楼主: 老鱼父
3213 0

[推荐]土生土长亨廷顿,竟作护国偏激论 [分享]

  • 0关注
  • 1粉丝

学科带头人

34%

还不是VIP/贵宾

-

威望
1
论坛币
15610 个
通用积分
0
学术水平
54 点
热心指数
100 点
信用等级
24 点
经验
15449 点
帖子
1179
精华
1
在线时间
872 小时
注册时间
2008-8-1
最后登录
2012-11-18

老鱼父 发表于 2008-11-22 01:54:00 |显示全部楼层
<p>Eugene chen 译:</p><p><b><font size="4">Native Son: Samuel Huntington Defends the Homeland</font></b></p><p><font size="4">By Alan Wolfe</font></p><p><font size="4">A Review of <em>Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity </em>by Samuel Huntington</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">阿兰.沃尔夫所写书评:<b>土生土长亨廷顿,竟作护国偏激论</b><b></b></font></p><p><font size="4">评亨廷顿的书【我们是谁?美国国民身份特性*面临的挑战】 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:*题目直译可以是“本土人的儿子:萨缪尔.亨廷顿为祖国辩护 ”这里的defend, 不是“捍卫”这种正面意义,不译作“卫国 ”, 译作“护国”, 此中的护, 乃是“护短”的护 。 中文题目为了抢眼, 稍作变化, 直点其论偏激。为何用“偏激”二字?稍后读罢下文的“摘要”便知。 &nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="4">*America’s National Identity, 国内有译作“美国国民同一性”、“美国国民性认同”、“美国国家认同”、“美国国家特性”等。 译者则译为“美国国民身份特性”, 理由如下:查identity的英文解释为:the set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group. 即:某个人所具有的一组行为方面或人身方面的特性,凭此, 可被鉴认出是属于某一群体的成员。这个解释里有两个要点, 一是特性, 另一是群体的成员, 亦即身份, 故译为身份特性。 在本文中, 这个词组将反复出现, 但有变体。 比如, American identity, America’s cultural identity, creedal identity, etc. 为求统一, American identity 仍译作“美国国民身份特性 ”, 同等于America’s national identity; 但America’s cultural identity 则译作“美国国民身份的文化特性“;creedal identity, 译为“美国国民身份的信条特性”。 注意, 尽管national不出现, 仍把“国民”译出, 英文怕啰嗦, 有上下文参照, 可以省字, 中文字短, 不怕啰嗦, 更怕因省字而误解为另有所指。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Summary: In Who Are We? Samuel Huntington turns his formidable intellect to the challenges posed by immigration. Unfortunately, he has abandoned the clear-eyed realism of his past work in favor of disdainful moralism, whipping up nativist hysteria instead of offering real solutions. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4"><b>摘要:在【我们是谁?美国国民身份特性面临的挑战】这本书里, </b><b>亨廷顿挥洒其非凡的才智,纵论移民给美国带来的挑战。 </b><b>令人遗憾的是, </b><b>他一改过去著作里所习见的那种明察秋毫的现实主义,代以愤世嫉俗的道德说教, </b><b>结果不但没有提供真正的解决之道, </b><b>反而有煽动歇斯底里情绪、排斥外来移民、固守本土文化的嫌疑。 </b></font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:abandon&nbsp; A&nbsp; in&nbsp; favor&nbsp; of&nbsp; B 这一形式作者将使用多次, 但每次都有变化, 以避用词单调。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">In the course of a remarkably distinguished academic career, Samuel Huntington has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to realism. Distaste for sentimentality is certainly on display in his best-known book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (which originated as an article in this magazine before its publication in 1996). It has also been characteristic of his analysis of U.S. domestic politics. The heroes of The Soldier and the State, his 1964 book on civil-military relations, are neo-Hamiltonians such as Secretary of State Elihu Root and the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, members of "the first important American social group," as he describes them, "whose political philosophy more or less consciously borrowed and incorporated elements of the professional military ethic." In American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (1981), Huntington identifies four moments of "creedal passion" in American history: the Revolutionary era, the ages of Jacksonianism and Progressivism, and the 1960s. During these periods, he argues, Americans' unrealistic expectation of moral perfectibility prevented their leaders from doing the right thing. Throughout his career, Huntington has rejected ideology in favor of down-to-earth practicality, drawing cries of protest from critics, mostly on the left, who accuse him of cold-minded moral indifference and complicity with the powers that be. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">在亨廷顿卓尔不凡的学术生涯中, 他一直表现出一种对现实主义的执着与信奉。 他写的【文明冲突和世界秩序的重建】(1996年出版的这本书的前身最早还是在本杂志上发表的一篇文章)这本最是名噪一时的专著确定无疑地流露了作者厌恶感情用事的态度。对美国国内政治的分析也带有同样的特点。 他1964年所出的探讨军民关系的书【军人与国家】中的英雄人物都是些新汉米尔顿主义者*, 比如说国务卿鲁特以及海军战略家塞耶, 这些人都是他所描述的那种“美国第一个重要社会团体”的成员,“其政治哲学均在不同程度上有意识地借鉴并吸取了职业军人道德的成分。”在【美国政治:和谐无望】(1981)这部书里, 亨廷顿确定了美国历史上有四次“信念激情”期:独立战争年代、杰克逊主义年代*、进步主义年代*和二十世纪六十年代。 他认为, 在这些年代里, 美国人民对道德完美性不现实的追求反而妨碍了他们的领袖正确行事。 终其一生, 亨廷顿总是摒绝意识形态, 而执取脚踏实地的务实精神; 这曾引起了批评家们的一片叫骂声, 大部分来自左的方面, 他被骂为患有冷酷的道德冷感症, 骂为与社会权势狼狈为奸。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*汉米尔顿主义者:Alexander Hamiltion 是美国历史上第一个财长, 开国元勋之一。 </font></p><p><font size="4">*杰克逊主义年代:Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)美国第七届总统。 曾致力于扩大平民的普选权。 </font></p><p><font size="4">*进步主义年代: Progressivism.&nbsp; 進步主義是一種在19世紀末至20世紀初從北美開始的政治運動和意識形態,此意識形態屬於中間偏左。</font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:*Huntington has rejected ideology in favor of down-to-earth practicality 这里reject A in favor of B是上边提到的abandon&nbsp; A&nbsp; in&nbsp; favor&nbsp; of&nbsp; B一个变体。</font></p><p><font size="4">*书名The Promise of Disharmony 如何译好?国内有人译作【不和谐的希望】, 也有人译作【不和谐的允诺】, 本人译作【和谐无望】。 何以?先看英文原意, promise of disharmony=reason to&nbsp; expect disharmony 中文意义应是 “有理由被期待的不和谐”亦即“被承诺,被保证的不和谐”。 但中文的“希望、期待、承诺、保证”的东西往往是好东西, 而不是不和谐这种坏东西。 英文的promise则好坏均可。 所以【不和谐的希望】咋一看不知所云, 不妨将“不”从前往后调, 那就是【和谐的不希望】, 也就是【和谐无望】。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Few subjects call out for Huntington's realism as much as immigration does. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, which effectively abolished quotas on immigrants from Europe, the United States has experienced one of the largest migrations of foreigners to its shores since its founding; nonwhite people whose first language is not English now make up a greater percentage of the U.S. population than at any other time in history. And although some writers treat this dramatic change with Panglossian optimism, the challenges are in fact staggering: bilingualism, dual citizenship, religious diversity, and multiculturalism place increasingly tough demands on U.S. culture and politics. If the United States tries to prevent immigrants from coming, it risks breaking its promise of freedom to the oppressed. But if it admits everyone who wants to come, it risks losing its distinctly American ideals -- including the creed that holds out the promise of freedom and opportunity in the first place. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">讨论象移民这样的大课题尤其需要用亨廷顿的现实主义。1965年的移民法案, 实际上取消了有利于欧洲移民的配额*; 从那时起, 美国就经历了一场自建国以来最大规模的移民潮;跟历史上任何时期相比, 今天母语不是英文的非白人在美国总人口中所占的百分比已达到前所未有的高度。 尽管有些学者对这场巨变仍持潘格罗斯*式的乐观态度,但是它所带来的挑战实际上 已达到令人震惊的地步:双语现象、双重国籍、五花八门的宗教和形形色色的文化都对美国文化和政治提出日益难以应付的要求。&nbsp; 如果美国试图阻挠移民进来, 早先保证对被压迫者给与自由的承诺就有毁弃的危险。但是, 如果来者不拒、悉数收留, 那么,又会有危险断送美国独特的理想*------包括断送让美国最初做出以上那种自由和机会承诺所基于的信条。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*原文是“取消了欧洲移民的配额。”实际上, 取消的是过高的欧洲配额与过低的亚洲非洲与南美的配额这种歧视性的政策, 所以译者加用“有利于”,否则只译成“取消了欧洲移民的配额”会给人一种欧洲人不让移民的错觉。</font></p><p><font size="4">*Pangloss 伏尔泰小说里的一个人物, 性格过度乐观。 </font></p><p><font size="4">*如果来者不拒悉数收留, 国家资源的有限性总有一天会使这个国家无法再提供自由和机会给移民。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Who Are We? Huntington's new book on the subject, offers dollops of the clear thinking that has characterized his work in the past. He rightly points out that post-1965 immigration from Mexico is different from earlier waves: the sending country is close by, the numbers are much larger, the areas to which migrants are attracted already have large Mexican-American populations, and there is no indication that the movement is likely to stop. And he offers a tough-minded evaluation of the tradeoffs that immigration involves, insisting, for example, that bilingualism can stand in the way of immigrants' success and that dual citizenship is problematic when so few Americans fulfill even the obligations of single citizenship. Huntington also convincingly demonstrates that ordinary Americans are more nationalistic than liberal elites: if a referendum were held today, a majority would support strong and effective enforcement of borders and stringent tests for citizenship. Glib, politically correct talk finds no place in Huntington's analysis, and for that readers should be grateful. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">【我们是谁?】亨廷顿这本新书对移民这个课题提供了许多为其过去著作所特有的那种清醒的思考。他正确地指出, 1965年后的墨籍移民潮在以下四点有别于早先的各次移民潮:移民的母国就在美国的近旁、移民的人数更加庞大、吸引新移民的地区已经拥有大批墨裔人口、而且没有迹象显示该移民潮终会停歇。 &nbsp;他也对移民潮所带来的得失权衡、利弊消长*的情形作了深思熟虑的评估。例如, 他坚称,双语现象会阻碍移民的成功发展, 双重国籍也是问题多多, 因为很多美国人就连单一国籍所规定的义务都完成不了。 此外,亨廷顿 还令人信服地证明了普通的美国老百姓要比自由派的精英们有更强烈的民族主义精神: 如果今天就进行公民投票的话, 大部分的美国人会支持对边境作更有力更有效的控制*, 也会支持对申请入籍人士作更严格的考试。 亨廷顿的分析向来与油嘴滑舌、政治正确无涉。 对此, 我们读者应引以为幸。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:*tradeoff&nbsp; 国内词典的翻译大多是 “协调、平衡;交换、交替 ”。 在这里均不好用。查其英文原意是<b>:</b><b><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</b>&nbsp;a balancing of factors, &nbsp;not all of which are attainable at the same time, and in return for one, a giving up of another is necessary, e.g. the education versus experience tradeoff. &nbsp;&nbsp;意思是:各种要素所处的一种平衡,这些要素不能在同时间都获得, 为了要更多地取得某种要素, 就一定要以减少另一种要素为代价, 例如一个人所受的学校教育与所获的工作经验 之间的关系就是tradeoff。鉴于此, 遂译为:得失权衡、利弊消长</font></p><p><font size="4">*enforcement of borders, 似应作enforcement of border control or border regulations. 请google 一下, 找不到原文这种组合的。 &nbsp;当enforcement 作“执行”讲时, 其意义上的宾语应是laws, rules, regulations, control, etc. 而不应是borders 这种与“规矩、法律、控制”无关的东西。 例如, 我们可以说enforcement of mob control, (执行对暴民的控制) 但不好说enforcement of mobs. 反过来, 倒是可以说border enforcement, mob enforcement, etc. 此时, 单数的border, mob 作定语。 </font></p><p><font size="4">&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="4">But at the same time, Who Are We? breaks with Huntington's previous work in significant, and often quite disturbing, ways. Gone is the realism that characterizes most of his writing: Who Are We? is riddled with the same kind of moralistic passion -- at times bordering on hysteria -- that Huntington finds so troubling in American Politics. He treats American elites with a contemptuous disdain that cannot be found in the more respectful The Soldier and the State and praises for their insight the same ordinary Americans that he has portrayed as attracted to hopeless moral crusades in his previous work. He eschews realistic treatment of American history in favor of romantic nostalgia for Anglo-Protestant culture. And then there is the book's fatalism: Huntington tells his readers that he is a "patriot ... deeply concerned about the unity and strength of my country based on liberty, equality, law and individual rights," but he portrays the United States as haplessly without resources in its struggle with immigration, as if the country's identity were too fragile for the challenges it faces. Although Huntington was deeply troubled by the 1960s and their aftermath, he managed to maintain his cool in subsequent books. Immigration has touched his nerves in a way that flower children and protesters never did. Who Are We? is Patrick Buchanan with footnotes. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">不过【我们是谁?】这本书也同时在不少地方跟亨廷顿过去的著述明显地分道扬镳,让人读了相当郁闷。 作为他大多数著作特征的现实主义在这本书里荡然无存:【我们是谁?】 从头到尾充斥了一种在【美国政治:和谐无望】一书里曾被作者认为是叫人心烦的说教的激情, 这种激情有的时候甚至发展到几近歇斯底里的地步。 对于美国的精英, 他则视如草芥, 那种鄙夷的态度在同一作者所著对精英敬意犹存的【军人与国家】一书里那是见所未见。至于普通美国老百姓, 他则一反常态,称赞他们有眼力有见地,不过同是这群老百姓却在早先的著作里被作者 贬为 易受蛊惑、不惜投身于毫无希望的道德说教运动。 在这本书里, 他避而不用现实主义的态度论述美国史, 却对盎格鲁新教文化大发罗曼蒂克的思古之幽情。此外, 还有这本书所宣扬的宿命论思想:亨廷顿对读者说他是一个“爱国者……高度关心祖国建立在自由、平等、法治和个人权利基础之上的 国家团结和国家力量”, 但是他却把美国对付移民这个头痛问题的前景描绘成黔驴技穷,苦无良策, 好象美国国民身份特性面对挑战就是如此脆弱,不堪一击。 亨廷顿对十九世纪六十年代的那场激进运动及其后果虽然同样也曾深为其扰, 但在后来的著述里却都能冷静处之。 移民问题对他神经的触动已经远甚于当年的戴花孩*和抗议者。【我们是谁?】这本书直如帕特里克.布坎南所写, 只是加了脚注*而已。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*六十年代的嬉皮士运动中,由於許多嬉皮士在他們的頭髮裡帶花或向行人分花,因此他們也有戴花孩的外號。</font></p><p><font size="4">*帕特里克·布坎南是美国社会-文化保守派主要代表人物, 曾两次参加总统竞选。他不是学者,所以文章不用脚注。 这里极言亨廷顿虽一贯以自由派自居, 这本书却写得象保守派的布坎南。&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:* He eschews realistic treatment of American history in favor of romantic nostalgia for Anglo-Protestant culture. &nbsp;这里eschew A in favor of B是上边提到的abandon&nbsp; A&nbsp; in&nbsp; favor&nbsp; of&nbsp; B一个变体。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">FOUNDING MYTHS </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Huntington believes that there is a core American identity, shaped by dissenting Anglo-Protestantism. In the past, all immigrants (the first Americans, he points out, were settlers, not immigrants) were willing to subscribe to this identity. But among those arriving today, according to Huntington, are many who refuse to share -- and even denounce as criminal -- America's cultural identity. He warns that, unless the United States insists that they accept it, which is unlikely given the global priorities of business and the multicultural fantasies of liberal elites, "the United States of America will suffer the fate of Sparta, Rome, and other human communities." </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><b><font size="4">拨开建国迷思的疑云*</font></b></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">亨廷顿相信美国国民身份特性有一个核心,这个核心是由与主流教派持不同教见的盎格鲁新教徒塑造的。过去, 所有的移民(最早的一批美国人, 他指出, 是殖民, 而不是移民)都愿意认同这个国民身份特性。 可是, 今天来美的许多新移民, 据亨廷顿研究, 却拒绝认同美国国民身份的文化特性------甚至还有人将其斥之为罪恶。故而, 他警告说, 美国迟早会象斯巴达、罗马、和其他类似的社会一样, 遭灭顶之灾, 除非美国从现在就开始坚持要新移民认同国民身份的文化特性, 不过这种认同可能性很小, &nbsp;因为存在两种障碍, 一是商贸全球化已成优先, 二是自由派精英还在意淫多元文化。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:* Founding Myths 这一小标题, 貌似简单, 实则不然。 下节的两个小标题,Patriot Games 和The Return of The Native 亦然。 难点在于这三个标题均用典。 一旦用了典, 必然有两意, 一是典中原意, 一是本文现义, 这两者往往不完全重合。 译者常只译本文现义, 而在注释里加注典意。 founding myths, 又作 national myths, 原是希腊神话里将某一族人民立国与某一个神或英雄联系在一起的传说和故事。 现多用指世界各国都常有的有关各国起源的夸大不实的宏大叙说。 例如, 美国的起源就是清教徒乘五月花逃离宗教迫害来北美云云。 实际上, 那时这样的清教徒在所有来美的先民中占少数。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Each of those propositions, however, is exaggerated. Applying a Huntingtonian sense of dispassion to them yields a far more optimistic view of how the United States can not only survive immigration, but flourish as a result. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">可是, 以上的每一个命题都是因夸大而失实的。 我们对这些命题一一做了亨廷顿式的不愠不火的考察, 结果形成了一个远较乐观的看法:美国非但能经得起移民浪潮而不坠, 而且还能因此而繁荣昌盛。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">It is, first of all, incorrect to claim that American identity was shaped by dissenting Anglo-Protestantism. Two of the churches prominent at the United States' founding were established rather than dissenting: the Church of England became the established church of Virginia under the Episcopal name, and Presbyterianism had been established in Scotland. To be sure, the Puritans had been a dissenting sect in England, but they became an established church in Massachusetts. New York and New Jersey, meanwhile, were populated largely by Dutch settlers; Catholics were a powerful force in Maryland; Rhode Island was founded by Baptists (many of whom had British roots but followed a sect with German origins); and Germans and British Quakers were prominent in Pennsylvania. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">首先, 美国国民身份特性最早是由持不同教见*的盎格鲁新教徒塑造而成------ 这一立论站不住脚。 在美国建国时期的诸多教派中就有两大教派, 与其说是持不同教见的教派, 不如说它们自己就已经是主流教派*了:一个是 英国国教,它以圣公会的名义成了弗吉尼亚州的主流教派;另一就是长老会, 它早已是苏格兰的主流教派。诚然, 清教徒早先在英国是一支持不同教见的派别, 但他们到了美国后就成了马萨诸塞州的主流教派。 在那时,纽约和新泽西两州的人口的大多数是来自荷兰的殖民*;至于说马里兰州, 天主教则是一支重要的力量;而罗德岛,则由浸礼会所建(其信众多为英裔, 却加入源于德国的这支教派);&nbsp; 最后,在宾夕法尼亚, 则以德国和英国的贵格会信徒为主。 &nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:established, 常译作“国教的”, 而dissenting, 则译作“不顺从国教的”。如果就当时英国而言, 这样译无妨。 但就当时的美国而言, 则不妥当。 国教, 必是国中唯一认可的教, 正如国足、国歌、国花一样。 其时之美国, 已有不少大教派, 但并无唯一为当局认可的国教。 是以, 改译为“主流教派的”和“持不同教见的”。</font></p><p><font size="4">*不知为何,作者对荷兰殖民者的宗教语焉不详,实际上, 当时多信归正会(Reformed Church in America)隶属于归正宗(Calvinist)。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">To claim that there exists a common "Anglo-Protestant culture" also ignores the fact that Protestants have disagreed vehemently with each other over what that culture is. Dissenting Protestants, not all that prominent at the American founding, shaped the Second Great Awakening of the 1820s and 1830s. In doing so, however, they had to rebel against the creedal orthodoxies of the more established Calvinist churches. They rejected the idea that salvation was strictly in the hands of an arbitrary and capricious God -- violating, as it does, every principle of American democratic individualism -- in favor of an evangelical sympathy for Arminianism, which held that individuals could play a role in their own salvation. There really is no such thing as the Protestant religion; there are many Protestant sects whose ideas on everything from scriptural authority to the role of the liturgy are in conflict. If religion shapes identity, the United States has had many identities because it has had so many religions. Huntington knows all of these things; his command of American religious history is impressive. He just never incorporates them into his argument. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">其次,认为存在一种共同的“盎格鲁新教文化”的观点也值得商榷, 因为它无视了新教徒们自家之间就对这种文化为何物争执不下的事实。 持不同教见的新教徒, 在美国建国时期作用并非那么重要, 他们直至十八世纪二十年代和三十年代才发起了第二次大觉醒运动*。 不过在开展这场大运动时, 他们不得不反叛比他们更属主流的归正宗的正统教义。他们抛弃了完全听凭一个随心所欲、反复无常的上帝来救赎世人的观点------ 因为*这违背了美国民主个人主义的一切原则------他们转而采纳福音派对亚米念主义的同情态度, 因为该主义认为个人在自己的救赎过程里也可以起一定的作用。 &nbsp;实际上, 并不存在着一个清一色的*新教教会;新教内部有许许多多派别, 在从诸如圣经的权威到宗教仪式的作用此类的一切问题上, 众教派看法各异, 互不逊让。 如果说宗教塑造了国民身份特性, 那么美国就有许多种国民身份特性, 因为美国有这么多宗教共存。 亨廷顿对所有这些都了如指掌;他对美国宗教史的精通更是令人感佩。 只不过在他的论证中故意不用罢了。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">评讲*第二次大覺醒是指,在十八世紀末年到十九世紀初,在美洲大陸又興起類似第一次大覺醒般的屬靈復興。教會的弟兄姊妹及城市百姓們都悔改認罪,基督信仰生活奮起,人們渴慕認識主耶穌基督,教會復興,歷史學家稱之為第二次大覺醒。</font></p><p><font size="4">* violating, as it does, every principle of American democratic individualism = as it (the idea) violates every principle of American democratic individualism. 因为这种观点违背了美国民主个人主义的所有原则。 等号前是分词短语, 等号后是状语从句。 </font></p><p><font size="4">*the Protestant religion 中的 the 在此译作“一个清一色的”。原意为“唯一的”。要成唯一, 必教内无派; 要教内无派, 必“清一色”。&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">It is true that non-Protestant immigrants in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries came to accept many aspects of Protestant worship: all American religions, even Catholicism and Judaism, eventually become congregational ones. But Huntington fails to appreciate the degree to which immigrants shaped American culture even as they assimilated. Catholicism was already the largest Christian denomination in the United States by the second half of the nineteenth century, and its distinctive ethos changed the way Americans celebrate Easter, attend school, play sports, and conduct foreign policy. American Jews adapted their faith to American culture, but the paradigmatic embodiment of American culture, the motion picture, was from its early days shaped by a distinctly Jewish sensibility. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">美国移民中的非新教教徒在十九世纪和二十世纪初叶渐渐接受了新教徒崇拜上帝的许多做法:所有的美国宗教, 甚至天主教和犹太教,都最终实行公理制*。这诚然都是事实, 但是, 新移民们在被同化的过程里反过来也在塑造美国的文化, 其塑造程度之大是亨廷顿没搞明白的。 早在十九世纪下半叶天主教就已成了美国基督教派里最大的一支。 天主教与众不同的精神特质改变了美国人在庆祝复活节、上学校、玩运动、以及贯彻外交政策方面的做法。而来美国的犹太人, 尽管为适应美国文化对自己的信仰做了一定的改变, 但是电影,作为美国文化的范式体现,却从它诞生的初期起, 就被一种确定无疑是犹太人的情感所塑造。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*congregational religion&nbsp; 在教会组织体制上主张各个堂会独立,会众实行自治(即公理制)。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Huntington's contention that recent immigrants are more hostile to the American tradition of assimilation than those who came before them is similarly flawed. He reviews evidence that Mexicans, the largest immigrant group, are not as well educated as others, are less likely to apply for citizenship, and do not intermarry as frequently. Yet contrary to popular opinion, Mexican-Americans acquire English in ways similar to previous immigrants and, according to at least one important measure of assimilation -- conversion to evangelical Protestantism -- are likely ahead of all other immigrant groups except Koreans. Huntington's claims that Mexican immigration will result in "the demographic reconquista of areas Americans took from Mexico by force in the 1830s and 1840s" and that immigrants may try to reconnect Southwestern states to Mexico are not only incendiary, they have little basis in fact. </font></p><p><b><font size="4"></font></b></p><p><font size="4">亨廷顿的另一个立论也犯了类似的错误, 他认为, 近期的移民要比早先的移民更敌视美国历来同化新移民的传统。 他首先检视了有关墨裔美国人的一些证据,诸如, 墨裔美国人是最大的移民群体、跟别的群体相比受教育水平较低、不太愿意申请入籍成为公民、较少跨越族裔的疆界而谈婚论嫁*。 不过, 跟流行的见解恰恰相反, 墨裔美国人获得英语能力的方式类似于早先的移民, 而且, 至少在一个衡量同化程度的标准上------亦即:是否皈依福音派新教------墨裔美国人或许比其他移民群体都走得远, 除了韩国人之外。亨廷顿断言说, 墨裔移民将使“美国当初用武力在十八世纪三十至四十年代从墨西哥手中夺取的土地在人口学上得而复失* ”,还说, 墨裔移民有可能试图将美国西南几州奉还复归于墨西哥。 这些话, 不但富有煽动性, 而且几乎没有事实根据。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*reconquista 西班牙文, 相当于英文的 re-conquer, 再征服。</font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:*intermarry有相反的两义: marry within one’s family, tribe or clan; marry a member of another group. 显然, 本文的意义应是后者。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">PATRIOT GAMES </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Only one of Huntington's points withstands the test of empirical reality: ordinary Americans are more likely to be patriotic and nationalistic than are liberal elites. This finding, however, undermines Huntington's argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture. </font></p><p><b><font size="4">比比看谁更爱国*</font></b></p><p><b><font size="4"></font></b></p><p><font size="4">亨廷顿的观点虽多, 却只有一个经受得起实证的检验, 那就是: 普通美国百姓与自由派的精英们相比, 爱国主义与民族主义的倾向更强。 不过, 这个发现, 却对亨廷顿强调盎格鲁新教文化重要性的论点有釜底抽薪的破坏作用。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Huntington believes, on the one hand, that there are too many recent immigrants and, on the other hand, that ordinary Americans are more patriotic than elites. Both cannot be true: with such a large number of immigrants in the general population, the patriotic mass of ordinary Americans must surely include many immigrants. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释* patriot games 是一本小说名, 由畅销书作者Tom Clancy著, 并于1992年用同名搬上银幕, 由明星哈里森.福特主演,售票空前。 内容是有关CIA前探员Jack Ryan与北爱尔兰恐怖主义游击队员Sean Miller 之间恩怨与复仇。 书名Patriot Games 来自一首同名的爱尔兰造反者之歌。歌颂所谓的边界之战(The Border Campaign,即1956-1962 爱尔兰共和军在北爱尔兰与英国进行的旨在夺回北爱尔兰、统一整个爱尔兰的游击战),歌颂爱尔兰义勇军的“爱国主义”的献身精神。 全诗六节, 每节结构一样,第四句均以patriot game 结尾。 下引第一节:Come all ye young rebels, and list while I sing,/For the love of one's country is a terrible thing./It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,/And it makes us all part of the patriot game. (听我把歌唱,青年造反派你们快来。 热爱祖国的激情真是厉害。 它将恐惧一下就除得干干净净,如同一把火。 它让我们人人来比谁更爱国。 译者将这个标题译作“比比看谁更爱国”来源于此。作者则要比较普通美国老百姓, 包括新移民, 与自由派的精英们, 谁更爱国。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">亨廷顿一方面相信近期的移民太多, 另一方面又相信普通美国百姓要比精英们更爱国。 以上两点不可全真, 必有一伪*:因为在总人口中既然有这么大量的移民, 爱国的普通美国百姓也一定包括许多新移民。 &nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">评讲:亨廷顿认为新移民敌视同化,不认同美国国民身份特性。既然品质不高, 数量过了某个定数,就都是太多。如果将原句改写如下, 就更容易看出这种逻辑矛盾的地方:亨廷顿一方面相信近期的移民太多且多不爱国, 另一方面又相信普通美国百姓(包括所有新移民在内)要比精英们更爱国。 以上两点不可全真, 必有一伪。以上驳斥, 如果深研, 不是没有问题。 什么叫“太多”?, 多少叫“太多”?这里不但有定性的问题, 也有定量的问题。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Huntington's own data affirm this. Eighty-one percent of non-Hispanic whites say that they are willing to fight for their country, whereas the figure among immigrants is 75 percent -- not all that different. (Another poll he reviews actually shows that more Hispanic parents than white parents agreed with the statement "The United States is a better country than most other countries in the world.") Of the 525 U.S. fatalities in Iraq as of early February 2004, four were named Perez (Hector, Joel, Jose, and Wilfredo). By my rough count, 64 of the 525 possessed Hispanic surnames. This is 12 percent of the total, exactly equal to the percentage of the U.S. population that is Hispanic. One of them, Jose Gutierrez, an orphan, came to the United States at the age of 14 by train, foot, and bus and was granted posthumous citizenship by the U.S. government. Like countless immigrants before him, he assimilated by dying in defense of the society he worked so hard to reach. Indeed, recent immigrants to the United States are more patriotic toward their new home than long-settled Britons toward the United Kingdom, French toward France, or Germans toward Germany. Other countries would be delighted to have immigrants with such assimilationist sympathies. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">亨廷顿自己的资料也证实了这一点。 81% 的非西语裔白人说他们愿意为国家上战场, 这一比例在移民中则为75%------两者之别并不太大。(他所检视的另一个民意测验实际上则发现, 对于“美国比世界上大多数别的国家都好”这个观点, 赞同者中西语裔父母要比白人父母来得多。)截至2004年二月初, 美国在伊拉克阵亡的525个人中, 有四个姓普雷斯(其名则分别为海克特、何埃尔、何塞、 和威尔佛理多)。 我粗粗算了一下, 525个阵亡名单中,有64个的姓是西语裔的。 这在总数中占了12%, 跟美国人口中西语裔所占比例正好相同。 他们中间有一个叫何塞.古铁雷斯的, 是个孤儿, 14岁就一路上火车巴士、徒步跋涉(偷渡)来美;阵亡之后才被美国政府追认为公民。 就象先他而来的无数移民那样, 他的同化过程之完成是靠牺牲生命来捍卫这个费了九牛二虎之力才得以进入的社会。 相对于久居英国的布列吞人、久居法国的法兰克人、和久居德国的日耳曼人而言, 美国的这些新移民对自己的新家园更具爱国之心。 换一个别的国家,都巴不得能有这样一些欣然接受同化的移民。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Huntington's claims about the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture are similarly undermined by the empirical fact that elites are less nationalistic than are ordinary Americans. Global-oriented businessmen and multiculturalist academics do tend to look upon old-fashioned patriotism with cosmopolitan disdain. But it is precisely those groups that include disproportionately large numbers of the Anglo-Protestants whose culture Huntington wants to celebrate. The most unabashedly antiwar of the Democratic Party's major 2004 presidential candidates, Howard Dean, had the most impeccable wasp background. Boston, where Huntington lives, is filled with descendants of the Puritans who vote for Ralph Nader, drink French wine, speak foreign languages, and rarely, if ever, send their children to die in places like Iraq. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">精英们与普通百姓相比民族主义不那么强烈, 这个实证的事实同样也颠覆了亨廷顿的另一个观点, 那就是盎格鲁新教文化的重要性。 放眼全球的经商人士以及热衷多元文化的学院派们对于老式的爱国主义往往以世界主义自居, 而嗤之以鼻。 这群人士其盎格鲁新教成员甚众,多到不成比例。 而恰恰就是这群人士的盎格鲁新教文化, 亨廷顿要加以歌颂赞美。 民主党2004年主要总统候选人中最公然反战的是豪尔德.迪恩, 他可是具有最最白璧无瑕的白人盎格鲁撒克逊清教徒的背景。 亨廷顿所居之地波斯顿, 其居民中清教徒后裔比比皆是, 他们投纳德*的票、饮法国的酒、口操的是外语、(纵使有,)也很少很少送子弟从军, 到象伊拉克这样的地方为国捐躯。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*Ralph Nader, 拉爾夫·納德生於1934年2月27日,是美國社會工作者。他是綠黨的1996和2000年度美國總統候選人。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">THE RETURN OF THE NATIVE </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Fortunately, it is not necessary to defend anything like a core culture to insist on the importance of assimilation; a core creed will suffice. A national culture is a way of life defined by one ethnic group or race, which demands that everyone else adapt to it. But a national creed is simply a set of ideas about what the United States should be -- and is thus open to all, regardless of faith, ethnicity, or race. Creedal identity has been central to the greatness of the United States, allowing it to recharge its batteries by incorporating new immigrant groups at those times when Anglo-Protestant cultural elites were turning reactionary and defensive. Perhaps the best example of such cultural reaction is Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916, which used pseudo-science and hysteria-mongering to fuel a nativist movement about which few contemporary Americans can be proud. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><b><font size="4">本土主义的抬头和回潮*</font></b></p><p><b><font size="4"></font></b></p><p><font size="4">所幸的是,对同化新移民重要性的坚持,并不需要以捍卫核心文化这样的东西作为前提*;只要有一个核心信条就足矣。国民文化虽是一种由国内的某一种族或民族来界定的生活方式, 但它却要求 别种族裔的每个人都要为之调整适应。 但国民信条却只是一套关于美国该如何立国的理念------因此, 无论是什么信仰、种族和民族, 它对人人开放。 国民身份的信条特性是美国之所以伟大的主要原因;每当盎格鲁新教的文化精英们立场趋于反动而处于防守劣势时, 这种国民身份的信条特性就通过包容收编新移民群体而让美国重新充电。精英们文化上的这种反动, 以下一书似为最适例子, 那就是1916年出版的由麦迪逊.格兰特*所著的【伟大种族的消逝】。这本书靠搬弄伪科学, 贩卖歇斯底里,为一场本土文化保护主义的运动煽风点火。 这场运动, 现代的美国人回顾起来很少有谁会为之感到自豪的。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:* “The Return of the Native” 是Thomas Hardy (哈代) 的名著。 中文一般译作【还乡】。男主人公克林·姚伯年轻有为,从巴黎还乡,满怀由法国空想社会主义思想生发而来的善良意图,自愿抛弃繁华世界的纸醉金迷,意欲在故乡的穷乡僻壤开创一番开蒙启智的事业。姚伯是生于荒原--走向繁华世界--复归荒原。原著中, native指的是土生土长的孩子(后来离乡出走), 本文中, native指的是本土主义,要排斥外来文化, 保护本土传统。 return 原著中指的是回乡、还乡, 本文中意思则是(本土主义)抬头, 复归。<b></b></font></p><p><font size="4">*It is not necessary to do A to do B. 不需要做完A才能做B。做B无需以做A为前提。<b></b></font></p><p><font size="4"><b>*</b>在美国,最能迷惑人的种族主义作家,要数麦迪逊·格兰特。他的著作比别人的更接近于纳粹人类学家的作品, 接受了北欧日耳曼人优越的神话。他警告说,与外族混合将使北欧日耳曼人的血统退化。格兰特死于1937年,生前是一位纽约的律师、业余动物学家、美国自然博物馆理事。他的两本有关种族问题的著作是1916年的《伟大种族的消逝》和1933年的《一个大陆的征服》。格兰特认为,美国最早的居民是纯血统的北欧日耳曼新教徒。格兰特接着说:不幸的是,这个本来能使美洲发展到顶峰的优秀种族,很快就被潮涌般移来的“异族”所“败坏”。结果我们变成了一个混合的民族,就象罗马帝国衰亡前存在的那种“种族混乱”一样。幸运的是我们还有百分之七十的北欧日耳曼人和百分之八十的新教徒。格兰特写道:只要我们能够制止这种“异族侵略”,我们仍然可以朝气蓬勃地成长,并实现我们的命运。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Had Who Are We? focused on the crisis facing the American creed as a result of recent immigration, it could have gone on to address concrete steps to ensure its viability. But what can one do to strengthen a culture in crisis? Huntington says he is making "an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture, not for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people." Culture can and does change, he points out, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask people without Anglo-Protestant roots to adapt their culture to the one that has existed here from the beginning. Yet Huntington suggests nothing about how this can be done, perhaps because so little can be done by any one person. Of course he is right that culture changes. But it happens over long periods of time, as a result of collective action, not just individual initiative. A new immigrant can immediately adopt the American creed, but the only thing he can do to adopt American culture is set in motion a process that, at best, will benefit his grandchildren (and even that will happen only if many other immigrants do so with him). </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">设若【我们是谁?】这本书能着重论述近期移民给美国国民信条带来的危机,则该书原本可以进一步探讨我们应该采取哪些具体措施以使这种信条维之不坠。可是如果是国民文化出现危机,我们又如何能施援手以支撑之?亨廷顿说他是“为盎格鲁新教文化的重要性张目, 而不是为盎格鲁新教民族的重要性张目。”他还指出, 文化是能够改变的, 而且也的确在改变; 因此, 要求不具盎格鲁新教文化源头的新移民调整自身的文化来适应从开始起就存在的本土文化是完全有道理的。不过, 亨廷顿对达此目的所应采取的举措却毫无建言,原因可能是在这方面仅靠个人一己绵薄之力,甚难有所成就。他说文化能改变, 这当然完全对。不过这种改变发生在很大的时间尺度上,而且是群体共同努力的结果, 不能仅靠一己之功取得。一个新移民可以立马接受美国国民信条,但是如果要他服膺美国国民文化,他当前就是能做也只不过是对一个费时甚长的过程仅作启动而已,从最乐观处言之,也要等到他的孙子辈才能由此获益。(即便如此,还必需许多其他移民同他一起行动方能奏效)。</font></p><p><font size="4">&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="4">Because culture is more resistant than creed, Huntington ends on a note of relentless pessimism. To his credit, he avoids the racist pseudo-science of The Passing of the Great Race. He does not, unfortunately, avoid its nativism. "The term 'nativism' has acquired pejorative connotations among denationalized elites," Huntington writes. In his view, nativism ought not be defined by extremist militias and the Ku Klux Klan but rather should be embraced by those who fear that an internal immigrant minority is on its way to becoming a majority. Summarizing his main findings, Huntington concludes that "white nativist movements are a possible and plausible response to these trends, and in situations of serious economic downturn and hardship could be highly probable." The word "plausible" catches the eye. To say that something is possible or probable is to make a prediction; to call it plausible is to endorse it. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">鉴于(新移民从母国带来的)文化比(带来的)信条(对同化的)抵抗性更强,亨廷顿一书的结语因此沉浸在极度的悲观情调中。不过,我们应称赞他的是,他避免使用了【伟大种族的消逝】一书所搬弄的种族主义伪科学。遗憾的是,他对该书的本土文化保护主义却全盘照用无所顾忌。 “‘本土文化保护主义’一词,在那些‘去民族主义’的精英份子群中已带有一层贬义,”&nbsp; 亨廷顿这样写道。 依他看来, 本土文化保护主义这一词的意思, 不应当由极端主义的民兵组织*以及三K党来定义, 而且,凡是担心新移民在国内势将由目前少数壮大为将来多数的人们, 都应拥戴本土文化保护主义。亨廷顿总结他的主要发现作了如下结论:“白人本土文化保护主义的运动乃是针对这些倾向所作的似有可能*、似为合理*的反应, 在经济严重衰退、严重困难的情况下, 这种反应更是相当可能*的。”在上文中 “似为合理” 令人侧目。 说某事似有可能或相当可能,这只不过是在作预测而已;一旦说某事似为合理,那就是为其作背书了。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*extremist militias 民兵组织队源自美国的一支反政府武装势力。号称以爱国和仇恨当前政府为主要行动驱动力的这一组织,直接体现在美国民众眼中的种种作为则是恐怖爆炸事件等一系列恐怖主义活动。包括俄克拉荷马城大爆炸、犹太电视台主持人枪杀事件以及得克萨斯州韦科和联邦特工对峙事件,都是由这一组织一手策划并执行。<i></i></font></p><p><font size="4">* 比较4P:Possible, Plausible, Probable, Proven ,从左到右“可能性”增大。 (似有可能,似为合理,相当可能,已经证实)</font></p><p><font size="4">“Possible,” “Plausible,” “Probable,” and “Proven” are terms used to indicate rough degrees of statistical probability of something happening or some proposition being true. </font></p><p><font size="4">The terms do reflect an ascending order of probability (and a nested one – anything that is plausible is also possible; anything proven is also probable, plausible, and possible), though not in a numerically precise way. They represent a sort of qualitative statistics. </font></p><p><font size="4">possible: that may or may not be, exist, happen. (客观, 无价值判断) 可能发生, 也可能不发生。译为:似有可能。plausible: having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable. (主观, 有价值判断)表面上看是可信的, 合理的。译为:似为合理。probable: likely to be, exist, happen.&nbsp; (客观, 无价值判断)可能发生。 译为:相当可能。</font></p><p><font size="4">也请比较 Unproved, improbable, implausible, impossible, 从左到右“不可能性”增大。 道理很简单, 如果一个事件发生的概率为P, 它的反事件的概率为1-P。 相对于possible, impossible是它的反事件, 等等。 译为:未经证实, 似无可能, 似不合理, 很不可能。 </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">Immigration poses endless dilemmas, and there is no way of knowing whether the success of past immigrants in adopting the American creed will be replicated by immigrants today. But insisting on creedal rather than cultural assimilation at least gives them a chance, which they certainly need. There is rising opposition to immigration among ordinary Americans and, if Huntington is any indication, among academic observers as well. The cause of creedal assimilation is not well served by a thoughtless and insipid cultural relativism that makes no demands on those who make the United States their home. The one thing required to navigate this difficult terrain is leadership -- and that is precisely where Huntington's latest book proves most disappointing. </font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">移民给我们提出了无数两难的问题, 我们无从知道以往老移民认同美国国民信条成功的先例能否为今天的新移民所复制。 可是强调信条同化, 而不是文化同化, 至少给这些新移民一个机会, 一个他们无疑亟需的机会。 因为普通的美国老百姓中反移民情绪日盛一日, 而且,如果亨廷顿可作一支风标的话, 学术界的观察家们也不例外。信条同化的大业靠草率乏味的文化相对主义*难成其事, 因为文化相对主义对选择以美国为家的人们毫无要求。要通过这个险阻四布的地段, 非得有领军人物为我们指方向、率大家拓道路------恰恰就在这一点上, 亨廷顿的新著让我们大失所望。 &nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*文化相对主义的核心人物是梅尔赫尔斯科维茨,他认为“文化相对主义的核心是尊重差别并要求相互尊重的一种社会训练。它强调多种生活方式的价值。这种强调以寻求理解与和谐共处为目的,而不去批判甚至摧毁那些与自己原有文化不相吻合的东西。”简单点说就是承认并尊重不同的文化,并在平等的基础上交流。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">In his earlier work, Huntington showed with remarkable perspicacity the ways in which elites have been unable to escape popular illusions in order to do what is in the national interest. In Who Are We? the brave defender of leadership turns himself into a populist, claiming that the defensive instincts of ordinary Americans make more sense than the out-of-touch cosmopolitanism of elites. He was right in The Soldier and the State and American Politics and is wrong in Who Are We? Ordinary Americans are unlikely to become as nativist as Huntington fears. But even if they do, immigration is here to say. A realist would urge American leaders to find sensible ways to deal with that fact. </font></p><p><font size="4">&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="4">在亨廷顿早期的著作里, 他曾以十分锐敏聪慧的方式显示了精英们在为国家谋利益的时候何以无法挣脱民众的错误观念*。在【我们是谁?】这本书里, 原来那位勇敢的精英辩护士却摇身一变成了一个民粹主义份子;他主张, 美国普通百姓的自卫自护本能比精英们不切实际的世界主义要来得合理许多。但是,(我认为,)他在【军人与国家】及【美国政治:和谐无望】这两部书里观点是对的, 而在【我们是谁?】这本书里观点却是错的。 美国普通百姓不大可能会变成狂热的本土文化保护主义者, 狂热到亨廷顿所担心的那种程度。即便他们真的变成 那么狂热, 移民们还是要就地留下*,赶不走的。 一个现实主义者要做的应是敦促美国的领袖们对这个实际问题寻找理智的方法解决。</font></p><p><font size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4">注释:*见前文“在【美国政治:和谐无望】(1981)这部书里, 亨廷顿确定了美国历史上有四次“信念激情”期:独立战争年代、杰克逊主义年代*、进步主义年代*和二十世纪六十年代。 他认为, 在这些年代里, 美国人民对道德完美性不现实的追求反而妨碍了他们的领袖正确行事。” </font></p><p><font size="4">* immigration is here to say. 显然, 原文有错, 应为 immigration is here to stay. </font></p><p><font size="4"><a href="http://zouhengfu.blog.sohu.com/">http://zouhengfu.blog.sohu.com/</a></font></p>

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-11-22 1:57:27编辑过]

关键词:土生土长 亨廷顿 Assimilation presidential Pennsylvania 推荐 亨廷顿 土生土长 偏激 护国

沧浪之水清兮可以濯我缨,沧浪之水浊兮可以濯我足。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 我要注册

京ICP备16021002-2号 京B2-20170662号 京公网安备 11010802022788号 论坛法律顾问:王进律师 知识产权保护声明   免责及隐私声明

GMT+8, 2019-12-6 23:40