（一）生物學概念的美國各種族與血緣關係
1.美國黑人是白人的孩子
當年我在美國結了婚租公寓隻能找到兩居室的，考慮到比一居室貴不了多少，也就租了下來。沒過幾天，一位白人女同學也是剛做了新娘不久，她丈夫畢業去外地工作了，她老板不讓她畢業，需要完成一個試驗，她覺得用不了一年了，便跟我老婆談是不是可以跟我們分享一下公寓，她實在租不到一寢室的公寓了，算是給她一個方便，也許半年也許十個月。我們不能不幫忙啊，就答應了下來。她的名字叫垂斯，非常善良的基督徒。她的善良與柔和是我開始有時間就讀聖經的起因。好在她從不給我壓力去教堂，非常耐思的一個女孩。我們可以說無話不談，也跟她學會了如何用烤箱烤製食物，就是做西餐。每天晚飯就坐在一起吃，邊吃邊聊。隻要我們需要了解美國的人情世故，她都會熱情講解。我們從未發生過哪怕一點點不愉快的事。留在記憶裏難以忘記的時光，雖然隻有不足一年，回憶起來總覺得很久似的。
今天講一件事，這事跟黑人話題有關。
我選的一門課，二三十個學生，其中還有一位大陸來的哥們和一位女同胞。那天有實驗課，教授說分組，每組四五個人吧，他一扒拉就完成了，就是根據座位劃分了一下。我們仨剛好在上課前坐在一起閑聊，就劃在了一個組裏，還有一男一女白人帥哥美女。富不富不知道，白和美肯定達標。
我們是坐在最後一排的，所以，是最後一撥去樓上做實驗。早做完實驗的就回家去寫報告，我們就無所事事地等待，也就慢慢騰騰地走到外麵去了。待5人都回到教室坐下後，白人女孩（簡稱L）就想找話題跟我們仨拉近關係，便對她對麵的女同胞說：我很佩服你啊，一個人就從日本跑到美國來了。我都不敢想象如果是我去日本留學我能不能活下來。難道你就沒有碰到過任何困難，比如碰上不順心的事？
女同胞想起了最近發生的不順心的事，便告訴L：“上周六我搬家，東西不多可也拉了幾趟。最後一趟，裏邊裝的是書和桌子上的東西。開到新公寓剛打開後備箱，鄰居也剛好路過便幫我拿了台燈。我非常高興他幫我忙，也就快點走到門口去開門。待我把門開開，回頭一看，他不在我身後，而是把我的台燈拿到他家去了。我心想他是忘了，一會就會想起來而給我送過來。等我把東西收拾差不多了，他還沒過來，我想他可能忘記了，便走過去按門鈴。按了一陣子門才開，他問我找他幹嘛，我說我的台燈！他說不知道我在說什麽。我急了，當即吼他：你不給我我就報警！我知道我台燈是什麽樣子的，我有照片！他才很不情願地把台燈給了我，然後他就咣當把門關上，非常沒教養！你說黑人怎麽這樣啊？這不是明搶嗎？”
女同胞話音剛落，L臉色突然就變了。此時上一組回來了讓我們去做實驗。實驗做完後，我趕去下一節課，L剛好也選了那門課，我倆就一起往西走。她突然問我：“你們日本人是不是都對我們美國人滿懷怨恨？”我一聽丈二和尚摸不著頭腦，便問她何出此言。她說：“你沒聽到她用種族歧視的語言抱怨黑人來著？”
我明白了，原來她是站在黑人的立場對女同胞的實話實說態度不滿。我當即問她：“如果拿走台燈的事發生在你身上，你會不會報警？”她想了一下說：“應該也是先去要，如果不給我可能會報警。”我說：“那你事後會不會也跟你朋友們回憶此事？如果會，你為何指責她種族歧視？”L說：“她說話的態度很明顯是專對黑人的。她沒必要提黑人。黑人有搶劫的，白人也有啊。我又沒問她拿走她台燈的是什麽人。”
幾天後晚飯時看電視，是非洲幾內亞人的畫麵。我當即發現這電視裏的非洲黑人跟我見到的美國黑人完全不是一樣的，便認為是美國的氣候條件導致當年從非洲拉來的黑人奴隸變成了現在這樣臉上的膚色介於白人與黑人之間。也就在飯桌上說環境對基因型的表現影響竟然如此之大。同樣的基因型在美國的環境下黑人僅僅十代人就跟非洲老家的黑人涇渭分明了。垂斯的專業是昆蟲學，也是生物領域。她聽後眼睛睜得大大的，非常吃驚。第二天她給了我一本書，書名【Roots】，讀完後覺得翻成中文應該叫《尋根》比較合適。從這本書裏大概知道了當年黑人是怎麽從非洲拉過來的。很快垂斯就又借給了我幾本書，裏邊涉及到黑人尤其是女性奴隸被白人男主人性侵的曆史故事。我今天搜索查找這幾本書，沒找到，但找到了一篇2014年的綜述文章： http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/11/05/10-horrifying-facts-about-the-sexual-exploitation-of-enslaved-black-women-you-may-not-know/
裏邊提到了幾點主要內容：
男主人性侵黑女性奴隸時認為是寵幸她們（Owners of enslaved people claimed they were doing Black women a favor by having sex with them.）
明明是被強奸卻被男主人說成是她們淫蕩（Enslaved women known as “Jezebels” were sometimes raped and then accused of being promiscuous.）
男主人光撒種不負責，因為孩子的膚色不是白人的樣子，就不認親生的孩子為己出（Owners of enslaved women usually took no responsibility or ownership of the babies they had with these women.）
老婆常常因為丈夫與女性黑人奴隸發生性行為而暴打女奴，而丈夫眼看著也不幫女奴的忙，不敢擔責（Mistresses often beat enslaved women for having sex with their husbands while the husband was never held accountable）
男主人與女性黑人奴隸發生性行為的目的是為了獲得更多的後代奴隸充當大田裏的勞動力（Slave owners often impregnated enslaved women on purpose so they could have more workers in the field.）
每當奧巴馬公開講把被不公平對待的男性黑人稱為“我們的兒子”時，美國人不論是白人還是黑人都知道那是奧巴馬在提醒白人：黑人是白人的孩子！
奧巴馬提醒得很對。白人都知道，現在美國黑人的血管裏都流著白人的血。
奧巴馬是50%的白人血統，但他看起來要比美國其他黑人的平均水平更趨向於黑人一點，也就是說，美國黑人平均水平，白人血統超過50%，論血統是以白人為主的，但遺傳學知識告訴我們，不論有多麽少的黑人血統留下來，哪怕隻有5%以下，他們的頭發照樣是卷曲的，看上去照樣是黑人。
這就是為何馬丁路德金從來都不認為他是反對種族歧視的領袖，因為他不認為美國黑人與白人屬於不同的種族，他清楚白人們清楚美國黑人是白人的孩子。馬丁路德金認為他是為了民權而戰的領袖，他所領導的運動不屬於反對種族歧視運動，而是屬於民權運動。
既然不論白人還是黑人都清楚美國黑人是白人的孩子，那為何黑人一直認為被白人歧視呢？白人為何要歧視自己的孩子？這就涉及到除了生物學外，有關社會學的歧視範疇了。
2.在同樣的膚色同一民族裏，歧視是普遍現象
在朝廷裏，被臨幸過的妃子宮女們其在皇後眼裏的地位跟奴隸與主子類似。同樣都是被皇帝玩弄，妃子的年齡貌相也許比皇後還占優，照樣不能跟皇後一樣有主子的地位，她們的孩子也一樣不能與皇後親生的相提並論。即使皇後沒兒子，賓妃生的兒子繼位也得稱皇後為母後。
紅樓夢裏趙姨娘的兒子賈環與賈寶玉都是賈政的種，但地位不可同日而語。美國黑人與白人爭民權，跟賈環與賈寶玉爭家權類似。這也就解釋了一旦美國白人聽到黃種人指責美國黑人時立刻惱羞成怒的原因，就好比賈環在大觀園裏沒地位，但要是賈寶玉聽到焦大欺負了賈環，那他絕對不會饒恕焦大的。
隻是在很多華人眼裏，誤以為美國白人歧視過黑人而自己在白人眼裏要比黑人在白人眼裏更近一點。事實上，從生物學角度來講類似於你是焦大，人家分別是賈寶玉與賈環。
上麵講的是生物學意義上的種族血緣與種族歧視的理論。這在中國傳統文化上也是一樣的，稱為：“非我族類，其心必異。”
生物學意義上的歧視除了血緣外，還有殘疾歧視、年齡歧視、貌相歧視、智商歧視、貧窮歧視等違背現代文明的各類歧視。
在千萬年的進化過程中，“優勝汰劣”是保持種族不滅絕以及進化的唯一途徑。這類天然的歧視行為被現代文明所不容，被稱為反動的“社會達爾文主義”而遭到韃伐。在進入現代文明之前，種族歧視、殘疾歧視、年齡歧視、貌相歧視、智商歧視、貧窮歧視都是“優勝汰劣”的內容。如果不歧視殘疾病患基因突變者、貌相醜陋基因突變者、智商低下基因突變者、好吃懶做（貧窮）基因突變者，這些突變個體就會有後代而把壞的突變基因遺傳下來。這對種族的未來是非常不利的。
現代文明則是另一番價值觀，被稱為“人權”、“生而平等權”等普世價值。一個國家的文明程度，就是看該國遠離生物學意義上的歧視有多遠。越遠，便被看成越文明。到目前為止，美國已經在法律上消除了種族歧視、在找工作時的年齡歧視貌相歧視，但在智商歧視與貧窮（好吃懶做）歧視方麵依然我行我素。在生活中更是如此。尤其是在智商歧視方麵非常嚴重，雖然哈佛等藤校即將免除SAT考試，但高中的考試分數依然是藤校主要錄取標準。智商與膚色一樣都是生來就決定了的，而憲法裏“人人生而平等”理應包括免除各類歧視，包括生下來就帶來的智商歧視（把這一部分放在最後一節討論）。
3.西裔是白人的孩子
西裔，又稱為拉丁裔，是分布在中南美洲，白人（主要是源自西班牙的男性）與黃種人（土著印第安人女性）混血的後代。與北美的英國等白人不同，中南美洲的白人軍人隻殺掉了土著印第安男人而把女性留下來當成二奶三奶四奶。她們生下來的孩子就成了事實上白人的孩子。與美國黑人一樣，西裔也就被白人看成是白人的孩子。
倒是很多華人誤以為白人會害怕更多的西裔移民到美國還大量生孩子與美國黑人也大量生孩子從而導致白人處於少數民族後而被歧視。事實上，人家知道不論是西裔還是非裔，都是白人的孩子，人家屬於一家人。白人也包括中東阿拉伯人，歐洲大量引入阿拉伯人是心甘情願的，可人家照樣不會大量引入華人，因為華人與人家不是同宗同源。
4.印度人與歐洲白人同宗同源
我在前文裏講過，從人種學來講，印度人屬於高加索人，與歐洲白人同宗同源。人類四大人種（蒙古人種、高加索人種、非洲黑人、澳洲棕種人），歐洲人阿拉伯人印度人都屬於高加索人種（白人）。有華人不認可印度人是白人，以為印度人比華人的膚色還黑。印度人被確定為高加索人（白種人）的人體學證據收集在這本書裏《The Races of Europe》 (1939) by Carleton S. Coon：
The Indian should be classified as "Caucasoid" due to their "Caucasoid skull structure" and other physical traits such as noses, eyes and hair.
白種人跟白種人也不一樣，混血都很厲害。俄羅斯人有蒙古人種血統，他依然叫白種人。東歐的白種人跟西歐的白種人差異也很大，但都屬於高加索人，與黃種人黑種人棕種人在骨骼、鼻子、眼睛、頭發方麵不一樣。不論是什麽人種，隻要跟黑人混血，後代的頭發一定是卷的，比如奧巴馬是黑人與白人的後代，他的頭發是卷的。中國人與黑人的後代頭發也是卷的。印度人的頭發則是直的，不論皮膚是不是比奧巴馬還黑。
其實，在華人眼裏印度人是不是白人並不重要，重要的是美國白人認同印度人是白人。在純生物學角度來說，人家就不存在”非我族類，其心必異“的排斥心理，在華人與印度人爭位子時，人家就把印度人自然而然地看成是自己人，哪怕你是出生在美國的華人而印度人是從印度移民來的，你的英語發音是美國調兒。
這就好比在北京工作能講非常標準普通話的新疆維吾爾族人與移民來自韓國也能講普通話在北京工作的韓國人，北京人會把移民來的韓國人看成是自己人，而新疆維吾爾族人反而被排擠被歧視。在雲南廣西，那裏的越南人跟中國人通婚不覺得是“涉外婚姻”，混血孩子也不會覺得父母屬於不同的種族，而中國人跟黑人白人結婚混血的孩子就會納悶為何父母不一樣。你明白了這些，也就理解了在白人眼裏，印度人要比華人更親近；非裔西裔與白人爭的是民權，而華裔與白人爭的才是種族平等。
5.華裔、日裔、韓裔
在美國，不論是白人非裔西裔，都知道華裔日裔韓裔等黃種人屬於一類，盡管國家政治上涇渭分明，比如假如中國與日本打起來了，美國會站在日本一邊，但在普通百姓眼裏，華裔日裔韓裔等是沒有區別的。不論是華裔還是日裔韓裔，在白人眼裏無法跟印度人甚至中東人一樣被看成是白人，在血統上也不能與非裔西裔相提並論。
然而，上麵講的都是單從生物學角度，人類早已走出了純生物學角度的思維，畢竟美國憲法裏的平等觀念已經貫徹三百年了。社會已經在從生物學天然思維走向現代文明的路上，雖然前麵還有很長很長的路要走。
我在上文裏提到，美國黑人已經有當上總統的例子了，這次選舉是傳統意義上的純白人（民主黨裏的希拉裏、共和黨裏的川普）與西裔（盧比奧、科魯茲）、猶太人（桑德斯）競爭。即使這次西裔、猶太人競選總統沒戲，以後也是傳統白人、白人的孩子西裔非裔、猶太人這四家輪流坐莊。華裔當總統的機會還要在印度人與中東人後麵。
（二）社會學概念的種族平等
1.美國憲法裏的“人人生而平等”是尚未實現的遠大目標
美國憲法製定時，別說上麵提到的各類歧視還司空見慣，黑人還處於奴隸地位。在奴隸製下何談”人人生而平等“？顯然，憲法是根本大法，是未來要一步步朝著指定的方向前進的目標。
人人生而平等實現的那一天，不僅僅沒有了種族歧視、貌相歧視、年齡歧視、智商歧視、貧窮歧視、職業歧視，也沒有了宗教歧視。我們知道，宗教的第一特征就是對異教徒的歧視甚至敵視。信仰伊斯蘭教的，歧視不信伊斯蘭教的；信仰基督教的，歧視不信仰基督教的。即使有教養的基督徒也很少有人能做到“我不下地獄誰下地獄”而祈禱基督徒下地獄把天堂讓給異教徒，反而道德低下到詛咒異教徒下地獄令人難以置信地步。在信仰排他性的意義上來講，隻有人人都走出教堂，才能杜絕宗教歧視。我們從北歐絕大多數人從教堂裏走了出來而那裏的人人平等程度最高這一點可以看出，美國實現“人人生而平等”的那一天已經不再是遙不可及了。這次大選，桑德斯就公開提出要走北歐社會主義道路，雖然他這次無法勝選，但他膽敢公開提出這樣的競選綱領，在過去是無法想象的，畢竟經過半個世紀與共產主義陣營的冷戰使得美國人認為所謂的社會主義是洪水猛獸。
2.智商歧視與宗教歧視往往以財富歧視為依歸
歐洲的例子表明：越是貧窮的國家信仰宗教的越多，越是富裕的國家去教堂的人數比例越少，北歐現在隻剩下一些老人去教堂了。
而且，越是貧富差距小的國家去教堂的人越少，而且智商歧視的程度越低。在美國的調查發現：智商與財富成正比。
也就是說，歐洲的事實表明，貧富差異越小的國家，智商歧視宗教歧視也越小。隨著現代文明朝著美國憲法裏的“人人生而平等”的逐步實現，美國藤校在錄取時不僅宗教、種族不再受影響，智商也不再受影響。這需要靠財富分配政策的改進。隻有到了智商高的也不比智商低的富裕多少的北歐社會主義階段，智商歧視、宗教歧視才能消除，因為智商歧視與宗教歧視必然導致財富歧視。反過來，沒有了財富歧視，智商歧視與宗教歧視也就不存在了。二者不是雞與蛋的關係而是互動良性循環的關係。當財富歧視消除後，種族歧視才與智商歧視、宗教歧視、貌相歧視等各類歧視一起消失。
美國近代走入的“政治正確”受到了富裕階層與宗教狂熱分子們的極大抵製，也受到了無知的華人的反感。因為華人們不知道，政治正確不僅僅是消滅財富歧視的唯一途徑，也是美國憲法的精神，更重要的是：政治正確之路是走向種族歧視消亡的唯一途徑。當美國走到了北歐的社會主義那一步，華人才能在沒有了財富歧視（等於沒有了各類歧視的人人平等）的前提下走出種族歧視的牢籠。
這是從社會學方麵取消種族歧視的途徑與未來展望。如果從血緣也就是生物學意義上消滅種族歧視，對華人來說基本上無解，因為我們不能人人都做皮膚更換手術、骨骼整容手術。唯一的是與白人通婚。這對華人男人來說，基本上不現實。
（三）小結：
1.從生物學意義上來講，在美國的華人（以及日裔韓裔越裔）才具有與白人存在種族的事實，而西裔非裔都是“白人的孩子”、印度人阿拉伯人猶太人也都是與白人同宗同源的高加索人人種，這與華人等蒙古人種屬於完全不同的人種。就是根據中國的傳統文化，也照樣有“非我族類其心必異”、“血濃於水”的認知。地球人有一個共同點：雖然文化不同，大家都遵循著同樣的思維邏輯。人家照樣有天然的親屬遠近觀念，這是生物在進化中產生的“種群群落學”所描述的基本原理。在生物學意義上，要想徹底消除種族歧視，是違背進化論的，是與大自然鬥爭的反天然行為，其難度可想而知。美國曆史上唯一的種族歧視法律便是臭名昭著的“排華法案”。二戰中美國把在美國的日本人關進集中營而未把美國真正的第一戰爭對手德國人關進集中營。這些都是人性裏的生物學天性所支配的行為。
2.人類的發展到了近代已經走到了現代文明階段。在這個階段中，人類通過司法與教育把社會達爾文主義徹底拋棄而最終要走向“人人平等”的和諧社會，最關鍵的指標是沒有了財富歧視。沒有了財富歧視，其種族歧視、智商歧視、宗教歧視、貌相歧視（包括膚色歧視、年齡歧視）、殘疾歧視也就減小了，因為這五花八門的歧視最終體現在財富的爭奪上。作為第一代華人移民，其傳統文化與西方的文化有著極大的差異，而第二代移民，在文化上基本上與美國文化接軌。所以，第一代移民感受到的歧視不僅僅是生物學意義上的原因，也有文化上的原因。
3.即使財富歧視消失後，人類本能的生物學歧視也或多或少存在，目前的例子便是：貧窮的白人女人也未必願意嫁給富豪黑人。但反過來，隻要財富歧視存在，生物學意義上的歧視更變本加厲。考慮到屬於蒙古人人種的華人無法在血緣方麵與高加索人種的白人（也包括猶太人印度人阿拉伯人）甚至他們的混血後代（西裔非裔美國人）徹底融合，唯一能減少種族歧視的途徑便是在社會學意義上的融合，這就是逐步實現美國憲法裏的“人人生而平等”所謂的“政治正確”途徑。從這次美國大選可以看出，傳統的美國白人（我這個說法目的是為了區分來自歐洲的美國白人與也屬於白人的猶太人印度人阿拉伯人）在與猶太人西裔競爭中依然占優。假如川普的反“政治正確”觀點不是川普提出來的，而是猶太人桑德斯西裔科魯茲提出來的，他就很難走到今天這一步。最後不論是希拉裏上位還是川普上位，都是傳統白人不心甘情願放棄本族人的代表而進行的拚搏。川普提出他如果當選，就不再用美國的軍隊去保護日本韓國。在絕大多數美國人眼裏，日本人韓國人中國人都與他們無關，他這麽說就是為了拉選票。一旦他當政，那他還是要根據美國的利益而製定外交政策，而非根據種族因素，人類畢竟早就走出了“種族高於一切”、“種族決定一切”的生物學裏動物階段而逐步從社會達爾文主義大踏步走向“政治正確”的現代文明社會。這是我為何要投給民主黨希拉裏的票的根本原因。遠離了政治正確之路，華人是無法走出被歧視的地位的，因為從血緣上講，我們也有“非我族類其心必異”的常識認知。那些跟著美國白人起哄反對政治正確的華人，要麽是無知，要麽是眼前利益蒙蔽了眼睛而對長遠利益不屑一顧。
後記：
美國主流媒體也在發表有關在美華人對歧視的分析文章，這篇就值得一看：
The hated question
Asian Americans are regularly made to feel like foreigners in their own country through “innocent” racial microaggressions. Microaggressions are“ everyday insults, indignities and demeaning messages sent to people of color by well-intentioned white people who are unaware of the hidden messages being sent.” An example is being asked “Where are you really from?” – after answering the question “Where are you from?” with a location within the United States. Another is being complimented on one’s great English-speaking skills. In both cases, the underlying assumption is that Asian Americans are outsiders.
According to a 2005 study by Sapna Cheryan and Benoit Monin, Asian Americansare right to feel excluded. The study shows Asian Americans are seen as less American than other Americans. A 2008 study by Thierry Devos and Debbie Ma confirmed this result. The study found that in the mind of the average American, a white European celebrity (Kate Winslet) is considered more American than an Asian American celebrity (Lucy Liu).
But while Asian Americans are perceived as less American by other ethnic groups, Cheryan and Monin found that Asian Americans are just as likely as white Americans to self-identify as American and hold patriotic attitudes. This makes attacks on their identity as Americans hurtful. The impact of racial microaggressions on exclusionary feelings can be magnified in political contexts, such as advertisements, political rhetoric, and policy positions on issues related to Asians like immigration.
How is this politically consequential?
We posit that rhetoric from Republicans insinuating that nonwhite “takers” are taking away from white “makers,” as well as their strong anti-immigrant positions, has cultivated a perception that the Republican Party is less welcoming of minorities. Since the Democratic Party is seen as less exclusionary, we find that triggering feelings of social exclusion makes Asian Americans favor Democrats.
We conducted an experiment in which Asian Americans were brought into a university laboratory. Half were randomly subjected to a seemingly benign racial microaggression like Trump’s clueless remarks to Choe before being asked to fill out a political survey. The white assistant was instructed to tell half of the study participants, “I'm sorry. I forgot that this study is only for US citizens. Are you a US citizen? I cannot tell.”
Asian Americans who were exposed to this race-based presumption of “not belonging” were more likely to identify strongly as a Democrat. They were also more likely to view Republicans generally as close-minded and ignorant, less likely to represent people like them, and to have more negative feelings toward them.
Our finding is remarkable given that the racial microaggression was mentioned only once, and was of the most benign nature. Our experiment confirms that Asian Americans associate feelings of social exclusion based on their ethnic background with the Republican Party.
Social exclusion based on race is common
When we examined the 2008 National Asian American Survey (NAAS), a nationally representative sample of over 5,000 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, we found that self-reported racial discrimination, a proxy for feelings of social exclusion, was positively correlated with identification with the Democratic Party over the Republican Party.
Analyzing the NAAS data, we find that racial discrimination is not rare. Nearly 40 percent of Asian Americans suffered at least one of the following forms of racial discrimination in their lifetime:
being unfairly denied a job or fired
being unfairly denied a promotion at work
being unfairly treated by the police
being unfairly prevented from renting or buying a home
treated unfairly at a restaurant or other place of service being a victim of a hate crime.
It is important to note that our findings do not mean that social exclusion is the only reason why Asian Americans are Democrats. However, they do provide some insight on why Asian Americans are leaning left today.
來源: 唵啊吽 於 2016-02-21 19:02:15 [檔案] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀：2754 次 (6606 bytes)
字體：調大/重置/調小 | 加入書簽 | 打印 | 所有跟帖 | 加跟貼 | 當前最熱討論主題
一個人到饅頭鋪吃飯，吃了一個饅頭不飽，吃完第二個饅頭還不飽，吃完第三個饅頭才飽。買單時他隻付一個饅頭的錢，他說前邊兩個饅頭沒有用，第三個饅頭才有用。讀者請不要笑，如果你認為這位食客應該付三個饅頭的錢的話，那麽，請在 10 月 2 日的國際非暴力日和1月份的馬丁路德金日紀念民權運動先驅王清福。馬丁路德金是民權運動非暴力運動的第三個饅頭，而王清福是民權運動和非暴力運動的第一個饅頭。
談到美國族裔平等反對種族歧視的社會環境的時候，有些人總認為是華裔沾了黑人民權運動的光，實際上正好相反，因為馬丁路德金是民權運動非暴力運動的第三個饅頭，而王清福是民權運動和非暴力運動的第一個饅頭。馬丁路德金著名的《我有一個夢》的演說發生在 1963 年 8 月 28 日，甘地在南非的納塔拉成立反對英聯邦種族歧視的“印度國民大會”是在 1894 年 8 月 22 日，而王清福在紐約成立“美國華人平等權利聯盟” (The Chinese Equal Rights League of America) 是在 1892 年 9 月 1 日。作為現代西方文化一部分的非暴力爭取族裔平等的民權文化，作為不分種族在法律麵前人人平等的社會訴求的文化，王清福是第一個饅頭，甘地是第二個饅頭，而馬丁路德金是第三個饅頭。如今，聯合國以甘地的生日 10 月 2 日作為國際非暴力日，而美國把馬丁路德金生日 1 月 15 日前後的一個周末定為國家節日。社會的肚子感受到第二個和第三個饅頭的作用，不要忘了了第一個饅頭的功勞。對於一個饑餓的人，第一個饅頭最重要，他或許可以沒有第二個和第三個饅頭，但不能沒有第一個饅頭。所以，在紀念馬丁路德金日和國際非暴力日的時候，各族裔都應該緬懷民權運動先驅王清福。如果甘地和馬丁路德金能夠成為人類文化一部分的話，王清福作為民權運動先驅更是當之無愧的應該成為這種文化的鼻祖。
1882 年美國通過了《排華法案》， 1892 年美國國會又通過了吉爾裏法案（ Geary Act ）將《排華法案》延長十年，並要求所有華裔登記注冊，要求華裔隨身攜帶注冊證，如果不隨身攜帶，即以違法逮捕，荷以重罰。這是種族歧視，希特勒就是要求所有猶太人注冊，並隨身攜帶標記。吉爾裏法案通過幾個月之內，王清福就成立了“美國華人平等權利聯盟”，反對吉爾裏法案的種族歧視，並於 1893 年出席國會聽證指出吉爾裏法案的反人道的違憲本質。王清福領導的“美國華人平等權利聯盟”印發了《聯盟向全體美國人民的請願書》（ Appeal of the League to People of the United States) ，譴責吉爾裏法案違反了法律的基本原則。
1897 年 1 月 27 日，“美國華人平等權利聯盟”在芝加哥注冊為“ Chinese Equal Rights League of America ”，擁有會員約 200 人。會員證上印有“我們要求華裔美國人有平等的投票選舉權”（ We ask and demand for an equal franchise for the Americanized Chinese of the United States ）。美國憲法第十五修正案於 1870 年 2 月 3 日正式生效，該修正案禁止以種族和膚色為由剝奪公民的選舉權。美國華人平等權利聯盟的訴求是反對美國政府的違憲行為。而 1882 年的《排華法案》剝奪了華裔美國公民的選舉投票權利，《排華法案》一再延長期限，直至 1943 年 12 月 17 日《排華法案》才被終止，華裔才重新取得選舉投票的公民平等權利。論民權運動，王清福比馬丁路德金早，而華裔爭取到平等選舉投票權在馬丁路德金 60 年代黑人民權運動之前，不知道為何總有人認為華裔沾了黑人民權運動的光？
王清福爭取族裔平等的民權活動早在 1882 年《排華法案》出來之前就開始了。王清福 1874 年入籍為美國公民，在 1877 年美國掀起反華種族情緒之初，王清福就寫文章發表演說公開理論反對排華種族歧視，但沒能阻止《排華法案》的出籠。 1882 年《排華法案》通過以後， 1883 年王清福就出版《華美周刊》，英文名稱為“ Chinese American ”，為爭取華裔平等權利呼號。
華裔對美國有重大的貢獻。華裔建設跨大洋鐵路為美國工業革命奠定了基礎設施、鐵路連接兩大洋成就了美國優越的地緣政治環境。不但如此，華裔還對美國立國理念中的平等、自由、憲政、法製等文化有中大貢獻，王清福就是平等自由憲政非暴力民權文化的先驅。我們在吃第二個和第三個饅頭的時候，不要忘了第一個饅頭。在國際非暴力日和馬丁路德金日中，我們要宣揚王清福，宣揚華裔對美國立國理念的貢獻。我們華裔的子女在學校作文的時候，一定要知道這些日子隻是第二個和第三個饅頭，要寫文章就寫寫第一個饅頭。
順帶呼籲一下，各華裔社團除了在馬丁路德金日和 10 月 2 日國際非暴力日要紀念紀念王清福外，還應該在國際戒毒日 6 月 26 日紀念林則徐（聯合國特別選取虎門硝煙的日子作為這個節日）；在國際教師節 10 月 6 日紀念孔子（聯合國選取孔子生日作為教師節）。我們無需融入主流文化，我們就是主流文化的一部分，華裔對美國主流文化有重大貢獻。
參考書：《 Claiming America ： Constructing Chinese American Identities during the Exclusion Era 》， Editors: Scott Wang and Sucheng Chan, 1998 Temple University Press.
王清福：華人的馬丁路德金
debate
Sponsored Content
How can we make young people career-ready?
160302_donald_trump_cpac_3_gty_1160.jpg
Trump speech roils CPAC
789
Shares
? Facebook
? Twitter
? Google +
? Email
? Comment
? Print
.
.
? Most Read
? Videos
1
Hannity unloads on Rubio
2
Michelle Obama turns 52! A dance party of photos for her birthday
3
Gabbard: People warned me against endorsing Sanders
4
Trump speech roils CPAC
5
Romney rips Trump as a 'phony' and a 'fraud'
6
Wall Street readies big Trump assault
7
5 myths about Trump supporters
8
Neocons declare war on Trump
9
Trump again threatens independent bid
10
Trump releases plan for replacing Obamacare
? ? Politico Magazine
160302_shafer_trump.jpg
Did the Media Create Trump?
By Jack Shafer
Ronald Reagan (left) and children in Halloween costumes are shown. | AP Photo
How Trump Killed the Reagan Mystique
By Rich Lowry
AP-construction.jpg
Sorry, Trump, America Can’t Be Great Again
By Michael Lind
160302_polmagroundup_ap.jpg
There’s Still Time for a Primary Bombshell
By POLITICO Magazine
.
.
"Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark" Mitt Romney said.
Full transcript: Mitt Romney's remarks on Donald Trump and the 2016 race
By POLITICO Staff
| 03/03/16 11:59 AM EST
? Share on Facebook ? Share on Twitter
Below are Mitt Romney's full remarks on Donald Trump and the 2016 presidential race, as prepared for delivery. Romney delivered his remarks at the University of Utah.
I am not here to announce my candidacy for office. I am not going to endorse a candidate today. Instead, I would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party. In 1964, days before the presidential election which, incidentally, we lost, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America saying that it was a "Time for Choosing." He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I'm no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country.
.
.
I say this in part because of my conviction that America is poised to lead the world for another century. Our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, and the ambition and skill of our people will propel our economy and raise our standard of living. America will remain as it is today, the envy of the world.
Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that "the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history."
That doesn't mean we don't have real problems and serious challenges. At home, poverty persists and wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian mullahs, the aggressions of Putin, the growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times.
But if we make the right choices, America's future will be even better than our past and better than our present.
On the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon I foresee will never materialize. Let me put it plainly, if we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.
Let me explain why.
First, the economy: If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.
A few examples: His proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America. His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even as Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.
But wait, you say, isn't he a huge business success that knows what he's talking about? No he isn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.
Now not every policy Donald Trump has floated is bad. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to bring jobs home from China and Japan. But his prescriptions to do these things are flimsy at best. At the last debate, all he could remember about his healthcare plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. Successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make America the place businesses want to plant and grow. You can't punish business into doing the things you want. Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront, come today from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee.
I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump's isn't going to be stopped.
Perhaps. But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.
Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump's bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.
What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.
Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.
I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.
Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.
There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.
Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.
The President of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country's great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.
Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as "The Donald." He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn't because he had attributes we admired.
Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.
Watch how he responds to my speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.
Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.
On Hillary Clinton's watch at the State Department, America's interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power.
For the last three decades, the Clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. They embody the term “crony capitalism.” It disgusts the American people and causes them to lose faith in our political process.
A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory. The audio and video of the infamous Tapper-Trump exchange on the Ku Klux Klan will play a hundred thousand times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media.
There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake. There is indeed evidence of that. Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign, and on the Ku Klux Klan, daily for three days in a row.
We will only really know if he is the real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the New York Times. I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. And I predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, he will never ever release his tax returns. Never. Not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. He has too much to hide. Nor will he authorize the Times to release the tapes. If I'm right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony.
Attacking me as he surely will won't prove him any less of a phony. It's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. All he has to do is to release his back taxes like he promised he would, and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to the New York Times.
Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn't last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.
First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.
The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.
These two things are related: our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. John F. Kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. Lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union.
I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.
Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.
Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.
His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.
America has greatness ahead. This is a time for choosing. God bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality.
Mar.3
Mar. 2
Mar. 1
Feb. 29
Feb. 26
Feb. 25
Feb. 24
Feb. 23
Feb. 22
Feb. 19
Feb. 18
Politics Newsletter: Sign Up
Political News, Now.
8:56 am ETNew
8:56 am ET
By Alan Rappeport and Alex Thompson
Share
Tweet
A Stern Mitt Romney Attacks Donald Trump as ‘a Phony’ and ‘a Fraud’
?
Election 2016 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:53
Romney Makes Case Against Trump
Video
Romney Makes Case Against Trump
The 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney criticized Donald J. Trump in a speech to rally Republicans around one of Mr. Trump’s rivals.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date March 3, 2016. Photo by Jim Urquhart/Reuters.
Share
Tweet
Updated, 12:24 p.m. | Mitt Romney called Donald J. Trump “a phony” and “a fraud” in an impassioned speech on Thursday in which he urged Republicans to rally around another candidate and warned that a Trump presidency could lead American into a dark abyss.
The hastily organized speech, which was delivered in Utah, was a last-ditch effort among leaders in the Republican Party to blunt Mr. Trump’s momentum before he runs away with the presidential nomination. Mr. Romney has been criticizing Mr. Trump on social media in recent weeks, calling on him to release his tax returns and arguing that slowness to denounce the Ku Klux Klan was disqualifying for a presidential candidate.
On Thursday Mr. Romney was unsparing, eviscerating Mr. Trump as unstable, immoral and cruel.
“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud,” Mr. Romney said to applause. “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.”
The former Massachusetts governor and 2012 presidential candidate, who considered making a third run in 2016, argued that Mr. Trump’s economic policies would create another recession and that he is not suited to represent America on the global stage. He lamented that Mr. Trump has called for bringing back torture and for punishing the innocent families of terrorists. And he expressed concern that, if elected, Mr. Trump would erode the foundations of American democracy.
“He cheers assaults on protesters,” Mr. Romney said. “He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit First Amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”
The public skewering of Mr. Trump was also deeply personal. Mr. Romney accused him of being an overrated businessman, bemoaned his mockery of the disable and pointed out his history of marital affairs while predicting that Mr. Trump would be an embarrassing commander-in- chief.
“There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured,” Mr. Romney said.
In an instance of old rivals uniting, Mr. McCain praised Mr. Romney for speaking out.
“I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described in his speech today,” Mr. McCain said in a statement. “I would also echo the many concerns about Mr. Trump’s uninformed and indeed dangerous statements on national security issues that have been raised by 65 Republican defense and foreign policy leaders.”
Mr. Romney spoke for about 20 minutes before more than 600 people at the Hinckley Institute of Politics in Salt Lake City. While the audience was generally supportive, there were some skeptics in the crowd.
Max Chaz, who backed Mr. Romney in 2012, arrived in a “Make America Great Again” hat that is the hallmark of Mr. Trump’s campaign. He was turned off by Mr. Romney’s late effort to tilt the election and said it was “bordering on tyranny when the party turns around at this date after Trump has been so successful and decide they don’t like the outcome.”
It remained unclear what influence Mr. Romney still has with Republican primary voters who have become increasingly wary of “establishment” politicians. So far, he has declined to formally endorse any of the Republican candidates, although there were rumors that he might support Senator Marco Rubio.
While he did not single out a favorite on Thursday, Mr. Romney made clear that he is pulling for anyone who can stop Mr. Trump.
“Of the remaining candidates, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront have come from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich,” Mr. Romney said.
Mr. Trump responded quickly and forcefully and was expected to offer a full-throated rebuttal during an afternoon campaign rally. In an interview on MNSBC earlier Thursday, he recalled that Mr. Romney “begged” for his endorsement four years ago. “He ran one of the worst campaigns, as you know, in presidential history,” Mr. Trump said. “That was an election that should have been won by the Republicans.”
The Trump campaign also preemptively released a video on Facebook featuring clips of Mr. Romney making statements that were at odds with conservative orthodoxy on immigration, health care, abortion and climate change.
The tension between the two Republicans was a far cry from four years ago, when Mr. Romney lavished praise upon Mr. Trump when receiving his endorsement in Las Vegas. On that day, he flattered Mr. Trump for being the more successful businessman and described him as a visionary on economic issues.
“Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works, to create jobs for the American people,” Mr. Romney said.
Mr. Trump was equally glowing about Mr. Romney at the time, suggesting that he had the talent to make America great: “Mitt is tough, he’s smart, he’s sharp, he’s not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love.”
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/03/mitt-romney-to-make-case-against-donald-trump-in-utah-speech/?_r=0
有些自以為智商高的卻又什麽也說不出來，這也不是，那也不是，搞了半天隻能跟支持民主黨的勞模老黑一個檔次
John- 發表評論於 2016-03-03 09:30:46
O8欲將美國拱手讓給穆斯林，美國人不幹， 就選了TRUMP
老生長談 發表評論於 2016-03-03 09:23:57
你要是相信川普會實現諾言，你就太naive了。競選與實際主政不同。現在他或喜樂日所說的一切都是以競選總統為目標。隻要對選舉有利，什麽話都可以說。當上總統以後幹什麽那是後話了。
bbrt294 發表評論於 2016-03-03 09:17:33
小布希躲扔過來的鞋子，從容又靈活。
balsam_pear_k 發表評論於 2016-03-03 09:16:58
人雲亦雲，無腦跟媒體，沒自己思考的人，更有資格是你說的低智商。
=====
neoreturn 發表評論於 2016-03-03 09:13:03 選川普的人都是智商低的人。川普演講就會羅列美國的一些問題，重複著說，但他一點解決辦法也沒有。可給你的感覺是選了他，這些問題就會解決。 比如美國根中國的赤字，你有辦法解決嗎？你敢不跟中國做生意嗎？中國500lbs大猩猩會聽你的嗎？
neoreturn 發表評論於 2016-03-03 09:13:03
選川普的人都是智商低的人。川普演講就會羅列美國的一些問題，重複著說，但他一點解決辦法也沒有。可給你的感覺是選了他，這些問題就會解決。 比如美國根中國的赤字，你有辦法解決嗎？你敢不跟中國做生意嗎？中國500lbs大猩猩會聽你的嗎？
indexguy 發表評論於 2016-03-03 09:10:42
玩股票
Clinton當總統:用technical analysis.
Trump當總統: Day trade. 誰也不知道明天他會說什麽。
dgtlhrs 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:56:14
很期待啊，在美墨邊界修建“長城”，廢除奧巴馬醫保，驅逐非法移民/難民。。。實現一個就很了不起了，民主黨想都不敢想
shakuras2000 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:55:59
小布什什麽時候目不識丁了？小布什的笨那是和克林頓比，實際上智商也是120左右，屬於聰明人。有文章研究過他和john kerry在yale的成績，發現其實小布什的智商還高點。
隨便說說280 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:55:22
indexguy 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:37:09 屆時，收視率最高的節目是Trump總統的state of the union speech.
============
床鋪總統的任何一個SPEECH 都會有看頭。
隨便說說280 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:53:58
期待
藍靛廠 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:52:44
小布什挺機靈的,沒一件事做得無厘頭,包括打伊拉克幹薩達姆. 包括911裝傻
indexguy 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:37:09
屆時，收視率最高的節目是Trump總統的state of the union speech.
liwenz 發表評論於 2016-03-03 08:32:35
好吧，期待中。。。
川普要是真的入主白宮 那就好玩了…(組圖)
文章來源: 南華早報 於 2016-03-03 08:24:07 - 新聞取自各大新聞媒體，新聞內容並不代表本網立場！
打印本新聞
(被閱讀 8771 次)
我倒真的希望如此。但先別罵我是瘋子、說我與特朗普競選集會上那群固執愚昧的美國人是一丘之貉，且聽我解釋一下。
還記得小布什當美國總統的年代嗎？他幾乎目不識丁，凡事又一竅不通，經常醜態百出；主政八年來，每次公開講話總不乏笑料，給全世界帶來娛樂，多好玩。
這樣的人出任美國總統，也令人幸災樂禍：美國雖然財雄勢大、權傾全球，卻讓一個小醜當領袖。
當然，小布什也是個危險的好戰者，令伊拉克淪為一片頹垣敗瓦。但這一點容後再談。
而奧巴馬則是徹頭徹尾的悶蛋。他有智慧有理想，並承諾帶來改變；但八年任內，他沒做過多少事，唯一完成的是以法外殺戮的方式殺死拉登，但當時拉登對世界已經不再構成危害。
此外，奧巴馬的外交政策與前任也沒有多大分別。事實上，他在中東搞出了更大的亂局──看看敘利亞和禍害各地的伊斯蘭國就知道了。
特朗普在此時登場。這位地產大亨也是真人秀之星，去年六月他宣布將競逐總統，當時無疑是一個笑話。現在他依然是一個笑話，但看看笑到最後的是誰？
此人是種族主義者，厭惡女性，令人反感，說起話來大言不慚。但無論他的言論多麽惹人憎惡、發型多麽難看，卻愈戰愈勇。他的排外主張和挑起社會恐懼的言論，也令許多美國人產生共鳴。
如今，他似乎勢將與民主黨熱門參選人希拉裏一決高下，競逐總統寶座。你要是認為他絕無勝算，先看看可憐的傑布布什錯誤低估特朗普的下場吧。
特朗普的反拉丁族裔言論，令他失去佛羅裏達、科羅拉多和新墨西哥等搖擺州份（swing states）的支持，但他可能隻須在所謂的“鐵鏽地帶＂（Rust Belt，如賓夕凡尼亞、俄亥俄及威斯康辛等州份）勝出──特朗普抨擊美國貿易政策的言論，在這些州份甚得民心──那麽就有機會在今年十一月的大選中勝出。
若他真的當選，那麽會如何？無論憎惡特朗普的人怎麽想，但即使他接任美國總統，也不會出現全球大災難。事實上，對美國以外的大多數非美國人來說，情況不 會有什麽不同。我們可以發表陰謀論，猜測背後有影子政府作祟；也可以單純以常識看待情況：正是有影響力的遊說團體、金融家和億萬富豪出於私心，將特朗普這 樣的人送進了白宮。
誰當美國總統根本無關緊要。美國人始終會做想做的事，並繼續一直以來在做的事。
2008年奧巴馬當選美國總統，還記得當時香港社會的興奮之情嗎？仿佛奧巴馬當了總統，就會為我們帶來什麽改變似的。所以，每當在香港聽到有人說“天啊，要是特朗普真的當上總統，世界會變成怎樣？＂我總是覺得很好笑。
世界不會改變。特朗普不會把穆斯林教徒逐出美國，也不會在邊境建造長城，將墨西哥人隔絕在外。這些都是空口說白話，目的是想煽動民意、激起社會恐懼。
我等不及想看特朗普入主白宮。要是他當選，肯定有源源不絕的笑料。
小布什曾經說過：“我們的敵人既有創意又有資源，但我們也一樣。他們不停想出新方法傷害我們的國家和人民，我們也一樣。＂這番話既糊塗又有預見性，我再同意不過。
http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2016/03/03/5024791.html
Deutschamerikaner
Total population
50,764,352[1][2]
17.1% of the U.S. population (2009)
Regions with significant populations
United States Throughout the entire United States, except for New England.
Plurality in Pennsylvania[3] and the Midwestern states[4]
Languages
English (American English dialects) and German
Religion
Christian (51% Protestant (significant branches: Lutheran ·
Reformed ·
Anabaptist ·
others)
·
26% Roman Catholic)
·
1% Jewish (1%) ·
16% other[5]
Related ethnic groups
Germans ·
Alsatians ·
Austrian Americans ·
Swiss Americans ·
Dutch Americans ·
Pennsylvania Dutch ·
German diaspora ·
German Canadians ·
European Americans
The German American ethnic group (German: Deutschamerikaner) consists of Americans who have full or partial German heritage. Its size of 50 million stands second to the 55 million Hispanics in the United States.[1][6][7][8][9][10][11] The group comprises about 1?3 of the German diaspora in the world.[12][13][14]
None of the German states had American colonies. In the 1670s the first significant groups of German immigrants arrived in the British colonies, settling primarily in New York and Pennsylvania. Immigration continued in very large numbers during the 19th century, with eight million arrivals from Germany. In the middle half of the nineteenth century (between 1820 to 1870) over seven and a half million immigrants came to the United States — more than doubling the entire population of the country. By 2010, their population grew to 49.8 million citizens, reflecting a jump of 6 million people since 2000.
There is a "German belt" that extends all across the United States, from eastern Pennsylvania to the Oregon coast. Pennsylvania has the largest population of German-Americans in the U.S. and is home to one of the group's original settlements, Germantown in 1683. The state has 3.5 million people of German heritage.
They were pulled by the attractions of land and religious freedom, and pushed out of Europe by shortages of land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans
而民主黨喜歡打壓亞裔，認為亞裔overrepresented, 或者說認為亞裔站有資源太多了。它要以種族來劃分資源，提升黑人和拉丁裔。基本上就是黑人與拉丁裔利益的代表者。
由於民主黨占有很大的媒體資源，它們喜歡扭曲摸黑共和黨的政策。
資本主義的逐利性，決定了資本家（雇主）主要看重雇員的能力。 至少在小公司是如此。 所以隻要經濟是靠近資本主義，那有能力的人不怕沒飯吃。
人都是勢利的，有能力的人有了錢，自然就受人尊敬。
政治正確的風險，在於抹殺人的能力，不搞按勞分配。按人種分配上大學名額， 對富人搞高稅收。 經濟就會垮掉。 最後的結果就是今天的南非。（原來人均壽命70多， 如今人均壽命50多歲。）
而等到經濟壞掉了，政治正確不可能講下去，華人估計是第一個替罪羊。
他們對納粹德國的態度，和今天的Rubio對卡斯特羅古巴的態度類似。 非常敵視。
當然也有極少數德國裔美國人或者是剛來美國不久的德國人比較崇拜納粹德國，那些人中的許多在30年代美國經濟不好，而德國經濟似乎蒸蒸日上時又回到德國去了。