Friday, April 18, 2008

少年中国说

少年中国说

日本人之称我中国也,一则曰老大帝国,再则曰老大帝国。是语也,盖袭译欧西人之言也。呜呼!我中国其果老大矣乎?梁启超曰:恶是何言,是何言,吾心目中有一少年中国在!

欲言国之老少,请先言人之老少。老年人常思既往,少年人常思将来。惟思既往也,故生留恋心;惟思将来也,故生希望心。惟留恋也,故保守;惟 希望也,故进取。惟保守也,故永旧;惟进取也,故日新。惟思既往也,事事皆其所已经者,故惟知照例;惟思将来也,事事皆其所未经者,故常敢破格。老年人常 多忧虑,少年人常好行乐。惟多忧也,故灰心;惟行乐也,故盛气。惟灰心也,故怯懦;惟盛气也,故豪壮。惟怯懦也,故苟且;惟豪壮也,故冒险。惟苟且也,故 能灭世界;惟冒险也,故能造世界。老年人常厌事,少年人常喜事。惟厌事也,故常觉一切事无可为者;惟好事也,故常觉一切事无不可为者。老年人如夕照,少年 人如朝阳;老年人如瘠牛,少年人如乳虎;老年人如僧,少年人如侠;老年人如字典,少年人如戏文;老年人如鸦片烟,少年人如泼兰地酒;老年人如别行星之陨 石,少年人如大洋海之珊瑚岛;老年人如埃及沙漠之金字塔,少年人如西伯利亚之铁路;老年人如秋后之柳,少年人如春前之草;老年人如死海之潴为泽,少年人如 长江之初发源。此老年与少年性格不同之大略也。梁启超曰:人固有之,国亦宜然。

梁启超曰:伤哉老大也。浔阳江头琵琶妇,当明月绕船,枫叶瑟瑟,衾寒于铁,似梦非梦之时,追想洛阳尘中春花秋月之佳趣。西宫南内,白发宫 娥,一灯如穗,三五对坐,谈开元、天宝间遗事,谱霓裳羽衣曲。青门种瓜人,左对孺人,顾弄孺子,忆候门似海珠履杂遝之盛事。拿破仑之流于厄蔑,阿剌飞之幽 于锡兰,与三两监守吏或过访之好事者,道当年短刀匹马,驰骋中原,席卷欧洲,血战海楼,一声叱咤,万国震恐之丰功伟烈,初而拍案,继而抚髀,终而揽镜。呜 呼,面皴齿尽,白头盈把,颓然老矣!若是者,舍幽郁之外无心事,舍悲惨之外无天地,舍颓唐之外无日月,舍叹息之外无音声,舍待死之外无事业。美人豪杰且 然,而况于寻常碌碌者耶!生平亲友,皆在墟墓,起居饮食,待命于人,今日且过,遑知他日,今年且过,遑恤明年。普天下灰心短气之事,未有甚于老大者。于此 人也,而欲望以拏云之手段,回天之事功,挟山超海之意气,能乎不能?

呜呼,我中国其果老大矣乎?立乎今日,以指畴昔,唐虞三代,若何之郅治;秦皇汉武,若何之雄杰;汉唐来之文学,若何之隆盛;康乾间之武功。 若何之烜赫!历史家所铺叙,词章家所讴歌,何一非我国民少年时代良辰美景、赏心乐事之陈迹哉!而今颓然老矣,昨日割五城,明日割十城;处处雀鼠尽,夜夜鸡 犬惊;十八省之土地财产,已为人怀中之肉;四百兆之父兄子弟,已为人注籍之奴。岂所谓老大嫁作商人妇者耶?呜呼!凭君莫话当年事,憔悴韶光不忍看。楚囚相 对,岌岌顾影;人命危浅,朝不虑夕。国为待死之国,一国之民为待死之民,万事付之奈何,一切凭人作弄,亦何足怪!


梁启超曰:我中国其果老大矣乎?是今日全地球之一大问题也。如其老大也,则是中国为过去之国,即地球上昔本有此国,而今渐 渐灭,他日之命运殆将尽也。如其非老大也,则是中国为未来之国,即地球上昔未现此国,而今渐发达,他日之前程且方长也。欲断今日之中国为老大耶,为少年 耶?则不可不先明“国”字之意义。夫国也者,何物也?有土地,有人民,以居于其土地之人民,而治其所居之土地之事,自制法律而自守之;有主权,有服从,人 人皆主权者,人人皆服从者。夫如是,斯谓之完全成立之国。地球上之有完全成立之国也,自百年以来也。完全成立者,壮年之事也;未能完全成立而渐进于完全成 立者,少年之事也。故吾得一言以断之曰:欧洲列邦在今日为壮年国,而我中国在今日为少年国。

 
夫古昔之中国者,虽有国之名,而未成国之形也,或为家族之国,或为酋长之国,或为诸侯封建之国,或为一王专制之国。虽种 类不一,要之,其于国家之体质也,有其一部而缺其一部,正如婴儿自胚胎以迄成童,其身体之一二官支,先行长成,此外则全体虽粗具,然未能得其用也。故唐虞 以前为胚胎时代,殷周之际为乳哺时代,由孔子而来至于今为童子时代,逐渐发达,而今乃始将入成童以上少年之界焉。其长成所以若是之迟者,则历代之民贼有窒 其生机者也。譬犹童年多病,转类老态,或且疑其死期之将至焉,而不知皆由未完全、未成立也,非过去之谓,而未来之谓也。

且我中国畴昔,岂尝有国家哉?不过有朝廷耳。我黄帝子孙,聚族而居,立于此地球之上者既数千年,而问其国之为何名,则无有也。夫所谓唐、 虞、夏、商、周、秦、汉、魏、晋、宋、齐、梁、陈、隋、唐、宋、元、明、清者,则皆朝名耳。朝也者,一家之私产也;国也者,人民之公产也。朝有朝之老少, 国有国之老少,朝与国既异物,则不能以朝之老少而指为国之老少明矣。文、武、成、康,周朝之少年时代也。幽、厉、桓、赧,则其老年时代也;高、文、景、 武,汉朝之少年时代也,元、平、桓、灵,则其老年时代也。自余历朝,莫不有之。凡此者,谓为一朝廷之老也则可,谓为一国之老也则不可。一朝廷之老且死,犹 一人之老且死也,于吾所谓中国者何与焉?然则吾中国者,前此尚未出现于世界,而今乃始萌芽云尔。天地大矣,前途辽矣,美哉,我少年中国乎!

玛志尼者,意大利三杰之魁也,以国事被罪,逃窜异邦,乃创立一会,名曰“少年意大利”。举国志士,云涌雾集以应之,卒乃光复旧物,使意大利 为欧洲之一雄邦。夫意大利者,欧洲第一之老大国也,自罗马亡后,土地隶于教皇,政权归于奥国,殆所谓老而濒于死者矣。而得一玛志尼,且能举全国而少年之, 况我中国之实为少年时代者耶?堂堂四百余州之国土,凛凛四百余兆之国民,岂遂无一玛志尼其人者!


龚自珍氏之集有诗一章,题曰《能令公少年行》。吾尝爱读之,而有味乎其用意之所存。我国民而自谓其国之老大也,斯果老大 矣;我国民而自知其国之少年也,斯乃少年矣。西谚有之曰:有三岁之翁,有百岁之童。然则国之老少,又无定形,而实随国民之心力以为消长者也。吾见乎玛志尼 之能令国少年也,吾又见乎我国之官吏士民能令国老大也,吾为此惧。夫以如此壮丽浓郁、翩翩绝世之少年中国,而使欧西、日本人谓我为老大者何也?则以握国权 者皆老朽之人也。非哦几十年八股,非写几十年白折,非当几十年差,非捱几十年俸,非递几十年手本,非唱几十年诺,非磕几十年头,非请几十年安,则必不能得 一官,进一职。其内任卿贰以上、外任监司以上者,百人之中,其五官不备者,殆九十六七人也,非眼盲,则耳聋,非手颤,则足跛,否则半身不遂也。彼其一身饮 食、步履、视听、言语,尚且不能自了,须三四人在左右扶之捉之,乃能度日,于此而乃欲责之以国事,是何异立无数木偶而使之治天下也。且彼辈者,自其少壮之 时,既已不知亚细、欧罗为何处地方,汉祖、唐宗是那朝皇帝,犹嫌其顽钝腐败之未臻其极,又必搓磨之、陶冶之,待其脑髓已涸,血管已塞,气息奄奄,与鬼为邻 之时,然后将我二万里山河,四万万人命,一举而畀于其手。呜呼!老大帝国,诚哉其老大也!而彼辈者,积其数十年之八股、白折、当差、捱俸、手本、唱诺、磕 头、请安,千辛万苦,千苦万辛,乃始得此红顶花翎之服色,中堂大人之名号,乃出其全副精神,竭其毕生力量,以保持之。如彼乞儿,拾金一锭,虽轰雷盘旋其顶 上,而两手犹紧抱其荷包,他事非所顾也,非所知也,非所闻也。于此而告之以亡国也,瓜分也,彼乌从而听之?乌从而信之?即使果亡矣,果分矣,而吾今年既七 十矣八十矣,但求其一两年内,洋人不来,强盗不起,我已快活过了一世矣。若不得已,则割三头两省之土地奉申贺敬,以换我几个衙门;卖三几百万之人民作仆为 奴,以赎我一条老命,有何不可?有何难办?呜呼,今之所谓老后、老臣、老将、老吏者,其修身、齐家、治国、平天下之手段,皆具于是矣。西风一夜催人老,凋 尽朱颜白尽头。使走无常当医生,携催命符以祝寿。嗟乎痛哉!以此为国,是安得不老且死,且吾恐其未及岁而殇也。

梁启超曰:造成今日之老大中国者,则中国老朽之冤业也;制出将来之少年中国者,则中国少年之责任也。彼老朽者何足道,彼与此世界作别之日不 远矣,而我少年乃新来而与世界为缘。如僦屋者然,彼明日将迁居他方,而我今日始入此室处,将迁居者,不爱护其窗栊,不洁治其庭庑,俗人恒情,亦何足怪。若 我少年者前程浩浩,后顾茫茫,中国而为牛、为马、为奴、为隶,则烹脔鞭箠之惨酷,惟我少年当之;中国如称霸宇内、主盟地球,则指挥顾盼之尊荣,惟我少年享 之。于彼气息奄奄、与鬼为邻者何与焉?彼而漠然置之,犹可言也;我而漠然置之,不可言也。使举国之少年而果为少年也,则吾中国为未来之国,其进步未可量 也;使举国之少年而亦为老大也,则吾中国为过去之国,其澌亡可翘足而待也。故今日之责任,不在他人,而全在我少年。少年智则国智,少年富则国富,少年强则 国强,少年独立则国独立,少年自由则国自由,少年进步则国进步,少年胜于欧洲,则国胜于欧洲,少年雄于地球,则国雄于地球。红日初升,其道大光;河出伏 流,一泻汪洋;潜龙腾渊,鳞爪飞扬;乳虎啸谷,百兽震惶;鹰隼试翼,风尘吸张;奇花初胎,矞矞皇皇;干将发硎,有作其芒;天戴其苍,地履其黄;纵有千古, 横有八荒;前途似海,来日方长。美哉,我少年中国,与天不老!壮哉,我中国少年,与国无疆!


“三十功名尘与土,八千里路云和月。莫等闲白了少年头,空悲切!”此岳武穆《满江红》词句也,作者自六岁时即口受记忆,至今喜诵之不衰。自今以往,弃“哀时客”之名,更自名曰“少年中国之少年”。

Saturday, April 12, 2008

About Tibet, let’s calm down and look at the evidence!

This is a section of a long post about Tibet-China issue , and I recommend anyone who are interested in that topic to read this post and think about what happened recently.

Let us look at the evidence. If Tibetans were so fiercely suppressed, and if Chinese leaders in Beijing were really out to Sinocize Tibet by increasing the ethnic ratio of Han to Tibetan, then why are all Tibetan families permitted to have up to three children, and are only fined small amounts of money if they exceed this number? Tibetan families in Tibet average 3.8 children, larger than Tibetan families in India. In fact, the population of Tibet in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today however, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which, according to the 2000 census, 6 million are ethnic Tibetans. If we consider the Tibet Autonomous Region only, then according to the census conducted in 2000, as referred to in Wikipedia, “there were 2,616,300 people in Tibet, with Tibetans totalling 2,411,100 or 92.2% of the current regional population. The census also revealed that the Tibetan's average lifespan has increased to 68 due to the improving standard of living and access to medical services.” In 1950 the average lifespan was only 35, and “infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000.”

As Barry Sautman, who is Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology points out in his study on “Tibet and the (Mis-)Representation of Cultural Genocide”, “the state sponsored transfer [of Han Chinese] to Tibet is on a small scale. From 1994 to 2001 the PRC organized only a few thousand people to go to Tibet as cadres. Most serve only 3 years and then return to China. Those who move on their own to the Tibet Autonomous Region usually return to China in a few years. They come for a while, find the cities of Tibet too expensive, and then return to China. Some of the 72,000 Chinese who maintain their “hukou” [household registration] in Tibet don't really live there. Pensions are higher if your household is registered in Tibet.”

These facts are supported by articles in the “Columbia Journal of Asian Law” and by an Australian Chinese demographer in “Asian Ethnicity in 2000”, and show that the claims of ethnic swamping in Tibet are misleading. "What I think these articles show,” says Barry Sautman, “is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during he Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis."

In fact, as Michael Parenti has pointed out in his article on “Friendly Feudalism: the Tibet Myth”, “both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that ‘more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.’ But the official 1953 census - six years before the Chinese crackdown -recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000.33 Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then whole cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves - of which we have not seen evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese military force in Tibet was not big enough to round up, hunt down, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.”

……..

M.A.Jones