为什么临近去美国前好几个问题还是想不明白，求过来人指点

stq

Haha, yea, and you can't really blame them.  These people grew up listening to Cold War propaganda, which pretty much said communism is the root of all evils...China really isn't a communist country anymore, but they react to the name of the party.  I sometimes wonder how they would react if we just change the name of the party to sometime like "Chinese Democratic Party".

-- by 会员 REgirl07 (2010/5/23 13:08:11)

中国变化太快了。现在的政府除了名字以外和老毛那个政府几乎没有任何相同点，政策更是相差了十万八千里。
但要让老美接受这个事实确实有点困难，因为老美自己的社会极其的稳定，很少有政策上的大转变。

Deboisseu

LZ说的情况我也遇到过，不过是在欧洲的时候。这种冲突是有的，因为在美国，言论自由是非常非常深入人心的（美国宪法修正案第一条就是保护言论自由），所以在美国没有不可以谈的问题。谈到这些敏感话题是免不了的。对于大多数美国人来说，他们看问题还是很客观的，并不会针对你，这个中国人，或是针对中国国家来说。只是站在第三者的角度来分析事情是谁对谁错。他们说了藏独，台独肯定有他分析的道理，你听听是不是有道理，你觉得没有道理，就可以说你的道理，反驳他。你说的对，别人会支持你的。当然作为一个中国人，谁都想让自己的国家统一，强大，你的想法可以理解。
还有美国人不是不看自己的事情，事实上美国人是我知道最最知道反省的民族，就看奴隶制度的废除，其实就是一群自省的白人，和另一群白人，来为黑人的自由斗争。是美国人的自省，而自动废弃奴隶制。就是今天，你看看美国的新闻，非常少见说政府好，都是政府的丑事，抨击政府。水门事件曝光第一个也是有媒体揭露的。他们比政府的监督机关还要快。这就是言论自由的目的。几百年来沉淀下来的民主情节，如果想封住老百姓的口，不说敏感话题，恐怕要引起动乱的。所以，LZ遇到的情况是不可避免的。他们认为再敏感的问题，都能说，把问题说开了，对错就明晰了，也就不再敏感。克林顿当时的丑闻，人们对他的抨击其实不是在他出轨，我听美国朋友说，他还年轻，谁年轻不犯点错呢。可是当他把手放到圣经上之后，在听证会上说谎，就是作伪证。这在美国是刑事犯罪，他的道德就受到质疑。美国人要求总统可以是个笨蛋，像小布什，因为有健全的体制来维持国家运行，总统的能力并不重要。但是总统一定要在道德诚信和人品上受到家认可，这是国家的象征。美国人从来都不放松对自己的监督，和反思。用国父们的话来说，我们开国的总统们都是杰出的俊才，但谁知道以后的总统会是什么东西。

这里说的多了点，请不要见怪，但希望对你心中的疑惑有所帮助。我在此也没有说我的观点，我说内容都是有资料可以查询的，大多是我从书上看到的。所以LZ尽可相信。

-- by 会员 Deboisseu (2010/5/23 12:00:51)

To be fair, the Civil War mostly wasn't fought because of slavery, at least not in the sense of freedom for slaves.  There were diverging economic interests between the Northern and Southern states.  The Southern states depended heavily on agriculture and needed slaves for their plantations, whereas the Northerners didn't really care.  Southerners also hated Lincoln and wanted secession from the union to become their own country.  It was really a war for unification of the country than anything else.  

Anyways, I think most educated Americans are fairly open-minded.  They just tend to think that Chinese people are brainwashed by their government and state media and therefore know very little about the outside world and their own country.  That's probably partially correct, but I think they forget that the media here is also controlled by a few large corporations and are highly political (although not obviously so).  The key is to arm yourself with historical knowledge, both about your own country and others.  That way you can engage in intellectual debates and hold your ground.  But there's no point to get worked up; people disagree all the time.

-- by 会员 REgirl07 (2010/5/23 12:43:41)

我赞成你的观点，但是，可能你没有认真看我的贴，我没有提到过Civil war的事情。林肯传里面对这个有比较明白的说法,林肯说：如果不释放一个奴隶，而维持统一，我愿意这样做，如果释放一部分而保留另一部分，我也愿意，如果全部释放，可以维持统一，我为何不这样做呢。至于civil war的产生原因目前还是很有争议的话题。我很奇怪的发现CD上的朋友够把这个归结于经济，估计是受到了那篇Gmat阅读的影响。经济知识一方面的因素。回到我说的问题，美国对于废奴问题并不是civil war开始，只是歪打正着吧，在这里有个进展。如果你认真的读一读美国的独立宣言或联邦当人文集等开国时重要的文献，可以看到，在建国的时候，美国就规定了，建国20年之后，南方废奴。（林肯传和华盛顿传内都有记述）。这个废奴的决定完全是白人做的，建国的国父里，没有一个黑人。但是南方开始答应，到后来返回，一再延期。最重要分裂。这才引发了林肯要维护国家统一，而打仗。林肯说：国家的一旦分裂，恐怕再也不会统一，但是奴隶制度的废除是迟早的事情。

还是我上面说的，这里我所讲的，不重个人看法，大部分内容都是可以通过资料找到出处。有争议的话题，比如civil war的原因，这里不过多的说，如果有兴趣我们可以单独交流。

REgirl07

我赞成你的观点，但是，可能你没有认真看我的贴，我没有提到过Civil war的事情。

-- by 会员 Deboisseu (2010/5/23 13:36:06)

I will respond briefly since there's no point to debate this.  First, the divergence in economic interest had real implications on slavery.  At the time the Northern states were already well into the process of industrialization and had little need for slaves, and people were much more supportive of abolition.  However, the Southern states depended heavily on agriculture, and slavery was more of a "need" than a "want" since they needed slaves to work at the plantations.  As to the declaration, it was open to interpretation whether the founding fathers intended to include slaves in their "all men are created equal" declaration (contrary to your claim, slavery wasn't clearly intended to be outlawed at any future time), but evidently many of them owned slaves both at the time and many years later.  

Also, the economic interest association is not from gmat reading, but years of studying American history.  It was a required curriculum for me through out middle and high school; I also studied American economic history again during undergrad.  

Deboisseu

我赞成你的观点，但是，可能你没有认真看我的贴，我没有提到过Civil war的事情。

-- by 会员 Deboisseu (2010/5/23 13:36:06)

I will respond briefly since there's no point to debate this.  First, the divergence in economic interest had real implications on slavery.  At the time the Northern states were already well into the process of industrialization and had little need for slaves, and people were much more supportive of abolition.  However, the Southern states depended heavily on agriculture, and slavery was more of a "need" than a "want" since they needed slaves to work at the plantations.  As to the declaration, it was open to interpretation whether the founding fathers intended to include slaves in their "all men are created equal" declaration (contrary to your claim, slavery wasn't clearly intended to be outlawed at any future time), but evidently many of them owned slaves both at the time and many years later.  

Also, the economic interest association is not from gmat reading, but years of studying American history.  It was a required curriculum for me through out middle and high school; I also studied American economic history again during undergrad.  

-- by 会员 REgirl07 (2010/5/23 14:17:24)

你说的很好，但是我说过，civil war的原因是个争议性的话题，我在开始就没有谈到这个问题，这位朋友引出来，我也只能简单提一下。经济模式的差异的确是一个原因，就像你所列举的原因。但是绝对不是全部的原因。我的帖子只是想回答LZ就美国人对于敏感话题的谈论的问题。解决问题，而非引发对一个尚未有定论的问题的争议。解决这样的问题不是你我在此空口而谈的事情，是要花很多年，进行研究的。就算你今天说服了我，说服了CD上所有的朋友，CIvil war的产生原因依旧是议题。
还有，我们借以支持自己理论的证据不是归结于权威，大家都考过G，arguement的常见错误。按理说，你学了这么多年的历史，应该由很严谨的学术作风了才对。按你的理论这个问题早就解决了，听世界上最最知名的教授对这个问题的看法就行了。以理服人嘛，这样硬争你失去你的学者气度了。
Civil war 这样的问题，本来就是仁者见仁智者见智的事情，我在第一个贴中就是怕说不清，引了争议，避而不谈，只是借美国人废奴，表现其自我反省。就像你说的，civil war 和废奴关系不大，我也没说到civil war. 不过就你的背景开来，对自己专业沾边的事情，十分较真，也可以理解。
对了，具体是GMat还是T中的阅读说到经济原因引发Civil war 我记不清，不过各位XDJM应该有记得的。

REgirl07

你说的很好，但是我说过，civil war的原因是个争议性的话题，

-- by 会员 Deboisseu (2010/5/23 14:55:16)

I never said that was the only reason.  There's a saying that history is just "his-story"; it all depends on your prospect.  Anyways, my point (and I should've stated it sooner) was that the abolition of slavery wasn't purely an act of "justice" or self-reflection, just like the civil war wasn't a war of "freedom and justice".   You clearly understand this point, so it wasn't directed at you, but more so to others who like to uphold it as an example of "American justice".

Deboisseu

你说的很好，但是我说过，civil war的原因是个争议性的话题，

-- by 会员 Deboisseu (2010/5/23 14:55:16)

I never said that was the only reason.  You are right, there's no way to determine the real causes.  There's a saying that history is just "his-story"; it all depends on your prospect.  Anyways, my point (and I should've stated it sooner) was that the abolition of slavery wasn't purely an act of "justice" or self-reflection, just like the civil war wasn't a war of "freedom and justice".   It was just the outcome of a social struggle.

-- by 会员 REgirl07 (2010/5/23 15:09:55)

恩~有道理。呵呵，留个MSN或Q吧，有空交流交流。

caesar2005

作为站在世界各国顶峰的美国，其国民有一定的反省精神没什么奇怪的。但这个国家和民族从整体上看，还是一个赤裸裸的强盗国家。

Cortega

珍惜生命，远离政治

lennyrichard

一般我在工作中大家基本上都不会聊这类敏感话题，政治基本上都是大家默认不会碰的题目，包括宗教什么的。

生活中，更不太有人会说这类话题，一般都是人以群分。

对我个人而言，遇到了不同观点，就听听对方怎么说，如果对方善意呢，就也说说自己的想法；如果觉得对方和自己想法差异太大性格也不是太合适聊这个呢，就笑笑走开。包容各种不同的想法吧，世界本来就是多样化的。允许自己的立场存在，也允许别人的声音，这是我的想法。至于对方说到中国人如何如何的，我觉得，一般我是认真听听想想，自己身上有的毛病，就尽量克服。哪个地区种族的人都有特点，尽量把自己作好吧。

政治话题，历史话题，一般我不介入。

-- by 会员 ziye210 (2010/5/23 1:55:34)

一般不讨论政治，一定要谈也是因人而异，多交流客观事实，尽量少说自己的主观判断和推论，特别是对自己不了解（有时候自己都不知道自己了解的只是媒体想让你了解）的事实。

对于别人的观点，本着“多歧为贵，不取苟同。” 多了解自己不知道的新闻和历史，真感兴趣再回去上网查资料，没必要当场争个面红耳赤，因为政治体制本就没什么对错。何况很多时候，胜者王侯败者贼。