娛樂城賭博獎金描述：：原標題：中國為何銘記百年屈辱？這個印度人的提問，引起了爭議！ | 老外看中國 專欄 | 老外看中國 鐵血軍事特色欄目，帶你了解老外網友對國際大事的看法。一起來看不同文化熏陶下的各國網友究竟會發生怎樣的思想碰撞。 近日，在外版知乎Quora上，有一個來自印度的網友提問到： 我始終想不明白。歷史上也有其他國家或群體被征服過，我們的民族也曾經被英國人殖民過。但為什么中國人偏偏把這一個世紀的屈辱看得這么重？ 是的，這是一種客觀存在的有趣現象：相較于大多數國家抑或是文明，中國人似乎對于“歷史的屈辱”格外看重。 為什么？各國網友紛紛表明了自己的看法。 1、Bu11ism This question strikes me as strange. It''''''''s like asking why is the interbellum period such a big deal in Europe? why do Americans make such a big deal of slavery? 你這問題問得倒也奇怪。這就像是在問，為什么歐洲至今還把兩次世界大戰看得這么重？為什么美國人把當年的奴隸制看得這么重？ "Why is the Trail of Tears such a big sticking point for Native Americans?"“Why do the Jews care so much about the Holocaust?”Well because all these issues are obxtively big deals. “為什么美國西部開發史上著名的‘血淚之路’(Trail of Tears) 被今天的美洲原住民看得這么重？”“為什么至今猶太人還把納粹大屠殺看得這么重？”因為所有這些在客觀上本來就是重大事件啊。 2、achmed011235 And historically speaking it''''''''s unfortunate because after the Opium War the Chinese were like yah let''''''''s use barbarian things to beat barbarian things, no big deal but it was the First Sino-Japanese War where the Chinese went oh no this system must change we must have a revolution. 這的確是一段不幸的歷史。但如果說鴉片戰爭之后，中國人大概還只是“好吧，讓我們學習野蠻人的方式，去打敗野蠻人——沒什么大不了”；可中日甲午戰爭（西方國家稱其為第一次中日戰爭，the First Sino-Japanese War）后，中國人終于意識到“哦，不，這個制度必須改變，我們需要一場革命”。 The modern Chinese national identity is rooted in the result of the First Sino-Japanese War and not the Opium War, but for convenience, the CCP has placed a good chunk of history where it does not belong and ignore many historical achievements by the late Qing court. 當代中國的國家認同根植于甲午戰爭而非鴉片戰爭的結果，但中國為了便于（塑造國家認同）把一大段歷史錯置在了不應該的地方，主動的忽視了清王朝晚期的一些歷史貢獻。 3、ESVVCLP2 The modern Chinese national identity is rooted in the result of the First Sino-Japanese War and not the Opium War, but for convenience of history where it does not belong 中國近代民族認同的根源不是鴉片戰爭，而是第一次中日戰爭的結果，但為了方便起見...這是一個有趣的句子。 This is an interesting sentence. Most national identities are contrived – by intelligentsia if not by government. The Sino-Japanese War might have been seen as a bigger turning point at the time, but I don’t think it’s illegitimate that this has now shifted. 大多數現代國家的身份認同，都是由知識精英們設計出來的。中日甲午戰爭在當時可能的確是一個更大的轉折，但我并不認為現在這種敘事有什么不妥。 In the history of Rome, Alaric’s sack of the city in 401 was a much bigger deal than the end of the reign of the last western emperor in 476 – yet now we remember the latter much more prominently. Retrospectively some events take on a greater importance. 例如古羅馬歷史上，公元401年（日耳曼一支的西哥特人）阿拉里克率軍洗劫羅馬城的歷史影響，遠比476年最后一位西羅馬皇帝退位要大得多，但現在更為世人熟知的卻是后者。很多歷史事件都需要后人重新回顧分析，才能真正發現它的重要性。 In hindsight in this case the Century of Humiliation now represents a downward spiral that hadn’t yet become immediately obvious. 在這件事上，我們后知后覺地去看，中國人的“百年屈辱史”代表的是一個螺旋式不斷沉淪的世紀，只是鴉片戰爭后的中國人恐怕還沒能馬上意識到而已。 National identities are mythologised collective imaginings – not factual accounts of history. Even where they miss an enormous amount of nuance – or even run counter to the facts on the ground – they are still valid. 國家認同就是一種被神話了的集體想象，而不是對歷史的真實描述。有的時候它會忽略大量歷史細節，有的時候甚至與史實完全違背——但你不能否認它的有效性。 China’s identity is no more or less contrived than any other. China’s history for the past ~180 years has been increasingly defined by foreign dominance. It’s natural to view the Opium Wars as the beginning of that trend 中國人的國家認同里被人為設計出來的成分，既不比其他任何國家更多，也不更少。從180年前開始，中國的歷史就越來越強烈地被外國列強的入侵和支配所定義。將鴉片戰爭視為這一進程的起始點，也是很自然的。 4、lowchinghoo Century of Humiliation is just a section in Chinese history textbook. There are taught in school as an era of China''''''''s struggle of transitioning into a modern era. I beg to differ many narrative here that say it serve only the purpose of boosting up the nationalism of Chinese people.What they learn about the important history lesson of Century of Humiliation.: 《百年恥辱》只是中國歷史教科書中的一個章節。學校里的教育是為中國向現代轉型的奮斗時代（而服務）。我不同意這里的許多說法，他們說這只是為了增強中國人民的民族主義。他們從百年恥辱的重要歷史教訓中學到了什么： 1) Qing dynasty failed to adopt science to modernise China. （1）清朝未能采用科學使中國現代化。 2) Ming and Qing dynasty protectionism and border locking policy make China failed to adopt new idea from the west to reform and evolve China. But they create a self sustainable ecological system it just not evolve. （2）明清保護主義和邊防封鎖政策使中國未能采納西方的新思想來改革和發展中國。但它們創造了一個自我維持的生態系統，而不是進化。 3) When a country is weak it will be succumbed to and bullied by strong countries, in this particular case bullied by imperialism. （3）當一個國家弱小時，就會屈從于強盛的國家，被強盛的國家欺負，在這種情況下，就會被帝國主義欺負。 4) The seed of China revolution has been planted during that time and many school of thoughts come out so it is important to talk about it. （4）中國革命的種子是在這一時期播下的，很多學派都出來了，所以說起來很重要。 5) They lost a lot of wars and signed a lot of Unequal Treaties some still affect China until today like Taiwan, Macao. Hong Kong. （5）他們輸掉了許多戰爭，簽訂了許多不平等條約，其中一些直到今天仍影響著中國，如臺灣、澳門。香港。 6) They face hardship when they try to resist invasion and strengthen their country. They tried a lot of methods through economic reform and technology advancement but also failed a lot of time. So there are a lot of lessons to be learned through their failure. （6）抵抗侵略，鞏固國家，面臨困難。他們通過經濟改革和技術進步嘗試了很多方法，但也失敗了很多次。所以從他們的失敗中可以學到很多教訓。 7) They tried to unite their people to strengthen the countries but there were a lot of political infighting, power grabbing and civil wars. （7）他們試圖團結人民以加強國家實力，但卻發生了許多政治內訌、權力爭奪和內戰。 There are many historical lessons to be learn during that period because China during that period is a period of fail state. So there are a lot of article written about it, it is importan because ''''''''Failure is the mother of Success'''''''' and Chinese are a nation that emphasizes learning from failure and history... Some nation especially former imperial nation don''''''''t have this section in their history textbook so they may think China is using it to ''''''''brainwash'''''''' their children, I think this is a misunderstanding. 這一時期的中國是一個失敗的國家，有許多歷史教訓值得我們學習。所以有很多文章是這樣寫的，這很重要，因為“失敗是成功之母”，而中國是一個強調從失敗和歷史中學習的國家。。。有些國家，特別是前帝國主義國家的歷史教科書里沒有這一節，所以他們可能認為中國在用它來欺騙自己的孩子，我認為這是一個誤會。 5、GaBeRockKing There are many historical lessons to be learn during that period because China during that period is a period of fail state......On the contrary, the western imperial and neo-imperial powers have equivalent, "here''''''''s how we screwed up, let''''''''s not do it again" lessons. The difference is, these lessons are typically about the imperialism itself. “總之，這一時期的中國是一個失敗的中國……尤其是那些曾經的帝國主義國家……”剛好相反，西方前帝國主義、新帝國主義國家（教育）都有同樣多的“我們哪里搞砸了……我們不能再這樣做”的課程。不同的是，這些課程通常是關于“帝國主義”本身的。 For example, as an American, I learned about the american-indian wars and trail of tears in school, where the lesson learned was that we should endeavor not to act in these immoral ways again. But what''''''''s different from the way china does things is that, for the most part, the subtext of history lesson is, "we did moral wrong, but pragmatic good." 例如，作為一名美國人，我在學校里學到過美國-印第安戰爭、“血淚之路”等知識，老師教導我們其中的教訓，就是我們要盡可能不再以如此不道德的方式行事。但和中國的教育不同之處在于，美國歷史教育的潛臺詞大多是“我們在道德上犯了錯誤，但客觀上卻干了件好事” That is, that the american-indian wars still let us spread over the continent from east to west. It''''''''s impolitic for teachers to say "the genocide of the natives directly contributed to america''''''''s current wealth and prosperity, at least for the people who aren''''''''t descended from them," but the point becomes obvious when our education system condemns the actions taken, but not the results obtained. 比如說，美國-印第安戰爭畢竟讓我們從東到西得到了整個大陸。老師們當然不會明目張膽地說“對原住民的種族滅絕直接導致了美國今天的富裕和繁榮——至少對非原住民后裔而言”，那就太沒腦子了。但每當我們的教育體系譴責過去的行為時，從不談及這些行為產生的成果，這就再明顯不過了。 Though funnily enough, that actually supports your main point-- that there''''''''s a mutual misunderstanding between western and eastern cultures. From the perspective of a westerner, the chinese government is instilling an extremely dangerous kind of jingoism that the west deliberately abandoned following the world wars. 然而很有趣，這實際上佐證了你的主要觀點，即東西方文化間存在很多誤解。從西方人的角度來看，中國正在發展一種極端危險的主義，而這恰恰是西方國家在二次世界大戰后刻意要回避的； From the eastern perspective, the imperial nations of the west are completely unrepentant, as they make all the right noises about having been morally wrong, but yet feel no desire to shift from the position on top of the heap that imperialism bought them. 站在中國人的立場上，西方帝國主義國家則是全不悔改，對于曾經的不道德錯誤，他們嘴上說盡了“對的話”，卻沒有任何意愿要把屁股從帝國主義行徑帶給他們的權位上挪開 6、fuzzybunn Perhaps it makes more sense to ask: despite having had an arguably worse time of it, why doesn''''''''t India view the period of colonization as one of humiliation and shame? 也許換個問法會更有意義：盡管經歷了一段可以說是更糟糕的（被殖民）歷史，為什么印度從不因此感到恥辱和羞愧呢？ 7、kimilime People form their view of history mainly based on basic education, and in every country, history, as a subject in high school, is taught to serve specific political goals, and China is nothing special. 人們形成基本歷史觀主要靠的是基礎教育，在每個國家，作為一門中學課程的歷史課，都需要服務于社會發展，中國也不例外。 So in China, the century of humiliation is emphasized for reasons: Reflect the view of backward relations of production blocking the development of production forces according to historical materialism as a part of Marxism. 所以在中國，著重強調“百年屈辱史”是有原因的：按照馬克思的歷史唯物主義觀，它反映了落后的生產關系阻礙了生產力發展； 8、PLArealtalk I think the shortest way of explaining this requires understanding of key factors。 我認為最簡單的解釋方法是了解關鍵因素。 The Chinese govt and the vast majority of the Chinese people today view themselves as part of an uninterrupted continuation of China as a "civilisation-state" (though that term is not used that often domestically, I think). 中國政府和絕大多數中國人，即使在今天依舊認為自己是中國作為“文明國家”不間斷延續的一部分（盡管我認為這個詞在國內并不經常使用）。 This factor is important because it basically means that events that may be perceived as "ancient history" (100-150 years ago) by other nations is perceived as relevant both culturally and materially for China today and into the future. 這一因素之所以重要，是因為它基本上意味著，被其他國家視為“古代歷史”（100-150年前）的事件，無論在文化上還是在物質上，對今天或者是未來的中國，都是相關的。 Imagine that in more than two thousand years, China has been the world's first-class and powerful country, and the huge gap since modern times has made the Chinese people who regard thousands of years of civilization as one have to reflect heavily. They have their own pride and never allow history to reappear! 想象一下，曾經在兩千多年的時間里，中國都是世界的一流鼎盛強國，而近代以來的巨大落差，使得將幾千年文明看作一體的中國人，不得不去沉重反思，他們擁有自己的驕傲，絕不允許歷史重現！ 9、TopKekJebait I think most of Westerners get the idea of century of humiliation wrong. 我認為大多數西方人把中國人的“百年屈辱史”觀想錯了。 It motivates the Chinese to self-strengthen, and is by no mean a vengeance motivator. They see themselves as the victim of imperialism but they don’t have a “victim mentality” that only blames the invaders and asks for reparations/vengeance. 它不斷敦促中國人自強，卻絕不是什么復仇的動力。中國人的確把自己看作帝國主義的受害者，但他們并沒有那種只會怪罪侵略者、要求賠償/復仇的“受害者心態”。中國人歸咎最多的，還是自己國家當時的積弱不振、腐敗無能。 The Chinese blame themselves more than anything for being weak, corrupt and incompetent themselves. They are not asking Europeans countries to repay for their crimes, they are not preparing for a war of vengeance. They never said they were entitled to something because of it or that they deserve something. So I don’t get why it keeps getting brought up as an example of Chinese government ramping up nationalism. 他們沒有要求歐洲國家為其罪行進行賠償，也沒在為什么“復仇之戰”做準備。他們從沒說過他們因此有權得到什么或理應得到什么。所以我不明白，為什么它一直被當作中國強化民族主義的證據。 It does increase national pride when Chinese people see how far they’ve come in contrast to that time, but it is by no mean a way to stir hatred against foreign countries as a tool of nationalism. 中國人回顧“百年屈辱史”，再看到今天的自己，比起那個時代已經走過了多遠的歷程，發生了多大變化，這的確會增加國家/民族自豪感，但這絕不是在煽動對外國的仇恨以作為某種民族主義工具。 不可否認，對于網友“TopKekJebait”的觀點，老鐵深表認同： 我認為大多數西方人把中國人的“百年屈辱史”觀想錯了。 它不斷敦促中國人自強，卻絕不是什么復仇的動力。中國人的確把自己看作帝國主義的受害者，但他們并沒有那種只會怪罪侵略者、要求賠償/復仇的“受害者心態”。中國人歸咎最多的，還是自己國家當時的積弱不振、腐敗無能。 事實如此： 對于過去所受到的屈辱，中國人之所以不斷地強調和提及，其根本原因主要還是為了不斷地用過去的不幸對今天的發展以及可能的懈怠，進行隨時的鞭策！ 中國人銘記歷史，但是當中國強大的那一刻，我們卻永遠不會重演如西方帝國主義列強一般欺凌弱小的歷史！ 這是5000年中華文明的基本修養：己所不欲，勿施于人。