I Get It. Now Get Me.
Foreigners just don't understand.For many years I have griped at being patronized by Chinese colleagues, classmates and even friends with that age-old dismissal of my observations about their country or culture.
“You’re a foreigner. You don’t get it.”
When I hear this I begin to feel like the residents of South Park, who, when beset by the tanned and toned buffoons of Jersey Shore, take up arms rather than be fobbed off with explanations of irrational or unhinged behavior as “a Jersey thing.”
I am not claiming any particular qualification or expertise when it comes to China. Despite devoting seven years of my life to fairly intensive study of the language, literature, theater and cinema I still acknowledge my failings to acquire robust insight. I gave up on improving my spoken Chinese after being shot down by too many bilingual foreigners and Chinese alike, and have stuck to a working knowledge ever since. I stopped reading Chinese novels when I stopped being able to locate works by my few favorite writers. I abandoned domestically-produced theater after one too many badly-acted, overproduced “issues” plays that stepped around actual issues, and as for cinema, if you ask me, China ceased to be of interest since it developed a domestic box office.
But movies remain a passion, and I’ve always been an optimistic sort, refusing to close my eyes and ears completely, willing to take in a Chinese movie on a recommendation from a friend. Enter Let the Bullets Fly by the acclaimed filmmaker Jiang Wen, whose output I enjoyed while in college—particularly Devils on the Doorstep and In the Heat of the Sun, which I believe to be China’s most visually luscious film to date. Anyway, a colleague of mine arrived one morning at work raving about how subtly and ingeniously Bullets got its claws into the quagmire of Chinese politics, insisting it was Jiang Wen’s “masterpiece” and would “redefine Chinese cinema.”
Then the disclaimer: “I don’t think you’d be able to understand the political messages. After all, it’s about revolution, and pain, and suffering. It’s very Chinese.”
Right, because only the Chinese have experienced revolution, pain and suffering and the Blitzkreig was just Europeans horsing around. It’s not that my colleague was some hard-bitten veteran of the Long March either—he was a sheltered, spoiled single child. His parents and grandparents had enjoyed relative prosperity right through the Great Leap Forward, side-stepped the Cultural Revolution, and were now making a fortune through government connections in Sichuan. He was no more qualified to talk about the agonies of war and societal chaos than I was. However, I chose not to take the bait, after all I had not seen the movie, and perhaps it was indeed as inscrutable as he claimed. When he started to rave about its “imagination” and its “visual dynamism” that was “revolutionary in itself,” however, I began to feel antsy—we were told similar things about Tron: Legacy.
Regardless, I dutifully tracked down a pirated DVD copy and last night myself and my partner settled down, cushions aplump, and prepared to be blown away.
Let the Bullets Fly is many things. It’s convincingly acted, well produced, and elaborately staged. It makes the best use of star power possible, sinking most of its budget into names rather than production value. It has a healthy dose of humor, is indisputably Chinese in both focus and feeling, and doesn’t attempt to exploit pretty faces for box office gold.
However, it is the most overt, conservative, and unrepentant love letter to Chairman Mao I have ever sat through, and that includes Founding of a Republic.
Zhang Mazi (Jiang Wen, naturally), master criminal, along with his gang derails a train carrying the soon-to-be Governor Shi (Ge You, doing his Ge You thing) and his soon-to-be-pointlessly-killed-off trophy wife (an excellent and underused Carina Lau) to the poverty-stricken Goose Town. Zhang decides to be governor with Shi as his flunky; the wife is seduced by Zhang (but she initiates it, of course, because a true hero never coerces women into sex); and the gang enter into a turf war with the inexplicably rich local warlord Huang Silang (Chow Yun-fat). Zhang comes over all Robin Hood and distributes money to the poor before encouraging them to overthrow Huang by beheading the latter’s body double in the market square to convince the lumpen masses a new era has dawned. But Huang survives long enough to have a cozy chat on his looted lawn furniture with Zhang before getting inexplicably blown up seconds later in his castle turret. Zhang’s gang, now wealthy, ride the gravy train to Shanghai while Zhang trots off into the sunset, the hero incarnate, pleased at a job well done.
See the clever symbolism here? Zhang Mazi is, like, Mao. And there’s his Communist Party. And there’s Sun Yat-sen, and Chiang Kai-shek, and all our favorites! Mao wins and Chiang gets blown up and the CCP go off to get rich while Mao remains as incorruptible and noble as ever. Even though he blew up a train and killed a bunch of people, half of them innocent, but shush.
For a foreigner not to get the symbolism of this movie, they would have to have no knowledge whatsoever of China’s history in the last century. They would also have to never have heard of Robin Hood, which, as I’m a British man, isn’t likely. There’s no great mystery, as my colleague seems to think there is, why this film was not banned by the official censors. It tells one of the many narratives that the CCP have spun to justify their stranglehold on power. Chiang Kai-shek was pure, lecherous evil (even the name Huang Silang sounds close to Lustful Dead Wolf), outsmarted and outgunned by Mao Zedong, a resourceful military hero with no ulterior motives. The Red Army were simple, determined folk of unquestionable loyalty while the Nationalist troops were either imbeciles (portrayed by a scholar-lackey of Huang’s), psychopaths (a warrior-lackey of Huang’s) or perverts (former rent boy Chen Kun, who puts in a good turn as a torturer). The Chinese people (Goose Town’s population) are the most roundly insulted—brainless, craven idiots to a man, emphasized by Jiang’s frankly racist use of Shanxi, Henan or Dongbei accents for all the townspeople—ripping on China’s traditional dumbasses.
Some foreigners might not get the finer points, like the use of local accents, nods to Jiang’s early work, or quips based on Buddhist sutras. Most of the humor went over my head, apart from the sight gags and a few bon mots, but to say a foreigner won’t understand this Zucker-worthy farce is like telling a Chinese person, “Oh, sure Avatar’s great. But you’ll only be appreciating it on a very basic level. After all, it’s an American film. Americans know about colonialism and oppression. It’s in their history.” Avatar’s box office success in China would indicate that, if the film’s message is impenetrable to the average Chinese, they’re certainly trying hard to understand it.
I appreciate having gaps in my knowledge filled by a willing friend, especially when I ask for help. My partner is wonderful in this regard—while he sometimes assumes my ignorance in certain things, particularly Chinese history, most of the time he simply illuminates something I’ve failed to grasp without my having to ask. Throughout Bullets he was by my side, clarifying lines I’d not quite grasped (there were no English subtitles). But there’s a big difference between sharing knowledge and patronizing someone you know to be at least relatively knowledgeable about your culture. This affliction blights almost all young Chinese who have based their worldview on the curriculum they were exposed to in school, who are happy to toe the CCTV line on internationalism, which is that Chinese have little to learn about the outside world that isn’t directly related to science or technology. They’ve got European and American culture down pat because they’ve read Jane Eyre and eat at KFC.
Humility is an important and increasingly rare commodity in competitive China. Selfishness is its natural replacement, and a self-centered worldview engendered by years of social conditioning easily convinces people who aren’t exposed to alternative ways of thinking that their perspective is always the right one, and that nobody’s as well-informed as they are. Americans, British, hell, everyone suffers in some way from this prejudiced view that outsiders will “not get us,” simply because they’re outsiders. This basically writes off our fellow human beings as unable to constructively analyze their surroundings, to perceive and to develop opinions about what they see and hear in unfamiliar settings. Americans and Chinese are particular offenders in this area, as they are arguably the most comprehensively nationalized people on earth due to their relative distance from their neighbors, with Russians a close second.
In my homeland of Britain, we would consider it rude to presume ignorance—far better to embark on a discussion and wait for them to say something. I avoid cricket, rugby league, and pantomime for this very reason. But I still take my partner along to enjoy all three, and, while cricket has yet to grow on him, he has learned a lot both through my patchy knowledge and what he has observed himself. We expect people to ask if they need something explained, rather than explaining it preemptively. I’ve heard tell of Chinese men, on dates with Western girls who’ve lived in China for years, actually reciting reams of ancient poetry without warning, to “educate” their prospective conquests. If a girl wants poetry written by someone else a thousand years ago read out loud, I’m sure she’ll ask.
I was especially offended by my colleague assuming I wouldn’t comprehend Bullets partly because it is such an obvious film, but also because he knows that I have spent three years living in China, asking questions of him and others, reading news stories, and continuing sporadic research. And, even if I hadn’t, he might have given me the benefit of the doubt that I had at least a nodding acquaintance with its politics, seeing as how I help him edit a political news magazine. The supreme irony was he actually felt he was being helpful, as I’m sure my elderly in-laws do when they ask me if I know who Mao Zedong is, or explain that China has 5,000 years of history.
Lecturing does not educate. Learning is not something you impose on others, though that hasn’t stopped millions of Chinese teachers from trying. Knowledge and awareness must be sought out and developed, nurtured through reading and digestion of a variety of sources. Reciting platitudes like a masticating cow only serves self-importance and narrow-mindedness. I don’t want Chinese people to defer to my knowledge of their culture, I would simply like them to offer insight when I ask, or show an interest, rather than switch into educator mode the minute they spot my skin tone. I am delighted when Chinese friends ask me questions about my own culture, but, aside from my partner, this rarely happens. Because, in China, when you graduate, you know it all. That’s why bookstores are closing here, why iPads are used solely for Angry Birds, and why nobody’s heard of the Kindle. People feel what they need to do with what they learned in school is to recite it for eternity, ignoring the fact that knowledge is organic and ever-changing. I was taught to understand by asking questions, not by absorbing everything people told me like some kind of cerebral sponge. Here is where Chinese education fails and why my colleague, through no fault of his own, patronized me to a degree I felt was so intolerable I’ve sat for two hours to write about it. I am reminded of a remark made by Scotch crofters who were to be evicted to make way for a steel plant in Ayrshire. “We understand you, but you don’t understand us.” This is what I think whenever a Chinese person decides to inform me of a piece of trivia so well-repeated in China that it’s practically a national slogan.
Another quotation, this time from a Chinese source—the former Chinese ambassador to France, Wu Jianmin:
明代郑和七下西洋后的海禁、清朝康乾盛世后遭受100多年列强欺凌以及新中国成立后的大跃进和文革,都是错误地认识世界的结果.
“The curtailment of Admiral Zheng He’s voyages of discovery in the Ming Dynasty, the decline of the Qing Dynasty and subsequent carving-up of China by foreign powers, the catastrophic Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were all consequences of China misunderstanding the rest of the world.”
Internationalism is a two-way street, China. If you want a melting pot, you need to melt a bit.
Editor’s Note: This article has been translated into Chinese and reprinted here. We were not consulted or notified and do not have any connections with the website or the translator. Nonetheless we are flattered and give our thanks to the translator for his hard work.
的确，中国人似乎不喜欢提问题，而喜欢对着别人夸夸其谈。“提问”被中国人认为是无知的表现，而居高临下的教育别人，让他们有自豪感。
我自己似乎也有些这样的倾向，谢谢您的文章，我想我会改正。
其实传统中国人倒不是这样的，古人云：勿好为人师。
不过现代中国人似乎已经没保留多少古典美德了。
One of the best comments we’ve had. 很感谢你的留言。
Translation:
Surely, Chinese people do not seem to like asking questions; instead they like to hype things up. Asking questions is perceived as a sign of ignorance. Some people feel proud when they talk down to others.
I am also inclined to act this way. Thanks to your article, I will correct this.
Actually, traditional Chinese people were not this way. There’s an old saying, “Don’t lecture people.”
But modern Chinese people seem not to have kept many classical virtues.
I have sat patiently lectured on the “four tones of Chinese” ma ma ma ma for probably at least a days worth of my life. I’ve always interpreted it in the way Chinese conversation seemed to work in set patterns like you might learn in an antiquated English textbook. Say that you are sick, and hear two or three minutes of advice that boils down to “drink more water”. Mention that you have difficulty with the tones, and you get the mamas. A foreigner mentions that he is about to tackle some Chinese history and culture; sage, self congratulatory warnings about the depth and the difficulty of what is to be accomplished. And an aside about DaShan. People are saying what seems to be needed to be said.
The same rule exists in English, the swan rule. Any mention of swans in a conversation leads to a great deal of tension until the assertion by one of the party that “swans can break your arm, you know”…
非常不错，真心希望能有你这样一位朋友。但现实中，让我很失望。
Thanks for the comment. 很感谢你的留言。
Translation:
Very good. I truly hope that I can have a friend like you. But in reality, I am very disappointed.
你的文章写的很好，我很理解！我想，你也会理解：如果一只鸟被关在笼子里5000年，他的每片羽毛都会失去自由的光辉的。
Thank you for your comment. 很感谢你的留言。
Translation:
Your article is very well written. I sympathize. I think you will also understand: if a bird is caged for 5,000 years, its every feather will lose the radiance of freedom.
我觉得，一点点个人看法，可能还是因为长期的压迫和穷苦的生活导致普遍来说人们的素质比较低，可以想象，当你没有物质基础的时候，精神方面是很难提升的，一个长期没有饭吃的人是不会去欣赏艺术品的，也不会考虑偷窃是否违背道德，因为这个时候只有本能。
所以我觉得，中国现在正处于这样的发展情况，再加上现在鼓励经济建设大于一切，精神方面的建设没有跟上，所以很多人不能理智的思考，没有注意到做为人的基本素质，所以出现这种情况一点都不难想。比如现在只要在论坛上谈到日本，就会被骂汉奸，一旦说到中国的专家，就会谩骂专家脑残，一说到政府，就会谩骂政府无力(很可能他们连文章都没有看过，也没思考过)。虽然实际上确实是有这种情况(如政府无力，日本侵略中国)，但是，实际上没有那么严重，不需要像关键字一样，一遇到就上纲上线，大谈特谈。并且，造成这样的原因是多方面的，也有可能，一切的错误都是受害方造成的。
可惜这些人不会这样去想，只是毫无意义的谩骂。可以想象，如果，当这些人拿到权利之后，实际上整个社会也不会有任何改变，甚至可能会更糟。
曾经看到一个问题，就是在公交车上遇到日本孕妇是否要让座，我觉得这是一个很简单的问题，从人性的角度，肯定是要让的，只是因为是日本的原因，大部分人不会让座，还可能要对妇女进行一些攻击，真是难以想象，甚至这还被认为是一种爱国行为。
当然，这种情况哪个国家都有。不过，不管怎么说，当社会发展到一定程度的时候，比如经济，我相信，人们会越来越多的索求精神上的东西。相信，美国或者英国在早期的发展的时候也是这样的，因为，你要取得成就，就要付出代价。
写的非常好的一篇文章，让我了解更多。：）
Thank you for your comment. 很感谢你的留言。
Translation:
In my personal opinion, the common saying that [Chinese] people are uncivilized might be due to long-term oppression and poverty. It’s understandable that if you do not have a material basis for life, it’s difficult to care about spiritual needs. Someone who hasn’t eaten in a long time isn’t going to appreciate art, and won’t consider the morality of stealing because he is acting on instinct.
So I think China is currently in this kind of developmental condition. Plus [the government] encourages economic development over all else. Spiritual development has not kept up so lots of people can’t think rationally. They don’t pay attention to the basic tenets of being a human being, so it’s not hard to believe these things can occur. For example nowadays if you only mention “Japan” in a forum, you will be called a traitor to China. If you talk about Chinese experts, [someone] will call the experts retarded. If you talk about the government, [someone] will say the government is impotent (it is very likely they don’t even read or think about the article). Although things like this really did happen (the government was impotent, so Japan invaded China) but it’s not that big of a deal, we don’t need to treat it like a keyword, and bicker and argue endlessly every time we see it. Also, there are multiple reasons why things are like this: it is possible that the victim created all the problems.
It’s too bad these people won’t think about it like this and just meaninglessly hurl invective. I can imagine if these people have authority nothing about society will actually change and society might actually get worse.
I once saw a question, “if you saw a pregnant Japanese woman on the bus, would you give up your seat?” I think this is a very simple question. From a humanistic point of view, of course you should. But just because she is Japanese, most people wouldn’t; in fact they might even be aggressive toward her. It’s really unbelievable. And [some people] might even consider this to be patriotic.
Of course, this situation exists in every country. But, it doesn’t matter how you say it, once societal development reaches a certain point—in its economy for example—I imagine, people will seek spiritual things more and more. I believe America or Britain in its early stages of development was also like this. Because if you want to achieve something, you must pay a price.
This article is written very well, it helped me understand more.
Thanks for your amazing comment. 很感谢你的精彩的留言。
I completely agree. Every country in the world has people like this and we must stand together in fighting against ignorance, oppression, poverty, and intolerance.
可以说我完全同意，世界上哪个国家都有这种人。我们得一起反对无知，压迫，贫困，和狭隘的思想。
我看的是别人翻译过来的，不过写的不错，很深刻。
Thank you for your comment. 很感谢你的留言。
Translation:
I read a translation [of this article], but it’s well-written, very deep.
我很吃惊自己竟然看不出这么明显的联系。更重要的是，尽管竭尽所能的吸收了解中外文化，我发现我也很容易掉入“外国人一定不了解中国”的误区。谢谢你的文章，很有启发！
Thank you for your comment. 很感谢你的留言。
Translation:
I am shocked that I didn’t make such an obvious connection. More importantly, even though I try my best to absorb and understand Chinese and foreign culture, I also very easily fall into the trap of thinking, “foreigners don’t understand China.” Thank you for your article, very inspirational.
I would like to thank all the people who have responded to my article. It gives me a new sense of hope that so many people out there have the humility to acknowledge the limits of their own way of thinking – you are teaching me a lot about what it is to have an open mind.
非常感谢所有给我留言的网友们。看到大家的感言，我有一种充满希望的感觉。每个人在自己的角度上看问题却大大地丰富了我看问题的角度，这就打开思路的好方法。
I encourage everybody out there, Chinese or otherwise, to KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS.
我支持每一个人，无论是中国人还是外国人。我希望提问不要停止
I truly believe it’s the only way we learn.
我真心认为这样我们可以学到东西。
加油!
Fenwick
The film hides much more messages than simple Mao, Sun Yat-sen, and Chiang Kai-shek. You would find various version of explanations if you search this topic.
http://enjoy.ddmap.com/enjoy_topic_77798_164836_1.htm
http://www.douban.com/group/topic/16769789
I’ve read many analyses of the movie. The aim of my piece wasn’t to criticise the film, rather the concept that it’s too clever for foreigners to understand. It’s not.
LOL
I have had that experience all to often. I have coined it “the round eye escape”
I think he just used that on you. “you would find various version of explanations if you search this topic”
I am going to try and convince my wife that “Lost” has a deep and unexplained meaning to it.
so good
对电影的理解不苟同，此外的都同意。中国人对自身的狭隘和偏见完全不自知是通病，而且没有平等和尊重的观念，不会这样来对待自己，也不会这样来对待别人。英国人观察的比较到位。
Chinese of that kind also make me feel disgusted.
Yes, i teach college kids in China, and they have no idea how to think. They have all kinds of dogmas and cliches in their heads, and no one tells them that this stuff isn’t the objective truth.
But i doubt it was always this way. In the imperial Civil Service Exams, participants wrote their own essays and were evaluated on the quality of their ideas. In China today, no one cares what you think; I know from firsthand accounts that in the current system, applicants for the civil service are expected to memorize certain answers to the questions that arise during the interview.
I also think the government wants to prevent people from thinking. And democratization is an extremely remote prospect, so get used to more of the same.
The Imperial Civil Service examinations were a massive memory test – you were invited to write critiques of poetry and prose, but these critiques needed to be rooted in others’ viewpoints. If you look back at a great deal of Chinese literature, for example, the most lauded poets were outcasts in their time, only appreciated after death. The least capable ones were invariably popular while living, and criticized later on.
It’s a modern myth that ancient Chinese education encouraged creative thought. It had plenty of its own restrictive boxes you had to fit into. But I’m all for composing poems off the cuff as a test of mental ability!
They are teaching them to for at foxconn
我也觉得经济建设有很大原因，利益所趋，父母一直要求孩子，要学会能言善道，但这恰恰会导致孩子走向了另一个极端，侃侃而谈，须不知，在这过程中，可能丢掉了本性。
受教了，深深触及我弱小的心灵~~~
写的太好了~~
我认为您同事这样的表现，与其说是自大，不如说是自卑。
首先，他逃避去考虑“您是不是了解中国”这个问题；其次，他不自然地把全部精力放在向您“讲解”而不是显然更愉快的“讨论”上。这与其说是居高临下，不如说是害怕交流与文化自卑：害怕交流才拒绝讨论，由于自卑才需要无条件地炫示自己的文化资本。
清末以来，由于传统文化和社会体制的逐渐解体，社会达尔文主义的广泛影响，中国人面对外界的心态一直是紧张而矛盾的。一方面，他们忧虑被“进化”抛弃，被别国吞并，成为无归属的一群，甚至和昔日的印度一样成为殖民地人民；一方面，他们又要提高嗓门，宣称中国相对其他国家和文化的“独立”、“强大”与“平等”。从今天看来，这种紧张感仍然存在，因为在CCP主导的主流思想中，社会达尔文主义直到今天仍然阴魂不散。这与CCP利用民族主义思想维持统治合法性息息相关：我们身处世界孤岛，我们要在执政党身边团结起来，才能抵抗随时可能发生的弱肉强食。这种通过学校教育与“舆论引导”深植于意识中的被害幻想，而不是（起码不仅仅是）知识的缺乏，导致了中国人外表上的“自大”。
至于这部电影，虽然它在文中其实不那么重要，但我也想说，姜文要表达的大约并不是一个确定的隐喻。他确实用“革命”、“人民”这些符号化的影像煽动了观众的情绪，但总体而言，这部电影所显示出的情绪和影片所指，是矛盾而复杂的。这当然不是一部艺术电影，但也不能说是一般意义上的商业电影。更像是一个艺术片导演（实际上姜文在他之前的导演作品中都做得相当不错，包括您没有提及的《太阳照常升起》）为了在糟糕的环境中获取投资者的青睐和政府的许可，而做出的一个不情不愿的妥协。这种不情愿溢于言表，而且带着深深的悲观与迷惑。
这部片确实相当“中国特色”，但不因为它的那些隐喻，而因为影片之外，导演、观众、商业操作者、文化监控者四方之间那种既相互误解、又相互妥协的关系。这像是中国现状的缩影：一出愚蠢的闹剧，但却无比复杂，耗费着最有才华和能力的人们的全部精力。
先生，您好。我读了在其他网站转载的您的让子弹飞的影评。 我的观点是您，您同事，和很多人都过度解释了这部电影。1.先说这部电影，更多是一种姜文个人英雄主义情结的体现，也许和他的政治信仰有关，但他并不是为了拍个政治讽喻片。2.关于过度解释的出现，我觉得是现在中国大众的一个趋势，由于某些原因（您也应该知道），中国大众是很不满的，不过把每件事，每个人都政治化，是需要批评的行为。3.您提到的中国人，或者加上美国人的缺点，是不是也是一种刻板印象偏见呢？我个人对外国知之甚少，因为暂时没有机会出国，只能读一些书了解，但也绝不止简爱这样肤浅的程度就自大起来。周围的同学也是如此，对于其他国家的了解。本身是困难和庞杂的事情，但您也低估了很多中国人在这方面的努力。您要有兴趣我愿意详细和您谈。不过从文章中，我感觉您的批评并不中肯。
您有权力这样批评我的文章，然而因为我觉得您没有完全明白了我的意思，所以我建议您又读它一遍。
对您提得3号：我没有说我的看法不是一种刻板印象偏见。我并不是说中国人怎样，还是外国人怎样。我是说每个人，无论是美国人，中国人，还是是我自己，都有自己的的“刻板印象偏见。” 我批评的是我遇到的一些中国人对老外的误解。我的对象是中国人，他的想法也很开放。我的对象是中国人。他的想法很开放，而且他很愿意跟我讨论中外冲突。我真佩服这种人，我也希望更多人会变成那么开放的。
我也觉得，说我的文章不中肯就是否认我的个人意见，而且并不代表您上面提到的：中国人了解外国方面的“努力。” 人不同意我的想法，我无所谓。我想要的是根所有国家的各种各样的人讨论这个文化特点。
其实我想说的是，就像South Park 14季里某集里，四个小孩写了一本书，社会上的媒体以及大众在揣测这样那样的寓意，然后这四个主人公说：It means nothing, we just write it.
有时候我们作为读者，然后千方百计的揣测这个那个，根本没有意义，也行作者根本就没有什么用意。
菩提本无树。
简单来说，中国人有时候没有意识到自己侵犯了别人的权利，或者直白一点来说：尊重别人，这也是为什么您遇到很多中国人喜欢lecturing。其实这种现象也体现在文化方面，比如中国人爱串门，而在国外如果你拜访朋友家是需要提前说明的，中国人爱打听别人的薪酬，如果有宗教自由的话，可能还要打听这方面，这在国外都是属于个人隐私。如果再说深一点，中国几千年文化就是这样，要的是服从、集体精神，并不需要独立个体，更不要说独立思想等等。还有一点我想说下，逻辑这种东西在中国是行不通的，这也是为什么您可能觉得很多事情并不make sense，但在中国就很正常。其实看些中国史书更能帮助您理解现在的这种“价值观差异”，个人一点浅见。
说说我个人看法
1.我觉得《让》很难看
2.我觉得它一点都不好笑
3.周韵真美
4.葛优演得真好
5.对我来说，电影不好看，放再多喻进去也没有任何意义
6.原著小说：《夜谭十记》
7.HAVE A GOOD DAY
88~
Thanks for sharing you thoughts about this excellent movie. I agree with you that Zhang Mazi, obviously, symbolizes Chairman Mao.
However, there are many Chinese who don’t understand this indirect political meaning, even though they enjoy the movie. They like it simply because it is funny. And those funny trivial scenes and words are the director’s tricks by which he can evade those stupid, picky censors in Beijing. Therefore, the movie’s success is both a tragedy and a comedy in China. Tragedy, many people are laughing at a fighter without understanding. Comedy, even the communist ruler has forgot its original Maoism and permit this movie to come out which is precisely attacking its oblivion.
The reason for this oblivion is not censorship or absolutism or communism. I can read anything and say anything right here in my house. It is rather the triumph of capitalism in China that dismisses any pursuit of absolute equality, welfare of the poor, and eternal revolution. Revolution has been reduced to a word of laughter in theater, in China. That is the saddest thing to me.
不得不说，您的这篇文章虽然存在一些偏颇的认知和误解，但我相信这是由于 一个个体 对于其他民族、或者说文化 在后天认知和了解上的 固有局限所造成的，尽管在所谓的固有局限和个人思维领域并无一条分明的界限。
在某种程度上来说，如果把中国人民分为统治阶级（包括我们的政治倾向、对于思想的奴控）和老百姓（百姓的社会活动、思想活动）两个存在交集且界限不分明的集合，那么外国人对于中国的认识普遍来自于以前者作为主体的内容。一方面是因为一个国家官方的声音总是更广为散播，一方面是受制于中国特色，使得外国人对于在这种体制氛围或者传统影响下的老百姓真实的response有所误读和无法获悉。就像外国人知道我们的政府 控制言论自由、过度管制网络媒体，知道我们没有kindle，wifi少得可怜，却很少注意到年轻人（80s 90s 00s甚至包括70s）也照样追随英剧美剧、照样翻墙（GW）聆听世界各地媒体的声音、照样有各种具有积极意义的组织在体制缝隙内游走……
现在这个信息化、个体多样化发展的时代，很难再用“中国人”概括某条信息的主语，无论是新闻报道、文章评论。就像南北方可以作为两个阵营、以xx后冠名可以划圈唇枪舌战，随着各种社交网络、新兴媒体的出现，在中国，各种群落的划分愈加繁复多样。所以再用看待“中国人”的过时眼光看去，自然看到了我们过时的东西（无论是优良传统、还是文化糟粕）
当然，我很欣赏您的一点就是，关于分享的看法。因此，看到您这篇文章虽然我总体并不怎么认同，但跳出对于《让子弹飞》和对中国的解读，我想最善意的分享不在于理解本身，而是在于寻求造成误解、偏颇或不实认知的原因。至少，我们肯定有这样的共同认知，就是能更多的听到外国人之于中国的声音绝对是件积极的事情。
文章的观点鲜明，但是并不见得与电影挂钩的很大，重点谈论了中国民众的性情与做人模式，的确中国人很喜欢荣誉，并拿之炫耀，居高临下显得很有资本……尽管中国独立了经济发展了，但生活条件的改变并没使得中国走出“天朝”居民的思维模式，毕竟封建社会经历的时间太长了，改变也需要时间;另外本人是反对儒学（孔子）的，因为里面封建成分很多，等级分明，禁锢了思想，有碍民主和法治道路前进，更是中国教育的绊脚石，当然我也不排除它作为政治道具之外的文学价值。（思绪有点乱）总之，每个国家和地区都有它好与不好之处，只要人民都向着美好的一面前进，不断进步就是好的
除却此题，另外想说的是，中国人民其实并没有愚昧到固步自封的地步，即使喜欢言传身教 自诩为师在我们的民族中以不同程度的或直接或潜意识的体现着，但我们有很大一部分人深知我们国家政治体制的弊病、社会问题的深重，以及传统文化传承问题上的尴尬等等。作为国家之间 或许更多的聆听的是政府上头的声音，但作为个体，我想任何一个想试图了解中国的人都应更深入了解我们社会的根基——以个体形式更为真实存在着的各类人群。
Thanks for the article. I sure learned a lot form it.
As you said, ignorance is probably the source of all problems here. It’s what leads to many Chinese being self-centered in my opinion. Had they known more about the outer world and thus appreciated the thoughts and opinions of others, you’d be able to expect humility from everyone.
Normally, one would expect education to properly deal with ignorance, but it’s probably not as simple as that in China, given the large population and low quality of education. Also, the government controls media tightly and access to foreign knowledge is only selectively provided, which results in many Chinese knowing little about the situation abroad and being overzealously “patriotic”. Looking back, I certainly could say that I myself was such a person three years ago. It was only when I entered college that I began to get access and gradually learn more about the outside world. Many of my peers, however, seem to be more content with domestic life and care less about the rest of the world. I guess you could say education is working, albeit slowly.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that we have hope after all. I believe that with proper knowledge, everyone is willing to learn from others.
Thank you for your comment, Brother Yang.
A lot of the comments above have taken offense at my essay, but I believe that this is because they take it as a criticism of Chinese people, rather than ignorance itself. I do mention that ”
Americans, British, hell, everyone suffers in some way from this prejudiced view that outsiders will “not get us,” simply because they’re outsiders.”
I’m glad you’ve taken away the message I intended, which is that we’ll only learn from each other if we encourage mutual communication, instead of telling each other how to think.
On the one hand, I cannot agree with you more. As a Chinese national, I often feel ashamed of many of my countrymen’s ignorance, pride, and unteachability when talking about anything regarding China and the West. But I do understand them and why this is so (believe me, I went through the Chinese education system all the way from kindergarten to postgraduate school) for various reasons, educational, cultural, psychological,etc, which I won’t elaborate here. I’m not sure if the situation is changing for better of worse; I often get pessimistic when I find way too many Chinese get their understanding of the West still only via fast consumption of western media, sitcom and films, but the hope rises when I see dialogs like what you have with your Chinese partner are becoming more often and grassroots. Besides there’ve been quite a number of Chinese critics who are challenging people’s ignorance and pride, despite waves of nationalistic movements.
On the other, however, you cannot blame the Chinese alone. Judging from what you written in this article, I can tell you have a quite good understanding of our country and culture. But please ask yourself, how many expats are like you in terms of the amount of time and energy put into learning about China? I’m living in Shanghai, and what I can tell you is that there are many ignorant foreigners as well. In my experiences of dealing with foreigners, I often feel frustrated with how little most of them know about this country, even if some of them have lived here many many years. So, to a certain extent, the tendency to patronizing is closely related to the ignorance of many foreigners, whom you cannot really represent. I hope this situation will improve, now that the rise of China’s getting everyone’s attending around the globe.
For a better understanding of each other in the global village, dialogs and improvements have to happen at the grassroots level. Mr Smith, thank you for your honesty, insight, and tolerance.
Hey – I’m ignorant too! We all are! I may have spent a while learning about Chinese culture, but I’m still decades behind people like Pearl Buck, Reginald Johnstone or 大山. It frustrates me that so few foreigners try to understand China’s wonderful people, its rich culture and its noble heritage. Hell, I get frustrated that I am so hugely ignorant about China – every day there’s a new surprise! Just read my pitiful attempts at writing above!
But I do have to say that some of the foreigners you may think are just close-minded about your culture (though there are plenty who just aren’t interested, and they’re fools) are scared off by the fact that Chinese people are constantly telling them the history’s too long, the language is too complicated and the culture’s too rigid. I want Chinese people to encourage understanding, not hide behind their heritage.
The human mind is capable of anything. Next time you meet a foreigner, ask them about where they come from. Like as not, they’ll respond with questions about China, and you’ll have made a massive difference to your mutual understanding. If it doesn’t work out, don’t give up. I honestly believe that if we learn to ask questions rather than show off our own shallow understanding, we will constantly become smarter.
希望以后能多写一些这样的文章，从你的角度看中国文化．其实，由于多种原因，当代大多数中国人对中国文化的了解并不够，但是他们自己并没有意识到这一点．你的文章可以帮助我们从另一个角度去反思自己的文化．中国文化有许多优秀的东西，可是在漫长的历史中，我们自己丢弃了，糟粕却越积越多，现在是改变的时候了．你的文章将使我们受益很多．
TV is CCAVed, internet is GFWed, donkey is butchered……..it’s lucky that we are not Phycho, not to mention a normal person…
With all due respect, I really cannot agree with your understanding of the “symbolism” in the movie, at least not so simple like the one-way mapping of “Mao”, “Jiang”, etc. There are more hidden information and clues that you haven’t been discovered, which probably lead you failing to understand.
My point is — I think your colleague didn’t mean that you were not “clever” enough to understand that movie, but he or she might not be confident about your knowledge of Chinese history, which is a key to comprehend the underlying story of the movie. Because apparently the symbolism you can get from the story is “CCP”, “Jiang”, …, that I guess most Chinese adults would hardly agree to compare “Mafei” in the to “CCP”.
Moreover, the ironic part is, most of my Chinese friends believe that “Zhang” completely LOSES the battle at last from any perspective, while all foreign friends think “Oh, so, Zhang Mazi wins at last”. I personally regard this the essential humor of the movie director.
I would rather not talk too much about it here, but I guess your Chinese language level is much higher than my English, and enough to read this commentary:
http://movie.douban.com/review/4534425/
and maybe this one: http://www.douban.com/group/topic/16769789/
You’re talking about interpretations of the film itself, which was not the focus of my essay. You have a right to your interpretation, as do I. My issue was not that my colleague was calling me “not smart” – there’s a big difference between intelligence and knowledge. My issue was that he wasn’t willing to allow me my own interpretation.
There are no right and wrong interpretations of a film. If you want to debate the symbolism, I’m happy to, but I doubt we’ll agree. However, if you’d like to discuss my views on the value (or not) of foreign opinions of China, then I’m fascinated.
So, do you mind if I put your article into the category of expressing the discontent of being treated as idiot by Chinese rather than an article expressing your feeling about a movie? I can understand many foreigners feel annoying that so many Chinese like to teach others how to understand Chinese culture, although I always do that so. I am Chinese, so I think the stereotype has been settled. What I am curious is that what your feeling about this movie. Do you really think that movie has so much metaphors about politics or do you totally agree with your friends? You know even many Chinese argue what the keynote this movie is.
I know there’s a lot of debate about the symbolism, which is great as it is the sign of a good film, but I don’t see that discussion as productive.
I don’t mind being educated about Chinese culture – my partner does it all the time. What I hate is having my viewpoint disregarded before I’ve even expressed it. It is my belief that there is nothing in Chinese culture a foreigner who is willing to learn cannot understand. I would never suggest to a Chinese person, no matter if they’d traveled abroad or not, that they couldn’t understand a particular feature of my culture.
Humankind developed writing, philosophy and space travel. That shows all human beings have the capacity to understand anything, if they are willing to work hard. It certainly doesn’t matter if you’re Chinese or British. But it’ll only happen if we ask questions rather than dispense answers. Answers can be wrong, but a question, no matter how bizarre it may seem, is never wrong.
Good points, although I still want to say something. I am not enraging you now, but I have to say you are influenced by your friends indeed. The reason why I asked your thoughts about that movie is that I want to make sure whether you are subjected to the mind of your Chinese friends to Bullets. You know we have a bunch of discussion about that movie, ZhangMazi maybe doesn’t mean Mao, someone said he means Jiangwen himself, and HuangSilang means the Chinese movie censorship system. Another guess is that Mazi is a real hero, Huang is a representative of dark side of current society, like corrupt governor, but recently Chinese netizens found the author is totally in the left wing. Therefore, the discussion maybe comes one after another. My thoughts is that NOTHING. Jiangwen didn’t give us so many symbolisms, he just wants us to enjoy a commercial film, which is totally different from his previous productions and can prove that he absolutely has that capabilty to win in box office. Surely, there is a certain amount of factors of sarcism and ridicule to current society. In the finaly analysis(When all is said and done), I just feel Jiangwen just wants to entertain everyone.
Forgiven me that so much about that movie, I admit I really like that movie and think it is cool, although I think Jiangwen is labelled by Quentin Tarantino this time.
So, come back to your points. I am sorry, what is your points? For me, your article is more like a complaint that is inflated and is also covered by humankind whatever stuff.
You are complaining your friends don’t get you have understood a CHinese movie and Chinese culture, then what is your understanding about this movie? Your understanding is just your friends’ understanding? If yes, I have to say that no wonder that they don’t think you can get it. Because from the very beginning, you has lost your standpoint. I don’t mean you can’t have the same viewpoint with your friends, but if you want to “defeat” them, you must convince them you really understand that movie FROM YOUR CONDITION. Also I hate that they affect your mind before you saw this movie. They destroyed the joy that people enjoy a movie. :S They are bad.
However, maybe I like to bicker with people, I have to say I kinda support that sometimes we can’t understand each other. I suddenly remember a story about Bethune, Henry Norman. He has been living in indigent China for a long time but he still said China was so poor that I can’t understand it.
Maybe lowering your expections to hold Chinese culture and CHinese will make you feel better. Like me, I never anticipate that I can speak English very well like a native speaker or handle the British literature knowledge like a British experts. Even someday I could do that, I still say, I am not a British, I can’t think like what they think.
Hey, it seems you have no idea what Mao Zedong has done after he took power, don’t you?
BTW, few people (at least no those who brag about understanding China) understand 5000 year old China in P.R. China. What they know is this 60 year old version, namely, money prevails version. They are completely different nations. One needs to go to Taiwan to find out what is left of the previous one.
As Fenwick’s editor and friend, I assure you he understands the niceties of Mao’s reign, but thank you for your presumptions.
我是一个高中生,也是只看了你文章的翻译^^. 其实你的文章真的让我很惊讶,我大概会像你的同事一样认为你对中国的文化应该没有了解得那么多.
在我的观念里,英美国人对中国的印象应该还停留在”孔夫子”"长辫子”的古老阶段.
或许作为一个复兴不久的国家,一个(自认为)经历了许多痛苦耻辱和”鄙视”的国家(我们的历史书不都这么学的么?”面对西方列强的侵略/封锁/敌视,我们独立自主自力更生…”), 国民有一种认为”不被他国了解”的自卑,也有种”我们古代很优越”的自负,两者通过价值观教育强化后共同存蓄在国人的骨子里. 渴望他国的了解,又因为语言文化意识形态种种壁垒而犹豫着或误解着.
(啊我不知自己在写什么~~很蠢的样子~)总之,从小学到高三,我们在教室里听到的经常是来自同一个利益群体的同一个声音,到了这个网站还蛮受启发的….不管是和谐也好冲突也好,唯有多视角才能看得全面, 我很期待来自不同方向的影响中国的声音~!^_^
太棒了, 很喜欢这种拥有穿透力的语言风格.
中国的传统文化有两个特点:
1. 不爱说真话;
2. 不爱听真话;
拥有严密逻辑的系统在这里没有太多市场, 如果真的想了解和影响他们, 请确定您拥有一颗强健的心脏. 以免经常晕倒.
BTW: 这篇文字的中文翻译的水平非常好. http://dongxi.net/b04mM
谢谢.
原来还有这样一种解读，看的时候完全没有意识到，只看到了它影射最近的时事。
国人好为人师的习惯我感觉是中国教育的问题，教师习惯性的认为学生什么都不知道，以至于培养出来的人们一样认为别人什么都不知道。
很好的文章，受教了。
有幸阅读了您的文章，您这篇文章中提到中国人谦逊的美德越来越稀缺的问题，给我们狠狠敲了个警钟。
目前中国正出于经济高速发展的时机，很多人的价值观体系里，传统美德已经被挤到角落里了，甚至是被旗帜鲜明的抛弃了。中国人被封建礼教压制了太久，现在一下子解脱出来，有点矫枉过正了，精华的东西也变成糟粕被抛弃了。中国人总喜欢炫耀自己有五千年文化，认为别人不了解自己的历史。这也是有我们的历史原因的。之前上百年的贫穷落后与屈辱，使得现在我们变得“除了历史文化”就没有什么可以炫耀了。就像一个自负的人同时也是自卑的。中国现在的状态就是这样子，一方面在抛弃传统，一方面又拿出来炫耀，这是一种难堪的矛盾。
我现在就在欧洲，我是一名理科生，之前对欧洲文化并不太了解。我在这里遇到一些当地的朋友，他们给我讲解这里的历史。但是我想说，就像大部分中国现在的年轻人一样，这里本地人对自己历史很了解的也不是很多，有的甚至还没有我了解得多，更别提对外国的了解了。不少人问我，你们中国现在是不是还满大街自行车？我给他们解释，大部分二线城市堵车都是个严重的问题了，他们感到很惊讶。不断有人问我关于独生子女政策的问题。不断有人跟我说MAO如何如何。我知道中西媒体的渲染效果造成了大家价值观不同。所以反过来说呢，博主在中国，遇到的没有去过外国的中国人，他们自然也会认为“老外”不懂中国（虽然不是什么好观点）。而且大部分中国人对外国历史也是没什么兴趣去了解的，因为他们连自己国家的历史也不甚清楚，所以阿凡达在中国只是商业上的成功。
当然，鉴于博主比较特殊的经历，博主的朋友仍持以如此居高临下的态度，我感到很遗憾。但是也请博主相信，并非所有的中国人都如此。不过传统美德的传承，实在是我们的一个大问题。谢谢您善意的提醒。
I have just returned from a short vacation. I know there are dozens of comments in the approval queue. I will go through them one by one when I have time. Sorry to all the commenters who have to wait to see their comment.
我知道好多人的留言还没有出现。 我刚从外地回来，我会把所有的留言一个一个看，请耐心等待。
dude i don’t think this movie has anything to do with mao zedong at all.
Then you probably enjoyed it a lot more than I did.
i am sorry to tell you that you really really donnot understand the movie.it is nothing about history whether u understanding ‘fly’ ,it’s about whether u understanding truely modern china.
The impression of Mao’s Revolution is kind of stereotype and this opinion is embraced by Maoists in current China. However, I do not think it is the major idea of this movie ( since Jiang Wen was grow up in a Culture Revolution, so he has some influence by the Mao’s Revolution, it also reflects in the movie…) The main idea of the movie is how Chinese see stuff and do stuff. It did not change for hundreds of years and will not change in near future.
btw: The Hongkongers also share the same opinion as you, so it does not mean you do not know china.
As myself a Chinese, I would define Chinese as a people lack of similarity.
It is true that some of them are over-confident and no longer modest, but there are some other people who thinks china is the shitest country and wish to leave it as soon as possible. I think the friends of the blogger are majorly successful people and they share similar opinion, but if you go to really poor people you will find they think differently.
What I found common for Chinese: realistic, industrious, careless, family-child-house complex, Chinese food complex, lack of trust and lack of political concern…
Please allow me to say, thank you for this Nice and Honset Article
The real Problem here, I think, is not the situation that “This new guy don’t get it”. Any common knowledge, any culture or morality standard in any place, should be understandable by an individual which is capable of learing new things, if him/her have already get over the huge barrier of language. (if not ,how do they eduated their own younglings?)
Which enraged Fenwick, and push him to wrote this(buddy, I think you were anrgy, at least uncomfortable at that time, sorry for that), is a mutual mistake we may make everyday, both east and west, that we assume someone don’t get it, even before we’ve find out he/she really get it or not. And some times, we just ingore the truth that this guy maybe, just maybe, already get it. And morever, the actions we took while we thought he don’t get it, could be really rude and hurtsome.
And this kind of Group Assumption, Prejudice and Actions could give some real bad impression to others, hurt feelings, and in return, block the communications and make this group itself ignorance, and if it goes on, this group is sure doomed(like Qing Dynasty).
In a nut-shell:
The ignorance of individual is: he/she could not learn,
and the ignorance of a group(a team, a people, a nation, etc.) is:
They just IGNORE the truth and keep assuming: You’re not one of us, You just don’t get it.
Any group in any place, share an equal chance on this kind of Group Ignorace Behaviors.
Due to the avg education level and common morality situation, China in this time, maybe has her disadvantage. But this could, should, and will be dealt with.Thx for prividing a chance of idscussion on this topic.
As a 200% chinese, I appreciate the effort that you remind me of this again, as a friendly foreigner,Fenwick.
BUT A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Fenwick, maybe you’ve missed the most popluar understanding and interpretation of THAT MOVIE….
And as a chinese, that particular direction of the interpretation you maybe have missed, the amusement in this interpretation that we share in this movie and why we like it….I can’t say that you get them, by reading this article of yours…buddy..at least, in my op, I don’t think the movie is really singing hallaluya to the CCCP….
You DIDN’T get it!
First of all, I agree with you on the “manner” issue in great part. Those folks need to learn to be more polite to an English man.
But still, I want to say: you actually didn’t get it! All of your interpretations–Mao’s triumph, Chiang, etc.–are not at all how most ordinary Chinese would see it. As one of the commentators above said, no one in China would compare Zhang Mazi to Mao in the contemporary context. It is the opposite: it is the “Mafei” that represents the CCP. Widespread comment on the internet is that Jiangwen creates an icon in the movie by which ordinary people vent their animosity against CCP. You will totally get it if you know the joke “出了城，吃着火锅，唱着歌，突然拆迁队来了。” Ironically, all your interpretations perfectly prove your abominated colleague’s unspoken but apparent point: even if you have stayed in China for three years, like the majority of western foreigners, you are to read China with the prevalent and easily-grabbed western-born stereotypes. This point might be offensive, but you yourself has proved it is true.
Your Avatar analogy won’t help here. Avatar is a international movie intended for the international audience. Even if it were created for the American audience only, no one would doubt that it would nevertheless reach the international audience simply because the whole world is kind of Americanized. However, “Let Bullet Fly” is a Chinese movie created–I would say, only–for the domestic audience. And believe it or not, Chinese is not that international. Now, my personal complaint with all those western opinions–from literature, to movie, to news or blog comments, etc.–is not that they don’t China. Rather, it is the fact that the vast majority of those “opinions” and “interpretations” are carried out with an attitude which says: I know China, its so easy, its Mao, CCP, women are low, men kneel in front of their master, education consisting only of lecturing and reciting, etc. etc. It is this orientalist readings of China which totally lacks any nuances and real understanding–so prevalent in the western narrative–that pisses me off. I believe I am definitely not alone in China on this. If you really understands the past of China, not only Mao, but long before Mao, especially the western imperialist period and its influence on the contemporary, you would know it better. And I think if you could hold your (presumably) western superiority atmosphere back a little bit and really try to put your feet in the shoes of the Chinese people( not just assume they are like any Americans), you would gain much more credit from your colleague and/or other ordinary Chinese. And they WILL treat you like an insider, believe me.
So, my point is: while you are right that lecturing won’t really educate, you are doing exactly the same thing when it comes to China. It’s so typical of the dominant western narrative. It won’t help anyone. People may treat you more politely after you shoot out your point. But still you are an outsider. The only message got through is that you are so needy of politeness and good manner from your Chinese counterpart. And for this, you don’t really want to be inside because you think you already are.
You have failed completely to grasp any of my arguments. I do not claim any knowledge of China, nor do I claim to speak for Chinese people. I state this clearly throughout the piece. You, on the other hand, seem to feel qualified to speak for 1.3bn on the basis you were born in the same country. As you will see above, plenty of Chinese people agree with my views, which would indicate there is a debate to be had. You may not understand your culture as well as you might think.
In so doing, not only do you epitomize the very problem I put at the heart of my argument – Chinese people refusing to believe that anybody could even come close to understanding their culture – you also cheapen a much richer discussion we might have had.
However, I should thank you for proving my point so emphatically.
你的文章让我想起《Chinese characteristics》.
很好的文章，很赞同 “Lecturing does not educate. Learning is not something you impose on others, though that hasn’t stopped millions of Chinese teachers from trying. “，而事实上我们从小学到中学都是被强制性灌输知识，灌输着所谓的“正确”和“权威”，而且一旦怀疑那些“正确”和“权威”就意味着你会考试不及格，变成差生，读不到优秀学校，找不到理想的工作，所以我们从来不怀疑书本上的“正确”和“权威”，当然历史和政治意识也是这个时候一同灌输进来的。所以很多问题其实都是教育问题，当然目前国内教育都是国家垄断的，所以才有现在的悲剧。
it’s good, but,
you made a mistake about :
Zhang ma zi = REVOLUTIONARY contemporary democracy, not Mao
Huang si lang = Current Communist Party.
!!!
看得比我这个中国人还彻底
Thank you for pointing out that. We Chinese truly have this problem.
其实拿被几百万中共党务军奴役的中国百姓和其他自由国家的人比是非常不公平的。每一个欧洲或美国的公民，背后都有一支强大的军队作为后盾。可以有余地提升自己的精神世界。但做为一个普通的中国“公民”，他这一辈子最首先考虑的是衣食住行，同时人生安全还不一定有法律保障。很多社会精英因此不得不背井离乡，努力去忘却祖先的文化去适应新的别国社会。对这样的一个国家的人的素质，没什么可要求的。
几百年来，中国人民不断与各种利益集团对抗，争取力量和一个独立的人格。可惜到目前为止仍然没有成功，并且在可以预见的将来也没有成功的可能。与之相比，利比亚是幸福的，这个国家的人民如今至少有成功的希望。
看了你的文章，感觉写的很好，特别是最后一段：
因为在中国，你一走出校园意味着你就什么都知道了。这就是为什么这里的书店会倒闭，为什么ipad在这里只是拿来玩愤怒的小鸟，为什么没有人听说过Kindle。人们感觉他们要做的只是背诵在学校学到的，而忽略了一个事实，知识是有机的、不断变化的。我接受的教育是要我通过提问来理解，而非填鸭式地吸收别人告诉我的一切。这就是中国教育的失败，也是我的同事（尽管错不在他）的居高临下让我难以忍受而花了两个小时坐下来写了这篇文章。我想起了苏格兰艾尔郡因修建钢铁厂而被驱逐的佃农说的话 “我们了解你，但你不了解我们。”这就是当中国人煞有介事地向我重复中国的一些人尽皆知的鸡毛蒜皮时我脑海中的话，这实际上是一句国际口号。
————————————–
不过对于 让子弹飞 这部电影 ，我的理解和你不同，我周边的同学和我观点差不多， 张麻子并不是指毛泽东，其他也不是指你所说的蒋介石等。。 因为姜文生于1960年代。你如果了解他，看过他之前的电影，你应该知道 这并不是他所指。。
whatever，你说的有些观点，我很赞同，中国人是一个只能自己人批评自己人，从由不得外国人批评中国人的民族。不过情况在慢慢改善。在CCP的一党专制下，我们确实前进的很慢~ 有兴趣和我交流的请联系我E-MAIL：wz820131393@126.com 随时欢迎！
Wow, this has got to be the most fascinating discussion board on such a topic I’ve seen in a while. You’ve done well to cultivate such an audience. Unfortunately, as a 白人, I’m a little nervous to mention anything here about China. Face it, there are no criticisms allowed in discussion, even if (like my fellow 上海本地人 above) the complaint is there there is not enough culture in our midst.
Lately I’ve been thinking of China less as a country with a strong national ethos, and more of a Civilization with numerous groups intermingling. It’s so incredibly vast, it’s difficult to discuss. I’m trying hard to learn more, and expect more from Chinese here, so as to not get so frustrated by my own constant 误会～
外国人的想法真得很有意思。
黄四郎有地雷，他是曾经的革命者，现在的即得利益者。
张麻子20年前曾和黄四郎一起革命，可是革命成功后却发现，只是换了个统治者，性质并没有发生本质的变化。他不愿像被自己推翻的那些人一样，成为统治者，于是归隐山林，成为像鲁宾汉那样的侠匪。
张麻子和毛的本质区别在于：张参加革命并不求回报，最后可以失去兄弟和金钱，而毛得到了一切。所以张麻子并不是毛，他是个真正的革命者，只为民众而革命。
他乐于帮助人民，不求回报；但他也看不起民众，认为他们麻木，“只帮赢的人”，不愿与愚昧的民众为伍。所以他是个英雄，也是个悲剧的孤胆英雄。
而这部电影的特点在于，它不仅创造了张麻子这样的悲剧英雄，而且揭示了一个悲剧的事实：一切其实都没有改变。张的兄弟们也在革命成功后离开了他，拿着上海浦东的委任状成为了未来的黄四郎。
另外，请抵制盗版。