一个叫“战略纵横”的公微信号2016年9月9日发表了题为“G20：美国《纽约时报》竟这样评论中国，值得每一个中国人深思！”的文章，注明的出处是“水木然专栏”。作者声称内容取自《纽约时报》专栏作家托马斯·弗里德曼的文章“中美这七年”（A Biblical Seven Years；《中美印象》将此文译作“创世纪这七年”）。经网友通报和编辑核查，弗里德曼的文章发表于2008年8月26日，北京奥运会闭幕后两天 。“水木然专栏“刊发的文章与弗里德曼原文大相径庭，除少数句子相似外，不仅凭空添加内容，还完全曲解了原作者的意思。这家专栏的作者为吸引眼球、点击量和众所周知的政治目的，不惜篡改原文，剥夺了读者阅读优质文章的机会。在此，编者将由《中美印象》翻译的原文与微信文章进行对比，并附英文原文供读者参考。我们注意到，对国外媒体报道和时事评在编译和翻译过程中掐头去尾、添油加醋和断章取义的现象目前在一些平面和网络媒体都很普遍。
美國《紐約時報》著名專欄作家托馬斯·弗裡德曼（Thomas Friedman) 寫了一篇文章，題目為“中美這七年”，刊登在《紐約時報》上，震驚了美國白宮！
他寫道：「當我坐在中國場館的座位上，欣賞上數千名中國舞蹈演員、鼓手、歌手以及踩著高蹺的雜技演員魔幻般的精彩演出時，我不由得回想起過去這七年中美兩國的不同經歷 ：中國一直在忙於各種基建的工作，而我們忙著對付“基地”組織（恐怖分子）; 他們一直在建設更好的體育館、地鐵、機場、道路以及公園，而我們一直在建造更好的金屬探測器、悍馬軍車和無人駕駛偵察機……
The United States “New York Times” shook the contrast, stir the White House top!
Thomas Friedman, a famous columnist for The New York Times, wrote an article titled “The Seven Years of China and the United States”, published in The New York Times, Thomas Friedman the White House! He wrote, “When I sit on a seat in a Chinese stadium, looking at the magical performances of thousands of Chinese dancers, drummers, singers and acrobats on stilts, I could not help but recall the different experiences of the past seven years: China has been busy with all kinds of infrastructure work, and we are busy dealing with” base ” Organization (terrorist);
They’ve been building better stadiums, subways, airports, roads and parks, and we’ve been building better metal detectors, Humvees and unmanned reconnaissance aircraft … The difference has begun to appear. You can compare the dirty old LaGuardia Airport in New York with the sleek international airport in Shanghai. When you drive to Manhattan, you will see how dilapidated the infrastructure is. Experience a 220-mile-high maglev train in Shanghai, which uses electromagnetic propulsion instead of ordinary steel wheels and rails, and in the blink of an eye you’ve arrived in downtown Shanghai.
Then ask yourself: who is living in the third world countries? I think: As a modern country, China has accepted the main concepts of the sovereignty and human rights of modern countries. But all the qualities of Chinese civilization make it different. One of the characteristics of China’s development model is that: Learning + innovation + The scale effect of large population is affecting China and the world.
Many foreign enterprises have a slogan to invest in China, if they can do first in China, they will be the first in the world.
With the rise of China, this trend is beginning to expand to more and more areas, such as tourism, aviation, film and television, sports, education, new energy, modernization model, high-speed rail and so on. Some of us admire the lives of small and small countries, and in fact the difficulties of smaller States. Small countries can’t stand the wind and waves, and big countries have great leeway.Much more.
Chile is a relatively developed developing country, but in 2010 a major earthquake, GDP fell a large chunk, the entire economy may be out of breath for two years, and China even encountered the Wenchuan earthquake such a natural disaster, the entire national economy has not budged.
For the vast majority of countries, industrial upgrading often means that industries migrate to foreign countries, and China can carry out large-scale industrial gradient transfer within itself, which prolongs the life cycle of Chinese manufacturing. Cultural—The collision of Chinese and Western cultures over the past more than 30 years has not deprived most Chinese of cultural self-confidence.
Chinese today’s Conziges, Lauziges, chanting, calligraphy and painting, tea ceremony, Jiuzhai heat, cultural relics, heat, health, and so on, all reflect the revival of Chinese traditional culture. Chinese culture derived from the food and beverage culture, health culture, leisure culture is also difficult to compare with other cultures. Street restaurants anywhere in China can make thirty or forty of vegetables, while in most restaurants in the United States there are only hamburgers and potato chips, and three or four dishes are good.
European restaurants are rich in food, but rarely more than seven or eight varieties. Some of us are always worried about the lack of religious sentiment in China. In fact, only a little familiarity with the history of the world knows that the religious conflict in human history has led to countless wars. There are thousands of years of conflict between Christian denominations and between Christianity and Islam, causing untold human tragedies that kill countless lives.
Therefore, our people do not necessarily have to be religious. Economic—The traditional economics of China, which is not strictly “market economics”, but “humanistic economics”.
In the long history of China, if a government cannot develop the economy and improve people’s livelihood and cannot deal with the catastrophe, it will lose the support of the people, lose the “destiny” and eventually be overthrown by the peoples. China’s political party today is a continuation of the tradition of a unified Confucian ruling group, rather than a competing western party on behalf of different interest groups. A lot of people in the west just agree that the power of multi-party competition is legalSex, which is a very superficial political idea. I have encountered American scholars questioning the legality of the Chinese regime, and I asked him why he did not first question the legality of his own country: you took the land of others, and by colonization, immigration, and extermination of Indians, the United States of today is formed.
I asked him to explain to me. Where is the legality and legitimacy of such a state? In the end he can only tell me that this is history. So, can we use the Chinese “talented” concept to question the source of Western regime legality?
The eight years of George W. Bush’s reign has brought about a recession in the United States, a disaster for Iraq, and a financial tsunami for the world, an example.
The most important characteristic of Chinese historical legality is “talented political tradition and” the dorsally of the populace. Other cultures cannot produce the ideas of “national chess” in Chinese political culture, “one side is difficult, and the other supports”.
I have studied the Chinese model with Indian scholars, who say that on the face of it, China is centralized, but every reform in China has a strong local character, competition and complementarity, so the Chinese system is more dynamic than India’s.
They learn the West, have established a strong modern government system, but at the same time have their own unique political and cultural resources, the combination of the two makes it easier for us to overcome today’s Western democratic system of populism, short-sighted, and so on. At the political level, many in the West also take for granted that, as the Chinese middle class grows, China will accept the western confrontational political model. But they also today find that the Chinese middle class today seems to cherish China’s political stability more than any other class.
They understand that “democratization” in the West has brought chaos and turmoil to many countries, and that its hard-earned wealth has benefited from China’s more than 30 years of political stability. Frankly speaking, all that China has shown today is definitely not “advanced” and “backward”, “democratic” and “autocratic”, “high human rights” and “low human rights”, which are too simple andThe rudimentary concept can be summed up. “This is what American columnist Thomas Friedman wrote about the seven years of China and the United States.” Very worthy of every Chinese to look seriously, patriotic only home! ……
现如今，许多人建议巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）要不择手段地与约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）竞争总统宝座。这很有必要，但是仅仅这样做还是不够。
Thomas L. Friedman： A Biblical Seven Years
NYT，AUG. 26, 2008
After attending the spectacular closing ceremony at the Beijing Olympics and feeling the vibrations from hundreds of Chinese drummers pulsating in my own chest, I was tempted to conclude two things: “Holy mackerel, the energy coming out of this country is unrivaled.” And, two: “We are so cooked. Start teaching your kids Mandarin.”
However, I’ve learned over the years not to over-interpret any two-week event. Olympics don’t change history. They are mere snapshots – a country posing in its Sunday bests for all the world to see. But, as snapshots go, the one China presented through the Olympics was enormously powerful – and it’s one that Americans need to reflect upon this election season.
China did not build the magnificent $43 billion infrastructure for these games, or put on the unparalleled opening and closing ceremonies, simply by the dumb luck of discovering oil. No, it was the culmination of seven years of national investment, planning, concentrated state power, national mobilization and hard work.
Seven years … Seven years … Oh, that’s right. China was awarded these Olympic Games on July 13, 2001 – just two months before 9/11.
As I sat in my seat at the Bird’s Nest, watching thousands of Chinese dancers, drummers, singers and acrobats on stilts perform their magic at the closing ceremony, I couldn’t help but reflect on how China and America have spent the last seven years: China has been preparing for the Olympics; we’ve been preparing for Al Qaeda. They’ve been building better stadiums, subways, airports, roads and parks. And we’ve been building better metal detectors, armored Humvees and pilotless drones.
The difference is starting to show. Just compare arriving at La Guardia’s dumpy terminal in New York City and driving through the crumbling infrastructure into Manhattan with arriving at Shanghai’s sleek airport and taking the 220-mile-per-hour magnetic levitation train, which uses electromagnetic propulsion instead of steel wheels and tracks, to get to town in a blink.
Then ask yourself: Who is living in the third world country?
Yes, if you drive an hour out of Beijing, you meet the vast dirt-poor third world of China. But here’s what’s new: The rich parts of China, the modern parts of Beijing or Shanghai or Dalian, are now more state of the art than rich America. The buildings are architecturally more interesting, the wireless networks more sophisticated, the roads and trains more efficient and nicer. And, I repeat, they did not get all this by discovering oil. They got it by digging inside themselves.
I realize the differences: We were attacked on 9/11; they were not. We have real enemies; theirs are small and mostly domestic. We had to respond to 9/11 at least by eliminating the Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan and investing in tighter homeland security. They could avoid foreign entanglements. Trying to build democracy in Iraq, though, which I supported, was a war of choice and is unlikely to ever produce anything equal to its huge price tag.
But the first rule of holes is that when you’re in one, stop digging. When you see how much modern infrastructure has been built in China since 2001, under the banner of the Olympics, and you see how much infrastructure has been postponed in America since 2001, under the banner of the war on terrorism, it’s clear that the next seven years need to be devoted to nation-building in America.
We need to finish our business in Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible, which is why it is a travesty that the Iraqi Parliament has gone on vacation while 130,000 U.S. troops are standing guard. We can no longer afford to postpone our nation-building while Iraqis squabble over whether to do theirs.
A lot of people are now advising Barack Obama to get dirty with John McCain. Sure, fight fire with fire. That’s necessary, but it is not sufficient.
Obama got this far because many voters projected onto him that he could be the leader of an American renewal. They know we need nation-building at home now – not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Georgia, but in America. Obama cannot lose that theme.
He cannot let Republicans make this election about who is tough enough to stand up to Russia or bin Laden. It has to be about who is strong enough, focused enough, creative enough and unifying enough to get Americans to rebuild America. The next president can have all the foreign affairs experience in the world, but it will be useless, utterly useless, if we, as a country, are weak.
Obama is more right than he knows when he proclaims that this is “our” moment, this is “our” time. But it is our time to get back to work on the only home we have, our time for nation-building in America. I never want to tell my girls – and I’m sure Obama feels the same about his – that they have to go to China to see the future.
4,646 total views, 3 views today