http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/responding-to-chinese-grievances/

Responding to “Chinese Grievances”

                        The following text is from Robert Daly,Center for Global Chinese Affairs Director at University of Maryland.The text was written as a private message to a friend, and is nowre-posted by CDT with author’s permission.


Chinese Grievances (CDT published as My Friends, What Do You Want From Us? on April 12, 2008)


When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion!
When tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed- xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don’t hate you.
We don’t hate you either,
But, do you understand us?
Of course we do, you said,
We have AFP, CNN and BBC’s…
What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer…
Because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
Actually, the Japanese were called the “Yellow Peril.” Kaiser WilhelmII coined the term after Japan defeated China in the firstSino-Japanese War in 1895. I accept the broader point—that there is aracial component to Western worries about China—but it’s best to beclear about the historical facts. And while the racial element isthere, that doesn’t mean that western attitudes can be reduced toracism. The illegitimate aspects of Western fears do not prove thatthere are no legitimate grounds for concern.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
Well, yes. Welcome to the club. “Superpower” has never been anunalloyed compliment. China, as you know, has been a leading critic ofAmerican hegemony.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
True. That was bad. It is also true that most of the opium smoked inChina during the period referred to was grown in China and, of course,transported and smoked by Chinese. That doesn’t excuse Western perfidy,but it does cast doubt on the simplistic Evil Foreigners/InnocentChinese narrative that is peddled in much Chinese writing about theperiod. It is also true that, during the same period, the“imperialists” brought the first universities, modern hospitals,women’s education, railroads, streetlights, etc., to China. You mightfairly respond that Chinese were perfectly capable of adapting thefruits of modernity to China in their own time and manner, withoutarrogant foreigners forcing these things upon them while violatingChina’s sovereignty, exploiting its natural resources, etc. This is theclassic argument between colonizers and colonized. Interestingly, Chinanow stands on the colonizer side of the discussion when it defends itsactions in Tibet by pointing out how investment has saved the Tibetanpeople from their own feudal, backward ways. How worms do turn.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
It’s a complicated issue, but the West can be tagged with somehypocrisy on this one. Sorry about the whining. And hey,congratulations on raising the standard of living of so many people.The Chinese have worked hard and deserve to live more comfortably.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
There was some marching, but it wasn’t all that bad in the grand schemeof things. Take a look at the experience of countries that were reallycolonized, like the Belgian Congo, to put China’s experience inperspective. Again, the forcing open of China’s door brought benefitsto China together with the insults and exploitation. See the “What did the Romans ever do for us?” scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion!
The history of Sino-Tibetan relations is more complex that either thePeople’s Daily or the Free Tibet movement claim. For a balanceddiscussion, listen to the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations’recent conference call at here.  
When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
True, more or less. And China hated America for being a capitalistliberal democracy. It was a hate- and fear-filled time all around.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
Not exactly. But America does fear China, in part, because China isgaining wealth and power through following (with Chinesecharacteristics) prescriptions that were offered by the West.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
The United States is obviously not in any position to offer a moralcritique of environmental destruction wrought by other nations. But itis in an excellent position to offer observations from environmentalscience, to describe best practices based on long experience, and topromote greener technologies in concert with the many Chinese, in andout of government, who are concerned about China’s poisoning of its ownland, air, and water. The complaint in this line is symptomatic of oneof the most dangerous (and charmless) Chinese psycho-rhetorical moves:the tendency to focus on the emotional responseto a critique—the perceived insult—rather than the factual claims of acritique. My suggestion is that the Chinese ignore the insults,evaluate the facts, and clean up China’s environment for the sake ofthe Chinese themselves.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
The issue was not the goal, but the methods. In my experience, mostChinese support the One Child policy, at least in theory, even as theyare saddened by it. This difficult moral equation is best worked out bythe Chinese themselves. But I would have more confidence in China’sability to create an effective and humane population policy if everyaspect of the issue could be openly debated and continuallyre-evaluated.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
This is untrue, and the self-pity in the line is worrisome. America’slong record of sympathy for China’s poverty is one of the brighterspots in the history of bilateral relations. Americans have donatedmoney, materiel, expertise, and, in some cases, their lives toalleviate Chinese suffering. While China’s great material progress isdue primarily to the hard work and sacrifice of the Chinese people, onewould be hard-pressed to point to any aspect of China’s developmentthat has no connection to the United States. There was somecondescension and self-aggrandizement in American sympathy for China,but it’s an imperfect world and motives are always mixed.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
Yeah.  Sorry about that.  And thanks for the cash.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
China’s industries aremajor polluters, as China itself acknowledges. America is a majorpolluter too. We must work on the issue together. Again, the tone ofthe line is worrisome: one should be able to point out, as a matter offact, that a country is producing a lot of pollution, without beingaccused of “calling that nation a polluter.” A doctor who tells apatient she has cancer is not calling that patient “cancerous,” orasserting his superiority, or claiming that he has never had or doesnot currently have cancer himself. He is simply taking an essentialstep on the road to a cure.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
I think we’ve covered this one.  I’ll try not to be as redundant in my comments as the author was in his or her indictment.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
No one has said that buying oil is genocide. What has been said is thatarming and abetting an oil-rich government that slaughters its ownpeople makes one complicit in genocide. The point seems too obvious tospell out, as is the point that the American government hasunderwritten more than its share of noxious regimes.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
I don’t want to defend the invasion, but I should point out thatAmericans do not speak of “The Liberation of Iraq.” They call it simply“The Iraq War,” and most of them oppose it. They oppose it freely inprint, in film, and on street corners. They are free to criticize theirgovernment’s positions, to unpack their government’s propaganda, and tonot vote for politicians who support the war.
Sorry to get up on the soapbox. Two of the nice things aboutdefending American positions, no matter how wrongheaded they may be,are (1) in a pluralistic society, there is no such thing as “theAmerican position” because the government doesn’t have a monopoly onmeaning. There is therefore no such thing as the unitary “You” in China’s Grievances.(I don’t believe in the unitary “We” either.) (2) No foreign critiqueof the United States is ever as scathing, informed, or effective ascritiques offered by Americans themselves. That gives us a thick skin,confidence, a certain immunity to insult.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
No. Deng Xiaoping set China on the road toward Rule of Law so that thatChina, in its own interest, could escape from chaos by attractingforeign investment, technology, and managerial expertise.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
“Law and Order” is not the same thing as “Rule of Law.”   
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
Sure.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed- xenophobics.
Americans are too quick to call the Chinese by unpleasant names:brainwashed, xenophobic, nationalistic. This impulse hurts Americanunderstanding of what is really occurring in China. But asking youropponents where they get their information, requesting that they makereasoned arguments that consider all of the available evidence, andsuggesting that serious historians be consulted in discussions ofhistory is not the same thing as name calling.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don’t hate you.
We don’t hate you either,
Glad to hear it. One of the things that has concerned me about thisspring’s dustups is that they have created the impression thatAmericans are anti-Chinese and Chinese are anti-American. Neither istrue. I’ve worked in U.S.-China relations for 22 years, spending equalamounts of time in both countries. There are blowhards in both nations.On balance, however, our mutual fascination outweighs our mutualfrustration. The Chinese are gracious hosts, are internationallyminded, and are more patriotic than nationalistic. Americans areinterested in and impressed by China. That is why we welcome so manyChinese to our universities, our workplaces, and our families.
But, do you understand us?
When most of my Chinese friends use phrases like “understand China,”they really mean “accept China’s understanding of itself” or, morespecifically, “accept the Chinese Communist Party’s interpretation ofthings (the π˙«È).” But nobody gets to be viewed only as they wish tobe viewed. People are smarter than that. My understanding of China isno doubt incomplete (how could it be otherwise?), and is certainlydifferent than the CCP’s, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate. Thereare innumerable Chinese “understandings” of China just as there areinnumerable American understandings of America. Perhaps we’d be betteroff if we dropped talk of “understanding” altogether.
Of course we do, you said,
We have AFP, CNN and BBC’s…
The writer is simply putting words into the mouth of an American straw man.
What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer…
Excellent question. I don’t think Americans know the answer. It willtake time to figure out. China’s growth over the past two decades iswithout precedent or historical analogy. It has major implications forevery sphere of human endeavor. But China is changing and thoseimplications are evolving so rapidly that it is impossible to come toany conclusions about them. How are we to evaluate China’s progress andproblems? We don’t have an adequate measure yet. We couldn’t possiblyhave. China doesn’t know what to make of its progress either. As Dengsaid, it is crossing the river by feeling for stones. But we do knowthat the stakes are high. That is one of the reasons that events inChina are watched with the closest scrutiny and subjected to the mostskeptical analysis by non-Chinese. The whole world has a stake in whatChina becomes so, yes, the world asks questions and, no, the world willnot take the Chinese government’s word for anything without conductingits own investigations. Congratulations are due to China and arefrequently given. But the West, the East—everyone—like the Chinesethemselves, has reason to ask where China is heading.
Because you only get so many chances.
Don’t end on a threat.  It undermines your declared interest in peace.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
Plenty of hypocrisy to go around. But hypocrisy is an easy anduninteresting accusation. Let’s scrap it. Our joint challenge is tomanage complexity.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
We have One World, whether we want it or not, and everyone wants Peaceon Earth. The cultural divide is this: much of the non-Chinese worldbelieves in Many Dreamsand it wants them all at once: my dream, your dream, the dreams ofpeople I dislike and disagree with, all competing and evolving andinterbreeding in one chaotic, peaceful mess, and may the most beautifuldreams prevail. The One Dream can only be imposed by the One Power.People dislike the One Power. That’s the main reason that the Olympictorch was hounded in the West and East.     
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
It had better be.
Good luck in the Olympic games.  
Robert Daly
Director
Institute for Global Chinese Affairs
The University of Maryland

不要只顾自己看啊，翻译出来

那位大人翻一下啊！特别关注！

谁给翻译出来啊！！拜托！！我英语早还给老师了——看不懂！！

跟前段时间中青的一汉奸一个德行 介绍给它好了

引用:

When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
This is untrue, and the self-pity in the line is worrisome. America’slong record of sympathy for China’s poverty is one of the brighterspots in the history of bilateral relations. Americans have donatedmoney, materiel, expertise, and, in some cases, their lives toalleviate Chinese suffering. While China’s great material progress is due primarily to the hard work and sacrifice of the Chinese people, one would be hard-pressed to point to any aspect of China’s development that has no connection to the United States. There was some condescension and self-aggrandizement in American sympathy for China,but it’s an imperfect world and motives are always mixed.

当我们贫穷的时候，你认为我们不过是条狗
美国教授回复：这不是真的，这句话里的自哀令人感到不安。美国长期对中国的贫穷状况表示关心，这种关系是中美双边关系的最大亮点之一。美国出钱出力，还提供专家意见，并且在一些事情中，他们减轻了中国遭受的痛苦。尽管中国在物质上取得的进步主要是由于中国人民的勤劳和牺牲精神，但是也不能指责美国和中国所取得的进步的任何方面一点关系全无。确实，美国给与中国的同情让人感到一些“恩赐”的感觉和“增加自我重要性”目的，但是这是一个不完美的世界，各种动机总是掺杂在一起的。

我对此教授的回复的看法：I doubt that this professor's knowledge about China's history begin from the diplomatic establishment of China and U.S.A. He doesn't seem to know the history of China, especailly before liberation of China, he didn't know how the foreinger colonist treated us - write the ban of "Chinese and dogs are forbidden"!!!

我很怀疑这位教授对中国的历史始于中美建交之后，他看上去对中国的历史不太了解，尤其是中国解放前的历史，他不了解外国殖民者如何对待我们－那些外国殖民者写着牌子说“中国人和狗不得入内”！

有网页在线翻译一下:lol

????????????"????????"

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/responding 对中国委屈

反应"中国委屈"

                        以下文本是从 罗伯特・Daly, 全球性中国事理主任的中心在Maryland.The 文本大学被写了作为一则私有消息给朋友, 和由CDT nowre 张贴以作者的允许。


中国委屈(CDT 被出版作为 我的朋友, 您想要什么从我们? 在4月12 日, 2008)


当我们是亚洲的病的人, 我们告诉黄色危险。
当我们被发单是下个超级大国, 我们告诉威胁。
当我们关闭了我们的门, 您走私了药物对开放的市场。
当我们接受自由贸易, 您由于拿走责备我们您的工作。
当我们散开, 您前进了在您的队伍和想要您的公平份额。
当我们设法放回残破的片断一起再, 您尖叫的自由西藏, 它是入侵!
当试验过共产主义, 您恨我们为是共产主义。
当我们接受资本主义, 您恨我们为是资本家。
当我们有十亿个人, 您说我们毁坏行星。
当我们设法限制我们的数字, 您说我们滥用了人权。
当我们是穷, 您认为我们是狗。
当我们贷款您现金, 您由于您的国债责备我们。
当我们建立我们的产业, 您告诉我们污染源。
当我们卖您物品, 您由于全球性变暖责备我们。
当我们买油, 您称它开发和种族灭绝。
当您去打仗为油, 您称它解放。
当我们丢失了在纷乱和暴跳, 您要求了法规。
当我们维护治安反对暴力, 您叫它违犯人权。
当我们是沈默的, 您说您要我们有言论自由。
当我们是沈默的没有, 您说我们是被洗脑的xenophobics 。
为什么您非常恨我们, 我们要求。
不, 您回答了, 我们不恨您。
我们不恨您或者,
但, 您明白我们吗?
当然我们, 您说,
我们有AFP 、CNN 和BBC 的...
您真正地想要什么从我们?
认为艰苦第一, 然后回答...
由于您只得到许多机会。
足够是足够, 足够的伪善为这一个世界。
我们想要一个世界, 一个梦想, 和和平在地球上。
这大蓝色地球是足够大为我们大家。
当我们是亚洲的病的人, 我们告诉黄色危险。
实际上, 日本人告诉"黄色危险。" 皇帝WilhelmII 铸造了期限1895 年在日本击败了中国在firstSino 日本战争中之后。我接受更加宽广点有aracial 组分对西部忧虑关于中国但这是最佳对beclear 关于历史事实。并且当种族元素isthere, 那不意味西部态度可能是被减少的toracism 。西部恐惧的非法方面不证明thatthere 是没有合法的地面为关心。
当我们被发单是下个超级大国, 我们告诉威胁。
很好, 是。欢迎到俱乐部。"超级大国" 从未是anunalloyed 恭维。中国, 你知道, 是主导的评论家ofAmerican 霸权。
当我们关闭了我们的门, 您走私了药物对开放的市场。
真实。那是坏。它是还真实的, 大多数鸦片抽了inChina 在期间提到增长在中国和, 当然, 运输了和抽烟了由Chinese 。那不辨解西部背信弃义, 但是它表示怀疑在peddled 在中国文字关于theperiod 的过分单纯的罪恶Foreigners/InnocentChinese 记叙文。它是还真实的, 同一时期, the"imperialists" 带来了第一大学、现代医院、妇女的教育、铁路、streetlights, 等, 对中国。您mightfairly 反应, 汉语是完全能适应现代性thefruits 中国以他们自己的时间和方式, withoutarrogant 外国人军队这些事在他们当violatingChina 的主权, 利用它的自然资源, 等。这是theclassic 论据在colonizers 之间和拓殖。有趣的是, Chinanow 站立在讨论的colonizer 边当它保卫itsactions 在西藏由指出怎么投资从他们自己的封建, 落后方式保存了Tibetanpeople 。怎么蠕虫转动。
当我们接受自由贸易, 您由于拿走责备我们您的工作。
这是一个复杂的问题, 但西方可能用somehypocrisy 被标记在这一个。抱歉关于抱怨。并且嘿, 祝贺提高生活水准许多people.The 汉语艰苦运作和该当更加舒适地居住。
当我们散开, 您前进了在您的队伍和想要您的公平份额。
有一些前进, 但它不是所有坏在盛大schemeof 事。看一看在是reallycolonized, 象Belgian Congo, 投入中国的经验inperspective 国家的经验。再, 强迫开放中国的门带来了benefitsto 中国与侮辱和开发一起。看见"什么做了Romans 曾经做为我们?" 场面在布赖恩中Monty Python 的生活。
当我们设法放回残破的片断一起再, 您尖叫的自由西藏, 它是入侵!
的Sino 西藏人联系的历史或thePeople 的每日或自由西藏运动要求是更加复杂的。为balanceddiscussion, 听全国委员会在美国中国Relations'recent 电话会议在 这里。  
当我们尝试了共产主义, 您恨我们为是共产主义。
配齐, 或多或少。并且中国恨美国为是capitalistliberal 民主。这所有是怨恨和恐惧被填装的时光。
当我们接受资本主义, 您恨我们为是资本家。
不确切地。但美国恐惧中国, 一部分, 因为中国isgaining 的财富和力量通过由西方提供的随后而来的(与Chinesecharacteristics) 处方。
当我们有十亿个人, 您说我们毁坏行星。
美国明显地不是在任何位置提供环境破坏moralcritique 加工由其它国家。但itis 在一个优秀位置提供观察从environmentalscience, 描述最佳的实践根据长的经验, 和topromote 更加绿色的技术在音乐会与许多中国人, 在政府andout, 关注它的ownland 、空气, 和水中国的毒化。怨言在这条线比acritique 事实要求是根据症状的oneof 最危险(和charmless) 中国精神分析修辞moves:the 倾向集中于对批评这的情感反应被察觉欺辱宁可。我的建议是, 中国人忽略侮辱, 评估事实, 和清扫中国的环境为缘故ofthe 中国人。
当我们设法限制我们的数字, 您说我们滥用了人权。
问题是没有目标, 而是方法。在我的经验, mostChinese 支持一项儿童政策, 至少在理论上, 既使theyare 难过了由它。这个困难的道德等式是最好解决的bythe 汉语。但我会有对China'sability 的更多信心创造一项有效和人道人口政策如果问题的everyaspect 能辩论和公开continuallyre 被评估。
当我们是穷, 您认为我们是狗。
这是不真实的, 并且自怜在线令人烦恼。同情America'slong 纪录对中国的贫穷的是brighterspots 的当中一个在双边关系的历史上。美国人有donatedmoney 、装备、专门技术, 和, 在某些情况下, 他们的生活toalleviate 中国痛苦。当中国的巨大物质进展isdue 主要对中国人民的坚苦工作和牺牲, onewould 是穷困的指向任一个中国的developmentthat 的方面没有连接到美国。有somecondescension 和自我扩张在对中国的美国同情, 但这是一个不完美的世界并且动机总是混杂的。
当我们贷款您现金, 您由于您的国债责备我们。
呀。  抱歉对此。  并且感谢现金。
当我们建立我们的产业, 您告诉我们污染源。
中国的产业 是主要污染源, 因为中国承认。美国是majorpolluter 也是。我们必须一起从事问题。再, 口气ofthe 线令人烦恼: 你应该能指出, 作为问题offact, 国家导致很多污染, beingaccused 无"称那个国家污染源。" 告诉apatient 她的医生有癌症不叫那耐心"癌," 不orasserting 他的优势, 或不声称他当前从未有或doesnot 有癌症。他简单地采取一essentialstep 在路对治疗。
当我们卖您物品, 您由于全球性变暖责备我们。
我认为我们盖了这一个。  我将设法不是一样重复在我的评论如同作者在他们的罪状。
当我们买油, 您称它开发和种族灭绝。
没人认为, 买的油是种族灭绝。什么说是thatarming 和教唆屠杀它的ownpeople 牌子一个complicit 在种族灭绝的一个富有油的政府。点象点似乎太明显的tospell, 美国政府比有毒政权hasunderwritten 更多它的份额。
当您去打仗为油, 您称它解放。
我不想要保卫入侵, 但是我应该指出thatAmericans 不讲话"伊拉克的解放。" 他们称它simply"The 伊拉克战争," 并且大多数反对它。他们自由地反对它inprint, 在影片里, 和在街角。他们是自由批评theirgovernment 的位置, 打开他们的政府的宣传, 和tonot 表决为支持战争的政客。
抱歉起来在soapbox 。二好的事aboutdefending 美国位置, 无论固执他们也许是, 象"theAmerican 位置" 是(1) 在一个多元社会, 那里是没有如此事因为政府没有独占onmeaning 。有象单一"您" 在中国的委屈(I 不相信单一"我们" 或者。) 因此没有如此事(2) 外国critiqueof 美国曾经不是作为腾腾, 消息灵通, 或有效的ascritiques 由Americans 提供。那给我们厚实的皮肤, 信心, 有些免疫欺辱。
当我们丢失了在纷乱和暴跳, 您要求了法规。
第邓小平集合中国在路往法规以便thatChina, 在它自己的兴趣, 能从纷乱逃脱由attractingforeign 投资、技术, 和管理专门技术。
当我们维护治安反对暴力, 您叫它违犯人权。
"治安" 不是事和"法规一样。"   
当我们是沈默的, 您说您要我们有言论自由。
当然。
当我们是沈默的没有, 您说我们是被洗脑的xenophobics 。
美国人是太快以至于不能叫中国人由令人不快的names:brainwashed, 排外, 民族主义。这种冲动伤害什么的Americanunderstanding 真正地发生着在中国。但要求他们获得他们的信息的youropponents, 请求, 他们makereasoned 考虑所有可利用的证据的论据, andsuggesting 严肃的史学家被咨询在讨论ofhistory 和命名叫一样不是事。
为什么您非常恨我们, 我们要求。
不, 您回答了, 我们不恨您。
我们不恨您或者,
高兴听见它。事的当中一个有关我关于thisspring 的dustups 是, 他们创造了印象thatAmericans 是反汉语并且汉语是反美国。两者都不istrue 。我工作了在美国中国联系22 年, 花费时间equalamounts 在两个国家。有blowhards 在两nations.On 平衡, 然而, 我们的相互迷恋胜过我们的mutualfrustration 。中国人是客气的主人, 是internationallyminded, 和比民族主义爱国的。美国人areinterested 在和由中国铭记。所以我们欢迎很manyChinese 到我们的大学、我们的工作场所, 和我们的家庭。
但, 您明白我们吗?
当大多我的中国朋友用途词组象"了解中国," 他们真正地意味"受理中国的理解对本身" 或, morespecifically, "接受中国共产党解释ofthings (??"2E) 。" 但没人得到被观看只当他们祝愿tobe 被观看。人们比那聪明。对中国isno 疑义的我的理解残缺不全(怎么能它是否则?), 并且比CCP's certainlydifferent, 但那不使它非法。Thereare 无数的中国"理解" 对中国正象那里对美国的areinnumerable 美国理解一样。或许我们会是betteroff 如果我们下降了谈话"一共了解" 。
当然我们, 您说,
我们有AFP 、CNN 和BBC 的...
作家简单地投入词入美国稻草人的嘴。
您真正地想要什么从我们?
认为艰苦第一, 然后回答...
优秀问题。我不认为美国人知道答复。它willtake 时间推测。中国的成长过去二十年iswithout 先例或历史比喻。它有主要涵义人的努力forevery 球形。但中国改变并且thoseimplications 那么迅速地演变它无法来toany 结论关于他们。我们怎么样评估中国的进展andproblems? 我们没有一个充分措施。我们不能possiblyhave 。中国不知道什么做它的进展或者。作为Dengsaid, 它穿过河由感觉为石头。但我们做铁砧是高的knowthat 。那是原因的当中一个事件inChina 观看以最接近的察视和被服从对mostskeptical 分析由非Non-Chinese 。全世界安排一个铁砧在whatChina 成为如此, 是, 世界要求问题和, 没有, 世界willnot 作为中国政府的词为任何东西没有conductingits 拥有调查。祝贺归结于中国和arefrequently 被给。但西方, 东部大家象Chinesethemselves, 有原因问何处中国朝向。
由于您只得到许多机会。
不要结束在威胁。  它破坏您宣称的兴趣在和平上。
足够是足够, 足够的伪善为这一个世界。
大量伪善四处走动。但伪善是容易的anduninteresting 的指责。我们废弃它。我们的联合挑战是tomanage 复杂。
我们想要一个世界, 一个梦想, 和和平在地球上。
我们有一个世界, 不管我们想要它或不是, 并且大家想要Peaceon 地球。文化划分是这: 许多非汉语worldbelieves 在 许多梦想并且它同时想要他们: 我的梦想, 您的梦想, 我烦恶和不同意与的梦想ofpeople, 所有竞争的和演变的andinterbreeding 在一混乱, 平安的混乱, 和也许多数beautifuldreams 战胜。一个梦想可能由这一Power.People 反感只强加一力量。那是主要原因, Olympictorch 在西方和 东部 被追逐了。     
这大蓝色地球是足够大为我们大家。
它应该是。
好运气在奥林匹克运动会。  
罗伯特・Daly
主任
学院为全球性中国事理
马里兰大学

楼上的  。。。。。。。网页翻译是不能看的
全乱了

抱歉,真的乱了

首先,有回应说明我们的声音被听到了.这点很重要

接下来让我慢慢看.

这是发在法国论坛的一首诗：“你们到底要什么？”

    当我们被称为东亚病夫时，我们被称为黄祸。

　　当我们被宣传为下一个超级大国时，我们被称为威胁。

　　当我们关上我们的大门时，你们走私毒品来打开市场。

　　当我们信奉自由贸易时，你们责骂我们夺走了你们的工作。

　　当我们被碎成几片时，你们的军队闯进来要求公平分赃。

　　但我们把碎片重拼接好时，你们有叫嚣解放被入侵的西藏。

　　好，那么我们尝试共产主义，你们恨我们是共产分子。

　　当我们容纳了资本主义时，你们又恨我们是资本家。

　　当我们有十亿人民时，你们说我们正在摧毁这个星球。

　　当我们实行计划生育时，你们说这是违反人权。

　　当我们贫穷时，你们认为我们是狗。

　　当我们借给你们现金时，你们骂我们使你们负了债。

　　当我们建设我们的工业时，你们称我们是污染者。

　　当我们卖给你们商品时，你们责备我们助长了温室效应。

　　当我们购买石油时，你们称是剥削和种族大屠杀。

　　而当你们为石油而发起战争时，你们称为解放。

　　当我们在动乱时，你们要替我们制定律法。

　　当我们依法镇治暴乱时，你们称违反了人权。

　　当我们沉默时，你们要我们言论自由。

　　当我们不再沉默时，你们称我们是洗脑式的仇外。

　　你们为什么那么恨我们?我们不禁要问。

　　不，我们不恨你们，你们说。

　　我们也不恨你们，但是你们理解我们吗?我们问。

　　当然了，你们说，我们有媒体AFP，CNN和BBC

　　你到底想我们怎么样?

　　认真想想再回答…

　　因为你们只是利用一切机会，使这个世界变得伪善。

　　我们需要一个和平的地球。

　　这个广阔的蓝色地球容纳得下我们大家。


============================================
下面是那个美国教授的回应。本人英语不好。。。还望高人翻译。

看过这个诗,但是这个回应的人明显是不懂历史,觉得没有必要跟他说,说了也是对牛弹琴.

我们中国看来是得从2008年强势进入世界的眼光才行啦.

这些老外总是戴着一副不晓得什么牌子的眼睛看我们中国.

　　当我们被称为东亚病夫时，我们被称为黄祸。
事实上，日本被称为“黄祸” 。在1895年第一次中日战争中日本打败了中国后，凯撒威廉二世创造了这个术语。我接受更广泛的观点----西方对中国的忧虑有种族歧视的成分----但最好澄清其历史事实。而种族因素是有，这并不意味着西方的看法可以减少种族主义。


　　当我们被宣传为下一个超级大国时，我们被称为威胁。

　　当我们关上我们的大门时，你们走私毒品来打开市场。

　　当我们信奉自由贸易时，你们责骂我们夺走了你们的工作。

　　当我们被碎成几片时，你们的军队闯进来要求公平分赃。

　　但我们把碎片重拼接好时，你们有叫嚣解放被入侵的西藏。

　　好，那么我们尝试共产主义，你们恨我们是共产分子。

　　当我们容纳了资本主义时，你们又恨我们是资本家。

　　当我们有十亿人民时，你们说我们正在摧毁这个星球。

　　当我们实行计划生育时，你们说这是违反人权。

　　当我们贫穷时，你们认为我们是狗。

　　当我们借给你们现金时，你们骂我们使你们负了债。

　　当我们建设我们的工业时，你们称我们是污染者。

　　当我们卖给你们商品时，你们责备我们助长了温室效应。

　　当我们购买石油时，你们称是剥削和种族大屠杀。

　　而当你们为石油而发起战争时，你们称为解放。

　　当我们在动乱时，你们要替我们制定律法。

　　当我们依法镇治暴乱时，你们称违反了人权。

　　当我们沉默时，你们要我们言论自由。

　　当我们不再沉默时，你们称我们是洗脑式的仇外。

　　你们为什么那么恨我们?我们不禁要问。

　　不，我们不恨你们，你们说。

　　我们也不恨你们，但是你们理解我们吗?我们问。

　　当然了，你们说，我们有媒体AFP，CNN和BBC

　　你到底想我们怎么样?

　　认真想想再回答…

　　因为你们只是利用一切机会，使这个世界变得伪善。

　　我们需要一个和平的地球。

　　这个广阔的蓝色地球容纳得下我们大家。

　　当我们被宣传为下一个超级大国时，我们被称为威胁。
是的。欢迎您(加入)到俱乐部。 “超级大国”从来没有一个纯粹的恭维。中国，你也知道，一直是领导批评美国霸权的。

当我们关上我们的大门时，你们走私毒品来打开市场。
正确。这是不好的。(但)这也是事实，那段时期中国的大部分的鸦片是在中国生长的，当然，运输和抽烟的都是中国人。

这并不是原谅西方的背信弃义，但它确实令人怀疑有关那段时期的中国文学所描述的简单而邪恶的外国人/无辜的中国人。这也是事实，在同一时期， “帝国主义”给中国带来了第一所大学，现代医院，妇女的教育，铁路，路灯等。
您可能会振振有词回应说，中国人完全有能力在自己的时间和方式，建设现代化的中国，而不需要傲慢的外国人强迫把这些东西加给中国，冒犯中国的主权，开采自然资源等。
这是殖民者和殖民地人民之间的经典的辩论。有趣的是，中国现在站在殖民者的一方，当它辩护它在西藏的行动时指出如何投资，把西藏人民从封建落后里拯救出来。

（藏汗关系不同于殖民地被殖民地关系，它不是2个国家之间的问题，它是一个国家内部的问题，一如英国/北爱尔兰、法国/科西嘉，包括据报道的美国/夏威夷土著）