为什么中国的内部凝聚力比印度强?

03-14 221 36631 北海西铜
正文翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:北海西铜 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-484611-1-1.html




India is a fairly divided country. Many different ethnic groups speaking many different languages and following different religions, indeed for most of its history the Indian subcontinent was mostly split between different competing states. Today the Indian Republic has major internal divides and its difficult for the central government to do anything.

[问]-印度是一个内部分歧相当严重的国家。许多不同的民族说着不同的语言,信仰不同的宗教。其实,在历史上的大部分时间里,印度次大陆都处于不同国家相互竞争的分裂状态。今天,印度共和国内部分歧依然严重,致使中央政府想做任何事都格外艰难。

China on the other hand, despite having similarities (many different ethnic groups, languages, religions, varying terrain, large population) has achieved a much higher degree of internal power, and is facing nothing like the internal disunity that India deals with.

而另一边,尽管中国和印度有许多相似之处(多个不同民族、语言、宗教,地形复杂、人口众多),她却能实现一种远胜印度的高度内部凝聚力,看起来也不存在印度所面临的那种不团结局面。

So why is China able to project so much more internal power?

那么,是什么原因造成中国能够投射出(比印度)大得多的内生力量呢?

(注:原文所用“internal power”一词,直译或为内部实力、力量等。但根据提问、回答讨论内容,似乎大都把它理解为某种类似“凝聚力”的东西。所以本文基本把它译作“内部凝聚力”)
评论翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:北海西铜 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-484611-1-1.html


-------------------Reddit评论--------------------------------

-------------------1-------------------

EverywheresBaltimore
China is an outlier. Not the norm. If you want to compare India with anything, it should be Europe or Africa. India(including Pak/Bangla/Nepal) is by all possible factors a continent of its own.

中国只能算是一个例外,不能作为一般标准。如果你要拿印度和谁比较,那应该是欧洲或者非洲。印度(包括巴基斯坦/孟加拉/尼泊尔)从任何面向来看都是一块自成一体的大陆。

Fermented_Onions
Africa is the best example, due to the more recent kingdom style conflicts inside what could be considered each "state", and then all being smushed together and made to get along by a colonial power. Much like india.

非洲才是(印度)最好的参照。近代非洲大陆内部发生的王国式冲突的各方都可以被看成一个“国家”,然后所有这些国家又被殖民主义强权搓揉到一起,并被强迫着接受合并。这点挺像印度的。

ltaaaTxt

BhagwaRaj
But saying that somehow is equivalent of Africa is plain wrong.

但是,说印度在某种意义上等同于非洲显然是错误的。

westalist55
Certainly. India is a much smaller, more contiguous landmass that Africa, much less difficult to conquer and administer.
I think they're getting at how incredibly diverse and different the various parts of India are, comparable to places like Europe and Africa.

当然了。印度比起非洲,面积小得多,(国家之间)邻近得多,因此也更容易征服和管理。
我感觉,大家正在(讨论中)逐渐意识到,与欧洲和非洲等地区相比,印度各部分间的多样性和差异性是多么不可思议。

-------------------2-------------------

ForeignAppointment3
China is an outlier. Not the norm.
China isn't even internally strong. There are numerous secessionist movements/sentiments. And its internal strength is deemed to be so precarious that democracy isn't applicable,
In fact, it's similar to the USSR. USSR may have appeared "strong" but it literally splintered into numerous pieces after decades of actual insecurity and internal weakness. That's what the Chinese hierarchy literally fear, not becoming another USSR.

“中国只能算是一个例外,不能作为一般标准。”
中国的内部凝聚力其实并不算强大。存在好几种分离主义运动/情绪。她的内部力量被认为是不稳定的,因此西式皿煮才不适合她
事实上,她与苏联更类似。苏联可能看起来很“强大”,但在经历了几十年实质上缺乏安全感和不断的内部削弱之后,它最终分裂成了很多碎片。这正是中国真正害怕的,即不能成为又一个苏联。

ltaaaTxt

-------------------3-------------------

slapdashbr
China might be "stronger" at the moment. India is vastly more anti-fragile. There is basically no risk of a constitutional crisis in India in the foreseeable future.

眼下中国可能“更强”,但印度的“抗脆弱性”(?)则远胜过她。在可预见的未来,印度基本上没有发生任何宪政危机的风险。

i_already_forgot
Who actually thinks this? The reason why China can reform at an earlier date and rocket past India is because it has greater control of its institutions, not the opposite.

你这说法有谁真的会信么?中国之所以能更早启动改革,并迅速超越印度,正是因为中国对其各级部门机构拥有更大的控制力,而非相反。

freedompolis
Actually, based on past record of reforming, the concept of China is more anti-fragile. Whether the current authoritarian iteration existing in this liberal age is anti-fragile is not known and time will tell. But the concept of China reforming despite external and internal strife is by definition, anti-fragile.
I think what you want to say is a democratic system is more anti-fragile than an authoritarian system, given that it can respond to outside stimulus through feedback from its populace. Democratic system like the US has survived largely intact for 200+ years. Whether that extrapolate to democratic India, with its larger and more diverse population, and different culture, again time will tell.

事实上,根据以往的改革记录,“中国”这一概念才更具有“抗脆弱性”。在如今的这个自由主义时代存在的威权迭代是否据有“抗脆弱性”尚不得而知,只有时间能告诉我们答案。但中国的改革理念,无论在国内国外引起过怎样的质疑纷争,从它的本质上讲,都是具有“抗脆弱性”的。
我猜你想说的是,西式皿煮制度的“抗脆弱性”更强,因为它可以通过民众的反馈来回应外部刺激。像美国这样的西方皿煮制度已经维持了200多年。是否可以就此推断出,同样采用西式皿煮的印度,尽管人口数量更大更多元、文化多样性更复杂,就一定更具“抗脆弱性”呢?同样,只有时间能证明一切。

-------------------4-------------------

reort
actually ... China is dominated by the "Han chinese" with >90% of the population ... There is much more ethnic unity in that sense in China .

实际上……中国占主导地位的是人口比例超过90%的“汉族中国人”……从这层意义上讲,中国内部的民族团结(比其他国家)的确要紧密得多。

ltaaaTxt

Turbotroll
It’s really an identity circles around a cultural and somewhat genetical body.
That's pretty much what I'm trying to say. That "Han" as an ethnicity doesn't quite correspond to the Western view in the way "Dravidian" or "Albanian" might. Given how fluid these concepts are maybe I wasn't clear. Thanks for adding some great details on the term "Qiang" as well!

“汉人实际上是一个主要围绕文化、以及一定程度的血缘基因形成的身份认同圈”
这差不多也正是我想说的。“汉人”作为对一个民族的称呼,与西方人使用的“达罗毗荼人(Dravidian)”、“阿尔巴尼亚人(Albanian)”等词汇的涵义并不完全一致。但考虑到这些概念的易变性,我可能理解得并不准确。
感谢你对“羌人”这个概念的介绍,给我的想法增添了一些非常棒的内容。

symmetry81
They're all "Han" but that doesn't mean they're still the same ethnically. Most regions have their own spoken language even if they do all share the same written language, though with mass communication basically everyone can speak Mandarin these days too. Sort of like modern Arabic or Latin circa 1000 AD, where everything was written the same way in France and Spain even if it was pronounced in entirely different ways.
There was certainly some population movement but after the invention of settled agriculture conquest tends to result in subjugation rather than extermination.
EDIT: Though I should point out that while mass culture in China wasn't especially unified until pretty recently, elite culture was pretty unified where the shared script did its job.

他们都是“汉人”,但这并不意味着他们在民族属性上是完全一样的。虽然书面语言一致,但大多数地区都有自己的方言口语,不过随着大众传播的推广,现在基本上每个人都会说普通话了。这有点像现代的阿拉伯语,或者公元1000年左右的拉丁语——那时在法国和西班牙,所有东西都是以相同的方式书写的,即便发音完全不同。
当然存在一些人口迁移流动,但在农耕定居生活出现后,占领征服就取代了种族灭绝成为新的趋势。
[编辑]-我其实还应该指出,虽然中国的大众文化在近现代之前并不是特别统一,但借助于统一的文字书写,他们的精英文化却是高度统一的。

lindsaylbb
Not just that. The Keju exam made sure the elites speak the same language as well. There has always been a standard language to be used in tests, writing poems, and between officials of different provinces and the emperors. The standards of course, is different from dynasty to dynasty’s

不止于此。科举考试也确保了精英们能说同样的语言。各省官员和帝王之间,在参加考试、作词写诗时,都会有当代的语言标准。当然,这一标准又因朝代不同而不同。

-------------------5-------------------

Fermented_Onions
Because China is Homogeneous, both ethnically, culturally, politically, and historically. India is a mix of many religions, many cultures, many ideologies, and a deep history of fighting each other. I would suggest looking at historical maps of empires in the region. (a bunch of youtubers love making these)
For lack of a better description, India suffers from "africa/ middle east" syndrome, where the nation exists, and is united, but is more the loose coalition of a bunch of separate cultural groups. If you look at the history of India, it's always been a bunch of smaller states, kinda like Greece. Even under the muhgal empire, India was never fully united (Arguably, even today it isn't; Bangladesh and Pakistan are part of the former territory known as India).
If you look at China's history, its always been dominated by singular states. Even in times of warring states, they were more "year of 4 emperors", aka power struggles and dynastic struggles. China has never not had the aim of being united as China.

因为中国在民族、文化、政治和历史上都是高度同质性的。印度则是一个多种宗教、多种文化、多种意识形态的混合体,有着深远的互斗史。我建议你看看这个地区的历史地图演变。(有一大帮油管up主很喜欢做这种视频)

由于想不出更好的词来描述,我自己把印度遭受的困扰称为“非洲/中东”综合征——存在一个国家的形式,而且表面上也是统一的,但实际上更像是一群独立的文化群体组成的松散联盟。如果你看看印度历史,它一直是一种许多小国并存的模式,这有点像古希腊城邦。而即使是在莫卧儿帝国(Mughal Empire)时期,印度也从未真正完全统一过(甚至可以说,即使在今天,印度也没有完全统一:孟加拉国和巴基斯坦原本也是属于“印度”这一概念所包含的区域的)。

而如果你看看中国历史,单一国家却总是占据着主导地位。即使是在战国时期,他们也更多地类似于“四帝之年”(Year of the Four Emperors),即强权争霸和王朝更迭。中国人似乎就从来没有不把“一统中国”作为目标过。

(注:四帝之年是指罗马帝国前期公元69年这一年,同时出现了四个“罗马皇帝”伽尔巴(Galba)、奥托(Otho)、维特里乌斯(Vitellius)和韦帕芗(Vespasian)并相互攻杀的内战局面。)

ltaaaTxt

-------------------6-------------------

the_neogeoist
Rivers.
If you look at a river map of China you can see that most of the current "Han" core is dominated by two long, continuous, mostly-navigable rivers: the Yellow River and the Yangtze. This facilitated thousands of years of trade and conquest which eventually led to a unified culture. You also have the Pearl River in the south.
Compare that to a river map of India, which is less integrated. You have the Indus River valley to the northwest, but that is separated from the others (and is currently Pakistan). The Ganges River vaguely unifies Hindi speakers in the upper parts and Bengali speakers in the lower parts, but only vaguely. All of the other rivers are independent of one another and separated by mountainous areas or raised plateaus, making trade and conquest less "easy" than the Chinese situation. This allowed smaller cultural groups to form around those systems and maintain their identities longer, up to the present day.

河流。
看一看中国的河流地图,不难发现今天“汉人”的核心区域基本上就是两条漫长、不间断、大部可通航的大河流域:即黄河流域和长江流域。这促进了数千年的贸易和征服史,最终形成了统一的文化。另外南边还有一条珠江。

再来对比印度河流地图,你会发现印度河流的这种整合作用就比较低了。位于西北部的印度河流域与其它河流相隔甚远(而且目前它是属于巴基斯坦的)。恒河把上游说印地语的地区和中下游说孟加拉语的地区稍稍连接起来,但也只是稍稍地。所有其他河流则全都彼此独立,被山区和高原阻隔,使得贸易和征服比起中国来要困难得多。这倒是更有利于形成较小的文化群体,并保持其身份特征更长时间,甚至直到今天。

lindsaylbb
But why the Chinese are well connected by yellow river and Yangtze River while Ganges river only vaguely unifies the Hindus as you suggested?

但为什么中国人能被黄河和长江很好地连结起来,但恒河对印度人的统一却像你说的那样——作用很小?

the_neogeoist
Mountainous terrain and navigability. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers are flat plains for most of their length, the Ganges less so.

山地过多和适航性差吧。黄河和长江流经的大都是平原地区,恒河则要少很多。

-------------------7-------------------

ltaaaTxt

-------------------8 单个评论-------------------

korpy_vapr
Everybody here is talking about diversity and why that's the reason India has has lower "Internal strength" is missing the point. I don't think that's true at all.
u/BreaksFull I want to question some of your assumptions on your post.
Today the Indian Republic has major internal divides and its difficult for the central government to do anything.
What makes you assume so? I mean dissent is par of course in any democracy right? Let me clear some misconception the vast majority of the Indian population wants to stay in the union and understands it's beneficial.
If you meant separatist movements India has cracked down on insurgencies hard. Look up the Khalistani movement, Naxal movement or the more famous Kashmiri movement.

这里的每一个人都在谈论多样性,以及它是如何削弱了印度的“内部凝聚力”——然而没人真正说到点子上,因为我认为这根本就是个假命题。
这里我要对提问者在po文中的一些假设提出质疑:
“今天,印度共和国内部分歧依然严重,致使中央政府想做任何事都格外艰难”

是什么让你产生了这种想法?我的意思是,在任何一个皿煮国家,异议都是理所当然的事情,不是吗?我还要澄清一些误会:绝大多数印度民众都希望留在联邦之内,并都把它看作一件好事。
如果你想问有关分离主义运动的事,那么印度已经严厉镇压了叛乱。可以去了解一下喀里斯坦人(Khalistani)运动、纳萨尔(Naxal)运动或者是更著名的克什米尔问题。

loscrimmage
India is not a concept that existed until 1947. Before that, it is at best, a culture of the subcontinent, which does not dictate or require any political structure. Yes there are legends how powerful Indian kings were, but in reality the concept of unity is very weak.
Politically, a unified China is a concept first raised in 220BC. At the time the Han ethnicity and scope of "China" are both very limited. Over the next 2000 years both gradually grow, as more people learned the culture (language, history, books etc) and more land is conquered/merged.
I think a lot of people in this thread got it wrong. Han is not just an ethnicity, it is the "default", meaning it is inclusive, anyone learn the language and culture can identify themselves as Han. The most chaotic and fractured period in recorded Chinese history is called "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" period around 900 AD. This is the period so many people migrated south from the north, eventually learning Chinese language, picking Chinese last names, joining Han and greatly expanded the concept of Han.

印度直到1947年才成为一个正式的(国家)概念。在此之前,它充其量不过是一种次大陆文化符号,没有人主张或支配过任何名为“印度”的政治实体结构。是的,传说中次大陆曾经出现过非常强大的印度国王,但在现实中,统一的概念是非常淡薄的。
而从政治上讲,统一的中国是早在公元前220年就出现的一个概念,尽管当时的汉族和“中国”的范围都非常有限。在接下来的2000年里,随着越来越多的人学习文化(语言、历史、典籍等),越来越多的土地被征服/兼并,两者(汉和中国)都在逐渐扩大。

我想这个帖子里很多人都搞错了。“汉人”不只是一个民族,更是一种“默认”,意味着包容。任何人只要学习了汉语言和文化都可以把自己认作“汉人”。中国历史上最混乱、最支离破碎的时期莫过于公元900年左右的“五代十国”了,这个时期,许多人从中国北方迁移到南方,最终学会了汉语、改姓汉人姓氏,并加入汉族,从而极大地扩展了“汉人”这一概念。

ltaaaTxt

dusmeyedin
Many others have commented on the historical forces in China making it easier for a centralized authority to exert power. I'd say one big deal in crossing linguistic differences in the use of a pictographic script (Chinese characters).
Although literacy is harder to attain with a pictographic script, once you do educate the entire populace about the script, then verbal and dialect differences become reduced.
For example, different parts of China could pronounce the law "Do not kill your fellow man" in different sounds and words. But put that concept into characters, and now all people can learn that law (and communicate that concept) with comprehension, regardless of how that concept might sound in spoken word.
As opposed to alphabetic scripts, which rely almost fully on the pronunciation, and thus begin to drift as the spoken word changes through the centuries, and also with geographic distance.

很多人评论了中国的历史在这当中发挥的作用,如它使得中央集权制度更容易行使其权力。而我则想说,使用象形文字(汉字),为跨越语言障碍作出了巨大贡献。
尽管使用象形文字,从掌握读写能力到精通都更困难;但一旦你在全国推行了(象形文)识字教育,那么各地方言口语所造成的差异就会被极大地消弭掉。

例如,在中国各地宣读一条法令“不可杀害同胞”,可能会用到不同的发音甚至方言词句。但把这一法律精神用文字记录下来,全体国民就都能领悟这条法令(并相互传达其精神),不论用的是何种方言。
这就和几乎完全依赖发音的字母文有了根本不同,如果是用字母文字书写,随着所用单词在几个世纪时间里发音的不断变化以及地理距离的延伸,法令的本意就会逐渐产生偏差。

checkout-my-username
Depends on what exactly do you mean by internal strength, but I think that one major factor is education.
Generally the Chinese population is better educated than that of the Indian population. This has led to the Chinese being more productive in many areas such as industry and research.

取决于你所说的“内部力量”到底是什么意思,但我认为一个主要因素是教育。
总体上说,中国人比印度人受教育程度更高。这也已经体现在中国的工业和研究等许多领域都比印度更高产。

WarlordBeagle
I would guess that, in some sense, China is a more natural country, while India is a colonial construct.

我的猜测是,在某种意义上,中国是一个更天然的国家,而印度不过是出自殖民者的构想。

Thrishul
No elections for politicians to pit people against each other in China.
中国没有为了选举而撕裂民众制造对立的政客。

SomeRecover
India has its own problems geographic location is surrounded by 7 countries of whom 3 are hostile to it and has incredibly diverse culture also corruption is very high here.

印度有其自身的问题:地理位置上,她被7个国家包围,其中3个国家对她抱有敌意;文化极其多元;另外这里的腐败现象也非常严重。
首页 > 网帖翻译 > 美国
分享:
相关推荐:
讨论 221
请理性讨论!
游客 您尚未登录
龙腾网提示: 关闭