中国被殖民历史为何会被成为百年耻辱？（二）
正文翻译
接上一篇，无正文，直接上评论
接上一篇，无正文，直接上评论
评论翻译
"They only built roads from resources to port to make "loot" even more profitable"
Yeah, no. "Looting" something wasn't as profitable as colonising and controlling its production and trade. Again, I made that clear before. But when did I say they built roads? Like did you actually read my comment or did you just respond?
"i can literally write essays on countless of issues"
Of course you can.
“他们修建从资源点到港口的公路，只是为了让“抢劫”更有利可图。”
是的，没错。“掠夺”某些东西并不像殖民和控制其生产和贸易那样有利可图。我之前已经说得很清楚了。但我什么时候说过他们修路了？你是真的看了我的评论还是刚看就回复了？
"我可以就无数的问题写文章"
你当然可以反驳我。
Yeah, no. "Looting" something wasn't as profitable as colonising and controlling its production and trade. Again, I made that clear before. But when did I say they built roads? Like did you actually read my comment or did you just respond?
"i can literally write essays on countless of issues"
Of course you can.
“他们修建从资源点到港口的公路，只是为了让“抢劫”更有利可图。”
是的，没错。“掠夺”某些东西并不像殖民和控制其生产和贸易那样有利可图。我之前已经说得很清楚了。但我什么时候说过他们修路了？你是真的看了我的评论还是刚看就回复了？
"我可以就无数的问题写文章"
你当然可以反驳我。
Noobydooby
@Ewoud Alliet wow you literally got so much time to write here and I'm too impatient to read all your comment. Sorry. Anyway Taiwan doesn't even represent 0.01% of colonial empire by Europeans. I think you believe millions dead where shot dead or something no kid. Millions died because Europeans took the Land and forced people to grow crops that benefits European trade for example Indigo but there wasn't enough food crop to feed the farmers as a result famine killed millions every season. Same for cotton, spices even Bananas! occasionally wiped out those who refused to obey even in the previous century! Go read some more books. Colonialism had different faces depending on the region from panama to Africa but one thing common is the suffering of the local peoole. Your pretentious soft words towards your ancestors sound biased when you simply generalised "Mongols" as if genghis & Kublai ruled the same way! Typical western education lol btw I'm not into politics the argument here is simply academic.
哇，你真的有这么多的时间在这里写这么多评论，我没什么耐心，不想看你所有的评论。我可以说声对不起。但不管怎样，台湾甚至不代表欧洲殖民帝国的0.01%地区。我想你应该相信欧洲殖民导致了数百万人死于枪杀，或者别的什么死法。
数百万人死亡，因为欧洲人夺取了土地，强迫人们种植有利于欧洲贸易的作物，例如靛蓝，但没有足够的粮食作物来养活农民，因此每一季都有数百万人死于饥荒。棉花、香料甚至香蕉也是如此！
他们也偶尔消灭那些甚至在上个世纪也不肯屈服的人！去多读点书。从巴拿马到非洲，殖民主义各有不同的面貌，但有一件事是共同的，那就是当地人民所遭受的苦难。
当你简单地概括“蒙古人”，就好像成吉思汗和忽必烈以同样的方式统治一样，你对你的祖先（殖民者）矫揉造作的柔和形容听起来充满了偏见！
典型的西方教育，哈哈，顺便说一下，我不喜欢政治，这里的争论只针对学术。
@Ewoud Alliet wow you literally got so much time to write here and I'm too impatient to read all your comment. Sorry. Anyway Taiwan doesn't even represent 0.01% of colonial empire by Europeans. I think you believe millions dead where shot dead or something no kid. Millions died because Europeans took the Land and forced people to grow crops that benefits European trade for example Indigo but there wasn't enough food crop to feed the farmers as a result famine killed millions every season. Same for cotton, spices even Bananas! occasionally wiped out those who refused to obey even in the previous century! Go read some more books. Colonialism had different faces depending on the region from panama to Africa but one thing common is the suffering of the local peoole. Your pretentious soft words towards your ancestors sound biased when you simply generalised "Mongols" as if genghis & Kublai ruled the same way! Typical western education lol btw I'm not into politics the argument here is simply academic.
哇，你真的有这么多的时间在这里写这么多评论，我没什么耐心，不想看你所有的评论。我可以说声对不起。但不管怎样，台湾甚至不代表欧洲殖民帝国的0.01%地区。我想你应该相信欧洲殖民导致了数百万人死于枪杀，或者别的什么死法。
数百万人死亡，因为欧洲人夺取了土地，强迫人们种植有利于欧洲贸易的作物，例如靛蓝，但没有足够的粮食作物来养活农民，因此每一季都有数百万人死于饥荒。棉花、香料甚至香蕉也是如此！
他们也偶尔消灭那些甚至在上个世纪也不肯屈服的人！去多读点书。从巴拿马到非洲，殖民主义各有不同的面貌，但有一件事是共同的，那就是当地人民所遭受的苦难。
当你简单地概括“蒙古人”，就好像成吉思汗和忽必烈以同样的方式统治一样，你对你的祖先（殖民者）矫揉造作的柔和形容听起来充满了偏见！
典型的西方教育，哈哈，顺便说一下，我不喜欢政治，这里的争论只针对学术。
Ikad
@Noobydooby Those territories chose to remain French, English etc. And the UN says Spain has no colonial remains...
那些海外领土自己选择保留法语、英语等。而且联合国说西班牙没有殖民遗迹…
@Noobydooby Those territories chose to remain French, English etc. And the UN says Spain has no colonial remains...
那些海外领土自己选择保留法语、英语等。而且联合国说西班牙没有殖民遗迹…
Ikad
@Ewoud Alliet That's not modern colonialism... I'm talking about modern colonialism. Most historians agree that 1415 is the date when colonialism starts. And the end... well... that could change in the future, but right now 1999 is most correct answer. But of course, there's lots of territories that still remain colonies, Puerto Rico, Siberia...
你说的不是现代殖民主义…我说的是现代殖民主义。大多数历史学家都认为1415年是殖民主义开始的日子。而殖民的结束……嗯…这在未来可能会有其他答案，但现在，1999年是殖民主义结束的最正确时间答案。当然，我承认还有很多领土仍然是殖民地，比如波多黎各、西伯利亚……
@Ewoud Alliet That's not modern colonialism... I'm talking about modern colonialism. Most historians agree that 1415 is the date when colonialism starts. And the end... well... that could change in the future, but right now 1999 is most correct answer. But of course, there's lots of territories that still remain colonies, Puerto Rico, Siberia...
你说的不是现代殖民主义…我说的是现代殖民主义。大多数历史学家都认为1415年是殖民主义开始的日子。而殖民的结束……嗯…这在未来可能会有其他答案，但现在，1999年是殖民主义结束的最正确时间答案。当然，我承认还有很多领土仍然是殖民地，比如波多黎各、西伯利亚……
Ikad
@Blaang Yet the best continent to live...
欧洲是最适合居住生活的大陆…
@Blaang Yet the best continent to live...
欧洲是最适合居住生活的大陆…
Sven Svensson
@Ewoud Alliet just want tp say that i appreciate your comments.
我只想说我很感谢你的评论。
@Ewoud Alliet just want tp say that i appreciate your comments.
我只想说我很感谢你的评论。
Ewoud Alliet
@Noobydooby Hmmm... so you're not going to read all of my comment, but you are going to respond to it and debate it? Be my guest, but then don't be the one calling me the pseudohistorian if you can't have a proper discussion.
"Anyway Taiwan doesn't even represent 0.01% of colonial empire by Europeans."
Congratulations. You'd know that I wouldn't make such claims if you read the entire comment. But "colonial empire by Europeans", what colonial empire? There were multiple European colonial empires... just had to point that out. And as for the Dutch; Formosa/Taiwan was definitely more than 0.01% of their colonial empire.
嗯…所以你不会读完我的所有评论，但你会回应并讨论它？随便你吧，但如果你自己都不能好好谈，就别叫我假历史学家。
“台湾甚至不代表欧洲殖民帝国区域的0.01%。”
祝贺你。如果你读了我的整个评论，你就会知道我不会做出这样的声明。但是“欧洲殖民帝国”，是什么殖民帝国呢？我必须指出，当时有多个欧洲殖民帝国。至于荷兰人的福尔摩沙/台湾，绝对超过其殖民帝国的0.01%。
@Noobydooby Hmmm... so you're not going to read all of my comment, but you are going to respond to it and debate it? Be my guest, but then don't be the one calling me the pseudohistorian if you can't have a proper discussion.
"Anyway Taiwan doesn't even represent 0.01% of colonial empire by Europeans."
Congratulations. You'd know that I wouldn't make such claims if you read the entire comment. But "colonial empire by Europeans", what colonial empire? There were multiple European colonial empires... just had to point that out. And as for the Dutch; Formosa/Taiwan was definitely more than 0.01% of their colonial empire.
嗯…所以你不会读完我的所有评论，但你会回应并讨论它？随便你吧，但如果你自己都不能好好谈，就别叫我假历史学家。
“台湾甚至不代表欧洲殖民帝国区域的0.01%。”
祝贺你。如果你读了我的整个评论，你就会知道我不会做出这样的声明。但是“欧洲殖民帝国”，是什么殖民帝国呢？我必须指出，当时有多个欧洲殖民帝国。至于荷兰人的福尔摩沙/台湾，绝对超过其殖民帝国的0.01%。
"I think you believe millions dead where shot dead or something no kid. Millions died because Europeans took the Land and forced people to grow crops that benefits European trade"
You wrote:
"They killed millions just to grow crops in these territories?"
A little lesson about English grammar; "just to grow crops" implies that they killed them "in order to do something" and not "because of doing something"; in other words it implies a goal and not a causation. So, no; I didn't think that, but I did have to discuss it after your poor phrasing.
你写：“数百万人死于欧洲人夺取土地，强迫人们种植有利于欧洲贸易的作物。”
“他们杀了数百万人，就为了在这些土地上种庄稼？”
我来给你上一堂英语语法课。“只是为了种庄稼”意味着他们毁坏庄稼是“为了做某事”而不是“因为做某事”才变成这样。换句话说，它暗示了一个目标，而不是因果关系。所以，你错了，而且我也不这么认为，但你的蹩脚措辞让我必须跟你讨论。
You wrote:
"They killed millions just to grow crops in these territories?"
A little lesson about English grammar; "just to grow crops" implies that they killed them "in order to do something" and not "because of doing something"; in other words it implies a goal and not a causation. So, no; I didn't think that, but I did have to discuss it after your poor phrasing.
你写：“数百万人死于欧洲人夺取土地，强迫人们种植有利于欧洲贸易的作物。”
“他们杀了数百万人，就为了在这些土地上种庄稼？”
我来给你上一堂英语语法课。“只是为了种庄稼”意味着他们毁坏庄稼是“为了做某事”而不是“因为做某事”才变成这样。换句话说，它暗示了一个目标，而不是因果关系。所以，你错了，而且我也不这么认为，但你的蹩脚措辞让我必须跟你讨论。
"as a result famine killed millions every season"
Of all the negative things you can say about colonialisation... this is just about one of the least impressive ones. Famines were common back then; across the globe and also in Europe. And no, millions didn't die "every season"; that's a gross overestimation. Every famine that exceeds 1 million people is documented in history as a "major famine"; and I'm pretty sure not every season had a "major famine" (otherwise it wouldn't be "major" anymore; would it) - also; losing millions every season wouldn't be very good for your labour force; as explained before (so you still haven't figured out how colonies worked, have you?).
“结果，每一季都有数百万人死于饥荒。”
在你能说到的所有关于殖民的负面言论中……这是最不起眼的一个。那时饥荒很常见，在全球和欧洲都有。而且，并不是“每一季”都有数百万人死去。这是一个严重的夸张说法。
历史上每一次超过100万人的饥荒都被记录为“大饥荒”，我很肯定不是殖民地每个季节都有一次“大饥荒”(否则它就不再是“大饥荒”了，对不对)。
还有，每个季度损失数百万美元对你控制的劳动力来说并不会是好事，正如之前我所解释的(所以你还没有弄清楚殖民地是如何运作的，不是吗？)
Of all the negative things you can say about colonialisation... this is just about one of the least impressive ones. Famines were common back then; across the globe and also in Europe. And no, millions didn't die "every season"; that's a gross overestimation. Every famine that exceeds 1 million people is documented in history as a "major famine"; and I'm pretty sure not every season had a "major famine" (otherwise it wouldn't be "major" anymore; would it) - also; losing millions every season wouldn't be very good for your labour force; as explained before (so you still haven't figured out how colonies worked, have you?).
“结果，每一季都有数百万人死于饥荒。”
在你能说到的所有关于殖民的负面言论中……这是最不起眼的一个。那时饥荒很常见，在全球和欧洲都有。而且，并不是“每一季”都有数百万人死去。这是一个严重的夸张说法。
历史上每一次超过100万人的饥荒都被记录为“大饥荒”，我很肯定不是殖民地每个季节都有一次“大饥荒”(否则它就不再是“大饥荒”了，对不对)。
还有，每个季度损失数百万美元对你控制的劳动力来说并不会是好事，正如之前我所解释的(所以你还没有弄清楚殖民地是如何运作的，不是吗？)
"Same for cotton, spices even Bananas! occasionally wiped out those who refused to obey even in the previous century!"
True.
“棉花、香料甚至香蕉也一样！”有时也会消灭不肯服从的人！”
你这句倒确实是真的。
True.
“棉花、香料甚至香蕉也一样！”有时也会消灭不肯服从的人！”
你这句倒确实是真的。
"Go read some more books."
No, I'm fine. I've read plenty.
至于你说的让我“去多读点书。”
不，我很好。我读过很多书。
No, I'm fine. I've read plenty.
至于你说的让我“去多读点书。”
不，我很好。我读过很多书。
"Colonialism had different faces depending on the region"
Oh, so you finally get my point about Taiwan... great! But a lot also depended on the coloniser, the locals, the geography, the climate etc.
“不同地区的殖民主义有着不同的面貌”
哦，所以你终于明白我对台湾的看法了…太棒了！但这在很大程度上也取决于殖民者、当地人、地理和气候等多方面因素。
Oh, so you finally get my point about Taiwan... great! But a lot also depended on the coloniser, the locals, the geography, the climate etc.
“不同地区的殖民主义有着不同的面貌”
哦，所以你终于明白我对台湾的看法了…太棒了！但这在很大程度上也取决于殖民者、当地人、地理和气候等多方面因素。
"from panama to Africa but one thing common is the suffering of the local peoole."
Mmh, not "always". I mean, as I said before, some colonies had no local population; like the Falklands (it's pretty hard to make them suffer when they don't exist); and sometimes the locals were even left be or even given considerably better lives - like in Hong Kong or Singapore - (that depended a lot on the colonisers and type of colony) or even undiscovered (which was extremely rare). Or sometimes the Europeans came in and maintained the status quo (like for locals who were occupied by others). A lot also depended on the individual. Sometimes people got special positions which greatly improved their lives (though this was often also used as a divide and conquer tactic; by administering a local to govern the region and that often turned out to be very vicious; e.g. Dutch Indonesia, Congo Free State).
你说殖民活动“从巴拿马到非洲，但有一件事是共同的，那就是当地人民的苦难。”
嗯，并不是“永远”都是苦难。
我之前说过，有些殖民地没有本地居民，比如福克兰群岛(当本地居民都不存在的时候，让他们受苦是相当困难的)。
有时当地人甚至会被留下，甚至被给予相当好的生活——比如在香港或新加坡——(这在很大程度上取决于殖民者和殖民地类型)。
或者有时欧洲人来了，维持现状(比如当地人被其他人占领，欧洲人来了变成欧洲人占领)。
另外当地人能不能活好，这在很大程度上取决于个人。有时人们会得到特殊的位置，这大大改善了他们的生活(尽管这也经常被用作一种分而治之的策略，通过管理一个地方来管理这个地区，这种做法通常非常邪恶，例如荷属印度尼西亚、刚果自由邦)。
Mmh, not "always". I mean, as I said before, some colonies had no local population; like the Falklands (it's pretty hard to make them suffer when they don't exist); and sometimes the locals were even left be or even given considerably better lives - like in Hong Kong or Singapore - (that depended a lot on the colonisers and type of colony) or even undiscovered (which was extremely rare). Or sometimes the Europeans came in and maintained the status quo (like for locals who were occupied by others). A lot also depended on the individual. Sometimes people got special positions which greatly improved their lives (though this was often also used as a divide and conquer tactic; by administering a local to govern the region and that often turned out to be very vicious; e.g. Dutch Indonesia, Congo Free State).
你说殖民活动“从巴拿马到非洲，但有一件事是共同的，那就是当地人民的苦难。”
嗯，并不是“永远”都是苦难。
我之前说过，有些殖民地没有本地居民，比如福克兰群岛(当本地居民都不存在的时候，让他们受苦是相当困难的)。
有时当地人甚至会被留下，甚至被给予相当好的生活——比如在香港或新加坡——(这在很大程度上取决于殖民者和殖民地类型)。
或者有时欧洲人来了，维持现状(比如当地人被其他人占领，欧洲人来了变成欧洲人占领)。
另外当地人能不能活好，这在很大程度上取决于个人。有时人们会得到特殊的位置，这大大改善了他们的生活(尽管这也经常被用作一种分而治之的策略，通过管理一个地方来管理这个地区，这种做法通常非常邪恶，例如荷属印度尼西亚、刚果自由邦)。
"Your pretentious soft words towards your ancestors sound biased when you simply generalised "Mongols" as if genghis & Kublai ruled the same way!"
So, who were my ancestors? Do I hear assumptions?
I never said Genghis and Kublai ruled the same way; I simply refered to the Mongols in a very specific case and anyone who knows anything about the Mongolian history will know what I meant. It's actually quite ironic (and hypocritical) for you to make this argument. You blame me for justifying colonialism when I talk about a very specific case (and then generalise that and make a straw man argument). But you then do the exact same for the Mongols and claim that I generalise them. Intriguing...
What's even more is that it perfectly shows you bias. You haven't made the same argument for "the Europeans", you did the opposite. I was merely talking about Dutch colonialism and here you are talking about Europeans... (to put it differently; with your own words, just to point out the hypocrisy: Your pretentious soft words sound biased when you simply generalised "Europeans" as if they colonised the same way (or even at all)).
Very intriguing... and funny
你说：“当你简单地概括“蒙古人”，就好像成吉思汗和忽必烈也是这样统治的时候，你对你的祖先说的那些自命清高的话听起来充满了偏见！”
那么，我的祖先是谁呢？我听到的是假设吗？
我从没说过成吉思汗和忽必烈统治的方式是和我们一样的。
我只是在一个非常具体的案例中提到了蒙古人，任何了解蒙古历史的人都会明白我的意思。你这样说其实很讽刺(也很虚伪)。当我谈论一个非常具体的案例时(然后将其概括并做出一个虚假的论点)，你指责我为殖民主义辩护。但你对蒙古人做了同样的事情，声称我概括了他们。有趣…
更重要的是，这种行为完美地显示了你的偏见。你没有为“欧洲人”提出同样的论点，你做的恰恰相反。我只是在谈论荷兰殖民主义，而你却在谈论全体欧洲人……(换句话说，我可以用你自己的语言，只是为了指出你的伪善：当你简单地概括“欧洲人”时，你自命清高的语言听起来充满了偏见，好像他们以同样的方式殖民)。
非常有趣…和搞笑
So, who were my ancestors? Do I hear assumptions?
I never said Genghis and Kublai ruled the same way; I simply refered to the Mongols in a very specific case and anyone who knows anything about the Mongolian history will know what I meant. It's actually quite ironic (and hypocritical) for you to make this argument. You blame me for justifying colonialism when I talk about a very specific case (and then generalise that and make a straw man argument). But you then do the exact same for the Mongols and claim that I generalise them. Intriguing...
What's even more is that it perfectly shows you bias. You haven't made the same argument for "the Europeans", you did the opposite. I was merely talking about Dutch colonialism and here you are talking about Europeans... (to put it differently; with your own words, just to point out the hypocrisy: Your pretentious soft words sound biased when you simply generalised "Europeans" as if they colonised the same way (or even at all)).
Very intriguing... and funny
你说：“当你简单地概括“蒙古人”，就好像成吉思汗和忽必烈也是这样统治的时候，你对你的祖先说的那些自命清高的话听起来充满了偏见！”
那么，我的祖先是谁呢？我听到的是假设吗？
我从没说过成吉思汗和忽必烈统治的方式是和我们一样的。
我只是在一个非常具体的案例中提到了蒙古人，任何了解蒙古历史的人都会明白我的意思。你这样说其实很讽刺(也很虚伪)。当我谈论一个非常具体的案例时(然后将其概括并做出一个虚假的论点)，你指责我为殖民主义辩护。但你对蒙古人做了同样的事情，声称我概括了他们。有趣…
更重要的是，这种行为完美地显示了你的偏见。你没有为“欧洲人”提出同样的论点，你做的恰恰相反。我只是在谈论荷兰殖民主义，而你却在谈论全体欧洲人……(换句话说，我可以用你自己的语言，只是为了指出你的伪善：当你简单地概括“欧洲人”时，你自命清高的语言听起来充满了偏见，好像他们以同样的方式殖民)。
非常有趣…和搞笑
"Typical western education lol btw I'm not into politics the argument here is simply academic."
Explain to me what typical Western education entails then?
It's funny how you managed to attack "Western" education, whilst claiming that you're not politically motivated in one sentence.
“典型的西方教育，哈哈，顺便说一下，我不喜欢政治，这里的争论只针对学术。”
给我解释一下典型的西方教育是什么？
你攻击“西方”教育的方式很有趣，同时声称你在这句话中没有政治动机也很搞笑。
Explain to me what typical Western education entails then?
It's funny how you managed to attack "Western" education, whilst claiming that you're not politically motivated in one sentence.
“典型的西方教育，哈哈，顺便说一下，我不喜欢政治，这里的争论只针对学术。”
给我解释一下典型的西方教育是什么？
你攻击“西方”教育的方式很有趣，同时声称你在这句话中没有政治动机也很搞笑。
Ewoud Alliet
@Ikad Okay; so you're talking about it as if it's a period (defined by the process/act of colonising)? Whilst I'm talking about the actual process/act (and the period of time in which it has "existed"). I can understand that.
I can't find anything about modern colonialism in my comment towards you. However, I did mention it in another one. By "modern colonialism" I didn't mean "neocolonialism", but "contemporary colonialism". I can understand the confusion I caused due to using "modern".
好吧，所以你把殖民看成是一个时期(由殖民的过程/行为来定义)？当我在谈论实际的过程/行为时(以及它“存在”的时间)。我能理解你的意思了。
我在对你的评论中找不到任何关于现代殖民主义的东西。不过，我确实在另一篇文章中提到过。我说的“现代殖民主义”并不是指“新殖民主义”，而是“当代殖民主义”。我可以理解我使用“modern”造成的混乱。
@Ikad Okay; so you're talking about it as if it's a period (defined by the process/act of colonising)? Whilst I'm talking about the actual process/act (and the period of time in which it has "existed"). I can understand that.
I can't find anything about modern colonialism in my comment towards you. However, I did mention it in another one. By "modern colonialism" I didn't mean "neocolonialism", but "contemporary colonialism". I can understand the confusion I caused due to using "modern".
好吧，所以你把殖民看成是一个时期(由殖民的过程/行为来定义)？当我在谈论实际的过程/行为时(以及它“存在”的时间)。我能理解你的意思了。
我在对你的评论中找不到任何关于现代殖民主义的东西。不过，我确实在另一篇文章中提到过。我说的“现代殖民主义”并不是指“新殖民主义”，而是“当代殖民主义”。我可以理解我使用“modern”造成的混乱。
Immanuel Herman
1. Europeans have this addiction since time immemorial. You can say Pericles (Athenian leader who help solidified Athenian empire), or maybe Agamemnon (semi-legendary Greek warlord during Trojan war) started it.
If not them, definitely Alexander the Great, he went on rampage from Macedon all the way to Northern India.
2. Non-europeans have the same addiction too, people like Assurbanipal, Qin Shi Huang, Nebucadnezzar, Cyrus the Great, Ramesses the great, Hannibal Barca, Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor Wu of Han, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, Pachacuti of Inca, Gajah Mada, etc.
1. 欧洲人自古以来就有这种癖好。你可以说是伯里克利(帮助巩固雅典帝国的雅典领袖)，或者是阿伽门农(特洛伊战争中半传奇的希腊军阀)。
如果不是他们，那肯定是亚历山大大帝，他从马其顿一路横冲直撞到北印度。
2. 非欧洲人也有同样的癖好，比如阿苏尔巴尼帕尔、秦始皇、尼布甲尼撒、居鲁士大帝、拉美西斯大帝、汉尼拔·巴尔卡、钱德拉古普塔·孔雀、汉武帝、匈奴王阿提拉、成吉思汗、沙卡·祖鲁、印加人帕恰库提、加迦·玛达等等。
1. Europeans have this addiction since time immemorial. You can say Pericles (Athenian leader who help solidified Athenian empire), or maybe Agamemnon (semi-legendary Greek warlord during Trojan war) started it.
If not them, definitely Alexander the Great, he went on rampage from Macedon all the way to Northern India.
2. Non-europeans have the same addiction too, people like Assurbanipal, Qin Shi Huang, Nebucadnezzar, Cyrus the Great, Ramesses the great, Hannibal Barca, Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor Wu of Han, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, Pachacuti of Inca, Gajah Mada, etc.
1. 欧洲人自古以来就有这种癖好。你可以说是伯里克利(帮助巩固雅典帝国的雅典领袖)，或者是阿伽门农(特洛伊战争中半传奇的希腊军阀)。
如果不是他们，那肯定是亚历山大大帝，他从马其顿一路横冲直撞到北印度。
2. 非欧洲人也有同样的癖好，比如阿苏尔巴尼帕尔、秦始皇、尼布甲尼撒、居鲁士大帝、拉美西斯大帝、汉尼拔·巴尔卡、钱德拉古普塔·孔雀、汉武帝、匈奴王阿提拉、成吉思汗、沙卡·祖鲁、印加人帕恰库提、加迦·玛达等等。
SanExpreso
The Boxer Rebellion was one of the most unequal conflicts in history, it was UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, Russia, Germany and USA against the Qing Dynasty.
义和团运动是历史上最不平等的冲突之一，它是由英国、西班牙、意大利、日本、俄罗斯、德国和美国对抗（入侵）清朝。
The Boxer Rebellion was one of the most unequal conflicts in history, it was UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, Russia, Germany and USA against the Qing Dynasty.
义和团运动是历史上最不平等的冲突之一，它是由英国、西班牙、意大利、日本、俄罗斯、德国和美国对抗（入侵）清朝。
HaiLsKuNkY
the combine population would still be less than china?
这些国家的人口加起来还是比中国少？
the combine population would still be less than china?
这些国家的人口加起来还是比中国少？
Chakravartin
@HaiLsKuNkY Yes. And China still got its ass kicked.
是的。但中国还是被踢了屁股。
@HaiLsKuNkY Yes. And China still got its ass kicked.
是的。但中国还是被踢了屁股。
Le roi arouf
France???
法国？？？
France???
法国？？？
Le roi arouf
Add france we dit half the job in the south of china
加上法国，我们当时在清朝南方也出了一半的力量（英法入侵）
Add france we dit half the job in the south of china
加上法国，我们当时在清朝南方也出了一半的力量（英法入侵）
philipp felix
11 nations were involved including austria and france
包括奥地利和法国在内的11个国家参与其中
11 nations were involved including austria and france
包括奥地利和法国在内的11个国家参与其中
Dodotikk henk
@Le roi arouf Payback time will come soon france boy.Just wait
报复的时候很快就会到来的，法国小子。等着吧
@Le roi arouf Payback time will come soon france boy.Just wait
报复的时候很快就会到来的，法国小子。等着吧
Salvador Henriquez
@Dodotikk henk from who?
来自谁？
@Dodotikk henk from who?
来自谁？
the1000master
add Austria-Hungary to tht list
再加上奥匈帝国
add Austria-Hungary to tht list
再加上奥匈帝国
Anime protagonist
Unequal, as in the Chinese outnumbered all of them combined many times over? + All those nations had their homelands (with the exception of Japan) on the other side of the globe?
不平等，就像中国人的人数比这些国家所有人加起来还要多很多倍？再加上，所有这些国家自己的国家(除了日本)在地球的另一边？
Unequal, as in the Chinese outnumbered all of them combined many times over? + All those nations had their homelands (with the exception of Japan) on the other side of the globe?
不平等，就像中国人的人数比这些国家所有人加起来还要多很多倍？再加上，所有这些国家自己的国家(除了日本)在地球的另一边？
jorehir
It was unequal because they were all small countries against a giant one?
Or because the small countries were fighting on the other side of the world?
这是不平等的？因为他们都是小国对抗一个大国？
还是因为小国在世界的另一边打仗？
It was unequal because they were all small countries against a giant one?
Or because the small countries were fighting on the other side of the world?
这是不平等的？因为他们都是小国对抗一个大国？
还是因为小国在世界的另一边打仗？
Rohan Kishibe
No wonder china grew to have a vendetta against the world.
难怪中国对世界产生了“戒备”。
No wonder china grew to have a vendetta against the world.
难怪中国对世界产生了“戒备”。
T
@Chakravartin remember they had trash equipment try fighting a modern army with swords and bows
记住，他们用垃圾装备，试着用剑和弓对抗现代军队（译注：指义和团）
@Chakravartin remember they had trash equipment try fighting a modern army with swords and bows
记住，他们用垃圾装备，试着用剑和弓对抗现代军队（译注：指义和团）
Chakravartin
@T they already had guns.
他们已经有枪了。
@T they already had guns.
他们已经有枪了。
Louis Wu
@Chakravartin the key point is not the population. the key is China was not fully united and China hadn't finished industrialization at that time. empire rises and sets. right now China rise up again. I think its time to see how many countries can China fight in this century.
but firstly China still need time to win from US.
关键不是人口。关键是当时中国还没有完全统一，中国还没有完成工业化。帝国兴衰起伏。现在中国又崛起了。我认为是时候看看中国在本世纪能与多少个国家作战了。
但首先，中国还需要时间来赢美国。
@Chakravartin the key point is not the population. the key is China was not fully united and China hadn't finished industrialization at that time. empire rises and sets. right now China rise up again. I think its time to see how many countries can China fight in this century.
but firstly China still need time to win from US.
关键不是人口。关键是当时中国还没有完全统一，中国还没有完成工业化。帝国兴衰起伏。现在中国又崛起了。我认为是时候看看中国在本世纪能与多少个国家作战了。
但首先，中国还需要时间来赢美国。
Chakravartin
@Louis Wu If China continues on its present path of aggression and imperialism, you'll get another coalition against you, don't worry.
别担心，如果中国继续其...道路，你会得到另一个八国联军反对你们。
@Louis Wu If China continues on its present path of aggression and imperialism, you'll get another coalition against you, don't worry.
别担心，如果中国继续其...道路，你会得到另一个八国联军反对你们。
Emile Chen
@HaiLsKuNkY what you say makes no sense, at that time Chinese population was not 1,4 billion and Europeans countries with its colonies have much more peoples and lands than Qing China,
你说的毫无意义，当时中国人口还不到14亿，欧洲国家有殖民地，比清朝的中国人口和土地都多。
@HaiLsKuNkY what you say makes no sense, at that time Chinese population was not 1,4 billion and Europeans countries with its colonies have much more peoples and lands than Qing China,
你说的毫无意义，当时中国人口还不到14亿，欧洲国家有殖民地，比清朝的中国人口和土地都多。
Emile Chen
@Chakravartin so basically the ex-colonial and imperial countries accuse China to be imperalist as lon as they are unable to submit China today,
所以基本上前殖民和帝国主义国家，指责中国今天和他们一样，因为他们今天无法让中国屈服。
@Chakravartin so basically the ex-colonial and imperial countries accuse China to be imperalist as lon as they are unable to submit China today,
所以基本上前殖民和帝国主义国家，指责中国今天和他们一样，因为他们今天无法让中国屈服。
Emile Chen
@Everyones favorite CCP Anime protagonist what you say makes no sense, during the Boxer revolt, Euorpeans hace almost colonized all continents,
they had colonies in Asia such as India, Vietnam, Malaysia, so they had much more people and lands than China,
but never mind, 50 years later, Communist China managed to defeat 17 nations alliance in Korean war,
你说的毫无意义，在义和团运动期间，欧洲人几乎殖民了所有大陆，
他们在亚洲有殖民地，比如印度，越南，马来西亚，所以他们的人口和土地都比中国多，
但没关系，50年后，共产主义中国在朝鲜战争中击败了17国联军
@Everyones favorite CCP Anime protagonist what you say makes no sense, during the Boxer revolt, Euorpeans hace almost colonized all continents,
they had colonies in Asia such as India, Vietnam, Malaysia, so they had much more people and lands than China,
but never mind, 50 years later, Communist China managed to defeat 17 nations alliance in Korean war,
你说的毫无意义，在义和团运动期间，欧洲人几乎殖民了所有大陆，
他们在亚洲有殖民地，比如印度，越南，马来西亚，所以他们的人口和土地都比中国多，
但没关系，50年后，共产主义中国在朝鲜战争中击败了17国联军
Il Campigiano
in fact, only the Republic of San Marino and the Principality of Monaco were missing
事实上，只有圣马力诺共和国和摩纳哥公国消失了
in fact, only the Republic of San Marino and the Principality of Monaco were missing
事实上，只有圣马力诺共和国和摩纳哥公国消失了
Chakravartin
@Emile Chen Is that how you Chinese justify it to yourselves? China has attacked several countries that never did anything to China. Ask any Vietnamese or Indian, lol.
你们中国人就是这样为自己辩护的吗？……几个从未对中国做过任何事的国家。随便问越南人或印度人，哈哈。
@Emile Chen Is that how you Chinese justify it to yourselves? China has attacked several countries that never did anything to China. Ask any Vietnamese or Indian, lol.
你们中国人就是这样为自己辩护的吗？……几个从未对中国做过任何事的国家。随便问越南人或印度人，哈哈。
Emile Chen
@Chakravartin when you say "attack several countries", you cant even give their name except Vietnam, lol,
after Korean war, US troops stay in South Korea, but China doesnt have a single soldier in North Koera,
after the last conflict with Vietnam in 70, China is not in war anymore with any countries,
当你说“攻击几个国家”的时候，你甚至不能说出他们的名字，除了越南，哈哈。
朝鲜战争后，美国军队留在韩国，但中国在朝鲜没有一个士兵
在70年与越南的最后一次冲突后，中国不再与任何国家发生战争
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Chakravartin when you say "attack several countries", you cant even give their name except Vietnam, lol,
after Korean war, US troops stay in South Korea, but China doesnt have a single soldier in North Koera,
after the last conflict with Vietnam in 70, China is not in war anymore with any countries,
当你说“攻击几个国家”的时候，你甚至不能说出他们的名字，除了越南，哈哈。
朝鲜战争后，美国军队留在韩国，但中国在朝鲜没有一个士兵
在70年与越南的最后一次冲突后，中国不再与任何国家发生战争
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Chakravartin
@Emile Chen Are you illiterate, "Emile"? I literally mentioned India in the same comment you replied to.
你是文盲吗？我在你回复的同一个评论中提到了印度。
@Emile Chen Are you illiterate, "Emile"? I literally mentioned India in the same comment you replied to.
你是文盲吗？我在你回复的同一个评论中提到了印度。
Emile Chen
@Chakravartin
when KMT had several mllions with US military equipments and occupying 3/4 of Mainland China,
much more powerful than the Communist and threat them,
did anyone mind?
in 60s, 70s, Taiwan still had air superiority and could send fighter and even bomber to Maindland China,
did anybody tell Taiwan to stop?
and we should remind one thing, China is the winner of WWII, and Japan is the loser, Japan is alreday lucky that not be occupied by Chinese troops, like Germany,
as the loser of WWII, Japan still jave islands disputes with all its neighnours like Russia and even South Korea,
当国民党拥有数百万美国的军事装备并占领中国大陆的四分之三时
强大得多，威胁到他们
有人介意吗？
在60年代和70年代，国民党仍然拥有空中优势，可以派遣战斗机甚至轰炸机到中国大陆，
有人告诉台湾停止吗？
我们应该提醒一件事，中国是二战的赢家，日本是输家，日本已经很幸运了，没有像德国一样被中国军队占领
作为二战的输家，日本仍然与所有邻国有岛屿争端，比如俄罗斯，甚至韩国
@Chakravartin
when KMT had several mllions with US military equipments and occupying 3/4 of Mainland China,
much more powerful than the Communist and threat them,
did anyone mind?
in 60s, 70s, Taiwan still had air superiority and could send fighter and even bomber to Maindland China,
did anybody tell Taiwan to stop?
and we should remind one thing, China is the winner of WWII, and Japan is the loser, Japan is alreday lucky that not be occupied by Chinese troops, like Germany,
as the loser of WWII, Japan still jave islands disputes with all its neighnours like Russia and even South Korea,
当国民党拥有数百万美国的军事装备并占领中国大陆的四分之三时
强大得多，威胁到他们
有人介意吗？
在60年代和70年代，国民党仍然拥有空中优势，可以派遣战斗机甚至轰炸机到中国大陆，
有人告诉台湾停止吗？
我们应该提醒一件事，中国是二战的赢家，日本是输家，日本已经很幸运了，没有像德国一样被中国军队占领
作为二战的输家，日本仍然与所有邻国有岛屿争端，比如俄罗斯，甚至韩国
Ewoud Alliet
@Louis Wu Dude, what kind of perception of the world do you have?
China was fully united back then. Yes, it wasn't industrialised, but it even refused to do so, as they refused to do business with European and Western countries. In fact, they looked down on them and thought of themselves as superior. As opposed to the Japanese who were very eager to learn about Western technology and adopt it. Ever wondered why Japan industrialised faster than China did? That's why. Another reason is that China was utterly corrupt (hence also why Opium became such a big problem).
老兄，你对世界有什么意见吗？
那时中国是完全统一的。是的，它没有工业化，因为它也拒绝工业化，因为他们拒绝与欧洲和西方国家做生意。事实上，他们瞧不起西方人，认为自己高人一等。而日本人则非常渴望学习并采用西方技术。有没有想过为什么日本的工业化速度比中国快？这就是原因。另一个原因是当时的华夏非常腐败(这也是鸦片成为一个大问题的原因)。
@Louis Wu Dude, what kind of perception of the world do you have?
China was fully united back then. Yes, it wasn't industrialised, but it even refused to do so, as they refused to do business with European and Western countries. In fact, they looked down on them and thought of themselves as superior. As opposed to the Japanese who were very eager to learn about Western technology and adopt it. Ever wondered why Japan industrialised faster than China did? That's why. Another reason is that China was utterly corrupt (hence also why Opium became such a big problem).
老兄，你对世界有什么意见吗？
那时中国是完全统一的。是的，它没有工业化，因为它也拒绝工业化，因为他们拒绝与欧洲和西方国家做生意。事实上，他们瞧不起西方人，认为自己高人一等。而日本人则非常渴望学习并采用西方技术。有没有想过为什么日本的工业化速度比中国快？这就是原因。另一个原因是当时的华夏非常腐败(这也是鸦片成为一个大问题的原因)。
"China rise up again"... Yes, China is doing well in terms of its economy. But important question: WHY? Oh, just magically, because it's time for China to rise? No. Empires rise and fall for a reason. China is currently doing well because of the way it's participating in world trade (of course there are more reasons to this). If China were to declare the world another war; then the Chinese economy would collapse in a matter of hours and China would be falling again.
至于“中国再次崛起”…是的，中国如今在经济方面做得很好。但重要的问题是：为什么中国经济现在会好？哦，只是因为中国神奇地，是时候崛起了吗？不是。
帝国兴衰是有原因的。中国目前做得很好，是因为它参与世界贸易的方式(当然还有更多的原因)。
如果你们再次向世界宣战，那么你们的经济将在几小时内崩溃，你们也将再次下滑。
至于“中国再次崛起”…是的，中国如今在经济方面做得很好。但重要的问题是：为什么中国经济现在会好？哦，只是因为中国神奇地，是时候崛起了吗？不是。
帝国兴衰是有原因的。中国目前做得很好，是因为它参与世界贸易的方式(当然还有更多的原因)。
如果你们再次向世界宣战，那么你们的经济将在几小时内崩溃，你们也将再次下滑。
"I think its time to see how many countries can China fight in this century."
I think you're mentally sick.
Don't you get the irony. China is currently succesful because it decided to cooperate (but also, and far more importantly, because the world decided to cooperate with China); and here you are eagerly waiting for China to do the exact opposite. That just sounds a lot like that Qing mentality.
“我认为是时候看看在本世纪，中国能和多少个国家……”
我觉得你有精神病。
你不觉得这很讽刺吗？
中国现在是成功的，因为它决定合作(但更重要的是，因为世界决定与中国合作)。而现在你却在急切地等待中国做出完全相反的举动。这听起来很像清政府的心态。
I think you're mentally sick.
Don't you get the irony. China is currently succesful because it decided to cooperate (but also, and far more importantly, because the world decided to cooperate with China); and here you are eagerly waiting for China to do the exact opposite. That just sounds a lot like that Qing mentality.
“我认为是时候看看在本世纪，中国能和多少个国家……”
我觉得你有精神病。
你不觉得这很讽刺吗？
中国现在是成功的，因为它决定合作(但更重要的是，因为世界决定与中国合作)。而现在你却在急切地等待中国做出完全相反的举动。这听起来很像清政府的心态。
"firstly China still need time to win from US."
This isn't a game. This is about people's lives. This isn't about "winning and losing" (what are you, a 5yo?). What we all should want is for people's lives to improve.
“首先，中国还需要时间来赢美国。”
这不是游戏。这关系到人们的生命。这不是关于“输赢”(你是谁，5岁吗？)我们都应该希望人民的生活得到改善。
This isn't a game. This is about people's lives. This isn't about "winning and losing" (what are you, a 5yo?). What we all should want is for people's lives to improve.
“首先，中国还需要时间来赢美国。”
这不是游戏。这关系到人们的生命。这不是关于“输赢”(你是谁，5岁吗？)我们都应该希望人民的生活得到改善。
很赞 4
收藏