to be imposed on others by use of force. Just check out democracy and what the arabs are facing.
Chinese is lucky because 911 diverted US’s attentions. Currently US is weak diplomatically that it is eager for anyone’s help in the war on terror. I guess the most crucial question confronting China now is Modernization. Is middle class consumption based Capitalism and four year a time election type democracy the Ideal for China? Are these values universal? That being rich is to have a middle class consuming desperately to match an unlimited want? Or will it be possible that Chinese can stop bowing down endlessly and mindlessly to the monolithic democracy debate that the west panders, and come out with our own value system, a different set of ideals?
Whats the use of winning, when in the end, you are just like what you are fighting against?
But personally I feel that the current Chinese leaders are doing the right things. Its in fact very heartening to see that Chinese is finally making a comeback, after so many years of being conquered, invaded and stamped on. But it is not the time to be proud. China definitely cannot have a new Napoleon. Thinking back of Pre-911 United States, the “common enemy” that was infused into their political imagination is not the Islamic extremist today, or the High Tech workers from Bangalore, India (who stole their job). In fact, before 911 happen, the rising Chinese power was the main issue which Bush demonize and seek to exploit politically.
Of course, as it turns out, America’s stance in the international political arena is significantly weakened through their own doings after 911. In comparison, Chinese government had made a right move through various soft influences on regional politics. By always being a colonized and weak nation through most of contemporary history, China can appear to be sincere as she seeks corporations with regional countries. In addition, many of the diplomatic moves are excellently crafted such that they had effectively transformed the “china threat to regional economies" into a “china as a new responsible regional power” that countries can gravitate and look up to.
The important thing is that the current trade between America and china is very single directional. While china is still depends on export oriented growth (and import of technologies!), America is a very closed economy. American’s international economic exposure is currently measly 4-6% of their GDP, while contemporary China is still a largely export oriented economy which depends on constant FDI (a steroid economy). Anytime, it is possible for the US economy to just switch direction and distance itself from the “international trade” thing they had been singing all these while. This single sided dependency will cause china problem if that happens. I personally feel that china should remain as a soft power, until the point where its influence (and export to US) is too significant to be ignored/cutoff/countered by America. Until the point where Chinese has a credible machinery of war (say what u like, America currently owns more than half the world’s weaponry). Or until a point where the local consumer economy can take off such that it can depend less on export oriented growth or FDI.
An important issue remains that eventually China and the west will clash when China tries to claim a larger share of the world’s resource. The reserve for petroleum is a huge problem that will escalate once production peaks, and go on a general decline (this will happen in less than 5 yrs by many estimates). America currently has Iraq (oil), what do china has? What can China do? At that point, its too difficult to portray oneself as a soft power or a nice guy.
I was tempted to say that Chinese needs a Lincoln, a leader who can unite the people. But it’s a wrong, because Lincoln is only a history book hero. In reality, American civil war started not because of emancipation of the blacks, but because of the secession of the southern states (trying to break away from US). Lincoln waged war just for his selfish reasons, and later used emancipation to look good. It’s as good as Bush conquering Iraq saying that there is WMD, then changing his line to “bringing democracy to people” later on. Or can I ever say that Chinese need a new ideal which unites the race. The French had their equality, fraternity and liberty. But look at history, Napoleon imposed such values on the conquered countries. Most noble values that allege to be “self standing” often time had to be imposed on others by use of force. Just check out democracy and what the arabs are facing.
Chinese is lucky because 911 diverted US’s attentions. Currently US is weak diplomatically that it is eager for anyone’s help in the war on terror. I guess the most crucial question confronting China now is Modernization. Is middle class consumption based Capitalism and four year a time election type democracy the Ideal for China? Are these values universal? That being rich is to have a middle class consuming desperately to match an unlimited want? Or will it be possible that Chinese can stop bowing down endlessly and mindlessly to the monolithic democracy debate that the west panders, and come out with our own value system, a different set of ideals?
Whats the use of winning, when in the end, you are just like what you are fighting against?
Huasing Association 1999 - 2013