Zhan 的个人资料青青子衿照片日志列表 工具 帮助

日志


2009/10/31

Tsien Revisited

钱学森的故事令我着迷。生于辛亥革命后两个月零一天的他,把科学生命中最好的二十年(24岁到44岁)和全部的研究资料留在了美国。回中国后再也未踏上彼邦,哪怕是受到美方的反复邀请和中共领导的劝说。他是这个世界上为数不多的曾经受到麦卡锡主义迫害和文化革命迫害的人。

在中国的时候,我对他的了解仅限于每年春节时领导去看望他时出现的那几个程式化的镜头。那些千篇一律的表彰其科学成就和卓越贡献的文字令我厌倦,令我完全没有去了解这个人的愿望。但是今天读到的两篇文章让我对他产生了巨大的兴趣。

第一篇A Dragon in Winter介绍了华裔作家张纯如(1968-2004)的钱学森传记“Thread of the Silkworm”, (《蚕丝》,1995)。张纯如本身是另一个充满传奇色彩的人物,一生写了三本书,钱学森传是第一本。第二本,也是她的代表作,The Rape of Nanking出版于1997年。2003年出版了第三本书,《美国的华人》。

另一篇发表于2002年的《加州理工新闻》,前一半是一个引子──杂志编辑撰写的背景综述,扼要回顾了钱学森的一生;主体部分是加州理工学院教授、钱学森的好朋友Frank Marble教授的回忆。加州理工学院在1979年授予钱学森“杰出校友奖”,钱学森没有赴美领奖。二十二年后的2001年,Marble教授亲自到北京把奖带给钱老。

Marble教授回忆的很多细节体现了钱学森作为普通人的一面。我很好奇的是,在美国最后五年的软禁究竟给他的思想带来了多大的变化?客观地说麦卡锡主义的迫害和文化革命相比是文明太多了,为什么他在生命的后五十年似乎始终对那段经历耿耿于怀而不愿回美国?是情感的真实流露还是策略的考量?为什么他的美国老友在隔绝几十年重新联系上之后会感到“scared” ["By the 1980s and 1990s his former students and even his closest friends were scared of him because of his loyalty to the Communist Party."--A Dragon in Winter]? 除了作为一个天才、一个杰出的学者和一个爱国者之外,钱学森到底是一个什么样的人?

我想张纯如的传记应该能回答上面这几个问题,以后有机会要读一读。

我大学的宿舍楼,东风五楼,就是以钱学森领导研制的导弹命名的。愿逝者安息。

Tsien Revisited (Caltech News, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2002)

First he was accused, then detained, then deported. Any of this sound familiar?

But there was a twist to this tale. A Caltech professor talks about his long friendship with the Caltech-trained scientist who became the “father of Chinese rocketry."

This past December, Frank Marble, PhD ’48, and his wife, Ora Lee, went to China to visit and help honor their longtime friend Tsien Hsue-Shen, PhD ’39. Many Caltechers, along with Americans who lived through the Red Scare days of the ’50s, have at least a glancing familiarity with Tsien’s story: a brilliant student and later colleague of aerospace pioneer Theodore von Kármán, commended by the U.S. Air Force for his contributions to its technological development after World War II, the Chinese-born scientist was accused of harboring Communist sympathies and stripped of his security clearance in 1950. Tsien and those who knew him best said that the allegations were nonsense, and no evidence ever came to light to substantiate them. Despite that, and over a barrage of protests from colleagues in academia, government, and industry, the INS placed him under a delayed deportation order, and for the next five years he and family lived under U.S. government surveillance and partial house arrest. In September 1955 they were permitted to leave for China.

Received with open arms in his homeland, Tsien resumed his research, founded the Institute of Mechanics, and, as one of the world’s leading authorities in aeronautics, went on to become the “father” of China’s missile program, a trusted member of the government and Party’s inner circle, and the nation’s “most honored scientist.”

Early in the INS saga, Tsien and his wife had planned to visit China so that their parents could meet their American-born grandchildren for the first time. But the INS impounded his luggage and charged him with concealing classified documents—the most “secret” of which, suspected of containing security codes, turned out upon inspection to be a table of logarithms. In the meantime the FBI had decided that Tsien posed a security risk and imprisoned him in San Pedro; he was freed two weeks later after Caltech president Lee DuBridge, among others, flew to Washington to intervene on his behalf. These incidents undoubtedly helped Tsien to conclude, as he confided to friends, that he had become “an unwelcome guest” in the country in which he had spent his whole scientific life. In any case, he was determined to avoid such problems again, and when he sailed to China, he deliberately left all of his research notes and papers behind.

Among the handful of people who saw the Tsien family off in 1955 were Frank and Ora Lee Marble. Marble and Tsien had struck up a warm friendship as aeronautics colleagues, and the Tsien family had stayed at the Marbles’ Pasadena home during their final weeks in the United States. After Tsien’s departure, he and Marble corresponded intermittently; then, with the onset of the Cultural Revolution in China, Marble stopped hearing from him. In 1979 Caltech named Tsien a recipient of the Distinguished Alumni Award in recognition of his pioneering work in rocket science, but Tsien, although he sent a gracious acknowledgment, did not come to campus to collect it.

Time passes. In 1981, Frank and Ora Lee received an invitation from the Chinese Academy of Sciences to come to Beijing and teach combustion technology and English, respectively, at the Academy’s newly established Graduate School of Science and Technology, a small research institute partly modeled on Caltech. Shortly afterward, the Marble and Tsien families were reunited for the first time in 25 years. Marble recalls his feelings before they met. “We had had very different experiences and lived in such different circumstances. Would our old, easygoing friendship and discussions resume? Or was that something that just wasn’t going to happen?” After half an hour, he says, he had his answer. “There was no obstacle.”

The two families kept in touch after that and saw each other again in China in 1991. In the years since Tsien had returned to China, Marble had taken on the project of collecting and organizing the extensive research notes—two large file cabinets worth, it turned out—that Tsien had left at Caltech. Tsien repeatedly said he did not want them back, telling Marble at their 1981 reunion, “Frank, American students need them much more than Chinese students.” A decade or so ago, however, he had a change of heart, and, with the help of Tsien’s colleague Cheng Che-Min, PhD ’52, Marble returned the collection to China. Some papers went to the Institute of Mechanics, founded decades earlier by Tsien, and others now form the core holdings of the Tsien Library, which the Chinese government had established at Xi’an Jiatong University, about 600 miles southwest of Beijing. The Chinese Academy of Sciences subsequently brought out selections from the collection as an elegant, coffee table-type book entitled Manuscripts of H. S. Tsien 1938–1955, whose publication coincided with the December 2001 symposium celebrating Tsien’s 90th birthday.

When Marble went to visit Tsien for that event, he went both as a friend and as the official emissary of Caltech and President Baltimore, bringing with him the Distinguished Alumni Award that the Institute had presented to Tsien in absentia 23 years ago. Tsien is now permanently confined to bed, so Marble made the formal presentation at his bedside in a ceremony that received widespread coverage in China, and at last provided a fitting coda to Tsien’s long, complicated, and never completely sundered association with Caltech.

Marble, who is Caltech’s Hayman Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Professor of Jet Propulsion, Emeritus, spoke with Caltech News editor Heidi Aspaturian about his recent trip and earlier visits with Tsien in China.

Tsien does not speak much English any more, but his family tells me that he still understands it quite well. He was thoroughly aware that I was presenting Caltech’s highest honor to him at the official request of David Baltimore, and I think he was deeply impressed with and appreciative of that.

We weren’t able to talk much during my most recent visit, but when I saw him in 1991 and again in 1996, we had some very interesting conversations. I think in general we both felt less constrained than we had during our reunion in 1981. One comment he made to me in 1991 particularly stands out: “You know, Frank, we’ve done a lot for China. People have enough food. They’re working and progress is being made. But Frank, they’re not happy.” He felt very bad about that—almost, I think, a little bit responsible for it, although it was not an area he was involved in at all. His area of activity was military and civilian rocketry, and this was strictly a personal observation. That was about as far as he ever went in saying that things were not ideal.

He obviously has good memories of Caltech. He speaks of the Institute most fondly, and I think that he feels that his time on campus was one of the most enjoyable of his life. In a letter that his wife, Tsiang Ying [蒋英], wrote us after our recent visit, she said that Tsien still loves to reminisce about Theodore von Kármán and the wonderful times he had at Caltech and to tell the old von Kármán jokes. So I think he stills feels very emotionally tied to the Institute. But it’s important to remember that during the entire five-year episode with the INS, Caltech was very good to him. The Institute continued to honor his professorship and to respect his reputation. My understanding is that Lee DuBridge, who vigorously supported Tsien, had difficulties with the Board of Trustees, some of whose members were embarrassed by Tsien’s situation.

Once Tsien returned to China, I don’t think he ever made another trip West. He did travel once to the Soviet Union. Evidently he did not endear himself to his hosts, and he never went back. Otherwise, so far as I know, he did not leave China. I would guess that this was largely by choice—he never was a great one for traveling. I think that he felt he had so many things to do at home that he had no real desire to go elsewhere.

Tsien never spoke to me about how his life and scientific career in America had ended. He was not a person for looking back or for ruminating about how things might have been. He was very much a realist, and my feeling is that he just tuned those last five years in America out. I do know that he felt, at least when all this started, that he would be able to do better work in the United States than he would initially in China, where research conditions at the time were very primitive. I believe that once he returned to China, what he found there was pretty much what he had expected. But he did have very able people working with him. Many of them had studied in the United States, and they were devoted to him. I met a few of those who had worked with him in the early days, and they had the highest praise for the way he had laid out and directed the program for rocketry development. I think that Tsien also had the great personal advantage of being technically and scientifically on top of things, and he also had the ear of the government. By virtue of his expertise and reputation he could convince officials of what needed to be done and accomplish things that other people couldn’t.

He did not talk about his experiences during that era. We were both very careful to avoid discussion about anything that touched on sensitive issues. We would talk about every other subject—family, music, literature, and some scientific work that was mutually interesting. He was very enthusiastic and intrigued about some of the work I was doing on combustion processes in vortex flows and told me, “Frank, you have been more honest to von Kármán than I have.” What he meant was that I was still involved in the fundamental research areas that von Kármán had worked in, but that he was now in a very different mode of operation.

Tsien, of course, became a high-ranking, trusted Party official, but it was evident that he had had trouble during the Cultural Revolution. I heard from his colleagues, but never directly from him, that like many leading scientists and intellectuals, he wrote one or two letters of “confession.” Ying, his wife, had a very interesting experience. She was head of the Western Vocal Music Department at the Beijing Conservatory, and commuted between work and home on a motorbike. Apparently the Red Guard was after her in some way and so for several months—maybe as long as a year—she just lived at the conservatory until she thought it was safe to go out again. Her students brought her food and other necessities.

I also spoke to one of Tsien’s close colleagues, Ch’ien Wei-Zhang [钱伟长]. He had earned his doctorate in Canada, was a postdoc at Caltech, and had worked with Tsien at JPL. He also went back to China and pursued a very productive career there. During the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guard accused him of all sorts of things, and he wound up spending some time in the countryside, stoking an open-hearth furnace for a time at a steel-manufacturing facility. He had a very difficult time of it. So both Tsien’s family and his research circle were affected, although Tsien himself does not talk about that period beyond referring to it as “the 10 lost years.”

Many people have said that during his last years in Pasadena Tsien was bitter. I never sensed that. He was no doubt hurt, but I never saw him brooding about it. It was something that had happened, and, as he saw it, he had to react in a way that was appropriate. When he felt he was no longer welcome, he resigned from all the technical societies and sometimes his letters were a bit curt. That was about the extent of it. Apart from the first six months between the cancellation of his security clearance and the INS hearing, he and his family more or less went on with their lives as usual. Their circle of acquaintances and friends did narrow, which must have been hard. A lot of his former colleagues had become a bit afraid of associating with him socially.

His children were both born here, and they have spent time in the United States as adults. His son [钱永刚,1948年生] did graduate work at Caltech [1988年获加州理工大学计算机硕士]. His daughter  [钱永真,1949年生] studied medicine on the East Coast [这个有点奇怪,在其他地方看到钱永真“从事音乐教育”,这和医学差了十万八千里,可能是Marble教授记错了?不过钱永真是美籍,要读MD倒确实没有国籍和绿卡的问题] and has had quite a successful practice there, but she recently decided she would return to China this summer. Each of them now has a little boy. One of the tenderest pictures I have of Tsien shows him sitting in the backseat of his chauffeur-driven car with one arm around each little four-year-old grandson.

I do think that after his problems with the INS, Tsien lost faith in the American government, but I believe that he has always had very warm feelings for the American people. That came through again and again in the public statements he made, both here during the INS hearings, and after he returned to China. But once he went back to China, I don’t think he wanted ever to deal with the United States in an official capacity again. When Caltech’s former president Harold Brown visited China as secretary of defense in 1980, Tsien avoided seeing him. When I saw him the next year, I said, “Tsien, you made a big error. Harold Brown is a great admirer of yours and a brilliant guy.” And he said, “I know. It was a mistake on my part.” But that is how he felt about it.

Looking back, I think the most remarkable aspect of the five years he was detained is the resilience with which he returned to his teaching and research, making this period one of his most productive and innovative. He was instrumentally involved in the development of the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Jet Propulsion Center, Caltech’s academic focus of instruction and research in jet propulsion.

There’s always been a kind of single-mindedness about his work. He decides what is to be done and he organizes it and does it. He does not stop to think halfway through, is this really what I should be working on? And I believe he adopted the same attitude once he returned to China. He did not take time to indulge in speculation or fantasies about “what might have been.” He never indicated to me that he had. He was confronted with a new set of problems, and he devoted himself to working full time to solve them.



A life in interesting times: Tsien with Marble (right) at Los Angeles Harbor in September 1955, preparing to board ship to China.

  

This video shows Frank Marble, Professor Emeritus at Caltech, presenting the Distinguished Alumni Award to Tsien Hsue-Shen, 22 years after it was awarded to him on May 19, 1979. (Beijing, 2001)

评论 (28)

请稍候...
很抱歉,您输入的评论太长。请缩短您的评论。
您没有输入任何内容,请重试。
很抱歉,我们当前无法添加您的评论。请稍后重试。
若要添加评论,需要您的家长授予您相应权限。请求权限
您的家长禁用了评论功能。
很抱歉,我们当前无法删除您的评论。请稍后重试。
您已超过了一天之内允许提供的评论数上限。请在 24 小时后重试。
因为我们的系统表明您可能在向其他用户提供垃圾评论,您的帐户已禁用了评论功能。如果您认为我们错误地禁用了您的帐户,请联系 Windows Live 支持部门
完成下面的安全检查,您提供评论的过程才能完成。
您在安全检查中键入的字符必须与图片或音频中的字符一致。

若要添加评论,请使用您的 Windows Live ID 登录(如果您使用过 Hotmail、Messenger 或 Xbox LIVE,您就拥有 Windows Live ID)。登录


还没有 Windows Live ID 吗?请注册

Zhan发表:
钱学森最后一次谈话:中国大学缺乏创新精神 (2005年3月29日下午,301医院)

http://news.163.com/09/1105/05/5NB4I2QF0001124J.html

" 像加州理工学院这样的学校,光是为中国就培养出许多著名科学家。钱伟长、谈家桢、郭永怀等等,都是加州理工学院出来的。郭永怀是很了不起的,但他去世得早,很多人不了解他。在加州理工学院,他也是冯·卡门的学生,很优秀。我们在一个办公室工作,常常在一起讨论问题。我发现他聪明极了。你若跟他谈些一般性的问题,他不满意,总要追问一些深刻的概念。他毕业以后到康奈尔大学当教授。因为卡门的另一位高才生西尔斯在康奈尔大学组建航空研究院,他了解郭永怀,邀请他去那里工作。郭永怀回国后开始在力学所担任副所长,我们一起开创中国的力学事业。后来搞核武器的钱三强找我,说搞原子弹、氢弹需要一位搞力学的人参加,解决复杂的力学计算问题,开始他想请我去。我说现在中央已委托我搞导弹,事情很多,我没精力参加核武器的事了。但我可以推荐一个人,郭永怀。郭永怀后来担任九院副院长,专门负责爆炸力学等方面的计算问题。在我国原子弹、氢弹问题上他是立了大功的,可惜在一次出差中因飞机失事牺牲了。那个时候,就是这样一批有创新精神的人把中国的原子弹、氢弹、导弹、卫星搞起来的。"
11 月 4 日
Jinjing发表:
我不是很赞同《錢學森神話》的评论, 这个评论字里行间流露出偏激之意...中国航天和核工业到底关键何在, 很难说, 也许只有解密档案才能回答, 任何臆测都站不住脚...
我觉得tinglong给的video link不错, 谢谢分享
11 月 3 日
Tinglong发表:
另:華東師範大學歷史系教授沈志華先生在香港科技大學的演講對理解這段歷史亦有幫助: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5119917951673888181#
11 月 2 日
Tinglong发表:
我覺得展兄說得很好,在討論價值之前,先厘清事實。

所以我向各位推薦我個人認為對於此事最靠譜的評論文章--資深媒體人黃章晉的《錢學森神話》:http://www.bullogger.com/blogs/huangzhangjin/archives/346621.aspx
11 月 2 日
Jinjing发表:
嘿嘿, 让我想起了茶余饭后大家针对某些历史政治问题的锲而不舍的争论....
我觉得也没有必要像教科书媒体一样有点上纲上线...那个年代的人比我们要更有归属感的需求, 要寻根(比如杨振宁最后扎了美国根, 但是还是强调他的中国根, 我看过他那篇著名的文章, 但是没觉得真的很感人的样子...), 可以称之为爱国吧; 多少年后, 也许现在的海归也会被称为爱国者, 他们也许带来了先进的理念, 但是实际上现在人人都知道所谓海归, 只是为了更好的过精神或者物质日子而已; 那时候人人希望独裁统治结束, 希望开明政治, 这点Communist Party在56年以前做的相当不错, 一切宛如春天般美好; 是我, 我也要回国的, 皮萨还是不如包子好吃呀...
11 月 1 日
叶leafalone发表:
我都已表达清楚了,听博主的,歇,继续看球。。
11 月 1 日
Zhan发表:
well said.

as moderator of this blog - I have done this several times before - given that there are already a lot of comments following this post (msn space allows 20 comments per page - once it gets over 20, you have to turn the page to see older comments), I would suggest you guys move to private channels, unless you think that you have very important things that will greatly enlighten the readers of this blog - to say.

Otherwise, if you feel the strong urge to discuss further, I can forward your email addresses to each other so that you guys can talk and drink and do whatever you like.
11 月 1 日
叶leafalone发表:
1、我并未说国防与政体无关,而是其并非一个简单的关联。无论政体多么好还是多么坏,国防总是具有相对独立性的。兴许好政体更多用国防来防止入侵,而坏政体要多用在镇压民众和保卫统治,但并没有任何形式的政治管理可以不反侵略。旧历史教科书上写中国古代封建王朝的军队全用来维持统治权,这有些自欺欺人。
2、钱只是个搞火箭的科学家,他能做好自己能力以内的事情,减轻中国外交上的压力,这已是足够。至于其是被当作了“剑”,还是能找到自己的“剑鞘”而不被利用,这是后话,我们不能什么都以结果论。所谓能力越大,责任越大,中国不信任知识分子们,并不能怪到科学家身上。
3、200多年前的事情我们无法再预测,但可以看现有的历史。国防并非推动社会进步的决定性力量,而是保护力量。欧洲人变成文明人虽是在用枪炮对异族进行屠戮之后,但并不能说枪炮让他们变成了文明人,但枪炮使他们有机会得到新的眼界、扩展新的思想,从而进入新的时代。日本在亚洲领先接受宪政思想,却依然要发动侵略战争;但另一方面,日本国的民生水准在亚洲算得数一数二,同时依然全民身着传统服饰度过盂兰盆节与新年,这是否一个值得思考的例子呢。我以为,强大的国防并不能保证良好的制度,但良好的制度一定需要强大的国防。
4、酒友甚好。
11 月 1 日
Zhan发表:
(this was written before the last four comments.)

Aurelius: thanks for comments. These sound like pretty standard statements from a certain political camp - so standard that I think a grain of salt would be in order. The words interspersed in your argument, "craze," "zeal," "extreme," "brain-washing," etc. are words with strong emotional connotations and multiple, often conflicting layers of meanings, therefore their use should be treated with the highest degree of care. It is hard to find such words in a careful analysis without long, trailing explanations and adequate corroborations.

The counter-arguments to yours are often, if not always as strong and eloquent as your own (I can say so because I have seen them, many times, and from the brightest - as bright as their opponents- minds in the world). I think it is great that you laid out your thoughts - open discussions and debates are of very high value in this blog owner's humble opinion - but it is the strength of the belief exhibited in your arguments that concerns me a little bit. Is the strength untested, or have already been tested a million times? I do not know. But I think there is always a tiny bit of possibility that you have not been exposed to the strongest counter-argument yet. So why not stay tuned.

I was recently intrigued by John Rawls' concept of "veil of ignorance," and think that it nicely captures what I've been thinking in the past. We are all creatures of our past - our genes, upbringings, experiences. Last year, when I was doing a formal presentation before the Carnegie Mellon professors and students, arguing that the reports in America about the Tibet riots were seriously biased, I could almost hear the more knowledge folks jeering in their heads - what if you were born a Tibetan, and worse, a Tibetan-in-exile in Dharmsāla? Would you still say the same thing?

My answer to that hypothetical hector would be: yes, me being Chinese is a large part of the reason that I'm doing this now. But even before we penetrated the veil of ignorance and did not know who we are, logic already gained its quality, high and low - and often, arguments and counter-arguments rise together to achieve the same heights, the "balance of terror." But knowing that I could have been born in Dharmsāla humbled me, and forced me to make my arguments as careful and air-tight as possible.
11 月 1 日
我想如果清朝就发明了两弹一星,今天我们是不是还留着辫子、考科举?!
11 月 1 日
我想leafalone 叶误会了,“爱国主义是XX最后的避难所”并不是一个简单的回应,彷佛是拿了一个过时的武器。我不知道100多年前的这句话现在已经过时了,我用它只是因为这对于阐明我的论点有帮助。如有落伍请见谅。既然兄台表现的这么成熟,且又能充满性情和激情地分析问题,看来还是很适合做酒友啊!
11 月 1 日
如果真是麦卡锡硬生生把钱逼成了共产主义的合作者,那么那些持爱国观点的一厢情愿者也可以休口了。leaflong说,国防与政体无关,这就不免不现实了吧?!说道国防,其实不确,defense是指捍卫regime from its threat,具有对内对外的双重性,对政治合法性和稳定具有极大的影响力。不过有一点你说得很对,军事力量的强弱的确很政体好坏无关,这也可以解释为什么独裁者对军事力量格外地obsessed。也可以很好地回应“帮你”朋友的回应,为何中国对于钱的依赖更大,而不是信任罗隆基、马寅初、张培刚一干人等。我想希特勒对于V2和喷气飞机的研发者,对于沃纳·冯·布劳恩、鲁道夫·赫曼也应该是礼遇有加吧!
11 月 1 日
叶leafalone发表:
哈哈,校友就更有趣了,同校而异见也算是一件好事。
SA兄似乎有所误解,并非是军事落后就要挨打,其实是若军事落后,则在挨打时难有还手之力。我并无意保卫什么意识形态,更非保卫历史课本(大家都这个年纪了,还用刚上大学时跟人辩论的几个“爱国主义是XX最后的避难所”、“历史课本主义”这些话来说,有些没劲啦)。如钱这样的人回国,正是因国家有各种严重问题,内忧外患相互作用,因此愿用一己之力做一些事情,而非留在海的那边看戏。若管理制度良好,百姓安居乐业,外患不再侵扰,那自然可以安心选择自己喜欢的地方居住,不必理会什么国家民族。正因有挨打的危险,所以才要伸手保护与自己血脉相连的故土,这难道不是性情中人的所为么。至于为什么会挨打,为什么内忧不断,自应有其他方面的英才站出来,这又是后话,与本问题无关。
对于历史的细究,我非常乐意与您讨论,详细的阅读一直在进行,从未间断,当然依然有所不足。
有一点请注意,钱学森回国时中国的地缘政治环境,和美国的对比。中国几乎是世界上地缘关系最险恶的地方(这涉及到历史、民族、地理等方面),而美国几乎是最安全的地方,两者相比,国防对百姓之生计的重要性绝不可同日而语。
钱学森当年从美国回到中国,看当时国内的环境,可万万不是在寻找什么避难所,而是埋骨之所。

P.S. 展哥这经历真不错哇,我举例不当,但意在说明国防事务的特殊性,莫怪莫怪。你说得很对,求同存异。
11 月 1 日
还有,意识形态的历史教育所致力于培养的受害人心态,只能导致受教育者的疯狂和狂热,以及对于仇恨报复的极端向往情绪,并对于国家、民族、人民这类大词产生畸形的认同和感受。这非常利于统治者对于公众的煽动和控制,因此这个脑洗方式被众多世界各国的专制统治者所钟爱。从纳粹到今天的伊斯兰极端主义,无不有异曲同工之妙。(勒庞的大众心理学对此有很好的阐述。)爱国主义是所有流氓最后的避难所,这句话,从反面来看,无非是最经济的方式在向一代又一代的统治者来展示一个高效策略。
11 月 1 日
这么多评论,无非就暗含了一个逻辑:落后就要挨打,更准确地说是,军事落后就要挨打。不知是否偶然,这与中国意识形态独霸的历史政治教育所致力于灌输的观念高度一致。(其实也不然,如果认真读指定教材,其实它还蕴含了制度革新的主线,不过这条线经常被技术革新的线所压制。这种技术与制度之争的奇妙现身与消失非常值得玩味。对于CCP来说,社会主义革命需要制度合法性的历史进化论,但是问题在于这种制度被中国的实践证明是具有强大破坏力的,所以为了保持它的合法性又只能要强调技术或器物主线。结果就是历史书被写的异常纠结和挣扎。)所以,讨论者要是除了这种意识形态正确的历史知识外,再无其他的严肃历史学习或者阅读,那么所谓的争论就是一个假象,而掩盖了意识形态与反意识形态的竞争。这里不是历史讲堂,无非展开系统的阐述。我建议,就几次中国近代史上具有影响性的战争,先做一个详细的阅读,然后再讨论是否相对军事优势是避免战争的有效条件。
11 月 1 日
Zhan发表:
刚刚问了一下,发现你们都是法大的校友,真是大水冲了龙王庙。君子和而不同。

leaf: 我参观过五角大楼噢,我跟你说过吗?看这儿:

http://ekissinger521.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!1E0FC9BD030D7CDE!1531.entry
11 月 1 日
叶leafalone发表:
同意楼上。心系故土无错,落叶归根无罪。
11 月 1 日
WeiRanying发表:
人家就是爱国就是乐意回来 何必各种分析给添上三千空心窍
11 月 1 日
叶leafalone发表:
说到朝鲜,即便是现在,称当年中国入侵朝鲜,而美国为保卫朝鲜而战的文章依然比比皆是。政治制度跟意识形态是一码事,但国防与军事往往是另一码事,二者可未必有想当然的联系。政治可以分左右谈高低,但我不认为国防是可以一概而论的。君认为五角大楼可以自由参观,而美国军事高参与核心试验科学家能自由到中国大学进行交流和演讲么?
11 月 1 日
梦回朝鲜!!!
11 月 1 日

引用通告

此日志的引用通告 URL 是:
http://ekissinger2005.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E4206F3B39EC015D!1069.trak
引用此项的网络日志